Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9078 total)
99 online now:
kjsimons, Phat (2 members, 97 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,185 Year: 6,297/6,534 Month: 490/650 Week: 28/232 Day: 5/23 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Meyer's Hopeless Monster
Percy
Member
Posts: 20975
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 173 of 207 (146435)
10-01-2004 8:52 AM


Fact Check
I found this comment over at http://darwin.bc.asu.edu/blog/index.php?p=132:

Interestingly, both ISI Web of Science and PubMed search shows no publications for Sternberg in the last ten years...

I know some of you have access to these services. Do you know if these are the appropriate searches for Sternberg's field of taxonomy? If so, is this true? Because if true, it starkly contradicts Sternberg's own list of "Refereed Publications" at this page of his website.

--Percy


Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Wounded King, posted 10-01-2004 9:55 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20975
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 175 of 207 (146438)
10-01-2004 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by ID man
09-30-2004 8:01 PM


Hi, JP!

A few months ago in Message 2 I replied as Admin to a guidelines inquiry from you with this:

There are a few guidelines that when violated will bring swift action: plagiarism, participating as multiple ID's, and huge cut-n-pastes that waste disk space, no matter how apropos.

I provide this information in case you were considering claiming you weren't aware of the rule. Your awareness of the rule is also indicated in the previous message where you said this:

John Paul writes:

8. Please do not participate as more than one ID. You can change your user ID by going to your Profile Page and creating a new alias.

John Paul- no need to change.

Yes, there was no need to change.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 8:01 PM ID man has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20975
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 177 of 207 (146452)
10-01-2004 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by ID man
09-30-2004 3:16 PM


Consideration of the Claim that the Meyer Article Was Consistent With Prior Content
Hi, JP!

I wanted to come back to your earlier point regarding this claim from Sternberg at http://www.rsternberg.net:

The journal has published in areas such as comparative cytogenetics, phylogenetic hypotheses and classifications, developmental studies, and reviews of faunal groups.

Sternberg provides a list of representative titles in support of this claim, which I reproduce here in it's entirety:

Rickart, E. A. 2003. Chromosomes of Philippine mammals (Insectivora, Dermoptera, Primates, Rodentia, Carnivora). Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 116(3): 699-709.

Panero, J. and V. A. Funk. 2002. Toward a phylogenetic subfamilial classification for the Compositae (Asteraceae). Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 115(4): 909-922.

Pohle, G. and F. Marques. 2000. Larval stages of Paradasygyius depressus (Bell, 1835) (Crustacea: Decapoda: Brachyura: Majidae) and a phylogenetic hypothesis for 21 genera of Majidae. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 113: 739-760.

Newman, W. A. 1985. The abyssal hydrothermal vent invertebrate fauna: a glimpse of antiquity? Bull. Biol. Soc. Wash. 6: 231242.

Brusca, R. C. and B. R. Wallerstein. 1979B. The marine isopod crustaceans of the Gulf of California. II. Idoteidae. New genus, new species, new records, and comments on the morphology, taxonomy and evolution within the family. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 92(2): 253-271.

Summarizing this list, there is one non-taxonomic title in 2003, one in 2002, one in 2000, one in 1985, and one in 1979.

This means that 40% of all non-taxonomic articles in the BSW Proceedings have come under Sternberg's watch. Before Sternberg, non-taxonomic articles appeared at the rate of one every six years or so. After Sternberg became editor the rate went up to one per year, six times higher.

But that analysis merely takes Sternberg's claim that the list is non-taxonomic at face value. The 2002 article's title is "Toward a phylogenetic subfamiliar classification for the Compositae (Asteraceae)". This is an article on classification, which is what taxonomy is.

Or how about the 1979 article titled, "The marine isopod crustaceans of the Gulf of California. II. Idoteidae. New genus, new species, new records, and comments on the morphology, taxonomy and evolution within the family". The article even has taxonomy in the title.

