Posted on 08/18/2005 10:36:33 PM PDT by dervish
The Smithsonian Institution is a national treasure of which every American can legitimately feel a sense of personal ownership. Considering this, I'd imagine widespread displeasure as more Americans become aware that senior scientists at the publicly funded Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History have reportedly been creating a "hostile work environment" for one of their colleagues merely because he published a controversial idea in a biology journal.
The controversial idea is Intelligent Design, the scientific critique of neo-Darwinism. The persecuted Smithsonian scientist is Richard von Sternberg, the holder of two PhDs in biology (one in theoretical biology, the other in molecular evolution). While the Smithsonian disputes the case, Sternberg's version has so far been substantiated in an investigation by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC), an independent federal agency.
A lengthy and detailed letter from OSC attorney James McVay, dated August 5, 2005, and addressed to Sternberg, summarizes the government's findings, based largely on e-mail traffic among top Smithsonian scientists. A particularly damning passage in the OSC letter reads:
Our preliminary investigation indicates that retaliation [against Sternberg by his colleagues] came in many forms. It came in the form of attempts to change your working conditions...During the process you were personally investigated and your professional competence was attacked. Misinformation was disseminated throughout the SI [Smithsonian Institution] and to outside sources. The allegations against you were later determined to be false. It is also clear that a hostile work environment was created with the ultimate goal of forcing you out of the SI. Meanwhile, on the basis of the "misinformation" directed against him, Sternberg's career prospects were being ruined.
'snip'
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
We just had a controversy here in Washington State over whether to call the public school break at Christmas time "Christmas" break or "Winter" break. I truly believe that the people who don't want anything religious mention is because they are afraid that someone close to them may turn spiritual. And to them, that is a no no. So the best way is to fight anything that resembles a belief in an Almighty God.
No, the "scientific community" is not "acting like a bunch of thugs".
A *few* people have treated Sterberg poorly. Do not be so foolish as to confuse a few people with the entire "scientific community".
when they are reduced to trying to ruin a man's career because he does not toe the line with their thinking. I'd like to see you defend that.
I'm not defending the behavior, BUT you are grossly misrepresenting their motivation. They are not attacking Sternberg because he "does not toe the line with their thinking". They are attacking him because he was intimately involved with violating ordinary standards of scholarship -- standards which many people take very seriously. In short, they are going after him for what they feel is a serious PROFESSIONAL failure on Sternberg's part. There are right ways and wrong ways to address such failures, though, and some have crossed the line between the two. But don't misrepresent their reasons.
You "see a lot of" that because that's what the creationists focus their PR on, to divert from the failures of their "science".
Right. The "But mommy, he started it" arguement.
Actually, what's really "funny" is that Meyer's article *has* been dissected minutely and countless errors and misrepresentations have been identified in it, BUT you guys will never know about that, because you spend ALL YOUR TIME WHINING ABOUT the personal stuff.
You sir have mistakenly lumped me into a category into which I do not belong. I laugh at both the rabid creationists and evolutionists. I expect some of the more crazy religious zealots to act like nutters, but I would like to think that the scientific community could handle itself in a more rational way. Instead, we see the same sort of witch hunt coming from the so-called rationalists. Perhaps they have become that which they hate the most.
>There's no excuse for this behavior, whether you agree that this man should have allowed the ID paper in the journal or not.
But don't pretend that the creationist side doesn't do it, and do it far more often.
Yes, the creationist stranglehold on our nation's scientific insitutions have created a hostile work environment for honest scientists.
Like evolution isn't about a theory. Pot calling the kettle black.
Would you care to try that again, and make some sense next time around?
Yes, evolution is a theory. Are you under the mistaken impression that anyone has claimed that it wasn't? The point which you apparently misunderstood when it was previously presented to you is that while evolution is a theory, it's important to note that "theory" in science is much MORE than the layman's meaning of "just a theory" (i.e., merely a guess).
