Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8904 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-18-2019 6:59 PM
18 online now:
dwise1, Meddle, Phat (AdminPhat) (3 members, 15 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,792 Year: 4,829/19,786 Month: 951/873 Week: 307/376 Day: 100/57 Hour: 2/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
Author Topic:   Washington Post reports witchhunt by evolutionists.
Percy
Member
Posts: 18364
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 31 of 45 (235207)
08-21-2005 7:38 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by randman
08-20-2005 9:04 PM


Re: Scope of Journal
randman writes:

I am not claiming not have a bias, although I do try to be objective, but the point seems to have sailed right past you that generally the Washington Post's bias and mine are on opposite sides of the fence. The fact they published this article indicates that perhaps my take on this is shared by non-Iders and most likely by many people that accept ToE but think the way evos have acted over this incident and issue is atrocious.

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 can see we will just have to amicably disagree here, but I would suggest rather than insisting I am the one being unreasonable, you would at least give some thought to why even an anti-Bush administration and liberal paper would print an article critical of the evolutionist establishment right after Bush publicly announced ID should be on the table as far as education.

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.

It's that the public had no idea that creationist and ID criticism was correct in slamming mainstream evos for being biased, "policized" in the sense of close-minded adherence to ideology, etc,...

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.

Keep in mind the Smithsonian is a place where millions of families visit each year. Americans are thus rightly concerned about the quality of the character or lack thereof running this institution.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by randman, posted 08-20-2005 9:04 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by randman, posted 08-21-2005 1:31 PM Percy has responded

    
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3003 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 32 of 45 (235256)
08-21-2005 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Percy
08-21-2005 7:38 AM


Re: Scope of Journal
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.

I respectfully submit you may be a little unfamiliar with how newspapers work or not reading it closely. This is not an editorial. They are balanced, but pretty much choose to show the evos in an extremely negative light, as someone from your side of the debate points out in the following.

WaPo Takes a Stand in the War on Science
by Josalo
Fri Aug 19th, 2005 at 13:03:37 PDT
Unfortunately, the wrong one.
The article in question, a front-page Michael Powell piece on Richard Sternberg, who published an "Intelligent Design" article in a Smithsonian periodical he is the editor of, describes the reaction of the scientific community to his actions.
Unfortunately, the article takes a perspective that begs the uninformed reader to view the reaction against the article (and Sternberg's publishing of it) as a bunch of foaming-at-the-mouth narrow-mindedness. It is, in short, a "human interest" piece evoking sympathy for Sternberg and his "plight."

"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."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/8/19/16338/1574

Here's another report in the media saying the same thing, albeit from a more conservative news source, though I doubt it had an ID-slant.

The Smithsonian Institution is a national treasure of which every American can legitimately feel a sense of personal ownership. Considering this, I'd imagine widespread displeasure as more Americans become aware that senior scientists at the publicly funded Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History have reportedly been creating a "hostile work environment" for one of their colleagues merely because he published a controversial idea in a biology journal.

The controversial idea is Intelligent Design, the scientific critique of neo-Darwinism. The persecuted Smithsonian scientist is Richard von Sternberg, the holder of two PhDs in biology (one in theoretical biology, the other in molecular evolution). While the Smithsonian disputes the case, Sternberg's version has so far been substantiated in an investigation by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC), an independent federal agency.

A lengthy and detailed letter from OSC attorney James McVay, dated August 5, 2005, and addressed to Sternberg, summarizes the government's findings, based largely on e-mail traffic among top Smithsonian scientists. A particularly damning passage in the OSC letter reads:

Our preliminary investigation indicates that retaliation [against Sternberg by his colleagues] came in many forms. It came in the form of attempts to change your working conditions...During the process you were personally investigated and your professional competence was attacked. Misinformation was disseminated throughout the SI [Smithsonian Institution] and to outside sources. The allegations against you were later determined to be false. It is also clear that a hostile work environment was created with the ultimate goal of forcing you out of the SI.
Meanwhile, on the basis of the "misinformation" directed against him, Sternberg's career prospects were being ruined.

