Nathaniel Abraham — Competence Without Belief?

_{William Dembski
December 7, 2007

Evolution

2}_{Categories
Evolution}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; 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

DrDan, good point- add the stupid theoy of dark matter in there- these are both pedagree theories that I say ARE given speicial favor and considered betond reproach even though the are likly to change. So i dissagree with you on this. I think once the tide goes one way all the fallowers do what they do best and the institution strongly facilitates that bias - I have seen this many times- but ID has profound metaphysical implications and that is why it is on the extreme end of this spectrum wrongfully so.Frost122585_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT}

getawitness, thanks for cluing me in. After I read your comment I wen and looked at the complaint in the case. It is here: http://www.courthousenews.com/2007/12/06/WoodsHoleXtian.pdf I stand corrected. Woods Hole is a private employer; although this particular lab gets almost all of its funds from the federal government. As I indicated, for private employers an alternative to a constitutional rights claim is a "protected class" claim. He is making such a claim (see paragraph 26 of the complaint).BarryA_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT}

Dr Dembski, The question that you raise is wether a mathematician would be hired if he/she believed 1+1=3. I think the answer is yes. Perhaps this mathematician is working in a different number system where in fact 1+1 does equal 3. For example 1+1 does not equal 2 in the base two number system. Ok, so I would trust that mathematician to know what he/she is doing assuming that he understands that in the base 10 number system 1+1=2 As another example, the concept of the ether was supposedly dispelled in 1905 when Einstein published his work on the Special Theory of Relativity. However, Einstein was never comfortable with giving up the ether. Indeed, there are still physicists today who believe in the ether. Are they banished out of physics. Indeed not. I for one do not understand the need for an ether (yes, I'm a physicists). Nevertheless, I trust their contribution to the body of physics. However, it seems that biologists are more interested in thought control than science.DrDan_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT}

Didn't NAS member Philip Skell already report that the ToE isn't used as far as research is concerned? You can listen to Casey Luskin's three-part interview with Phil Skell here (page down): http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/ Phil discusses this very topic, which he elucidated in an article he wrote for The Scientist, available here: https://www.discovery.org/a/2816/GilDodgen_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT}

If you're not careful he'll swing that dictionary and define 'instinct' as everything that humans don't do.Sally_T_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT}

specs, watch our where KF swings that dictionary. A couple of weeks ago he used a 1980 dictionary to argue that science hasn't been materialist for more than 30 years or so. I couldn't walk for days after.getawitness_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT}

On second thought, BarryA, perhaps you are saying that he is in effect a government employee because WHOI takes government grants? But I seriously doubt you would want the long arm of the federal government to extend that far.getawitness_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT}

BarryA,
He works for a government agency.
Um, no. A quick fact check will reveal that the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute "is the world's largest private, nonprofit ocean research, engineering and education organization" (from the home page). I hope you check your facts a little better before you take the case. :-)getawitness_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT}

KF, I see my question lies in tatters at the feet of your American Heritage Dictionary. Although, I am struggling a bit to understand where your answer is in my corrected spelling and your subsequent sarcasm. Perhaps you could expand on your post more?specs_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT}

Evolutionists are actually the ones who believe 1 + 1 = 3 1 RV + 1 NS = 3 for increased complexity of information (CSI) IDists are actually the ones who believe the truth that 1 + 1 = 2 1 RV + 1 NS = 2 for no increase in CSIbornagain77_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
05:01 AM
5
05
01
AM
PDT}

