Coppedge is an Inventive Fellow

If any lawyers are reading this, is this kind of fiction at all normal for trial briefs? Most of the legal documents I've read are related either to creationist trials or contracts for work, but I've never seen anything so whimsical (although I doubt it is deliberately so).

they cannot seem to wrap their heads around the idea that one of their own could be in the wrong. You’d think with all those lawyers in their camp that they would be better at this than they are.

Legal representation has certainly been a bit of a mixed bag for the ID crowd. TMLC in Dover was ideological but the lawyers themselves were competent. The Rutherford Institute (Freshwater) will probably be pretty competent too. On the other hand, Hamilton (Freshwater case) appears not especially competent and a bit of a shyster. And IIRC, the legal paperwork filed by ICR when Texas refused to accredit their master's program was so laughably bad, the judge returned the first draft to the lawyers and told them to resubmit.

Its hard to say about Becker, but the inclusion of a 'screenplay' in his trial brief may be an indication of either bad counsel, or good counsel getting ignored by the client.

And they wonder why we think they're Looney Tunes.

The trial will hopefully bring out the connection between the uber-fundamentalist Moody Bible Institute and its anti-science propaganda machine, which includes Illustra Media, producer of the DVDs Coppedge was pimping for. Coppedge is (or at least was then) on the Board of Directors of Illustra Media. If there was ever any remaining doubt as to whether intelligent design creationism is about religion or science, this connection is the final nail in that particular coffin.

There should be a line of questioning where Coppedge is asked if he aware of the Moody Bible Institute and if he has any connection with it.

fnxtr said: And they wonder why we think they're Looney Tunes.

I've got the "drama" typed out, Wes; page 4 though the concluding line, "This is a difficult thriller to appreciate without more information, but that’s where Weisenfelder’s dramatic confrontation with Coppedge ends." on page 6. It's done in Pages, but I could upload it to Google Docs. Or let me know if you want me to type out the rest of the Weisenfelder section.

Google Docs should work. I think the screenplay section is sufficient. Send me a link via email. If you don't have my email handy, use the "Contact Us" link in the upper right of the page.

Sent via the "Contact Us" link. :)

Paul Burnett said: If there was ever any remaining doubt as to whether intelligent design creationism is about religion or science, this connection is the final nail in that particular coffin.

grumpyoldbroad said: "This is a difficult thriller to appreciate without more information, but that’s where Weisenfelder’s dramatic confrontation with Coppedge ends."

Supposedly, "Some liberties have been taken with the dialogue and action as artistic license. The dialogue is generally taken directly from Huntley’s notes and Weisenfelder’s deposition testimony.." (bolding added and ellipses in the original)

I really wish Weisenfelder's deposition was up on the NCSE site (if it is, I missed it). I'd like to know just how many "liberties" were taken and just how much of the dialogue was "generally" taken from it. The whole dramatization reads as terribly mean-spirited and while that sort of BS may sway a jury, it generally ticks judges off. It comes across as, "Look at poor innocent Coppedge. He merely offered this unbalanced, over-emotional woman a DVD and she went off the deep end." Unfortunately, the attorney will have a hard time arguing that Coppedge didn't know his discussions about Prop 8 were unwelcome--he states right in his little drama that Weisenfelder made it clear that she didn't want to talk about it, but little Coppy felt the need to press the matter further. Oops.

Arrrrgh for the double-post. I corrected a typo on "testimony", capitalized "Huntley" and fixed the superscript formatting lost in the cut and past to Google Docs, Wes. It should be all better now.

grumpyoldbroad said: The whole dramatization reads as terribly mean-spirited and while that sort of BS may sway a jury, it generally ticks judges off. It comes across as, "Look at poor innocent Coppedge. He merely offered this unbalanced, over-emotional woman a DVD and she went off the deep end."

This little "dramatization" reads like a Chick tract. All that's missing is the "happy" ending where either the "evil, no-good" "sinner" sees the light and repents, or is shown in eternal torment.

Also, I would like to point out (recalling the case of the man who was fired for sexual harassment because a woman overheard him discussing an episode of "Seinfeld" with a friend) that calling Weisenfelder "oversensitive" is in no way significant to the case (nor does it seem particularly professional).

Oh, that as well, SWT. Juries, sadly, have been swayed by emotion before (as have judges, to be fair). "Mean-spirited" was my main response because Weisenfelder can't respond to it (unless Plaintiff's attorney is stupid enough to bring it up to her when she's on the stand) and it was so heavy-handed: she runs to Chin "out of breath", she breaks down in "sobs", she's so emotional, she's stuttering, and twice he brings up that she's a minister in the "Metaphysical Interfaith Church" (out of curiosity, I'd like to know if that's the name of her church or another dramatization). "'Metaphysical'" we know what that means, don't we, Your Honor?" (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) Ugh.

With "friends" like Coppedge, the Dishonesty Institute doesn't need any enemies. I am thrilled that the DI has made this case into such a "worthy" cause celebre that none other than that "notable" Darwin = Hitler expert, DI mendacious intellectual pornographer David Klinghoffer is the DI "journalist" covering the trial, writing such astute examples of breathtaking inanity as this:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/03/pandas_thumb_gr057461.html

With any luck I am hoping that the Coppedge vs. JPL suit becomes the DI's "Waterloo".

SonOfHastur said: calling Weisenfelder "oversensitive" is in no way significant to the case (nor does it seem particularly professional).

I've OCR'd the document with Acrobat X, but Facebook failed ot attach it and I don't know how else to contact you. So it's at http://www.fleming-group.com/Misc/20111202b_P's_trial_brief-OCR.pdf. I don't promise it'll stay ther for a long time.

grumpyoldbroad said: Oh, that as well, SWT. Juries, sadly, have been swayed by emotion before (as have judges, to be fair). "Mean-spirited" was my main response because Weisenfelder can't respond to it (unless Plaintiff's attorney is stupid enough to bring it up to her when she's on the stand) and it was so heavy-handed: she runs to Chin "out of breath", she breaks down in "sobs", she's so emotional, she's stuttering, and twice he brings up that she's a minister in the "Metaphysical Interfaith Church" (out of curiosity, I'd like to know if that's the name of her church or another dramatization). "'Metaphysical'" we know what that means, don't we, Your Honor?" (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) Ugh.

jon.r.fleming,

I get a 404 when I click on your link.