https://www.nationalreview.com/comment/klinghoffer200508160826.asp

It is unfortunate in a publicly funded institution that such prejudice and low tactics would be displayed. One can only hope as a taxpayer that Congress or someone in the government will move to rectify the situation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Percy, posted 08-21-2005 7:38 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Percy, posted 08-21-2005 2:19 PM randman has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18364
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 33 of 45 (235266)
08-21-2005 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by randman
08-21-2005 1:31 PM


Re: Scope of Journal
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by randman, posted 08-21-2005 1:31 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by randman, posted 08-21-2005 3:40 PM Percy has responded

    
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3003 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 34 of 45 (235281)
08-21-2005 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Percy
08-21-2005 2:19 PM


Re: Scope of Journal
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, Percy. I see a somewhat vast mechanism of a coordinated smear campaign, typified by hysteria and an uncalled for witchhunt. In other words, since we cannot successfully refute the paper/message, let's go after the messenger in the vilest manner possible.

I suspect a good many Americans that read these articles (I think the Wash. Post article was front-page) will see it the same way.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Percy, posted 08-21-2005 2:19 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Percy, posted 08-21-2005 6:20 PM randman has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18364
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 35 of 45 (235295)
08-21-2005 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by randman
08-21-2005 3:40 PM


Re: Scope of Journal
randman writes:

In other words, since we cannot successfully refute the paper/message...

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 suspect a good many Americans that read these articles (I think the Wash. Post article was front-page) will see it the same way.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by randman, posted 08-21-2005 3:40 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by randman, posted 08-21-2005 8:44 PM Percy has responded

    
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3003 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 36 of 45 (235308)
08-21-2005 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Percy
08-21-2005 6:20 PM


Re: Scope of Journal
If the halls of science are stacked with people like those that smeared Sternberg, then it's clearly not objective enough, at least in those circles, to be trusted in my opinion.

Writing books and publishing articles and the ideas of ID wherever open and fairmindedness prevails, whether in evo journals or not, is what I would recommend, but I would probably advise anyone of not pursuing submitting to evo journals considering the way the evolutionist community reacted to Sternberg.

Then again, I said the same thing before Sternberg, that this community would react with such closemindedness and what I feel is a pretty ideological withhunt, if they would even allow such a paper to be considered.

I would have been happy to have been proven wrong, but as it turns out.....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Percy, posted 08-21-2005 6:20 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Percy, posted 08-21-2005 9:22 PM randman has not yet responded
 Message 38 by John, posted 08-21-2005 9:44 PM randman has not yet responded
 Message 39 by Silent H, posted 08-22-2005 5:37 AM randman has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18364
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 37 of 45 (235323)
08-21-2005 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by randman
08-21-2005 8:44 PM


Re: Scope of Journal
randman writes:

If the halls of science are stacked with people like those that smeared Sternberg, then it's clearly not objective enough, at least in those circles, to be trusted in my opinion.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by randman, posted 08-21-2005 8:44 PM randman has not yet responded

    
John
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 45 (235325)
08-21-2005 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by randman
08-21-2005 8:44 PM


Re: Scope of Journal
quote:
If the halls of science are stacked with people like those that smeared Sternberg, then it's clearly not objective enough, at least in those circles, to be trusted in my opinion.

Frankly, the halls of pretty much anything are stacked with people like that. Such behavior is just human nature, so it seems to me. I even understand your point about trust.

The nice thing about science is that the evidence eventually wins. No amount of theory and no prejudice can trump a solid experimental result that is obnoxious enough to keep recurring.

And besides, the majority of exchanges between researchers are fairly civil.

quote:
I would have been happy to have been proven wrong, but as it turns out...

Well, I'd be happy to hear a good ID argument. I've followed the subject, and used to debate it quite a bit on these forums about two years ago, and I don't see that ID has anything going for it. All of its arguments that I have heard fail for some reason or another, usually because they rest upon the idea that we don't know how X could have happened naturally so it must have happened un-naturally. Sorry, but any argument that rests upon that inference will fail. The inference is invalid. It could well be that this is why ID isn't published much in peer reviewed journals.


www.hells-handmaiden.com
This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by randman, posted 08-21-2005 8:44 PM randman has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3923 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 39 of 45 (235379)
08-22-2005 5:37 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by randman
08-21-2005 8:44 PM


Detecting conspiracy in science
If the halls of science are stacked with people like those that smeared Sternberg, then it's clearly not objective enough, at least in those circles, to be trusted in my opinion.