That's sweet and all, but since the *majority* of Americans who subscribe to evolution are *Christians*, it appears that your conspiracy theory falls quite flat.
[You "see a lot of" that because that's what the creationists focus their PR on, to divert from the failures of their "science".]
Right. The "But mommy, he started it" arguement.
Learn to read, kid. I said nothing of the kind.
What I *did* say is that is that you "see" a lot of "abuse" of creationists because the creationists HIGHLIGHT such "abuse" and publicize it a lot.
Reading comprehension is your friend.
[Actually, what's really "funny" is that Meyer's article *has* been dissected minutely and countless errors and misrepresentations have been identified in it, BUT you guys will never know about that, because you spend ALL YOUR TIME WHINING ABOUT the personal stuff.]
You sir have mistakenly lumped me into a category into which I do not belong. I laugh at both the rabid creationists and evolutionists.
Then I *was* right about you.
I expect some of the more crazy religious zealots to act like nutters, but I would like to think that the scientific community could handle itself in a more rational way. P> And they do.
Instead, we see the same sort of witch hunt coming from the so-called rationalists. Perhaps they have become that which they hate the most.
Congratulations, you've fallen for the creationist "spin" of the Meyer/Sterberg affair.
Yes, the creationist stranglehold on our nation's scientific insitutions
You *really* need to work on that reading comprehension problem...
have created a hostile work environment for honest scientists.
Actually, the creationists have created such a "hostile work environment", just not by the method you (mis)attribute to me.
How many examples would you like me to cite of museums and zoos and so on backing away from clearly presenting science to the public, because of their fear of being "controversial" (i.e., getting angry reactions from creationists)? How about all the schools that have scaled back on science because it irritates the fundamentalists? And so on.
The can run, but they can not hide. LOL
First, we had Creationism virus. This virus was able to exist and multiply for many centuries. Over the last century Creationism encountered an anti-virus called science. At first the Creationism virus was able to with stand the anti-virus; however, as the anti-virus evolved it became very successful. The Creationism virus was all but dead.
In the true spirit of evolution, the Creationism virus picked up some of the DNA of the anti-virus and became ID. With this new DNA the evolved Creationism virus, ID, was better able to stand up the anti-virus of science. The ID virus even became so good that a few weak defective practitioners of science were fooled by it.
The problem is that Darwin's theories ARE a religion.
"an ID paper as poor science"......gimme a break here! The science with regards evolution is equally rotten!!!!
>> Consequently, "censorship" in this area is like an observatory "censoring" papers on astrology...
> That's a stretch.
Agreed. Astrology is not as bad for astronomy as ID is for the biological sciences.
You're as confused and wrong as usual. Sterberg certainly *is* "an advocate of 'Intelligent Design'". What hallucination led you to falsely conclude that he wasn't?
The actual article posted: This was the view held by Sternberg, who isn't himself an advocate of ID.
I think the main problem you have is that you just aren't very bright.
Of course, you in all your wisdom have decreed that the paper wasn't worthy to be published and that this was the reason behind the outrage. It wasn't the subject matter, but just pure concern over his poor editorial governance of an obscure--your description--journal, right?
Most curious that instead of expressing their concerns through open channels, they smiled to his face and carried on a campaign of subterfuge behind the scenes, including an investigation of his personal and religious life. But, that's just normal "scientific curiosity" on their part, I suppose. And I'm sure it's a totally isolated thing, right? All such scientists are tightly confined within the SI? Good grief.
In any event, you wouldn't want to miss a step while wasting time with me. March on.
MM out.
Since you missed it, that was my point. Evolution is based on theory, yet you and scientists treat it like it is a fact. Truly a big difference between theory and fact.
