David Coppedge v. JPL & Caltech (27 Oct ’11)

This is a suit by a creationist, David Coppedge, who claims he was wrongfully demoted (and later fired) by his employer because he was promoting Intelligent Design (ID) on the job. He used to work (until he was let go in a downsizing back in January) as a computer technician for Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). He also maintains a creationist website: Creation-Evolution Headlines [which was recently moved here].

It’s been almost eight weeks since our last update: David Coppedge v. JPL & Caltech (03 Sep ’11). The next few indented paragraphs provide background information, which most of you can skip:

This is a big case for the neo-theocrats at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (a/k/a the Discoveroids). They’re trying to establish some new kind constitutional right — an employee’s freedom to promote creationism in the workplace. One of their top legal talents, Discoveroid Casey Luskin, is advising the lawyer for Coppedge — that’s William J. Becker, Jr., who (until he picked up a few creationist clients) appears to be mostly a personal injury and workers’ comp lawyer.

To promote the issue, the Discoveroids initially waged a public relations campaign which we described here: The Coppedge Case: A Study in Tactics and Strategy. They’ve set up a page devoted to this case, which is here, but which seems to have languished for months.

The official information source for the Coppedge case requires payment of a small fee to the court clerks here: Superior Court of California, Los Angeles. At the box for “Case Number” you need to enter BC435600. Some minimal information is available for free — the names of the parties and their lawyers, a list of what documents have been filed, what proceedings have been held, and what future hearings have been scheduled.

There’s a great supplement to the information available from the courthouse. The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) maintains an archive of pleadings in this case, which you can find here: NCSE’s Coppedge archive.

In recent reports we informed you that both sides had filed motions for Summary Judgment, each accompanied by an extensive Statement of Facts and a supporting Legal Memorandum. Essentially, such motions claim that there are no material facts in dispute so there’s no need for a trial, and the court should rule for the moving party as a matter of law. One of those motions for Summary Judgment had been set for 26 October — that’s yesterday. The trial had been set to start on 19 October 2011, but that’s now changed to 14 December. Bear in mind that this will be a jury trial, which is inherently unpredictable.

Okay, you’re up to date as of our last posting. Now what’s happened in recent weeks? First we checked to see what’s been logged into the courthouse docket. There’s been a “TENTATIVE RULING” on the 26 October motion for Summary Judgement, but we don’t know what the order says. On that same date Coppedge’s lawyers filed a “declaration” (whatever that is) and an application for an immediate order. JPL’s lawyers also filed a “declaration” and an opposition to the Coppedge application. Until we see the pleadings, we won’t know what’s going on, but something obviously happened yesterday.

Turning now to the NCSE archive, they have three new pleadings at their website, and they’re all pdf files. First is dated 11 October. It’s Coppedge’s Supplemental Opposition to JPLs Motion for Summary Judgment, which is ten pages long. It claims that they have evidence of discriminatory motives for JPL’s firing of Coppedge.

The second item was filed a week later. It’s JPL’s Response to the above, and it’s 18 pages long. Basically, JPL disagrees with Coppedge’s latest allegations (those that are supported by the evidence, which not all are), but claim they’re irrelevant, so such things shouldn’t interfere with granting JPL’s motion for Summary Judgment.

The last new item is dated the same as the 2nd item. It’s JPL’s Supplemental Reply in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. It’s a bit of a summary, asserting that there’s no evidence of discriminatory intent in firing Coppedge.

That’s all we know, dear reader. Something happened yesterday, on 26 October. It looks like somebody’s motion for Summary Judgment is getting granted. But we won’t know any more until we see some news stories or the NCSE archive is updated. When we learn something we’ll probably update this post. Stay tuned.

Copyright © 2011. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article

The Latest Curmudgeon Science Research

We are always learning from the creationists, and today we want to bring you up to date on our progress. As you know, creationist outfits like to have their own, in-house “science journals” which they claim are “peer reviewed,” and where they can publish their creation science.

