Coppedge vs. JPL -- discussion thread

Assuming this isn't settled before a decision, I would not be surprised if the court finds that Coppedge was harassing coworkers, neglecting his real job, and being insubordinate when called on this; that JPL was well within their rights as employers to fire him based on workplace conduct, and that their decision was not based religious proclivities. I would be very surprised if any significant complaint of Coppedge's relevant to the idea of religious persecution was found to be accurate.

But we'll see.

Remember the case with that Texas teacher in the Texas Dept. of Education who was basically fired for saying that evolution was good science? (Because apparently only the geniuses who were elected to the Texas State Board of Education were allowed to have opinions on scientific issues, or something.) After that, I've realized how hard it can be to win such a case, if the employer has even vaguely plausible reasons for dismissing someone. Probably it's even more difficult to win against a private employer like Caltech. If Caltech didn't settle, they probably think they've got a strong case, and this is probably the opinion of lawyers who have absolutely no interest in evolution vs. creationism/ID. It will basically come down to whether or not Caltech followed the appropriate policies and procedures.

On the other hand, we know that the other side is close-to-crazy -- reading Coppedge's thousands and thousands of straight-up, hard-shell Young-Earth Creationist posts (the news stories only mention ID, which just indicates the journalists haven't done any research at all) at his Creation-Evolution Headlines website is enough to determine that.

And Coppedge wasn't just an ID creationist, although that's bad enough, especially to well-informed scientists who care about good science and public education. Coppedge's main activity was posting YEC stuff to Creation-Evolution Headlines for years and years. Amongst his posts, he regularly trashed JPL/Cassini-produced science -- e.g. anytime some finding could be twisted into some argument that Saturn's moons, or rings, or whatever were young, Coppedge would turn this into a diatribe about the dogmatism and materialism of scientists who accept that the Universe and planets are old.

Actually, now that I'm thinking about it -- how many posts did Coppedge produce at Creation-Evolution Headlines? It may be tens of thousands for all I know. I only discovered his RSS feed in 2006 or so, and every time I was subscribed, I would soon unsubscribe, because the sheer volume of posts was difficult to keep up with. I wonder if the lawyers will ask if any of this activity happened on JPL work time? That could certainly be a relevant issue. Even if Caltech/JPL academics are given latitude about blogging on work time, that might not apply to a sysadmin, and even if all employees are given some latitude about blogging (which I think employers should), it is highly debatable whether pushing pseudoscience on a massive scale, including pseudoscience specifically contradicting the published research produced by the JPL/Cassini mission, would pass muster.

The Sensuous Curmudgeon is following this most closely, although again, the only primary sources are basically the news and DI propaganda.

http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/coppedge-trial-day-1-discoveroids-report/

More Youth on Titan 04/09/2011 April 09, 2011 — Hopes that Saturn’s giant moon Titan might have volcanoes just dropped. A new paper in Icarus1 concludes Titan gets its geology from the outside, not the inside. If confirmed, it implies all the surface features were created by wind, impacts and weather – not by active geology. The hopeful cryovolcano announced last year (Sotra Facula, see 12/24/2010, bullet 12) was disputed by Moore and Pappalardo, authors of the new paper. Titan may be a geologically dead world. Titan’s atmosphere, however, remains a subject of intense interest. Scientists were eager to visit Titan via Cassini because of its thick atmosphere of nitrogen and methane. Because precipitation of methane and its byproducts was considered inevitable, astrobiologists were eager to find liquid as possible abodes for life. Some proposed a global ocean several kilometers deep. When the Huygens Probe landed in January 2005 with a thud on a moist but mostly dry lake bed, those hopes evaporated. Planetary scientists have also had an age conundrum with Titan. They know that the methane in the atmosphere is destroyed and converted to other compounds in a one-way process. This puts strong upper limits on the age of the atmosphere – far less than the 4.5-billion-year age assumed for the solar system. They had hoped that a reservoir of methane under the surface would be found to erupt in cryovolcanos to replenish the atmosphere. The new paper casts doubt on that solution; see the Cassini press release for a summary of the findings, and also PhysOrg, Science Daily. Instead of volcanoes, another possible large crater has been found. The “ghost crater” reported by New Scientist is disputed by others. The surprising dearth of volcanoes leads many planetary scientists to say they are quickly erased by erosion. If it weren’t for the atmosphere, scientists expect Titan would look like Callisto, a dead moon orbiting Jupiter. Another paper in press in Icarus analyzed Titan’s equatorial sand dunes.2 The longitudinal dunes, covering about 12.5% of the surface, were a surprise when discovered, because scientists were expecting large lakes or even a global ocean. They had also doubted that the winds were strong enough at the surface to move particles around. Dunes also exist on Mars, Venus, and of course, Earth, but on Titan, the average 300-foot-high dunes are nearly 3 km apart, getting farther apart at higher latitudes. Unlike the silica sands on Earth, the particles in Titan’s dunes are thought to be composed of hydrocarbon dust and ice precipitated out of the atmosphere. All together, they constitute the largest known reservoir of organics on Titan, because the combined area of dunes is about as large as the United States (Titan’s diameter is also about that size). The dunes also impinge on theories of Titan’s age. For one, they are among Titan’s most youthful features; for another, they indicate a lack of persistent liquid on Titan’s equator, even though liquid ethane should have been raining onto the surface throughout Titan’s history. The presence of dunes implies that much of Titan is arid. If spread out evenly over the globe, the particles in this largest reservoir of organics (larger than all the observed lakes combined) would doubtless fail to cover Titan with the predicted accumulation of hydrocarbons that must have been produced in the assumed 4.5-billion-year age of the moon. “The dune distribution places constraints on Titan’s meteorology and geology,” the authors said. 1. Jeffrey M. Moore and Robert T. Pappalardo, “Titan: An Exogenic World?”, Icarus April 2011, doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2011.01.019. 2. LeGall, Janssen et al., “Cassini SAR, radiometry, scatterometry and altimetry observations of Titan’s dune fields,” Icarus (article in press), doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2011.03.026. [Coppedge then comments on his own description above. He always does this in green for some reason, which I cannot reproduce.]

We are still discovering facts about Titan, so definitive conclusions are premature; however, enough is known to falsify many assumptions and predictions made by those who refuse to budge from their A.S.S. (age of the solar system, 4.5 billion years; see 02/19/2011). They were wrong about a global ocean; they were wrong about huge lakes of liquid ethane; they were dumbfounded to find sand dunes; and now it appears they were wrong about active geology. The upper limits on age appear to be growing stronger with time. The puzzlement on their faces, and the silence about defending the consensus age, are tell-tale signs that their fascination with discovery is tempered by panic over looming destruction of favored beliefs about the age of the solar system (02/15/2008). Titan may be the old-agers’ Titanic.

