March 13th, 2012
10:08 PM ET
Terminated employee claims bias against intelligent design
By Stan Wilson, CNN
Los Angeles (CNN) - A former veteran systems administrator for NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory claimed during opening arguments in a civil lawsuit Tuesday that he was wrongfully terminated for expressing his views on intelligent design.
David Coppedge, who spent 15 years on the Cassini Mission, one of NASA and JPL's most ambitious planetary space explorations, asserts that he was unlawfully fired under his employer's anti-harassment and ethics policies. JPL contends Coppedge created a hostile workplace while expressing his religious views with co-workers.
His suit also claims that supervisors wrongly admonished him for distributing DVD documentary films titled "Unlocking the Mystery of Life" and "The Privileged Planet," which present biological and cosmological explanations for intelligent design, according to the complaint.
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.
CNN's Belief Blog – all the faith angles to the day's top stories
JPL, based in Pasadena, California, is one of the world's most prestigious institutions for scientific research and development institutions. In Coppedge's civil lawsuit, he describes JPL's space missions as designed, in part, to explore the origin of the universe, uncover whether life exists elsewhere in the universe - or is improbably confined to earth - and whether conditions necessary for life to exist reside elsewhere in the universe.
Launched in October 1997, the Cassini mission to Saturn included a sophisticated robotic spacecraft that orbited the ringed planet and provided streams of data about its rings, magnetosphere, moon Titan and icy satellites. Cassini was the largest interplanetary mission ever launched, with the largest technical staff and participation of 18 countries.
In his role, Coppedge was responsible for making technical and scientific recommendations to management and developing presentations about various technical capabilities of new systems and upgrades, his attorney William Becker Jr. said during opening arguments. During his tenure, Coppedge developed a "sincere interest in the scientific evidence behind life's origin," which led to his conviction about "intelligent design."
Coppedge shared the view that life and the existence of the universe derived not from "undirected material processes," but from "intelligent cause," said attorney Becker.
In March 2009, Coppedge claims that his supervisor advised him that co-workers had complained that he was harassing them over debates about his religious views and coercing them in the workplace into watching DVD programs about intelligent design. During his opening statements Tuesday, attorney Becker Jr. told a judge hearing the case that Coppedge's supervisor threatened him with termination if he "pushed his religion" and ordered Coppedge to refrain from discussing politics or religion with anyone in the office.
During that 2009 meeting, Coppedge alleges, his supervisor became angry and belligerent asserting that "intelligent design is religion" and ordered him to stop. "The tone of the meeting and conduct were abusive and constituted harassment," his attorney said in court.
JPL spokeswoman Veronica McGregor said the lawsuit "is completely without merit, and we intend to vigorously fight the allegations raised by Mr. Coppedge."
In their response to the civil suit, attorneys for JPL stated in court documents that one of Coppedge's co-workers complained to his supervisor that Coppedge made her feel so uncomfortable in discussing "non work related topics" that it bordered on harassment. The supervisor encouraged Coppedge to limit his discussions about topics like religion and politics to periods like lunch breaks, according to the response.
The documents state that other co-workers complained they also felt harassed when Coppedge expressed views in favor of California Proposition 8, the ballot initiative in 2010 that defined marriage between and man and woman.
"David Coppedge alienated his co-workers by the way he acted with them, and blamed anyone who complained about those interactions," according to JPL in their response. "He accuses his former project supervisor and line manager of making discriminatory and retaliatory employment decision, when they had in fact protected him for years."
JPL alleged that Coppedge "was seen as stubborn, unwilling to listen and always having to do things his way, which frustrated project members and resulted in errors."
Coppedge was demoted after eight years as lead systems administrator and terminated last year. He cited those actions as a factor in basis for his suit claiming religious discrimination, retaliation, harassment and wrongful demotion.
JPL has denied Coppedge's termination complaint, contending he was among 246 employees laid off as part of a downsizing plan that affected 300 staffers.
"JPL complies with all applicable state and federal employment laws including laws governing freedom of expression," said JPL spokeswoman McGregor.
