Top computer scientist demoted for ID beliefs.
A top-level computer scientist on Jet Propulsion Laboratory’s Cassini Mission was demoted for expressing an opinion unpopular with his supervisors.
His views were derided and he was humiliated before his co-workers. So why did the mainstream media ignore the story?
Because it didn’t fit their preconceived narrative for a workplace discrimination story.
David Coppedge suffered harassment and workplace discrimination from his supervisors at JPL because he dared to discuss the scientific aspects of intelligent design with his a few colleagues and offered them copies of the DVDs “Privileged Planet” and “Unlocking the Mysteries of Life.” His supervisor, Gregory Chin, berated him for pushing religion in the workplace.
The Discovery Institute gets to the heart of the matter:
[H]ere we have government and government-contracted agencies, NASA and JPL, denying constitutional rights to a citizen, punishing and humiliating him for exercising his right to free speech. Yet the story as of yet has merited no significant attention from any prominent local or national news source. Why not? Well, obviously because this isn’t a story that fits the larger narrative as favored in prestige circles like those of the media. In that favored narrative, it’s always Darwinists, never Darwin doubters, who fall afoul of censors, persecuted by powerful forces in academia arrayed against orthodox evolutionary theory. Yeah, you know those powerful forces. They’re over there, in a shoebox under the bed.
When Coppedge’s superior chided him for “pushing religion” that opened the door for a lawsuit against JPL, which Coppedge felt compelled to step through in order to salvage his reputation. He filed suit in the Superior Court of California, claiming religious discrimination, harassment, and wrongful demotion. Not that any mainstream journalists would care.
“The Discovery Institute gets to the heart of the matter:”
The so-called “Discovery Institute” is very biased. The DVDs are very biased. So-called “intelligent design” can never be scientific because the concept of an unknown designer can never be falsified and there can never be any serious predictions based on such a designer. That is why such a conjecture is ignored by scientists and that is why such a conjecture is considered religious. So co-workers are justified in complaining that this is religious proselytism. If a worker is warned and he continues to abuse the workplace in this way, then his demotion and firing are justified. This worker does not have “free speech” rights in the workplace.
“He filed suit in the Superior Court of California, claiming religious discrimination”
Paradox – so-called “intelligent design” wishes to claim that it is scientific, but this worker now claims religious discrimination.
“Not that any mainstream journalists would care.”
When a court rules that a worker is free to distribute religious literature to his co-workers in the workplace, then the mainstream journalists will take notice.
“Top computer scientist demoted for ID beliefs.”
Spin, spin, spin. A worker was criticized for promoting non-science nonsense to his co-workers. Dog bites man. No coverage at 11.
“It is a sham, sir, to those who embrace scientism.”
You use the term “scientism”, argue that the handiwork of a god is necessary to account for the complexity of nature, and get upset when your rationality is called into question?
LOL.
You might as well paste a sign that says “I am a moron” on your forehead and be done with it.
Reason? Really? So anyone who doesn’t agree with you is against reason? Really? Anyone that infers a designer from the awesome complexity and beauty of nature is against reason? Really? Wow. You are for reason, and everyone else is not. That’s quite an argument, sir.
Mike, it’s a sham to those who embrace REASON. I am more than willing to defend my beliefs, I just take exception when someone makes presumptions about them from a few short sentences (while not even bothering to address the contents of those sentences). BTW, the merits of a particular belief are not determined by one’s willingness to defend it.
It is a sham, sir, to those who embrace scientism. And since you are not willing to defend your beliefs I must assume they are not worthy of being defended.
Mike, you haven’t the slightest idea what I believe. I mock the ID movement because it is a blatant sham.
edogg, do you really believe the universe was NOT created? You mock ID like it were the silliest thing in the world that something that is designed, like the human heart, can leave traces of a designing intelligence.
Two words for those who doubt the creamy creationist center within the candy outer shell of ID: cdesign proponentsists. That reference is the very definition of smoking gun. The claim is made even more hilarious by the suit claiming RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION. “Hey, this isn’t religion I’m pushing here! By the way, you’re discriminating against my religious views by preventing me from pushing it.” Good luck with that line of reasoning.
