Dr. Richard Sternberg
Posted on 12/16/2006 12:22:28 PM PST by editor-surveyor
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
A new report from the U.S. House of Representatives has condemned officials at the Smithsonian Institution for imposing a religious test on scientists who work there. And it suggests their attacks on a scientist who just edited an article on intelligent design are just the tip of the iceberg of an industry-wide fear of anything that suggests man might not have come from a puddle of sludge.
Dr. Richard Sternberg |
The report, which cited a "strong religious and political component" in the dispute, was prompted by a complaint from Dr. Richard Sternberg, who holds biology doctorates from Binghamton and Florida International universities and has served as a research associate at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History.
It was prepared for U.S. Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind., chairman of the subcommittee of criminal justice, drug policy and human resources, and easily confirmed Sternberg's harassment and discrimination allegations that his managers criticized him, created a hostile work environment for him, and now have demoted him because of the article, which he didn't even write.
Excerpt Click here for full article
You, yes. Others? well, so far Ive seen computer techie, business administrator, one with degrees in math and psychology IIRC, even chemistry chemistry prof. That would make him only as qualified as a physicist whose views are dismissed because he's NOT an evolutionary biologist.
My degree is meteorology, as I've made no secret of. I started out as a bio major but quit because of the difficulty I had with chemistry. I crammed 5 years of college into 15 years but finally got my degree. The only field of science that I didn't take any courses in was geology because it wasn't a required course. Less than half the courses I took were the liberal arts, fill in courses, as required by the college, the rest were math and science.
I'm not saying I can tell working professionals much more advanced than I am how to do their jobs. What I'm questioning is why other scientists with PhD's which are not in evolution, are dismissed when they speak against evoution because of that; but people on this forum who might not (and sometimes don't) even have a basic BA are expected to be believed when they speak in favor of it and feel they are free to criticize others for not accepting their unqualified opinion.
I congratulate you on your perseverance and sympathize about chemistry... I had problems too, and to this day struggle with physiology.
The only reason credentials are being paraded is because someone upthread was challenging the qualifications of those who spoke for evolution, claiming something to the effect that we were all bottlewashers etc.
I, myself, prefer to let the posts stand for themselves.
There is a however, though and it is this: what is blindingly clear to many of us, and most of the scientific world, is definitely not clear to some others, who then feel free to challenge evolution in a way they wouln't challenge quantum mechanics.
I think there are two reasons for that. One is clearly Biblical literalism and a desire for science to conform to it. The other is, in my view, the fact that biology seems easy and the concepts simple as compared to advanced physics and chemistry.
Since I havae done a lot of teaching, even more for the general public since reitrement, I've learned that it is not simple at all and hard to popularize effectively. So, what may seem clear and intuitive, just as in quantum mechanics, just plain isn't, except for those who gravitate to the field.
From this link comes this analysis(by a real honest-to-god biologist and everything!):
There's some am-a-a-a-a-zing stuff in the appendix to the Rep. Souder staff report that the Discovery Institute is talking up.