Next headline on: Solar System • Geology • Dating Methods

Oops, forgot link:
http://creationsafaris.com/crev201104.htm#20110409a

For many, many more similar comments on Cassini-derived studies, see:
http://tinyurl.com/72qaqte

The study of Titan is a work in progress, so any conclusions drawn at this time are subject to revision as more data come in. We can, however, step back and consider what planetary scientists expected to find and what they have found so far. In the decades after the Voyager visits (1981), when scientists realized an irreversible erosion of atmospheric methane was precipitating hydrocarbons onto the surface (especially ethane, which has no way to get back into the atmosphere), scientists expected to find, over the course of 4.5 billion years, an accumulation of half a kilometer or more of liquid ethane in a global ocean. That was a clear prediction that has been spectacularly falsified by Cassini observations (see list of previous articles). In fact, the Huygens probe was designed to float on that ocean that failed to materialize. Instead, we found Titan to have paltry accumulations of liquid in scattered lakes near the poles, while the equatorial regions are largely covered in icy sand dunes. Now we are learning that the polar lakes are probably shallow, could have impermeable bottoms, and move around so rapidly that they don’t deposit sediment on the lake floors (or else they deposit bright sediments). But if the sediments are bright, which would be surprising in itself, is there enough sediment to account for 4.5 billion years of deposition? In addition, Titan, the largest moon with the greatest gravitational attraction, has few craters (three to five) after all that time. You have to ask yourself whether it is credible these processes have been going on for billions of years. Did 4.5 billion years ever exist? Is it a fiction? In order to save the blessed timescale so precious to planetary scientists (because Darwin depends on it), all kinds of evidence-free theory-rescue devices are being rigged: maybe the ethane seeped into the interior where no one can find it; maybe the interior has a methane reservoir that erupts through cryovolcanoes, replenishing the atmosphere; maybe this, maybe that. If scientists stuck to the observations and drew reasonable conclusions from data alone, they would have to conclude that there are severe upper limits on how long Titan has been acting this way. Let facts be submitted to a candid world.

Nick Matzke said: This isn't just mildly bringing up some vague form of ID on biology issues far removed from space science, this is trashing the research on which JPL scientists are experts and Coppedge is not.

I wonder if peoples' initially problems with Coppedge really were only related to ID, or if someone noticed this stuff and got annoyed.

A new finding shows dogs performing better on one kind of intelligence test than chimpanzees. If evolution teaches that human intelligence is the main trait separating us from other animals, and dogs are smarter than apes, shouldn’t the conclusion be that dogs are closer on the family tree? If not, is it valid for evolutionary biologists to pick and choose the traits that matter?

It’s sort of like a manager at a meat-packing plant ranting on and on about how “Meat is murder” and that tofu is ambrosia

apokryltaros said:

Nick Matzke said: This isn't just mildly bringing up some vague form of ID on biology issues far removed from space science, this is trashing the research on which JPL scientists are experts and Coppedge is not.

It's sort of like a manager at a meat-packing plant ranting on and on about how "Meat is murder" and that tofu is ambrosia.

We are still discovering facts about Titan, so definitive conclusions are premature; however, enough is known to falsify many assumptions and predictions made by those who refuse to budge from their A.S.S. (age of the solar system, 4.5 billion years; see 02/19/2011).

apokryltaros said:

Nick Matzke said: This isn't just mildly bringing up some vague form of ID on biology issues far removed from space science, this is trashing the research on which JPL scientists are experts and Coppedge is not.

It's sort of like a manager at a meat-packing plant ranting on and on about how "Meat is murder" and that tofu is ambrosia.

I wonder if peoples' initially problems with Coppedge really were only related to ID, or if someone noticed this stuff and got annoyed.

I bet it was trashtalk like that was the primary reason for his firing.

However, we should be cautious here; Coppedge has every right to voice his opinion about public information in a non-harassing way. Even including the opinion that his employer and co-workers are doing science wrong.

Karen S. said: Wow! No scientist claims the solar system is 4.5 billion years old. It's the earth that is 4.5 billion years old.

You're right.

Or he could just be fired because they were downsizing. That sucks, it has happened to me, but no need to search for alternate nefarious explanations.
--dan

https://me.yahoo.com/a/n2WhMtEQrvsReG10Z0oryyrwcalqfxDNMct2#93ec7 said: Or he could just be fired because they were downsizing. That sucks, it has happened to me, but no need to search for alternate nefarious explanations. --dan

Coppedge is on the Board of Directors of Illustra Media, the producer of the DVDs he was distributing. Illustra Media is a shell company of Discovery Media, which in turn is the successor to the infamous "Moody Institute of Science," producer for decades of pro-creationism / anti-science media for the fundamentalist Moody Bible Institute. With these links established, if Coppedge says the DVDs were about science, he'll be laughed out of court.

Federal Judge John Jones said it best in 2005: "We have concluded that intelligent design is not science, and moreover that intelligent design cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." Judge Jones also stated: "It is ironic that several of these individuals (sworn witnesses), who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the Intelligent design Policy."

Creationists have been lying about intelligent design creationism for years - saying it is science and denying it has anything to do with religion. It will be interesting to see if Coppedge and his fellow travellers continue this creationist custom of lying under oath.

(Slightly modified from a comment I had published at the Washington Post's Coppedge web article yesterday (hope I'm not violating copyright or something...) I've been pointing to this Coppedgge - Illustra - Moody "smoking gun" connection ever since it first reared its ugly head - see my comment (#6) at http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-david-coppedge-is-guilty/ - made in April 2010)

It takes fairly careful reading of this http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/nasa-jpl-computer-specialist-alleges-discrimination-over-his-belief-in-intelligent-design/2012/03/12/gIQAlgkT7R_story.html Wapo story to sort out the grounds of dismissal.

Coppedge admits that "he engaged his co-workers in conversations about intelligent design and handed out DVDs on the idea while at work."

You shouldn't pursue your personal interests on work time, nor waste your coworkers' time that way. That would have been grounds for a warning, at least. But it was worse than that. "Coppedge received a written warning because his co-workers complained of harassment". (My bolding.)

In my view, he was extremely lucky to get away with only a written warning at that. If it had gotten to the stage that he was "harrassing" people, and they were complaining about it, dismissal was reasonable. My guess is that management had let it get too far, and should have tackled it earlier.

But the real reason he was dismissed, say Caltech (which manages JPL for NASA) was redundancy: Coppedge was "one of two Cassini technicians and among 246 JPL employees let go last year due to planned budget cuts".

Thus the Wapo, which appears to be quoting court filings.

Seems pretty open and shut to me. He wasn't fired for being an IDer, or even a YEC. He wasn't fired for stating his views at work. He wasn't even fired for harrassing workmates about them, though he was warned in writing not to do that. He was fired because of budget cuts, with others.

Unless CalTech is lying in its teeth about those redundancies, he hasn't got a leg to stand on.

harold said: So my current guess is that his firing was due to behavior that would have been equally bad if he were not a creationist and that the DI is dissembling.

Paul Burnett said: Coppedge is on the Board of Directors of Illustra Media, the producer of the DVDs he was distributing. Illustra Media is a shell company of Discovery Media, which in turn is the successor to the infamous "Moody Institute of Science," producer for decades of pro-creationism / anti-science media for the fundamentalist Moody Bible Institute. With these links established, if Coppedge says the DVDs were about science, he'll be laughed out of court. Federal Judge John Jones said it best in 2005: "We have concluded that intelligent design is not science, and moreover that intelligent design cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." Judge Jones also stated: "It is ironic that several of these individuals (sworn witnesses), who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the Intelligent design Policy." Creationists have been lying about intelligent design creationism for years - saying it is science and denying it has anything to do with religion. It will be interesting to see if Coppedge and his fellow travellers continue this creationist custom of lying under oath. (Slightly modified from a comment I had published at the Washington Post's Coppedge web article yesterday (hope I'm not violating copyright or something...) I've been pointing to this Coppedgge - Illustra - Moody "smoking gun" connection ever since it first reared its ugly head - see my comment (#6) at http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-david-coppedge-is-guilty/ - made in April 2010)

The Dishonesty Institute is already whining because the JPL legal team is approaching the case as an employee who abused his time on the job to engage in unauthorized religious activities which distracted from his work as well as interferring with other employees at JPL. They are trying very much to enter into the case all the DI movies on ID as evidence that it is a valid scientific theory and that Coppedge has a right, i.e., freedom of speech, to talk about science. Per the DI site, apparently the judge will so far allow minimum such evidence in the case and the DI is outraged. They want it to be a showcase for ID and have Coppedge martyred for the cause. I expect Rick Santorum to step in and blast science at any moment on behalf of the DI.