For example, the Discoveroids have a journal called BIO-Complexity. We posted about it here: Discovery Institute: Creationist “Peer-Review”. And Answers in Genesis has their Answers Research Journal. Inspired by their example, we have founded the Curmudgeon’s Journal of peer reviewed Curmudgeon Science.

The journal is published at the CITADEL — the fabled Curmudgeonly Institute for Tactics, Advocacy, and Defense of the Enlightenment Legacy — the secret global nerve center for monitoring events throughout the Creosphere which threaten the values of Western Civilization. That’s where your Curmudgeon is headquartered in his luxurious underground control room.

Our latest, recently-published research indicates that there is a heretofore little-known effect that results from the combined ravages of several loathsome maladies and degenerative disorders like leprosy, syphilis, and Alzheimer’s disease. The observed symptoms exhibited by those afflicted with two or more of those conditions are: internet spamming, child molestation, and rabid creationism.

Naturally, such ground-breaking research has fueled controversy. The most vocal critic so far is Dr. Archibald (“Archie”) Opteryx of Piltdown, Louisiana. His doctorate is in creation science, and was awarded by the prestigous Mail Order Bible Institute. He is the politically powerful leader of the Louisiana-based Family In Your Face All the Time, a public interest group that promotes a ban on all “godless teachings” in public schools — especially evolution, geology, and astronomy. They also favor legislation authorizing public stoning of lustful women. As Archie Opteryx has famously said:

Stoning is scriptural, so it ought to be our law. Women have been the cause of humanity’s downfall ever since Eden.

At a recent tent rally illuminated by torchlight, attended by dozens of Archie’s pitchfork-carrying followers, the learned doctor took the podium and vigorously condemned the Curmudgeon’s research. “How dare he claim that creationism is the result of loathsome and degenerative diseases?” he roared. “I say we should organize a million-man march on the Curmudgeon’s secret headquarters and show him how angry we are!”

As he finished that sentence, however, misfortune struck Dr. Opteryx — his left eyeball fell out and rolled across the floor of the speaker’s platform. An eerie silence overcame the crowd, which swiftly turned to gasps of horror as they watched Archie’s nose fell off his face and drop onto the podium.

“This is an outrage!” shouted Dr. Opteryx . But then, as he pounded the podium for emphasis, his arm fell off and dropped to the floor. But Archie wouldn’t be silenced.

“I am not a leper!” he cried. “And I’m not a child molester either — but I do advocate a special form of personal therapy for confused young girls. Don’t be misled, however — it’s only for spiritual purposes.” But at that moment his other eye flopped out of its socket and dangled briefly on his face before falling to the floor.

Slowly and silently, Archie’s disillusioned followers extinguished their torches and disbursed to their homes to ponder the meaning of it all.

When asked to comment on the event, the Curmudgeon released only a brief response: “Another data-point,” was all it said.

Copyright © 2011. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article

Jon Huntsman on Evolution & Global Warming

At the moment, Jon Huntsman is not one of the major contenders for the Republican presidential nomination. But he was interviewed on the Fox network on 25 October, and some of what he said is of interest.

The whole interview, and a video, can be seen at Jon Huntsman in Race for ‘Long Haul’? Here are some excerpts of the parts relevant to evolution and global warming, with bold font added by us:

BRET BAIER, ANCHOR: We welcome you to our “Center Seat” tonight. Republican presidential candidate and former Utah governor Jon Huntsman. Governor, thanks for being here.

JON HUNTSMAN, R – PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Thanks, Bret. Pleasure to be with you.

Polite opening stuff. Let’s get to the fun part:

BAIER: Governor, I want you to listen to this sound bite. It is you talking about some issues before Charles starts his question here.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) HUNTSMAN: The minute that the Republican Party becomes the party, the anti-science party, we have a huge problem. When we take a position that isn’t willing to embrace evolution, when we take a position that basically runs counter to what 98 of 100 climate scientists have said, what the National Academy of Sciences has said about what is causing climate change and man’s contribution to it, I think we find ourselves on wrong side of science and therefore in a losing position. (END VIDEO CLIP)

Now that we have your attention, here’s the good stuff:

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Governor, I’m with you on evolution. I’m an agnostic on global warming. Does it make me anti-science?

