Nathaniel Abraham — Competence Without Belief?

_{William Dembski

December 7, 2007

Evolution}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

The case of Nathaniel Abraham — a biologist who does not “believe” in evolution, got fired for it, and is now suing his erstwhile employer — is getting some play in the press (see Boston Globe and Chronicle of Higher Education). The question this raises is whether it is legitimate to fire someone who knows all that he needs to know about evolution to successfully practice his discipline but still does not believe in evolution. More generally, to be a member of the guild, do you have to believe something that you are capable of successfully applying? One of the commenters at the Chronicle of Higher Education remarked that you can’t continue to employ a mathematician who believes 1 plus 1 equals 3. But what if the mathematician says, “In fact, I believe 1 plus 1 equals 3, but I realize that most of you think it equals 2, and I know why you think that, so, to keep peace in the family, I’ll just play along”? It seems that BELIEF and COMPETENCE are two separate things — one can be competent in handling an idea without believing in it.

Compare the case of Nathaniel Abraham with the case of a high school student reported a long time ago here.

Comments

Dr. Beckwith, not to be a stickler, but Abraham was not protected from Woods Hole by the constitution. That's the error I made above. Woods Hole is a private institution. No state action. If he has a case, it is under Title VII.BarryA_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT}

Seems clear to me that evolution is central to what they’re doing. What kind of a creationist would want to work in that lab anyway? One who is eager to test underlying assumptions. Adopting an evolutionary perspective is not evidence of evolution nor does it commit one to any specific test outcome. That's the difference between a perspective and resulting test data.pk4_paul_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT}

BarryA, I'll continue here since I'm supposed to "focus on the real issue" -- which is actually the hypothetical what-if issue -- in the other post, and not talk about things like context. Has anybody thought to look at the research goals of the Hahn lab, where Abrahams was employed? Probably not, because you didn't even check the first thing about Woods Hole Anyway, here's the first paragraph of the Hahn lab research areas description, with stuff about evolution in bold:
The overall objective of research in our laboratory is to understand the biochemical and molecular mechanisms that underlie the interactions of marine animals with their chemical environment. Our general approach is to examine these mechanisms from a comparative/evolutionary perspective, in order to understand the fundamental features of chemical action and provide a broader understanding of how these ligand-receptor pathways function in diverse biological contexts and in animals other than terrestrial mammals. Our research has been guided by general questions such as: How did chemical signaling pathways evolve in metazoans? What is the role of these pathways in adaptation to long-term chemical exposure? What is the mechanistic basis for differential sensitivity to chemicals among species and populations of aquatic animals?
Seems clear to me that evolution is central to what they're doing. What kind of a creationist would want to work in that lab anyway? Next step: look at the NIH grant that funded Abraham's work. You want to bet that it talks about evolution too?getawitness_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT}

Just out of curiousity are you a YEC?
I'm not a Bible guy and I'm not a Christian. I am a person who realizes there is only ONE reality behind our existence and therefore (try to) keep an open mind by considering all possibilities. That said I have read quite a bit by Creationists and I have also read quite a bit by evolutionists and IDists. DR Russel Humphreys has a pretty good explanation for a young Earth/ old universe scenario- "Starlight and Time"- that being relativity was key to "God"'s Creation. My "philosphy" regarding YEC is if science is interested in reality and in reality "God" did it pretty much as the Bible describes, then that is how we have to approach it. Some YEC claims appear to be bogus, but hey at least they trying. Most evolutionary claims also appear to be bogus and all they are doing is forcing it on us anyway.Joseph_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT}

What if Nathaniel didn't believe any scientific theory was true? What I mean is that one could easily envision someone who is an anti-realist concerning the nature of scientific theories. Or suppose Nathaniel said he believed in racial superiority because of evolution. In fact, he can offer to skeptics a bevy of peer-reviewed pieces, not to mention works of Charles Darwin, that claim to establish this. What happens to Nate in one or both these cases? Although I find both beliefs to be wrong, it is clear that beliefs qua beliefs are protected ultima facia under Constitution (with certain distinctions too complicated to convey in this venue). See my article here: http://homepage.mac.com/francis.beckwith/HCLQ.pdffrancisbeckwith_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT}