Klinghoffer is declaring victory even if they lose -- does this mean they're going to lose?

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/03/what_david_copp057331.html

I watched Moody Institute films as a high school student. The biology teacher tended to stop the film toward the end when they got expressly 'preachy.' Some times h

The PT sign-in routine seems badly whack.

This is G. Hurd

I watched Moody Institute films as a high school student. The biology teacher who ran them tended to stop the film toward the end when they got expressly 'preachy.' Some times he 'forgot.'

The best place to go for info on Coppedge, etc, is the NCSE.com website where they have all the court documents available. You can cut to the chase by reading the JPL Trial document filed March 5th. From the sidebar, Legal Cases - Open Cases - Coppedge vs JPL

There you will find out that Coppedge's "demotion" was from an honorary position and involved no loss in pay grade nor salary. His original suit against JPL was about this pseudo-demotion and the HR letter that went along with it. He wanted his honorary position restored and to be able to talk ad nauseum about his DVD's without further repercussions. His suit was amended to "wrongful termination" after he was laid off a year later. To make one matter moot, the team leader position had been eliminated in a consolidation reorganization. Coppedge couldn't get it back if he wanted to.

According to the court documents filed by JPL, Coppedge had not updated his skill set. He configured routers and operated an HP OpenView network monitoring system, both of which were being phased out. Other technicians were proficient in Linux and newer monitoring systems; Coppedge wasn't. Sad, but true, he simply wasn't needed anymore. It happens to most of us at some point but we move on to other things. Unless, of course, you're a creationist with an entitlement complex!

It appears that there is no reporter assigned to this case, so call the "news" coming out of the trial is from the Coppedge team. That makes it very difficult to follow the developments.

Doc Bill said: There you will find out that Coppedge's "demotion" was from an honorary position and involved no loss in pay grade nor salary.

eric said:

Doc Bill said: There you will find out that Coppedge's "demotion" was from an honorary position and involved no loss in pay grade nor salary.

Aside, but I really hate this particular argument. Most of us know full well that 'lateral transfers' are used by companies and government to sideline problem employees. Its a demotion. Not maybe in the technical sense, but it is a 'soft firing' in that the employer is attempting to reduce employee responsibilities or job satisfaction to the point where they quit. Having said that, I think JPL's other arguments are just fine, Coppedge's whole ID focus is legally crazy, and I expect (and hope) Coppedge will lose badly.

Not maybe in the technical sense, but it is a ‘soft firing’ in that the employer is attempting to reduce employee responsibilities or job satisfaction to the point where they quit.

"Klinghoffer is declaring victory even if they lose – does this mean they’re going to lose?"

All publicity is good publicity as far as the DI is concerned. If Coppedge wins, that proves the Darwinist Conspiracy, if he loses, that proves there is another Activist Judge out to oppress Christians ... er ... dissenting scientists.

DavidK said: The Dishonesty Institute is ... trying very much to enter into the case all the DI movies on ID as evidence that it is a valid scientific theory...

I read through one of the documents about this case on the NCSE site. It seems that Coppedge's boss wanted him to actually do some work instead of peddling DiscoTute DVDs. What an outrage!

Nick Matzke said: The Sensuous Curmudgeon is following this most closely, although again, the only primary sources are basically the news and DI propaganda. http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/coppedge-trial-day-1-discoveroids-report/

Intelligent design is the belief that a higher power must have had a hand in creation because life is too complex to have developed through evolution alone. Mr. Coppedge believes that he was let go from JPL in 2011, after having been demoted in 2009, due to his evangelical beliefs and advocacy for the intelligent design theory — which insists evolution must have been guided by a greater force. God, if you will. Intelligent design is a conviction that life is too complex to have developed solely through evolution and that the universe was designed by an intelligent entity. Coppedge's lawyer claimed JPL demoted him for "pushing religion" by loaning co-workers DVDs about intelligence design, which challenges evolutionary theory that life is based on random chance. and for giving them DVDs promoting intelligent design — the theory that life and the existence of the universe are best explained as the result of the influence of God or an intelligent agent. And, finally, a repeat from Seattle, Washington, home of the Disco Tute. Hey, West, baby, who's your media rep? Intelligent design is the belief that a higher power must have had a hand in creation because life is too complex to have developed through evolution alone.

There's a lot of legal docs to read on the NCSE site. I can't help but think Coppedge is just like Freshwater, only here the stakes are higher. JPL appears to have a solid case but Coppedge will of course try to tear it down. He still might get one or two ID dvds shown, but as JPL said they are irrelevant ot the case.

Kevin B said: Basically, on being formally given the written warning over his "harassing" of one of his users, Coppedge displayed all the behaviour that caused complaints for years to such an extent that his line manager was obliged to act.

his removal from the honorary position was done because his interpersonal relationships had degraded to the point it was affecting both customers and the team.

The story is featured on CNN.com this morning:

Terminated scientist claims bias against intelligent design

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/13/terminated-scientist-claims-bias-against-intelligent-design/?hpt=hp_c2

David Coppedge is not a scientist, is he? Neither by job title nor degree?

I hope JPL has documented everything that went on with Coppedge. I always thought that taking a job meant performing specific tasks as determined by your boss. That doesn't include peddling DiscoTute DVDs, tupperware, or whatever. The guy sounds like a real pain in the rear end.

eric said:

Kevin B said: Basically, on being formally given the written warning over his "harassing" of one of his users, Coppedge displayed all the behaviour that caused complaints for years to such an extent that his line manager was obliged to act.

And Doc Bill:

his removal from the honorary position was done because his interpersonal relationships had degraded to the point it was affecting both customers and the team.

All great reasons to remove him from this position. But call it what it is: removal of responsibility. JPL was justified in its decision. But claiming employees should be happy when you shift them around, so long as you don't change their pay or grade, is IMO baloney. I see this as a case of an argument we would never countenance being used against us, or against a good employee, so don't use it against someone you don't like. If a good, evolution-teaching HS biology teacher got 'reassigned' to teach all 'free study' classes instead of biology, you'd cry foul. You would refuse to accept the logic 'well, her pay and grade stayed the same, so why should she complain?' So don't accept that same logic here.

Karen S. said: I hope JPL has documented everything that went on with Coppedge. I always thought that taking a job meant performing specific tasks as determined by your boss. That doesn't include peddling DiscoTute DVDs, tupperware, or whatever. The guy sounds like a real pain in the rear end.

Kevin B said: The "demotion" was also more properly the transfer of various duties to a person who might better be able to fulfil them.

IIRC, Coppedge is not only an IDer but a YEC.

Someone who things the earth is 6,000 years old and Noah had a boatload full of dinosaurs.

AFAICT, most of the Dishonesty Institute are Young Earth Creationists. And as they failed to gain traction with the Don't Ask, Don't Tell ID subterfuge, most of them are more and more open about it.

eric said:

Kevin B said: The "demotion" was also more properly the transfer of various duties to a person who might better be able to fulfil them.