We’ve always liked Krauthammer. Here’s the Governor’s answer:

HUNTSMAN: Of course not. It means that you have got a position, and I respect that. And when you have a body of scientists who have weighed in to the extent they have, and I am a little reminded of, ya know, having been involved in building a cancer institute out west. If you had 98 out of 100 oncologists who said we think we have some important breakthroughs on breast, colon, and prostate cancer that is meaningful for people to understand in terms of procedures going forward, we would turn and say science has spoken. It’s important to respect that.

So all I am saying is you raise your kids to go out and find a cure for cancer, you raise your kids to get educated and to solve the world’s big problem problems. And when the scientific community speaks, I think, ya know, we take a look at what they say have to say. And I think that when they speak I tend to respect that.

Well, okay, but Krauthammer isn’t done yet. Let’s read on:

KRAUTHAMMER: Are you saying that the case is closed on global warming?

HUNTSMAN: No, I’m not saying it’s closed at all. I think it will continue to evolve. And I think science has a responsibility. When some of it has been called into question, the scientific community has a responsibility to stand up and explain themselves.

Whatever that means. It certainly doesn’t satisfy Krauthammer. His questions continue:

KRAUTHAMMER: But there is a difference between evolution and global warming. Global warming has implications for the spending of trillions of dollars –

HUNTSMAN: Of course –

KRAUTHAMMER: — of tax money and changing the way that America lives. So it isn’t as if it’s an abstraction. Are you willing to engage in those activities which would be — that could be ruinous if misspent on the basis of a theory that you say the case is not closed?

You gotta love Krauthammer! Now here comes the Governor’s answer. Read it closely:

HUNTSMAN: I respect the science. In terms of the tools I would use to address it, I say if we are reading one body of science here and the Chinese are reading a different body of science there and the Indians are yet again reading something different, the largest emitters in the world are going from different benchmarks. And how can we unilaterally disarm in this country and impose something in the way of cost for the job creators when the largest emitters in the world are reading from a different scientific text?

So what’s his position? Can you figure it our, dear reader? Anyway, that’s pretty much all there is on the subjects we talk about here, but there’s a lot more on other issues at the Fox website. If you’re interested in Huntsman, now you know where to go.

Copyright © 2011. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article

Hitler & Darwin, Part II

In the spring of 2008 we wrote Hitler and Darwin as our response to what we termed one of the “most despicable ploys of the Intelligent Design creationists” — promoting the lie that Darwin’s theory of evolution led to Hitler’s insane policies. We’re pleased to note that it’s been viewed a few thousand times.

In that post we linked to a few of what were then some of the more egregious writings of the neo-theocrats at the Discovery Institute‘s creationist public relations and lobbying operation, the Center for Science and Culture (a/k/a the Discoveroids, a/k/a the cdesign proponentsists).

We did a fairly good job of demolishing the Discoveroids’ propaganda, but of course they didn’t quit — they just stepped up the ferocity of their attacks. As a result we’ve posted further on the subject, including Hitler, Darwin, and … Winston Churchill? — showing that the World War II leader who actually did read Darwin was Hitler’s principal opponent — Winston Churchill. We’re very proud of that one. Later we posted Hey, Klinghoffer: How About Hitler & Gobineau? — about a more likely source of Hitler’s goofball ideas.

But things kept getting worse at Discoveroid headquarters. It was at least a year ago that they shifted into high gear promoting the work of Richard Weikart. He’s not only a Discoveroid “fellow” (i.e., full-blown creationist), he’s also the author of a book titled From Darwin to Hitler, which influenced James Kennedy, the now-deceased televangelist who made the influential “documentary” Darwin’s Deadly Legacy. We might consider Weikart to be the intellectual godfather of the Discoveroids’ frequently-repeated malicious mantra: “No Darwin, no Hitler.” If he’s not the originator of that foul dogma, he’s certainly one of its principal pillars.

