Posted on 02/15/2005 12:03:00 PM PST by Michael_Michaelangelo
A former editor of a scientific journal has filed a complaint against the Smithsonian Institution, charging that he was discriminated against on the basis of perceived religious and political beliefs because of an article he published that challenged the Darwinian theory of evolution.
"I was singled out for harassment and threats on the basis that they think I'm a creationist," said Richard Sternberg, who filed the complaint with the federal Office of Special Counsel.
Smithsonian officials deny the accusations. "We at the Smithsonian consider religion a matter of personal faith. The evolutionary theory is a matter of science. The two are not incompatible," said Randall Kremer, a spokesman for the Smithsonian's Museum of Natural History.
Mr. Sternberg, who holds two doctorates in evolutionary biology, says he's been told by the Office of Special Counsel that "they take my complaint seriously and are investigating." The special counsel's office said it cannot discuss the case.
Mr. Sternberg, 41, is employed at the National Center for Biotechnology Information, a part of the National Institutes of Health. But as part of his duties there, he spends half of his time at the Smithsonian as a research associate.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Bias Ping
Thanks for the ping! I'm glad he complained.
Hold muh peer review and published research report on ID, while evolutionists try to stone me.
They gave Stephen Meyer grief over the article too. They told him something to the effect of "there are Christians who work at the Smithsonian, but they keep their heads low."
Really? I think it is a matter of faith.
TAS: Why 40 years?
Tom Wolfe: Look at the Big Bang. That's a fairly recent theory, and it is already burning out. There are too many scientists who are saying this is rubbish. Just think about the theory of the Big Bang or this ridiculous theory about where the first cell came from. Now they say it probably came from outer space when an asteroid hit the earth and a few of these things bounced out. It is because of all this silly stuff that Darwinism is going to go down in flames.
I've noticed how only stupid religious people are questioning Darwin's theory, haven't you? /sarcasm
Thanks for the ping and the link Michael. It's been added to my file.
Tremendous faith, IMO.
Ping-a-ling.
Dr. Sternberg describes his views as follows:
"Process structuralism"
I subscribe to a school of biological thought often termed “process structuralism.” Process or biological structuralism is concerned with understanding the formal, generative rules underlying organic forms, and focuses on the system architectures of organisms and their interrelationships. Structuralist analysis is generally ahistorical, systems-oriented, and non-evolutionary (not anti-evolutionary). Both creationism and neo-Darwinism are, in contrast, emphatically historicist with one positing extreme polyphyly (de novo creation of species) and the other radical monophyly (common descent). Since the structuralist perspective runs somewhat perpendicular to the origins debate, creationists and evolutionists tend to see it as inimical to their positions. The truth is structuralism has little at stake in the origins issue, leaving a person like myself free to dialogue with all parties. For this reason, I frequently discourse with ultra-Darwinians, macromutationists, self-organization theorists, complexity theorists, intelligent design advocates, theistic evolutionists, and young-earth creationists without necessarily agreeing with any of their views.
Structuralism does, however, provide an important perspective on the origins debate. Structuralists' lack of commitment to an historical theory of biology allows them to explore the historical evidence more objectively. Moreover, because they focus on formal analysis, struturalists are far more open than neo-Darwinians to the powerful evidence for continuity within species (forms) and discontinuity between and among species. They also allow themselves to wonder about the cause of the amazing repetition of forms across the biological world rather than being forced by prior commitments to accept a major neo-Darwinian epicycle known as "convergent evolution."
Ping
Nah. This is a religion thread. No general ping to the science group unless there's a big demand for it.
I really like his description of the response to the Meyer article:
Continuing on, I provided my view of the range of reactions that I have observed among colleagues, which seems to me a suitable ending for this overview of the controversy:
I've received four kinds of responses regarding the Meyer article. The first is one of extreme hostility and anger that the peer-review process was not barred to a "creationist" author—no questions asked (a minority view). The second is what I'd term the herd instinct: this response arises when some key people (often members of the first group) are upset. Some people, once they begin to feel the heat from individuals with strong opinions, feign being upset too or actually become upset, for fear that they'll seem to be a "supporter" of an unpopular or despised position. Many of these individuals initially displayed no concern or qualms about the paper until some loud voices displayed their discontent. Those in the third category don't really care about the issue one way or the other, because it doesn't impact their research. In terms of population size, groups two and three are by far the largest. The fourth group consists of those who found the paper "informative," "stimulating," "thought-provoking," (real quotes I've heard from colleagues about the paper), including some who are in agreement with some of Meyer's ideas. Many members of the third and fourth groups have told me that in their opinion sooner or later the design issue will have to be debated in a reasoned manner.
Sola Veritas writing:
I have noted a significant number of the first group he describes residing at FR. I would call these folks "Fundamentalist Evolutionists." They hold evolutionary theory in the same high regard that conservative Christians hold the Bible.
Why is that?
Another belief that has become untenable is that the "scientific" establishment is objective.
Dude, I get about three to four pages of pings in my "My Comments" page per day. A lot of stuff goes by the boards. Hell, I can't even remember our conversation on the subject.
Credibility points for Pat........ZERO.
Yeah........right.
I'm PINGIN' to see how this shapes up later...
What can I say? I'm on about a dozen ping lists. I'm just a helluva popular guy.
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.