Dear Mr. Burnett:
Thank you for your comments. One correction: the Christian Reconstructionists are neither fundamentalists nor theocrats. The useful Wikipedia article on the movement notes the following (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Reconstructionist#Postmillennialism), for example:
“Christian Reconstructionists describe their view of public ethics by the term, ‘Theonomy’ (the Law of God governs); while their critics tend to label them ‘Theocratic’ (God governs). The notable differences are that ‘theocracy’ is usually thought of as totalitarian and involving no distinction between church and state, while Reconstructionists claim that ‘theonomy’ is broadly libertarian and maintains a distinction of sphere of authority between family, church, and state.[2] For example, enforcement of moral sanctions under theonomy is done by family and church government, and sanctions for moral offenses is outside the authority of civil government (which is limited to criminal matters, courts and national defense). However, in some areas the application of theonomy could increase the authority of the civil government; prominent advocates of Christian Reconstructionism have written that according to their understanding, God’s law approves of the death penalty not only for murder, but also for propagators of idolatry[3][4][5], active homosexuals[6], adulterers, practitioners of witchcraft, and blasphemers[7], and perhaps even recalcitrant youths[8] (see the List of capital crimes in the Bible).”
Personally, I do not agree at all with Reconstructionism or anything of the sort, but I recognize that it’s rather more nuanced than actual theocracy. They’re arguing for a particular approach to politics, which we may approve or oppose as we choose. I choose to oppose it.
As a classical liberal, I believe that the widest possible liberty should be allowed to all people to make their views known. It seems clear to me that the promotion of such liberty was precisely the impulse behind Daniel Crandall’s writing of this article. To talk with one’s coworkers about what is most dearly important to oneself would seem to be the very essence of liberty, and to harass and demote a person for expressing commonly held beliefs is clearly wrong, regardless of whether one agrees with those beliefs or even considers them quite mad. If such suppression of normal discussion in one’s free moments is the rule of a particular workplace, it is a bad rule, in my view. Others may differ, and are entirely free to do so.
I strongly agree with Daniel Crandall’s defense of liberty in this instance and others.
Mike D’Virgilio wrote: “…what Christian anywhere, is saying that America is “a narrowly fundamentalist Christian nation, with no place for any other religion…
Mr. D’Virgilio, meet Mr. Rushdoony. Or do you deny the existence of the Dominionists and the Christian Reconstructionists?
Oh please, Mr. Burnett, what Christian anywhere, is saying that America is “a narrowly fundamentalist Christian nation, with no place for any other religion, or for science (which is not a religion)”? That is the statement of a raving bigot, which you appear to be. That statement has no basis in fact, or evidence, period. Is that what your “science” is all about, assertions with no basis in fact whatsoever?
And just for the record, anyone who believes that the universe and all that is in it is simply a product of blind chance is benighted in the extreme.
Daniel Crandall wrote: …you keep associating ID with creationism in order to discredit and mock it. Are we done now?”
No, we’re not done until you admit America is a pluralistic society, and not a narrowly fundamentalist Christian nation, with no place for any other religion, or for science (which is not a religion).
And about this mantra that intelligent design creationism is not associated with religion: Anybody who knows the history of intelligent design creationism knows about the founders’ meetings in 1992 at Southern Methodist University and in 1996 at the former Bible Institute of Los Angeles (but no meetings at any science centers) which culminated in the infamous 1998 “Wedge Document. Its first sentence is “The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built.” Does that sound like the debate is about science or religion?
Are you familiar with Dr. Barbara Forrest’s paper, “Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals,” at http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf – or do you deny the history of intelligent design creationism?
“Was this 1987 US Supreme Court decision all a logical fallacy…in your opinion?” To declare ID a religion? Yup, for this simple reason that you keep associating ID with creationism in order to discredit and mock it. Are we done now? Or will you not be satisfied until I’m fired from my job for no other reason than I refuse to bow down before your gods?
Daniel Crandall wrote: “Finally, a secular fundamentalist zealot admits his argument is based on a fallacy.”
