After the Discoveroids’ initial stunned reaction to the results of the Coppedge case (which you can see here), following which their blog was silent for the entire weekend, they’ve said nothing about the Coppedge case — until now.
But first we ought to give you some background. You already know about the trial court’s decision in the David Coppedge case. And you know that the Discoveroids — described in the Cast of Characters section of our Intro page — inhabit what can only be described as an alternate universe.
It’s not just that their silly arguments are based mostly on fallacies like the god of the gaps and the watchmaker analogy. We’ve discussed that several times, most recently here. Nor is it that they’re mimicking the world of science by setting up their own captive “peer reviewed” journal (BIO-Complexity), and their own creation science lab (Biologic Institute), and their own “peer reviewed” vanity press operation (Discovery Institute Press). Their imitation of the accouterments of science has been described by one of our readers as a cargo cult. Richard Feynman has previously used the term cargo cult science to describe this kind of behavior — but his examples were far less elaborate than the behavior of the Discoveroids.
Now it occurs to us that besides behaving like Pacific islanders who engage in (as Wikipedia describes it) “ritualistic practices such as building crude imitation landing strips, aircraft and radio equipment, and mimicking the behavior that they had observed of the military personnel operating them,” the Discoveroids have also developed their own system of jurisprudence which crudely parallels the legal system in which they attempt to prevail. But in the Discoveroids’ own system, their arguments are always winners.
We’ve seen their alternate legal system in their numerous articles criticizing both the factual findings and the legal conclusions in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. Now they’re engaging in the same behavior regarding the Coppedge case. Behold their latest blog article: At Pro-Darwin Blogs, Knee-Jerk Responses to the David Coppedge Intelligent Design Case Validate Discrimination Claims. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us, and their links omitted:
At pro-Darwinian evolution blogs like Ars Technica and Panda’s Thumb, we see Darwin activists rejoicing over the tentative verdict in the Coppedge case. The judge has expressed his intent to rule in favor of Jet Propulsion Lab (JPL). One comment at Panda’s Thumb simply says, “Rejoice.”
Blog comments? They’re worried about blog comments? That stuff isn’t nearly as pernicious as the articles published by Discoveroid “fellows” (see Discovery Institute: Hitler, Hitler, Hitler, Part V). Let’s return to the latest Discoveroid article:
Actually, many of the comments at these websites express contradictory views. On one hand, they praise the court for finding that JPL was justified in demoting and then terminating David Coppedge. On the other hand, they say that Coppedge ought to have been let go because of his pro-ID views. In other words, the comments themselves demonstrate the kind of intolerance that is directed against ID proponents in academic settings. Even if you were you unfamiliar with all the rest of the evidence we have documented here, this by itself would seem to confirm that a basic and crucial claim of Coppedge’s case — that there is intolerance towards ID proponents in the scientific community — is correct.
We don’t see much contradiction here — but even if there were such, so what? Blog comments aren’t — ahem! — intelligently designed to be a coherent, consistent argument. They’re just random comments. But of course, the Discoveroids see design everywhere. Then they give several examples of blog comments that aren’t complimentary to Coppedge — as if this were some kind of courtroom evidence for their alternate-universe view of what happened at JPL, and then they say:
If the irony isn’t already obvious to you, here’s what it is: These folks are rejoicing and claiming that justice was served because Coppedge lost both his job and his lawsuit. Meanwhile they claim that Coppedge deserved to be fired simply because he was a “creationist,” or supported intelligent design, or perhaps even because of his Christian religious views. But if this sort of animus is why Coppedge was demoted and forced out of JPL, then it shows Coppedge deserves to win, and should never have been terminated in the first place.
Aha! Blog comments show that Coppedge deserves to win. You don’t need us to explain how ridiculous that is. Oh, wait — even the Discoveroids dimly sense it. They say:
Now obviously we’re not speculating that these specific commenters had anything to do the punishment of David Coppedge at JPL. But the prevalence of the kind of intolerance they express certainly makes it easy to understand why Coppedge’s case has merit.
A powerful argument indeed! It would have been fun if they had tried to use it in court. But they don’t need to do that. In the Discoveroids’ alternate universe, this kind of post-trial argument about irrelevancies is just as good as winning the trial. Indeed, it’s better, because it “proves” how biased the system is. Let’s read on:
Even though the final ruling has not been issued, these Darwin-activists are already drawing their own conclusions about what the evidence has shown, claiming Coppedge “badger[ed] coworkers” or “aggressively promote[d]” ID. But what evidence was admitted in the case that shows any such thing? Coppedge’s critics don’t reference any.
That’s right! Blog commenters don’t provide citations to the trial transcript. Nevertheless, the judge heard the witnesses, and he reached his conclusions from their testimony. Post-trial blog comments are irrelevant — except in the Discoveroids’ alternate universe.
Then they spend several paragraphs presenting the Discoveroids’ version of the courtroom evidence — also without references to the transcript. It appears to us that the Discoveroid version of things is no more authoritative than that of the blog commenters. We’ll skip a lot of blather and jump to near the end, where it says:
[W]hen commenters say Coppedge was “whining for a special privilege,” that’s not true. Coppedge wasn’t asking for any privilege. He was simply asking for the same privileges he saw granted to ID-critics and others at JPL. And he never complained when Darwinian evolutionists promoted their views and/or attacked ID while at work. He never objected to their exercising their freedom of speech.
Wow — how horrible it must have been. Imagine the sense of injustice felt by a flat-earther who works at an airline who is told to shut up, while spherical-earthers are allowed to freely express their views. No wonder Coppedge felt he was the victim of injustice. Here’s the end of it:
But when Coppedge advocated ID, he was shut down. That’s the logical, legal, and moral inconsistency at the heart of this case, and JPL never cited objective evidence that could satisfactorily explain it.
So there you are. The Discoveroids have their narrative. The whole world is prejudiced against Coppedge and his wonderful science, and that’s why the case is being decided against him.
Copyright © 2012. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.