RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (4) < [1] 2 3 4 >   
  Topic: Religion On The Job, Religion, Antievolution, and Co-workers< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4511
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2012,06:35   

This thread is for discussion of instances where people claim religious discrimination when told they can't promote antievolution at work. There's a fairly long history of this, including the 1994 Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District case.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
midwifetoad



Posts: 3592
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2012,09:10   

http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2012....omorrow

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
Kristine



Posts: 3046
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2012,11:00   

Call the Wahhhhmbulance!! :p
Quote
Mr Coppedge was a "team leader" on the Cassini project at the agency's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California. He used to talk to his co-workers about the theory and handed out DVDs on it while at work.

He claims that led to him being demoted in 2009 and the termination of his employment as a computer specialist last year.

His case, which is being heard in a Los Angeles court, is being backed by a Christian civil rights group and the Discovery Institute, a proponent of intelligent design.

John West, of the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, said: "It's part of a pattern. There is basically a war on anyone who dissents from Darwin and we've seen that for several years. This is free speech, freedom of conscience 101."

William Becker, Mr Coppedge's lawyer, claimed his client was singled out because his superiors perceived his belief in intelligent design to be religious.

He said: "David had this reputation for being a Christian, for being a practicing one. He did not go around evangelising or proselytising.

"But if he found out that someone was a Christian he would say, 'Oh that's interesting, what denomination are you?' He's not apologising for who he is. He's an evangelical Christian."


Yeah, it's just a total coinckydinky that he's an evangelical. All right, kiddies - have at it! :)



--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10312
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2012,11:02   

I believe the thread 'religion on the job' (just below) is handling this.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Kristine



Posts: 3046
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2012,11:08   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 13 2012,11:02)
I believe the thread 'religion on the job' (just below) is handling this.

Yeah, yeah - I was just checkin'! *Blush*

Some good background here.

Quote
My run-ins with Coppedge are purely from his writings … on the Institute for Creation Research’s website. Yep, that’s right: Coppedge is a young-Earth creationist, at least based upon his writings. He has written several articles for the ICR, though I have only addressed two in this blog: “Venus and the Battle of Uniformitarianism (A Creationist Argument)” and “Dating Planetary Surfaces with Craters – Why There Is No “Crisis in Crater Count Dating”.” From his writings, he has a very poor grasp of astronomy, despite the attempt of argument from authority by posting at the bottom of them, “David F. Coppedge works in the Cassini program at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. (The views expressed are his own.)” I address this more below.

Coppedge runs computers at JPL for the Cassini mission to Saturn. His expertise is in computers, not astronomy. And not evolution.


Edited by Kristine on Mar. 13 2012,11:17

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3335
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2012,12:18   

What the heck is it with engineers and creationism?

Also, what the heck is it with engineers thinking that they know better than everyone else on the planet about everything?

I mean, our own local case in point, Joe the toaster repair guy, thinks he knows more about ID than the guy that effectively invented it, Dembski.  And he (in his own mind) surely knows more than the 10s of 1000s of practicing scientists.

The only actual scientist that I can think of is Behe, and his ideas are all but mainstream.  He just can't seem to square it in his own mind with his religion and has to say stupid things to try to justify his religion.

rant over.. thanks

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Kristine



Posts: 3046
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2012,12:28   

Waaaiiit just a second here - wasn't there a major miscalculation in the Cassini mission, that almost prevented it and its lander, Huygens, from communicating on the proper radio frequency, almost derailing the gathering of information entirely?

There was! Hmmm, I'm not saying it was Coppedge's fault, but...

Curse you all, I'm getting sucked back into the TARD! :D

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Tom A



Posts: 28
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2012,17:10   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 13 2012,12:18)
What the heck is it with engineers and creationism?

Also, what the heck is it with engineers thinking that they know better than everyone else on the planet about everything?

I mean, our own local case in point, Joe the toaster repair guy, thinks he knows more about ID than the guy that effectively invented it, Dembski.  And he (in his own mind) surely knows more than the 10s of 1000s of practicing scientists.

The only actual scientist that I can think of is Behe, and his ideas are all but mainstream.  He just can't seem to square it in his own mind with his religion and has to say stupid things to try to justify his religion.

rant over.. thanks

I know what you mean about engineers. I work with lots of them and they (almost) all seem to think they know everything about everything, and they have no doubt about it. I'm one of three scientists at our facility and we're always dumbfounded that the engineers don't ask for advice for things outside their area of expertise when starting a project, then come looking for help when it goes to hell because they made the wrong assumptions or didn't take certain factors into account when doing calculations.