I get a 404 when I click on your link.

eric said: they cannot seem to wrap their heads around the idea that one of their own could be in the wrong. You’d think with all those lawyers in their camp that they would be better at this than they are. Legal representation has certainly been a bit of a mixed bag for the ID crowd. TMLC in Dover was ideological but the lawyers themselves were competent. The Rutherford Institute (Freshwater) will probably be pretty competent too. On the other hand, Hamilton (Freshwater case) appears not especially competent and a bit of a shyster. And IIRC, the legal paperwork filed by ICR when Texas refused to accredit their master's program was so laughably bad, the judge returned the first draft to the lawyers and told them to resubmit. Its hard to say about Becker, but the inclusion of a 'screenplay' in his trial brief may be an indication of either bad counsel, or good counsel getting ignored by the client.

Its hard to say about Becker, but the inclusion of a ‘screenplay’ in his trial brief may be an indication of either bad counsel, or good counsel getting ignored by the client.

You only have to read the first three pages to get a clear picture. His case can't be very good if he starts out by listing all the people who were complaining because they felt he was trying to push them to convert to Christianity, and his conclusion from this is "These sentiments signal an unapologetic intolerance towards Coppedge's religious convictions..."

Gee, if I'm making everyone I work with feel uncomfortable around me, it must be because they're intolerant!

The screenplay starting on page 4 is a hoot.

Karen S. said: Actually I feel another movie coming on... Expelled 2: the Terror Continues

Anybody know final figures on Expelled? Did it end up making any money?

rossum said:

Karen S. said: Actually I feel another movie coming on... Expelled 2: the Terror Continues

You need more alliteration for a good title -- "Expelled 2: The Carnage Continues"

Anybody know final figures on Expelled? Did it end up making any money?

FWIW, fundie xians can and occasionally are violent. This vandalism in Florida is just more xian terrorism. Below is an old list of their other victims. It is long and getting longer all the time. The real story is the persecution of scientists by Fundie Xian Death cultists, who have fired, harassed, beaten up, and killed evolutionary biologists and their supporters whenever they can. http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=626 [link goes to Blake Stacey's blog which has a must read essay with documentation of the cases below.] Posting the list of who is really being beaten up, threatened, fired, attempted to be fired, and killed. Not surprisingly, it is scientists and science supporters by Death Cultists. If anyone has more info add it. Also feel free to borrow or steal the list. I thought I'd post all the firings of professors and state officials for teaching or accepting evolution. 2 professors fired, Bitterman (SW CC Iowa) and Bolyanatz (Wheaton) 1 persecuted unmercifully Richard Colling (Olivet) Now resigned under pressure. 1 persecuted unmercifully for 4 years Van Till (Calvin) 1 attempted firing Murphy (Fuller Theological by Phillip Johnson IDist) 1 successful death threats, assaults harrasment Gwen Pearson (UT Permian) 1 state official fired Chris Comer (Texas) 1 assault, fired from dept. Chair Paul Mirecki (U. of Kansas) 1 killed, Rudi Boa, Biomedical Student (Scotland) 1 fired Brucke Waltke noted biblical scholar Biology Department fired, La Sierra SDA University 1 attempted persecution Richard Dawkins by the Oklahoma state legislature Vandalism Florida Museum of Natural History Death Threats Eric Pianka UT Austin and the Texas Academy of Science engineered by a hostile, bizarre IDist named Bill Dembski Death Threats Michael Korn, fugitive from justice, towards the UC Boulder biology department and miscellaneous evolutionary biologists. Death Threats Judge Jones Dover trial. He was under federal marshall protection for a while Up to 16 with little effort. Probably there are more. I turned up a new one with a simple internet search. Haven't even gotten to the secondary science school teachers. And the Liars of Expelled, the movie have the nerve to scream persecution. On body counts the creos are way ahead. These days, fundie xian is synonymous with liar, ignorant, stupid, and sometimes killer.

My first comment is in permanent "moderation", possibly because it contained the word "political".

Anyway, Raven, thanks for alerting me to this bit of scumbaggery http://www.flascience.org/wp/?p=1362.

raven said: Now that Expelled has been brought up, I'm going to repost the list of who is really getting Expelled. Fundie xians occasionally have purges at their schools and fire scientists and science supporters. The latest was La Sierra U. firing their biology department as part of a SDA sectarian witch hunt. They can also be violent. Death threats are common and many scientists including myself get them often. One guy was knifed to death, one woman and one guy were beaten up. And someone was vandalizing cars at IIRC, a Florida natural history museum. You can imagine what their New Dark Age would be like.