We agree on that point. Are you truly saying that an employee would have no rational reason to consider that at least a type of demotion? "Hey Alice, we're removing you from webmaster responsibilities and giving them to Bob. But we'll pay you the same, so you have no reason to consider it a demotion!"

NASA scientist avid Coppedge says he was sacked for believing in ... ww.dailymail.co.uk/.../NASA-scientist-avid-Coppedge-says-sacked-... 1 day ago – Space agency: David Coppedge began working for JPL as a ... well-known young-earth creationist who runs Creation-Evolution Headlines.

eric said:

Kevin B said: The "demotion" was also more properly the transfer of various duties to a person who might better be able to fulfil them.

We agree on that point. Are you truly saying that an employee would have no rational reason to consider that at least a type of demotion? "Hey Alice, we're removing you from webmaster responsibilities and giving them to Bob. But we'll pay you the same, so you have no reason to consider it a demotion!"

raven said: AFAICT, most of the Dishonesty Institute are Young Earth Creationists. And as they failed to gain traction with the Don't Ask, Don't Tell ID subterfuge, most of them are more and more open about it.

Somewhat OT, but to address the Dembski enquiry, in an interview here Dembski said that he's leaving SBTS in the Fall (or would that be after the Fall) to go back to the DI full time!

I suspect he couldn't recant to his YEC masters enough to keep his job.

What is it about creationists, like Coppedge and Dembski, that makes them so annoying and anti-social? I don't even think they get along among themselves!

Demotion versus relieved of extra duties due to personal conflicts on Coppedge's behalf. The court documents seem to indicate the latter, i.e., he was relieved of his extra responsibilities and they were assigned to a more qualified person. In addition, his post did not entail the supervision of other personnel, but only acting as a go-between in the transference of information among groups.

Also, was he fired or laid-off? There is a difference as firing requires cause whereas being laid-off does not, i.e., budget cuts are not due to cause. It appears that he was not fired for cause, though that might be justified, but was laid-off, and just as importantly as JPL pointed out, he was NOT ALONE in being laid off.

Doc Bill said: Let's say that webmaster Alice also had sys admin rights because it was "convenient" for her to change permissions or add printers to the network rather than going through the sys admin group. Then webmaster Alice has those sys admin rights removed because of customer complaints. She's still a webmaster, same grade, same pay but she has less mojo than she had before.

And it depends on your attitude to your work. The many for whom work is a chore indulged in purely to keep body and soul together might welcome being told “Hey Alice, we’re removing you from bed pan emptying responsibilities and giving them to Bob. But we’ll pay you the same”. Same pay for less work is a promotion.

eric said: Dave, doesn't that support my point? You are saying that whether the person views it as a demotion or not depends on whether they wanted to do the extra duties. Coppedge clearly did, he was upset when JPL took them away. He wanted to empty the bed pans. He took job pride from doing so. JPL told him he couldn't empty them any more, and he saw this as a demotion.

DavidK said: Demotion versus relieved of extra duties due to personal conflicts on Coppedge's behalf. The court documents seem to indicate the latter, i.e., he was relieved of his extra responsibilities and they were assigned to a more qualified person. In addition, his post did not entail the supervision of other personnel, but only acting as a go-between in the transference of information among groups. Also, was he fired or laid-off? There is a difference as firing requires cause whereas being laid-off does not, i.e., budget cuts are not due to cause. It appears that he was not fired for cause, though that might be justified, but was laid-off, and just as importantly as JPL pointed out, he was NOT ALONE in being laid off.

eric said:

Doc Bill said: Let's say that webmaster Alice also had sys admin rights because it was "convenient" for her to change permissions or add printers to the network rather than going through the sys admin group. Then webmaster Alice has those sys admin rights removed because of customer complaints. She's still a webmaster, same grade, same pay but she has less mojo than she had before.

Right. She has had responsibilities removed. If you had responsibilities removed, you would not consider this a demotion? Dave Lovell:

And it depends on your attitude to your work. The many for whom work is a chore indulged in purely to keep body and soul together might welcome being told “Hey Alice, we’re removing you from bed pan emptying responsibilities and giving them to Bob. But we’ll pay you the same”. Same pay for less work is a promotion.

Dave, doesn't that support my point? You are saying that whether the person views it as a demotion or not depends on whether they wanted to do the extra duties. Coppedge clearly did, he was upset when JPL took them away. He wanted to empty the bed pans. He took job pride from doing so. JPL told him he couldn't empty them any more, and he saw this as a demotion.

Doc Bill said:

eric said:

Doc Bill said: Let's say that webmaster Alice also had sys admin rights because it was "convenient" for her to change permissions or add printers to the network rather than going through the sys admin group. Then webmaster Alice has those sys admin rights removed because of customer complaints. She's still a webmaster, same grade, same pay but she has less mojo than she had before.

Right. She has had responsibilities removed. If you had responsibilities removed, you would not consider this a demotion? Dave Lovell:

And it depends on your attitude to your work. The many for whom work is a chore indulged in purely to keep body and soul together might welcome being told “Hey Alice, we’re removing you from bed pan emptying responsibilities and giving them to Bob. But we’ll pay you the same”. Same pay for less work is a promotion.

Dave, doesn't that support my point? You are saying that whether the person views it as a demotion or not depends on whether they wanted to do the extra duties. Coppedge clearly did, he was upset when JPL took them away. He wanted to empty the bed pans. He took job pride from doing so. JPL told him he couldn't empty them any more, and he saw this as a demotion.

Eric, you would love to re-read Alice in Wonderland! No, in my experience a demotion is a loss in grade whether or not it is also a loss in salary. Sometimes I was the Acting Section Supervisor when bossman was on vacation and sometimes not. I didn't consider it a demotion when he picked someone else to answer his email, go to staff meetings, handle customers in addition to my own work. It doesn't matter what Coppedge felt. Maybe his feelings were hurt about the name of the Christmas potluck, too. He didn't write in his lawsuit that he "felt" demoted, he stated unequivocally that he was demoted which is factually incorrect. Perhaps his change in responsibilities made him sad. Maybe the name of the Holiday Potluck dinner made him sad. Maybe a reduction in the use of trans fats in the cafeteria made him sad. It doesn't matter what he felt. He wasn't demoted. And the team lead position went away, and the potluck dinner is now called Nancy.

Doc Bill said: No, in my experience a demotion is a loss in grade whether or not it is also a loss in salary.

Sometimes I was the Acting Section Supervisor when bossman was on vacation and sometimes not.

The real issue is that he bothered other employees in a way that interfered with productive work, was treated very kindly and given an explanation as to why he should stop, and would not stop.

eric said:

Doc Bill said: No, in my experience a demotion is a loss in grade whether or not it is also a loss in salary.

So then back to my hypothetical evolution teacher case: a 2012 biology teacher is given all home-room classes to watch in 2013. No loss in grade, seniority, or salary. This is not a demotion to you?

Sometimes I was the Acting Section Supervisor when bossman was on vacation and sometimes not.

I agree 'acting' cases are different. That's because you take them with the expectation of not keeping them. If you were made Section Supervisor rather than acting and then that was changed, different story, right? Harold:

The real issue is that he bothered other employees in a way that interfered with productive work, was treated very kindly and given an explanation as to why he should stop, and would not stop.

I wholeheartedly agree. I'm picking nits with one particular argument, which I don't think we should be using...but which is largely irrelevant to the case.

To be sure, IDers often have to be pressed on age; ID ideology considers YEC vs OEC somewhat of a secondary issue.