So the evidence already indicates that Sternberg greatly exaggerates the amount of non-taxonomic content in the Proceedings. Certainly it appears the Proceedings puts EvC Forum to shame when it comes to staying on topic.

But there is more evidence we can examine. While the articles of the Proceedings are not online, the titles and abstracts for the past couple volumes are, and so I provide links to those titles here (the list of titles itself is too long to include in this message).

April 2003
June 2003
September 2003
December 2003
April 2004
June 2004

Let me provide examples of just a few titles:

A new species of Procambarus (Crustacea: Decapoda: Cambaridae) from Veracruz, Mexico. Marilú López-Mejía, Fernando Alvarez, and Luis M. Mejía-Ortíz, pages 169–175.

Pseudopaguristes shidarai, a new species of hermit crab (Crustacea: Decapoda: Diogenidae) from Japan, the fourth species of the genus. Akira Asakura, pages 153–168.

A new genus of tiny condor from the Pleistocene of Brazil (Aves: Vulturidae). Herculano M. F. Alvarenga and Storrs L. Olson, pages 1–9.

A new species of Magelona Müller, 1858 (Polychaeta: Magelonidae). María Teresa Aguado and Guillermo San Martín, pages 542–547.

Note the focus on describing new species or redescribing or reclassifying existing species. Now, here's the title of Meyer's paper. Note that even the wordsmithing done by Sternberg and Meyer on the title couldn't hide the fact that it just doesn't fit, not even close:

The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories. Stephen C. Meyer, pages 213–239.

It doesn't even come close to resembling any other title I can find in the BSW Proceedings.

The evidence is clear that Sternberg's claim that the BSW Proceedings regularly deviated from its taxonomic focus is false.

The evidence is also clear that Sternberg's claim that the Meyer article was consistent with prior articles that had appeared in the BSW Proceedings is also false.

--Percy

This message has been edited by Percy, 10-01-2004 09:32 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 3:16 PM ID man has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20975
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 178 of 207 (146453)
10-01-2004 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Wounded King
10-01-2004 9:55 AM


Re: Fact Check
Thanks for checking!

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Wounded King, posted 10-01-2004 9:55 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Brad McFall, posted 10-04-2004 1:36 PM Percy has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20975
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 179 of 207 (146460)
10-01-2004 10:51 AM


A Prediction
Just as the cold fusion fiasco of Fleischman and Pons ruined their careers, Sternberg's ID fiasco will run his. I predict that Sternberg will not hold his current positions for more than another year. Those positions are:

  • Staff Scientist, National Center for Biotechnology Information

  • Research Associate, National Museum of Natural History

He'll probably join Discovery Institute or one of the related theological institutions.

I don't think this is an iffy prediction. Behe maintains his academic position by publishing legitimate scientific articles and by conducting himself with integrity and honesty in scientific arenas. He makes no secret of what he believes, but he's never tried to sneak his ID beliefs into his technical contributions. This is in stark contrast to Sternberg, who has really stuck his neck out professionally with his editorial misconduct and transparent defenses. We'll keep watch during the next year and see what happens to him.

--Percy


  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20975
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 181 of 207 (147065)
10-03-2004 9:03 PM


Who is that Intelligent Designer behind the curtain?
After all his denials that the identity of the designer was a consideration for ID, I'd love to see John Paul's reaction to this quote from the Raelian Movement's statement about the Meyer paper:

"The Raelian Movement would like to underscore that The Theory of Intelligent Design does not lead to a supernatural designer but to an extraterrestrial human civilization designer..."

Of course, maybe Raelian Movement members aren't genuine IDists.

--Percy


  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20975
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 186 of 207 (182917)
02-03-2005 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by JonF
02-03-2005 11:40 AM


Re: A response to Sternberg's accusations against the Smithsonian
As evidence of my perspicacity, I quote myself in full from Message 179 of this thread a few months ago:

Percy writes:

Just as the cold fusion fiasco of Fleischman and Pons ruined their careers, Sternberg's ID fiasco will run his. I predict that Sternberg will not hold his current positions for more than another year. Those positions are:

  • Staff Scientist, National Center for Biotechnology Information

  • Research Associate, National Museum of Natural History

He'll probably join Discovery Institute or one of the related theological institutions.

