Smithsonian in uproar over intelligent-design article

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | January 29, 2005

[Paraclete]

ID, logically would have one explore the designer.

Could be exciting, rewarding, and perhaps . . . expanding?

[jwalsh07]

The article first appeared in the Wall Street Journal

And Joe Farah doesn't work there.

[narby]

We were seeded by electroids from the 8th dimension.

And the electroids came from where? They Evolved, maybe?

These ID people are such ..... arrrrggghhh.

[narby]

And Joe Farah doesn't work there.

So you're saying that Farah doesn't have an agenda? HA!

Farah has published dozens of editorials supporting ID, and has links to many pro-ID products (which is probably his rationalization, to make bucks from you people who buy that pseudo scientific gunk).

[jwalsh07]

Very good selective reading. I said that "one of the most common tools used by biologists to change gene sequences is to Evolve them". I didn't say the "only" tool.

Right, which only means that it was poor attempt at obfuscation.

And my understanding of process of actual "gene splicing" is that subsequent to the splitting and inserting of the foreign gene, the sample is grown and selected for the desired trait. I.E. it is "Evolved". This is necessary because the vast majority of splices fail, and the successful ones must be selected using the same process as Gods "Natural selection".

It is selected by the designer. Why argue something that is inarguable.

Human selection vs. Natural selection. I'm amazed you think that God cannot do what humans can.

Who cares what amazes you? Certainly not me. I think God can do anything God pleases. The mechanisms God uses are entirely up to God.

How little you must think God is.

You're a fool. God is omnipotent, not you narby. You don't know squat. :-}

[jwalsh07]

Me:And Joe Farah doesn't work there.

You: So you're saying that Farah doesn't have an agenda? HA!

Here's your big chance Narby. Show us all how smart you are and logically derive your statement from mine.

Can't wait!

[rwfromkansas]

There is nothing wrong with him being questioned.

But, Mr. Coddington's harrassment and shunning of him is most childish and unprofessional.

[furball4paws]

I think I am just going to go into the other room and take a nap.

[Rudder]

Unfortunately, I don't think ID folllows logic, but rather faith.

[narby]

I think God can do anything God pleases. The mechanisms God uses are entirely up to God.

You certianly do not. You don't think that God could have created Evolution.

You have limited God to only that which you can imagine.

You're a fool. God is omnipotent, not you narby.

I can Evolve biology, simply by not taking my medicine. Yet you don't think God could do that.

And you think God is omnipotent?

You have a strange sense of the omnipotent.

[Right Wing Professor]

As I've written elsewhere

1. Sternberg abused his office as editor by publishing Meyer's article, which does not IMO meet minimum criteria for a scientific paper, and in any case was not consistent with the mission of the journal he edits.
2. The editorship in question, however, has no connection with the Smithsonian, and the matter was really none of their business.
3. I would have no problem with removing Sternberg as editor.
4. I have the gravest of difficulties with sanctioning him as an employee of the Smithsonian for actions carried out as editor.
5. And finally, questions about Sternberg's religion or politics in the course of this 'investigation', which IMO should never have been carried out anyway, are outrageous. It is Coddington, not Sternberg, whose job should be in jeopardy.

This comes frm a committed evolutionist who regards as ridiculous Sternberg's beliefs about the origin of species.

[jwalsh07]

Narby, I have no problem with God's use of evolution as a mechanism. You are the one with the problem and that problem is your a priori assumption that any who disagrre with anything you say is not capable of knowing God. A sad and small position to take.

[narby]

But, Mr. Coddington's harrassment and shunning of him is most childish and unprofessional.

The publishing of an obviously religious document in a scientific journal is what was unprofessional.

The very concept of "ID" is that the researchers have glimpsed actual scientific evidence for God. Something that radical is just simply beyond the pale.

I'm amazed that Christians actually desire scientific confirmation of their belief. What is the use of faith, if science offers proof?

[massgopguy]

If Intelligent Design is dismissed out of hand, then one must conclude that the universe created itself from nothing for no reason.

[jwalsh07]

You got principles Prof.

[narby]

I have no problem with God's use of evolution as a mechanism.

Wonderful. Then we agree.

[rwfromkansas]

I am much more skeptical of ID than I used to be after perusing some of PatrickHenry's links.

However, if what is said regarding Coddington's actions is true, it is despicable.

A scientist would not isolate another scientist, shut down his office, threaten him, badger his supervisor about his beliefs.

A real scientist would not do those things.

A real scientist would sit down and write an article challenging the published piece.

A real scientist would challenge the findings, not impugn the man.

Apparently, if Mr. Coddington did what it alleged, ad hominem arguments are fair game when attacking somebody who deviates from the party line.

[Right Wing Professor]

I would hope we all have. It's a shame they tend to bend depending on what side we're on.

[rwfromkansas]

You have no problem with colleagues harrassing eachother?

What if the editor was a woman? Would it be okay for a man to grab her breasts since she made a mistake?

I can't believe I am reading your tripe.

If the editor is to be removed from his position, remove him.

Don't harrass him at work, don't do petty office politics and take away his research office.