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?
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.