Wood Hole case
Allan Adler
a research facillity at Woods Hole because he didn't believe in evolution.
This was one of the researchers, with a phd in his subject. I think that
one appeals court has already upheld his dismissal, agreeing that not
believing in evolution compromised his ability to interpret data from
an evolutionary point of view, which the jobs requires. I think they said
his name was Abraham and that he is an Indian citizen.
How did he ever manage to get a PhD in biology or to get hired at Woods
Hole in the first place?
They didn't say what his religion is. Someone from India is most likely to
be a Hindu or a Moslem, not a Christian. They also didn't say why he doesn't
believe in evolution, e.g. whether it is for religious reasons.
I'm also not sure but I thought they said the case was going to be heard by
the Supreme Court. Is that correct?
--
Ignorantly,
Allan Adler <a...@zurich.csail.mit.edu>
* Disclaimer: I am a guest and *not* a member of the MIT CSAIL. My actions and
* comments do not reflect in any way on MIT. Also, I am nowhere near Boston.
Cuthbert Thistlethwaite
. . .
> They didn't say what his religion is. . . .
Christian
> I'm also not sure but I thought they said the case was going to be heard by
> the Supreme Court. Is that correct? . . .
Long way to go. Apparently recently filed in District Court in Mass.
Here is what I found about it:
<<http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/12/15/132451.php>>
<<http://www.indiawest.com/view.php?subaction=showfull&id=1199317591&archive=&start_from=&ucat=11>>
<<http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13932.html>>
Allan Adler
> Allan Adler wrote: . . . They didn't say what his religion is. . . .
>
> Christian
>
> > I'm also not sure but I thought they said the case was going to be heard by
> > the Supreme Court. Is that correct? . . .
>
> Long way to go. Apparently recently filed in District Court in Mass.
> Here is what I found about it: [sites deleted]
Thanks very much for answering my questions. I read the first of the sites.
So, this guy *didn't* have a PhD in biology. His doctorate was in philosophy.
He only had a master's degree in biology.
The article also mentions other suits of this kind, including an Iowa
State astronomer who claims he was denied tenure because he didn't believe
in evolution. There was also a University of Rhode Island student who got
a PhD in geosciences in spite of not believing in evolution. I wonder what
kind of work he is doing.
If I remember right, Peter Galison's book, "How experiments end", mentions
that Milliken (of the Milliken experiment, which measured the ratio of
charge to mass of the electron) had religious reasons for certain
cosmological beliefs and was influential enough to stand in the way of
progress that contradicted those beliefs. So, it does matter. On the
other hand, he did measure the ratio of the charge to mass of the electron.
I think there was some astronomer, maybe Fred Hoyle, who believed that
matter continued to be created and added to the universe, but I'm not
sure if he had religious reasons for thinking so.
I've heard one not-very-pious mathematician explain that he thought his
favorite conjecture must be true because he "believed in God" and for some
mathematical reasons. And a friend of mine, now deceased, told me that, when
he was a math grad student at Courant Institute, he and a professor were
struggling with a research question in the prof's office and getting nowhere.
Finally, the prof suggested that they pray. That also reminds me that, even
in the last decade, I'm told it was difficult to get permission to invite a
speaker there to give a talk critical of the methodology of the then current
publication of the "Bible codes". And I've met at least one mathematician
who speaks enthusiastically of the work of some of his friends on "short
history", i.e. filling in the details of how the world started 6000 years
ago (think of the big NY Times fold out book showing the dinosaurs in the
last 6000 years).
I'm inclined to think that a mathematician, whatever his religious beliefs
and opinion of evolution, can tell the difference between a correct proof
and an incorrect proof. Arguably, it would never stand up in court to fire
a mathematician who didn't believe in evolution. But the line between
"mathematician" and "physicist", for example, is not always easy to draw.
Some "physicists" (i.e. people in physics departments) are really just doing
mathematics and vice versa. The same can be said for chemistry, biology or
any field that has room for an interdisciplinary specialty with mathematics.
David Wolff
Allan Adler <a...@nestle.csail.mit.edu> wrote:
> Cuthbert Thistlethwaite <nosil...@myface.net> writes:
>
> > Allan Adler wrote: . . . They didn't say what his religion is. . . .
> >
> > Christian
> >
> > > I'm also not sure but I thought they said the case was going to be heard by
> > > the Supreme Court. Is that correct? . . .
> >
> > Long way to go. Apparently recently filed in District Court in Mass.
> > Here is what I found about it: [sites deleted]
>
> Thanks very much for answering my questions. I read the first of the sites.
> So, this guy *didn't* have a PhD in biology. His doctorate was in philosophy.
> He only had a master's degree in biology.
>
> The article also mentions other suits of this kind, including an Iowa
> State astronomer who claims he was denied tenure because he didn't believe
> in evolution. There was also a University of Rhode Island student who got
> a PhD in geosciences in spite of not believing in evolution. I wonder what
> kind of work he is doing.
Today's (1/13/08) Boston Globe Magazine has a very sarcastic piece by
Charles Pierce to David C. Gibbs III, the lawyer for Nathaniel Abraham,
suggesting that he should immediately give up the case:
"Here's the secret, chief. _By and large, you usually lose these
things_. The last big one was the intelligent design case in Dover,
Pennsylvania, that your side lost so badly that the Republican judge
referred to the 'breathtaking inanity' of the case, which is language
you don't often get from judges... I'll say a prayer for you, David.
You clearly don't have one."
Pierce also pointed out, "I would like my developmental biologists to
believe in evolution for the same reasons I prefer my airline pilots to
believe in gravity."
Thanks --
David
(Remove "xx" to reply.)
Impeach. Convict. Behead.
Paul Ciszek
edge mathematician and be utterly insane. In fact, it may even be a
requirement. Sort of like overclocking the human brain...
--
Please reply to: | "One of the hardest parts of my job is to
pciszek at panix dot com | connect Iraq to the War on Terror."
Autoreply is disabled | -- G. W. Bush, 9/7/2006
Allan Adler
> I just thought I should point out that it is possible to be a cutting
> edge mathematician and be utterly insane. In fact, it may even be a
> requirement. Sort of like overclocking the human brain...
You might consider also pointing that out on sci.math, where it can get
all the attention it deserves.