This is all a bit off topic, but since you threw it out:

1) Read your link carefully, with the same objectivity you assume its author to have. Your use of the word "frauds" is a bit extreme. Your author seems to be quelling some of the hype about Mr. Galileo that has snowballed in the last ~400 years. The primary concern seems to be how it has become a staple of anti-Catholic arguments. The role the church had in the process of "doing science" is still supported by your author's research. In this particular case, that role was to forcibly silence ideas that didn't dovetail with scripture. It happened. No fraud.

2) The example of Galileo is germane to the current debate on evolution and education. That's why folks like me "parrot the old Galileo 'myths'". A shrewd creationist wouldn't get all smug about it like you have: for either side of the debate, the major issue, at heart, is the difference between what science helps us know, and what faith helps us believe. Any time these lines are blurred, calamity ensues. That includes instances where scientists feel they can tell you what to believe. If you can interpret Galileo's work that way, then maybe you can try him all over again yourself, for kicks. For most folks, the flip side of the argument is more poignant, namely that rigid beliefs constrain science.

If creationism could gain a credible scientific foothold, then folks like our unemployed scientist from the original post would have been able to engage in productive discourse on the matter. It is that kind of intellectual freedom that we perceive the church to have suppressed in the old days. No fraud.

Enough about that.

Well I guess if we can discriminate against gay people for who we are, we can also discriminate on either side of philosophical issues. Curiously though, philosophical views are often shielded under the defense of religious conviction in an attempt to deflect and not address a belief.

When someone is using religion to justify a belief vs. when a belief is based on physical and tangible evidence is something even jurists often have trouble sorting correctly.

So, is it OK to fire someone from a job because they are a creationist?

If it isn't, then why is that not OK, but firing someone for being gay is? [N/M the Supreme Court decision for the Boy Scouts, we're talking employment discrimination based on similar personal convictions].

__________________
WHYY pays their CEO $750,000 a year. So WHYY should I renew my membership? Seems they have no problems finding money and spending it unwisely.


And this is why you should donate to PACCA, not PETA:

In September, PETA made headlines in Vermont and across the nation for asking Ben & Jerry's ice cream to use human breast milk in their ice cream, instead of cow milk

It's okay to fire somewhat from a job if their beliefs prevent them from actually doing the job.

I can't think of any jobs where being gay would prevent a person from doing the job, aside from being a hetero-porn star.

It's a tad more complicated than that. He could do the work and even say something along the lines of "Darwinian evolution would interpret this as x, y, and z."

He was fired because he didn't believe Darwinian evolution is true.

Obviously, this will be litigated out and more details will come out.

Really? I think it's practical value is quite minimal.

First, they got the whole Junk DNA thing wrong. There assumptions about mutations producing new genetic information or code could hurt us medically. (see: http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwi...ience-stopper/)

Most of Darwinian explanations regarding natural selection (and I have no problem with natural selection just not the random mutation part) just boil down to survivors survive.

So it can explain mean people and nice people. Honest people and liars. Small animals and large. There is nothing it can't explain.

In other words, it has little to no predictive power.

A lot of Neo-Darwinian Theory rests on the faith commitment of materialism. There has to be a naturalistic cause. Therefore, whatever exists has been produced by Darwinian forces. Isn't it amazing what it can do? It can produce genetic code which has error-control mechanisms even though Darwinian processes rely on errors (mutations) to create variability for new features. Look at that. A system based on errors fixing errors.

Broaching the subject that atheistic materialism has failed to explain the origin of life and many biological features, as well as anthropic principle arguments, and arguing for teleology hardly constitute running a country by religion.

If you are referring to a specific Biblical interpretation completely divorced from science, that would be a problem.