Search This Blog

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Censorship and lies, the Darwinists and the Econuts remain consistent...

Censorship and Propaganda rather than science. Ad nauseum!



Thanks to Karl Priest for pointing out the situation and youtube!   Also for pointing out that another Darwinist has failed to take up the Life Science Prize challenge.  Why?  Probably because the court will only allow evidence and no speculation in making a verdict.  If Darwinists have only evidence, they are without weapons.

Academic Freedom/Free Speech NEWS
2.17.2011 0:16AM
Coppedge 1.jpgNASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) just dumped a lot of fuel on the fire of David Coppedge's discrimination lawsuit by firing him on Monday. Coppedge's lawsuit against JPL alleges discrimination because he was prevented from talking about intelligent design (ID).
This could potentially expose JPL to a claim of wrongful termination and increase the merits of Coppedge's claim that JPL retaliated against him. According to Coppedge's attorney William Becker, JPL claims the firing resulted from downsizing in the face of budget issues, but Coppedge is the most senior member of the team that oversees the computers on NASA and JPL's Cassini Mission to Saturn. Coppedge doesn't seem at all like the first person who would normally be forced to leave in such a situation, but obviously, JPL has other considerations.

Those other considerations began in 2009 when the administration found out that Coppedge had occasionally had friendly discussions about ID with fellow employees. Coppedge was not pushy in these conversations; if a colleague wasn't interested, Coppedge dropped the matter. Nonetheless, one administrator yelled at Coppedge and ordered him to stop "pushing religion," which led to Coppedge filing a claim of harassment. But rather than Coppedge's harassment claim being investigated, Coppedge later learned that he was the subject of an investigation that charged him with creating a hostile work environment.

Coppedge was then demoted and threatened with losing his job if he persisted in purportedly "unwelcome" and "disruptive" discussions of ID. Part of JPL's "Origins Program's" mission is purportedly to study questions like "How did we get here?" One would think that a little friendly conversation about intelligent design in the workplace would therefore be tolerated. But the gag order applied to no other JPL employees, and in fact JPL has openly tolerated anti-ID speech from its other employees. Sadly, David Coppedge was singled out and prevented from speaking in favor of ID.

To give some background on the timeline of Mr. Coppedge's case:


  • 1997: Coppedge joins the Cassini mission team.



  • 2000: Coppedge earns recognition for excellence, receiving the role of "Team Lead SA" (system administrator).



  • April, 2009: Coppedge demoted from team lead SA position because he shared pro-intelligent design DVDs like Unlocking the Mystery of Life and The Privileged Planet with co-workers.



  • April, 2010: Coppedge filed suit against JPL alleging discrimination.



  • January, 2011: Coppedge fired from JPL due to supposed downsizing.

  •  

    From the Cornwall Alliance...

    Post-Normal Science and the Pagan Quest for Power Over Nature—and Mankind

    by James A. Wanliss, Ph.D.
    Author, Resisting the Green Dragon: Dominion, Not Death
    (Cornwall Alliance, 2010, 311 pages)

    Post-normal science is a corrupted form of science in which the quest to explain how our world works is less significant than the quest to use scientific authority to achieve political goals. One helpful way to understand it is to compare it with Cargo Cults.

    During World War II remote tropical Pacific islands like Vanuatu became involved in war efforts when they became part of supply lines. To the natives the arrival of noisy birds was almost miraculous; they brought delicious foods, and other sorts of wondrous cargo.

    After the war the birds, and their cargo, left. Into the vacuum returned old terrors of hunger and sickness, and an angry Earth. Superstitious natives copied what they had seen. They made model planes and runways. They had the form right—the outward form of religion—but lacked power. As they had seen, so they did. But no airplanes landed. Anthropologists call this religion a Cargo Cult.

    In 1974 physicist Richard Feynman explained how something similar can happen in science. He observed that many scientists go through the motions of scientific rituals yet are not actually doing science. Experiment first, conclusions afterward is the basis of scientific inquiry. Cargo Cult science—including post-normal science—predetermines the conclusions and reverses the order.

