JPL finally wins wrongful termination lawsuit

Cool. Who pays the legal bills? Damn shame if JPL is stuck with it. Anyone who can still sat ID is not a religious concept deserves to take a large share of the legal fees.

Was he ever featured in the film "expelled" ?

No doubt they'll still cry "foul

I guess we'll need an Expelled 2...coming to theaters near you!

Amusing fact: Since the judge sided with JPL in all particulars, Coppedge's lawyer is making noise about how that means the judge didn't even consider Coppedge's eminently valid arguments, which, in turn, means that they've got an excellent shot at an appeal.
So… the more wrong you are in court, the better your odds of a successful appeal?

Who pays the legal bills?

To help defray the enormous cost of taking the David Coppedge case to trial, please donate as generously as you can to his legal fund. Remember, it is not only his own right to freedom from discrimination this suit seeks to defend, but yours as well!

Of course. The conspiracy is near-total, because... Uh, what was the "because"? Oh yeah, pretty much Satan, Big Science, Atheist Courts, well, you can no doubt add many to the list.

Never did really figure out any reason for the anti-Creation conspiracy, other than that somehow science works, creationism doesn't even bring up meaningful questions, let alone answers.

Naturally, Cornelius Hunter is whining about the judgment at UD with the usual evidence-free, well, eminently falsifiable and falsified statements. Same old with the IDiots, then, milk anything for money, learn absolutely nothing, indeed, shut yourself off from any openness to learning.

Glen Davidson

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: Of course. The conspiracy is near-total, because... Uh, what was the "because"? Oh yeah, pretty much Satan, Big Science, Atheist Courts, well, you can no doubt add many to the list. Never did really figure out any reason for the anti-Creation conspiracy, other than that somehow science works, creationism doesn't even bring up meaningful questions, let alone answers. Naturally, Cornelius Hunter is whining about the judgment at UD with the usual evidence-free, well, eminently falsifiable and falsified statements. Same old with the IDiots, then, milk anything for money, learn absolutely nothing, indeed, shut yourself off from any openness to learning. Glen Davidson

Glen Davidson said: Of course. The conspiracy is near-total, because... Uh, what was the "because"? Oh yeah, pretty much Satan, Big Science, Atheist Courts, well, you can no doubt add many to the list. Never did really figure out any reason for the anti-Creation conspiracy, other than that somehow science works, creationism doesn't even bring up meaningful questions, let alone answers.

Ian Derthal said:

Who pays the legal bills?

This crowd were looking for donations: http://logosresearchassociates.org/team/david-coppedge/

To help defray the enormous cost of taking the David Coppedge case to trial, please donate as generously as you can to his legal fund. Remember, it is not only his own right to freedom from discrimination this suit seeks to defend, but yours as well!

Kevin B said: Hunter's position raises the question as to whether he is working from his expectation as to how a "Christian" organisation would behave in an analogous situation.

apokryltaros said:

Kevin B said: Hunter's position raises the question as to whether he is working from his expectation as to how a "Christian" organisation would behave in an analogous situation.

That said "Christian" organization would automatically sack any employee who did not automatically kowtow to the company dogma?

harold said: For a good treatment go to Wikipedia and search "cdesign proponentists" (I'm having trouble getting the link to work).

For those new to the fray, here's some background:

David Coppedge was then (and possibly still is) on the Board of Directors of “Illustra Media” (producers of the anti-science videos Coppedge was pimping for at work on company time). Illustra Media is a wholly-owned subsidiary of “Discovery Media,” which used to be known as the “Moody Institute of Science,” a well-known producer of fundamentalist Christian media and which is in turn the propaganda arm of the infamous "Moody Bible Institute" - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moody_Bible_Institute.

For more on this, see the NCSE’s 2003 article at http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/unlocking-mystery-illustra-media

Discovery Media’s official mission statement reads, “We believe that God reveals Himself, today, through His creation and the Biblical record. Our mission is to utilize every form of available media to present the reality of His existence through compelling scientific evidence and academic research.”

David was the victim of religious discrimination because a handful of malicious co-workers hated his Christian views, as well as his interest in intelligent design, which they ignorantly [sic] perceived to be a religious concept. He was demoted and fired for simply being a Christian and someone who believes that nature can be scientifically explained by reference to designs found within it.

Paul Burnett said:

harold said: For a good treatment go to Wikipedia and search "cdesign proponentists" (I'm having trouble getting the link to work).

That's because it's "cdesign proponentsists", not "cdesign proponentists" - see http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cdesign_proponentsists and http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/cdesign-proponentsists - and for the delusional view, see http://www.conservapedia.com/Cdesign_proponentsists for chuckles.

