Suit: NASA Specialist in Southern California Axed Over Intelligent Design

By | March 14, 2012

  • March 14, 2012 at 1:48 pm
    Anejo says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    It probably wouldn’t hurt to add “no religion or political talk” to the poster in the lunchroom that says “No Drugs”, “No Alcohol” and “No Sexual Harassment”

  • March 14, 2012 at 3:38 pm
    Shannon says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Hey. Guess what? If you harass your co-workers and create an uncomfortable/hostile work environment, you lose your job. You don’t get to whine and have your job protected just because you’re harrassing your co-workers about your religious views… it’s still harrasment.

  • March 15, 2012 at 11:26 am
    Paul Burnett says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Re: “Coppedge’s attorney, William Becker, contends his client was singled out by his bosses because they perceived his belief in intelligent design to be religious.”

    That’s because intelligent design creationism IS religious. Oddly enough, the only people who SAY it isn’t religious are overtly or covertly religious people – go figure.

    For instance, the American Association for the Advancement of Science says: “the lack of scientific warrant for so-called ‘intelligent design theory’ makes it improper to include as a part of science education.”;

    The American Astronomical Society says: “Intelligent design isn’t even part of science – it is a religious idea that doesn’t have a place in the science curriculum.”;

    The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology says: “Intelligent design is not a theory in the scientific sense, nor is it a scientific alternative to the theory of evolution. …intelligent design might be appropriate to teach in a religion or philosophy class.”;

    The National Association of Biology Teachers says: “intelligent design theory…(is) outside the scope of science and therefore are not part of a valid science curriculum.”

    But Federal Judge John Jones said it best in 2005: “We have concluded that intelligent design is not science, and moreover that intelligent design cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.” Judge Jones also stated: “It is ironic that several of these individuals (sworn witnesses), who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the Intelligent design Policy.”

    Creationists have been lying about intelligent design creationism for years – saying it is science and denying it has anything to do with religion. It will be interesting to see if Coppedge and his fellow travellers continue this well-established creationist custom of lying under oath.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*