BarryA, point taken. (Where have I been "thrashed" here, by the way?) Of course, cases get decided contrary to the facts all the time -- as most people here feel was the case at Dover. I think we don't know what will happen even if the facts pan out as alleged. But the other side alleges that Abraham asked to be excused from evolution-related work. If that's true, would it change your view of that case? I'm asking seriously.getawitness_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT}

GilDodgen wrote: “We met for lunch, and later I rode my trusty Harley Davidson motorcycle (yes, I’m a biker!) over to his home for a wonderful afternoon of fellowship.” Software, classical music, and Harleys? I think your life itself may falsify Darwinism – I’m not sure how yet, but I’m betting it does. “But what if the mathematician says, “In fact, I believe 1 plus 1 equals 3, but I realize that most of you think it equals 2, and I know why you think that, so, to keep peace in the family, I’ll just play along”” What about the scientist who believes Darwinism is false yet continues to support it and write papers which are spun to include it because he/she knows they must “play along”? I think belief and competence can and usually are two separate things. But in the case of materialists, this doesn’t seem to apply. They believe materialism/atheism is true and simply cannot separate belief from competence. To them, belief in materialism equals competence, no matter what empirical data contradicts this belief. To believe in something else is foolish and even punishable. That’s why I get so p*ssed off when I hear how this or that atheist wants to remove some mention of God from the public square. They think those who believe in God are dim-witted rednecks that still exist through some odd evolutionary fluke – in other words, religious thoughts should not be allowed. They want freedom to believe in no-God, but they aren’t willing to grant others the same freedom to believe in God.shaner74_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT}

Joseph, Just out of curiousity are you a YEC?gore_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT}

Getawitness, [re 42]: An all too typical response from you. When you have been soundly thrashed in the argument, as is the case here, you then resort to ad hominem, misdirection and obfuscation. Sad really. Yes, I did not know the facts, as I said, and I assumed that the employer was a government entity, as opposed to a private entity funded by government. If Woods Hole had been a government entity, it would have been important, because Abrahamson would have had more and better remedies. It would have been important, but not determinative. As I later explained, a private employee has recourse (admittedly not as much recourse as a public employee) under Title VII. So the point of your comment is what exactly? That I should be more tentative when I say that an employer who egregiously violates his employee’s freedom of conscience rights protected under Title VII will lose (assuming that in fact happened)? I see no need to be tentative about conclusions of which I am certain. Note that my conclusions are all legal in nature. I know the law in this area and in fact have brought successful Title VII cases in federal court. When it comes to factual issues I have been tentative. My argument has been consistently “if then” in nature. If the facts are X, Abrahamson will win. If the facts are Y Woods Hole will win. We should all be tentative about the facts, because we simply have no way of knowing if Abrahamson’s allegations are true. I see no need to be tentative about the application of well settled principles of law with which I am very familiar.BarryA_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT}

getawitness- I provided a link, follow it. (creationists don't generally refer to it as I do. The call it "baraminology", hence the link) Also not everything is on the internet. You should go to Creation sites such as AiG, ICR and CSR. But anyway- what do you think that Creationists have been saying since the time of Linneaus? That all organisms are descended from the originally created kinds, and more recently all terrestrial organisms are descended from the survivors of "The Flood". Back to the OP- Wouldn't this be similar to an atheist teaching religious studies?Joseph_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT}

Allegations in a complaint are just that, allegations. Again, we don't know the true facts. But if Abrahamson is able to prove his allegations -- that he was doing great work and that he was fired for no other reason that that he is a Darwinian infidel – he will win hands down.BarryA_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT}

BarryA, Yes, "may." You should use that word more often. Recall your first comment in this thread:
if the facts are as alleged he will prevail in his lawsuit. Keep in mind two very important things here.
The first very important point in this very confident, even certain predictioni, turned out to be wrong and (suddenly!) unimportant. You could use a little more "may," BarryA, and a little less "will."getawitness_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT}