Paul Burnett said:

harold said: For a good treatment go to Wikipedia and search "cdesign proponentists" (I'm having trouble getting the link to work).

That's because it's "cdesign proponentsists", not "cdesign proponentists" - see http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cdesign_proponentsists and http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/cdesign-proponentsists - and for the delusional view, see http://www.conservapedia.com/Cdesign_proponentsists for chuckles.

That’s because it’s “cdesign proponentsists”, not “cdesign proponentists” -- see here and here -- and for the delusional view, see here for chuckles.

In Wikipedia, it is a section of the article On Pandas and People.

apokryltaros said:

Kevin B said: Hunter's position raises the question as to whether he is working from his expectation as to how a "Christian" organisation would behave in an analogous situation.

That said "Christian" organization would automatically sack any employee who did not automatically kowtow to the company dogma?

"Crocoduck" Hunter wrote: Coppedge was an excellent employee who enjoyed his job, but when he openly questioned Darwin’s theory all that changed. The evolutionists at JPL manipulated his reviews, creating a false paper trail which they would later use against him.

Becker: David was the victim of religious social discrimination because a handful of malicious co-workers pretty much everybody hated got totally tired of him constantly pestering them about his Christian views, his interest in intelligent design, which they ignorantly [sic] perceived to be a religious concept and didn't belong at work. He was demoted and fired for simply being a Christian and someone who believes that nature can be scientifically explained by reference to designs found within it part of a large group who were being laid off when their project ended. And nobody fought for him becuse everybody thought he was the kind of giant pain in the ass who would sue them someday.

harold said:

apokryltaros said:

Kevin B said: Hunter's position raises the question as to whether he is working from his expectation as to how a "Christian" organisation would behave in an analogous situation.

That said "Christian" organization would automatically sack any employee who did not automatically kowtow to the company dogma?

Realistically, this is exactly how many authoritarian Christian organizations behave. In fact, Liberty University and similar institutions require that faculty sign statements of "faith" confirming that they won't question dogma, and Dembski himself was disciplined by his current employer for seeming to cast doubt on the "literal truth" of Noah's flood. Even the Salvation Army has these tendencies. I'm sure not all Christians do this, and I'm equally sure that this isn't restricted to Christians. As I've often stated, the conflict between accurate science and science denial is associated with the general conflict between authoritarians and science. Not all politically active science denialists are Christian, but almost all turn out to have strong authoritarian tendencies. By definition, denying objective evidence because it interferes with the claims of the dogma one wishes to see imposed on others is authoritarian.

Matt Young said: Let's get that formatted a little better, for posterity:

Matt Young said: Let's get that formatted a little better, for posterity:

Paul Burnett said: And as long as I'm grumping about Panda's blogging software, could somebody reset it so I don't have to re-sign-in every 24 hours?

TomS said: ...I don't think it is as frequent as every 24 hours.

Actually, it would be more bearable if it were that frequent (or if there were some kind of prior warning that I am not signed in), because I would then remember to sign in before writing my response.

Paul Burnett said: If it's been more than a day, when I reply, it says "Thanks for signing in, Paul" and lets me craft my reply - and then when I hit "Submit" (or "Preview") it says I have to sign in.

Paul Burnett said:

Matt Young said: Let's get that formatted a little better, for posterity:

I would if I could remember how to, but I have to look it up every time, because Panda's blogging software doesn't do it automatically. Do you hand-carve your HTML every time, or are you using some special software? And as long as I'm grumping about Panda's blogging software, could somebody reset it so I don't have to re-sign-in every 24 hours?

He appears to be implying that JPL hadn’t noticed Coppedge’s ID tendencies for a whole decade, and started persecuting him once he’d appeared on the radar.

Ian Derthal said:

He appears to be implying that JPL hadn’t noticed Coppedge’s ID tendencies for a whole decade, and started persecuting him once he’d appeared on the radar.

Cappedge doesn't just have ID tendancies Kevin, he's an out and out young Earth creationist. How you can square this belief while working for N.A.S.A. is beyond me. Still, I suppose Sneliing managed to do it and actually had peer reviewed articles published in mainstream science journals, though he forgot to mention he believed the Earth was only 6,000 years old.

Ian Derthal said: Cappedge doesn't just have ID tendancies Kevin, he's an out and out young Earth creationist. How you can square this belief while working for N.A.S.A. is beyond me.

Still, I suppose Sneliing managed to do it and actually had peer reviewed articles published in mainstream science journals, though he forgot to mention he believed the Earth was only 6,000 years old.

eric said:

Ian Derthal said: Cappedge doesn't just have ID tendancies Kevin, he's an out and out young Earth creationist. How you can square this belief while working for N.A.S.A. is beyond me.

