An ID news story that seems to be sucking up

Intelligent Design and Academic Freedom : NPRcheck this NPR news report. Way WAY too nice to the ID people. Pissed me off royaly.

I listened to that report this afternoon.I personally think the biological community somewhat overreacted to Sternberg. But I agree with you that this program was far too generous to ID. I also thought it gave a poor characterization of theory, and confused the issue on the terms "theory of evolution" and "fact of evolution".

quote:

---

Sternberg says his colleagues and supervisors at the Smithsonian were furious. He says -- and an independent report backs him up -- that colleagues accused him of fraud, saying they did not believe the Meyer article was really peer reviewed. It was.

---

sounds like a peer review to me.

---

אָרַח

I agree. Sternberg is almost certainly lying about his motivations for publishing the Meyer article. Much of it was already "out there" (IIRC at least two earlier versions had been published).I also question the idea that Sternberg thinks that ID is "fatally flawed" - or at the least I would want to know in what way he thinks that it is flawed. Sternberg is certainly associated with the ID movement and his main disagreement with YECs seems to be over the age of the Earth.

quote:

---

"He didn't lose his job, he didn't get his pay cut, he still has his research privileges, he still has his office," Scott says. "You know, what's his complaint? People weren't nice to him. Well, life is not fair."

---

Well, this is what my mother used to tell me. It is not fair to be put in a mental hospital over it however. NPR knows what it is "hearing", nonetheless. Life in the US WAS supposed to be that fair, but balanced, well, maybe not.

The Cornell Community just can not stop talkin bout the fight with ID!!I think this one from the conservative Cornell American actually goes too far the "other" way!! Hard to believe I would say that, bUt seems true, this review is too generous. If THIS author were really interested in sticking Rawlings and being so favorable to ID then perhaps reading the Kant page below(Critique of Judgement) and noting that Rawlings was confusing things in appearence and in themselves would have served for more balance. I will reexplain this later in a thread on ID and aliens because this point gets lost just about every week. The picture however can not collapse as Razd noted inanother context.

​

This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-15-2005 08:35 PM

I would characterize Sternberg's more recent comments as dissembling. Last year after the Meyer article hit the street, Sternberg did not characterize ID as fatally flawed in anything he published at his website. He denied he was a proponent, said he was keeping an open mind, and characterized his associations with a couple ID organizations, such as the Barimology group, as being for the same reason. I'm not going to take the time to refresh my memory, his exact words can still be found at his website (Forbidden!), but my recollection is that he characterized ID as intriguing with something to contribute scientifically.But I think Sternberg is just trying to salvage a career, something I sincerely hope he succeeds at, and I don't attribute any sinister or ulterior motives to his placing the Meyer article in the BSW journal. As I've stated before, I believe Sternberg was played the fool by Meyer and was extremely poorly served by his peer-reviewers, whoever they were, and who might have been suggested to Sternberg by Meyer or others from the Discovery Institute, or perhaps by someone from one of his other ID associations. It's hard to imagine any serious biologists, and certainly none named Steve, who would give even a tepid recommendation to publish the paper. Even leaving the fact that it was about ID aside, the paper itself was a rambling and incredibly poorly organized hodge-podge of ad hoc arguments unsupported by any cited evidence. The ID community achieved two firsts, not one. Not only did they achieve the first placement of an ID paper in a peer-reviewed journal, they also set a new low for quality. Right from paragraph 1 and on through the whole paper you're constantly wondering how Meyer could maintain such a high rate of unsupported or spuriously supported assertions. Blech!I didn't listen to the report, just read the brief article, but except for Sternberg's transparently self-serving comments I didn't have a problem with it. ""Why publish it?" Sternberg says. "Because evolutionary biologists are thinking about this." Yeah, they're thinking what an unscientific concept it is.--PercyThis message has been edited by Percy, 11-14-2005 05:11 PM

The comments by Stermberg and the "Baraminoloists" indicate that Sternberg doesn't agree with the YEC timescale. But any OEC could say that same.As I remember ir Sternerg attended an ID conference that was closed to anyone other than ID supporters.And it is rather convenient that Sternberg's term as editor was due to expire anyway.So far as I can see the whole thing was a stunt to get an ID paper past peer review. And I believe that Sternebrg was a willing part of it.r

The Washington Post, NPR, and of course all the more conservative media outlets reporting on this are slamming evos bigtime, and you know why?Because what the evolutionist community has done is reprehensible, and those that follow this debate as observers are shocked at the behaviour of mainstream evo-science in this, that the evo community is as biased and malignant as creationists have maintained for a long time.That's why media outlets that are normally very liberal and no friend to the concept of ID are reporting this the way they are. It's disgraceful and reprehensible.This message has been edited by randman, 11-14-2005 05:24 PM

I'd disagree as to your comment that the evos did something reprehensible. I think that the scientists have been taking too much from the IDers for far too long and while I can forgive them for being far too timid (seeing as they are scientists who are most comfortable in a lab) they need to realize that IDers do not share this quality. Scientists are facing a political, not a scientific, debate. IDers cannot win through scientific debate, since the facts are against them, and the scientists need to learn to play political hardball... maybe even learn to spread rumors. (And you know what IDers say about evos... at least the smithsonian didn't accuse the guy of a mind-control plot)What's disgraceful and reprehensible is the national media outlets acting like ID is this harmless little folly of rural america. It's a threat to our nation, all the more insidious since it is coming from the inside.

since when was npr a conservative entity?

It's definitely not... he said NPR and all the conservative entities.And you have 1000 posts! Shame the number will be ruined when you post again