    The global warming federal-scientific partnership forms the basis for several modern Cargo Cults. For instance, tens of billions of American dollars have been thrown at studying global warming, with prominent scientists failing (or forbidding) to ask critical questions that might challenge cherished beliefs, or threaten the gravy train; annual federal funding to study global warming is around four billion dollars and rising. Scientists and politicians use this environmentalist Cargo Cult Science to make the most incredible predictions of future doom . It is magical in its ability to explain how almost every environmental calamity—whether hot or cold, wet or dry, calm or tempestuous—is caused by humanity’s insensitivity toward our mother planet.
    As discussed in my book Resisting the Green Dragon: Dominion, Not Death, for pagans what matters most is power, not truth. So it was in Vanuatu where pagans worshipped the Serpent, as a spirit of evil. They lived in abject terror of his influence, and directed all their worship towards pacifying his rage. In Cargo Cult Science, are we unconsciously returning to the dark age of magic, in which truth suffers and people tremble for fear that their smallest actions may offend an “angry” Earth?

    James A. Wanliss, Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Physics at Presbyterian College, Clinton, SC. His academic research interests are broad, ranging from space physics to pharmacotherapy and human factors psychology. He uses advanced mathematical techniques to create models, which he couples with detailed analysis of data. In space physics, his activities encompass the physics of solar wind turbulence and propagation and the interaction of solar wind with non-magnetized bodies.

    Recent Significant Developments

    Science & Ecology

    Precipitation: Models vs. Reality (CO2 Science)
    Research newly published in the Journal of Geophysical Research--Atmospheres says computer climate models have little “skill” at predicting precipitation—i.e., they’re not to be trusted. The same models are the basis of fears of anthropogenic global warming and all its alleged catastrophic effects.

    Greenland Ice Sheet is Safer than Scientists Previously Thought (Damian Carrington; Guardian.co.uk)
    New study overturns fears that increased melting could lubricate the ice sheet, causing it to sink ever faster into the sea.

    Economics & Energy

    California's Environmental Regulations Cause Economic Blackout (Mark Hemingway; The Washington Examiner)
    “California's pursuit of a radical environmentalist agenda has left both taxpayers and the economy in the dark. By regulating out new energy production, residents pay more for energy—when they can get it.” Also, President Obama's blocking of new power plants triggers nationwide blackouts.

    Natural Resources Hold the Key to Economy, Creating Jobs (Doug Lamborn; The Washington Examiner)
    “America was built on abundant and affordable energy. … Every facet of our economy depends on energy. Making it arbitrarily more expensive is guaranteed to cost more American jobs and cripple our economy.”

    25 comments:

    Anonymous said...

    Sorry buddy, ever since you stooped to censorship yourself, you abdicated the moral high ground on this issue.

    Lies - same here: you continue to promote creation.com even though they clearly spread lies (as do Sarfati, trueorigins, AIG etc.)

    Open debate: you won't even invite your alleged expert Kevin on here to discuss genetic algorithms and calculus with scohen. So you're on the wrong side on open discussion and "looking at the evidence" as well.

    Boy oh boy, not a good year for you so far, is it? How easily the moral high ground is lost...

    As for Coppedge's case, it seems like a rather rosy-eyed biased view, with Coppedge just having "a little friendly conversation" and in return getting yelled at. If the guy did indeed keep pushing religion in the workplace, I'd say it's well within the right of the company to tell him to cut it out. And he has the gall to sue them for harrassment?

    Who knows what actually happened - and what biased authors like Casey Luskin would consider "anti-ID speech". Would merely pointing out that ID is not scientific count as anti-ID speech?

    Jon Woolf said...

    "If Darwinists have only evidence, they are without weapons."

    [snicker.wav]

    What's the YEC explanation for the no-young-isotope phenomenon, Radar?

    What's the YEC explanation for the highly sequential nature of the fossil record, Radar?

    What's the YEC explanation for genetic oddities like human chromosome #2, Radar?