I don't know if any of them are creationists, but all that I'm aware of are religious, and pretty dogmatic about their beliefs. Very few have any knack for looking at problems in a scientific way. They usually "know" what the solution is, and are truly confused when they turn out to be wrong.

Either people with tendencies to be arrogant, dogmatic and overconfident in their knowledge and abilities are drawn to engineering, or they are trained that way in school. Most likely, it's a combination of the two.
[Disclaimer: I'm speaking in generalities of most of the engineers that I know personally, not those who read and contribute to these pages]

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2012,17:45   

The Salem Hypothesis isn't really a hypothesis but it is a pretty damn good predictor.  If you want to go all meta- on a tard, particularly one that fits that bill, bring it up.  Frilldo diddled himself with that one so long that carlson made it a key couplet

ETA to get back on topic, it seems that a corollary of the Salem 'hypothesis' might be that instances like the Coppedge fiasco might be scarce, relative to the evil athiest conspiracy squashing good creation science in university settings.  Since, if it's true, engineers are more likely to be predisposed to being creationist it is much of a stretch to think that being a proselytizing creationist wanker ala Coppedge is more likely to escape disapproval in an engineering firm, as opposed to an academic department??

Edited by Erasmus, FCD on Mar. 13 2012,18:48

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
utidjian



Posts: 185
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2012,19:56   

I run the undergraduate labs for a small college Engineering Physics department. Basically a technician. Most of what I do is engineering. I work with scientists from Biology, Chemistry, Physics (of course) and even from Psychology in designing and building their experiments. One week I will be working on making some bio-pulverizers for a Biology lab, another week I will be designing and building a set of apparatus for radio-carbon dating using lasers, another day I will be helping a student design and build a controller unit for a CNC mini-mill, another week I will be helping a Psychology professor design a method for measuring the "anxiety" of a passenger in a car, another time I will working on a radio tracking system for some endangered turtles, to name a few... far too often I have to fix equipment that professors have wrecked because they didn't know what they were doing. Sometimes I get the time to work on my own projects.

I really love this job. I doubt I would have the freedom or variety in a larger college or university that keeps this job interesting. It is kinda like I get paid to fix, design, and build machines and apparatus. To me, it is as if I get paid to do my hobby. If I had independent means I would do the job for free.

I don't now, and never have, bought in to any part of the argument regarding design. Far from it. I see a heckuvalot more 'evolution' in the design process of the things I make and work with than I do of any sort of external 'information.' Equating the design process and the evolutionary process is not a good analogy for either but there is far more similarity and things I can learn from the evolutionary process and apply it to designs than can be done the other way around.

What is difficult for me to understand is how some engineers can not see the similarities as I do.

-DU-

--------------
Being laughed at doesn't mean you're progressing along some line. It probably just means you're saying some stupid shit -stevestory

  
Henry J



Posts: 4099
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2012,22:55   

Quote
What is difficult for me to understand is how some engineers can not see the similarities as I do.

My guess is that the ones that see that aren't as vocal about it as the ones that don't.

Henry

  
sledgehammer



Posts: 531
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2012,23:02   

I am the only physicist leading a team of engineers in instrumentation design.  For most of them, it's "don't bore me with the science, just tell what I need to know" so they can go off in a corner with their little piece to write some code or run a simulation to solve the immediate Problem Du Jour. And when things go south, I'm the one looking for the root cause, while they're looking for a band-aid to patch the thing together long enough to get through the next phase of testing. With only a few exceptions, most engineers I know are not interested in the science or physics behind the phenomenon that the instrument we're designing is used to investigate. This is especially true of the more overtly religious ones, who tend to be more cocksure of their abilities, while the exceptional ones tend to be younger, know when to ask questions,  and are eager to learn.

ETA: correctizationing of the grammaficationaries

Edited by sledgehammer on Mar. 13 2012,21:11

--------------
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein  (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

  
utidjian



Posts: 185
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2012,00:06   

sledgehammer,

I approach the problems that the scientists bring to me a bit differently. More like your younger engineers. I am very interested in the science behind (and even in front of) a particular problem. I am also interested in the whole project. I find that it is sometimes difficult to get enough details from the scientist about the exact thing they want.

