Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Washington Post reports witchhunt by evolutionists.
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 1 of 45 (234871)
08-19-2005 2:53 PM


Many have questioned why IDers don't publish more in evolution dominated journals and have ridiculed concerns of persecution.
I suggest those evos here making those claims read the following article.
Within hours of publication, senior scientists at the Smithsonian Institution -- which has helped fund and run the journal -- lashed out at Sternberg as a shoddy scientist and a closet Bible thumper.
"They were saying I accepted money under the table, that I was a crypto-priest, that I was a sleeper cell operative for the creationists," said Steinberg, 42 , who is a Smithsonian research associate. "I was basically run out of there."
An independent agency has come to the same conclusion, accusing top scientists at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History of retaliating against Sternberg by investigating his religion and smearing him as a "creationist."
The U.S. Office of Special Counsel, which was established to protect federal employees from reprisals, examined e-mail traffic from these scientists and noted that "retaliation came in many forms . . . misinformation was disseminated through the Smithsonian Institution and to outside sources. The allegations against you were later determined to be false."
"The rumor mill became so infected," James McVay, the principal legal adviser in the Office of Special Counsel, wrote to Sternberg, "that one of your colleagues had to circulate [your rsum] simply to dispel the rumor that you were not a scientist."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.../08/18/AR2005081801680.html
The sheer hysteria of the mainstream scientific establishment in the Smithsonian towards the audacity to dare publish an ID paper is a demonstration of the lack of objectivity within evolutionism that I have been talking about.
This message has been edited by randman, 08-19-2005 02:59 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminAsgara, posted 08-19-2005 3:19 PM randman has replied
 Message 10 by Silent H, posted 08-20-2005 8:31 AM randman has replied
 Message 44 by LauraG, posted 08-29-2005 9:55 PM randman has not replied

  
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 2 of 45 (234880)
08-19-2005 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
08-19-2005 2:53 PM


Check prior thread?
Hi rand, we had a rather extensive debate on the Sternberg issue last year when it happened. You may want to read through this thread and post replies there. If you are heading on a different tack then the prior thread let me know, it may be time for a new thread.
Meyer's Hopeless Monster

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by randman, posted 08-19-2005 2:53 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by randman, posted 08-19-2005 10:20 PM AdminAsgara has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 3 of 45 (234954)
08-19-2005 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminAsgara
08-19-2005 3:19 PM


Re: Check prior thread?
Well, it seems there is now been more investigations into the truth of what happened and both sides are getting out, and a more educated discussion can take place about the reaction to the paper.
I am not so much interested in the paper itself, although I have read it, but in the reaction, and specifically it seems that the editor has to some degree been vindicated. He did share the article with others, although very weak as far as peer-review, but in keeping with previous articles by that particular journal.
He has been false accussed, both as a scientist and a person, and was called a creationist when that is clearly not the case.
I think looking at the reactions within the evo establishment tells us a lot about how things really are, and how close-minded this group is to even considering ID at all in any fashion, and how willing they are to go to great legths to try to ruin the careers and lives of anyone willing to break rank and at least give ID a fair hearing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminAsgara, posted 08-19-2005 3:19 PM AdminAsgara has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by crashfrog, posted 08-19-2005 10:41 PM randman has replied
 Message 9 by Percy, posted 08-20-2005 8:12 AM randman has replied

  
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 4 of 45 (234960)
08-19-2005 10:35 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 5 of 45 (234963)
08-19-2005 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by randman
08-19-2005 10:20 PM


Re: Check prior thread?
how willing they are to go to great legths to try to ruin the careers and lives of anyone willing to break rank and at least give ID a fair hearing.
He subverted peer-review and stacked the deck to fraudulently insert a paper into a journal. How is that a fair hearing? ID has had it's fair hearing, and it's been found to be worthless. What do we need more hearings for?
Isn't the fact that ID's defenders have to resort to this sort of chicanery and subterfuge evidence that the whole endeavor is basically worthless?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by randman, posted 08-19-2005 10:20 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by randman, posted 08-19-2005 10:50 PM crashfrog has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 6 of 45 (234965)
08-19-2005 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by crashfrog
08-19-2005 10:41 PM


Re: Check prior thread?
That's not what the Wsshington Post says happened. Are they part of the Creationist conspiracy as well.
Heck, they barred the editor from even attending a function because the evos were so riled up they didn't think they could keep order.
From an objective perspective, the evos in this story look like religious fanatics or something.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by crashfrog, posted 08-19-2005 10:41 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by crashfrog, posted 08-19-2005 11:32 PM randman has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 7 of 45 (234968)
08-19-2005 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by randman
08-19-2005 10:50 PM