Render unto Caesar and all that. In most professional workplaces, nobody cares what you personally believe. It doesn't matter. Just do your job. Most theists understand that perfectly well and are just as good at keeping their home and work lives separate as anyone else. Coppedge, however, was not. His job was to run the computer systems, but he fought with and harangued the scientists who use those systems while he did so. He fought with his boss, even while his boss was trying to help him. And he couldn't run newer systems because he refused to learn how to do so. So, very simply - he didn't do his job well.

Still, I suppose Sneliing managed to do it and actually had peer reviewed articles published in mainstream science journals, though he forgot to mention he believed the Earth was only 6,000 years old.

Well, I think science is a lot like the professional work place I mentioned above. Nobody cares about your "extra-curricular activities" if you just do your job right. If, on the weekends, you want to gather together with like-minded believers and perform ritual standing, sitting, chanting, hand-shaking, food-sharing, etc, then go for it. I don't really care. Just don't distract us from our work and scare the clients with your endless, obsessive talk about football. :)

Hunter’s position raises the question as to whether he is working from his expectation as to how a “Christian” organisation would behave in an analogous situation.

"According to an article in the Pasadena Star-News, Jet Propulsion Laboratory has finally won the wrongful termination lawsuit filed by David Coppedge."

The decision by the Darwinian judge was never in doubt.

raven said:

Hunter’s position raises the question as to whether he is working from his expectation as to how a “Christian” organisation would behave in an analogous situation.

Not much of a question. Xians have a long history of burning people alive on stacks of firewood.

Ray Martinez said: When these events occurred the persons doing the burning were not following Christ; rather, they were denying Christ, like all Atheists do.

Ray Martinez said: "According to an article in the Pasadena Star-News, Jet Propulsion Laboratory has finally won the wrongful termination lawsuit filed by David Coppedge." The decision by the Darwinian judge was never in doubt.

Mr Heydt, please remember that Ray Martinez is an annoying troll who pretends to be a Creationist bigot who allegedly labors under the delusion that he is the world's only True Christian Creationist and thinks it's fun to rub in our faces his stupid delusion that all other Creationists, if not all other Christians are really evil atheist subversives.

W. H. Heydt said:

Ray Martinez said: "According to an article in the Pasadena Star-News, Jet Propulsion Laboratory has finally won the wrongful termination lawsuit filed by David Coppedge." The decision by the Darwinian judge was never in doubt.

Hmmm... I remember when your fellow travelers said that about Judge Jones...before he handed down his decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover. If you truly believe what you assert above, then anyone involved in case in which a religious opinion might be expressed, should ask any judge who has religious convictions--or convictions with regard to any scientific theory--of *any* sort to recuse himself for bias. Yeah....like that's going to work. You might want to take a look at the results of the efforts to reverse Judge Wagner's decision in the Federal case against Prop. 8 because he happens to be gay. In a reality based world, JPL won because the law and evidence were on their side, and the judge decided based on law and evidence. That's why the appeal isn't likely to get anywhere, either.

Just Bob said:

Ray Martinez said: When these events occurred the persons doing the burning were not following Christ; rather, they were denying Christ, like all Atheists do.

Was that ambiguous statement meant to imply that those people, who identified themselves as 'Christians', were in fact atheists? Could it be that you classify anyone -- no matter what religion he affiliates with or professes, who does not follow your theology closely -- as an "atheist"? I do not think that word means what you think it means.

"The judge ruled against Coppedge on every claim and also ruled against every objection filed by his attorneys, according to the Sun."

For everyone who is not naive: the pro-Atheist Darwinian judge ruled, every step of the way, as expected, against the Creationist.

Actually, Ray, if you actually read the evidence submitted to the court and which is freely available (sorry, troll, do your own search) you will read that Coppedge, himself, admitted that he was a pest, that he had bad relationships with his customers, that he instigated all the problems that befell him and that he was ripe for termination.

Furthermore, not that you care, but Coppedge's lawyer failed to present any evidence, not a shred, not a single document or witness to the contrary.

Thus, from a strictly impartial standpoint, Coppedge had no case and that was obvious in court. What should the judge have done, Ray? Coppedge presented no positive case for his dismissal other than his opinion. JPL had undisputed evidence that was not rebutted to the contrary. One of the witnesses against Coppedge is an ordained minister! You're flapping in the wind as usual, Ray. Idiot.

Ray Martinez said: For everyone who is not naive: the pro-Atheist Darwinian judge ruled, every step of the way, as expected, against the Creationist.