I also have a tendency to 'overbuild' a particular device or instrument due to the amazing ability of some scientists to destroy it. This is not really a complaint but something I see as an interesting challenge.

I rarely trouble them with the difficulties I may encounter in making their stuff. I have learned that, for the most part, they are completely uninterested. My biologist, for instance, couldn't care less what particular alloy of stainless steel I should use for making his bio-pulverizers. Nor was he interested in how amazingly difficult it is to bore a smooth blind hole with a dead flat and smooth bottom with a smooth radius at the corner.

There is a lot of variation with physicists where I work. Some are very tidy and methodical and others are quite messy with stuff held together with tape, string, and paperclips... whatever comes to hand.

A more humorous take, obviously created by a technician:


Though I don't see myself as a Chuck Norris ;-)

-DU-

--------------
Being laughed at doesn't mean you're progressing along some line. It probably just means you're saying some stupid shit -stevestory

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1006
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2012,00:27   

I've been following Coppedge since before the "troubles" after I stumbled on his Creation-Evolution Headlines site.

The site has morphed a bit recently and is not nearly as "creationist" as the old site, but you can still find it via our pal Google.

Here's a sample of the old  Creation Safaris site.

Coppedge is involved in many things.  He configured routers and operated the HP OpenView network management software for the Cassini project, but those jobs went away during the budget cuts. He failed to upgrade his computer skills as JPL moved to Linux;  got laid off.

He's on the board of Illustra Media which distributes the Privileged Planet and other ID titles.  

He's associated with some weird outfit called Logos Associates with John Sanford, John Baumgardner, Steve Austin and other creationists.  God knows what they do.

I found an old LinkedIn page that says he got a BS in science education from Bob Jones University (no date, but probably in the 70's) and another BS in physics with an astrophysics concentration from California State University - Northridge.  His LinkedIn page was really out there leading you to believe he ran the Cassini project when all he did was monitor the network.

He's also listed himself as President of Master Plan Association which near as I can tell was a ministry set up by his father, now deceased.

Getting back to Creation Safaris and C-E Headlines, that's quite a piece of work.  He blogs on average 400 words a day, every day and has done so for about 8 years.  Even when he was having his HR problems with JPL and getting laid off he never missed a day.  He goes after all science, even his own colleagues at JPL.

I don't see how he held down a full-time job seeing as how he appeared to be a full-time YEC, too!  Although, there were some comments in the depositions to the effect that he seemed to spend a lot of time at work on personal stuff, but who knows.

Interesting fellow in a clinical sort of way.  Probably material enough for a thesis or two.

  
sledgehammer



Posts: 531
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2012,01:10   

DU-  I could tell from your previous post that you are one of the "exceptionals" that are a joy to work with. Your job sounds like a lot of fun, and I'm jealous. I also know of what you speak when you describe the more academically oriented scientists that have little appreciation for the art of engineering, and how to make things that work.  My undergrad degree is BSEE, but I've done a lot of ME as well (had to pay off those student loans).  I once had an engineering tech that loved the science and had been a tinkerer all his life, and he knew how to get things done.  He was worth his weight in gold.  Alas, after he got his engineering degree, he was lured away by one of my former colleagues who knew and valued his talents more than the company I was working for at the time.  I was so upset with the short-sightedness of the CEO, that I left as well.
 This is straying from the topic at hand, so I'll PM from here on out.

--------------
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein  (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

  
utidjian



Posts: 185
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2012,01:51   

Interesting stuff Doc Bill. His degree from Bob Jones Looniversity appears to be in Secondary Education (according to his LinkedIn page.)

The Creation Safaris and crev.info pages are both copyright "Master Plan Association."

There is an announcement on the crev.info page:
Quote
Reporting will be sparse through the month of March.
Please check back occasionally.

Perhaps he will be too busy in court to blog.  :D

After reading some of the court documents and comparing it to his LinkedIn page it does seem a bit fluffed up, but that isn't unusual for LinkedIn pages.

-DU-

--------------
Being laughed at doesn't mean you're progressing along some line. It probably just means you're saying some stupid shit -stevestory

  
carolfosterr



Posts: 1
Joined: Mar. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2012,05:30   

It sometimes happens with my LinkedIn pages too!
What might be the reason ?

--------------
paintless dent removal training

  
k.e..



