# This is what you get when you badmouth Darwin!   lol



## BANDERSNATCH (Mar 12, 2012)

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012...ist-claims-was-fired-over-intelligent-design/

"....examining the scientific evidence for intelligent design."  

Should be interesting to see this develop.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 12, 2012)

> "It's part of a pattern. There is basically a war on anyone who dissents from Darwin and we've seen that for several years," said John West, associate director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Seattle-based Discovery Institute. "This is free speech, freedom of conscience 101."
> 
> Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012...-fired-over-intelligent-design/#ixzz1ouD3Ty1a



It's funny how that works.   Scientists are still being persecuted for their beliefs, just, the other side is doing the persecuting these days.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 12, 2012)

Heck, Darwin would be getting the same treatment this guy probably got for saying some of the things he said about his own theory.

"I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science." - From a letter to Asa Gray, Harvard biology professor, cited in Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation,


"Can we believe that natural selection could produce, on the one hand, an organ of trifling importance, such as the tail of a giraffe, which serves as a fly-flapper, and, on the other hand, an organ so wonderful as the eye?"






Those terrible terrible persecustin' scientists.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 12, 2012)

BTW, glad to see you back around Bandy!


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 12, 2012)

_"In an emailed statement, JPL dismissed Coppedge's claims. In court papers, lawyers for the California Institute of Technology, which manages JPL for NASA, said Coppedge received a written warning because his co-workers complained of harassment. They also said Coppedge lost his "team lead" status because of ongoing conflicts with others."_


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 12, 2012)

What were the conflicts about?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 12, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> _"In an emailed statement, JPL dismissed Coppedge's claims. In court papers, lawyers for the California Institute of Technology, which manages JPL for NASA, said Coppedge received a written warning because his co-workers complained of harassment. They also said Coppedge lost his "team lead" status because of ongoing conflicts with others."_



Yep,  Boss man- "better go along with this folks or you can follow him out the door"

Obviously you're going to side with JPL because it would be a true atrocity for you to side with a Christian on something. BUT, if you are going to take JPL's word in the above claim, you have to take Mr. Coppedge's attorney's claim in this quote.

"He did not go around evangelizing or proselytizing. But if he found out that someone was a Christian he would say, `Oh that's interesting, what denomination are you?"'


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 12, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> What were the conflicts about?



I think it was those terrible horrible scientists pushing their beliefs on others.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 12, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Yep,  Boss man- "better go along with this folks or you can follow him out the door"
> 
> Obviously you're going to side with JPL because it would be a true atrocity for you to side with a Christian on something. BUT, if you are going to take JPL's word in the above claim, you have to take Mr. Coppedge's attorney's claim in this quote.
> 
> "He did not go around evangelizing or proselytizing. But if he found out that someone was a Christian he would say, `Oh that's interesting, what denomination are you?"'




A conspiracy!!!!  The plot thickens......

He'll have his day in court.

_"Obviously you're going to side with JPL because it would be a true atrocity for you to side with a Christian on something." _

Is this humor?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 12, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> _"Obviously you're going to side with JPL because it would be a true atrocity for you to side with a Christian on something." _
> 
> Is this humor?


No. Every athiest that frequents this forum will agree with JPL and that will be that until and if proven otherwise in court, because JPL is a scientific organization and Mr. Coppedge is a Christian. On second thought, it is rather funny.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 12, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> No. Every athiest that frequents this forum will agree with JPL and that will be that until and if proven otherwise in court, because JPL is a scientific organization and Mr. Coppedge is a Christian. On second thought, it is rather funny.



Coppedge brought up the claim.  He is the accuser.  JPL is innocent of wrongdoing until proven guilty.  Your inability to recognize this is not funny.  Do you assume that because he is a Christian that he is incapable of harassment or being a nuisance in the workplace?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 12, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Coppedge brought up the claim.  He is the accuser.  JPL is innocent of wrongdoing until proven guilty.  Your inability to recognize this is not funny. * Do you assume that because he is a Christian that he is incapable of harassment or being a nuisance in the workplace?*



Absolutely not, and you know that, at least from me.(I hope you do).

What were your first thoughts after reading the article?


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 12, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Absolutely not, and you know that, at least from me.(I hope you do).
> 
> What were your first thoughts after reading the article?



My initial thoughts were that this is a guy who asked one too many people in his office one too many times if they know Jesus.  Someone or several people complained and he got demoted.  He saw the opportunity to martyr himself like his idol and eventually got canned.  

I imagine they will settle with him.  I can't wait to see what kind of dollar figure he puts on his convictions.


----------



## Asath (Mar 12, 2012)

“Scientists are still being persecuted for their beliefs, just, the other side is doing the persecuting these days.”

I have no idea what that statement means.