California Institute of Technology operates JPL, which is federally funded under a contract with NASA. Scientists are employed by the Caltech.
The case has generated interest among advocates of intelligent design. The Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian civil rights group, and the Discovery Institute, a proponent of intelligent design, are supporting Coppedge's lawsuit. The National Center for Science Education, which supports the teaching of evolution in public education, is closely monitoring the case.
Coppedge is seeking damages for wrongful termination, including attorney fees. The nonjury trial is expected to last four weeks.
*An earlier headline for this article identified David Coppedge as a scientist. His attorney later said that despite his technical work with computers, he is not a scientist.
About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.
Having a belief in ID is one thing. I don't, but I don't begrudge those that do. However if this guy was constantly evangelizing about it in the workplace he had to go.
Heh, he wasn't fired for his beliefs, he was fired for being an ineffective nincompoop. Why didn't you do your job today sammy? Oh, because you distributed 1000 DVD's? Uhm, what? Third time this month. Thats it. You're fired.
I could care less what the guy believes, but if he's pushing it on his coworkers and they complain, what is the supervisor supposed to do? Let it continue? I'm not saying he can't talk about it, but once they make it clear it's not something they want to discuss, and once the supervisor tells him to stop, he's on his own. This is not retallitory. The guy forced JPL's hand and has no one but himself to blame.
Science is biased against bad ideas. This is by design.
See what I did there?
A) There SHOULD be a bias against ID, especially in the scientific community.
B) The headline on CNN's main page is "Intelligent Design Scientist Sues..." Talk about a contradiction in terms!
They should fix that. He's a sysadmin, not a scientist.
If life is the result of an accident then it would seem to be very simple. So why is it that with all of our science and technology we are unable to create even the simplest cell in the lab under the perfect conditions? Out of the millions of fossils that have been uncovered and examined, we have yet to find a single transitional form from one genus to a different one. Why is it that when we examine the fossil record, we see the same class of animals and plants living today as were living back then and unchanged? Good science in based on all the information, but if you choose to ignore some the information because it conflicts with your preconceived ideas, you will never get the correct answer.
An invisible man in the sky is not a valid explanation for questions for which we don't yet have answers.
Your post is so full of holes I don't know where to start!
The amino acids that form the basis of life has been created .. cells take more time than we've been here!
Fossil records show changes of species.
When is the "back then" you refer to in "..class of animals and plants living today as were living back then and unchanged"?
Natural Selection does not equal Accident, please read more than Rush's Blog
And this whole paragraph is full of- wait for it- a bunch of beeswax.
You've chosen to ignore all of evolutionary biology simply because your pastor told you it was wrong.
It is hard to imagine that you typed the sentence "ibut if you choose to ignore some the information because it conflicts with your preconceived ideas, you will never get the correct answer." in a post so full of misinformation that it could be used as an example of how not to argue in a classroom.
There is tons and tons of evidence supporting evolution by natural selection. Both in the fossil record, in observable trends in a few species and in DNA variation over time and place. There is so much information for evolution that you have to purposely avoid any actual explanation of it and the evidence behind it to make any claim like you've done.
Also, biogenesis (the actual beginning of life) is not the same as evolution. As it may well have taken millions of years for the building blocks of life to have accidentally come together in just the right way, it is hardly surprising that a few decades of scientific research haven't duplicated it yet.
In any case, saying that anything science can't explain must be magic is ridiculous. If science had been taking that stand all this time, we'd never have left the stone age. Unless you want to give up your computer, internet, electricity and modern medicine, you should be very happy that scientists search for real knowledge rather than settling on "invisible friends who do magic."
Maybe the universe is residual matter from the decomposition of god's corpse? There's no we we can disprove that so it must be considered as an option right?
Now there's a theory I like!
So you're saying we're just maggots living in a zombie. I'm good with that.