That's right Ray. Anyone who doesn't agree with you is just hopelessly biased. Anyone who doesn't share your religious views cannot be a real christian. Anyone who doesn't agree with you can't be a real creationist. You are the only one who is ever right about anything. It's all one big conspiracy and everyone is against you. Maybe you should find another planet where you can be king and force everyone to agree with you. Until then, just go to the bathroom wall where your crazy brand of bullshit might be tolerated. You have worn out you welcome in decent society.

Doc Bill said: Actually, Ray, if you actually read the evidence submitted to the court and which is freely available (sorry, troll, do your own search) you will read that Coppedge, himself, admitted that he was a pest, that he had bad relationships with his customers, that he instigated all the problems that befell him and that he was ripe for termination. Furthermore, not that you care, but Coppedge's lawyer failed to present any evidence, not a shred, not a single document or witness to the contrary....

Ray Martinez said:

Doc Bill said: Actually, Ray, if you actually read the evidence submitted to the court and which is freely available (sorry, troll, do your own search) you will read that Coppedge, himself, admitted that he was a pest, that he had bad relationships with his customers, that he instigated all the problems that befell him and that he was ripe for termination. Furthermore, not that you care, but Coppedge's lawyer failed to present any evidence, not a shred, not a single document or witness to the contrary....

The comments say: I see no way to defeat your main points so I'll claim the Creationist admitted that his JPL opponent was right all along. If true, why was a trial even held?

The judge, of course, has to be an Evolutionist or anti-IDist.

Ray, are there ANY other living people who are true Christians and true creationists (of course the two must go together)? Could you name one, or better--a group--that agree with your theology and version of "science" so that they are indeed all true Christians and true creationists (redundant, of course)?

Ray Martinez said:

Doc Bill said: Actually, Ray, if you actually read the evidence submitted to the court and which is freely available (sorry, troll, do your own search) you will read that Coppedge, himself, admitted that he was a pest, that he had bad relationships with his customers, that he instigated all the problems that befell him and that he was ripe for termination. Furthermore, not that you care, but Coppedge's lawyer failed to present any evidence, not a shred, not a single document or witness to the contrary....

The comments say: I see no way to defeat your main points so I'll claim the Creationist admitted that his JPL opponent was right all along. If true, why was a trial even held?

Well, we are dealing with someone that thought the SCOTUS had a "judge" instead of multiple justices (click link here).

But if Ray thinks judges/justices are so pro-atheist and pro-"Darwinian" then why did two SCOTUS justices dissent from the majority opinion in Edwards v. Aguillard and instead support the anti-evolutionist side? This includes Justice Scalia who still serves on the SCOTUS today, Scalia was joined in dissent by the late William Rehnquist. Scalia has not exactly made secret his strong - and conservative - religious beliefs.

Many anti-evolutionists like Bill Dembski have openly bragged and taunted that they now "own" the SCOTUS and thus eagerly look forward to having a new anti-evolution case reach the SCOTUS. There may be some grounds for their optimism considering conservative SCOTUS justices like Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, etc.

Yep, sounds like a bunch of atheistic justices.

Oh, it's fascinating how Ray continues to use antiquated/obsolete terms like Darwinism/Darwinian, this merely shows that his scientific mindset is stuck in the 1860s.

Further comments by the Martinez troll will be sent to the Bathroom Wall. Please do not feed it on this thread.

Ray Martinez said:

DS said:

Ray Martinez said:

Doc Bill said: Actually, Ray, if you actually read the evidence submitted to the court and which is freely available (sorry, troll, do your own search) you will read that Coppedge, himself, admitted that he was a pest, that he had bad relationships with his customers, that he instigated all the problems that befell him and that he was ripe for termination. Furthermore, not that you care, but Coppedge's lawyer failed to present any evidence, not a shred, not a single document or witness to the contrary....

The comments say: I see no way to defeat your main points so I'll claim the Creationist admitted that his JPL opponent was right all along. If true, why was a trial even held?

No Ray, the replies say that you haven't made a valid point, you haven't presented any evidence. All you have is wild accusations and unsubstantiated allegations spun out by your paranoid and delusional mind. You literally haven't presented anything that requires refutation, as usual. And of course you hypocritically refuse to answer any questions put to you or to explain yourself in any comprehensible way. You are worthless Ray. Coppedge got what he deserved, so will you.

Are you suggesting the judge is NOT an Evolutionist? Like all judges, he matriculated through higher education controlled by Darwinists (Note: The term "Darwinist" and other variations is used by EVERY evo scholar in the world liberally in all of their publications.) So the vast majority of judges MUST be Evolutionists. Therefore it is impossible for these to rule in favor of a Creationist.