@ anonymous poster of "Estimated 80% . . .": You graciously asked for corrections, so I'll try to oblige.\n\nAbraham doesn't believe in theistic evolution (according to the stories I've seen), he rejects evolution (or "macro-evolution") altogether. He wasn't sacked for being a theist, or even for thinking that the gods direct evolution. He lost his post-doc because he fails to accept the science of evolution that is the foundation of Hahn's research (which Abraham was hired to help with).\n\nHahn, in a letter quoted by the Boston Globe
, says, "You have indicated that you do not recognize the concept of biological evolution and you would not agree to include a full discussion of the evolutionary implications and interpretations of our research in any co-authored publications resulting from this work." Hahn was unwilling or unable to do the job he was hired for. He wasn't be persecuted for his beliefs.\n\nThis is no different from having a hospital fire a doctor who rejects the germ theory of disease, or who thinks diabetes is caused by demons.
\n\n@ anonymous poster of "Do your research": I really can't take anything you say at all seriously after you make the following statement:
\n"[T]he scientists in the film . . . concluded only that evolution does not explain the origin of the natural world."
This displays either willful ignorance or woeful stupidity. Evolution is a theory of biology
, which has absolutely nothing to do with "the origin of the natural world." Ben Stein seems to think that random mutation and natural selection should explain everything in the universe
, but this is beyond stupid. Anyone in a teaching or research position making such claims should
be fired for incompetence.\n\nBut let's quickly correct the rest of your claims:
"[N]one of the scientists in the film were creationists and object to that term. They concluded only that evolution does not explain the origin of the natural world and evidence for intelligence exists in the design of the living world."
has given up the ruse that ID is anything but creationism, so in this context your complaint is thoroughly disingenuous. Stein is constantly equating the "designer" with god, and a central theme of the movie is that atheistic biology is silencing a theistic alternative (where that theistic view is clearly ID).\n\n(2) It has been established by the courts (in the Dover case) that ID is just creationism in a cheap tuxedo; so I'm perfectly comfortable calling a creationist a creationist.\n\n(3) There is no good scientific evidence for an intelligent designer of "the living world." The entire argumentative strategy is based on the fallacy of an argument from ignorance: we don't know how x
happened, therefore we should conclude that god did x
. That's poor reasoning, which has been routinely rejected by the peer-review process. When people like Sternberg try to undermine that process and slip bad articles into journals through the back door, it is entirely proper to criticize them loudly. (Note that Sternberg
faced only criticism, no punishment whatsoever.)\n\n(4) These "scientists" are not only mistakenly claiming that there is evidence for a designer, they often also misrepresent the evidence for evolution. Crocker
was supposed to be teaching evolution, and she argued that there is no good evidence for evolution, a stunning display of ignorance. Further, she presented several grotesque misrepresentations of such topics as Archaeopteryx, Eohippus, etc. She displayed gross incompetence. Nonetheless, she still wasn't even fired; she simply wasn't re-hired after her contract expired.\n