FWIW, fundie xians can and occasionally are violent. This vandalism in Florida is just more xian terrorism. Below is an old list of their other victims. It is long and getting longer all the time. The real story is the persecution of scientists by Fundie Xian Death cultists, who have fired, harassed, beaten up, and killed evolutionary biologists and their supporters whenever they can. http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=626 [link goes to Blake Stacey's blog which has a must read essay with documentation of the cases below.] Posting the list of who is really being beaten up, threatened, fired, attempted to be fired, and killed. Not surprisingly, it is scientists and science supporters by Death Cultists. If anyone has more info add it. Also feel free to borrow or steal the list. I thought I'd post all the firings of professors and state officials for teaching or accepting evolution. 2 professors fired, Bitterman (SW CC Iowa) and Bolyanatz (Wheaton) 1 persecuted unmercifully Richard Colling (Olivet) Now resigned under pressure. 1 persecuted unmercifully for 4 years Van Till (Calvin) 1 attempted firing Murphy (Fuller Theological by Phillip Johnson IDist) 1 successful death threats, assaults harrasment Gwen Pearson (UT Permian) 1 state official fired Chris Comer (Texas) 1 assault, fired from dept. Chair Paul Mirecki (U. of Kansas) 1 killed, Rudi Boa, Biomedical Student (Scotland) 1 fired Brucke Waltke noted biblical scholar Biology Department fired, La Sierra SDA University 1 attempted persecution Richard Dawkins by the Oklahoma state legislature Vandalism Florida Museum of Natural History Death Threats Eric Pianka UT Austin and the Texas Academy of Science engineered by a hostile, bizarre IDist named Bill Dembski Death Threats Michael Korn, fugitive from justice, towards the UC Boulder biology department and miscellaneous evolutionary biologists. Death Threats Judge Jones Dover trial. He was under federal marshall protection for a while Up to 16 with little effort. Probably there are more. I turned up a new one with a simple internet search. Haven't even gotten to the secondary science school teachers. And the Liars of Expelled, the movie have the nerve to scream persecution. On body counts the creos are way ahead. These days, fundie xian is synonymous with liar, ignorant, stupid, and sometimes killer.

rossum said:

Karen S. said: Actually I feel another movie coming on... Expelled 2: the Terror Continues

You need more alliteration for a good title -- "Expelled 2: The Carnage Continues"

The case is all about immoral and illegal firing of someone for issues unrelated to work.
So they are demonstrating the culture of hostility to him that he alleges is behind his firing.
They are doing alright.

It all comes down to whether secret motivations can be determined by words/actions of the others that created a culture there.
Secret motivation determination seems tough to normal people to see proved but it is very common today in court cases.
in fact i would say its the foundation behind court cases upholding affirmative action policies.

i think its unlikely he will win his case .
it is however a great thing for creationism in its teaching the public about hostility and punishment , at least somewhat,
this helps bring publicity to creationism to some of the public who are unaware of the whole issue.

Aaah, Robert, it is 'unlikely he will win his case', because he worked in a scientificese environ with real scientifical persons; I use these forms of the noun 'science' because I like to patronise you. Are you thinking of more scientificant ideas to publish in your, "Big Christian Book of Science Stuff" as we speak? This turd of a book is of course Sub-headed, ":Stuff You Fear to Know as it Might Upset Your Miniscule View of Reality, Explained, But Not well:)" The smiley face at the end is integral, because if it is left out, insecure types (we call them 'the religious') may feel they are actually dealing with the real thing;i.e. facts.

Robert Byers said: The case is all about immoral and illegal firing of someone for issues unrelated to work.

Groups like the intelligent design community are not always free to pick their poster children

robert van bakel said: Aaah, Robert, it is 'unlikely he will win his case', because he worked in a scientificese environ with real scientifical persons; I use these forms of the noun 'science' because I like to patronise you. Are you thinking of more scientificant ideas to publish in your, "Big Christian Book of Science Stuff" as we speak? This turd of a book is of course Sub-headed, ":Stuff You Fear to Know as it Might Upset Your Miniscule View of Reality, Explained, But Not well:)" The smiley face at the end is integral, because if it is left out, insecure types (we call them 'the religious') may feel they are actually dealing with the real thing;i.e. facts.

harold said:

robert van bakel said: Aaah, Robert, it is 'unlikely he will win his case', because he worked in a scientificese environ with real scientifical persons; I use these forms of the noun 'science' because I like to patronise you. Are you thinking of more scientificant ideas to publish in your, "Big Christian Book of Science Stuff" as we speak? This turd of a book is of course Sub-headed, ":Stuff You Fear to Know as it Might Upset Your Miniscule View of Reality, Explained, But Not well:)" The smiley face at the end is integral, because if it is left out, insecure types (we call them 'the religious') may feel they are actually dealing with the real thing;i.e. facts.

Actually, this does not seem to be the reason he was laid off (not fired). This is a repetition of the creationist claim - he had private views that others had contempt for, therefore he was fired. If that were true (but it seems not to be), then it would be a freakish instance of the DI being correct. The fact that someone is a sys admin at a scientific institution does not mean that their legal private beliefs or activities are appropriate grounds for termination. But the claim of the JPL, and it seems to have been strongly supported by what has been seen so far, is that he behaved in a way that would get you fired from a Christian bookstore or from Trader Joe's. He insisted on confronting people in a hostile and disruptive way, about issues not related to work, repeatedly, after being asked to stop. His claim is that he should be allowed to do this because he is a fundamentalist into ID/creationism. If someone had been doing it to him, of if someone else had been doing it to others about a subject he disagreed with, he would probably complained. Of course, this is technically what the court is deciding, but as far as we can tell, THIS is the issue. That he behaved in a way that is inappropriate for everybody. That he is claiming special privileges to behave this way without discipline on the grounds of being an ID/creationists.

alicejohn said:

harold said:

robert van bakel said: Aaah, Robert, it is 'unlikely he will win his case', because he worked in a scientificese environ with real scientifical persons; I use these forms of the noun 'science' because I like to patronise you. Are you thinking of more scientificant ideas to publish in your, "Big Christian Book of Science Stuff" as we speak? This turd of a book is of course Sub-headed, ":Stuff You Fear to Know as it Might Upset Your Miniscule View of Reality, Explained, But Not well:)" The smiley face at the end is integral, because if it is left out, insecure types (we call them 'the religious') may feel they are actually dealing with the real thing;i.e. facts.

