[rawcatslyentist]

100 years from now they will look at us as about as smart as the Papeocracy insisting Gallileo declare the earth as the center of the universe!

[Lancey Howard]

Jack Cashill BUMP!
This guy is the best.

[Lancey Howard]

I am surprised that this fellow Sternberg hasn't filed a lawsuit.
Also, who is in charge of hiring all those simple scumbags at the stinking Smithsonian?

[SirLinksalot]

Kinda makes you wonder why there is this overreaction towards Dr. Sternberg.

Scientists with integrity would have published a paper refuting Meyer's paper ( with SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE ) instead of politicizing the issue and hounding this reviewer with threats.

You would've thought that Stalinist Russia no longer exists ( certainly not in the scientific world ). Well, here's proof that something akin to it still does.

[texas_mrs]

Wow. There really ARE two America's.

[volunbeer]

This is the sad truth of science today....

A true scientist questions everything but there are certain theories that are off limits. That is the answer and how dare you question it.

The earth is flat again.

[Southack]

The original paper from Dr. Sternberg: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177

[aruanan]

Once the Meyer article was published, Coddington and others began to probe into Sternberg's background, asking around to see if he were a closeted "religious fundamentalist" or, God forbid, a "Republican."

Once upon a time at a party on my floor in the year before I defended my thesis, some post-doc made some comment about the NRA. I said, "Well, I'm a member. You want to see my membership card?" This woman got a look of absolute horror on her face. I thought it was pretty funny. My thesis advisor, one of the few faculty I've met who actually has a real life outside the lab, told me he thought it would probably be a good idea if I didn't advertise my NRA membership so openly.

There have been a few faculty who have their heads screwed on right, but many seem to be narrow-minded bigots. They are like most liberals (and children). They believe their view of things is simply a reflection of reality off the mirror of their minds. Because of this, they believe that people who disagree with them are doing so either because they are defective--they cannot understand reality--or evil--they understand that things are exactly the way the liberal thinks but, because of evil, anti-human perversity, they choose to oppose them.

I have also seen that academic science appears to select for mental and emotional pathology. It tends to select for fairly articulate and intelligent people who feel more comfortable in their own little world that they ruthlessly control. People are means to whatever ends they have chosen--usually getting more grant money. They say that to be successful you have to "eat, drink, and breathe science". I have heard one say that even when he's home he's constantly thinking about science. He has no sense of humor. He commits egregious social faux pas. He expects people to have read his mind. If he doesn't understand you, it's because, as he says, you failed to communicate clearly.

[dread78645]

You would think Mr. Cashill might actually try to learn some facts about the stories he writes.

The Sternberg Saga Continues

[onedoug]

Yet the scientific method - which allowed us to defeat Japan in WWI - seems as out as ever in convincing this scientifically minded person that any more than 75% of evolution is a viable theory.

[onedoug]

I meant WWII.

Time for bed.

[si tacuissem]

In late December 2006, the U.S. House Committee on Government Reform issued an unflattering report on the state of affairs at one of the nation's more cherished institutions.

One day students might study this report – damningly titled "Intolerance and the Politicization of Science at the Smithsonian" – as a turning point in the history of science.[..]

I'm afraid that said students will search this report in vain - as there is -AFAIK - no report issued by the U.S. House Committee. Rather, it appears to be a report from the staff of the committee to Rep. Mark Souder only. The report is hosted on Souder's website, not the committee website, and there is nothing to indicate that it is an official committee report.

[Aquinasfan]

Meyer contended that neo-Darwinism has failed to provide a convincing explanation for the massive infusion of new genetic information into the fossil record a reported 570 million years ago.

...Meyer took a stab at it, arguing deductively that only "rational agents" have shown the ability to design and organize functional, information-rich systems. "Natural selection lacks foresight," Meyer continued. "What natural selection lacks, intelligent selection – purposive or goal-directed design – provides."

"The man is obviously insane." --Airplane II (The Sequel) < /s>

Today, almost inevitably, the road to such hell is paved with e-mail. But even by the standards of the contemporary academy, the e-mail campaign to punish Sternberg was an impressively swift and catty one.

WND should stay away from this rhetoric and let the facts speak for themselves. This just turns off the fence-sitters. Their own words are damning enough:

"if he had any class he would either entirely desist or resign his appointment."

"This is not about the other RAs. This is only about you." ..."You are being treated differently, but you know perfectly well why you're being treated differently."

[JCEccles]

Shortly before receiving Meyer's paper, Sternberg had attended an in-service training module on the ethics of peer review. What Sternberg took away from the training is that the "peers" selected to review a given paper be neither prejudiced against the topic or partial to it for reasons of self-interest.

Although not himself an intelligent design (ID) theorist or an advocate of the same, Sternberg thought the subject worthy of discussion. He identified three fellow scientists who shared his open-mindedness, though none of them was an ID advocate, either. These scientists offered some useful revisions. Meyer incorporated them, and the paper was published in August 2004.

Given what has happened since, these scientists have chosen to remain anonymous to preserve their careers. After considerable review of the files, however, no one questions the legitimacy of the process.

In publishing Meyer's paper, Sternberg had merely hoped to provoke a good discussion. He was "absolutely not expecting" the hell that rained down upon him with the paper's publication.

Today, almost inevitably, the road to such hell is paved with e-mail. But even by the standards of the contemporary academy, the e-mail campaign to punish Sternberg was an impressively swift and catty one.

One zoologist colleague, for instance, asked their common department head, Dr. Jonathan Coddington, why the heretical Sternberg should be allowed to keep an office, especially one with "a name on it." Prejudiced to the point of paranoia, the zoologist demanded that his own office "be re-keyed."

Coddington handled the affair with all the courage and conviction of a Pontius Pilate. "At present I am not tossing him out," he told his colleagues. "Do you want anything done?"

Appalling. Disgraceful. These aren't scientists. These are irrational shrieking hyenas demonstrating a close-mindedness that rivals the close-mindedness of the most devout Wahabbist.

[A. Pole]

Bump

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Although not himself an intelligent design (ID) theorist or an advocate of the same, Sternberg thought the subject worthy of discussion.

Still pushing this lie. How about some facts:

Sternberg is a Fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design, a Discovery Institute affiliated group dedicated to promoting intelligent design.

Sternberg is also a signatory of the Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement which says "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

He's certainly free to hold these views if he chooses. But then why lie about it?

[voltaires_zit]

Does worldnetdaily ever publish anything that's actually true?

This sure as hell wasn't.

[bray]

Fundamental Darwinists are Stalinists at heart.

Pray for W and Our Troops

[epow]

Darwinism is a humanist religion that doesn't tolerate dissent. Scientists who disagree with their Darwinist contemporaries in the scientific community aren't burned at the stake as heretics were in medieval Europe, but they're persecuted in other ways for the same reason, heresy.

[Old_Mil]

...there are hard core liberals in charge of the Smithsonian. For a long time, the air and space museum had an exhibit about Hiroshima which basically blamed America for dropping the bomb. Don't know if it's still there, don't know anything about the details of what's going on at the Natural History museum.