I suspect he (Dembski) couldn’t recant to his YEC masters enough to keep his job.

No, not a demotion to me. I have the same teacher grade and salary as before. Not a good example, Eric, as teachers are often shifted around...

Flint said: Doc Bill.

No, not a demotion to me. I have the same teacher grade and salary as before. Not a good example, Eric, as teachers are often shifted around...

I'm going to disagree with you also. There are different kinds of demotions. Consider a military officer. He is expected to receive glowing evaluations, and to follow some minimal promotion-after-time-in-grade advancement schedule. That advancement schedule is what promising officers (and, in the enlisted ranks, the NCOs) follow. If they are ever given a less-than-stellar evaluation, if they are EVER passed over when this schedule calls for a promotion, this is a demotion. No doubt in anyone's mind whatsoever. The same is true in any private organization as well. If your pay remains the same but you no longer get plum assignments, or plum physical offices, no longer are on the list to attend the key meetings, if you are being slowly taken out of the loop, you have been demoted. Your career is toast. Maybe you offended the wrong person, maybe someone else joined the organization with the right connections or relatives, maybe you volunteered to meet unreachable metrics and then fell short, etc. Could be any number of things, but regardless, you have been demoted. If you're paying attention (and if you're not, you deserve whatever happens!) you will be sensitive enough to any such slight to recognize that your future with your employer is dead, and you will get out NOW. If you're content to draw the same paycheck, don't mind the office next to the rest rooms (with no windows), and enjoy the ample time that comes with not having any real duties, you'll still only last until economic circumstances dictate clearing out the deadwood. The byword is, "if you're not on your way up, you're on the way out." And "demotions" must be considered in that context.

BTW, for anyone who hasn't noticed yet, the Dishonesty Institute is now crowing about it.

I received this most delightful missive from them last night:

"David Coppedge's case against his former employer, NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab, is under way in Los Angeles Superior Court. This will open yet another window on the culture of free-speech suppression that exists across academic and para-academic institutions. Evolution News & Views editor David Klinghoffer is in L.A. to cover the trial and has been posting regular reports."

They also included links to these screeds penned by the ever delusional Klinghoffer:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/03/post_37057221.html

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/03/facts_of_the_co057321.html

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/03/what_david_copp057331.html

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/03/what_exactly_is057411.html

The DI is proclaiming it as the “The David Coppedge Intelligent Design Discrimination Trial”.

raven said: A lot of time, the DI fellows just refuse to answer. It's Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

There are more YEC's than you mentioned.

Wells the Moony guy, Klinghoffer IIRC.

BTW, for anyone who hasn’t noticed yet, the Dishonesty Institute is now crowing about it.

Tenncrain said:

raven said: A lot of time, the DI fellows just refuse to answer. It's Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

This indeed makes it a needle in a haystack trying to decipher the YECs from the OECs.

There are more YEC's than you mentioned.

Percival Davis (co-auther of infamous 'Of Pandas And People' textbook) is YEC and IIRC he's had some involvement with the DI. If anything, from a science advocate perspective, let more YECs migrate into the ID movement at the DI! This could further tarnish the DI's already shaky credibility.

Wells the Moony guy, Klinghoffer IIRC.

Wells has said he's an OEC - unless he's since recanted. As you touched on, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell kind of clouds things. Here, Klinghoffer explains that he's not a YEC. However, we could just let Klinghoffer himself do the job of dispelling this should it come up during the Coppedge/JPL court case :)

On David Coppedge Trial, Darwin Bloggers Groping Their Way in the Dark Evolution News & Views March 15, 2012 11:48 AM http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/03/pandas_thumb_gr057461.html

Update: Lawyers Depict Two Sides of Laid Off JPL Worker Attorneys for David Coppedge and Jet Propulsion Laboratory gave opening statements Tuesday in the plaintiff's religious discrimination case. By Donna Evans Email the author March 14, 2012 Email Print Comment Upload Photos and Videos Wearing a tie flecked with spacecrafts, former JPL employee David Coppedge listened Tuesday to two versions of himself: a competent worker and evangelical Christian whose religious and employee rights were violated; and a stubborn man with no self awareness who pushed his viewpoint on colleagues. During opening statements, lawyers for Coppedge and Jet Propulsion Laboratory offered disparate depictions of the man suing the California Institute of Technology, which manages JPL for NASA, claiming his belief in intelligent design led to his layoff in 2011. Defense attorney Jim Zapp repeated several times during his hour-long opening that intelligent design has nothing to do with this case. "Frankly, Mr. Coppedge was his own worst enemy,'' he said, noting the plaintiff was argumentative, had poor customer service and believed he was right when everyone else was wrong. Coppedge had worked as a "team lead" on the Cassini mission exploring Saturn, but was demoted in 2009, filed a lawsuit against JPL in 2010 and lost his job last year. Some 200 people were laid off that same year due to budget cutbacks. And while plaintiff attorney William Becker told the court Tueday that between 2003 and 2008 Coppedge received no poor performance evaluations in his personnel file, Zapp countered that Coppedge's own handwritten notes from conversations with his supervisor, Greg Chin, would show that people, in fact, had complained that Coppedge always wanted to do things his way. They further complained about his poor customer service. Defense Opening Statement Other colleagues felt harassed by Coppedge, who frequently offered to lend them intelligent design DVDs. Some accepted, some did not - but one colleague in particular took offense to a "secret list'' he was keeping that tracked who borred them, when they were returned and what the employees said about the DVD. A sticky note on the list read "try again.'' The complaints came to a head in March 2009. After working with Coppedge for a decade, Chin wanted to try to coach Coppedge about how to improve his behavior in the office, Zapp said. He told Coppedge not to discuss religion or politics in the office if it was unwelcome or disruptive. "If he’d accepted Chin’s helpful advice, and said, 'I heard what you’re saying; I disagree...and I’ll try to watch it – we wouldn't be here. There would be no case,'' Zapp said. Instead, Coppedge grew increasingly agitated, took it as a "war on intelligent design,'' and challenged Chin to a debate outside JPL (he declined), Zapp said. From there, Coppedge escalated the converstion by demanding to know who his accusers were. Chin opted not to tell him and Coppedge said he felt it had become a "hostile work environment,'' so a human resources investigation was launched, Zapp said. Zapp called into question Coppedge's behavior with another JPL employee. Coppedge was discussing his support for Proposition 8, the state-wide ballot measure that eliminated the right for same sex couples to marry, with Scott Edgington. According to Zapp, Coppedge made insulting remarks and Edgington had to ask Coppedge to leave -- twice. "Mr. Coppedge was an employee who had no self awareness and was unwilling to listen to others. He alienated his JPL co-workers, then blamed anyone who complained about him. "His belief in intelligent design had nothing to do with the employment actions Caltech took,'' Zapp said. Plaintiff's Opening Statement According to the plaintiff's attorney, it was Coppedge who was harassed and ultimately terminated because of his beliefs in intelligent design, the theory that life is too complex to have developed solely through evolution, and that the universe was designed by an intelligent entity. Becker, too, referenced the March 2009 meeting between Coppedge and Chin, but offered it was Chin who got upset. He referred to intelligent design as "religion,'' and when Coppedge tried to explain that it is not religion, Chin grew angry and frustrated, Becker said. He was told not to discuss religion and politics in the office, unless someone else brought it up. JPL delves into origins of the universe, and Coppedge puts forth intelligent design as the theory that he believes in. He's not offering that it is a religion, in fact, Becker said, Coppedge is an evangelical Christian who "wears his religion on his sleeve.'' And although Coppedge is accused of harassing co-workers about his various beliefs, Becker said, "There’s no evidence of hostility in this case. No evidence that they told David they felt intimidated.''