In response to continued Discoveroid propaganda we posted Discovery Institute: Hitler, Hitler, Hitler. But the flow of Weikart material from Discoveroid headquarters kept coming. A few months ago we posted The Shroud of Seattle, suggesting that the Discoveroids’ emphasis on Hitler indicated more than a movement in its final spasms — we predicted that the Discoveroids’ “All Hitler, All the Time” theme will be their shroud.

But there was more from Weikart and the Discoveroids. In response to their promotion of yet another Weikart book we recently posted Discovery Institute: Hitler, Hitler, Hitler, Part II

But now, dear reader, we’re delighted to inform you that we’re no longer engaged in what has seemed like a solitary struggle to hold back the tsunami of raw sewage from Seattle. One of our clandestine operatives recently told us about a scholarly rebuttal of the Weikart theme by University of Chicago historian Robert J. Richards. His paper is available online, and it seems to be an exhaustive treatment of the subject: Was Hitler a Darwinian? It’s a 45-page pdf file.

Today we found a newspaper article about Richards’ paper in the The Republic of Columbus, Indiana. Their headline is Severing the link between Darwin and Nazism. The author is Faye Flam. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

Historian Richard Weikart appeared in the anti-evolution film “Expelled,” promoting this alleged Darwin-Hitler link. Weikart has written extensively on this, arguing that Darwinian evolution destroyed Judeo-Christian morality, especially the notion of reverence for life. Weikart does not try to push the idea that this invalidates evolution as a scientific idea. But he is openly creationist — a fellow at the Intelligent Design-promoting Discovery Institute in Seattle.

Hey, Faye Flam seems to understand what’s going on. Here’s her website. She’s good! Get this:

His [Weikart's] message is that evolution kills morality. “If everything is a product of chance — purposeless — which is widespread in biology textbooks … then I don’t think you have any grounds to criticize Hitler.”

Our own view is that anyone whose mind functions like that has no grounds to criticize anything, ever. Then Faye mentions Richards’ paper, and she says:

Richards calls this [Weikart's work] all a desperate tactic to undermine evolution. Creationism and Intelligent Design don’t hold up scientifically, he [Richards] said, so people like Weikart are trying to show that evolution is somehow morally dangerous.

“There’s not the slightest shred of evidence that Hitler read Darwin,” he said. Some of the biggest influences on Hitler’s anti-Semitism were opposed to evolution, such as British writer Houston Stewart Chamberlain, whose racial theory became incorporated into Nazi doctrine. Hitler uses language with “a Darwinian flavor,” said Richards, but if you look at the ideas behind it they have nothing to do with Darwin.

You’ll definitely want to read Richards’ paper. Oh, here’s where Faye mentions one of our favorite parts of Richards’ work — where he accuses Weikart of mistranslation:

Hitler often used the word Entwicklungslehre, Richards said, which can mean evolution but is a much more general term meaning development, and Hitler most often employed it to refer to economic development. “It’s quite unfair to translate this as evolution,” he said, as Weikart does.

Actually, Faye may have botched that. Richards’ paper says this on page 27:

But Weikart has played a sly trick. He generally translates the common German term “Entwicklung” as “evolution,” though the usual meaning and ordinary translation would be “development.” … By the end of the nineteenth century the term as meaning evolution had declined in use both in Germany and England, though in German “Entwicklungslehre” would still be used to mean evolution; but that term never appears in his book. In Mein Kampf, Hitler used “Entwicklung” in ways that make it clear he did not mean biological evolution …

Anyway, except for Weikart’s peculiar translation, Hitler never mentioned evolution — except twice in accounts of his conversation, where he wasn’t mentioning Darwin’s theory at all.

Okay, that’s enough. Read all of Faye’s article, then read Richards’ paper — it’s long, but worth the time. Our only comment on all of this is that no one but your Curmudgeon has mentioned the singular fact that Winston Churchill definitely read Darwin. Well, we’ve been unappreciated before, so we’re used to it.

See also: Hitler & Darwin, Part III.

Copyright © 2011. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article