I don't think this is an iffy prediction. Behe maintains his academic position by publishing legitimate scientific articles and by conducting himself with integrity and honesty in scientific arenas. He makes no secret of what he believes, but he's never tried to sneak his ID beliefs into his technical contributions. This is in stark contrast to Sternberg, who has really stuck his neck out professionally with his editorial misconduct and transparent defenses. We'll keep watch during the next year and see what happens to him.

Sternberg is making a ridiculous attempt to paint a picture of religious discrimination. The reality is that he's being systematically ostracized for letting his religious views influence his scientific judgement. He abused his editorial authority by rigging the peer-review process, and in defending his misconduct he was less than forthcoming about his views. This is transparently obvious from his defense of the Meyer paper as good science, from his attempts to justify the Meyer paper as an appropriate topic for the BSOW proceedings, and from his defense of ID as a worthy area for scientific investigation.

Naturally Sternberg's supervisors and colleagues are shocked and distrustful. It's one thing to disagree on scientific matters, but quite another to disagree on the nature of legitimate science. The transparently religious motivations of the ID movement are not overcome by the equally transparent denials. Sternberg is sorely confused if he believes that the same obfuscations and dissemblings that fool the public would work on the scientific community, and especially on those in his own fields. What's happening to him is the predictable outcome of violating the trust given scientists.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by JonF, posted 02-03-2005 11:40 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by JonF, posted 02-03-2005 4:23 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 188 by Brad McFall, posted 02-03-2005 4:59 PM Percy has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20975
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 190 of 207 (184391)
02-10-2005 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by JonF
02-03-2005 11:40 AM


Re: A response to Sternberg's accusations against the Smithsonian
There were some letters to the editor responding to the WSJ Klinghoffer column: Intelligent Design Intrigues, but Is It Science?.

I'm not sure whether viewing this link requires a WSJ subscription. If others can't view it let me know and I'll post a copy of the page.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by JonF, posted 02-03-2005 11:40 AM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by NosyNed, posted 02-10-2005 11:09 AM Percy has not replied
 Message 192 by PaulK, posted 02-10-2005 11:10 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20975
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 193 of 207 (184411)
02-10-2005 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by PaulK
02-10-2005 11:10 AM


Re: A response to Sternberg's accusations against the Smithsonian
Here's a link to a local copy: http:///DataDropsite/WSJ_ID_Letters.html

I used IE to create the copy, and I'm wondering if it is so complete that it even checks registration. Let me know if it's still not accessible and I'll post an image file instead.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by PaulK, posted 02-10-2005 11:10 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by PaulK, posted 02-10-2005 11:48 AM Percy has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20975
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 195 of 207 (184425)
02-10-2005 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Brad McFall
02-08-2005 2:36 PM


Interview with Meyer and Chapman of Discovery Institute
Janet Parshall archives previous programs of the week at http://www.jpamerica.com/ProgramSchedule.asp. I've listened to the segment interviewing Steven Meyer and Bruce Chapman (president of Discovery Institute). Here are brief paraphrased excerpts:

  • Janet: One would think the Smithsonian would be a bastion of open thinking, but apparently not.

  • Janet: Discovery institute is a most prestigious organization, a public policy center on national and internation affairs, and has some of the greatest minds in history.

  • Meyer: The BSOW distanced itself from the article by citing the position of the AAAS which calls ID unscientific by definition, a sort of doctrinal declaration.

  • Commercial: Now you can set up your own on-line Christian bookstore from your own home. Make money and share the word of Jesus Christ at the same time.