Whoah CosmicC, I didn't say anything about a zombie, if he's a zombie now then that throws a whole different dynamic into the theory. I meant to imply that he was dead. So sayeth Zarathustra.
so to draw a non-religion parallel......I live in Dallas Tx and work in an open area with a lot of people. We had a guy that worked here back in the 90s that was a huge Detroit Lions fan. He was constantly arguing with our other co-workers about how Barry Sanders was better than Emmit Smith. After about a year or so of his loud and passionate arguing many of us would just avoid him as we did not feel that the arguments were valid nor important enough to listen to. So at that point he was very isolated and was not able to collaborate with the rest of us effectively. Then the company decided it needed to reduce the number of people that worked in our department. Guess who was at the top of the list of people to be let go.
The point is this is not so much about religion but more about shutting the hell up about non work related hot button issues when it becomes clear that people just don,t want to hear it.
It goes beyond that Tim. The things that this guy was pushing at work were ideas that directly conflict with the work they were trying to do. Your example would be more comparable if the organization you worked for was the Dallas Cowboys.
this is true but my point is this....dont be an insufferable ass at work. I wish i worked for the cowboys. I should send them a resume.
Michael P...I dont know what you believe, nor do I care.
Why is it okay to express your disbelief in intelligent design but it is not okay to express your belief in intelligent design? To me those that have a problem with this ma expressing his belief are the ones that are being narrow minded.
Because in the work place, there is no place for it. Suppose he was distributing DVD's claiming UFO's came here and it was ancient astronauts that started life on Earth? It's a valid belief system, but not one with any valid proof, therefore not appropriate to push on your co-workers, especially in an environment of scientists.
His views conflict with the core purpose of the organization he worked for. People there are trying to do serious work and his views, at least in the minds of people who do the type of work JPL does, are insane and in direct conflict with the work they're trying to do.
BTW, the whole 'intelligent design' idea came from Erik Von Daniken who in the 70's claimed the intelligent design was proof aliens came and altered our world. Funny how the Christians who called him a heretic now stole his ideas and claim it for themselves.
Further, it was stated that he wasn't terminated (or demoted) for his views, but the harassing and overbearing way he pushed them on his fellow employees. Of course he and his attorney claim it was the views themselves, but he even admits that he was disciplined repeatedly over a period of years for harassing people.
I'm of the firm belief Africa is an alien penile colony.
I wish I had a nickel for everytime someone called an intellegent design scientist an oxymoron on ths blog today.
Why isn't anyone arguing about me anymore!? Do I not exist any more .. where did I go?
Maybe because the name of the God you are thinking of is Zeus.
I'm so upset I spelled my own name wrong!! Now, not only do I no longer exist ... I'm embarrased too!!
Oh, I haven't forgot about you. I will have my revenge.
My 2 cents. Many (if not all) of you seem to think the theory of Intelligent Design presumes the exisitence of a God or higher power. This is incorrect,and renders any argument you make as such in error. ID, in its true form, makes no such presumption- although I admit many religious people maul it to fit their beliefs.
There are many sciences that seek out an intelligent origin. Archeology, Forensics, and Cryptology, just to name a few. Did this pile of rocks just happen to fall in such and such a way, or where they stacked here on purpose by ancient peoples? Did this individual die of natural causes, or did someone intentially murder them? Is there a (purposefully) hidden code in this group of digits, or is it just a random string? Etc. None of these scientists are accused of being religious nuts because they are seeking out intelligent design and origin in their practices.
And yet, scientists who conclude, based on the same principled observations, that there are intelligent patterns and designs found in other parts of nature, are rendered ignornant 'jeebus' followers. The assinine, patronizing ridicule they recieve is embarassing. It would be like laughing at an archeologist because he had the gual to suggest the pyramids were actually designed and not just some random fluke of time and matter.
Now I know what you're thinking- the difference is that ID scientists point to GOD as the author of the design. Not so. The science (in its true form), can make no such claims. God is not observable (directly anyway), and thus beyond the spectrum of science. Many people are left scratching their heads, or theorizing that a designer beyond their undestanding must be responsible for the designs they observe in nature. This doesn't inherently mean "God." That is a lable some people put on it. Others might point to some other intelligent being(s)- other life out there, etc. Of course if it was some sort of 'alien' life, that just begs the question- where did they come from? In the end, many conclude that any designer responsible for the complexity and precision observed in nature must be 'beyond nature', or supernatural. This would be a CONCLUSION, not a PRESUMPTION from the beginning. Big difference.
