Posted on 09/04/2009 8:50:36 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
That is funny...
Proof.
Notice it was a withdrawal of defense witnesses whose depositions had been long before been scheduled. The DI had been involved, and then pulled out.
Notice that the suit was not filed until December and that DI had already declined support for the Dover group in Nov. Are you really such a poor salesman?
In his deposition, Buckingham said he was contacted by the DI way back when the debate over the textbook was going on. If I have my timeline correctly, that was Summer. He says the DI even sent him some materials.
This is what you must prove..... Because that's about when the DI was in talks with the board over "teach the controversy."
Sending an unsolicited DVD is not "in talks about teaching the controversy." Prove the talks with the BOARD existed.
So your references represent proof, yet mine don't?
What references have you provided? You spout alot, but you don't show where you got the information. And my references show support for my position. The upshot is that Scopes was a conspiracy to bring about charges and Kitzmiller was not.
No it didn't. It demonstrated that he did not please NCSE.
Um, no. His status as Associate wasn't renewed (remember, his sponsor was dead so he wasn't there to renew Sternberg anymore), but he was continued as a Collaborator despite his violations of policy and mistreatment of artifacts
The "kicked out" refers to the fact that NCSE was involved. It is indisputable that NCSE proactively sought retribution against Sternberg.
because the NCSE is the one that said to leave his personal beliefs and creationist work out of it,
Yeah right. /sarc
Sternberg is not a creationist. Nor does he necessarily believe in ID as many characterize it. From his website...
I am an evolutionary biologist ...
I think that neo-Darwinian theory is at best a very limited framework for understanding the development, organization, and disparity of fossil and recent taxa, as it formally pertains to the fixation and loss of gene variants in populations. Evolutionary genetics leaves open the central issue of how the one dimensional genotype can specify the four dimensional phenotype. The approach I am taking to this problem is a variant of structural realism, by which I mean that biological phenomena are manifestations of logico-mathematical structures. This perspective is orthogonal to the origins debate, if you will, because all historical actualities are understood to be space-time instances of pre-existing non-temporal possibilities. Within this context one can accept all that is empirically valid in evolutionary biology, while not axiomatically dismissing the position that structures as well as their “real” instantiations have an intelligent cause. My position asserts that the cosmos is fundamentally intelligible in such a way that it can be logically, mathematically, and scientifically recognized to be such; and moreover--following Proclus--that the universe emanates from Nous (mind). In this sense my thinking is compatible with intelligent design broadly defined.[emphasis mine]
Oh come on. He broke the normal procedure for publishing. Why do you think they call them peer-review journals? Because there is peer-review. Except in this case where Sternberg didn't allow any subject matter experts to peer-review Meyer's article.
It is indisputable that NCSE proactively sought retribution against Sternberg.
Hmmm, violate basic scientific tenets, somebody wants you out on scientific grounds. Sounds reasonable to me.
Yeah right. /sarc
I gave the quote. They were very careful to point out that any action must be solely based on his scientific work.
I am an evolutionary biologist ...
Then how can you be claiming he was persecuted if he's not even an IDer? Your case is falling apart. You have not been able to show one thing that was done to him that was in any way irresponsible or unprofessional.
Buckingham was ON the board. The DI contacted him cold. In his deposition he says he'd never heard of the DI before they contacted him. Again, he could be lying.
What references have you provided?
The article you dismiss, the one that shows the document was secret.
“goofy liberal bible” -
IE, Unitarian Universalist cult.
Meiosis or mitosis?
Science fact: Evolution is only possible with HETEROSEXUAL relationships.
He allowed an article which was counter to present evolutionist dogma to be published. It was peer reviewed.
Hmmm, violate basic scientific tenets,
Since when is performing the duties of an editor a basic scientific tenet. You are venturing into loony territory with your comments now.
gave the quote. They were very careful to point out that any action must be solely based on his scientific work.
If NCSE was concerned about scientific work they would not have had to produce such a caution. But you did not provide any,(that is NONE), evidence of the statement. Provide a link to the communication which has those words in context to the Smithsonian, and their authority to make such a demand.
Then how can you be claiming he was persecuted if he's not even an IDer?
You can't be serious with that question. You do not have to be a card carrier for anybody to be "persecuted". He was hunted down by NCSE because of his beliefs. You don't see NCSE pursuing the real perpetrators of bad science such as those criticized in this article.
Improper citation, disregard for antecedent research, and shoddy experimentation - those are just a few of the allegations levied against a recent research paper written by a team of Stanford University scientists.
One of the paper's chief critics, University of Cambridge biologist Peter Lawrence, says that the problems with the publication exemplify a broader problem in scientific publishing.
...
Developmental biologist Jeffrey Axelrod, the paper's main author, defended the work, writing in an email to The Scientist, "our paper (Chen et al. June 2008) underwent Cell's rigorous process of peer-review prior to publication. We stand by our conclusions as stated in the paper, as well as by our use of citations, and I encourage your readers to look at the papers in question, as they speak for themselves."
