Here's where you are wrong, Holmes, and I can prove it to you. You admit that controversy is good to move science forward and introduce new ideas.
And you admit that the reaction was wrong to the paper. It was characterized by bad behaviour.
But you don't seem to have put the 2 together and fall back on accusing the IDers of mere whining or something.
Think about the mindset you are in. Is that really truth you are trying to spread?
What we have is the evolutionist community not willing to allow the controversy in normal parameters, but engaging in a total withchunt false accusing a scientist and deliberately colluding together to try to smear his name and ruin his career.
is that the kind of thing you think is good, holmes?
You see the problem is that controversy could be good if evos played by fair rules and weren't so screwed up that they cannot act like decent human beings in this matter, and moreover, those not participating are so clouded in judgment they cannot see that their fellow comrades have done anything wrong.
Your reaction and statements are typical of communities characterized by ideological indoctrination. You don't even see that you are holding to a contradiction.
You admit:
Most, and certainly I, would agree that people overreacted to what Sternberg did, such that false rumours were spread about him.
And:
There is an argument (sternberg makes this as well) that progress only comes from controversy. There is an argument that controversy is good.
And use this to then justify the bad behaviour:
Is controversy good and natural? Then quit whining when it occurs.
You basically are then saying that IDers should expect a witchunt, and that it is OK. Quit whining.
It seems to have gone right over your head that the point of the matter is controversy should not consist of personal attacks on someone's career, but a reasoned defense and attack of scientific ideas.
Instead, you hold the contradictory position of admitting withhunts are wrong, and that witchhunts are good.