Even among secular scientists, there are many unknowns. We know the universe had a beginning, but we don't know what caused it, or what if anything existed before that. It is illogical to think the universe sprang into existence on its out of pure nothingness- and yet what other 'natural' altneratives are there? If you bring up multi-verses, you're just passing the buck. Where did those originate? Etc.
In conclusion, I admit ID has unfortunately been hijacked by a lot of relgious people claiming the world is only 10,000 years old and other such nonsense. We can observe the earth is much older, and that evolution over time has played a fundamental process in complex life on earth. That doesn't mean there isn't room for the legitimate, objective study of observable patterns and design in nature- whatever you conclude to be responsible, if anything.
Please don't ridicule all ID supporters as religious nutbags. It's unfair and lends no creadance to your arguments.
So after your long diatribe about ID not being religious and apologizing for it and calling criticism simplistic, please tell us then what your alternative explanation is?
Exceedingly well written. You are very correct that many have no knowledge of ID and blast away in their ignorance.
Nobody else pushes ID education in schools except for radical Christian people. You can't see the big picture. It has nothing to do with using science to find an intelligent origin of life. It has to do with trying to do with Christians trying to find some grounds to put their beliefs back into schools.Just ask any supporter of ID education if it is okay if we teach the many other religious origin ideals in schools besides the Judeo Christian God and I guarantee you they will be against it.
ID doesn't have to mean God, but let's be honest, it's a thinly veiled attempt to seem more centrist than a creationist.
ID is basically "Nature is too complicated for me to understand, therefore it must have been made by something really smart."
Which is utter BS.
I think that the points you make about religion are a straw man argument. The real problem that people of science have with ID is that it makes presumptions ahead of the evidence. ID is an untested (and likely untestable) hypothesis, yet people who believe in it expect it to have the same credence as the theory of evolution. Claiming that something exists with no evidence to lead you to that conclusion is the scientific equivalent to arguing that magic is the cause of gravity.
It isn't up to the scientific community at large to disprove ID, it is up to the proponents of ID to present any evidence at all to support their hypothesis. Hasn't happened yet.
Trail Mix tries to obscure what ID is but betrays it in the phrase 'God is not observable (directly anyway)...' He (or she?) goes through this long exposition of how those who attack ID as a religious theory encroaching on science are simple minded and that ID is somehow more complex than that betrays their own beliefs. Trail mix and all other ID proponents put 'god' in the blank spaces of scientific explanation. It is religious and it is one long argument from ignorance.
You say "it is illogical to think the universe sprang into existence on its [own] out of pure nothingness." Well, therein lies the problem with 'people like you' (ID, religion, whatever). Just because some primates trashing about on an insignificant planet, in an insignificant solar system, (and galaxy, and cluster, etc). do not understand how the universe (or life, or ...) came to exist, it does not mean you get to make the unimaginable leap of 'faith' to suggest there is a supernatural being or a God or a designer, or whatever you want to call it.
The universe never promised to give you sufficient intelligence enough for you to decipher how its internal workings. As Albert Einstein said (paraphrasing), the most incomprehensible thing in the universe is that the universe is comprehensible to us (albeit to a limited extent). It's not the other way around where you demand absolute knowledge and will stop at nothing from claiming you comprehend (even if that means you introduce an even great complexity).
Intelligent design could be the work of ancient astronauts. Anything is possible and we should keep an open mind. It is not out of the realm of possibility and we should all keep an open mind. However, there is no evidence that the super natural exists. One can't keep an open mind on certain things, like pigs can fly, pink elephants, and the super natural is up there. There are no ghosts, no zombies, and no vampires – and no god as proposed by religions.
@ CJ – I don't have any explanation, nothing concrete. I would like to belive in God, personally. I hope there's more to life. Can I put that in a test tube? No, of course not. I am at least open to the possibility however, not dogmatically opposed simply because it lies beyond my capacity for understanding. I am open to discussing ideas, though I don't appreciate anyone forcing their faith on me, whether that's God or the lack thereof.
