Washington Post reports witchhunt by evolutionists.

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... 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)

My reply was meant to suggest that no one came away clean. Though there are no conspiratorial "sides" either.One man took advantage of his position to do something he shouldn't have, just in order to create a controversy because he believes that's what creates progress in science... guess he was really way out being editor of a journal that was known not to be that way.Then people overreacted to his actions, including some knee jerk assumptions about him.Evos don't look bad, some specific people do, including the editor. And I might repeat that ID looks all the worse as the editor pretty clearly dismisses it himself, other than to give rise to questions.

---

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

You need to take a breath and step back to really take in the evidence you have at your hands. Most, and certainly I, would agree that people overreacted to what Sternberg did, such that false rumours were spread about him.On the other hand, you keep missing what he did. You act as if this was a case where ID research was submitted, and accepted, and so the evo community reacted negatively based wholly on its conclusions.The facts are...and this is within your very citation as well as statements from Sternberg:1) The article submitted to the journal was not a research article, it was essentially a position paper.2) The article was NOT (sternberg clearly admits this) anywhere close to what the journal normally handles as it is a small and specifically focused journal.3) Sternberg and even his peer-reviewers apparently did not feel the article was wholly convincing, and do not ascribe to ID theory, but was important to print anyway just to "raise questions" and so move science forward by "creating controversy".4) This circles back to point 2, in that the journal was not dedicated to an idea that science is moved by controversy, and rather the opposite... careful and sober (described as sleepy) analysis of issues a bit back from "cutting edge".What happened then, should be obvious. A failing, but specific human failing, and not conspiratorial level machinations. Don't you think that's exactly why this happened? The heads of ID, and many of its proponents (including you), have this conspiracy mindset. If something gets submitted it will be cast down and destroyed.And so what happens? A paper (and again it was not a research paper so that is not the same as what most of us are asking to see) gets submitted to an incorrect journal given its nature, and put in by someone for the very reason of creating controversy, and then the ID crowd says "see we were right!" when a contoversy occurs.That's called a self-fulfilling prophecy. I can tell you my neigbors hate me and are out to get me and they are using the gov't to do so. If I then go and smash their windows with a brick, it is not proof that I am right when they have me arrested.Interestingly enough I find ID theorist's love/hate relationship with controversy and science somewhat amusing. There is an argument (sternberg makes this as well) that progress only comes from controversy. There is an argument that controversy is good. But then those that react negatively are chastised for creating a controversy, or not welcoming ID in without controversy.It seems ID theorists need to pick a side. Is controversy good and natural? Then quit whining when it occurs. Is it bad? Then quit inciting controversy and proudly proclaiming how good it is.Kuhn already argued that controversy is inherent in science, and thus will always be around when paradigms change. I don't actually agree with that because a lot of progress is not necessarily paradigm shifting, and wholly without controversy. But that point may be valid for the big shifts.In that case, why do ID theorists act like they are being put upon, whining like I have never heard any scientist whine in my life, when they are being treated exactly like everyone else has been.I might add ID theorists also need to pick a side on how science treats them. Are they credible because there is a vast number of disatisfied evos, and many numbers are attending their conferences? Or are they credible because as can be seen evos are locked in a conspiracy, wholly ignoring and trying to shut them out, since that is the only way evo will survive?I see no witchhunt, especially when ID theorists themselves hype how popular they are within science. You don't get it both ways.This message has been edited by holmes, 08-22-2005 05:42 AM

---

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

You are mistaken, and Percy was very much right. I said there is such an argument out there, but I do not actually agree with it.In fact, I would say controversy is wholly neutral, or negative to the advancement of science. It certainly does occur sometimes, usually when a big paradigm change is going on, but that is correlational and not causational... and I can't think of a time when it was helpful. No. I am pointing out that they have a contradictory position on controversy, and then create controversies so that they can ride it out whichever direction it takes.If it goes well by getting attention, controversy is claimed to be great indications of a new and wonderful movement in science (as it normally functions). When it goes badly, controversy is the result and sign of conspiratorial bigots.I am suggesting that they need to pick a side, and personally I would prefer they did not confuse controversy with progress. Witchhunts are wrong no matter what, but this was not a witchhunt.This was a retribution/vengeance thing, which is also not good... though slightly understandable given what he did. Sternberg definitely abused his post and did so intentionally. He went looking for trouble and he got it.As far as controversies go, I don't hold a contradictory position, ID as a movement does. Personally I view them as arising from certain specific paradigm changes. They do not move anything forward, and do not necessarily hold anything back.I would prefer science was approached in this day in age in such a manner that we no longer had controversies, because within some there is a holding back of knowledge.

---

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