Sternberg is a creationist. We have adequate evidence of that.
We also know that he circumvented the editorial procedures to sneak a pro-ID paper into an inappropriate journal. It is no great stretch to suspect that he may also have chosen reviewers likely to give the paper a pass regardless of merit.
quote: I wish to announce that I have left the ID movement, my position having become increasingly untenable, due to my advocacy of of common ancestry within ID, it being finally suggested by Phil Johnson that I leave.
If species are not related by common ancestry then how does Intelligent Design explain where they come from ?
I think the obvious desparation of your excuses is quite suffiicent to show how damning the evidence is. I suppose if he were on a Flood Geology group you would say that "might well" be the "future of geology".
Baraminology is based on YEC doctrine. It is allegedly a Biblical concept (although in fact it is nowhere in the Bible) and the papers requested include purely theological ones.
This message has been edited by PaulK, 09-11-2004 02:58 PM
No, I don't admit that I am wrong. Because you have offered no evidence that I am wrong. As I say Behe's departure would be too politically damaging for the ID movement to simply ask him to leave for endorsing common descent.
And I've got to admit that I laughed at your description of ID. No, ID is all about influencing the American school curriculum. Want to explain why the ID movement won't even take a stand on the age of the Earth ?
And since you agree that rejection of common descent places ID in the creation camp you have to deal with Steve Jones' departure from the ID movement - according to Jones over that very issue.
If you have offered any evidence other than Behe's statemnets accepting common descent then I have yet to see it. I have already given reasons why I do not consider that adequate. Let me add that Behe's personal views are not necessarily those of the movement. Let us also note that the ID movement is happy to include YECs like Paul Nelson.
Moreover if you cannot work out for youself how the departure of Behe would damage the ID movement then I see little hope for you. Not only is Behe active in promoting the ID message he is one of the few IDers of any stature in any branch of Biology. It would be a serious blow to ID's scientific pretensions to lose him at all - the more so if it were over a scientific issue. But apparently you don't see any of that.
On the other hand you have yet to deal with Steven Jones' testimony. Steven Jones states that he was asked to leave the ID movmenet because his belief in common descent was not comaptible with membership - and by no less a figure than Philip Johnson (who has a far better claim to speak for the ID movement thna Behe).
And let me also point out that you did indeed state that a movement that rejected common descent should be placed
quote: In the Creation camp,
Anyone can go back and see that you agreed with me on that point.
So now all your attacks have been proven false are you going to try to seriuously deal with the issues ? Or can we just expect more abuse because you can't stand the truth ?
I'm saying that the ID movement, as a movement, does not accept common descent. All Behe's testimony tells us is that one member of the movement personally accepts common descent and has not been forced out as a result.
The more important issue is Steve Jones' testimony, since he states that he was asked to resign from the movement by one of the few people who could legitimately claim to speak for the ID movenent.
I would expect that Sternberg was given the position for his experties in taxonomy. The fact that he was given the position is evidence against any claim that there is discrimination against creationists. His unethical behaviour in publishing Meyers' paper perhaps suggests that there should be.
1) The alleged "positive arguemnt" comes nowhere close to meetign the requirements stated in the paragraph under attack. It provides no model of what happened, how or when.
2) The article attempts to insinuate that "An unintelligent, non-guiding force did something, somewhere, somehow, for no apparent reason" IS accepted as a valid model. This is a complete falsehood. A serious attempt at providing a model for the evolution of the flagellum is here: http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html
Where does the ID movement offer anything with equivalent detail ?
In short the allegations of "double standards" are completely false, and are based - at best - on ignorance of the actual situation. G
Let me make a simple point. You can't say that all members of the Democratic Party agree with every item of Democratic Party policy. Nor can you say that something is not Democratic Party policy just because you can find one Democrat who disagrees with it.
Given Philip Johnson's standing in the ID movement if he asks a member to resign for endorsing Common Descent then we have strong evidence that Common Descent is against the ID movement's "official line" even if they permit others holding similar views to remain.