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 ...
placemarker
What "nut job?"
"One day you will bow before God and confess ID is the truth. I promise you this."
Soon WhoreGay! Soon!
you already won,
didnt you hear?
One of your activist buddy judges just ruled one for ya.
Atheism is religion.
That right, sing it loud...
Atheism is Religion!
Atheism is Religion!
That messy inconvenient and in the way Establishment Clause is History!
No more freedom from Religion!
Praise be to the One True God!
Nothing can stop you now!
(If SCOTUS doesn't vaporise it, that is.)
So you get Your "word of God" Thumper-Fundy-pseudo-science.
Happy?
watch your back...
Can you spell A C L U?
Muhammed gonna get his too.
Koran Klass Kiddies!
Hooray for God!
One day you will have to stand before Crom and answer the riddle of steel. If you cannot, he will cast you out of Valhalla and laugh at you.
> The paper passed peer-review
Sometimes things slip through due to lazy peer-reviewers. This woudl not be the first time that a hoax paper has gotten through.
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/s/so/sokal_affair.htm
But... We learned from YOU guys ;^(
HMmmm... which part AIN'T?
Nice word picture.
Just like the ones we get to decribe how Evolution could have happened.
This GUY???
NIV Deuteronomy 4:32
Ask now about the former days, long before your time, from the day God created man on the earth; ask from one end of the heavens to the other. Has anything so great as this ever happened, or has anything like it ever been heard of?
How is it "superstitious" to attribute design to biological entities that function as machines? Can't remember the last time I got superstitious over seeing a car or a lawn mower, though I reckon there was a time when Indians became superstious over guns. But not for long.
The design involved with biological entities, by the accounts of evolutionism, must be far less complex or interesting than the design involved with cars and lawn mowers, which we somehow intuitivuely know to be intelligently designed. Which is easier to build from scratch: a lawn mower, or a blade of grass?
The point of the Sokal affair is that the social science journals do not employ real peer review. Are you saying the same is true of the Biology journals?
The Sokal affair was not something that "happened to slip through" but part of a giant problem where humanities "peer-review" is not based on valid argument, but on conformance to pre-conceived ideas of the reviewers.
Again, are you saying the same is true of Biology journals?
> How is it "superstitious" to attribute design to biological entities that function as machines?
Just as it would be superstition to attribute design to, say, the Face On Mars.
> Which is easier to build from scratch: a lawn mower, or a blade of grass?
A blade of grass. To get that lawn mower, you must first not only evolve a blade of grass... but also an intelligent being capable of designing the lawn mower.
> are you saying the same is true of Biology journals?
The evidence certainly suggests that in this case.
> We'll see who is right.
> I'll bet you I am.
Do you *honestly* think that coems even close to being a reasonable means of debating a point of science?
Absolutely. When a person is standing before God, Creator of Heaven and Earth, I think the debate is pretty much over.
And for those so stubbornly and spiritually blind as evolutionists we see on these boards, I think it may very well take such an experience.
And as an x-evolutionist and atheist turned Christian creationist, I have no doubt this will happen. And much sooner than people think.
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.