Posts: 3003
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2012,06:50   

Quote (utidjian @ Mar. 14 2012,08:06)
sledgehammer,

I approach the problems that the scientists bring to me a bit differently. More like your younger engineers. I am very interested in the science behind (and even in front of) a particular problem. I am also interested in the whole project. I find that it is sometimes difficult to get enough details from the scientist about the exact thing they want.

I also have a tendency to 'overbuild' a particular device or instrument due to the amazing ability of some scientists to destroy it. This is not really a complaint but something I see as an interesting challenge.

I rarely trouble them with the difficulties I may encounter in making their stuff. I have learned that, for the most part, they are completely uninterested. My biologist, for instance, couldn't care less what particular alloy of stainless steel I should use for making his bio-pulverizers. Nor was he interested in how amazingly difficult it is to bore a smooth blind hole with a dead flat and smooth bottom with a smooth radius at the corner.

There is a lot of variation with physicists where I work. Some are very tidy and methodical and others are quite messy with stuff held together with tape, string, and paperclips... whatever comes to hand.

A more humorous take, obviously created by a technician:


Though I don't see myself as a Chuck Norris ;-)

-DU-

HA, CHUCK NORRIS DOESN'T DO ENGINEERING THE PARTS A SO SCARED THEY JUST ARRANGE THEMSELVES!

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror" DAVE TARD
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4511
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2012,09:18   

News report:

Quote

Coppedge claims he never forcibly compelled colleagues to accept his idea of intelligent design in the workplace. Intelligent design is a conviction that life is too complex to have developed solely through evolution and that the universe was designed by an intelligent entity.


This isn't about forcing people to accept your pretentious twaddle, David; it's more about forcing people to listen to your pretentious twaddle, over and over, when they've told you they don't want to.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4511
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2012,09:20   

Internet definition of fanatic: someone who will not change his mind and will not change the subject.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Henry J



Posts: 4099
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2012,10:48   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 14 2012,08:20)
Internet definition of fanatic: someone who will not change his mind and will not change the subject.

What about the ones that try to change the subject when they sense they're losing the argument? :p

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1006
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2012,11:30   

Once again, narcissistic personality disorder:

Quote
Believing that you're better than others.

Fantasizing about power, success and attractiveness.

Exaggerating your achievements or talents.

Expecting constant praise and admiration.

Believing that you're special and acting accordingly.

Failing to recognize other people's emotions and feelings.

Expecting others to go along with your ideas and plans.

Taking advantage of others.

Expressing disdain for those you feel are inferior.

Being jealous of others.

Believing that others are jealous of you.

Trouble keeping healthy relationships.

Setting unrealistic goals.

Being easily hurt and rejected.

Having a fragile self-esteem.

Appearing as tough-minded or unemotional.



I'm right and they're wrong.  Somebody has to stand up to the experts.  Same pattern with creationists over and over.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3335
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2012,11:45   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Mar. 14 2012,11:30)
Once again, narcissistic personality disorder:

Quote
Believing that you're better than others.

Fantasizing about power, success and attractiveness.

Exaggerating your achievements or talents.

Expecting constant praise and admiration.

Believing that you're special and acting accordingly.

Failing to recognize other people's emotions and feelings.

Expecting others to go along with your ideas and plans.

Taking advantage of others.

Expressing disdain for those you feel are inferior.

Being jealous of others.

Believing that others are jealous of you.

Trouble keeping healthy relationships.

Setting unrealistic goals.

Being easily hurt and rejected.

Having a fragile self-esteem.

Appearing as tough-minded or unemotional.



I'm right and they're wrong.  Somebody has to stand up to the experts.  Same pattern with creationists over and over.

Heck, I've got 50% of those characteristics... and I'm much better now.

Of course, I can also recognize those traits in myself and pretty accurately judge when they are unfounded.

Know thyself... and all that.

I wonder if 'stalking' should be on that list?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Henry J



Posts: 4099
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2012,12:50   

Quote
Believing that you're special and acting accordingly.

I'm unique! Just like everybody else!

  
noncarborundum



Posts: 320
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2012,14:18   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 14 2012,11:45)
Of course, I can also recognize those traits in myself and pretty accurately judge when they are unfounded.

Or do you just think you can? ? ? ?
   
Quote
Exaggerating your achievements or talents.