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.

Then again, I said the same thing before Sternberg... I would have been happy to have been proven wrong, but as it turns out.....

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)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by randman, posted 08-21-2005 8:44 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by randman, posted 08-22-2005 1:08 PM Silent H has responded

    
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3003 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 40 of 45 (235532)
08-22-2005 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Silent H
08-22-2005 5:37 AM


Re: Detecting conspiracy in science
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Silent H, posted 08-22-2005 5:37 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Percy, posted 08-22-2005 2:09 PM randman has not yet responded
 Message 42 by Silent H, posted 08-22-2005 2:32 PM randman has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18364
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 41 of 45 (235564)
08-22-2005 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by randman
08-22-2005 1:08 PM


Re: Detecting conspiracy in science
randman writes:

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.

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:

McVay writes:

You claim that your first amendment rights, freedoms of religion and political affiliation, and protection granted for off-duty conduct were violated by very senior members of the SI and NMNH. You further claim they created a hostile work environment in an attempt to pressure you into leaving your position with the SI.

Since Sternberg kept his job and his office, what actions did SI take that support these charges?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by randman, posted 08-22-2005 1:08 PM randman has not yet responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3923 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 42 of 45 (235578)
08-22-2005 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by randman
08-22-2005 1:08 PM


Re: Detecting conspiracy in science
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.

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.

You basically are then saying that IDers should expect a witchunt, and that it is OK. Quit whining.

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.

Instead, you hold the contradictory position of admitting withhunts are wrong, and that witchhunts are good.

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)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by randman, posted 08-22-2005 1:08 PM randman has not yet responded

    
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 997 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 43 of 45 (236201)
08-23-2005 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by randman
08-20-2005 4:47 PM


Re: Scope of Journal
He followed their standard practice. Now, it may be the peer-review process as a whole is a little sloppy.

He may have followed THEIR standard practice. I can assure you he did not follow standard practice for most peer reviewed journals if he as the main editor hand-picked the reviewers. That is not how it is usually done. There is usually an editorial review board made up of a cross section of scientists in the various sub disciplines At most journals the main editor would hand off the paper to an editor in the appropriate subdiscipline, who would then send the ms out to a randomly selected group of scientists within the sub discipline. I too would doubt that three out of four randomly selected evolutionary biologists would approve an ID paper for publication.

It is not the peer review process as a whole which is sloppy - it is this particular journal with this particular editor. Has he stepped down as editor? If not he should.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by randman, posted 08-20-2005 4:47 PM randman has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by JonF, posted 08-30-2005 10:13 AM deerbreh has not yet responded

  
LauraG
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 45 (238431)
08-29-2005 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
08-19-2005 2:53 PM


It's a nitpick, but...
randman writes:

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.

Evolutionism? Is that even a word? I mean, it's not a movement, it's a scientific theory.

I think this is part, admittedly a small one, of creating the illusion that there's actually a debate and that there are political interests in the promotion of Evolution in that purported debate with ID/Creationism. Contrast that with ID, where there's an entire "research institute" dedicated to marketing their "theory" to those willing to give it political weight in places as basic as school boards.

Nitpick/rant over. :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by randman, posted 08-19-2005 2:53 PM randman has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 4539
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 45 of 45 (238558)
08-30-2005 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by deerbreh
08-23-2005 5:12 PM


Re: Scope of Journal
He followed their standard practice. Now, it may be the peer-review process as a whole is a little sloppy.

He may have followed THEIR standard practice.

He didn't. Standard practice is to have the paper reviewed by another associate editor. He did not do that, which many take as a suggestion that he knew no other editor at the journal would publish that paper.

From STATEMENT FROM THE COUNCIL OF THE BIOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON:

quote:
The paper by Stephen C. Meyer, "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," in vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239 of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard v. Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history.

{emphasis added}
This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by deerbreh, posted 08-23-2005 5:12 PM deerbreh has not yet responded

  
Prev12
3
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019