Re: Check prior thread?
Are they part of the Creationist conspiracy as well.
The Washington Post? They're part of the "right-wing conspiracy", yes. Naturally they're sticking up for a right-wing position. Same for the US Office of Special Counsel. I mean, at least three top government officials - Bush, Frist, Santorum - have come out in favor of ID. The objectivity of a federal body, any federal body, in regards to this question must be examined.
Heck, they barred the editor from even attending a function
A function where they were going to disavow the article he published.
You neglected to mention that little detail.
You never answered my question, RM. If ID has such merit, why do it's proponents, like you, have to advance their goals through half-truths, dishonesty, and flim-flam?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by randman, posted 08-19-2005 10:50 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by randman, posted 08-20-2005 1:59 AM crashfrog has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 8 of 45 (234973)
08-20-2005 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by crashfrog
08-19-2005 11:32 PM


Re: Check prior thread?
The Washington Post? They're part of the "right-wing conspiracy", yes.
So the liberal paper, the Washington Post, is part of the right wing conspiracy, eh?
You're farther out there than I first realized, crash. Democratic Underground partisan, Marxist, or what?
You never answered my question, RM. If ID has such merit, why do it's proponents, like you, have to advance their goals through half-truths, dishonesty, and flim-flam?
Some questions should not be dignified with a response. I apologize therefore to any lurkers out there for commenting at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by crashfrog, posted 08-19-2005 11:32 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by crashfrog, posted 08-20-2005 8:47 AM randman has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 9 of 45 (234981)
08-20-2005 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by randman
08-19-2005 10:20 PM


Re: Check prior thread?
Hi Randman,
A copy of the letter sent by James McVay to Richard Sternberg can be found at Sternberg's website:
The Panda's Thumb already has a discussion going at:
About this:
randman writes:
He did share the article with others, although very weak as far as peer-review,...
The peer-review was more than weak, it was highly suspect. Given that Sternberg was surrounded by co-workers at the Smithsonian, at the National Institute of Health (Sternberg's actual employer), at the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, and everywhere throughout the field of research biology who would have recommended rejection of the paper out of hand, both because it was of exceptionally poor quality and because it was inconsistent with the focus of the Proceedings of the BSOW, Sternberg was somehow able to find three scientists who only recommended changes. These reviewers could only have been hand picked by Sternberg. That we still don't know who these peer reviewers were is disturbing.
...but in keeping with previous articles by that particular journal.
The Meyer article was not consistent with previous articles in the BSOW Proceedings, and the Washington Post article you cited quotes Sternberg admitting this:
Washington Post writes:
Sternberg harbored his own doubts about Darwinian theory. He also acknowledged that this journal had not published such papers in the past and that he wanted to stir the scientific pot.
It is nice that Sternberg has decided to come clean about this and admit the truth, but that's not what he said shortly after the Meyer paper appeared. On one of the pages at his website (Forbidden!) he said (and still says):
Sternberg writes:
Thus, the topic of Meyer's paper was within the scope of the journal.
I pointed out how wrong Sternberg's claim was in the previous thread in great detail in Message 177. And even though Sternberg is now being truthful in talking to the Special Council, the claim still appears at his website, as anyone can see.
The core issue isn't the topic of the Meyer paper. The core issue is the paper's incredibly poor quality as science. Only people whose religious beliefs had colored their judgment could believe otherwise, and it is Sternberg's demonstrated inability to exercise sound scientific judgment that has brought his career to a crashing end.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by randman, posted 08-19-2005 10:20 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by randman, posted 08-20-2005 3:50 PM Percy has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 10 of 45 (234982)
08-20-2005 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
08-19-2005 2:53 PM


