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 ...
Very amusing. Anybody with an open mind realizes there is something out there.
> really look into what ID claims.
It claims nothing except to snipe at an established theory. ID is not science.
I sincerely hope you don't include yourself among that group.
Problem is, someone forgot to send the memo to the 'father of ID'
"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."
"This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy."
Both quotes from Philip Johnson, author of 'Darwin on Trial'
No. Sternberg is a member of the 'Baraminology Study Group' , a group of Young-Earth Creationists whose goal is to discover the 'original kinds' of the Bible. His statements that he is a disinterested scientist are just the usual creationist misdirection.
What is curious is that he published an ID paper by Meyer, when he himself doesn't beleive the Cambrian period existed, or at least existed when Meyer says it did. So not only did he violate journal policy, he violated his own personal beliefs, all in order to get a blow in at the common enemy, the theory of Evolution.
It is late - so I will refrain from telling you that you are woefully uninformed.
Really? OK, then, enlighten me: what predictions does ID make? What falsification means are suggested?
> Anybody with an open mind realizes there is something out there.
Yes. And that "something" is biological evolution.
Biological science does not include flap doodle. See: spontaneous generation, slimy soup, RNA world, or a special exemption from entropy.
Did you read the statement in Post #55 where it says von Sternberg is a member even though he does NOT believe in Creationism?
Obviously you are not alone in trying to distort von Sternberg's positions otherwise Barminology would not have needed to place this on their web site.
So von Sternberg is on record publicly as not believing in Creationism but you and others insist you know his beliefs better?
"What is curious is that he published an ID paper by Meyer, when he himself doesn't beleive the Cambrian period existed, or at least existed when Meyer says it did. So not only did he violate journal policy, he violated his own personal beliefs, all in order to get a blow in at the common enemy, the theory of Evolution."
It's all just one big conspiracy.
The Evolution side of this debate is not looking very rational here. Or ethical.
Did you read the statement in Post #55 where it says von Sternberg is a member even though he does NOT believe in Creationism?
And I have some swamp land in Florida to sell you. Why would one advertize one is on the board of a creationist organization if one doesn't subscribe to their core belief?
Sternberg is playing the same coy game on a personal level that the Discovery Institute is trying to play in national politics. Rather than advocate any particular position (which leaves that position open to examination and where the religious motivation of the position will be clear), simply pose as an Evolution skeptic. 'Teach the controversy'. Riiiight.
Problem is, science doesn't work that way. We don't replace theories with a high degree of content with nothing. And of course, he isn't replacing it with nothing; the baraminology study group specifically classes into biological kinds, or baramin, based on biblical criteria. If one doesn't subscribe to the criteria, then the classification and one's efforts are entirely pointless.
It's all just one big conspiracy.
it's a concerted political effort, certainly. There is substantial cooperation between two contradictory origins theories, YEC and OEC/ID. Both cannot be true. But they do have a common enemy in evolution, so for the moment they're collaborating.
Do you think we're fools? Save the disingenuousness for the School Board.
> Biological science does not include flap doodle.
You mean like superstitions, the supernatural or suggestions of meddling by aliens? You're right. Biological *science* does not contain such.
The paper passed peer-review, and the peer-review file was checked and deemed appropriate by the president of the council. How is that superstitious? Have you even read the paper?
It's not censorship, it's peer review. That's how science works. Science doesn't have to give equal time to nutjobs.
Well, genius, rest assured you will have no more say in the process than I will.
Where have you been? Science does not rest on peer review. It rests on experimentation.
One day you will bow before God and confess ID is the truth. I promise you this.
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.