This article is pretty close to that, what happened to this fellow
No, it isn't, but I've despaired of expecting a normal level of perspective from you.
and he is not even an advocate of "Intelligent Design."
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?
His great sin was apparently not working hard enough to suppress the heresy.
You keep talking, but all you can manage is strings of buzzwords.
What you don't understand is that science is not religion
Oh, I understand that just *fine*.
and your religious fanatcism
Wrong again.
is as detrimental, or more accurately trivial and superfluous, as the heretics you live to, and love to, battle.
You certainly have a colorful, dramatic view of me. You're a real drama queen.
There are you religious fanatics like you arguing about how many angels dance on the head of a pin. You say 13, they say 14. So one guy in the 14 camp lets one of the heretics write 14 angels can dance on a pin in an obscure and unimportant magazine that usually only publishes from the 13 view and the 13 camp decides to blackball him and destroy his livlihood.
You know, the decaffeinated brands taste just as good.
Let me know when your rant dies down and you get back to saying something that manages to resemble something I've actually said, or a position I actually hold.
It's all so pathetic. It reminds of libertarians, Ann Rand worshippers and also Cindy Sheehan type freaks.
Still waiting for you to wind down.
And there are those who are actually study the pins and learn and discover things. Look in to it.
Ooookay.
So does anyone actually want to discuss the science, or is tonight just going to be Galileo accusations, Cindy Sheehan slurs, and longwinded non sequiturs about pins?
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.
“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.