Replies

The creationist myth that Richard 'von' Sternberg was persecuted for his anti-evolution position was comprehensively and remorselessly demolished on Daniel Morgan's blog this week; including some persuasive arguments for malfeasance on the putative martyr's part.

Ping to PatrickHenry, sicne I think Morgan's analysis is good enough to be archived.

It seems to me this issue has become an attempt to force scientists, and everyone else, to take a stand. The inquisitorial question that "must" be answered is "Did an IDer create man and the universe or not?"

If one answers "there is no evidence one way or another", or "I don't know", that individual is branded as anti-God (even though no claim is made by the IDers that the IDer is God). IOW, the IDers strategy is a form of inquisition. And it is profoundly dishonest.

"The U.S. Office of Special Counsel was called in to investigate. Its officials decided unambiguously in Sternberg’s favor, although officials at the Smithsonian have now stoutly refused to cooperate with the investigation. Small wonder, given their less-than-admirable methods of trying to destroy Sternberg.

Reading the Special Council’s report is an eye-opener. Before the Smithsonian stopped cooperating with the investigation, behind-the-scenes e-mail correspondence was gathered by investigators. It is clear from reading them that Smithsonian officials had little but contempt for religious believers:

“After spending 4.5 years in the Bible Belt,” said one,” I have learned how to carefully phrase things in order to avoid the least amount of negative repercussions for the kids. … The most fun we had by far was when my son refused to say the Pledge of Allegiance because of the ‘under dog’ part.”

Charming. The e-mails reveal what is truly behind the “careful phrasing” of these scientist-administrators. They are secularist ideologues with a barely suppressed disdain for believers."

Yep. Lots of discussion about the merits of the paper and the issue. The fact the the Smithsonian now refuses to cooperate should raise a big red flag.
As I recall, the Smithsonian was also the organization that put some plaque on the Enola Gay exhibit that had veterans up in arms, and had that BS display of a pride of lions with the disclaimer that 'just because the male lion is standing in front, doesn't imply a patriarchial pride family structure' or some other PC BS.

And to see the usual suspects on this thread talking about anything *but* what actually occurred betrays an agenda ( global warming, anyone? ).