But Lawrence claims that the Axelrod paper, which identifies a transmembrane protein called Flamingo (also known as starry night or stan) as a key signaling molecule in Drosophila PCP, is largely a rehash of his own group's work, which was published in the journal Development in 2004 and has been cited 35 times, according to ISI. (Axelrod's Cell paper has not yet been cited in any published papers.)
"The complaint is that the main point of the [Cell paper] is what we discovered and provided evidence for four years ago," Lawrence said. "It pretends to be much more novel than it is."
Lawrence wrote in a letter to Cell that the paper was "seriously flawed both scientifically and ethically and in my opinion amounts to a theft of our intellectual property (especially the results and conclusions of our prior paper, Lawrence et al., 2004)." Lawrence's letter was not published in Cell, but he sent it to The Scientist. At least four other researchers submitted letters independently - some also obtained by The Scientist - to the journal last July. Some of these also claimed that the Axelrod group's science in constructing a model for PCP was subpar.
"I hope you will agree with me that (i) this paper is a disaster for the field (it will set the community back by several years) and (ii) it is not good for the journal either," wrote Marek Mlodzik, chair of developmental and regenerative biology at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, in a letter to the editor of Cell, Emilie Marcus.
Now go to the NCSE site and search for Sternberg. You will find 16 hits. Do the same for Axelrod. You will get this Your search - axelrod - did not match any documents.
Finally a letter from the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, supported the claims that Sternberg was unfairly treated. It also points out that the journal was a NON-SI activity.
You can find the letter here .... http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1488
You have to be a little loony. You did not say "Buckingham". You did not say "contacted". You said "talks" and "board". Once more, we are discussing this whole topic because you claim that Dover is the same thing as Scopes in relation to a conspiracy. If that is true then a floating log is the same thing as the "Queen Mary" in relation to a luxury liner.
The article you dismiss, the one that shows the document was secret.
Well I showed you the document which doesn't have the markings which are claimed. So find one that has the markings you claim. Until such time as you provide the evidence, you are blowing smoke.
Doesn't matter. What his question is, is "How can the linear DNA code produce an evolving three dimensional object."
Now you're nit-picking to get away from the fact that the DI was in on this early to try to promote ID and to provide legal help.
Well I showed you the document which doesn't have the markings which are claimed.
Read the article. The DI did not want this out. They had to go into spin mode once it was leaked.
Who besides Sternberg, a person not qualified to review it, conducted peer review?
Since when is performing the duties of an editor a basic scientific tenet.
Peer review of research is central to science, and Sternberg didn't let that happen.
But you did not provide any,(that is NONE), evidence of the statement.
I posted it earlier. There are several quotes along these lines with sources here. If NCSE was concerned about scientific work they would not have had to produce such a caution.
Huh? Somehow you're twisting a defense of his beliefs, stating no repercussions should happen because of his beliefs, into doing something wrong to him? They wanted to make sure nobody was on a witch hunt, and that anything done was purely because of his professional behavior.
Then nothing happened, and you still complain. Isn't something bad supposed to happen to someone for them to become a martyr?
No. You claim that. I am demonstrating that a DVD is not a conspiracy. Testimony shows that it was not Buckingham who presented the DVD to the board.(unless like you do one conflates Buckingham with the board.)
Read the article. The DI did not want this out. They had to go into spin mode once it was leaked.
Where is the leaked copy? It will have the alleged markings. OH! It doesn't exist?
Write to Richard himself if you want to find out. And if he was not qualified why was he an editor of the publication?
Peer review of research is central to science, and Sternberg didn't let that happen.
It was peer-reviewed.
I posted it earlier. There are several quotes along these lines with sources here.
A blog??? In any case, there is a quote from the emails, from Scott. Here it is..."On the other hand, his creationist views should not be the main focus of the criticism". And you stated this ....They were very careful to point out that any action must be solely based on his scientific work.
The rest of your non sequitur ignored.
Editors are supposed to pass articles to others who have specific expertise in the article's subject area. That's called peer review, standard in scientific publications. Sternberg didn't do that for the Meyer article. I wonder why, just for the Meyer article. Actually, that's easy. He knew it would never pass peer review, so he used his power as editor to stick it in anyway. The unanimous scientific consensus after publication was that the article was not worthy of the journal, so it's a good bet that peer review would have rejected it.
It was peer-reviewed.
Again, by whom besides Sternberg? You keep saying it was, but there's no evidence. On the contrary, we have the complaint that it was not peer reviewed. Sternberg said he was the only competent person to do it, but it wasn't even his field, and the staff had others with specific expertise to do the review.
A blog???
One that does a very good job, with quotes and sources.
On the other hand, his creationist views should not be the main focus of the criticism".
Nice cherry-picking. Read the rest from Scott. It is quite clear that she doesn't want his personal beliefs to have anything to do with the case. She wants a decision to be about his scientific work only.
