Ken Ham Defends David Coppedge

Many of you remember the David Coppedge litigation. Coppedge is the creationist who claims he was wrongfully demoted and later fired by his employer because he was promoting intelligent design on the job. He used to work as a computer technician for Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), part of Caltech. We wrote about his case dozens of times back in 2010-2013.

There wasn’t any appeal after Coppedge lost in court, so our last substantive post about the case was David Coppedge Trial: Final Order Issued. The Discoveroids were strident champions of Coppedge, and they wrote several posts about their outrage that his case was lost. The last time we bothered to report about their wailing was The Coppedge Case — Alternate History, Part 3.

Now it appears that Coppedge has another champion — it’s Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. His latest post is NASA Scientist “Reality Is an Elaborate Hologram Creation by an Alien Race”. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

Is everything in our world just some kind of computer program? A recent article [link omitted] claims that Dr. Rich Terrile, the director of the Center for Evolutionary Computation and Automated Design at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, believes “that our reality is an elaborate hologram created by an alien race.” Dr. Terrile reportedly said, “We can all be the creation of a cosmic computer programmer as opposed to a God.”

That idea has been floating around for years, but we’ve never taken it seriously. PhysOrg has an article about it — see Is the universe a hologram? What does ol’ Hambo have to say about it, and how does it relate to the Coppedge case? Stay with us, dear reader. Hambo says:

According to reports, Dr. Terrile has been sharing these views — which are not grounded in any kind of scientific observations — since at least 2010. Now this is interesting because, as we reported in 2010 in Answers magazine [link omitted], in 2009 David Coppedge, a computer systems specialist who also worked at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, was demoted for sharing science-based Intelligent Design DVDs with his colleagues. Apparently he was being disruptive for supposedly promoting religion. He was later fired from NASA.

Aha — Hambo is going to contrast the Coppedge creationism case with Dr. Terrile’s advocacy of the holigram theory. He tells us:

So NASA tolerates a top-level scientist espousing the very unscientific idea that aliens (for which there is not a scrap of observational evidence) have created an elaborate hologram, of which we are part. But they have no use for someone who believes the incredible — and observable! — design we see throughout creation points toward a Designer?

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! The hologram universe is okay, but not creationism. It’s so unfair! Hambo gives us his keen analysis of the situation:

This shows that the battle is not about the evidence. It’s a worldview battle — God’s Word vs. naturalism (or in this case, an arbitrary supernatural superbeing is somehow ok), which is often treated as if it’s the only acceptable religion for scientists. Men don’t reject the Creator because of a lack of evidence. The evidence is all around us so much so that men “are without excuse” [scripture reference], yet some will still devise another elusive and indifferent off-world being to give credit to. They reject the revealed Creator because of the darkness of their hearts [scripture reference].

This is the last of it, except for a big bible quote:

People are willing to believe anything — as long as it’s not what God’s Word teaches, because if there’s a Creator we are accountable to him and cannot live however we choose. That’s ultimately what it boils down to.

Yes, dear reader, Hambo understands the situation very well. The godless folks at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory fired Coppedge, but they keep Dr. Terrile. Why? Because they want live in sin, unaccountable to their creator.

Copyright © 2017. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

6 responses to “Ken Ham Defends David Coppedge

  1. Derek Freyberg

    Surely the Hamster has better things to worry about right now than David Coppedge, or a 2012 article from vice.com (which reports that Terrile is not alone in speculating scientifically about “Matrix” as a model for the universe). And what’s he doing reading, let alone quoting, movieweb.com for Terrile’s thinking? Squirrel, squirrel!

  2. I think one difference, and it is a big difference, is that Dr. Terrile is very clear that he is speculating about a possible hypothesis, not evangelizing and proselytizing about a religion.
    According to the Coppedge trial, it wasn’t religion that got him fired, but a confluence of the fact that the extended mission didn’t need as many people. Coppedge wasn’t up to snuff on his training, despite being told to get training, and he was obnoxious about his proselytizing.
    If Coppedge didn’t get the ax two other people would have.

  3. Dear Ken Hambone (aka Con-Man), I mean this in the nicest way when I say “STFU”.

  4. Dave Luckett

    Kosh, I believe Ken should be actively encouraged to tell us what he really thinks, for whatever value of “thinks” applies in his case, The more he reveals, the better. His supporters are not capable of actually testing his pronouncements against reality, of course, but the more he spouts, the more likely it will be to clash with their own misconceptions, and if there’s one thing we can trust the religious to do, it’s to schism among themselves over articles of faith.

    Meanwhile, over here in the real world, we can get on with testing theory against evidence.

  5. Eric Lipps

    Dr. Terrile acknowledges that his idea is a speculation, and it’s not accepted as anything more than that by the scientific community.

    Creationists insist that their ideas are absolutely true because they support a literal reading of the Bible, which is the infallible Word of God–and if you don’t believe it is, it’s the rack and the stake for you!

  6. ” Men don’t reject the Creator because of a lack of evidence.”

    Uh, I do