You don't ridicule archeologists for determings the statues on Easter Island are man made, even though there's no conclusive agreement on how they came to be there, do you? Just because we can't explain something doesn't mean it had to be a 'natural' (ie non intelligent) cause.
@ Clafiry, thank you. There's a lot of hostility towards ID because of the way it's been used by Christianity, and I can appreciate that frustation. However it's not fair to the scientific discipline.
@ Joe T.- I support the discipline of Intelligent Design, and yet I would be happy to have other religions taught along side christianity in school (in some sort of religious studies class, mind you.) I guess I just disproved your guarantee? I'm not unaware that religious people use ID to futher their cause. What I'm asking is that you be aware of the difference between the scienfic discipline, and the motivations of certain individuals. It's not fair to discredit the discipline because some people use it to propogate their beliefs. That would be like me refusing to drive Toyota made vehicles because there's a group of people somewhere who claim Toyota cars are made in magic fair caves by leprechauns. Can I discredit the manufacturer because people misrepresent their product?
@Gustav. "a thinly veiled attempt". I think this is a little presumptuous. Not everyone who is open to design in nature is trying to ram religion down your throat. Maybe there are people, like myself, who are open to the idea of something existing beyond our scope of understanding. It's not that I think something beyond my understanding must point to a designer in and of itself. Hell, I don't know if there is a "god". But if there is a lot of observable evidene to suggest the possibility of something beyond nature, then rejecting it out right on some presumptous logical high ground seems as counterintutive as those you claim default to God when they lack understanding.
"Archeology, Forensics, and Cryptology, just to name a few. Did this pile of rocks just happen to fall in such and such a way, or where they stacked here on purpose by ancient peoples? "
Hi, so... I'd like to point out to you that Archaeology is the study of human society, so it's a given that whatever they are studying involves human artifacts. When you said, "Did this pile of rocks just happen to fall in such and such a way" I think you were referring to geology, a completely different field of science. Same thing with forensics and cryptology, it is a given that whatever they're investigating is originally created by humans.
Science itself is the never ending pursuit for truth. It really doesn't matter if you or anyone hold a belief about some kind of "intelligent design". If our world really was "designed" by something other than the natural flow of the universe, science would inevitably and naturally uncover it in time.
Weird, some posts aren't showing up on here. I won't bother replying to everyone, but thanks for readind and responding nonetheless. I'm just an analytical guy looking for answers, same as most people on here I'm guessing. I don't know if god exists. I hope he/she does.
One final pose: Many argue that presuming the existence of a higher power is ignorant. I wonder if presuming the lack of such possibility is as equally ignorant.
@ Steve- I guess what i meant with the rocks was ... did this pile of rocks (which happens to be in the shape of a pyramid) happen on accident or on purpose? Ie- rocks in structures- not just a geological layer. Sorry for the confusion. I don't think these sciences preclude human origins. There are some 'structures' that have been so decayed by time, that geologist aren't sure if humans are responsible. Thus, they investigate to find out. Forensics team are often confornted with the problem of figuring out if a death was caused by another human, or simply by natural causes. Ie- was it a heart attack, or is there evidence of some poison that mimics a heart attack, etc. ?
I will grant you though, the do presume the existence of design. Afterall, it is design they are looking for.
"Believe what I say or I'll sue you!" – The 21st Century Christian
Wow. I think this guy is suing because he lost his job......not because those around him do not believe the way he does...you are kind of making a good point just for the wrong side.
I'm a christian and don't approve of suing. That said, you are making an absolute. Christians and nonchristians alike engage in suing these days. A ridiculous number of them.
Umm, where did you get that he's suing them for "not believing" him? He's suing them for firing him.
You could just as easiliy say "Believe waht we say or we'll fire you - the 21st century government"
"Believe what I say or I will sue you," 20th Century Atheist (Scopes/Darrow)
As an atheist, I don't really value 'beliefs' all that much. I am humble enough to realize there are many things I don't understand (and perhaps will never understand). I don't have the urge to concoct a supernatural being in order to make me feel smart enough (that I have the answer to everything, i.e. god) or feel whole enough (that I will live on forever). I also realize that scientific facts don't care for my beliefs. Gravity is fact regardless of my beliefs. Evolution if fact regardless of my sorrow that all of this will come to an end quickly (for me).