;)


[Edited to remove unintentional smilie]

Edited by noncarborundum on Mar. 14 2012,14:19

--------------
"The . . . um . . . okay, I was genetically selected for blue eyes.  I know there are brown eyes, because I've observed them, but I can't do it.  Okay?  So . . . um . . . coz that's real genetic selection, not the nonsense Giberson and the others are talking about." - DO'L

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1006
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2012,14:30   

We're all special.

It's just that some of us are more special than others!

  
Kristine



Posts: 3046
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2012,16:29   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 14 2012,09:18)
News report:

Quote

Coppedge claims he never forcibly compelled colleagues to accept his idea of intelligent design in the workplace. Intelligent design is a conviction that life is too complex to have developed solely through evolution and that the universe was designed by an intelligent entity.


This isn't about forcing people to accept your pretentious twaddle, David; it's more about forcing people to listen to your pretentious twaddle, over and over, when they've told you they don't want to.

Yes, exactly. You cannot really force a belief on someone in the United States. For all the rabble-raising from the right wing, even they cannot do it.

The laughable irony is, the Supreme Court (largely conservative due to Reagan, Bush HW, and Bush W appointees) have really raised the bar for claims of discrimination. One now (as I recall - correct me if I am wrong) has to show intent on the part of the employer, not merely results/behavior. So, here is another case in which one faction of conservatives have screwed over another.

But of course, this is not being argued in front of the SCOTUS, and another irony here is that the media may be

Expelled from the conference in chambers. (I'm being facetious - I know that such conferences are rarely if ever public.) ;)

Oh, dog, somebody please stop me! Stop me before I post again!

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
khan



Posts: 1484
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2012,18:00   

My last ~2 years before I retired I was supervisor of a bunch of fetus fetishist god wallopers.
Yes they could program, but it was all I could do to not bring in a rubber chicken and smack them.
Not sure of their opinions re creationism, afraid to ask.

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

  
SLP



Posts: 136
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2012,09:36   

I came across an old article by Coppedge on a paper dealing with a new algorithm using large datasets to reconstruct phylogenies.  It was primarily snarky insults and nonsense, but two things struck me -

1. The program employed a heuristic search.  Coppedge - supposedly knowledgeable about computers and such - declared this to mean  that they were "just guessing"

2. He referred to the Maximum Likelihood search criterion as a "value".

IOW - he is completely ignorant of this stuff, yet felt qualified (if not compelled) to write a "take down" of this article.

The worst part is, so many lay YECs gobble his stuff up - they LIKE that he is obnoxious, rude, insulting, etc.  Pity that they cannot see that his bluster is used to cover up his angry stupidity.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3335
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2012,10:08   

Quote (SLP @ Mar. 15 2012,09:36)
I came across an old article by Coppedge on a paper dealing with a new algorithm using large datasets to reconstruct phylogenies.  It was primarily snarky insults and nonsense, but two things struck me -

1. The program employed a heuristic search.  Coppedge - supposedly knowledgeable about computers and such - declared this to mean  that they were "just guessing"

2. He referred to the Maximum Likelihood search criterion as a "value".

IOW - he is completely ignorant of this stuff, yet felt qualified (if not compelled) to write a "take down" of this article.

The worst part is, so many lay YECs gobble his stuff up - they LIKE that he is obnoxious, rude, insulting, etc.  Pity that they cannot see that his bluster is used to cover up his angry stupidity.

I read that same article and the critique of it... I think I happened to be reading another thread here at the time and followed the link.

The article and critique was years ago.

You know, in our modern, linked-in, facebooked, blogged society, it's really going to become interesting how one's personal life affects one's job.

No, it probably shouldn't, but it does and it will.  Does it matter if you're gay, Christian, atheist, homophobic, or any of that.  It shouldn't (it will, but it shouldn't).

On the other hand, if you are spouting views that are diametrically opposite that of your job and it's a critical part of your job, then maybe it should be taken into account.  Especially those who directly influence the public in some way.

Like, for example, a science teacher teaching students wrong science.  Or a priest being caught with drugs and hookers (of the same sex).  His sexual orientation, even his drug use really shouldn't matter.  But if I was going to a church that was intolerant to homosexuals, then I think I'd want to know if the priest was a homosexual.

It's a very interesting conundrum.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
  107 replies since Mar. 13 2012,06:35 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (4) < [1] 2 3 4 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]