And the evidence for intelligent design is what? Life is really complicated?
I can believe that. There is no evidence for evolution in the grand canyon's layers. Life jumps one to another form without gradients between connecting lifeforms from different periods at all.
I'd like to see an evolutionist explain the formation of an eyeball, which is pretty much a camera created for the job of sight. Now how'd THAT evolve?
Hmmmmmmm..........
First: that was not the right journal to publish that article. That journal mostly just published taxonomies, not controversial pieces or articles about theories of evolution.
Second: it was not properly vetted for the journal. The associate editors were supposed to approve the article before it could go in; Sternberg never showed them.
Third: it was not properly peer-reviewed. We have only Sternberg's word that he sent the article to three biologists, we have no proof beyond that. We don't know if they were fair reviewers or ringers for the Discovery Institute.
Etc. etc. etc.
When creationists talk about "peer review," they are making a mockery of the process and thus science in general.
"Scientific thought" BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Muleteam1
20For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
Whether this is scientific light or the light of Christ the action is the same when it rocks their religious ideas -- (To belvie that scientists are not religious is naive) it is attacked, and or ignored
And only when the evidence is so damning that the common people can plainly see the abject lies preached to them does that necessitate doctrinal change.
But the tuth is that most times they just redifine terms and change the name of what they teach so that in fact it does live on -- think of what libs to when their bills fail in congress. They come back again and again under different names and sandwhiched in differnet packaging -- in the hopes that it will be more appealing to the masses they they derrive their power from.
"By these standards, Darwinists have become the dogmatists. Scientists at the Smithsonian Institute, supported by American taxpayers, are punishing one of their own simply for publishing an article about Intelligent Design. "
Godless liberals who can't prove anything are easily threatened. Darwinists are showing their true colors through their vile harassment and excommunication of others who see things very differently with evidence to support their views.
All true, but the attachment of the public to the religion of science, marked by the use of the oxymoron "scientific FACTS" is very, very strong.
The utterer of such a self-evidently nonsensical statement is clearly a moron (if he really doesn't know better) or a montebank (if he does). Obviously, information is constantly generated and conveyed by both living (bee dances) and nonliving (crystal patterns) things without conscious rational activity.
I'm betting the reviewers aren't going to volunteer their identities.
bump for later
bump
read later
Steven Meyer a Senior Fellow of the creationist Discovery Institute, with a PhD in science history, sent his article to then editor of Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Richard Sternberg, who also sat on the editorial board of the creationist Baraminology Study Group (BSG),based at Bryan College, a fundamentalist Christian school in Tennessee named after anti-Darwin crusader William Jennings Bryan. Per Sternberg's own website, his connection with the BSG was not generally known before the article publication. Steinberg did not appoint, as was the usual practice, an associate editor to handle the article, obviously "the fix was in."
The Biological Society of Washington, the publisher of the Proceedings stated after publication:
The paper by Stephen C. Meyer in the Proceedings ("The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239) represents a significant departure from the nearly purely taxonomic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 124-year history. It was published without the prior knowledge of the Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, or the associate editors. We have met and determined that all of us would have deemed this paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings.
In other words the paper should never have been published in this forum.
As to the claim that Steinberg lost his office, that apparently is not true, see Sternberg’s phony bid for martyrdom, from which the following is an extract:
First, an official statement from the Smithsonian that appeared in the letters section of the Journal
To set the record straight:
It should be noted that Richard Sternberg is not a Smithsonian employee. He is a staff member of the National Center of Biotechnology Information at the National Institutes of Health. As a research associate he has permission to study collections at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History for a three-year term.
Dr. Sternberg's characterization of his work conditions and treatment at the Smithsonian is incorrect. He was never denied office space, keys or access to the collections. More importantly, the private religious beliefs of employees and research associates are respected by the museum, and have no bearing on their professional standing within the museum.
Randall Kremer
Director of Public Affairs
National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution
Washington
And second, a statement from Dr. Coddington that appeared on Panda's Thumb:
Although I do not wish to debate the merits of intelligent design, this forum seems an apt place to correct several factual inaccuracies in the Wall Street Journal's Op Ed article by David Klinghoffer,The Branding of a Heretic; (Jan. 28, 2005). Because Dr. von Sternberg has filed an official complaint with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, I cannot comment as fully as I would wish.
1. Dr. von Sternberg is still a Research Associate at the National Museum of Natural History, and continues to have the usual rights and privileges, including space, keys, and 24/7 access. At no time did anyone deny him space, keys or access.
2. He is not an employee of the Smithsonian Institution. His title, Research Associate, means that for a three year, potentially renewable period he has permission to visit the Museum for the purpose of studying and working with our collections without the staff oversight visitors usually receive.
3. I am, and continue to be, his only supervisor, although we use the term "sponsor"; for Research Associates to avoid personnel/employee connotations. He has had no other since Feb. 1, 2004, nor was he ever"assigned to" or under the "oversight of" anyone else.
4. Well prior to the publication of the Meyer article and my awareness of it, I asked him and another Research Associate to move as part of a larger and unavoidable reorganization of space involving 17 people and 20 offices. He agreed.
5. I offered both individuals new, identical, standard Research Associate work spaces. The other accepted, but Dr. von Sternberg declined and instead requested space in an entirely different part of the Museum, which I provided, and which he currently occupies.
6. As for prejudice on the basis of beliefs or opinions, I repeatedly and consistently emphasized to staff (and to Dr. von Sternberg personally), verbally or in writing, that private beliefs and/or controversial editorial decisions were irrelevant in the workplace, that we would continue to provide full Research Associate benefits to Dr. von Sternberg, that he was an established and respected scientist, and that he would at all times be treated as such.
On behalf of all National Museum of Natural History staff, I would like to assert that we hold the freedoms of religion and belief as dearly as any one. The right to heterodox opinion is particularly important to scientists. Why Dr. von Sternberg chose to represent his interactions with me as he did is mystifying. I can't speak to his interactions with anyone else.
Sincerely yours,
Jonathan Coddington