Okay, let’s clarify: I stated that “there is an ‘argument by authority’ (note the term in quotes) going on here – the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Academy of Sciences and essentially every other actual science authority in America have all denounced intelligent design creationism as religious pseudoscience.”
So you (apparently) think that to let the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Academy of Sciences and essentially every other actual science authority in America define what is and is not science is a logical fallacy?
Finally, a theocratic fundamentalist zealot admits his argument is based on a gross misunderstanding of formal versus informal logical argument: There’s a difference between (1)‘argument by authority’ and (2)’argument from authority’ and ‘appeal to authority,’ which are fallacies of defective induction.
If you think it is fallacious to listen to the acknowledged scientific authorities who agree that intelligent design creationism is not science, then who should determine what is and is not science? Whose viewpoint should count more? Secular scientists or non-scientist theocratic dominionists and Christian Reconstructionists?
And just to be clear, is it your opinion that the US Supreme Court was wrong in its 1987 Aguillard decision and “the 72 Nobel prize-winning scientists, 17 state academies of science, and 7 other scientific organizations (which) filed amicus briefs which described creation science as being composed of religious tenets” (quoted from the Wikipedia article) were wrong? Was this 1987 US Supreme Court decision all a logical fallacy…in your opinion?
Finally, a secular fundamentalist zealot admits his argument is based on a fallacy. There is a God.
Daniel Crandall repeats the Dishonesty Institute’s Big Lie: “ID is not a religion.”
Then how can proselytizing for intelligent design creationism be constitutionally-protected free exercise of religion? You and Coppedge are making the same mistake Guillermo Gonzalez made, in continuing to insist that intelligent design creationism is not religion, while complaining that people are discriminating against religion by discriminating against intelligent design creationism because it is a religious “viewpoint.”
You can’t have it both ways. Stupidity is not constitutionally protected.
And for the record, I am not a “secular fundamentalist zealots” – I am a pro-science / anti-pseudoscience zealot. Yes, there is an ‘argument by authority’ going on here – the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Academy of Sciences and essentially every other actual science authority in America have all denounced intelligent design creationism as religious pseudoscience.
Not one major actual science “authority” has recognized intelligent design creationism as science. One of the leading lights of intelligent design creationism, Dr. Michael Behe, has offered sworn testimony that for intelligent design creationism to be “science,” the definition of science would have to be so dumbed-down that astrology would also be “science.” Is that what you want? If so, please admit it.
The only people and organizations who seem to want intelligent design creationism to be labeled as “science” are overtly or covertly religious – not scientific – “authorities.” So here’s a question: Should science be the authority on what is science? Or should religion be the authority on what is science?
Would you be comfortable with science defining what is religion? Think about it. If you want the freedom to freely discuss intelligent design creationism in public schools, would you equally support the right of scientists to freely discuss evolution in churches and Sunday Schools? Be careful what you wish for.
Despite Mr. Burnett’s debate gymnastics and his reliance on the fallacious ‘argument by authority’ (“a judge said it, so it must be so”), ID is not a religion. I greatly fear for the nation’s future when secular fundamentalist zealots are more than willing to give viewpoint discrimination the force of law, and destroy the careers and characters of individuals.
Daniel Crandall wrote: “If you’re going to quote something, it’s best to quote the entire thing: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof””
Since you’re willing to admit that proselytizing for intelligent design creationism at work is the exercise of religion, I’m happy. In fact, that’s what I’ve been saying all along: Intelligent design creationism is religion, not science.
If you’re going to quote something, it’s best to quote the entire thing: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
That second half of the First Amendment’s “Free Exercise” clause (notice the word “Free” in the title of the clause?) is always a bit troubling for and often ignored by secular fundamentalists who seem to think the “Free Exercise clause means a public square free of religious influence.
Did it ever dawn on you, Mr. Burnett, that what is right and declarations from a court of law might not be the same thing? Or was it right to forbid women to vote, require citizens to pay a poll tax in order to vote, and defining people of African descent as 3/5’s of a human being right and proper until a judge declared otherwise?
I’ll give you the last word.
Daniel Crandall wrote: “You mean those Founding Fathers that held Christian worship services in the Capital Building?”
Yes, the ones that wrote “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” into the Bill of Rights.