Actually, this does not seem to be the reason he was laid off (not fired). This is a repetition of the creationist claim - he had private views that others had contempt for, therefore he was fired. If that were true (but it seems not to be), then it would be a freakish instance of the DI being correct. The fact that someone is a sys admin at a scientific institution does not mean that their legal private beliefs or activities are appropriate grounds for termination. But the claim of the JPL, and it seems to have been strongly supported by what has been seen so far, is that he behaved in a way that would get you fired from a Christian bookstore or from Trader Joe's. He insisted on confronting people in a hostile and disruptive way, about issues not related to work, repeatedly, after being asked to stop. His claim is that he should be allowed to do this because he is a fundamentalist into ID/creationism. If someone had been doing it to him, of if someone else had been doing it to others about a subject he disagreed with, he would probably complained. Of course, this is technically what the court is deciding, but as far as we can tell, THIS is the issue. That he behaved in a way that is inappropriate for everybody. That he is claiming special privileges to behave this way without discipline on the grounds of being an ID/creationists.

Even though Coppedge asserts otherwise, this is not why he was laid off either. If I understand the JPL brief correctly, he was laid off because JPL evaluated the talent of the five IT people on the team at the time and determined the three they kept had the best skill set to meet the future goals of the project. I assume JPL will eventually present documentation showing their objective criteria for laying off who they laid off.

He insisted on confronting people in a hostile and disruptive way, about issues not related to work, repeatedly, after being asked to stop.

Maybe if he had spent his time updating his employment-required skills instead of wanking for Jesus he wouldn't be in this mess.

raven said: The other common rule is creating a hostile workplace environment. If you are scaring the other employees, there is something wrong.

eric said: Yes, well, if your god asks you to scare your workmates into obedience, there is something wrong with Him.

Maybe if he had spent his time updating his employment-required skills instead of wanking for Jesus he wouldn’t be in this mess.

harold said:

robert van bakel said: Aaah, Robert, it is 'unlikely he will win his case', because he worked in a scientificese environ with real scientifical persons; I use these forms of the noun 'science' because I like to patronise you. Are you thinking of more scientificant ideas to publish in your, "Big Christian Book of Science Stuff" as we speak? This turd of a book is of course Sub-headed, ":Stuff You Fear to Know as it Might Upset Your Miniscule View of Reality, Explained, But Not well:)" The smiley face at the end is integral, because if it is left out, insecure types (we call them 'the religious') may feel they are actually dealing with the real thing;i.e. facts.

Actually, this does not seem to be the reason he was laid off (not fired). This is a repetition of the creationist claim - he had private views that others had contempt for, therefore he was fired. If that were true (but it seems not to be), then it would be a freakish instance of the DI being correct. The fact that someone is a sys admin at a scientific institution does not mean that their legal private beliefs or activities are appropriate grounds for termination. But the claim of the JPL, and it seems to have been strongly supported by what has been seen so far, is that he behaved in a way that would get you fired from a Christian bookstore or from Trader Joe's. He insisted on confronting people in a hostile and disruptive way, about issues not related to work, repeatedly, after being asked to stop. His claim is that he should be allowed to do this because he is a fundamentalist into ID/creationism. If someone had been doing it to him, of if someone else had been doing it to others about a subject he disagreed with, he would probably complained. Of course, this is technically what the court is deciding, but as far as we can tell, THIS is the issue. That he behaved in a way that is inappropriate for everybody. That he is claiming special privileges to behave this way without discipline on the grounds of being an ID/creationists.

Robert Byers said: America is a free nation and controlling or punishing people for common ordinary conversations is immoral and illegal.

Robert Byers said: America is a free nation and controlling or punishing people for common ordinary conversations is immoral and illegal.

to fire someone over such a trivial thing would only happen if there was a deeper hostility to the thing being presented. giving someone a DVD about common subjects in the public is not worthy to deny a man his work, ambition, and fun in life. If you say there were dire warnings to him about this then prove it.

It comes down to that and the Judges ability and intergrity in dealing with that.

tHis is about the hostility to creationism by people who care about these issues in these circles.

Okay, those were all rhetorical questions. They're the same thing. We know that. Guess what? It doesn't matter in this case. Whether its creationism or ID is completely, totally and utterly irrelevant. Coppedge's colleagues were expressing problems dealing with Coppedge back in 2004, and those complaints had nothing to do with his religious or political views. It was the simple fact that he was being a pain in the ass. To summarize, he was laid off (not fired) due to the fact that he was not the best qualified to keep on the project. He got off light, but he's decided to throw a tantrum like a little child and see if holding his breath til he turns blue head complaining of migraines will get him special treatment by the court.

America is a free nation and controlling or punishing people for common ordinary conversations is immoral and illegal.

to fire someone over such a trivial thing would only happen if there was a deeper hostility to the thing being presented.

giving someone a DVD about common subjects in the public is not worthy to deny a man his work, ambition, and fun in life.

If you say there were dire warnings to him about this then prove it.

Yet still it would not justify a firing. Its absurd.

tHis is about the hostility to creationism by people who care about these issues in these circles.

A passionate opposition thought it could get away with trumped up excuses. Yet the culture there already revealed to this man the true motivations. Its about accusation of important unjust secret motivations and whether these can be proved by reference to the culture as evidenced by verbal or written data. It comes down to that and the Judges ability and intergrity in dealing with that.

The importance of this trial to the Dishonesty Institute creationist/ID led people is that there is no substance to their pseudo-scientific claims, that they live in a vacuum, and that their only alternative to be heard is through the courts to force their beliefs on others. The court of science has rejected their trivial arguments, so they seek public opinion to weigh in on their side as the public is often just as ignorant as they. They don't seek facts, they instead seek a pathetic sympathy from their followers as they have been victimized and martyrdom is one alternative for them.

Robert Byers said: giving someone a DVD about common subjects in the public...

The issue is what was he being PAID to do at the time he was "giving someone a DVD about common subjects in the public" ?

• he aggravated his coworkers with his behavior,
• he was asked to change that behavior, and
• he could easily have done so without violating his religious principles, unless his religion requires him to annoy people of other faiths on matters unrelated to his work duties.

The issue is what was he being PAID to do at the time he was “giving someone a DVD about common subjects in the public” ?

ksplawn said:

Robert Byers said: America is a free nation and controlling or punishing people for common ordinary conversations is immoral and illegal.