Oops, link: http://montrose.patch.com/articles/update-lawyers-depict-two-sides-of-laid-off-jpl-worker

JPL Lawsuit: Judge Keeps Trial Open to Media A closed-door hearing about which evidence will be considered resulted in full media access to the trial, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge has ruled. By Donna Evans A Superior Court Judge has ruled that a trial in which a former employee of Jet Propulsion Laboratory claims he was fired because of religious discrimination can remain open to the media. On Thursday, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Ernest Hiroshige reversed his previous ruling to bar audio and video coverage of the JPL employee's testimony about Proposition 8. "There will be no restrictions on video or audio coverage of this case except as generally provided,'' Hiroshige wrote in a minute order released Thursday. However, it appears certain topics are off limits for attorneys to ask certain witnesses about in David Coppedge's religious discrimination case against California Institute of Technology. Caltech manages JPL for NASA. Coppedge believes his views on intelligent design led to his demotion and termination. JPL contends that supervisors received numerous complaints about Coppedge, both about his alleged harassment of co-workers regarding his viewpoints and a lack of flexibility with colleagues on the Cassini mission to Saturn. Defense attorney Jim Zapp asked the judge to remove media from the court during some of the testimony. Wednesday's hearing about which evidence can be presented in the case was held behind closed doors. Plaintiff attorney William Becker said he is not allowed to disclose which employees may not be asked about "private'' matters, or specify what those matters are. Zapp said the ruling accommodates his concerns about privacy issues. The trial continues this morning. A headache that Coppedge defined as debilitating precluded him from resuming testimony until 10:30 a.m. He said he believes stress brings on the chronic headaches, which he's suffered for several years. Related Topics: David Coppedge, Intelligent Design, and Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Well, if stress brings on the headaches, then I guess we are in for a lot of these delays. I wonder if we have another Freshwater fiasco on our hands.

Based on court documents, Coppedge's seems keen on arguing that ID is not religion, but rather is legitimate scientific inquiry into life's origins, and thus fair game for him to discuss at work in the context of JPL's scientific mission. JPL is trying it's best to convince the judge to rule out any foray into the topic of ID due to its irrelevance (i.e., Coppedge was not a scientist). Nonetheless, the judge apparently ruled that he would view the DVDs that Coppedge was peddling.

So my question is this. If the judge does allows arguments about whether ID is religion or science, or whether Coppedge was justified in discussing it at work, is a California Superior Court judge in any way obligated, or at least apt, to consider the Kitzmiller ruling on that question?

Nick Matzke said: Hmm, the DI no likey:

On David Coppedge Trial, Darwin Bloggers Groping Their Way in the Dark Evolution News & Views March 15, 2012 11:48 AM http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/03/pandas_thumb_gr057461.html

As usual, miscontruing comments, characterizing speculations as definite statements, etc. Par for the course. But interestingly, Klinghoeffer wasn't brave enough to let his readers know about Coppedge's claims about JPL science on Coppedge's Creation-Evolution Headlines website. I guess we'll just have to wait and see which speculations and suppositions turn out to be correct about the case. Certainly we aren't the only one's skeptical of the Coppedge/DI version of events...

nasty.brutish.tall said: is a California Superior Court judge in any way obligated, or at least apt, to consider the Kitzmiller ruling on that question?

Nick Matzke relayed this info:

"However, it appears certain topics are off limits for attorneys to ask certain witnesses about in David Coppedge’s religious discrimination case against California Institute of Technology. Caltech manages JPL for NASA.

Coppedge believes his views on intelligent design led to his demotion and termination. JPL contends that supervisors received numerous complaints about Coppedge, both about his alleged harassment of co-workers regarding his viewpoints and a lack of flexibility with colleagues on the Cassini mission to Saturn."

So if Coppedge is claimning religious discrimination, then the basis of that claim, he was trying to convey his religious beliefs on others in JPL, implies that ID is simply religious in nature.

In addition, Coppedge and the Dishonesty Institute are carefully coordinating this effort and getting him the maximum publicity possible, trial media coverage, Faux News, CNN, etc., where he can adulterate any thing to reflect in his favor. Sad indeed. Understandably JPL has no wish to speak outside of the trial, but clearly that hasn't stopped Coppedge from trying to waste JPL, ala the Smithsonian case.

The Deep, Dark Secret of NASA's Big, Bad Scary Pro-Intelligent Design Harasser David Coppedge: He's Shy by David Klinghoffer Here in Los Angeles, ex-NASA/JPL computer specialist Coppedge testified for a second day, held up by his suffering from a severe headache as the court session was supposed to commence. The headaches are something he's had a problem with going back to 2008. They're also one small indication of a big problem that JPL's legal defense team will have, if Judge Hiroshige is the least bit sensitive to personalities. Jet Propulsion Laboratory has the burden of showing that Coppedge engaged in "harassment," that he "targeted" co-workers for pro-ID proselytization with a "secret list of people with whom he spoke" about "his religion" (variously identified as intelligent design or Evangelical Christianity," that in pressing his views on colleagues he was "so persistent, and he was so judgmental," as to make fellow employees "uncomfortable." There's no question that intelligent design and Evangelical Christianity, while very different in just about every way, share the quality of making many people squirm. The very existence of the two can drive some folks crazy, even if they've never met an ID advocate or an Evangelical. But beyond his merely existing, it's impossible to imagine how the David Coppedge we've seen in the courtroom and the court building is remotely the type to harass or push, to be persistent in personal interactions, to target anyone. The debilitating headaches are stress-related, he explained on the stand, and they give just one indication of what a basically delicate personality Coppedge is. He's so far faced only the questioning of his own attorney, William Becker, who sometimes shows impatience in the court with Coppedge's manner of speaking, which mixes a certain sheepish hesitancy with a tendency to digress. When Becker chides him -- Becker who's on his side -- you worry that Coppedge will shatter. He blushes very easily. Every time we come back from a break and Coppedge gets back up on the stand, Becker has to ask him if he feels well enough to proceed. He asks him in private too. In this morning's testimony, Becker solicited the information that Coppedge considers himself an Evangelical, which theoretically means that he takes opportunities to evangelize. He said that he does so, when the occasion is appropriate and the listener is willing. But asked what he actually says in such situations, Coppedge drew a blank. This frustrated Becker, as he couldn't seem to hide, which again made you fear that Coppedge would break under the pressure. It made me wonder if Coppedge isn't too bashful to offer a proper evangelical pitch for anything. Think about it. "Pushing" your ideas on anyone, as distinct from diffidently offering them a DVD and making a note in your diary if they liked it or not (as Coppedge did), requires a fearless nerve, a certain cheekiness. In Jewish terms, chutzpah. Coppedge doesn't have chutzpah in his DNA. Over lunch I asked him if he feels that he is shy. "Well, not when I'm with friends, then I feel more comfortable," he explained and gestured to Becker and to me (which was nice of him). But even when he's among friends you have to lean in close to hear what he says. Becker, who's a Type A personality with a confrontational manner, dominates a conversation while Coppedge sits quietly. Becker, the other character on the Coppedge team such as it is, make an illuminating contrast with his client. In the parking lot after court one day this week, Becker opened the door of his car and tapped the door of the car next to him. This caused the other driver to jump out and start cursing Becker out. Becker was not about to sit still for this abuse and gave quite as good as he got, until an associate physically got in between the two and separated them, halting the escalation. We'll leave it at that. I bring this up only to point out that David Coppedge is the absolute polar opposite type of personality from Becker. When this is all over I hope they'll be able to laugh about that. Imagining that Coppedge could "push" a person or an idea, whether the issue is a dinged car door or intelligent design, as JPL claims, is simply preposterous.