So you see, it's people like who are unwilling to accept the universe for what it is insist of forcing a belief system down on everybody's throat. If ID were presented as a scientific theory and as such had scientific evidence, then I have no choice to be to accept it (regardless of my beliefs, again). But of course everybody realizes ID isn't a scientific theory, thus the reason it's always waged in courts as supposed to scientific literature.
A thought from the article that most people haven't seemed to notice as to what was probably the biggest reason he was fired:
"JPL alleged that Coppedge 'was seen as stubborn, unwilling to listen and always having to do things his way, which frustrated project members and resulted in errors.'"
If I am constantly making mistakes at work, I would not be shocked if I were fired.
Yes, that is absolutely correct!
Hard for me to believe a highly educated scientist being a creationist advocate. How does he reconcile this cognitive dissonance. I suppose it's not so surprising since creationism is the epitome of self delusion. It's almost the equivalent of a geologist being a member of the flat earth society.
He's not a scientist, he's a computer systems administrator. Few biologists, few geologists, few physicists and astronomers are creationists, they see the evidence for evolution and an old – indeed, ancient – Earth in what they work with every day.
He wasn't a scientist – he was a system administrator (computer systems technician/manager). He might have an engineering background, but almost certainly didn't have an (advanced) scientific background.
I hope this guy loses big time. I've met the type, who are always trying to "engage" and push their beliefs on others. Just shut up and do your job and you won't get fired.
No one claiming to believe in intelligent design can also claim to be a scientist. Science requires unbiased observation. Intelligent Design is a bias. It's different than a scientific hypothesis that exists to be examined, proven, refined, or rejected.
That should tell you something. Research is biased despite efforts to remove the bias.
Real scientists aknowledge the bias.
I am a nuclear physicist and do not believe in God, which was a slow process in my life to conclude that a few billion years of trial and error along with some incredible sets of "rules" make what happened on Earth inevitable, and is happening on any planet with the near same conditions that are found here. That said your comment that you cannot believe in intelligent design and be a scientist is completely wrong. Many I work with strongly believe that God is responsible for making the rules that allow all this to happen. I see no conflict with this belief. I do not share it, but it does not refute the science no matter which side you are on about God or no God.
Thank you Addison for your intelligence. Not many commenting today.
Your sentiment is correct, but you have a few mistakes. Intelligent design can be phrased as a hypotheses, but it is not a scientific hypotheses and it is not bias that is the problem. The concern with intelligent design is that it explains phenomena away from cause effect relations. It states that things are irreducibly complex such that they could not have been designed gradually. It leaves open the explanatory component to the hypotheses. Hence, if it is irreducibly complex to have evolved by the mechanisms that have proven so effective in explaining other phenomenta – then what mechanism explains the origins of these other things claimed to be irreducibly complex? They leave that explanatory component silent, but in the silence we know that it is God that it refers too. Hence, the explanatory system is empty. A hypotheses that explains nothing is of no value to science. No evidence for the process trying to explain away the things we can observe is not a basis for accepting a theory. This means that scientists could claim that anything could be real and could explain all phenomena and the basis for accepting such ideas is because nobody has yet to prove that such a thing exists. Non evidence is a logical fallacy where the "reasoner" has negative information for the possible existence of any fact and thus concludes that this is superior to a theory that has tangible information that can be tested. You cannot test the existence of things that only leave "supposed" traces of evidence, when the existence of such things is based on their pervasive influence yet pervasive elusiveness that remains elusive because nobody has yet to devise a means to find it yet. It is a matter of convenience and that kind of approach could be used to explain away and it is the only information that we have concerning a great majority of things, but it kills the inquiry. Why look any further when you don't understand something you can simply explain it away to the neverending elusiveness of the universe not wanting any further reason. Imagine where science would be if it worked that way. We would have dropped our inquisitiveness and drive to probe deeper a long time ago, because anything too complex for the mind doesn't need further explanation – it is irreduciblly complex and explained by an elusive thing that we can never find, prove, or test. That explains nothing. Hence it is religion, it is empty, and it kills the perpetual inquiry of science that is so important. Anyone who is a scientist adoping the irreducibly complex concept cannot claim to be a scientist, because they do not understand their trade.