  • Janet: One would think the Smithsonian would be a bastion of liberalism and openmindedness, but apparently when someone with two PhD's like Richard Sternberg dares question Darwinism he is sunk into the primordial ooze fighting for his job. If you touch Darwinism then you're going to have a shambles of your professional career. Sternberg is trying to save his career because he has been so vilified by the Smithsonian.

  • Chapman: Some of his colleagues are shunning him, some are afraid to work with him on projects. I don't understand how someone could be persecuted only for carrying out his duties as an editor. Scientists have always said that science should be discussed in peer-reviewed journals, then as soon as it appears in a peer-reviewed journal they make it a personal matter. There's been no response on the merits, they just attack the people.

  • Meyer: The media have been unable to get off the theme of religious motivations, and don't seem to perceive that there is a genuine scientific controversy here. Right across the subdisciplines of evolution are criticisms of Darwinism in the technical literature. The people like myself and Behe and Demski are scientists with good credentials making arguments based upon evidence. What we find in the media is the Scopes trial stereotype. When we try to get across that there is a serious evidential challenge to Darwinism, what we're confronted with is, "What's your religious angle."

  • Janet: Well, Stephen, in our conversations we've talked about the growing number of scientists who embrace the theory of intelligent design, because there are so many holes in Darwinism, and you've told me that many people who are moving closer to intelligent design are people who have not made a proclamation of faith of any kind.

  • Meyer: One of the biggest news items from last year was that the world's most famous atheists, Anthony Flew, had embraced some form of theism or belief in a creator on the basis, in part, on the arguments for design that he was reading from people in our movement, in particular the argument about information. Clearly his position is not based upon religion. I recently followed Flew on a BBC program where he'd just excoriated the Darwinists for not following the evidence where it leads.

  • Janet: In yesterday's New York Times Michael Behe had an OpEd piece where he wrote: "The strong appearance of design allows a disarmingly simple argument: if it looks, walks and quacks like a duck, then absent compelling evidence to the contrary, we have warrant to conclude it's a duck. Design should not be overlooked simply because it's so obvious." Yet you have scientists who say, "I don't want to believe, I want to know, therefore my belief is predicated upon the evidence."

  • Chapman: We have a topsy-turvy world where those advocating intelligent design want to talk about the evidence, while the scientists are saying all we want to talk about is our committment to Darwinism as an absolute given that you cannot challenge. They're acting in a kind of religous way. Darwinism *is* a religion.

  • Janet: It reminds of the people who believed the world was flat.

  • Chapman: They also make it hot for people who don't accept the theory. There are cases of real discrimination. It has a religiosity to it that just has everything turned upside-down.

  • Meyer: This is a very exciting debate, and one thing that has come from the intense interest in this is a lot of inquiries from younger scientists. Scientific revolutions take place in the younger generation.

  • Janet: Sternberg is saying he's spending all his time trying to salvage a scientific career. This is a man with two PhD's! What a tremendous loss for the scientific community if he gets marginalized for this. Where's the hue and cry from the public?

  • Meyer: Darwinism is a dying scientific theory. It is being propped up by bluff and by power. When you get into the evidence, as Jonathon Wells book does very well, all the most prominent most knock-down drag-out arguments for the theory, each one of them is flawed, overstated or just outright false. The theory was concocted in the 19th century during the era of the steam engine, and we're now in the era of nanotechnology and information technology, and when we look at the information technology in the cell it's hard for many of us to think that good old Darwin's theory is going to survive this, no matter the attempts to supress the dissent.

  • Meyer: Behe's OpEd piece was the 3rd most referenced piece in yesterday's New York Times.

  • Chapman: Behe is a highly respected microchemist in his field, and he has shown there are no Darwinian explanations for what he sees in the cell.

Here's a link to the Behe NYT OpEd piece. You need to register, but it's free: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/07/opinion/07behe.html

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Brad McFall, posted 02-08-2005 2:36 PM Brad McFall has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by PaulK, posted 02-10-2005 2:31 PM Percy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022