In re specs, 9:
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 [sic: prob means tenet but us dyslexics understand . . .]. Or, to put it less obtusely, if Abraham does not believe evolution should he stand on principal [sic] and not work on a project that assumes evolution as a starting point?
H'mm, Am H Dict:
ten·et: An opinion, doctrine, or principle held as being true by a person or especially by an organization. See Synonyms at doctrine. Adds at the head of the thesaurus list: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof Then, we see [near-] synonyms:dogma, article of faith, credendum, church doctrine, religious doctrine, creed, gospel . . .
[sarcasm] Anybody here want to sign up for The First Church of Evolutionary Materialism, Scientist, magisterioum chamber with Pope Dawkins the First presiding at the heresy trial of one certain Nathaniel Abraham, suspected of not signing up to the Evolutionary Materialist credo while pretending to hold scientific qualifications and to practice science? Immediately to follow, a stop-off at the friendly local career-busting strawman burning stake, now immortalised as the Richard von Sternberg memorial stake? [/sarcasm] And I thought the point of science was that we observe facts, infer hypotheses and test them empirically then generalise on reliable hyps that -- provisionally -- they can be viewed as well-warranted frameworks of thought? Would it not then be fundamentally irrelevant to the process of hyp testing, whether or no the scientist actually believes it -- so long as said scientist is honest with data and competent? [Indeed, it seems that if the hyp keeps on coming through with flying colours, he may then revise his opinion. But in further point of fact, the evolutionary materialist cascade of evolutions from hydrogen to humans is in big trouble, as my always linked summarises. Of course, there is a movement out there that if you don't sign up on the evo mat agenda, you cannot possibly be a scientist . . . but that looks more like political correctness to nme than science.] And, isn't it the case that the methodological naturalism used in the very parallel case with Gonzalez to dismiss him as not understanding "science" is in fact on closer inspection a question-begging, counter-historical philosophical imposition, not an integral part of the science proper? Ah gawn ketch up pon me beauty [or is that ugly!] sleep . . . GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{December 8, 2007
December
12
Dec
8
08
2007
02:44 AM
2
02
44
AM
PDT}

You see the most dangerous thing to an institution is the mind. Not necessarily the actions of the mind but its ability to think for itself. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. But if you have the ability to speak up or out on issues of truth or right and wrong you are not a useful idiot. The power structure hates and fears people like this. In China their communist power structure has gotten so bad they just throw people out of their homes onto the street. This is nothing but institutional fascism and anyone who denies it is in my opinion a pawn and player in this unethical arena of 1984. I mean what is next fire people for not accepting dark matter as the truth about cosmology? Or lets fire someone for beleiving in capitolism, right? The truth is that there is no end to this kind of thing. Only one thing am I totally certain about and that is “freedom denied one- denied all.” Hopefully it wont be long before enough people get burnt by this crap and speak out. This is why we are an ID movement - we have to be to counteract the political idealistic war waged against us not only in the classroom but now in our own minds. Don't believe me? http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6169522054399337360&q=china+underground&total=441&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1Frost122585_{December 7, 2007
December
12
Dec
7
07
2007
11:39 PM
11
11
39
PM
PDT}

The thing is, for the most part is that if 1 + 1 = 3, then it breaks down pretty quickly in common, practical applications. It is exactly the opposite of not being right about idle speculations about "where it all came from". It is precisely not the relationship we are talking about. So what application does it have? Absolutely none.jjcassidy_{December 7, 2007
December
12
Dec
7
07
2007
11:33 PM
11
11
33
PM
PDT}

So, only those who support a theory can work on projects that support that theory? Sounds a bit biased to me, though I do accept some level of competency is required- though a master's and PhD should be a testament to his ability. It is a sad case- I hope there is more to this than simply firing him for disbelief.bork_{December 7, 2007
December
12
Dec
7
07
2007
09:01 PM
9
09
01
PM
PDT}

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.
Actuall, I think there are two questions here. The first, which you raise and I quote above, can be tweaked slightly to ask whether it is legitimate to fire someone who knows all that he needs to know about theology to successfully practice his discipline but still does not believe in God. I speak, of course, of Hector Avalos, a religion professor at Iowa State, who has been exorcated here for being an atheist. 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?specs_{December 7, 2007
December
12
Dec
7
07
2007
08:56 PM
8
08
56
PM
PDT}

We don't know the facts in this case, only what has been alleged. However, if the facts are as alleged he will prevail in his lawsuit. Keep in mind two very important things here. 1. He works for a government agency. Generally speaking, only the government can violate a person's constitutional rights. Private employment law varies widely from state to state, but in most states a private employer can fire you for pretty much any reason unless you are in a protected class (race, gender, age, etc.). This is important to keep in mind because even if he wins, the win cannot be extrapolated to private employers. 2. If we assume that his allegations are true -- that he was fired because of a belief that he held, not an action that he took or failed to take, not only will he win, it will be a slam dunk. Case after case after case holds that the government may not penalize a person because of his beliefs. So if he is able to prove his allegations, he'll win.BarryA_{December 7, 2007
December
12
Dec
7
07
2007
08:49 PM
8
08
49
PM
PDT}

