[subsection1h]

why would you question his abilities?

Biblical literalists have no regard for empirical evidence.

You mention scientists having stupid beliefs. Scientists develop evidence-based explanations of phenomena through experimentation using available tools. Our tools are obviously imperfect; thus, imperfect observations are made and imperfect explanations can form as a result.

Biblical literalists, on the other hand, don't even try to ensure that their beliefs are supported by empirical evidence.

People have argued that this behavior of biblical literalists is limited to issues relating to their religious beliefs only, so as long as their professional responsibilities don't encompass issues relating to their religious beliefs, there's no problem.

Unfortunately, the beliefs of biblical literalists encompass a wide range of issues. If I run a renewable energy company, do I really want to take a chance by hiring a biblical literalist who might now, or someday, believe that his unsubstantiated god wants humans to use fossil fuels[1] or that climate change isn't real because his unsubstantiated god promised to not flood the Earth[2]? No, thanks, I think I'll pass.

[1] http://dailysignal.com/2017/10/20/trumps-epa-chief-charts-ne...

[2] https://www.politico.com/story/2010/11/shimkus-cites-genesis...

[RightMillennial]

So you're saying that you would reject otherwise qualified candidates based on their religion (a protected class in the U.S.), which is illegal?

[creaghpatr]

And how would you figure out if someone was a biblical literalist or a garden variety Christian or an athiest anyway, unless it’s somehow relevant to work?

[CalChris]

It’s not illegal for me to reject non-Flying Spaghetti Monsterarians on the basis of their religion. It is unconstitutional for the govmint to do so.

[gonehome]

Actually if you’re hiring - religion is a protected class and it is illegal for you to discriminate based on it.

[CalChris]

I was under the misapprehension that candidate meant political candidate and not job candidate. My mistake.

[BeetleB]

>Scientists develop evidence-based explanations of phenomena through experimentation using available tools.

In matters of their expertise. I'm guessing your fellow coworker is not a biologist.

If you think most scientists apply this to all their beliefs, then I think you should spend more time amongst them. Virtually every physicist I worked with in a top 10 school had some stupid belief that was easily invalidated with a few days of research. For me to judge their analytical abilities based on silly beliefs they have would be saying more about my abilities than theirs.