Congress stepping in to stop witchunt of IDers

Hi Randman,Representative Souder is an evangelical Christian with an evangelical constituency. Sternberg might do better to seek allies with less obvious religious ties if he wants to succeed in portraying his views as not religiously motivated.Souder's congressional staff has written a report favorable to Sternberg, no surprise there. The report doesn't mention Sternberg's editorial malfeasance and treats ID as if it were a legitimate scientific viewpoint with evidential support. The John West (of the Discovery Institute) quote from the World Net Daily article echoes the confusion many evangelicals have about science when he says that the Smithsonian officials were trying to stamp out anything that disagrees with their own personal beliefs and faith. Science is a consensus activity and not a matter of personal beliefs and faith.Sternberg alienated his scientific colleagues when he abused his position as editor of the BSOW proceedings to publish the Meyer article in the proceedings of the BSOW. The Meyer article was, of course, inappropriate for two reasons. First, the focus of the BSOW proceedings is taxonomic, while the Meyer article was a survey of ID. And second, the Meyer article is at best a work of speculation and not scientific at all.Clearly the religious right is trying to portray this as a matter of fairness and academic freedom, but this misses the central issue for scientists all together. The important issue is what is science and what isn't. As the Dover decision made clear, and as was already obvious anyway, ID is not science.--Percy

Hi Randman,I think that what ID advocates must do is find and publish the evidence that will convince the scientific community of its validity. As the Biologic Institute concedes, no laboratory support for ID has ever been produced, let alone any peer reviewed research papers. It is not only premature to judge ID valid, the research necessary for making such judgments hasn't even been done yet.Sternberg's mistake was to abuse his editorial position to publish ID nonsense in a legitimate scientific journal. He's paying for that mistake now, and he's making his religious motivations clear by seeking support in the evangelical community.--Percy

The ID people must publish the results of actual scientific research, not bogus scientific papers like Meyers'. Sternberg finds his career in a shambles not because he published a scientific paper on ID, but because he abused his position as editor to publish a paper having no scientific merit but that supported his personal religious views. It would help their cause a great deal if they would submit the results of actual scientific research (i.e., consistent with the nature of science and following the scientific method) to legitimate scientific journals.--Percy

That's your opinion. It is the opinion of the community of scientists that the paper has little to no scientific merit and isn't appropriate for a scientific journal. That Sternberg used his editorial authority to publish it anyway raises serious concerns about the degree to which his scientific judgment is influenced by his religious beliefs, and that is the source of all his subsequent difficulties.If you'd like to open another thread we could go through the host of reasons why the Meyer paper does not represent legitimate science. At a high level the reason is that it purports to be a survey paper but of a field with no record of research in the scientific literature, and that is known to be a pet idea of the evangelical community that opposes the teaching of evolution.--Percy

Well, now you're off into your pet topics of Haeckel and QM. If you'd like to discuss the topic of your thread just let me know.--Percy

If you'd like to discuss why the Meyer paper that Sternberg published does not represent legitimate science, just open a new thread. I'm aware that the evangelical community is attempting to characterize this as an issue of academic freedom, but it's only a case of someone suffering the consequences for abusing his editorial responsibilities.--Percy

I don't myself see the world in terms of conspiracies, and I don't see any point in discussing an NPR report described 2nd hand that I can't listen to. But I will say that scientists who think it would be a bad career move to make public their support for a pseudoscience whose primary backing is from an anti-science religious group are probably seeing things very clearly.--Percy

Well, the media just reports the controversy, and there's lots of reporting out there to choose from. But I agree that scientists who are reluctant to make public their support for pseudoscience are probably making a wise career decision. Well, why don't you dig up links to the Washington Post article and to the NPR report so we have something concrete to talk about.--Percy

What's left to discuss? Well, not much I guess. I've had my say and you've had yours.--Percy

PaulK has posted some relevant information at The Souder Report (on ID Supporter Richard von Sternberg's claims of persecution).--Percy

If you examine the information that PaulK posted links to at The Souder Report (on ID Supporter Richard von Sternberg's claims of persecution) you'll see that Sternberg apparently did not suffer any discrimination at the Smithsonian as a result of his editorial misconduct with the BSOW proceedings. His complaints about keys and offices were all unwarranted, and he remains at the Smithsonian. His only complaint that appears to have any basis in fact is that he is experiencing the disapproval of colleagues.That disapproval is apparently well deserved. He developed a history of mishandling specimens, not returning museum library books, and he apparently committed unauthorized removal of library books from the premises, since these books were never found on Smithsonian property. Regarding the BSOW proceedings, his publishing of the Meyer paper was apparently not the first time he'd published questionable material and either manipulated or bypassed peer-review, and his mishandling of submissions resulted in a large number of complaints.Sternberg's situation was discussed via internal Smithsonian email with the final decision apparently being that his standing at the Smithsonian should be solely dependent upon the quality of his scientific work at that institution. He remains at the Smithsonian. It's hard to find any evidence of a witch hunt.--Percy

As I already said about the NPR report, I don't really see how we could discuss something that neither of us have heard. Well, you're more than welcome to make your case, but the evidence comes from the appendix to the Souder staff report. For example, on just page 16 alone we see that the appendix is the source of the information about the specimens and library books. And apparently no one knows when he works or who he reports to or what his project is.The fact remains that Sternberg has not suffered any consequences at the Smithsonian as a result of his misconduct as editor of the BSOW proceedings, other than causing his colleagues to think poorly of him.--Percy

Hi Randman,Yes, your excerpts are from the Souder staff report appendix. They're from the first item in the appendix, a letter from Senator Rick Santorum and Representative Mark Souder, both active in promoting issues dear to Christian evangelicals, written to the Smithsonian containing their concerns and allegations. If Sternberg wishes to dissociate himself from concerns that the central issue is really religion, then he would do well to find himself other allies.Sternberg appears to be a sloppy researcher who isn't careful with specimens, library books or museum procedures. He engaged in misconduct as editor of the BSOW proceedings on at least two occasions, and was a sloppy enough editor to have drawn a raft of complaints during his tenure. His penalty: nothing. He's still at the Smithsonian.I do agree that the Smithsonian is probably not a pleasant environment for him right now, but he's done more than enough to earn the reprobation of his colleagues. That's what happens when you screw up royally and become an embarrassment.--Percy