Washington Post reports witchhunt by evolutionists.

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: 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. The Meyer article was not consistent with previous articles in the BSOW Proceedings, and the Washington Post article you cited quotes Sternberg admitting this: 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): 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

If the definition of someone with an objective perspective is someone who doesn't "have a dog in this fight", then you can't offer your perspective as something objective, can you. Nevertheless, let's examine what you wrote. The scientists had to have been handpicked. Three randomly chosen biologists would not approve the paper. Were this a realistic possibility it would mean that so many scientists think ID worthy of consideration that we wouldn't be having this discussion and Sternberg's career wouldn't be in ruins. First, if you read my message, then you know I didn't say it was a priori outside the scope of the journal because it is ID.Second, did you read the message I referred you to (Message 177)? It would appear not, because had you read it you would know that the scope of the BSOW proceedings is taxonomy. ID does not fall within the realm of taxonomy.Third, Sternberg himself concedes that the paper fell outside the scope of the journal. He was quoted saying as much in the Post article, I provided the quote in my message, and here it is again: You need to begin reading what people actually write, and you need to begin supporting your assertions with evidence and rational argument.These little asides in my messages are not inconsequential. I'm engaging with you to give you the opportunity to show you can engage in constructive dialog. I suspect Ned is doing the same thing. Every once in a while I feel I detect some improvement, but then you go right back to ignoring arguments, making bald assertions and casting constant aspersions at the other side (e.g., "got their panties in a wad" and so forth).I suggest you begin dealing with what people actually say instead of constantly giving voice to the darker side of your feelings. Just stick to the facts and you'll do fine. Begin quoting what people say, and then stick strictly to addressing what appears in the quote.--Percy

I addressed Sternberg's claim that the paper was within the journals scope in the aforementioned message, which I mention again: Message 177Also, it is clear from Sternberg's own comments in the Post that he is no longer arguing that the paper was within the scope of the BSOW Proceedings: Sternberg evidently hasn't updated his website since last September, but at least he now recognizes that arguing that the Meyer paper was in the Proceedings scope is a non-starter.--Percy

What makes you think it makes sense for a participant in a discussion to decide who is objective and who is putting a spin on things? It comes as no surprise that such persons like yourself who set themselves up as the judge of objectivity invariably conclude that it's the other guy who's biased. The reason your constant charges of bias are rarely answered by charges of your own bias is that others recognize the fallacy in which you constantly engage. I wish you would stop. It is a constant distraction and irritant.If you want to believe that Meyer's paper is a good fit for a taxonomy journal, then I can tell it is beyond my ability to convince you otherwise. In my view, if Meyer's paper belongs in the BSOW Proceedings, then there is just about no journal in the field of biology that it doesn't belong in. But that's obviously ridiculous. There are many fields of biology, and each field is serviced by one or a few journals.The BSOW journal is devoted primarily to describing species in great detail as a means toward more accurate classification. That's what taxonomy and systematics is. What is it about ID that leads you to conclude it belongs in the taxonomy sub-specialty of biology? Doesn't ID, with all its focus on irreducible complexity, specified complexity, microbiological structures and numerical methods belong in other much more appropriate journals? Such as the ones that Michael Behe, one of the first to advocate ID, publishes in? Like genetics journals and microbiology journals and evolutionary history journals and information theory journals and so forth?The reason Meyer's paper was submitted to the BSOW Proceedings is because Sternberg, the editor, was a friend of ID, and not because it was the appropriate journal to submit it to. The paper is an embarrassment, not because it is ID, but because it is such bad science, and it cost Sternberg his reputation because he let his judgment become seriously clouded.--Percy