And that amounts to the Creation Model of Evolution.
The whatchamawhoozit? [GAWs head spins]getawitness_{December 7, 2007
December
12
Dec
7
07
2007
08:06 PM
8
08
06
PM
PDT}

The theory of evolution is useless for research. That is unless you confine it to what can be observed and tested. And that amounts to the Creation Model of Evolution. Now if a scientist could demonstrate that some number of accumulated genetic accidents could account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between say chimps and humans, thereby confirming the theory of evolution, for that lineage at least, then Woods Hole would have a point. Didn't NAS member Philip Skell already report that the ToE isn't used as far as research is concerned?Joseph_{December 7, 2007
December
12
Dec
7
07
2007
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PDT}

But Abraham would not be running model simulations. He would be doing research that may involve direct evolutionary claims. I was wondering if the people at Woods Hole thought Abraham might collaborate on a paper and then hold it hostage, refusing to put his name on it unless they changed some wording. I would not have fired him, but I think there is an actual ethical quandry there: an author of a paper stands by the claims of that paper. If he does work meriting authorship but doesn’t believe in the paper, should he recuse himelf? If he does work meriting authorship he might be eager to stand by it. It might be the others with qualms. None of this coulda, woulda, shoulda stuff is a good basis for an objection. Let him show his stuff. That censorship proclivity is anti-science and anti-American.pk4_paul_{December 7, 2007
December
12
Dec
7
07
2007
07:49 PM
7
07
49
PM
PDT}

Compare the case of Nathaniel Abraham with the case of a high school student reported a long time ago here. As it turns out, the father of that high school student and I are neighbors (in Southern California terms). 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. We compared notes and shared books, DVD's, and videos. The father of that high school student is a very bright and perceptive man, who taught his son not to be intimidated by authority and to investigate the evidence for himself.GilDodgen_{December 7, 2007
December
12
Dec
7
07
2007
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PDT}

When I read about Abraham I immediately thought of John Baumgardner, the YEC geologist, formerly of Los Alamos National Laboratory, who has published in mainstream geology for a long time. I know people who've collaborated with Baumgardner, and they've never found his views an impediment to their work, though they think his views are definitely wacky. But there are some differences. Baumgardner does computer models of whole Earth dynamics. His mot significant contribution, Terra, was for a time the leading model for mantle convection. (Turns out he designed it to test flood geology.) Baumgardner would have no problem putting his name on a publication that ran a model because, well, it's a model. He does not have to commit to, say, a 4.5 BY age of the earth. But Abraham would not be running model simulations. He would be doing research that may involve direct evolutionary claims. I was wondering if the people at Woods Hole thought Abraham might collaborate on a paper and then hold it hostage, refusing to put his name on it unless they changed some wording. I would not have fired him, but I think there is an actual ethical quandry there: an author of a paper stands by the claims of that paper. If he does work meriting authorship but doesn't believe in the paper, should he recuse himelf?getawitness_{December 7, 2007
December
12
Dec
7
07
2007
07:22 PM
7
07
22
PM
PDT}

Is it not a mathematical strategy to assume a false x in order to demonstrate the soundness of a proof? I thought science was about a belief in the utility of testing hypotheses. Ideological servitude demands a belief in the theoretical framework in advance of testing.pk4_paul_{December 7, 2007
December
12
Dec
7
07
2007
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PDT}

I'm very interested in Nathaniel Abraham's case, though I'm not sure what to think yet. In the article I saw it mentioned that one of his coworkers (or superior, I forget which) claimed he asked not to be made to work on the parts of the research that dealt with 'evolution'. I'd like to see how long he was working on the project and how his work shaped up before he ended up being fired. Could be an interesting case.nullasalus_{December 7, 2007
December
12
Dec
7
07
2007
07:10 PM
7
07
10
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4