But, if we take the claims of Mr. Coppedge at face value, for the sole purpose of siding with the Christian against the evil scientific establishment, and we’re intent on trying this case out of court, with no further evidence than a news release, then it would seem that the first thing that needs to be established – in order to justify or partially corroborate a bias claim – would be a pattern by JPL, NASA, and the California Institute of Technology of discrimination and bias.  

Do these institutions have a long history of denying Christians employment opportunities, promotions, positions of prestige and authority, and fair compensation?  Is there are clearly established pattern of demoting and phasing out employees once it becomes clear that they are Christians?  Is religious affiliation included, tacitly or explicitly, in either pre-employment decisions or post-employment performance evaluations?  Are the Management-level employees of these institutions composed entirely of Non-Christians? Is there a pattern of complaints concerning open hostility in the workplace focused solely on Christians?  

Or is Mr. Coppedge simply another evangelistic zealot that didn’t know how to leave his beliefs out of the office, and became such a strident pain in the you-know-what to his co-workers that it was actually THEM who felt as though they were under constant attack, believer and non-believer alike?

I find it difficult to comprehend the former thought that these Institutions, as huge as they are, can really be discriminating on the basis of Christianity, since it seems to me that this would leave them a bit short of workers in this country, where a huge majority still self-identify as believers of one sort or another.  On the face of it, with only the news story to go by, I’d consider the latter to be more likely the truth.

Convincing a jury that this is a case of Science shouting down Religion is going to be a long, odd row, but no doubt the Plaintiff’s arguments will certainly have a pile of entertainment value . . . I’ll be sure to follow this one . . .


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 12, 2012)

Asath said:


> “Scientists are still being persecuted for their beliefs, just, the other side is doing the persecuting these days.”
> 
> I have no idea what that statement means..



In the old days, the scientists who believed in "no God" were persecuted for their positions.  Now, scientists who believe in a creator are persecuted for their positions.  I have known a few.  You only get published by faith based Journals, etc.

Also, and what I was thinking about, was the movie "Signs," where the kid refers to scientists who have been persecuted for their beliefs, and Mel Gibson says: "That means they were unemployed."  Kind-of applicable to this fella.  

Hope that clears it up.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 12, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> My initial thoughts were that this is a guy who asked one too many people in his office one too many times if they know Jesus.  Someone or several people complained and he got demoted.



I actually figured something similar happened also.  I used to know a lady at work like that, but she didn't get fired for it or anything.  What happened was everything she did wrong was magnified.


----------



## Asath (Mar 12, 2012)

It's just that 'persecute' is a pretty rough word, and calls to mind the actual persecutions (by Believers) of unbelievers and infidels who were, and still are, summarily executed.  Today a 'Scientist' who lays claim to knowledge he simply does not have and cannot demonstrate in any scientific context is merely laughed at.  I'm not sure that ridicule quite counts as 'persecution,' and it seems to be a disturbing modern trend that everyone who cannot command total agreement with their own undemonstrated 'truth' is screaming discrimination and paranoid persecution on every street-corner.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 13, 2012)

Asath said:


> It's just that 'persecute' is a pretty rough word, and calls to mind the actual persecutions (by Believers) of unbelievers and infidels who were, and still are, summarily executed.  Today a 'Scientist' who lays claim to knowledge he simply does not have and cannot demonstrate in any scientific context is merely laughed at.  I'm not sure that ridicule quite counts as 'persecution,' and it seems to be a disturbing modern trend that everyone who cannot command total agreement with their own undemonstrated 'truth' is screaming discrimination and paranoid persecution on every street-corner.



And that is the thing that I really cannot understand.  When it comes down to it, a believer's ultimate 'proof' for justification of their belief is 'it just feels right'.  The best logical proof they can come up with is "Look how complex stuff is.   It MUST have been 'poofed' by a sentient being."  

Believers,  do you not see that your superior being is unique to you and you alone, even when you call it by the same name?  String's Jesus, JB's Jesus and Mr. Coppedge's Jesus are all each your own.  That's how EACH of you understand Him.  Don't you see how strange it is that each of you would claim that ANYONE else could possibly understand God the way that you do?  Indeed you claim that He is plain to see as the nose on your face,  when each of you can't even agree on 'Him'.   Then some you attempt to discredit things like the Doppler effect and carbon dating because they contradict the claims made by the Bible. 

I think Obi Wan's advice to "trust your feelings", for all practical purposes, only works in the movies.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 13, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> And that is the thing that I really cannot understand.  When it comes down to it, a believer's ultimate 'proof' for justification of their belief is 'it just feels right'.  The best logical proof they can come up with is "Look how complex stuff is.   It MUST have been 'poofed' by a sentient being."
> 
> Believers,  do you not see that your superior being is unique to you and you alone, even when you call it by the same name?  String's Jesus, JB's Jesus and Mr. Coppedge's Jesus are all each your own.  That's how EACH of you understand Him.  Don't you see how strange it is that each of you would claim that ANYONE else could possibly understand God the way that you do?  Indeed you claim that He is plain to see as the nose on your face,  when each of you can't even agree on 'Him'.   Then some you attempt to discredit things like the Doppler effect and carbon dating because they contradict the claims made by the Bible.
> 
> I think Obi Wan's advice to "trust your feelings", for all practical purposes, only works in the movies.