03/31/2011 - Creation-Evolution Headlines creationsafaris.com/crev201103.htm The Cassini scientists reason that due to Titan's seasons, clouds do not remain ... in academia who sit on their A.S.S. (age of the solar system) and never budge. Creation-Evolution Headlines creationsafaris.com/crev201012.htm Solar System: The reality of Rhea is coming to light from Cassini's latest flyby, ...... which cannot be altered, known as the A.S.S. (age of the solar system). Creation-Evolution Headlines creationsafaris.com/crev200709.htm Sep 6, 2007 – ... in the Age of the Solar System (A.S.S.), a figure (4.5 billion years) that, ...... The data have returned from Cassini's closest-ever flyby of Iapetus ... 12/19/2009 - Creation-Evolution Headlines creationsafaris.com/crev200912.htm All existing spacecraft images of Iapetus from Voyager and Cassini can be found at .... The assumed Age of the Solar System (A.S.S.) is, in planetary science, ... Creation-Evolution Headlines creationsafaris.com/crev200610.htm David Shiga interviewed Cassini scientists in Pasadena who believe there is ...... the standard A.S.S. (age of the solar system) as being 4.5 billion years old. 03/29/2008 - Creation-Evolution Headlines creationsafaris.com/crev200803.htm March 26, 2008 — Initial results of Cassini's March 12 flyby of Enceladus have ..... One of their most sacred assumptions is the A.S.S. (age of the solar system). Creation-Evolution Headlines www.creationsafaris.com/crev201104.htm The new paper casts doubt on that solution; see the Cassini press release for a ... from their A.S.S. (age of the solar system, 4.5 billion years; see 02/19/2011). You visited this page on 3/11/12. Creation-Evolution Headlines creationsafaris.com/crev200902.htm Cassini instruments have difficulty characterizing the lakes. They could be very ... The consensus Age of the Solar System (A.S.S.) is 4.6 billion years. 10 million ... Creation-Evolution Headlines creationsafaris.com/crev201009.htm During our 7th anniversary celebration, as Cassini was flying close by ...... the Age of the Solar System (A.S.S.) of 4.5 billion years (the Law of the Misdeeds and ... Creation-Evolution Headlines creationsafaris.com/crev200909.htm ... million years is a tiny fraction of the assumed age of the solar system (A.S.S.). ...... He was honored by the Cassini program when the first spacecraft to land on ...

I am confused. Coppedge is claiming ID is not religion. Yet he is crying religious discrimination. How can that be? From what I have read, the only "religious issue" centers on his discussion of ID in the office.

Becker, the other character on the Coppedge team such as it is, make an illuminating contrast with his client. In the parking lot after court one day this week, Becker opened the door of his car and tapped the door of the car next to him. This caused the other driver to jump out and start cursing Becker out. Becker was not about to sit still for this abuse and gave quite as good as he got, until an associate physically got in between the two and separated them, halting the escalation. We'll leave it at that.

He's not shy about making public appearances on Faux News or any other media, is he?

What is Coppedge expect to gain from the suit? If I understand the suit correctly, two issues will be ruled on: 1) was he "demoted" because of his religion and 2) was he fired because of his religion. If the judge rules he was demoted because of his religion, what would he be awarded? He suffered no loss of pay. If the judge rules he was fired because of his religion, I can see where he could get a job back with back pay. He can't get his old job back because the job no longer exists. However, if JPL followed the proper procedures, they will easily show how he as layed off for legitimate, objective reasons. I assume JPL does this kind of thing all the time over the years and have processes in place to ensure they protect themselves from these kind of situations.

As a former first level supervisor in the federal government, I subscribed to the saying that 10% of your employees take up 90% of your time. I feel sorry for Greg Chin. It appears from the JPL briefing that he did every thing he could to protect and help Coppedge during his employment. Now he is going to be bad mouthed in the press. In hindsight, I bet he wished he had fired the guy 10 years ago. I sounds like he had plenty of chances to do so. I hope it does not hurt his future employment chances.

Coppedge doesn't have chutzpah in his DNA. Over lunch I asked him if he feels that he is shy. "Well, not when I'm with friends, then I feel more comfortable," he explained and gestured to Becker and to me (which was nice of him). ... I bring this up only to point out that David Coppedge is the absolute polar opposite type of personality from Becker. When this is all over I hope they'll be able to laugh about that. Imagining that Coppedge could "push" a person or an idea, whether the issue is a dinged car door or intelligent design, as JPL claims, is simply preposterous.

Based on court documents, Coppedge’s seems keen on arguing that ID is not religion, but rather is legitimate scientific inquiry into life’s origins,...

Based on court documents, Coppedge’s seems keen on arguing that ID is not religion, but rather is legitimate scientific inquiry into life’s origins,…

raven said: 1. They are claiming Coppedge was persecuted for religious reasons. 2. That ID isn't a religious idea. Seems to be an obvious contradiction here.

Someone has previously pointed out that this is a win-win situation for the Dishonesty Institute.

If Coppedge wins, he'll be elevated to ID sainthood status, he'll be a spokesman for ID, and the DI will be credited with a win over science, providing new ammunition in the state legislatures for enacting the DI's freedom of speech crap to allow ID to be taught. The losers, of course, would be JPL and the scientific community in general.

If Coppedge loses, he'll be elevated to DI martyrdom, he'll still be a spokesman for ID, and the DI will be still credited by demonstrating that science is blocking free speech and intimidating ID proponents who have a "valid" counter theory to evolution. It will still provide new ammunition in the state legislatures for enacting the DI's freedom of speech crap to allow ID to be taught. The winners, but also losers, of course, would be JPL and the scientific community in general, as they would be viewed as continuing to silence open discussion on questions regarding science, like Galileo, certainly within conservative ranks.

If Coppedge loses, he’ll be elevated to DI martyrdom,..

raven said: PS As several people above have pointed out: 1. They are claiming Coppedge was persecuted for religious reasons. 2. That ID isn't a religious idea. Seems to be an obvious contradiction here.

harold said:

Tenncrain said:

raven said: A lot of time, the DI fellows just refuse to answer. It's Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

This indeed makes it a needle in a haystack trying to decipher the YECs from the OECs.

There are more YEC's than you mentioned.

[snip] If anything, from a science advocate perspective, let more YECs migrate into the ID movement at the DI! This could further tarnish the DI's already shaky credibility.

Wells the Moony guy, Klinghoffer IIRC.

Remember that ID and the DI exist solely because the fundamentalist authoritarian YEC political and financial base wants to include creationism, or censor or distort evolution, in public schools. That's why AIG exists too, for that matter. AIG is a reflection of the old "creation science" paradigm. Creation science lost in the courts, so the ID dodge was invented, in an effort to get sectarian evolution denial into public schools without running into the same court decisions. There may be a small collection of crackpots who sincerely deny evolution without having an overt fundamentalist religious/ideological reason to do so. It's impossible to tell. Michael Behe supposedly denies evolution without being YEC. Okay, but would he deny evolution if the biasing factor that evolution denial books can make big money and generate media attention, because of the authoritarian fundamentalist YEC market? The "don't ask, don't tell" policy is there for a reason. They want to have someone who can pose as a "sincere scientist without religious motivation" when that's convenient, while also being able to assure the fundamentalists that it is about forcing sectarian dogma into public schools, when that's convenient.