The DI spin and the Congressional report spin are each severely divorced from reality. When one looks at the content of the appendix of documents and emails, one learns a lot about the character of Richard von Sternberg that Sternberg probably would have preferred stay out of public sight. Here are some of the things that reading the emails and other documents provided tell us:
Sternberg "requested" a grant or "any funding vehicle" from the Smithsonian in the amount of $300,000 to compensate for his claimed year of lost work. (he was denied, as the Smithsonian doesn't disburse grants) [p.11]
Sternberg ignored requests to return hundreds of specimens in his office space to the collections. [pp.16,27]
Sternberg had failed to properly curate 10 to 12% of specimens in his possession by not replenishing alcohol as the preservative agent. [p.27]
Sternberg's space contained specimens that had not been checked out according to established procedures. [p.16]
Sternberg's office space contained specimens apparently from other institutions without records in the transaction management system. [pp.48-49]
Sternberg handled specimens in another person's office without permission. [p.16]
Sternberg ignored requests to return most of the over 50 books and periodicals he had checked out from the Smithsonian library. [pp.27,48]
Sternberg falsely told someone that he had notified library staff about his overdue materials. [p.28]
Sternberg had removed Smithsonian books from the premises, contrary to Smithsonian policy. [p.48]
Sternberg was simply confused when he thought that he had no Smithsonian sponsor. [p.11]
The issue about keys that Sternberg raised was a red herring; the Smithsonian had gone to a badge system to control physical access, and Sternberg received a badge. [pp.11-12]
Sternberg ignored requests that he return his keys even after the switchover to the badge system. [p.12]
Far from losing his research affiliation with the Smithsonian, Sternberg received another invitation for a three-year period to go from 2006 to 2009. [p.13]
The issues over moving offices that Sternberg raised are shown to be completely explained by the general and widespread movement of staff to accommodate physical renovation and departmental re-organization. [pp.36,38-39]
Sternberg was listed by his Smithsonian affiliation in promotional materials for a talk on ID scheduled in Helsinki in 2004, contrary to Smithsonian policy concerning research associates. [pp.16-17,41,44,48]
Sternberg had a prior history as an editor guiding research papers that were substandard into print in PBSW. [p.20]
Sternberg's prior editorial lapses included leaving a submitted manuscript overlong without action. [p.37]
Sternberg permitted the Meyer paper to be published even though it did not conform to the PBSW formatting standards. [p.37]
Sternberg made "calamitous and inaccurate" statements on his web site. [p.47]
Sternberg agreed in a meeting with his supervisor that his possession of a master key to Smithsonian facilities was "unnecessary and inappropriate". [p.48]
While Sternberg was the primary editor for PBSW, there was a year in which authors submitted complaints about the handling of 17 different manuscripts. [p.52]
Two Mexican authors believed the managing editor, Sternberg, was predisposed against Latin-American authors. [p.52]
Sternberg has a history of saying one thing and doing another. [p.57]
Sternberg's access to freshwater crabs in the collections was restricted due to his destruction of many specimens. [p.57]
Sternberg failed to utilize on-site Smithsonian expert on Cambrian period paleontology and PBSW Associate Editor Brian Erwin in selecting reviewers for Meyer 2004b. [p.73]
Sternberg made "bad judgment calls" in his editorship at PBSW. [p.74] ---
And this is all in a 'friendly' report that's supposed to DEFEND the man! Well done, Souder and Santorum, way to ensure that your martyr never gets a job in the field again (which, of course, is their desire all along, how else is he supposed to get martyrdom!).
Excellent job and thanks forall your work. I'm saving this for the next time it comes up.
You should read the report and the appendix. There aren't many of the claims in the report that are borne out in the appendix. For example, the report claims that he was harassed by restricting his level of access, when it is apparent by the appendix that he had BETTER access that others of his rank, and that he needed to give up his keys not because of any harrassment, but because they were switching to a card access system which gave him access comparable to others of his rank. It's an atrocious report, and I doubt that this report will get any teeth by getting submitted to Congress for approval. It's as toothless as Santorum's Sense of the Senate report that was suppose to mean something a few years back.
Perhaps you should think before you speak.
If you're going to make an accusation, especially one that, according to you, is official forum policy, you damn well better be able to support it.
I would think that as a scientist and college instructor, you would understand the relationship between evidence and conclusions a Little better than the average person.
Then again, given the current state of academia, attitudes such as yours certainly doesn't surprise me.
Since I post on the crevo threads mainly for the lukrers, thank you for making a point for me.
All I can say in response to this is, you don't seem to be very bright for a scientist, if somehow you seem to think that our exchange benefited either you or your cause.
Thunderous applause!!!
Anyone who reads the thread can come to their own conclusions.
No one can claim I cherry picked the data or omitted their favoite riposte.