You’ve never heard of the “Lemon Test,” have you?
“break down the barrier between church and state that was so important to the Founding Fathers” … You mean those Founding Fathers that held Christian worship services in the Capital Building? Those Founding Fathers?
A judge once said that an individual with African ancestry was 3/5 a person…” So did the US Constitution, in Article I, Section 2. But it got changed. Who knows, maybe someday the creationists will manage to break down the barrier between church and state that was so important to the Founding Fathers – Lord knows the creationists keep trying.
But that still won’t make intelligent design creationism “science.” Look up the Wikipedia article, “List of scientific societies explicitly rejecting intelligent design” – looks like nobody in the world of actual science thinks intelligent design creationism is anything but pseudoscience.
Daniel Crandall wrote: “…Coppedge’s supervisor, who set out to harass and humiliate Coppedge in the workplace.” That’s what Coppedge says. The supervisor was on him for pushing the religion of intelligent design creationism in the workplace. No supervisor can allow that to happen.
Daniel, would you want somebody pushing religion in your workplace? Would it be okay if it was your religion, but not okay if it was some other religion?
A judge once said that an individual with African ancestry was 3/5 a person and treating said individual as property was acceptable. By Mr. Burnett’s reasoning because a judge declared it must be an indisputable fact … until, of course, another judge comes along and rules otherwise.
The only person made “uncomfortable,” contrary to Rick’s assertion, was Coppedge’s supervisor, who set out to harass and humiliate Coppedge in the workplace. The last time I checked EEOC regulation that kind of behavior wasn’t acceptable.
I understand that Rick and Mr. Burnett hold a strong animosity against individuals who won’t toe the Darwinist line. It is not an uncommon reaction and is seen everywhere from academia, to the Smithsonian Institute and now to government contracted companies. It is interesting that I brought this up, not to promote ID but rather to point out how the media’s dominant narrative ignores some stories while emphasizing others. That fact has not been disputed by my dissenters, which tells me that they gladly accept workplace discrimination and harassment as long as said victim is not among their favored group.
The fact that folks simply cannot agree to disagree, that people cannot freely express themselves without fear of having their careers and characters destroyed by secular fundamentalists says much about our culture and none of it is good.
Daniel Crandall seems to think that I insulted David Coppedge by claiming that I described Coppedge as “scientifically illiterate” – that’s not what I wrote.
What I wrote was that Coppedge was “Proselytizing for the scientific illiteracy of intelligent design creationism in a scientific institution…” Coppedge may well be in on the intelligent design creationism scam and may not himself be scientifically illiterate – I did not say that he is.
Daniel Crandall makes the common creationist assertion that “Intelligent Design is not creationism” (whereas essentially every actual science organization in America agrees that intelligent design creationism is creationist pseudoscience). On the other hand, a Federal Judge (appointed by George W. Bush) ruled in 2005 that “We have concluded that intelligent design is not science, and moreover that intelligent design cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.” It is worthwhile to contemplate that the creationists did not appeal that decision. Couple that decision with a certain 1987 US Supreme Court decision and this game is over.
Daniel Crandall challenges the accuracy of my assertion that Coppedge is on the Illustra Media Board of Directors. If you Google (Coppedge “Board of Directors” “Illustra Media”) you get 152 hits that seem to agree that Coppedge is on the Board of Directors of Illustra Media – and nobody seems to be denying that fact.
The video “Unlocking the Mystery of Life” is a product of Illustra Media. Its script was co-written by Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute, the acknowledged mothership of intelligent design creationism. 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 Moody Bible Institute.
Discovery Media’s 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.”
Does this sound like Illustra/Discovery is a pro-science organization or a pro-religion organization? The DVDs Coppedge was showing at JPL were not pro-science but anti-science. JPL did the right thing, and they will be able to prove it in court, as I have proven it above.
Daniel Crandall, you immediately lead off by misrepresenting the truth, which seems to be a common theme amongst the ID advocates (as so thoroughly demonstrated in the Dover trial). Paul Burnett did not call Coppedge scientifically illiterate, which would have been untrue. Burnett called “Intelligent Design” scientifically illiterate, which is a valid criticism given the complete lack of actual scientific research produced by ID.