By all indications Coppedge was harassing his coworkers and not correcting this workplace misbehavior when it was brought before him from above, among other problems which caused his performance to objectively fall below that of the people who weren't laid off. People can lose their jobs for having "ordinary conversations" instead of doing their jobs adequately, even when there isn't pressure to downsize entire departments. Why do you think Coppedge's case is any different? And please try to reply in a strictly on-topic manner without digression.

Since William Dembski was recently fired for publicly expressing doubt that Noah's Flood was global, destroying all life not in the ark, you should add him to the expelled list.

Gary said: Since William Dembski was recently fired for publicly expressing doubt that Noah's Flood was global, destroying all life not in the ark, you should add him to the expelled list.

He doesn’t deserve a mention, given his notable examples of bizarre pro-creationist infamy as noted by both raven and yours truly.

garystar1 said: Robert Byers said:

tHis is about the hostility to creationism by people who care about these issues in these circles.

Would you please make up your mind! Is it "creationism" or "ID"? All through this trial, Coppedge and the DI keep saying "It's about ID." AiG and the DI keep trying to say, "They're not the same thing", then when creationists / IDers such as yourself come out in public, you keep using these terms interchangeably. Are they or aren't they?

Okay, those were all rhetorical questions. They're the same thing. We know that. Guess what? It doesn't matter in this case. Whether its creationism or ID is completely, totally and utterly irrelevant. Coppedge's colleagues were expressing problems dealing with Coppedge back in 2004, and those complaints had nothing to do with his religious or political views. It was the simple fact that he was being a pain in the ass. To summarize, he was laid off (not fired) due to the fact that he was not the best qualified to keep on the project. He got off light, but he's decided to throw a tantrum like a little child and see if holding his breath til he turns blue head complaining of migraines will get him special treatment by the court.

Since William Dembski was recently fired for publicly expressing doubt that Noah’s Flood was global, destroying all life not in the ark, you should add him to the expelled list.

harold said: Robert Byers - I appreciate that your comments use civil language, so I'll try to do the same. You don't always make it easy. I have to tell you, your positions often amount to contempt for the rights of others, and demand for special privileges for creationists, at severe cost to everyone else.

America is a free nation and controlling or punishing people for common ordinary conversations is immoral and illegal.

That is true and there is absolutely no evidence that any such thing is being done in this case.

to fire someone over such a trivial thing would only happen if there was a deeper hostility to the thing being presented.

Also true. I hope you saw Raven's list of the many examples of creationists not only firing people over such things, but beating people, threatening them, vandalizing their cars, etc. Yes, creationists certainly do tend to express deep hostility.

giving someone a DVD about common subjects in the public is not worthy to deny a man his work, ambition, and fun in life.

It depends on what you mean by "common subjects". However, I agree that merely politely offering someone a creationist DVD, in isolation and not as part of a campaign of intimidation or harassment, would not usually be something someone should be fired for. Nevertheless, I favor workplace policies that restrict religious proselytizing. It can be a very disruptive subject.

If you say there were dire warnings to him about this then prove it.

He himself states that he was warned about it.

Yet still it would not justify a firing. Its absurd.

Incorrect. I am about as strong a supporter of freedom of speech and rights of employees as anyone can be, but sorry. If unreasonably disruptive employees can't be fired, we can't have an economy.

tHis is about the hostility to creationism by people who care about these issues in these circles.

The complaints against him seem to have been for behavior that would get you fired from Burger King or a fundamentalist seminary - badgering and disrupting other employees after being asked not to. However, he was not even fired, but rather, given excellent advice for improvement. Later he was laid off, along with many other people.

A passionate opposition thought it could get away with trumped up excuses. Yet the culture there already revealed to this man the true motivations. Its about accusation of important unjust secret motivations and whether these can be proved by reference to the culture as evidenced by verbal or written data. It comes down to that and the Judges ability and intergrity in dealing with that.

It comes down to this - If he were gay, or an atheist, or a Buddhist, or even a type of Christian you don't approve of, you would be the first to try to have him fired. Because he is a creationist, you believe that he should get special privileges. You think he should be able to harass and badger his fellow employees, and that his employer should not even have the right to lay him off for budgetary reasons, let alone fire him. You think creationism should be a special "get everything for free all the time and screw everyone else" card. What a laugh. Because he was in favor of Proposition 8, you think he should have the right to stomp all over everyone else, and have lifetime job protection no matter what the circumstances. But if he had been against Proposition 8, you would want him fired. .

I do know that he was threatened by the head of his theology school for something, not believing the earth is 6,000 years old or something about Noah’s Ark or whatever.

It comes down to his accusation he was fired because of his harmless creationist discussions.

Robert Byers said: It comes down to his accusation he was fired because of his harmless creationist discussions.

I was once hired, along with maybe a dozen other people, to do a big project the company had decided to do. But partway into the project, somewhere Way Up High, someone decided that the money would be better spent somewhere else. So the project budget was axed, and all of us were summarily laid off.

If I had only known that was coming, I'd have made a religious nuisance of myself, and made it clear that if I were let go it would be "obviously" a case of religious discrimination. But I didn't know, and didn't take proper pre-emptive action. Better luck next time.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:

He doesn’t deserve a mention, given his notable examples of bizarre pro-creationist infamy as noted by both raven and yours truly.

Or, that's an especially good reason to bring it up--to rub his nose in his own hypocrisy. Glen Davidson

Yet another suicide career-bomber.

Paul Burnett said:

Robert Byers said: It comes down to his accusation he was fired because of his harmless creationist discussions.

(1) Thank you for admitting in public that Coppedge's discussions of intelligent design creationism were, in fact, "creationist discussions." (We've been saying that all along.) (2) "Creationist discussions" (other than discussions that include details of how incredibly wrong creationism is) are not "harmless" - they lend credence to the scientific illiteracy and willful ignorance of creationism. "Creationist discussions" can lead to misunderstanding of science and technology, leading to hostility toward science and technology - and ultimately leading to the destruction of civilization based on science and technology. (But that's what you want, isn't it, Robert?) This is why it is every rational person's duty to insert comments about the wrongness of creationism into every such "creationist discussion" they become aware of - to speak up, defending civilization against ignorance.