    What's the YEC explanation for ecological ghosts, Radar?

    No answer was the sad reply...

    Anonymous said...

    "If Darwinists have only evidence, they are without weapons."

    I'd say evidence is a pretty good weapon, and Radar's continued lack of a cogent response to Woolf's questions (of which only a small portion is presented here) is a good indication that he's sadly unarmed. This whole blog is a sad litany of logical fallacies (strawman arguments, arguments from incredulity and fallacies of composition/division first and foremost) and outright lies (not least the perennial "I already answered that").

    radar said...

    I do not censor myself or others.

    Woolf's lack of general knowledge and complete inability to answer the big questions along with his baseless charges make him a troll. Unlike some blogs, I let trolls post. But since he has called me a thief and a liar unjustly I tend to ignore him. Especially since his list of questions are minor league issues or falsehoods (like the sequential fossils, oh yeah, right).

    Some of you commenters have decided to lockstep in stupidity. I won't allow anyone to have Kevin's information but I told scohen he could put information here in the blog. He chooses not to do it. If there is something he is afraid to publish here, must be something shady.

    Anonymous said...

    And Radar continues to lie through his teeth on the topic of censorship,

    "I do not censor myself or others."

    Radar, you deleted (AKA, censored) ALL COMMENTS from the Info post and then put the post on a private blog that doesn't allow further commenting. And, to top it off, every single person that reads this blog saw you do it and then admit to doing it because you wanted to have the "last word". Nice "open" forum you've got going here.

    Why is it that you continue to assert that you don't censor arguments? When, in this specific case, you clearly did? It's weird that you talk about being upset that Jon called you a liar, when in the very same comment, you repeat the lie that you don't censor comments on this blog.

    Then there's Kevin. IMO, your behavior here really belies your (perhaps subconscious) awareness of the weakness of your YEC positions. With all of your ridiculous "personal information" protestations addressed, by refusing to even acknowledge scohen, you basically admit that you are afraid you would loose Kevin to "science" if you were to put him in contact with scohen. And this is despite the fact that talking with scohen would very likely help Kevin in his carreer asppirations.

    Keep working on that "pride issue" of yours, Radar, because this time it's damaging one of those precious "students" of yours.

    - Canucklehead.

    scohen said...

    "I won't allow anyone to have Kevin's information"

    ...but that's not what I was asking for. I'm asking to foster communication between Kevin and I, with him using a disposable email address. Afterwards, he could delete that address and I'd be unable to contact him. Additionally, both Kevin and I would send you the entirety of our conversations. Is there any way that this could be any more open?

    "but I told scohen he could put information here in the blog."

    What purpose would this serve? From what you've posted before, you attributed several opinions to me that I didn't make. I want to clear these up with Kevin and ask him about integrals.

    "He chooses not to do it."

    Because that's not what I want to do. What I want to do is to have someone you trust tell you that Hartnett is full of it. Posting on your blog won't do it.

    "If there is something he is afraid to publish here, must be something shady."

    I have offered to publish the entire conversation between Kevin and I. I am not afraid of anything, and I have no shady motives. But thanks for being so classy as to falsely accuse me of being "shady".

    I thought one of your arguments was that Christians have superior morals to all others. How is that belief supported by your above accusation?

    Anonymous said...

    "I do not censor myself or others."

    That ship has sailed, Radar. You're now a proud member of the shameful club of censors, i.e. people who have in fact engaged in censorship. You've made your bed, now sleep in it.

    "Woolf's lack of general knowledge and complete inability to answer the big questions along with his baseless charges make him a troll."

    Yeah, right. Woolf has clearly demonstrated superior knowledge of a range of subjects that you don't dare to address and keep running away from.

    "Unlike some blogs, I let trolls post."

    Trolls aren't just people who disagree with you.

    "But since he has called me a thief and a liar unjustly I tend to ignore him."

    When did he call you a liar unjustly? AFAIK the lie is usually very clearly identified. And when did he ever call you a thief?