You could, but only in very specific cases. The standard intelligent design belief has been proven in court to be completely based on changing a few words in a creationist text to try to make it legally "not religious."
It is possible to take a different view of intelligent design and believe that life on Earth was created and guided by a previously naturally evolved species that was advanced enough 4 billion years ago to have helped life on Earth get to where it is today. However, the common intelligent design promoter actually believes that it was a supernatural force or godlike being outside of natural processes that did the "designing" and that view is not compatible with science.
Once you attribute observable facts to a supernatural cause, you have left the realm of science and entered mythology.
I don't like Newt, but he is right: the elite liberal media unfairly bashes religion. It's an absolute double standard, and an absolute disgrace to CNN and the likes. I always find myself wondering what traumatic experiences hurt elite liberal media people so badly that they bash religion every chance they get. Protect freedom for U.S. citizens- defeat Barack Obama.
Question: How does (did) Pres. Obama hurt "freedom for U.S. citizens"? What did he (his administration) do or say that would lead a reasonable person to that conclusion?
Freedom of religion does not mean you have the right to harass your co-workers about your religious views.
"Stop" and "leave me alone" mean exactly that, and when an employee deliberately ignores requests from co-workers and instructions from employers to cease pushing their religious beliefs on company time, then they're not doing their job and get fired. Simple as that.
Except that the "liberal press" (at least here) is calling him what he'd like to think he is, but isn't: a scientist. He's a sysadmin. You don't need any training in the sciences to wrangle computers.
And where exactly does the article bash religion?
Hey- folks- thanks for proving my point exactly 🙂
unfairly bashes religion!!!????!!!! ARE FKNG KIDDING!!!!!????!!!!!
religion is trying to teach my child that a man will rise from the dead and when this happens everything will be destroyed by a loving God. Did i miss something? fk off.
KSO- religion is trying to teach your kids to take responsibility for themselves and to show love for your fellow men and women- the exact opposite of everything that is the Obama Administration. 😉
If by "elite liberal" you mean an educated free thinker. I guess the trauma is the theft by conservatives of the true origins of our country; liberal intellectualism.
Cosmic C- In my experience, most people who've spent a lot of time in school don't have as much free time to think. Instead they're inundated with group think and school loans.
So you are annoyed with CNN "pushing it's beliefs" (or lack thereof) on a news site you choose to view, but you do not view the employee "pushing his beliefs" on workers who do not choose to hear it, as a problem to a work place...hmmm. Your logic is flawless, I must say! A true reflection of your handle – "johnson -head" lol
Jesus was a socialist, BTW! Im willing to bet that all of us atheists/agnostics know more about your religion (guessing christian) than you, yourself know about it. That is just a hypothesis, though, based on experience and statistical data...
LiberalAgenda2Educate: thanks for calling me a "johnson head" lol. If Rush Limbaugh did that your elite liberal media friends would have tried to ban him from all forms of media. lol
If by "elite" you mean smart and well spoken, and by "liberal" you mean open minded and thoughtful, then I'd count those as great things. The problem seems to be the growing mindset that there is something wrong with being smart, educated, well spoken and open minded. That is why the US is now losing ground in science, math and technology. Other countries look down on magical explanations and ignorance. Too many in the US look down on education and critical thinking.
The workplace is where we go to work, it's not the place where we bring in heated topics like Religion and Politics. If a team member inapropriately insists on bringing their personal religious or political views into the workplace and begins to affect the team's output and productivity, then they should be performance managed, and if necessary terminated.
The real issue here isn't one's belief, its an expectation that when going to a job we should be focused on completing the job we were hired to do, and not bring into the work environment topics that arouse strong passions and detract from a team's mission.
Yes, especially when his views contradict the purpose of the job.