You accused me of casting spin, and now after I have pointed out the fallacy you reply about topics on which I have made no comment.I once again suggest that you quote what people say, and that way it will be right above your own text while you type and you'll be better able to address things people actually say. Your consistent pattern is to ignore what people say. You have a point of view, and regardless of what people actually say, you just repeat it over and over and over again. I never saw the article as being as negative as you apparently do. The article is about McVay's findings, and McVay shares Sternberg's view of events. You seem to be jumping to the conclusion that an article in a newspaper detailing McVay's and Sternberg's view of events means that their view is correct. Sternberg's experiencing ostracism and alienation because of his demonstrated poor judgment in using his role as editor to place a paper of exceptionally poor quality and on the wrong topic in the Proceedings of the BSOW. You're once again jumping ahead to your unsupported conclusions. First you conclude your side is right and the other side is wrong, and then you conclude that because they're wrong they are people of poor character. From where I sit, the only person at the Smithsonian who has done anything wrong is Sternberg, who violated a trust given him when he accepted the editor role at the BSOW by publishing an off-topic paper of exceptionally poor quality. Those who bring public embarassment to their place of work typically become pariahs. He said he wanted to stir up the pot, and so he has achieved his goal.--Percy

Hi Randman,I'm afraid I don't see any of these news articles as being as negative you do. As I've already said, they're reporting McVay's findings, and McVay shares Sternberg's view. I don't agree with McVay or Sternberg's view, but I certainly can't raise any objections to articles which appear to accurately report events.You seem to be concluding that just because McVay's letter has been reported on in the news that his views must be correct. Further, you repeat this conclusion in every post no matter what the person you're replying to has actually said, and you're not really interested in a discussion of the actual issues.Sternberg hasn't lost his job, and no one has thrown him out of his office. He is working in a hostile environment, but it is of his own making. Meyer's paper is a survey of the field of ID in its current form. There is no new development in this paper. The ID it describes has already been rejected by the scientific community. Sternberg cooked the peer-review process and used his position as editor to publish this unscientific paper in a journal that doesn't even cover that area of biology. His only punishment so far seems to be that he is now poorly thought of by colleagues, and they're being mean to him.--Percy

But we *can* refute the "paper/message" of ID, and this happens whenever an ID paper is submitted to a legitimate peer review process, which is almost never since ID people almost never submit their work to legitimate journals. This is because instead of playing the science game the ID movement prefers to play the political game. Knowing that they can't make their case as science, they instead take their arguments to school boards and provoke controversies that will appear in the newpapers. Poor Sternberg, obviously politically naive, is probably just an unwitting dupe of Meyer, the author of the paper and one of the founding members of the Discovery Institute. Sternberg's career is in ruins, but the Discovery Institute is very happy because of the resulting political controversy caused by Sternbergs's misdeeds as editor. I have two reactions to this. First, you're probably right that many Americans will see it the same way you do. But you make it sound as if all the articles in newspapers are like the ones you cited. There *are* other newspapers and other articles, like the one in today's New York Times (Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive).But my second reaction leads me to wonder how you think science should be conducted in this country. Should scientific controversies be debated in newspapers and voted on by the American people? Or should the ID folk bring their evidence and their arguments to the halls of science and let it play out there?--Percy

The biggest smear campaign around here is coming from you. You don't ever actually discuss anything, you just take every post as another opportunity to cast largely unsupported aspersions at those you don't like.If IDists decide not to participate in the process of mainstream science and to not submit their papers to the journals of mainstream science, then the only way for ID to become accepted as science is to make advancements and discoveries in the field of biology and medicine that push beyond what mainstream science has been able to accomplish so far. What they're doing right now is saying, "We're not part of mainstream science, and we refuse to participate in that process, and we haven't made any original contributions that advanced the state of science, but that's because mainstream science is biased and unfair, and so we think we should be taught in public school science classrooms right alongside mainstream science."--Percy

Holmes can correct me if I've misunderstood him, but I can't see where he said anything of the sort in his message. He acknowledged that an argument exists that controversy is beneficial to the advancement of science, not that he necessarily accepts that argument. I believe you've misunderstood him on this point, and further that you've completely ignored his main point, which concerned IDists contradictory position regarding controversy.If you're going to continue insisting that Sternberg received unfair treatment at the hands of the Smithsonian, then I think you have to support that position. The McVay letter says of Sternberg's claims: Since Sternberg kept his job and his office, what actions did SI take that support these charges?--Percy