    "Especially since his list of questions are minor league issues or falsehoods (like the sequential fossils, oh yeah, right)."

    Derision is not an argument.

    In what way do you think this claim is a falsehood? Be specific. Your readers, by the way, are well aware that you promised you would post examples that showed this claim to be false... but you failed to do so.

    Because there aren't any.

    Fossils appear in the fossil record in a sequential nature that can, so far, only be explained by evolutionary theory. YEC can not account for it and is in fact falsified by it. You can dissemble and prevaricate about this all you want, but that won't change the facts.

    Captain Stubing said...

    "Some of you commenters have decided to lockstep in stupidity."

    Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they are stupid. If you can address the arguments cogently, then please do so.

    "I won't allow anyone to have Kevin's information but I told scohen he could put information here in the blog. He chooses not to do it. If there is something he is afraid to publish here, must be something shady."

    Wow. scohen made it perfectly clear what he was asking for, and he's iterated it here. Kevin's privacy has nothing to do with it. Kevin can contact scohen using a disposable e-mail address, or he can quite simply comment right here on this blog, in perfect anonymity.

    But (1) you won't allow such an open discussion, and (2) you've repeatedly lied about the reason for this, namely that people supposedly want Kevin's private information, which is simply not true.

    Why are you so panicked about a simple open discussion on this subject anyway? Why have you stooped to censorship, and why do you oppose free and open discussion? Is there something shady about your position? Is YEC that feeble that your fragile disciples can't be exposed to simple questions regarding technical matters like genetic algoritms and calculus?

    The downward spiral continues....

    Captain Stubing said...

    Comment 2 posts above was mine also; forgot to log in.

    Jon Woolf said...

    "And when did he ever call you a thief?"

    Well, to be scrupulously fair, I have called him a thief. At least twice that I can recall. Both times it referred to his habit of using copyrighted material on this blog without prior permission from the copyright holders. Which is, legally speaking, theft of another's intellectual property. As an occasional creator of intellectual property myself, I'm rather sensitive about such things.

    Captain Stubing said...

    Ah, so you called him a thief, but not unjustly. Got it.

    radar said...

    Nope, I got a cartoon from a website that freely offers the cartoon to be published, passed along by another source who also published the cartoon. Jon didn't bother to look anything up, he just called me a thief, which was unjust and uncivilized. Had he bothered to look, he would have realized that the cartoon was presented to be copied and also the author's signature was on the cartoon itself. So Woolf's baseless charges are just another character flaw revealed.

    Also I have not "stooped to censorship", I let you anonymous commenters say all sorts of ridiculous things.

    If scohen wants to give us his GA explanation, fine. If not, fine. That is up to him.

    Anonymous said...

    Which website was that, Radar?

    Hard for Jon to 'look up' anything if you say you got it from 'some' website.

    So, which website was it?

    radar said...

    I actually did better than that, I quoted sections from several abstracts but here if you want to be lazy and not go back:

    http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/quorum/

    Bonnie Bassler's page at Princeton:
    http://www.molbio.princeton.edu/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=27

    Bassler's page has links to numerous publications about bacterial language.

    Jon just spoke without looking. You apparently didn't make much effort, either.

    radar said...

    Jon Woolf, go ahead and challenge the Life Sciences prize if you are so right and sure of yourself. You get to present evidence in open court against Joseph Mastropaolo and since you are so sure of yourself and your knowledge, you can pick up some extra cash.

    Anonymous said...

    Radar stop dodging and give the URL of the website where you got the Peanuts comic from.

    radar said...

    I might if I get a courteous request. No one asked me for it and your attitude will get no results. I am rather tired of the attitude of some of you people. Either behave like a man with ethics and ask me civilly or go find it yourself!

    radar said...

    Especially on Debbie's birthday. Gone until tomorrow. Bye!

    Anonymous said...

    The effort with which you dodge the question speaks volumes, Radar.

    You complain about getting called a thief, but when I give you the opportunity to prove you're innocent, you run away.

    You know you're wrong Radar. You just lack the courage to admit it. You can be angry at me, but in reality you let yourself down. That's sad.

    Anonymous said...

    Nope, I got a cartoon from a website that freely offers the cartoon to be published, passed along by another source who also published the cartoon. Jon didn't bother to look anything up, he just called me a thief, which was unjust and uncivilized. Had he bothered to look, he would have realized that the cartoon was presented to be copied and also the author's signature was on the cartoon itself. So Woolf's baseless charges are just another character flaw revealed.

    What a ludicrous explanation. I doubt we ever see a link. If we do, I'll be happy to retract that statement and hopefully prove somewhat of an example to radar who will defend anything, not matter how wrong he is.

    What does Charles Shulz's signature on the cartoon have anything to do with your printing of the cartoon being or not being a violation of intellectual property law?

    But this post is kind of buried. Radar can let it go, and few will notice.

    lava

    Jon Woolf said...

    Radar, even if you're right about the Peanuts cartoon, which we all know you aren't, you still can't explain the second case I referred to. Specifically, this post, in which you used a copyrighted photo from another website in direct contradiction of that site's stated policy.

    Anonymous said...

    "Also I have not "stooped to censorship", I let you anonymous commenters say all sorts of ridiculous things."

    Logic fail. Just because you "let anonymous commenters say all sorts of ridiculous things" doesn't mean you haven't stooped to censorship.

    Every regular reader of this blog is well aware that about a month or so back you deleted a bunch of comments from your blog because you "wanted to have the final word", even though those comments contained no profanity. Their only sin was that you had run out of arguments in response. You've become that which you profess to despise in others. Now you have to live with it.

    A Christian response would be to realize and confess your sins and then atone for them. Sadly, your colossal pride stands in the way of that first part.

    Anonymous said...

    "If scohen wants to give us his GA explanation, fine. If not, fine. That is up to him."

    That's just the point. scohen has already presented his position on GA. You distorted it both on your blog as well as to some alleged person called "Kevin" whom you present as some kind of authority in this area, but who apparently has such a malleable mind that a mere conversation regarding a technical issue could alter his entire worldview, and so he must be shielded at all costs.

    scohen is asking for a frank, technical, open discussion on the issue, offering not just one but several ways in which this can be achieved without compromising Kevin's anonymity in any way. As with the issue of censorship, you've now also made your position on open discussion of evidence quite clear.

    Not just that, but as scohen pointed out, you're denying this Kevin person (if he does indeed exist) a potentially useful career contact through scohen.

    And this is just because you're afraid "Kevin" might, what, turn "Darwinist" because of a discussion of genetic algorithms?

    Anonymous said...

    "You get to present evidence in open court against Joseph Mastropaolo and since you are so sure of yourself and your knowledge, you can pick up some extra cash."

    Given the insanity that Mastropaolo has displayed in the comments section of your own blog, no sane person would go within a ten-mile radius of this supposed "opportunity". It's a publicity stunt and anybody with a moderate income can see that they can make more money in the time that would be needed to get to any kind of logical discussion with this sad person. If Mastropaolo has evidence for his "theory of devolution", he can present scientific evidence supporting it and make a fortune that way. And yet he's remarkably coy about this and instead compiles a list of people who rightly ignore him, as if that were some kind of triumph.

    The fact that you even dare mention his name again shows that perhaps you didn't fully digest what a deep disservice this person has done and is doing to your cause.

    Here's a link to that fun time when Mastropaolo dropped by your blog to "help out": http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2010/07/batting-cleanup-dr-joseph-mastropaolo.html

    Anonymous said...

    I love it when Radar brings up Dr. J.

    I have one simple question for you Radar...

    Are you (1) ignorant, or (2) a mercenary, or (3) hallucinating, or (4) an ignorant mercenary, or (5) an ignorant hallucinator, or (6) a hallucinating mercenary, or (7) an ignorant hallucinating mercenary?

    Godspeed,

    - Canucklehead.