Wallace was brilliant but evidently not schooled in the methods of science, for he shortly after fell into pseudoscientific beliefs, promoting seances and such.
Sadly this doesn't neccessarily mean he was unschooled in the methods of science, merely that he may have been selective in what areas he chose to apply that learning to, an all too common occurrence.
I have to say I wasn't impressed by Sternbergs characterisation of the reaction to the publication. He gave us four groups:
1) The extremists who denounced the fact that any work mentioning ID could get into a peer reviewed journal.
2) Those following the herd and influenced by members of the first group, who only objected because they were told they should be.
3) People whose work isn't impacted by evolution and therefore don't care one way or another.
4) People sympathetic to ID who offered their wholehearted support.
It seems that the only people who could object on any grounds must either be sheep or extremists.
Surely having recognised that the paper would be controversial it would have been wise of Sternberg to consult further than his one anonymous colleague who now appears to have decided not to put his head above the parapet.
This message has been edited by Wounded King, 09-17-2004 04:39 AM