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 On the contrary, we have the complaint that it was not peer reviewed.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.
Prove that he didn't. After all, the paper was retracted by the council, not for lack of peer review, but for the second-guessing on appropriateness.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