You make unwarranted presumptions. His case failed because the court of first instance found that he misrepresented his credentials, and that there was no evidence that he was fired for opposition to his Creationist opinions.
I did not say I support evolution. I said that the society he represents as prestigious does not meet that standard. Both mother and Uncle B hold PhDs in history. Uncle B's dissertation forms the bulk of the two volumes of Separate Identity, available on Amazon. True to form, you're tying a persons' claims to his opinions. If he holds opinions similar to yours, he's good. If not, he's bad. That's not rational. It's also irrational to focus on others, in this case my mother or Uncle B, to divert attention.
I am aware that Bergman claims prejudice was the reason for his dismissal. The court and the appeals court did not make that finding. They found that there were grounds for dismissal in his misrepresentation of credentials. I would follow the court instead of pro-Bergman propagandists.