You're going way off base there. The report basically lied, ignored evidence and reached conclusions opposite the evidence. The entire thing is bogus.
So now you are stating that DI was not involved in a conspiracy
It's kind of hard for there to be a conspiracy when everybody (well, apparently everybody but you) knows their method of operation.
He was a RA from 2001 to 2007. His sponsor died in 2004. Since the RA's are appointed for 3 years, Sternberg had already been reappointed at least once.
Wow, 2001 to 2004 is, OMG, 3 years. That would put the sponsor's death at, hmm, let me see if I have this correct, right after his last appointment. Thanks for providing the numbers. I hope I got the math right.
Lemaitre was a big player in the conspiracy,
Wasn't Lemaitre the curator who was complaining about Sternberg's gross mishandling of museum artifacts? I think I see a reason for the hostility.
They had no authority but they exercised authority.
Did they fire him? Did they take away his lollipop? Exactly how did they exercise this non-existent authority?
That does not connect the two institutions in the way you wish to imply the connection.
Bad example for you. If there's a scientific issue raised in the Society, it will obviously filter to the SI given that many of the Society members work at the SI, and they are involved in the same scientific subjects. You have this strange firewalled view of science that doesn't exist.
So? It was not their call.
It shows that Sternberg made the wrong call. He discredited the publication he worked for and then bailed before it hit. Pretty slimy by any standards.
Yes, I am a member of ISCID. So I can say that being a fellow does not make you an ID'er.
Sternberg is a fellow, one of the top dogs, not just somebody who sent them a check. Let's see, pushed an ID paper in collusion with one of the founders of the ID movement, joined an organization formed by the founders of ID, signed an anti-evolution statement* by the founders of ID, and joined a creation science group. When he screws up, his main defender is the founders of ID. He's looking and quacking like a duck.
BTW, is the ISCID still doing anything? They haven't published in four years. Exactly what are your membership dues going towards?
* Although that statement was a bit misleading, so I will allow that maybe Sternberg got suckered, but the general pattern doesn't support that conclusion. BTW, that statement has 800-something names on it after all these years. Meanwhile, in a shorter time the NCSE has compiled a counter-petition with over 1,100 names of only scientists named Steve, or a variation thereof.
Bull, your opinion again. The appendix has the emails and the various letters.
It's kind of hard for there to be a conspiracy when everybody (well, apparently everybody but you) knows their method of operation
Again, an opportunity for you to demonstrate that everybody knew and was involved in the conspiracy. And, it is apparent that you are unfamiliar with the definition of conspiracy, it does not have to be secret. Look it up.
That would put the sponsor's death at, hmm, let me see if I have this correct, right after his last appointment. Thanks for providing the numbers. I hope I got the math right.
Oh no, you're not getting away with that. You said this "His sponsor who got him the appointment died not long after he started."
Wasn't Lemaitre the curator who was complaining about Sternberg's gross mishandling of museum artifacts?
Only after NCSE included him on an email sent to Mcdiarmid.
Exactly how did they exercise this non-existent authority?
Exactly how you related, they acted with authority in directing how the SI personnel should act. That's pretty much exercising authority they had no right to have.
If there's a scientific issue raised in the Society, it will obviously filter to the SI given that many of the Society members work at the SI, and they are involved in the same scientific subjects.
Bad example for you, since NCSE would have no reason to be involved.
It shows that Sternberg made the wrong call.
No it doesn't. It shows they may have disagreed with the reviewers. Not every peer reviewer agrees that a particular article should be published. The Axelrod paper is a perfect example of that. You don't see NCSE involved in that fiasco.
BTW, is the ISCID still doing anything?
No. And properly I guess, I should have said that I was a former member since the newsletter stopped in 2005. But I nonetheless would class Sternberg with Shapiro. They are not ID'ers but neither do they condemn them. Shapiro was in an ISCID online discussion. He also wrote "A Third Way", which heavily criticised the Neo-Darwinists.
Although such purists as Dennett and Dawkins repeatedly assert that the scientific issues surrounding evolution are basically solved by conventional neo-Darwinism, the ongoing public fascination reveals a deeper wisdom. There are far more unresolved questions than answers about evolutionary processes, and contemporary science continues to provide us with new conceptual possibilities.