All who are intersted in this topic should actually look at Abrahamson's SWORN allegations in his complaint (linked above). Two allegations in particular are highly telling: "16. Plaintiff's work with Defendants focused on zebrafish developmental biology, toxicology and programmed cell death areas of reseach which required no acceptance, OR APPLICATION OF, teh theory of evolution as scientific fact." 17. Plaintiff at all times, before his employment began while helping to design and construct the lab adn during his employment, performed exemplary work and was often praised and commended by [his supervisor] and other staff members for the quality of his research, commitment and scientific presentations."BarryA_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT}

specs: Orthodoxy is not a criteria for effectiveness, but commitment is. It is axiomatic to a professional people manager, like myself, that employees are most effective when they view the goals of the organization as the same, or at least consonant with, their individual goals. Conversely, when an employee perceives his goals as different than that of the organization, you will have a far less productive, and occasionally counter-productive, employee. The goal of any organization, dedicated to scientific rresearch, cannot be the affirmation of evolution or any other theory. It should be to test related hypotheses. There is no evidence of a lack of commitment by Abraham to test hypotheses. BTW, hypotheses are meant to challenge. One could equally question the motives of those who might not welcome an effective challenge to a tenet of their pet theory.pk4_paul_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT}

getawitness writes: "So it may be the case . . ." The operative word there is "may." It may also be the case that he was doing great work.BarryA_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT}

Dr. Dan, your comment made me smile. Good job for trying to cover for the silly math matician. The only problem with your base 2 system is that in a base 2 system 1+1=10 (it still doesnt =3) Sorry, I had to point that out, I love playing with different base systems, I am an education major so I have to! I actually just reread through your comment again, and I see you were just suggesting that there could be an alternative answer. I just think that it would have to be a familier system to get a 3 for an answer, and maybe there is, but I do not know it. I don't know about you, but if some mathmatician gave me the answer 3 I still wouldn't hire them for several reasons. 1, the teacher can't pick up on a joke question 2, the teacher doesn't know the answer 3, the teacher may not work well under a stressfull situation (which is expected for any teacher) 4, and most importantly he is going to confuse the hell out of his students!gore_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT}

Joseph,
The Creation Model of Biological Evolution states that all living organisms are descended from the originally Created Kinds.
Is there a reference to this? Anywhere? Google turns up almost nothing, and most of it seems to be by you.getawitness_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT}

BarryA, the "work" in this case involves publication. Earlier I raised this, but I want to raise it again. Typically, in scientific papers, every author must have contributed substantially to the work and must agree to the conclusions as published. This kind of collaboration is an normal and expected part of postdoctoral work. So it may be the case that his beliefs about evolution are essential to the job, or else -- as I suggested above -- he could effectively hold the work hostage by refusing to sign off on it.getawitness_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT}

Specs justification for firing Abrahamson is similar to AT&T’s justification for firing the employee in the case I mentioned above. AT&T said, essentially, that they were justified in firing the employee because he was not a team player. Unfortunately for AT&T (and specs if he ever tries to use this theory at his job), the law does not recognize a “he ain’t a team player” exemption to the freedom of conscience. In the AT&T case, if the employee never actually did or refused to do anything that could be interpreted as hostile to homosexuals, he could not be fired merely because he refused to say he believed that homosexuality is a good thing. In Specs case if he has an employee who is actually performing well, he cannot fire him simply because he does not toe the party line if his refusal to toe the line is based on a sincerely held religious belief. Specs undifferentiated apprehension that the employee might require extra supervision if he does not “think right” is not sufficient to override the freedom of conscience embodied in the protections of Title VII. Specs says suggests that Woods Hole was justified in firing Abrahamson because he was a “problematic employee.” If that is true Woods Hole should have grounded the justification for firing Abrahamson in the fact that he was a “problematic employee,” not in the fact that he was not a true believer of the church of Darwin.BarryA_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT}