I don't even know where to begin with this.....

I'll say this, not even close.


----------



## Tvveedie (Mar 13, 2012)

I would be let go too if I "engaged (my) co-workers in conversations about intelligent design and handed out DVDs on the idea while at work."

They don't pay me to save souls.

On the other hand, I would be shocked if he were kept on despite the fact that "The mission that he was working on was winding down ..."


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 13, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I don't even know where to begin with this.....
> 
> I'll say this, not even close.



I'm pretty sure we have the same Jesus.  We might worship or view the faith in different ways, but same guy.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 13, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I'm pretty sure we have the same Jesus.  We might worship or view the faith in different ways, but same guy.



Whenever one of you disagrees with another about 'what would Jesus do?', you are not talking about the same Jesus.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 13, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I don't even know where to begin with this.....
> 
> I'll say this, not even close.



Start with this:

_"When it comes down to it, a believer's ultimate 'proof' for justification of their belief is 'it just feels right'."_

Then give your testimomy.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 13, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I'm pretty sure we have the same Jesus.  We might worship or view the faith in different ways, but same guy.



Absolutely correct.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 13, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Whenever one of you disagrees with another about 'what would Jesus do?', you are not talking about the same Jesus.



Or, we disagree as to what he would have done.  Much like politicians arguing about what Reagan would have done.  There is only one Reagan, but different views of history.

If you were correct, than any and all faiths would be seperate and everybody would be worshipping a different God / Mesiah.  the Methodists would have a different God than the Baptists, etc.  I don't take that position.  I just think they can't agree on what the Bible says about him and following him (and I know I just teed one up for you).


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 13, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Or, we disagree as to what he would have done.  Much like politicians arguing about what Reagan would have done.  There is only one Reagan, but different views of history.
> 
> If you were correct, than any and all faiths would be seperate and everybody would be worshipping a different God / Mesiah.  the Methodists would have a different God than the Baptists, etc.  I don't take that position.  I just think they can't agree on what the Bible says about him and following him (and I know I just teed one up for you).



I think you did.  Enough said.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 13, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Start with this:
> 
> _"When it comes down to it, a believer's ultimate 'proof' for justification of their belief is 'it just feels right'."_


I'll use Mr. Willards article as one, just one, justification for my belief.



> Then give your testimomy.


In here, pfffffft.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 13, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Whenever one of you disagrees with another about 'what would Jesus do?', you are not talking about the same Jesus.



There are core beliefs of Christianity that we(most of the guys that spend time in here) believe, i.e. Jesus died on the cross as a sacrifice for our sins, He lived a perfect life, He is in heaven now and the only way to get there is through Him.

The other stuff such as divorce, really and truly, means nothing in the sense of the eternal. That is where a PERSONAL relationship comes into play. And things can and will differ slightly, and that is perfectly ok.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 13, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> There are core beliefs of Christianity that we(most of the guys that spend time in here) believe, i.e. Jesus died on the cross as a sacrifice for our sins, He lived a perfect life, He is in heaven now and the only way to get there is through Him.
> 
> The other stuff such as divorce, really and truly, means nothing in the sense of the eternal. That is where a PERSONAL relationship comes into play. And things can and will differ slightly, and that is perfectly ok.



There are people who call themselves Christian that don't believe in the resurrection.  (They tend to be reasonable in other aspects of their lives as well; from my observation).  Still, it's their word about what they know against what I know and what I know, others can also readily, easily and without the need for interpretation or personal experience know.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 13, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> There are people who call themselves Christian that don't believe in the resurrection.  (They tend to be reasonable in other aspects of their lives as well; from my observation).


And I can call myself a zebra, but I'm not. 



> Still, it's their word about what they know against what I know and what I know, others can also readily, easily and without the need for interpretation or personal experience know.



You can also know as well, if you choose to. I can't help you with the qualifiers on how that knowledge gets known.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 13, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> And I can call myself a zebra, but I'm not.



And you would tell one of those people to their face, nay, even through a computer screen that they are not real Christians?  

Can you imagine someone saying to someone else "You're not a real Atheist!!" I think that would be funny.  



stringmusic said:


> You can also know as well, if you choose to. I can't help you with the qualifiers on how that knowledge gets known.



So, when it comes to Christianity, I can only truly experience it in a way that is unique to me?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 14, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> And you would tell one of those people to their face, nay, even through a computer screen that they are not real Christians?


Would you tell me that I'm not a Zebra? Or at least exhibit the qualities of a Zebra?  







> So, when it comes to Christianity, I can only truly experience it in a way that is unique to me?


Yes. Not unique in the sense that you will experience a different Jesus, but that the relationship you have with Him will be unique.


----------