The sheer hysteria of the mainstream scientific establishment in the Smithsonian towards the audacity to dare publish an ID paper is a demonstration of the lack of objectivity within evolutionism that I have been talking about.
Well I read the article, did you?
This does not at all answer why IDers don't publish in journals. It also does not testify to persecution from some evolutionist cabal.
What it does pretty accurately show is that a guy who likes to "stir the pot" and generate controversy, decided to do that very thing in a journal he was editing for the Smithsonian. The journal was a staid (described as "sleepy") small and specialized in nature. Yet he then went out of his way to generate controversy using their name and magazine...
Sternberg harbored his own doubts about Darwinian theory. He also acknowledged that this journal had not published such papers in the past and that he wanted to stir the scientific pot.
"I am not convinced by intelligent design but they have brought a lot of difficult questions to the fore," Sternberg said. "Science only moves forward on controversy."
That's a pretty jerky thing to do, and rather surprising. So then his colleagues got upset and began punishing him socially. Wow. That's huge.
And as it leaked out into the greater world some assumed incorrect things about this jerk, who admittedly used a noncontroversial journal to publish an article whose underlying theory ID he did not agree with, to generate controversy. They thought he must have supported ID, or creationism, or have something in common with most others running ID. Wow. Unbelievable.
There's no controversy in this, beyond the one that this guy wanted to create. He sowed the wind, he reaped the whirlwind.
By his own words, you can see why ID does not make it into journals. Guess that's why you didn't mention it in your quotes.
What I find interesting is that Bush appointed McVay to find out about SI employees hassling someone who admittedly used their journal improperly, yet seems to not care about who hassled Plame and Wilson for delivering accurate information, by smearing them as liars.
Yeah, in a way I guess some sort of conspiracy is being exposed in this article. A conspiracy by the Bush administration to protect bad information and information assessment methodology, while supressing and badmouthing competent analysts.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by randman, posted 08-19-2005 2:53 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by randman, posted 08-20-2005 3:58 PM Silent H has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 11 of 45 (234983)
08-20-2005 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by randman
08-20-2005 1:59 AM


Re: Check prior thread?
So the liberal paper, the Washington Post
The Post is conservative, not liberal. I think you're thinking of the New York Times.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by randman, posted 08-20-2005 1:59 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by randman, posted 08-20-2005 3:54 PM crashfrog has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 12 of 45 (235019)
08-20-2005 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Percy
08-20-2005 8:12 AM


Re: Check prior thread?
Percey, I hear you're spin. Try to look at this from a more objective perspective, as someone would if they didn't have a dog in this fight.
First off, he sent the paper to 3 scientists who thought the topic should be aired.
Second, it is within the scope of the journal. Of course, the journal had not published an ID paper, but at the same time, arguing that because it is ID, it is a priori not within the scope of the journal is, imo, way out of bounds.
Third, I've read the paper, the rebuttals and the rebuttals of the rebuttal. It is not weak science as you claim. Only an evolutionist totally biased against the idea would say that.
It appears to me the real issue is that evos liked to tout the fact that no ID papers had been published in their journals and got their panties in a wad over the fact someone dared do it, and they made sure it would never happen again, if they can help it, by maliciously ruining the career of the editor who published the material, making all sorts of false claims against him.
The Washington Post is not some sort of creationist newspaper. They are not out there promoting creationism or ID. They wrote an article that paints the evolutionist community in a very, very bad light because, well, that's the way it is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Percy, posted 08-20-2005 8:12 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by AdminNosy, posted 08-20-2005 3:58 PM randman has replied
 Message 21 by Percy, posted 08-20-2005 6:47 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 13 of 45 (235020)
08-20-2005 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by crashfrog
08-20-2005 8:47 AM


Re: Check prior thread?
Crash, the Washington Post is not conservative, not at all. It is "mainstream liberal", totally supportive of the democratic party even when it can be.
Now, being "liberal" does not mean it is far left and may be too mainstream than some hard-core progressives who are anti-globalism for instance, but you gotta remember this is the paper that brought Nixon down, that endorsed Kerry and usually endorses democrats.
But calling the Washington Post conservative is like calling Rush Limbaugh a fan of Bill Clinton.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by crashfrog, posted 08-20-2005 8:47 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by crashfrog, posted 08-20-2005 4:25 PM randman has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 14 of 45 (235021)
08-20-2005 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by randman
08-20-2005 3:50 PM


Scope of Journal
Second, it is within the scope of the journal.
What, exactly, do you think the scope of the journal is? In what way is this article appropriate to that scope?
This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 08-20-2005 03:58 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by randman, posted 08-20-2005 3:50 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by randman, posted 08-20-2005 4:23 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 15 of 45 (235022)
08-20-2005 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Silent H
08-20-2005 8:31 AM


a fair shake is a jerky thing to do
No. He published something controversial, and you think that is wrong?
Says it all right there. So as long as evos don't like it, it won't get published, and if it does, those that publish it will suffer the consequences.
You guys gotta realize that the reason the Washington Post article makes evos look bad here is not because they are inclined towards ID, but because the evo community has acted shamefully, and the rest of the nation sees it, but somehow you guys don't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Silent H, posted 08-20-2005 8:31 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Silent H, posted 08-21-2005 4:23 AM randman has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024