Tenncrain said:

harold said:

Tenncrain said:

raven said: A lot of time, the DI fellows just refuse to answer. It's Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

This indeed makes it a needle in a haystack trying to decipher the YECs from the OECs.

There are more YEC's than you mentioned.

[snip] If anything, from a science advocate perspective, let more YECs migrate into the ID movement at the DI! This could further tarnish the DI's already shaky credibility.

Wells the Moony guy, Klinghoffer IIRC.

Remember that ID and the DI exist solely because the fundamentalist authoritarian YEC political and financial base wants to include creationism, or censor or distort evolution, in public schools. That's why AIG exists too, for that matter. AIG is a reflection of the old "creation science" paradigm. Creation science lost in the courts, so the ID dodge was invented, in an effort to get sectarian evolution denial into public schools without running into the same court decisions. There may be a small collection of crackpots who sincerely deny evolution without having an overt fundamentalist religious/ideological reason to do so. It's impossible to tell. Michael Behe supposedly denies evolution without being YEC. Okay, but would he deny evolution if the biasing factor that evolution denial books can make big money and generate media attention, because of the authoritarian fundamentalist YEC market? The "don't ask, don't tell" policy is there for a reason. They want to have someone who can pose as a "sincere scientist without religious motivation" when that's convenient, while also being able to assure the fundamentalists that it is about forcing sectarian dogma into public schools, when that's convenient.

Speaking from experience when I was a YEC, many in my YEC congregation had mixed feelings about ID; while they liked how ID had given anti-evolutionism a boost, they also felt ID was too compromising with the Scriptures. Hard to understand Behe. I read about a debate Behe had with Ken Miller. Behe openly agreed with Miller that the evidence is good for common decent between humans and the other apes. YECs in the audience were stunned and dismayed by Behe's comments, according to Miller. Yet, Behe at other times has been his own worst enemy, including during the Dover trial. Still, it can be said that "don't ask don't tell" serves its purpose for ID, even if it can create almost as many problems as it solves. This is indeed part of the DI's so-called 'Big Tent' policy, with a more scientific facade and sans bigger religious crackpots like Kent Hovind and Carl Baugh. From YECs (e.g. Paul Nelson) to OECs that nevertheless deny common decent (Dembski, Phillip Johnson) to Behe-like OECs that accept some common decent but feel there are "other" mechanisms. Phillip Johnson wanted everyone to put aside perceived secondary issues for the moment and unite to defeat evolution. More open arguing between anti-evolutionists about things like a world Flood and the age of the earth could be done post-evolution.

Tenncrain said: More open arguing between anti-evolutionists about things like a world Flood and the age of the earth could be done post-evolution.

Nick Matzke said: Ronald Numbers somewhere in The Creationists hints that there has long been a split within the YEC movement between those who are really absolutist and see the old-earth creationists as evil compromisers almost as bad as the theistic evolutionists etc. (e.g. Henry Morris), vs. those who are YECs but are not so dogmatic about it, and are willing to cooperate with OECs etc. (e.g. Duane Gish). The latter helped form the ID movement and are still a big source of support today.

alicejohn said: I am confused. Coppedge is claiming ID is not religion. Yet he is crying religious discrimination. How can that be? From what I have read, the only "religious issue" centers on his discussion of ID in the office.

John said:

Nick Matzke said: Hmm, the DI no likey:

On David Coppedge Trial, Darwin Bloggers Groping Their Way in the Dark Evolution News & Views March 15, 2012 11:48 AM http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/03/pandas_thumb_gr057461.html

As usual, miscontruing comments, characterizing speculations as definite statements, etc. Par for the course. But interestingly, Klinghoeffer wasn't brave enough to let his readers know about Coppedge's claims about JPL science on Coppedge's Creation-Evolution Headlines website. I guess we'll just have to wait and see which speculations and suppositions turn out to be correct about the case. Certainly we aren't the only one's skeptical of the Coppedge/DI version of events...

Seems like Coppedge's attorney needs to get with the DI program, since they've all but described this trial as a case of "persecution" against Coppedge simply for being an IDiot. Am glad David Klinghoffer is keeping tabs on us. May I suggest we do our utmost in keeping him entertained? At least he hasn't quite described Nick Matzke as an "obsessed Darwin lover", which he dubbed me once, in third person, on his daily screed of mendacious intellectual pornography (OOPS, I mean his blog.). However, knowing David, I have no doubt that he will do his worst in ridiculing Nick. I wish it was possible for Brown University to revoke his undergraduate diploma, in light of his ongoing behavior, which runs counter to Brown's academic mission.

SLC said: Just as it would be nice of my Alma Mater, UC Berkeley, could revoke the PhDs of Jonathan Wells and Duane Gish.

Paul Burnett said:

SLC said: Just as it would be nice of my Alma Mater, UC Berkeley, could revoke the PhDs of Jonathan Wells and Duane Gish.

Point of curiosity: Does that ever actually happen? Can a college / university retroactively revoke a degree? I can see it as a possibility if fraud is detected in research leading to a degree, but can they do it for malfeasance / misfeasance / misbehavior years later, for giving aid and comfort to the enemy or whatever?

Point of curiosity: Does that ever actually happen? Can a college / university retroactively revoke a degree?

Hardy v. Brigham Young University | Open Shirts, Open Minds ... chadhardy.com/meet_the_legal_team.html In early October 2008, recent BYU graduate Chad Hardy received a letter dated ... list and would not be awarded a degree from Brigham Young University. ... Please take a stand with Chad Hardy to remind the leaders of the Church of Jesus ...

Ex-Mormon calendar-maker has BYU diploma yanked w.religionnewsblog.com/22800/mormons-exposed 21 Oct 2008 – When a student applies for graduation, he or she must be in good standing ... The BYU letter said Hardy's degree is on hold because he was not in good ... A dozen Mormon missionaries are again taking off their trademark white shirts for a calendar that seeks to strip away stereotypes about their church.

The BYU thing sounds like the student's hadn't gotten their degree yet, and the University revoked their student-in-good-standing status before they did. Which is silly but probably legal.

If they did it after the degree was awarded, I imagine you could sue...honorary degrees are different though, those are revoked all the time when people become dictators, commit genocide, etc.

raven said: The big crime of these guys was...Posing for a calendar with their shirts off!!!

Hendrik Schon, a former Bell Labs employee is an example of someone whose PhD degree was revoked.

Bernie said: Hendrik Schon, a former Bell Labs employee is an example of someone whose PhD degree was revoked.

Bengu Sezen from Columbia Univ. (although he still has a european doctorate)

A quick googling shows this http://www.uah.edu/legal/pdf_files/a_matter_of_degree.pdf

James said: Bengu Sezen from Columbia Univ. (although he still has a european doctorate) A quick googling shows this http://www.uah.edu/legal/pdf_files/a_matter_of_degree.pdf

SLC, maybe I should have been more clear in my post. The url refers to a summary of some cases of degree revocation in the U.S. and doesn't discuss the Sezan case at all. My apologies.

Why did my nym morphed into James and not my normal jimnorth?

Looks like you can follow the trial here:
http://twitter.com/JBrianCharles