Smithsonian Scientist's Complaint Backed [or "unsupported" -- about the Meyer ID article]

The Washington Times ^ | 16 August 2005 | Joyce Howard Price

[betty boop]

None of us have direct knowledge of anyone's motives. We can however make reasonable inferences.

And what would be your "reasonable inferences" here?

I read the article. I did not find it at all polemical. Why do you?

[betty boop]

It is at least an informed one.

Oh, I'm sure it is an "informed one." But "informed" -- by what???

[Alamo-Girl]

I find it most interesting that every defense posited on this thread attributes a motive to either Sternberg or the original article. Motive is extremely difficult to establish and characterize (e.g. maliciousness) in court.

It would be a fascinating exercise to "try" this case on a separate thread, letting a true attorney with judicial temperament be the judge. But I doubt any of us have the time such an effort would require...

[Right Wing Professor]

But "informed" -- by what???

Ph.D. in the biological sciences, 20 years experience doing research and teaching in biophysics...nothing much.

[Right Wing Professor]

Motive is extremely difficult to establish and characterize (e.g. maliciousness) in court.

You seem to be fascinated by courts this morning. We're not in court.

[betty boop]

Ph.D. in the biological sciences, 20 years experience doing research and teaching in biophysics...nothing much.

But does this make you an impartial scientist, or a partisan?

[GOPJ]

Thanks for the ping.

[Straight Vermonter]

The RC of the 16th and 17th century would be proud.

Pulling out that old half-truth again, eh?

[betty boop]

It would be a fascinating exercise to "try" this case on a separate thread, letting a true attorney with judicial temperament be the judge. But I doubt any of us have the time such an effort would require...

Nor the inclination to do so, I imagine. Few people so far are talking about the simple issues of fairness and academic freedom here....

[general_re]

Nevertheless, I believe he could convincingly assert lost earnings capacity due to injury to his reputation...

The problem is that much of the injury to his reputation appears to be self-inflicted. He published that awful thing of his own free will, and not to put too fine of a point on it, but you don't get to be a martyr when you nail yourself to a cross ;)

[Alamo-Girl]

That might be the case if something untrue was said, in other words, slander. Professional opinions are not likely to be judged slander.

If the claim has been made that he bypassed ordinary and customary review - and he can prove that he did not - then it is established.

Also, professional opinions are not protected when they turn personal and are maliciously intended to destroy a person's reputation and therefore, his future earnings capacity, based on his beliefs.

This is the same type of scenario we had in the Texas student case where the professor was demanding the student disavow his religious beliefs before he would approve him for medical school - and again in Ohio when the student's doctoral thesis was derailed in the eleventh hour based on his beliefs.

This is also like the case I previously researched where the student's acting career was brought to a halt because she could not comply with the instructor's demand that she speak lines which denied her beliefs. Her case was established on appeal. The Texas case was resolved before it went to court.

Even in the university environment which is legally protected to speak all kinds of things, a person does not give up their his Constitutional rights on admission.

Ditto for mass media. In this environment - which is not so protected as either universities or media by legal precedent - "professional opinions" to not extend to authenticate tortious conduct or discrimination against others based on their beliefs.

[Right Wing Professor]

The entire paper is simply an extended version of the ancient and hoary argument about the Cambian Explosion. No new results, no new analysis. There is a first rate and detailed critique at 'The Panda's Thumb'. Rather than reinvent the wheel, I refer you to it.

[js1138]

Science isn't fragile and I have no concerns for the long run.

I have been on these threads a long time, and I do indeed read and carefully consider both sides. I am one of the few people on the evo side who take AndrewC's posts seriously. I will listen to anyone who argues the merits of the positions.

But I have been posting a request every day on every crevo thread for ten days -- asking ID proponents to outline their points of agreement with mainstream science. I'm trying to locate some common ground upon which to base a dialog.

So far I have not received one response that was not insulting. Not a single ID poster will tell me what they would teach in science classes. What core findings of science they accept. What procedures and methodologies.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

You seem to be fascinated by courts this morning. We're not in court.

Indeed we are not. But this entire sidebar began when I asserted that he could take his complaint to court and the Smithsonian would have to respond in discovery. His trying to handle this situation administratively will work to his credit when it does go to court.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for all of your posts, dear betty boop!

Nor the inclination to do so, I imagine. Few people so far are talking about the simple issues of fairness and academic freedom here....

Indeed. I find it bizarre that a conservative forum - which so emphatically holds to the entire Constitution - would not be concerned about upholding the First Amendment when the subject changes to science.

[Right Wing Professor]

Indeed. I find it bizarre that a conservative forum - which so emphatically holds to the entire Constitution - would not be concerned about upholding the First Amendment when the subject changes to science.

How exactly would you apply the First Amendment to a physics class, say, or to a physics journal?

[Alamo-Girl]

The problem is that much of the injury to his reputation appears to be self-inflicted. He published that awful thing of his own free will, and not to put too fine of a point on it, but you don't get to be a martyr when you nail yourself to a cross ;)

Interesting you should use that metaphor.

Christ clearly said that He laid down His own life - that noone could take it from Him (John 10:17-18). And yet the guilt remains, especially on Judas Iscariot (Matthew 26:24) but also on the entire generation (Luke 11:29-31).

In simpler terms, you may stand there and hand me a loaded gun - but that does not mean that I am therefore justified in killing you.

[js1138]

This is also like the case I previously researched where the student's acting career was brought to a halt because she could not comply with the instructor's demand that she speak lines which denied her beliefs.

Excuse me, but an actor is paid to say whatever is in the script. You don't mention whether this was a high school or whatever, but actors are playing a roll, and most actors cherish the opportunity to play an evil character.

Wrong school, or wrong profession. This is not a conservative cause I could identify with.

The medical student case is not one where I know the details. As a teacher, I would demand that students be able to answer questions about the subject, even if they disagree with them. I am somewhat sympathetic to the professor because there is a famous case of a little girl murdered by a surgeon who transplanted her with a baboon heart. When asked why he would do a thing that was so transparently stupid from an evolutionary standpoint, he replied that he didn't believe in evolution.

As for the motive behind the published article, I can only point to the use made of the article. This was a journal read, at most, by three people in a very narrow field. An yet suddenly ID was real science because it had a peer-reviewed article.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

How exactly would you apply the First Amendment to a physics class, say, or to a physics journal?

Rules of decorum must apply in the classroom, in the military and so on. So freedom of speech does not mean that a student can interrupt a professor, a corporeal interrupt a general, and such.

However, there should be no prohibition against the student saying plainly that he disagrees with the professor in any open forum.

You know my attitude about journals. It is fine to have peer-reviewed professional journals but there needs to be another outlet for scientists who have been rejected.

A number of Nobel prize winners had been previously rejected, Einstein never had to pass a peer-review, etc.: Refereed Journals: Do they insure quality or enforce orthodoxy?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

The acting class was at the university level. There are still a number of professional actors who refuse to do nude scenes (such as Jim Caviezel), speak lines which deny God, etc. They simply do not accept those roles. The university's action would have derailed the student's career.

Concerning the medical student, he passed all the tests on evolution with flying colors but was not willing to deny his religious belief - a statement (illegally) demanded by the professor.

As for the motive behind the published article, I can only point to the use made of the article. This was a journal read, at most, by three people in a very narrow field. An yet suddenly ID was real science because it had a peer-reviewed article.

Again, you would have to prove that such a use (a) was Sternberg's intention at the beginning, and (b) that such a use would justify or excuse all subsequent attempts to destroy his reputation and future earnings capacity.