This article quotes the Discovery Institute, an organization founded and run mostly by lawyers, lobbyists and PR staff. But in spite of the Discovery Institute’s press flogging, this case is NOT about Intelligent Design versus evolution. This is an EEOC case of somebody promoting religious materials that made co-workers uncomfortable. When that happens, and when the co-workers complain, then management MUST do exactly what JPL did – it’s the law. Whether it is someone promoting religion (which is ID’s legal standing), selling a product, advocating transcendental meditation, or just wearing a blouse that is too low cut – if it makes the co-workers uncomfortable, is on company property or at company-sponsored events, and is not part of the job, then management must address it. If a manager DOESN’T address something like this, they can be sued for promoting a “hostile work environment”.
Free speech does NOT extend to your employer’s place of business. You do NOT have the right to go around to your co-workers trying to press on them your Intelligent Design DVDs. This is not about discrimination. This is about managers doing what the law requires.
I’ve managed to go through a long career in systems (Coppedge’s actual job) without EVER being offered any religious material in the workplace, and without any of my hundreds of employees reporting that they’d been offered religious material by a co-worker. So from my experience as an employer, Coppedge’s behavior as reported is way out on the tip of the bell curve.
Finally, I find it very interesting how the Discovery Institute fails to EVER mention that Coppedge is a Young Earth Creationist, who is blatantly using science-sounding “Intelligent Design” as a “wedge” to promote his literal Genesis creationist views. That is fundamentally dishonest. But the the Discovery Institute, and the vast majority of the Intelligent Design advocates are guilty of exactly that particular dishonesty – trying to use science as a smokescreen for literal Biblical creationism.
Personally, I don’t like being lied to. I find this fundamental dishonesty of Coppedge and of the Discovery Institute disgusting.
But, we’ll see how the court case proceeds, won’t we? I may be wrong, and Coppedge my indeed have displayed much more integrity at work than he does on Young Earth Creationist websites. We’ll see how many people step forward to defend Coppedge and say he never pressed his religious creationist views on co-workers. And we’ll see how many reports were made to JPL Human Resources over the years. HR departments tend to keep very good records.
It is always bad form to begin an argument by insulting those with whom one disagrees. Describing Coppedge as “scientifically illiterate” is either categorically wrong and insulting or makes JPL incredibly incompetent for regularly promoting the man.
Intelligent Design is not creationism. Creating an association between the two ideas is regularly done by those who oppose it. Rather than actually dealing with the arguments ID makes opponents simply insult and move on.
I’ve seen the DVDs and neither push religion and claiming their “anti-science” is odd given the astrophysicists, biologists, and other scientists who appear in both of them.
The person who brought up religion in this case was not Coppedge, but his supervisor. Coppedge didn’t force anything on anyone. He had a conversation, which elicited curiosity by his coworkers – a curiosity certain people cannot abide.
What Coppedge does in his time away from work (presuming the assertion that the he is on an Illustra Media Board is accurate – I’m skeptical given nothing else in Mr. Burnett’s comment is) is none of his employer’s business as long as it does not detract from his job. Given the record he accumulated at JPL there is nothing to prove poor performance, and nothing to show that off-work activity impacted it.
I wonder if Mr. Burnett would be as dismissive of the story if roles were reversed and he was the one demoted after being harassed by his supervisors, following years of exemplary service for simply expressing his Darwinian views and sharing Origin of the Species with co-workers. If that story were ever to happen, I doubt it would attract as little attention as Mr. Coppedge’s story.
Proselytizing for the scientific illiteracy of intelligent design creationism in a scientific institution certainly seems foolish at first glance. But a Federal court has ruled that intelligent design creationism is religion, not science, and it is definitely against the rules of most workplaces to proselytize for one’s religion in the workplace.
What’s more, Coppedge is on the Board of Directors of Illustra Media, the producers of the pro-religion/anti-science DVDs he was offering at work. This is beginning to smell like a set-up – Coppedge may have deliberately martyred himself to initiate another court case which the creationists hope to win. But they always lose, whether in the US Supreme Court in 1987 or in Federal Court in 2005.