Replies

If he wants to write about creationism, he needs to go find somewhere else to do it. He fails to understand that he represents the Smithsonian regardless of the day or night and when he writes (or edits or whatever) about creationism, it undermines the credibility of the mission of the Smithsonian.

And it suggests their attacks on a scientist who just edited an article on intelligent design ...

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.

He didn't write it, he edited it. And since when is editing something a *bad* reflection on someone or some organization? Editing is just that-editing; it's not him being about his religion. How is editing a paper a religious activity? Talk about thought police.

If the Smithsonian hadn't made an issue of it, it wouldn't be a bad reflection on them because hardly anybody would have ever known about it. Instead they make a big issue over it, now it's out there, and it makes THEM look bad.

Plus he wasn't writing about creationism. You really need to read this article (again).

"He didn't write it, he edited it."

Actually he didn't. He was the editor in the sense that he had editorial control of the magazine and was the one who chose to include the article. I've never seen it claimed that he edited the article itself.

And it was not just that he published it, he published it with unilaterally and against the practises and standaerds of the Biological Society of Washington that produce the journal Proceedings.

Heres their statement (emphasis mine).

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. For the same reason, the journal will not publish a rebuttal to the thesis of the paper, the superiority of intelligent design (ID) over evolution as an explanation of the emergence of Cambrian body-plan diversity. The Council endorses a resolution on ID published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml), which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID as a testable hypothesis to explain the origin of organic diversity. Accordingly, the Meyer paper does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings.

We have reviewed and revised editorial policies to ensure that the goals of the Society, as reflected in its journal, are clearly understood by all. Through a web presence (http://www.biolsocwash.org) and improvements in the journal, the Society hopes not only to continue but to increase its service to the world community of systematic biologists.