Posted on 01/31/2005 12:15:48 PM PST by Grey Rabbit
WND EVOLUTION WATCH Smithsonian in uproar over intelligent-design article Museum researcher's career threatened after he published favorable piece Posted: January 29, 2005 1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
The career of a prominent researcher at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History in Washington is in jeopardy after he published a peer-reviewed article by a leading proponent of intelligent design, an alternative to evolutionary theory dismissed by the science and education establishment as a tool of religious conservatives.
Stephen Meyer's article advocates the theory of intelligent design. (Photo courtesy Discovery Institute)
Richard Sternberg says that although he continues to work in the museum's Department of Zoology, he has been kicked out of his office and shunned by colleagues, prompting him to file a complaint with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel.
Sternberg charges he was subjected to discrimination on the basis of perceived religious beliefs.
"I'm spending my time trying to figure out how to salvage a scientific career," Sternberg told David Klinghoffer, a columnist for the Jewish Forward, who reported the story in the Wall Street Journal.
Sternberg is managing editor of a nominally independent journal published at the museum, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. His trouble started when he included in the August issue a review-essay by Stephen Meyer, who holds a Cambridge University doctorate in the philosophy of biology.
Hans Sues, the museum's No. 2 senior scientist, denounced Meyer's article in a widely forwarded e-mail as "unscientific garbage."
According to Sternberg's complaint, which is being investigated, one museum specialist chided him by saying: "I think you are a religiously motivated person and you have dragged down the Proceedings because of your religiously motivated agenda."
Sternberg strongly denies that.
While acknowledging he is a Catholic who attends Mass, he says, "I would call myself a believer with a lot of questions, about everything. I'm in the postmodern predicament."
The complaint says the chairman of the Zoology Department, Jonathan Coddington, called Sternberg's supervisor to look into the matter.
"First, he asked whether Sternberg was a religious fundamentalist. She told him no. Coddington then asked if Sternberg was affiliated with or belonged to any religious organization. ... He then asked where Sternberg stood politically; ... he asked, 'Is he a right-winger? What is his political affiliation?'
The supervisor recounted the conversation to Sternberg, who also quotes her observing: "There are Christians here, but they keep their heads down."
The complaint, according to the Journal column, says Coddington took away Sternberg's office, which prevents access to the specimen collections he needs. Sternberg also was assigned to the close oversight of a curator with whom he had professional disagreements unrelated to evolution.
"I'm going to be straightforward with you," said Coddington, according to the complaint. "Yes, you are being singled out."
Meyer's article, "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories," cites mainstream biologists and paleontologists from schools such as the University of Chicago, Yale, Cambridge and Oxford who are critical of certain aspects of Darwinism.
Meyer – a fellow at Seattle's Discovery Institute, a leading advocate of intelligent design – contends supporters of Darwin's theory cannot explain how so many different animal types sprang into existence during the relatively short period of Earth history known as the Cambrian explosion.
He argues the Darwinian mechanism would require more time for the necessary genetic "information" to be generated, and intelligent design offers a better explanation.
The Journal notes Meyer's piece is the first peer-reviewed article to appear in a technical biology journal laying out the evidential case for intelligent design.
The theory holds that the complex features of living organisms, such as an eye, are better explained by an unspecified designing intelligence than by random mutation and natural selection.
Klinghoffer notes the Biological Society of Washington released a statement regretting its association with Meyer's article but did not address its arguments.
Klinghoffer points out the circularity of the arguments of critics who insisted intelligent design was unscientific because if had not been put forward in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
"Now that it has," he wrote, "they argue that it shouldn't have been because it's unscientific."
Sorry, I meant to ping you on post 180 also.
God will provide. Just seek the truth and follow it wherever it leads. Silly Smithsonian.
Re: Flew: Good point.
Unless, of course, creation became corrupted. But only Christians subscribe to that concept and they are all stupid......, so that little bump in the road has now been seriously addressed.
Your teacher is as moronic as you, then.
It was in an English class, not a science class.
Actually, ....in this case, you might be mistaken.
One side postulates that living structures are exclusively accidental.
The other side says that, at least at some points, these structures are intentional.
Falsifiying one leads to the other. If you can imagine a "third possibility," it would be good if you spoke up now.
>Oh... Then why does human DNA contain relics of viral infections which are inherited from our pre-human ancestors?<
You belief we have pre-human ancestors but have never found proof of a link.Since your first assumption is wrong your whole premise is flawed.It is just as possible for man and animals to have similar viral infections without having common ancestory.Ever heard of feline aids?
So much of this debate is discussed in such ambiguous terms. Virtually every creationst, young earthers included, concede that "there is truth in evolution."
"evolution" can mean, simply, "change." Or it can mean "all living things developed in all their aspects by chance over time." Or it could mean something in between. The point is, "evolution" is such a loaded (or sometimes "unloaded") term that it obscures more than it enlightens.
