[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

I don't think it is going to matter what his affiliation was concerning the Smithsonian. It is an abuse of power for one on the public dole to try to destroy a person's career, reputation and such:

He said museum authorities contacted his employers at NIH, seeking his ouster.

In any event, such malicious conduct is a legal tort.

I'm sure they'll find several legal theories to pursue - discrimination, abuse of power, tortious conduct and who knows what else... Once it is in court, the Smithsonian cannot refuse to cooperate.

[Right Wing Professor]

I'm sure they'll find several legal theories to pursue - discrimination, abuse of power, tortious conduct and who knows what else

I doubt it. But we'll see.

[js1138]

I suppose if you have nothing to say in the arena of science you can put it before a jury.

The primary problem here, and the reason for the hostility, is that creationists are misrepresenting the significance of the article's publication. They have geared up to use the publication of a peer-reviewed article -- not even original science, but a summary article -- to support the false claim of respectability for ID.

[general_re]

In any event, such malicious conduct is a legal tort.

There is no tort if he can't show harm - given that he apparently still has his job at NIH, good luck with that.