Spelling: when I wrote "conscious" I obviously meant "conscience."BarryA_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT}

At the end of the day, the legal principles of this case are easy to demonstrate by an example we all went through. When I was in school I studied biology, which, of course, included the theory of evolution. When it came time to take the test, I spewed the evolutionary line back at the teacher. If I answered every question correctly, I was entitled to an “A.” It would have been illegitimate for the teacher to say, “Barry, if you do not affirm that you actually believe in your heart of hearts that the things you have just written on this test are true, I will give you an ‘F.’” The question in the Abrahamson case is whether he was willing to spew the evolutionary line when it came time to write his reports. I assume he was; after all, he had been spewing it for decades as evidenced by the fact that he was a credentialed biologist (which is impossible if one does not spew the evolutionary line is school). If that is the case, it was illegitimate for Woods Hole to say, not only must you spew the line, you must also affirm that in your heart of hearts you believe the line.BarryA_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT}

Bad writes: “It’s not censorship to fire someone because they say they will not do the job they were hired to do. This guy has no case, and will almost certainly lose. If a historian working on the Battle of Bulge discovered that one of the people he was considering for employment on the work didn’t believe it ever happened, I think this is a serious and legitimate reason to think they wouldn’t make a very good or useful addition to the team: particularly if you saw their reasons for not believing as unsound.” You are wrong about the law Bad, and your comparison is not valid. As for the law, see my prior comments. As for your comparison, in your example belief that the Battle of the Bulge happened (i.e., that it exists) is an essential requirement for the job of studying the Battle of the Bulge. As I understand the facts of the Abrahamson case, BELIEF in the theory of evolution is not an essential requirement of the job. This is not to say that if the job required Abrahamson to interpret data and make conclusions under an evolutionary paradigm, he could refuse to do so. He could not. Again, we don’t know the facts, but apparently Abrahamson was willing to do this. Bad writes: “At some point, the people who are defending him must at least acknowledge that it is possible for a creationist to have just plain lousy arguments and justifications for creationism. And in such a case, why wouldn’t that be perfectly relevant to judging their work and ability?” Because the law is clear on this point. If their “just plain lousy arguments and justifications” are compelled by their sincerely held religious belief and have no impact on their job performance, their right to hold believe these “lousy arguments and justifications” is protected by the laws that protect freedom of conscious. Bad writes: “Someone who habitually advances and poorly supports bad arguments is not deserving of special affirmative action” Well, this is not about “affirmative action.” This is about freedom of conscious. Again, you can’t fire someone based on their sincerely held religious beliefs that have no impact on their job performance. Bad writes: “But someone has to make a determination between what arguments are good and what aren’t at some point. Otherwise, you’re basically arguing that the Timecube guy shouldn’t be denied tenure as a physics professor based on his beliefs that the earth is cubic.” Again, your comparison is not valid. A physics professor who asserts bad physics is not performing the essential functions of his job (i.e., teaching good physics).BarryA_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT}

Why do you need to believe in an overarching theory to test a hypothesis- the results of which could support or falsify a particular tenet of the theory? He is not going to devise a test that falsifies evolution. There are too many aspects to the theory. So why is orthodoxy a criteria for the effectiveness of a researcher?
An excellent question, Paul. Orthodoxy is not a criteria for effectiveness, but commitment is. It is axiomatic to a professional people manager, like myself, that employees are most effective when they view the goals of the organization as the same, or at least consonant with, their individual goals. Conversely, when an employee perceives his goals as different than that of the organization, you will have a far less productive, and occasionally counter-productive, employee. And that is an employee that requires more intensive supervision. In business, that comes with the territory. In research, having to hover over a fellow researcher is problematic. Asking to be assigned off of work involving evolution is tacit acknowledgement by Abraham that he is a problematic employee.specs_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT}