I was once hired, along with maybe a dozen other people, to do a big project the company had decided to do. But partway into the project, somewhere Way Up High, someone decided that the money would be better spent somewhere else. So the project budget was axed, and all of us were summarily laid off. If I had only known that was coming, I’d have made a religious nuisance of myself, and made it clear that if I were let go it would be “obviously” a case of religious discrimination. But I didn’t know, and didn’t take proper pre-emptive action. Better luck next time.

harold said: The issue here is that Coppedge is basically arguing that he can do anything he wants, however counter-productive and disruptive, at work, and that as long as he labels his bad behavior as being related to "religion", his employer isn't even permitted to consider him for budget-driven layoffs.

Robert Byers said: It comes down to his accusation he was fired because of his harmless creationist discussions. Not budgets. If the bosses are saying he was disruptive then they should dsay that and not say its the budget.

John_S said:

Robert Byers said: It comes down to his accusation he was fired because of his harmless creationist discussions. Not budgets. If the bosses are saying he was disruptive then they should dsay that and not say its the budget.

As I understand it, they did say he was disruptive and asked him to change his behavior. Being fired for being disruptive and being fired because of budgets are not mutually exclusive. When budgets are cut, someone has to go; and the first to go are the ones who are the least valuable to the operation. Not getting along with coworkers, proselytizing on the clock and making headaches for management are not conducive to making the short list of the ones to be kept on in a downsize.

Kicked Out of Two Homeschool Conferences - Answers in Genesis ww.answersingenesis.org/.../kicked-out-homeschool-conferences 22 Mar 2011 – In an email to Ken Ham, the leader of this homeschool group wrote to us ... to disinvite Ken and AIG from all future conventions, including the ...

harold said:

Paul Burnett said:

Robert Byers said: It comes down to his accusation he was fired because of his harmless creationist discussions.

(1) Thank you for admitting in public that Coppedge's discussions of intelligent design creationism were, in fact, "creationist discussions." (We've been saying that all along.) (2) "Creationist discussions" (other than discussions that include details of how incredibly wrong creationism is) are not "harmless" - they lend credence to the scientific illiteracy and willful ignorance of creationism. "Creationist discussions" can lead to misunderstanding of science and technology, leading to hostility toward science and technology - and ultimately leading to the destruction of civilization based on science and technology. (But that's what you want, isn't it, Robert?) This is why it is every rational person's duty to insert comments about the wrongness of creationism into every such "creationist discussion" they become aware of - to speak up, defending civilization against ignorance.

Although this is all technically true, of course reasonable people agree that private views we don't agree with are not grounds for firing competent employees, and that only Coppedge himself says that this happened. If Coppedge had been fired from a sys admin job merely because he politely let it slip, or it was coincidentally discovered, that he is a creationist, but he actually did his job in a way that a reasonable person would not be upset or disrupted by, then that would be a case of illegal discrimination. But that is not what anyone other than Coppedge says happened. Others essentially contend that 1) Coppedge was disruptive and upsetting - a problem regardless of motivation, 2) that he was not, for better or for worse, fired directly for this disruptive behavior, but given helpful advice, and that 3) he was eventually laid off along with others, for budgetary reasons.

Based on the data I have right now, there seem to be two reasonable possibilities -

Karen S. said:

Based on the data I have right now, there seem to be two reasonable possibilities -

I'd add that he might want to be a holy martyr for ID.

harold said:

Karen S. said:

Based on the data I have right now, there seem to be two reasonable possibilities -

I'd add that he might want to be a holy martyr for ID.

Good point, particularly if we define "being a holy martyr" as meaning "now I can make more money selling creationist DVDs than I did in that lousy sys admin job".

I would define that as “Selling Lies for Jesus”. That’s not martyrdom IMHO.

Once again, the information is in the filed court documents on the NCSE site.

The Cassini project switched from a local network to the JPL network and, therefore, did not need network administrators which is what Coppedge did. Also, JPL was moving away from HP's OpenView which Coppedge managed. And, JPL was moving towards a Linux environment which Coppedge had not cross-trained for. So, old Coppers was left maintaining obsolete systems and created no path for himself to go with the flow, so to speak.

Thus, shades of the Twilight Zone, he was obsolete. Furthermore, his competition, that is, the other SA's in his group had moved with the times, upgraded their skills and were ready to move on. The layoff choice was obvious by any metric. Coppedge chose the path to redundancy. That's the documentation.

Furthermore, his competition, that is, the other SA’s in his group had moved with the times, upgraded their skills and were ready to move on.

John said:

harold said:

Karen S. said:

Based on the data I have right now, there seem to be two reasonable possibilities -

I'd add that he might want to be a holy martyr for ID.

Good point, particularly if we define "being a holy martyr" as meaning "now I can make more money selling creationist DVDs than I did in that lousy sys admin job".

I would define that as "Selling Lies for Jesus". That's not martyrdom IMHO.

harold said:

John said:

harold said:

Karen S. said:

Based on the data I have right now, there seem to be two reasonable possibilities -

I'd add that he might want to be a holy martyr for ID.

Good point, particularly if we define "being a holy martyr" as meaning "now I can make more money selling creationist DVDs than I did in that lousy sys admin job".

I would define that as "Selling Lies for Jesus". That's not martyrdom IMHO.

Yes, my comment was both somewhat sarcastic, but also a reminder that he has a financial interest in creationism. All fellows and board members of the DI, employees of other ID-friendly "think tanks", generators of content for sites like AIG, etc, have a financial ulterior motive.

From google, Ken Ham frequently attacks other fundies for not being fundie enough. One of which is Dembski. Apparently they attack him back. No surprise.