“You're as confused and wrong as usual. Sterberg certainly *is* "an advocate of 'Intelligent Design'". What hallucination led you to falsely conclude that he wasn't? “
Is this research you have done on Dr von Sternberg representative of the scientific community’s debunking of ID, attack the man, not the theory? Your link provides no proof that Dr von Sternberg is a BELIEVER in ID, such belief of course being the absolute corrupter of scientific judgment for ID, selectively, as opposed to those that have perfect judgment notwithstanding their belief in evolution. Is that selectivity some sort of genetic mutation only found in those that believe in God for instance? Is that why the Smithsonian was delving into von Sternberg's religious beliefs, a sort of marker for this trait.
The supposedly damning quote from von Sternberg (ironic use of that word) does not address in any way his belief. The quote from him suggests that he has vetted ID scholarship nothing more.
“The book has been praised by leading scientists for bringing the controversy about neo-Darwinism and design into the public eye. Dr. Richard von Sternberg, a biologist at the Smithsonian Institution writes: "For over 30 years now an increasing number of thinkers in biology have questioned the major tenets of evolutionary theory. Into this scientific debate have entered the ‘design theorists’ who insist that the central issue is biological information, and whether this information can be generated by undirected material processes. The essays by various design theorists in Darwin, Design, and Public Education impress upon the reader that no amount of evasion or redefinition will make this problem go away. Though one may be disturbed by the implications of design theory, the papers in this book will educate the reader concerning the scientific assumptions at stake, and the reasoning behind the positions taken on the design issue."
That he is on the Board of the Baraminology Study Group at Bryan College, a young earth researcher’s association, is explained right on their web site:
“What is the relationship between the BSG and Richard Sternberg?
Richard Sternberg is a structuralist and was invited to speak at the 2001 BSG conference on the subject of structuralism. At the time, we were aware that Dr. Sternberg was not a creationist. At the conference this was confirmed in personal conversations between Dr. Sternberg and several BSG members. Dr. Sternberg specifically expressed incredulity about young-earth beliefs about age of the earth and rapid speciation. He was very pleasant and cordial in his disagreements, however, and left a good impression on all he spoke with. When Roger Sanders suggested that we start our own journal, we chose to assemble an editorial board strictly to provide regular peer review of papers. We felt that a critical review from a skeptic would be more valuable than many sympathetic reviews from BSG supporters. We therefore asked Dr. Sternberg to serve on the editorial board. Much to our surprise, he agreed. The journal launched in the spring of 2002, and Dr. Sternberg's name has been listed on our website since then. “
http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/clarifications.html
Gee, it sounds like this von Sternberg might just be one of those rare scientists with no agenda but a thirst for knowledge, a tragic flaw for him it would appear.
see my post #55. The author of this article was correct. von Sternberg is not (heaven forbid, oops! I mean thank the stars)a creationist.
well said.
The ad hominem nature of the attacks on von Sternberg suggests what ad hominem attacks always suggest -- lack of a refutation on the merits.
The problem here is the problem in all of academia -- tyranny of the left which is inimicable to learning, intellectual development, and diversity of knowledge. That is what is at work here and in all our universities.
David French of FIRE (http://www.thefire.org/) told of his experience as a professor on a university hiring committee. It was SOP to weed out any candidate with a disecernable religious background.
You're as confused and wrong as usual. Sterberg certainly *is* "an advocate of 'Intelligent Design'". What hallucination led you to falsely conclude that he wasn't?
The actual article posted: This was the view held by Sternberg, who isn't himself an advocate of ID.
I think the main problem you have is that you just aren't very bright.
Not surprising coming from someone who accused me of lacking reading comprehension skills. One word: projection.
Is theory without supporting 'fact' science? How much supporting 'fact' at minimum is required before an invalid theory becomes a valid scientific theory?
LOL --ID theory is no less science that is evolution theory. This argument is not about science -the arguiment is about ateists that wish to censor the religious... Aethiest bigots that drape themselves in science and practice the religion of human secularism...
You might want to stop drinking the koolaid, and really look into what ID claims.
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.