....and what is the number of possible outcomes? ...... And what are the chances it will be beneficial? ...and the chances it will not be eliminated in the process of the next generation?? Why don't you have ballpark numbers for this? You need to provide numbers, spinning yarns isn't good enough.
Hey, maybe we found a new way to addle our brains!!
Thanks!
"evolution" can mean, simply, "change." Or it can mean "all living things developed in all their aspects by chance over time." Or it could mean something in between. The point is, "evolution" is such a loaded (or sometimes "unloaded") term that it obscures more than it enlightens.
Only because the creationist side of the debate follows the pattern of denial until the denial is no longer viable, then they attempt to co-opt the science. Time was, the debate centered around the creationist insistence of the immutability of species (i.e., that the species that existed today were the same - unchanged - as those supposedly created by fiat by God.)
Now, as genetic evidence has proved this to be a silly notion, the creationists attempt to say, "Of course we believe in some variability of species, but only within a limit" (i.e., micro-evolution is now okay but not macro-evolution [Of course, macro-evolution and micro-evolution are the same process, plus time, the creationist position requires some method for stopping evolution. None, beyond, I guess, "God did it" has been even suggested.])
Heck, I've even seen an article by a creationist, albeit an opinion piece, stating "Thus, creationists predict and observe ongoing speciation as well as extinctions for those species unable to adapt to the rigors of natural selection" in an article dismissing Darwinism. (Time was that creationists refuse to even believe in extinction, let alone speciation. Moreover, if Darwinism is anything, it is speciation by natural selection, which, unless I read it wrong, this creationist is accepting, while bashing evolutionists.)
If there is any obscuring going on, it is the euphemism shuffle going on with Genesis literalists, er, I mean creationists, er, I mean creation scientists, er, I mean advocates of Intelligent Design, er, I mean whatever the hell else they call themselves these days.
No I don't. Radiation creates changes in DNA. That's a fact. There are millions of creatures with millions of cells constantly being hit with radiation. And "God did it" isn't just spinning a yarn? Where are your numbers? Oh wait, "God did it". How? "God did it". But why? "Don't know. God did it."
I think you have solved the riddle of the universe. Nobel prize worthy?
It's amazing that so many that feel so close to God, feel they have to promote ID instead of God. This leaves the space alien "theory" on equal footing with God. Go figure.
God: "you know, Pre-Existant Tree Surgeon, I think I'll make a self-propagating thing that has leaves and bark and is held up by a trunk of overlapping layers that grow year by year and would give incredible strength to the structure. In cross-section, they would look like rings. Yes, I think I'll do that."
Pre-Existant Tree Surgeon: But, Your Highness, I mean, Your Grace, how would you make the first one?"
God: "Well, by just saying so, of course."
Pre-Existant Tree Surgeon" B-b-b-but begging your pardon, Sir, but wouldn't it have to be without tree rings?"
God: "I'm not following you..... which is quite unusual for me."
Pre-Existant Tree Surgeon:" Well, if the first one shows a structure like that, it could be interpreted as, well, process, and wouldn't that make You, kind of, well, ----dishonest?"
God: "So I should give the tree some wings? Or delay gravity until the second generation?"
PE-TS "Oh, yes Sir, that would be much less confusing for the children. We especially want to avoid moral confusion."
God: "Hmmm. Well I'll see what the Engels think."
PE-TS: "The En-gels, Sir?
God: Yes. The En-gels do the engineering. Will there be anything else?"
PE-TS:" Well, Your Majesty, I noticed that on your "Adam" blueprint you were planning to give the proto-man a belly-button. Now, when you think of a man like Richard Dawkins that's going to be coming along, wouldn't it be likely to confuse him?"
God: "Well....., only if I don't let Richard become an Unintelligent Design.
Unlike Atheists, who though few in number, murdered 100 million people in the last 80 years. But, then, they aren't as highly evolved.
Unless you're claiming there's an organized church of atheism, this isn't much different from claiming that right-handed people murdered 100 million people.
What I don't understand is how a Christian could use force and murder in the name of God simply to convert others to their "religion of compassion".
You stating, 'that because evolution is not accidental, proves that evolution is intentional" is like (hate to use an overused analogy) saying that because the sun does not revolve around the earth, the earth must revolve around the sun. While this may be true, the earth could revolve around many other things. The multitude of possibilities are only limited by the human mind. Suppose evolution, as described today, is totally false. The opposite of the Darwinian postulate is far from intential. Even so, the term you use, accidental, isn't entirely accurate in the evolutionary context. Speciation is not entirely blind as it is guided by both the biotic and abiotic environment, as well as the physical forces and the laws that govern molecular interactions. While genetic changes are randomly made, integration is not random. Consequently, just because something is shown to be non-random, does not imply that it is intentional.
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.