— raven

But on a more serious note, even delusional IDiots like Bill Dembski have admitted that they “have a financial ulterior motive”, since back in 2001, Dembski admitted that he has shunned peer review since it takes a longer time for his work to get published and because he makes more money writing books

From google, Ken Ham frequently attacks other fundies for not being fundie enough. One of which is Dembski. Apparently they attack him back. No surprise.

— raven

I can imagine fans of the ID scam challenging Ham, but it would shock me if Dembski or any of his "big tent" buddies at DI did that. I find the contrast fascinating in how the DT defends Coppedge (a YEC peddler who bought into the ID scam) while simply ignoring John Freshwater, who did not buy into the ID scam. I guess one way to pretend that ID is not creationism is to pretend that (other forms of) creationism doesn't exist.

I like BioLogos quite a bit and think that it's provided a way forward for thinking Christians who want to learn science. I just don't like the fact that they push a literal Adam and got rid of their Old Testament scholar.

This is a bit off the topic, but I thought it is worthy of comment, considering that it is written by Paul Gross and was published last week:

http://www.edexcellence.net/commentary/education-gadfly-weekly/2012/march-22/still-dissing-darwin-1.html#body

As both a fellow Conservative and as a former biologist, I share his concerns, though, I might add, that these are concerns that should be shared by everyone, period.

Karen S. said: I like BioLogos quite a bit and think that it's provided a way forward for thinking Christians who want to learn science. I just don't like the fact that they push a literal Adam and got rid of their Old Testament scholar.

I respectfully disagree. I think Darrel Falk is pandering too much to the literalist crowd. At least both Karl Giberson and Peter Enns had the good sense to depart what looks like the final voyage of the RMS Titanic.

Evolution is singled out in high-minded calls for “critical thinking,” for “strengths and weaknesses”—as though it were less reliable, less scientific, than the others!

Karen S. said:

I respectfully disagree. I think Darrel Falk is pandering too much to the literalist crowd. At least both Karl Giberson and Peter Enns had the good sense to depart what looks like the final voyage of the RMS Titanic.

I agree that they pander too much to the "literal Adam" crowd, but on some other matters they are okay. They don't want to alienate too many believers. Many of their posts are about evidence for evolution. On the other hand, Old Testament scholar Peter Enns was forced out. I thought he was great and I deplore that decision. I would say that BioLogos has certainly gone downhill since its founding.

Karen S. said: I would say that BioLogos has certainly gone downhill since its founding.

Paul Burnett said:

Karen S. said: I would say that BioLogos has certainly gone downhill since its founding.

It wasn't founded very far uphill, according to some.

Karen S. said: The Paul Goss article was good, John.

Evolution is singled out in high-minded calls for “critical thinking,” for “strengths and weaknesses”—as though it were less reliable, less scientific, than the others!

I'd add that AGW has joined evolution as something to be regarded with suspicion.

harold said:

Karen S. said:

I respectfully disagree. I think Darrel Falk is pandering too much to the literalist crowd. At least both Karl Giberson and Peter Enns had the good sense to depart what looks like the final voyage of the RMS Titanic.

I agree that they pander too much to the "literal Adam" crowd, but on some other matters they are okay. They don't want to alienate too many believers. Many of their posts are about evidence for evolution. On the other hand, Old Testament scholar Peter Enns was forced out. I thought he was great and I deplore that decision. I would say that BioLogos has certainly gone downhill since its founding.

That's discouraging. My opinion of them just went down. I certainly agree with the Paul Goss article.

Therefore, I must admit, I was personally quite surprised and impressed that home schooling parents were open to Biologos and reacted appropriately to Ham’s unjustified obnoxiousness.

— harold

My opinion of them has barely registered above that of the Uncommon Dissent crowd, ever since Falk booted me for not being “nice” to his creationist “Brothers in Christ”.

Frank J said:

Therefore, I must admit, I was personally quite surprised and impressed that home schooling parents were open to Biologos and reacted appropriately to Ham’s unjustified obnoxiousness.

— harold

I'm not surprsised. Most home schooling parents - like at least half of the general population - have been scammed. Probably only a minority are hopeless Biblical literalists, and from several polls, only ~half of them are strict YECs like Ham. IOW most are capable of understanding that evolution works and creationism/ID fails (to paraphrase the title of a book I just read), but just don't have the time or interest to see how they have been scammed. And when our side whines about "sneaking in God" or "lying for Jesus" we only help the scam artists, especially the slicker ones like the DI gang. Like it or not our audience will not abandon God. But they will abandon bearing false witness if we calmly show them that that is what anti-evolution pseudoscience - including the warm and fuzzy "academic freedom" nonsense (IMO the worst "kind") - is all about.

It reminds me of the play that the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion was based on :)

Also: Freshwater testifying via interpretive dance. For the win!

harold said:

John_S said:

Robert Byers said: It comes down to his accusation he was fired because of his harmless creationist discussions. Not budgets. If the bosses are saying he was disruptive then they should dsay that and not say its the budget.

As I understand it, they did say he was disruptive and asked him to change his behavior. Being fired for being disruptive and being fired because of budgets are not mutually exclusive. When budgets are cut, someone has to go; and the first to go are the ones who are the least valuable to the operation. Not getting along with coworkers, proselytizing on the clock and making headaches for management are not conducive to making the short list of the ones to be kept on in a downsize.

Based on the data I have right now, there seem to be two reasonable possibilities - 1) He was a disruptive employee who resisted feedback about that, and also resisted legitimate technical feedback, who was not fired but rather given helpful advice. But eventually the painful need for layoffs came around and his obvious flaws contributed to the decision to lay him off, rather than an alternate employee who didn't disrupt or ignore feedback. OR... 2) He was a disruptive employee who resisted feedback about that, and also resisted legitimate technical feedback, who was not fired but rather given helpful advice. Eventually, he was laid off for budgetary reasons, but this would have happened anyway, even if he hadn't been disruptive and resistant to improvement. He simply happened to hold a job that would have been eliminated, no matter how poorly or how well he had been doing the job. These seem to be the only two reasonable possibilities, based on what I can see right now. Naturally, we'll get to see more evidence before this is over.