That's how science works. I pointed lurkers to the source of the data and they don't need me to hold their hands to read it.
Yes, making unsubstantiated claims does seem to be the way science works these days....unfortunately.
The only unsubstantiated claim here is your claim that mine is unsubstantianted.
Once again: there is a link to my substantiation.
Unfreakingbelievable...and some of you guys think we're dimwits. I've got better things to do than continue this nonsense.
:-)
Yes, you clearly are a bigot, like the usurpers that have taken over the smithsonian, and an authoritarian.
The evidence fits creation like a glove, and even with the insane stretch jobs that are allowed to prevail, does not fit evolution at all. Your willing blindness to those undeniable facts disqualifies you from further discussion here.
I like the way that you choose to begin in the latter third of the issue, and use the pranks that the authoritarians directed toward Sternberg in punishment for being honest and scientific, as evidence against him.
And the allegations that you present are typical of complaints that are directed at editors by whiners. Everyone thinks that their manuscript is being dissed.
You've essentially proven the allegations through your own effort.
If the Book of Genesis were never written, would you think creationism was true? Would there even be a thing called "creationism"?
It's telling that your rebuttal is so insubstantitive and paper thin, with no actual substantive points against my arguments. It's obvious what's going on here. Sternberg's case against the Smithsonian is so paper thin that the Discovery Institute has to feed its work through its pet Congressmen in an effort to try to rehab its image as a group that has to lie and cheat instead of doing legitimate science. This work is meaningless.Don't you think that if this was a real investigation with real teeth, this report would be up in front of Congress for a vote? Instead, its a bone to the religious right to make it look like "your guys" are doing work on your behalf, when instead they are wasting government money on meaningless propoganda. Nice try.
Next time have a real rebuttal at hand, will you?
Evidently there would since science posits a creation event. That the Book of Genesis posited the same thing a couple of millenia before Einstein saw the light that a Catholic monk shone on him could be coincidence. Or it could be something else.
And you fail to understand the mission of the Smithsonian.
From the Smithsonian website.
James Smithson's Gift
"I then bequeath the whole of my property...to the United States of America, to found at Washington, under the name of the Smithsonian Institution, an Establishment for the increase & diffusion of knowledge..." James Smithson (1765-1829)
Secretary Small's Vision
"The Smithsonian is committed to enlarging our shared understanding of the mosaic that is our national identity by providing authoritative experiences that connect us to our history and our heritage as Americans and to promoting innovation, research and discovery in science. These commitments have been central to the Smithsonian since its founding more than 155 years ago."
Lawrence M. Small, Secretary of the Smithsonian
Daoism in the Arts of China
December 16, 2006 - June 10, 2007
Affecting every aspect of Chinese life, Daoism is an indigenous faith centered on the belief that humans could attain immortality through a designated cultivation processs. This exhibition of paintings and a variety of objects from the Freer's permanent collection introduces various aspects of Daoism -- including Daojia, a school of thought that laid the foundation for Daoism -- and also shows how Daoism served as decorative inspiration for different artistic mediums. Featured works from between the Han and Qing dynasties (2nd-20th centuries C.E) include images of Daoist immortals and paradises as well as herb-gathering and elixir-making methods believed to help attain immortality.
Since "Creationism" is a literal interpretation of [the first book of Moses called] Genesis, then your question becomes nonsensical. It would be like saying, If Genesis were never written, would you think Genesis were true?
I know what you're trying to say, but no matter how you approach it, you're going to have a difficult time formulating a coherent set of circumstances, especially given the fact that God spoke directly to moses.
It's one thing trying to conceptualize different lines of events in the past, since these things are beholden to cause and effect, and thus logic and reason...but God, who exists outside these parameters, let alone that he is the creator of said parameters...can not be reasoned to act in any other way than what is already known.
Asking what would have happened if God had not done X is completely incoherent from our point of view.
That's simply my opinion, which you can take or leave...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.