Creating a Ruckus
Why clog the courts with a scientist who doesn't believe in science?
Dear David C. Gibbs III:
May I suggest with all Christian love and fellowship that you might have been better off remaining at the Christian Law Association in Seminole, Florida. I read that you have taken on the case of one Nathaniel Abraham - and, boy howdy, is that some biblical moniker right there; I'm surprised we haven't yet been introduced to Thessalonian Philippians - a researcher at the marine laboratory in Woods Hole who claims he was fired because he doesn't believe in evolution. As to the merits of your case, I'd have to say that, all theories considered, I would like my developmental biologists to believe in evolution for the same reasons I prefer my airline pilots to believe in gravity. I would not like the guy who flies me to Chicago to walk down the aisle shortly before landing and tell us that, if we all wish really hard, we can miss Lake Michigan. But, more to the point, we don't need you here. These kind of lawsuits roil the body politic, poison the good feeling of the community, and otherwise lead to nothing more than noisy mischief off of which you can raise a little money. But 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, even breathtakingly inane ones. Do you honestly believe you're going to do any better in Massachusetts? The "case updates" section of your website requests that I pray for a number of your plaintiffs. I'll say a prayer for you, David. You clearly don't have one.
Charles P. Pierce
pierce@globe.com