Robert Byers said: He was fired ahead of others because of the ID stuff. Otherwise he would not of been fired.

I’m not confident that Darrel Falk can manage this all by himself, since he seems intent on kowtowing to his creationist “Brothers in Christ”.

— John

Frank J said:

I’m not confident that Darrel Falk can manage this all by himself, since he seems intent on kowtowing to his creationist “Brothers in Christ”.

— John

You mean like David Klinghoffer? ;-) Seriously, I think we're missing our greatest opportunity to "divide and conquer." Klinghoffer, for those who don't know, is not a "Christ" person, and yet is in a way the "king of all creationists" because he is at the center of what it is all about - the "Hitler" thing. As if "Expelled" (starring another non-Christ type) left any doubt of the real motivation behind the anti-evolution movement. Meanwhile you can't get any more of a "brother in Christ" than the late Pope John Paul II. Yet he has made what is the most devastating sound bite (like it or not this is a war of sound bites) against the anti-evolution movement. Namely describing the evidence for evolution as "convergence, neither sought nor fabricated," while apparently sadly aware that "creationism" does nothing but seek and fabricate "evidences," with no hope for convergence. Thus the increasing damage control in the form of "don't ask, don't tell what happened when" that has evolved into the ID scam.

Is the Coppedge trial on hold for some reason? The NCSE has not posted any trial updates.

DavidK said: Is the Coppedge trial on hold for some reason? The NCSE has not posted any trial updates.

DavidK said: Is the Coppedge trial on hold for some reason? The NCSE has not posted any trial updates.

Check out the testimony concerning Coppedge's complaining about changing the name from Christmas Party to Holiday Party in the Pasadena Star News on 03/21 (http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/news/ci_20228838/jpl-attorneys-paint-david-coppedge-problem-employee).

Coppedge complained that by changing the name to Holiday Party while inclusive to everyone else discriminated against Christians such as himself. From the article: This doesn't include me and my beliefs," Coppedge said, pointing to a holiday flier admitted into evidence Wednesday. "We are having to sacrifice for a very small minority."

However, Coppedge later testified that Christmas was a Federal Holiday that does not exclude people of other faiths and cultural backgrounds. From the article: "What could be more inclusive than Christmas?" Coppedge testified."

According to Coppedge, as a Christian, his religious beliefs are being trampled on with the party name change but Christmas is actually a Federal Holiday (non-religious implication?) that applies to everybody.

I see a pattern with Coppedge: His religious beliefs concerning talking to co-workers about ID were the reason he was fired but ID is not religious. Changing the name of the party is an affront to his Christian beliefs but Christmas is a Federal Holiday that applies to everybody.

MWN

Complaints about Coppedge's work and social skills made in the trial

It doesn't seem to be going well for him.

Glen Davidson

This is from page 15-16 of the plaintiff's trial brief

Coppedge's termination was a response to his having challenged the disciplinary actions
taken against him, and not due to relevant criteria JPL would have evaluated in reducing its
workforce because (I) the temporal proximity between the filing of the lawsuit and Coppedge's
termination was suspiciously close in time; (2) Coppedge's transitional supervisors who would
become responsible for determining that he would be laid off in late 20 I 0 suspiciously attended
an attorney-client confidential meeting concerning this lawsuit several months before they assumed
their supervisorial positions; (3) the hiring of two new personnel to Coppedge's team in
October 2010 conveniently provided management with an excuse to terminate Coppedge in January
20 II in conformity with the number of reductions contemplated as early as April/May2010; (4) Coppedge had no documented critical record of his job performance over a career span
of 14 years until after he filed this lawsuit in 2010; (5) criticisms in Coppedge's 2010 performance
evaluation were made by individuals with motives for wanting Coppedge terminated, and
in one case, accusations of misuse of business time by Coppedge were manufactured by a named
defendant in this case and the person he had appointed to replace Coppedge in a position the defendant
had demoted him from; (6) subjective criteria was used to rank employees who were under
consideration to be part of the reduction in force; and (7) the list of employees considered for
lay off was "padded" to include favored employees that were not even part of the group designated
for staff reductions. These multiple factors raise serious questions concerning JPL's true reason for terminating Coppedge.

Weisenfelder

Weisenfelder carried a grudge ever since Coppedge had the temerity to ask on the eve of the election about her position on Proposition 8. She wore that grudge on her back for three months, when on February 28, 2009, Coppedge loaned her a copy of the intelligent design documentary “Unlocking the Mystery of Life.” Here is how the screenplay of this suspense thriller with all of its harrowing action would read:1

INT. WORK AREA - LATE AFTERNOON

COPPEDGE quietly approaches WEISENFELDER.

COPPEDGE
Hi, Margaret. Tomorrow’s the election and I was wondering if you have decided on Propostion 8 yet. I will be voting for it.

WEISENFELDER
(annoyed)
I disagree with your position on it and don’t care to discuss it.

COPPEDGE
Is there anything I can say to change your mind?

WEISENFELDER
No.

COPPEDGE leaves.

THREE MONTHS LATER
INT. WORK AREA - DAY

COPPEDGE quietly approaches WEISENFELDER.

1Some liberties have been taken with the dialogue and action as artistic license. The dialogue is generally taken directly from huntley’s notes and Weisenfelder’s deposition testeimony..

COPPEDGE
Hi, Margaret. I’ve got a great DVD called Unlocking the Mystery of Life. Would you like to borrow it?

WEISENFELDER
Sure.

According to the screenplay of his conversation with Weisenfelder, Coppedge spent only a few minutes at most talking to her.

Henry said: [...] According to the screenplay of his conversation with Weisenfelder, Coppedge spent only a few minutes at most talking to her.