Getawitness gloats: “I bet, though, you wish your earlier post wasn’t so strong about the difference between public and private employers.” No, the distinction is still valid. Public employees have greater rights in this area than private employees. Getawitness asks: “In the Qwest case, I assume the plaintiff did not seek to be recused from “homosexual” aspects of the company, as Abraham apparently did with “evolutionary aspects” of the project?” The question is all but meaningless, so I can’t answer it. This case is really very simple from a legal perspective. On the one hand, if Woods Hole can demonstrate that Abraham refused to perform an essential function of his job, it will win. On the other hand, if Woods Hole fired Abraham for no other reason that that he refused to subscribe to a particular belief, it will lose.BarryA_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT}

"That censorship proclivity is anti-science and anti-American." It's not censorship to fire someone because they say they will not do the job they were hired to do. This guy has no case, and will almost certainly lose. If a historian working on the Battle of Bulge discovered that one of the people he was considering for employment on the work didn't believe it ever happened, I think this is a serious and legitimate reason to think they wouldn't make a very good or useful addition to the team: particularly if you saw their reasons for not believing as unsound. At some point, the people who are defending him must at least acknowledge that it is possible for a creationist to have just plain lousy arguments and justifications for creationism. And in such a case, why wouldn't that be perfectly relevant to judging their work and ability? Someone who habitually advances and poorly supports bad arguments is not deserving of special affirmative action just because they happen to hold the same beliefs as you do. Of course, for most scientists, creationist arguments all seem bad. Some here don't agree (many ID proponetns think YEC is bogus and unsupportable, for instance). But someone has to make a determination between what arguments are good and what aren't at some point. Otherwise, you're basically arguing that the Timecube guy shouldn't be denied tenure as a physics professor based on his beliefs that the earth is cubic.Bad_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT}

Correction. It was AT&T Broadband, not Qwest. Here's the story. http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/press_release.asp?article_id=485BarryA_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT}

specs: The second question is whether it is legitimate for someone to work in a field in which he/she does not subscribe to a major tenant. Or, to put it less obtusely, if Abraham does not believe evolution should he stand on principal and not work on a project that assumes evolution as a starting point? Why do you need to believe in an overarching theory to test a hypothesis- the results of which could support or falsify a particular tenet of the theory? He is not going to devise a test that falsifies evolution. There are too many aspects to the theory. So why is orthodoxy a criteria for the effectiveness of a researcher?pk4_paul_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT}

And that amounts to the Creation Model of Evolution.
The whatchamawhoozit? [GAWs head spins]- getawitness
That happens quite a bit to clueless people :) The Creation Model of Biological Evolution states that all living organisms are descended from the originally Created Kinds. Dr Lee Spetner has put forth a "non-random evolutionary hypothesis" that has "built-in responses to environmental cues" as one, main?, mechanism. (Read "Not By Chance" Spetner's response to "The Blind Watchmaker") Carolus Linneaus was trying to determine the Created Kinds when he formulated binomial nomenclature. At first he thought it at the level of "species" but then changed that to the level of "genus". See also The Current Status of Baraminology Hat tip to Gil for posting the stuff about Skell To Sally_T: "Instinct" is our word for "we don't know how they got that ability".Joseph_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT}

Of course you'll say your basic point stands; you're a lawyer. :-) I bet, though, you wish your earlier post wasn't so strong about the difference between public and private employers. In the Qwest case, I assume the plaintiff did not seek to be recused from "homosexual" aspects of the company, as Abraham apparently did with "evolutionary aspects" of the project?getawitness_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT}

BTW, my basic point stands. Even in the context of private defendant litigation, the courts have held over and over again, that an employer may not fire an employee in a protected class on the basis of the employee's beliefs as opposed to actions or failures to act. Here in Colorado this issue came up in a suit against Qwest. Qwest has a policy against discrimination against homosexuals. The plaintiff abided by that policy. He took no action and made no statement that could remotely be considered to be discriminatory against homosexuals. At a "diversity training" seminar he was asked to affirm the proposition that homosexuality is an affirmatively good thing. He refused and was fired. Long story short; Qwest lost.BarryA_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply