If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC)   "Intelligent design" scientist sues NASA for wrongful termination. Judge: He was let go because he was combative and did not keep his skills sharp. Obvious: See first two words of this headline   (abcnews.go.com) divider line 29
    More: Fail, NASA, wrongful termination, intelligent design, jet propulsions, Jet Propulsion Laboratory  
•       •       •

6165 clicks; posted to Geek » on 03 Nov 2012 at 11:38 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-11-03 01:06:40 PM
6 votes:
Granted, I'm just a research psychologist, but I am a PhD-holding empirical-research-publishing person who is also a believer. And yet somehow I grasp the difference between "I believe in God and if you want to talk about it some time outside of work I can do that" and "I believe in God and will waste my work day pestering you about it whether you want me to or not".

Falls in the same category as pestering people about politics while they're trying to work.
2012-11-03 11:44:16 AM
6 votes:
The major problem with most Intelligent Design arguments is that they argue for a Designer with a rather low intelligence. Frankly, as religion they qualify as blasphemy. The fact that their proponents aren't smart enough to realize this is a strong argument, on its own, for not taking them seriously.
2012-11-03 02:09:39 PM
5 votes:

Bhruic: UNC_Samurai: God has not been proven not to exist, therefore he must exist.

Just to check, does everything that hasn't been proven not to exist exist, or does God get a special rule?


God hasn't been proven to exist, or been predicted by a theory grounded in proven principles. Therefore you can no more use him to discuss the physical universe than you can use owlbears to discuss DNA. Science does not allow for pulling unfalsifiable shiat out of your ass.

In many ways, Intelligent Design is one of the most obscene attacks on the majesty of God imaginable. "I cannot see how this could occur without God, so God had to do it" translates directly as "I am too stupid to come up with a way this makes sense without magic hand-waving by God" which translates directly as "Since God had to handwave to make it work, God is stupider than me, because not only did He have to handwave, but He was so dumb about how He did it that I was able to see the flaw that required handwaving". Accepting Intelligent Design is simply calling God a complete and utter farking retard moron, because a truly infinitely perfect omni-omni deity could - and almost be definition of being perfect, would have to - create a universe that was completely and utterly indistinguishable from one arising from random chance; otherwise His Design would not be perfect because of the obvious problems. And they are some ass-glaring flaws, since we know they are visible for people with virtually no education, single-digit IQs, and the reasoning skills of low-end rocks. Intelligent Design only works if you posit the most un-Intelligent Designer possible
2012-11-03 11:47:47 AM
4 votes:
JPL attorney Cameron Fox, however, contended Coppedge was a stubborn and disconnected employee who decided not to heed warnings to get additional training, even when it became clear the Cassini mission would be downsized and computer specialist positions eliminated.

I used to work at a large university which was run very similar to a government bureaucracy, and we had the same problem with some employees, particularly during the late 1990's when computer support jobs effectively changed from mainframe support to regular old desktop support. For whatever reason, these people had it stuck in their heads that just because they had been hired to do one job, such as supporting SAS on a mainframe, they couldn't possibly be required to learn how to do a similar job, like supporting SAS on a personal computer.

Many, many similar lawsuits later we were down all of the inflexible people who wouldn't learn new skills, and they all applied the same playbook: they were targeted for (pick one): being female, being a minority, being old, not having a degree, etc. Whatever legal cover they thought they could hide under, they would try it. In the end, they were all let go for the exact same reason: they were given ample opportunity and resources to continue their employment and they rejected all of it.

Plenty of larger companies will, indeed, use the RIF (Reduction in Force) plan to get rid of bad employees, but the bad employees are usually granted an opportunity to move into another job and they fail miserably at whatever requirements the company sets out for them. If, after the company gives you a plan to move into another a job and your first course of action is to sue, it probably won't end well for you.
2012-11-03 12:18:03 PM
3 votes:
So he was fired for being inflexible AND for preaching religion at work. I'm AOK with this.
2012-11-03 08:10:11 PM
2 votes:
Too much fox news.
It rots the brain. I'm watching it happen to my mother.
2012-11-03 02:33:02 PM
2 votes:

Gordon Bennett: RandomAxe: The major problem with most Intelligent Design arguments is that they argue for a Designer with a rather low intelligence. Frankly, as religion they qualify as blasphemy. The fact that their proponents aren't smart enough to realize this is a strong argument, on its own, for not taking them seriously.

The major problem as I see it is that it is arguing authority based on ignorance. I can only think of one way to explain this, so as I can't conceive another might exist mine is therefore correct.

Besides, I can think of another explanation for the rise of complex systems. One that does not require an outside factor to be brought in at all. (pops)


The problem is intelligent design imports certain assumptions in a circular or question begging fashion.

A) something exists implies Someone exists.
B) Because complexity in the human experience implies intelligence, all complexity implies intelligence.
C) Primary Intelligence is required for sufficiency, rather than a product arrived at.

All of these can be questioned, and should be questioned by a 'science' with such close ties to metaphysics.
2012-11-03 01:29:13 PM
2 votes:
From his BIO it seems he was too busy telling fairy tales to get on with the real business of science and getting the damn cassini to keep its funding.

Sounds like he inherited the genes for stupid from his dad...
2012-11-03 01:10:07 PM
2 votes:
Coppedge also is a board member for Illustra Media, a company that produces video documentaries examining the scientific evidence for intelligent design. The company produces the videos that Coppedge was handing out to co-workers, Becker said.

So he was doing work for his second job while at NASA? Fired.
2012-11-03 12:34:26 PM
2 votes:

MrEricSir: Why would you work for NASA if you don't believe in science? That's like being a birther and working for the Obama campaign.


Can you think of a better way for one of them to indulge their "persecuted victim" complex?
2012-11-03 12:24:38 PM
2 votes:
In science, an acceptable argument must have a clearly set forth chain of evidence. If a single link in the chain is broken, the argument fails. Intelligent Design is fundamentally anti-scientific, as its main argument boils down to: "The only way you can understand any of this is to just believe what I say." No. That's absurd. That's not science. In fact, it's about as far from the practice of actual science as you can get.
2012-11-03 10:26:24 PM
1 votes:

UNC_Samurai: Keizer_Ghidorah: Not very clever at all, actually, considering how many mistakes he made. Of course, the religious pin that on God getting so pissed at man that he cursed all of creation, which paints God as a colossal prick and not worthy of praise.

The righteous need not cower before the drumbeat of human progress. Though the song of yesterday fades into the challenge of tomorrow, God still watches and judges us. Evil lurks in the datalinks as it lurked in the streets of yesteryear. But it was never the streets that were evil.


Someone's looking for a nerve stapling.
2012-11-03 10:24:04 PM
1 votes:

UNC_Samurai: Keizer_Ghidorah: Not very clever at all, actually, considering how many mistakes he made. Of course, the religious pin that on God getting so pissed at man that he cursed all of creation, which paints God as a colossal prick and not worthy of praise.

The righteous need not cower before the drumbeat of human progress. Though the song of yesterday fades into the challenge of tomorrow, God still watches and judges us. Evil lurks in the datalinks as it lurked in the streets of yesteryear. But it was never the streets that were evil.


Your own book records God's willful acts of mass death and destruction, and acts of unbelievable cruelty towards individuals. He's no better than many of the gods you say don't exist. And that's another thing, you're so quick to dismiss all special otherworldly divine beings except the one you think is best. Tell me that doesn't smack of hypocrisy.
2012-11-03 10:10:57 PM
1 votes:

UNC_Samurai: dready zim: phalamir: Bhruic: UNC_Samurai: God has not been proven not to exist, therefore he must exist.

Just to check, does everything that hasn't been proven not to exist exist, or does God get a special rule?

God hasn't been proven to exist, or been predicted by a theory grounded in proven principles. Therefore you can no more use him to discuss the physical universe than you can use owlbears to discuss DNA. Science does not allow for pulling unfalsifiable shiat out of your ass.

In many ways, Intelligent Design is one of the most obscene attacks on the majesty of God imaginable. "I cannot see how this could occur without God, so God had to do it" translates directly as "I am too stupid to come up with a way this makes sense without magic hand-waving by God" which translates directly as "Since God had to handwave to make it work, God is stupider than me, because not only did He have to handwave, but He was so dumb about how He did it that I was able to see the flaw that required handwaving". Accepting Intelligent Design is simply calling God a complete and utter farking retard moron, because a truly infinitely perfect omni-omni deity could - and almost be definition of being perfect, would have to - create a universe that was completely and utterly indistinguishable from one arising from random chance; otherwise His Design would not be perfect because of the obvious problems. And they are some ass-glaring flaws, since we know they are visible for people with virtually no education, single-digit IQs, and the reasoning skills of low-end rocks. Intelligent Design only works if you posit the most un-Intelligent Designer possible

Wait, you mean that because the universe does not look like it was made by god that means it was made by god?

Men in their arrogance claim to understand the nature of creation, and devise elaborate theories to describe its behavior. But always they discover in the end that God was quite a bit more clever than they thought.


Not very clever at all, actually, considering how many mistakes he made. Of course, the religious pin that on God getting so pissed at man that he cursed all of creation, which paints God as a colossal prick and not worthy of praise.
2012-11-03 10:10:17 PM
1 votes:

Jedi_Templar: Which amounts to "Evolutionary biology/geology/astronomy/etc. can't explain X, Y, and Z, so God did it"


Especially hilarious since Cdesign proponentists are scientifically and sometimes seemingly functionally illiterate, and frequently X, Y, and Z are things that science fully explained, verified, and folded into standard theory half a century or more ago. "No one has seen life arise from non-life", etc.
2012-11-03 08:05:10 PM
1 votes:

Ghastly: When I was a guest at a comic/sci-fi/anime convention I met a NASA scientist who had to be one of the scariest, craziest, wackiest, guys I've ever met and he took a huge liking to me. It was one of those situations where you start off talking about the science and he's interesting as all hell and then somewhere along the way the conversation takes a turn and suddenly it's about secret militias in the desert planning to blow up the Whitehouse with home made artillery cannons and government conspiracies to chemically manipulate the masses with engineered super viruses and then all of a sudden you realize this brilliant scientist you were talking with about solar microwave energy satellites is in fact stark raving bonkers mad.

And then you try to divorce yourself from the conversation... but he doesn't stop. He's still following you, still spouting madness you don't want to hear, because he imagines some kindred spirit in you, some special bond that the two of you will ride out the coming apocalypse together, shot guns in hand while you cleanse the burning earth with a spray of hot lead. You try to explain that you have a panel on tentacle porn to host as you make your way out of the green room and into the convention hall but he just keeps following you, trying to give you a list of websites you should read with a desperate urgency fuelled by his growing mania. You accept his quickly scribbled list of websites with a weak smile and a nod hoping that things will end there, but they don't. He doesn't stop. The normal social cues that let one know that a conversation is over are completely lost to him.

Yeah, NASA... lots of brilliant crazy people there.


To be fair, I suspect all physicists and other high-level scientists are at least a little crazy. I mean, among all else, we've chosen to get a degree in a highly scientific discipline, at a time when science is viewed with increasing disdain by a large chunk of the country.

/Then again, I *KNOW* I'm crazy... well, at least a bit neurotic.
2012-11-03 06:42:24 PM
1 votes:
When I was a guest at a comic/sci-fi/anime convention I met a NASA scientist who had to be one of the scariest, craziest, wackiest, guys I've ever met and he took a huge liking to me. It was one of those situations where you start off talking about the science and he's interesting as all hell and then somewhere along the way the conversation takes a turn and suddenly it's about secret militias in the desert planning to blow up the Whitehouse with home made artillery cannons and government conspiracies to chemically manipulate the masses with engineered super viruses and then all of a sudden you realize this brilliant scientist you were talking with about solar microwave energy satellites is in fact stark raving bonkers mad.

And then you try to divorce yourself from the conversation... but he doesn't stop. He's still following you, still spouting madness you don't want to hear, because he imagines some kindred spirit in you, some special bond that the two of you will ride out the coming apocalypse together, shot guns in hand while you cleanse the burning earth with a spray of hot lead. You try to explain that you have a panel on tentacle porn to host as you make your way out of the green room and into the convention hall but he just keeps following you, trying to give you a list of websites you should read with a desperate urgency fuelled by his growing mania. You accept his quickly scribbled list of websites with a weak smile and a nod hoping that things will end there, but they don't. He doesn't stop. The normal social cues that let one know that a conversation is over are completely lost to him.

Yeah, NASA... lots of brilliant crazy people there.
2012-11-03 06:16:57 PM
1 votes:
My state is debating gay marriage this election cycle, so we're being bombarded by ads from people claiming that being public about their anti-gay opinions got them fired. Recently I was watching one of these ads and thought to myself, "Maybe you were just crap at your job."

I always figured that if you could get fired because of a tweet, your job was pretty much hanging by a thread anyway.

My roommate is still complaining about how he lost his last job (three years ago), claiming that the boss just had it in for him. When I point out that he never got in to work on time, did things that were specifically against union rules, and was never shy about telling others what he thought of his boss, the management, and the company in general, all during a time of mass layoffs for the entire industry, he just looks blank for a moment and then goes back to insisting that his boss just had it in for him for no reason.
2012-11-03 05:10:57 PM
1 votes:
All you have to do is look around and see how badly whatever "intelligent designer" did at its job. Random tumors, cancers, genetic mistakes that cause extra limbs, conjoined offspring, missing limbs/eyes/organs, inbreeding creating defects, the lack of quick adaptability nearly all species have, species overspecializing to the point of extreme frailty towards changes (cheetahs, pandas, bananas, many of our domesticated grains). It reeks of either lack of knowledge and foresight, or extreme carelessness.
2012-11-03 02:27:20 PM
1 votes:

phalamir: God hasn't been proven to exist, or been predicted by a theory grounded in proven principles. Therefore you can no more use him to discuss the physical universe than you can use owlbears to discuss DNA. Science does not allow for pulling unfalsifiable shiat out of your ass.

In many ways, Intelligent Design is one of the most obscene attacks on the majesty of God imaginable. "I cannot see how this could occur without God, so God had to do it" translates directly as "I am too stupid to come up with a way this makes sense without magic hand-waving by God" which translates directly as "Since God had to handwave to make it work, God is stupider than me, because not only did He have to handwave, but He was so dumb about how He did it that I was able to see the flaw that required handwaving". Accepting Intelligent Design is simply calling God a complete and utter farking retard moron, because a truly infinitely perfect omni-omni deity could - and almost be definition of being perfect, would have to - create a universe that was completely and utterly indistinguishable from one arising from random chance; otherwise His Design would not be perfect because of the obvious problems. And they are some ass-glaring flaws, since we know they are visible for people with virtually no education, single-digit IQs, and the reasoning skills of low-end rocks. Intelligent Design only works if you posit the most un-Intelligent Designer possible


You....but.....I....
.................newsletter
want it.
2012-11-03 02:07:43 PM
1 votes:

RandomAxe: The major problem with most Intelligent Design arguments is that they argue for a Designer with a rather low intelligence. Frankly, as religion they qualify as blasphemy. The fact that their proponents aren't smart enough to realize this is a strong argument, on its own, for not taking them seriously.


The major problem as I see it is that it is arguing authority based on ignorance. I can only think of one way to explain this, so as I can't conceive another might exist mine is therefore correct.

Besides, I can think of another explanation for the rise of complex systems. One that does not require an outside factor to be brought in at all. (pops)
2012-11-03 01:31:20 PM
1 votes:
My favorite Intelligent Design proponents are the ones who wear man-made lenses in front of their eyes.
2012-11-03 01:23:59 PM
1 votes:
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," say Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't though of that" and promply vanishes in a puff of logic.
2012-11-03 12:34:49 PM
1 votes:

Nem Wan: gopher321: Of course, Einstein didn't really believe in the concept of a personal God with heaven and hell, just that there is structure to the world/universe...

I'm open to a theory of intelligent design that admits that any design that didn't make subsequent supernatural intervention by the designer completely obsolete wouldn't be intelligent enough. Put the question somewhere where the answer makes no material difference, and it makes no material difference.


Man's unfailing capacity to believe what he prefers to be true rather than what the evidence shows to be likely and possible has always astounded me. We long for a caring Universe which will save us from our childish mistakes, and in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary we will pin all our hopes on the slimmest of doubts. God has not been proven not to exist, therefore he must exist.
2012-11-03 12:25:55 PM
1 votes:
Why would you work for NASA if you don't believe in science? That's like being a birther and working for the Obama campaign.
2012-11-03 12:16:36 PM
1 votes:
"Intelligent design" scientist

No such thing
2012-11-03 11:46:40 AM
1 votes:
This situation reminds me of this e-mail from Doom 3:

| From: Derek Wayland
| Subject: MFS Compressor Numbers
| Date: 11-02-2145
| Body:
|
| Walter,
|
| I wanted to personally thank you for your latest modification proposal for
| the dilation matrix. The boys here at CPU have crunched your numbers and
| after some deliberation we've agreed that this is the most fantastically
| bogus theory that we've ever seen.
|
| If you are remotely interested in not getting your gnome-loving
| dragons-slaying power-leveling ass fired, I'd suggest you lay off the
| role-playing and learn some basic math.
|
| Good luck on your next review :)
| -Derek
2012-11-03 11:43:03 AM
1 votes:
Seems to me the only mistake JPL made was hiring this whackadoo in the first place.

Sadly, though, he'll become another martyr in the ID cause...
2012-11-03 08:55:27 AM
1 votes:
"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."

- Albert Einstein
 
Displayed 29 of 29 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report