You say he was persecuted because he was an IDer, yet the most anyone can show is that a bunch of his fellow scientists were pissed off to be associated with someone who would pull such stunts. Sternberg even got consideration that a non-IDer would not. You'll notice in the emails that someone even offered to sponsor him just so he wouldn't be a "martyr" to the cause.
But even with all this uproar nothing happened to him, so it's a non-issue perpetrated by the IDers to claim persecution.
Seriously, find ONE thing that was actually done to him because he is an IDer. Just one would be nice. The office shuffle and the keys were especially hilarious claims in the Expelled movie.
I showed you how the DI contacted him, talked to him about ID to help them in their cause, and then sent him some supporting materials, and all you can think about is the DVD. IIRC, they also flew out one of their reps later, the same one who had called him.
But notice the pattern. The DI gets out the whole "teach the controversy" program in general to get school boards to start teaching the "controversy." Some people on the board then start thinking about challenging evolution stating that they believe there is a controversy, alternative theories, etc. Then without even being asked, the DI swoops down and offers to help them in their endeavor, even offering legal assistance so they could move forward with their program.
Where is the leaked copy? It will have the alleged markings. OH! It doesn't exist?
That poorly-scanned copy on the Internet is the leaked copy. My guess is that the markings were on a cover for the document, not the document itself. But feel free to contact the person who discovered the document and stated the markings were there to get clarification.
Prove that he didn't. After all, the paper was retracted by the council, not for lack of peer review, but for the second-guessing on appropriateness.
Again, by whom besides Sternberg?
By two or three others who chose not to have their names disclosed.This is supported by a commenter from "your" blog who states that anonymity of the reviewers is an important part of the peer review process. Although the commenter then uses this principle to cast doubt upon the review, trying to have his cake and eat it too. And your link also states that Sternberg was qualified to perform the review as it concerned the area of systematics. Which is defined in the wikipedia partly ...Biological systematics is the study of the diversification of life on the planet Earth, both past and present, and the relationships among living things through time.. The Cambrian "explosion" is certainly about the diversification of life on the planet earth. I can find no other definition that would exclude the wiki defintion from reasonableness.
One that does a very good job, with quotes and sources.
I give you wiki.
Nice cherry-picking. Read the rest from Scott.
Call it what you like. It proves your statement is a lie. And the mistreatment of Sternberg is verified by the Office of the Special Counsel.
My guess is that the markings were on a cover for the document, not the document itself.
IOW you have no evidence. Typical
It all reeks of traitorous conduct. The Nazis did not die. They only went underground where they allied with old school communists and 1960s radicals of the New Left.
It's in the article. That's what the whole issue is about.
By two or three others who chose not to have their names disclosed.
How convenient. I don't suppose any of those supposed people were members of the society? From the council's statement:
Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process.is supported by a commenter from "your" blog who states that anonymity of the reviewers is an important part of the peer review process.
Anonymous peer review doesn't mean that the publisher doesn't get to know who the reviewers are. It means the author (Meyer) doesn't know who the reviewers are, and the reviewers don't know who the author (Meyer) is. This is supposed to prevent any bias against the person during the review. If anonymity is what was wished, Sternberg could have easily accomplished an anonymous peer review from within the expert editorial staff, but he didn't.
If he indeed put it out for peer review, it was probably not anonymous, but done by other Discovery Institute fellows who would of course sign off on Meyer's work. This would explain why such a horrible paper got published.
Don't forget that this fits into the Wedge Document's goals -- to have ID research in established peer-reviewed journals. Too bad they couldn't get it done honestly, instead they had to get an inside man to push it through without peer review from the journal editors.
And your link also states that Sternberg was qualified to perform the review as it concerned the area of systematics.
It also names others on the staff who were even more qualified.
Call it what you like. It proves your statement is a lie.
Not at all. The whole picture shows they were very careful about not addressing his personal beliefs.
And you still haven't shown one thing that was actually done to him because of his beliefs. The report was written for a DI ally, Rep. Souder, to promote the agenda. Its conclusions can't be trusted.
I know, he lost his keys because he was an IDer. That's what the movie claimed.
Do you actually read your own citations. The author of "your" article, Ed Brayton, posts a reply on that page.....
Michael-
Nowhere in my posts on this subject have I said or implied that the paper was not sent out for review; that's simply not the issue. The issue is whether those reviewers were cherry picked to make sure that the paper wouldn't send up red flags prior to publication. We know that Roy McDiarmid from the Smithsonian saw the actual reviews. His comment was that the paper was reviewed but that whether the reviews or reviewers were "appropriate" is another matter. And that is all we know. Their names have never been released.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 26, 2006 4:21 PM
So you are wrong again.
How convenient.
So? It was reviewed as the comment above indicates.
Not at all. The whole picture shows they were very careful about not addressing his personal beliefs.
Then there would have been no reason to even mention them, since they should have been irrelevant. No NCSE was involved only because they wished to suppress any inkling of thoughts counter to the paradigm. You have been proven wrong, wrong, wrong.
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.