Mercury’s Magnetic Field is Young!

CMI ^ | Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.

[GodGunsGuts]

Once again, a NASA space probe is supporting the 6,000-year biblical age of the solar system...

[AndrewC]

I don't believe I'm having to defend this.

Well, you are the one who used the word "lucky", which connotes good fortune. All that I commented on was that it gave you away. I consider any child as a gift.

[CottShop]

“Shermer’s General Approach to Handling Persecution of ID Proponents: One-Sided Skepticism, Denial, and Blaming the Victim
Having seen Expelled, Shermer now knows that his denial that ID proponents get persecuted serves as a foil for the impressive documentation of such persecution presented throughout the film. His response is not to amend his answer in light of the facts presented in the movie, but rather to issue even more forceful denials that there is any persecution of ID proponents taking place. Shermer’s method of dealing with these persecution instances is as follows:

(1) Ignore all the facts showing there was persecution;

(2) E-mail the persecutor and ask them if there was any anti-ID discrimination;

(3) Withhold all skepticism from the statements of the persecutors, and then trumpet their response as evidence that there is no persecution against ID proponents, blaming the victim for losing their job and then claiming those who feel there is persecution are just promoting a “conspiracy.””

Shermer Blames-the-Victim Case #1: Richard Sternberg
The conversation with Michael Shermer in the Expelled film revolves around the publication of Stephen C. Meyer’s pro-ID peer-reviewed scientific paper in the journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. The editor who oversaw the publication of that article was Dr. Richard Sternberg, who, according to investigations by both the U.S. Office of Special Counsel and also by subcommittee staff of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform, subsequently was harassed, intimidated, and demoted because he broke ranks with the unwritten (or sometimes written) rule among Darwinists that you must keep ID out of science journals.

Here’s the truth of the matter: Before Meyer’s paper was published, the pro-Darwin lobby had long-claimed that ID was not science because it wasn’t in peer-reviewed journals. But once ID was undeniably and explicitly supported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal article, Darwinists panicked, and the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) prompted the journal’s publishing society, the Biological Society of Washington (BSW) to attack the paper. The BSW gladly obeyed the NCSE, issuing a statement that Meyer’s paper should not have been published because ID allegedly is not science. If that doesn’t sound like circular logic, consider the proof that the NCSE orchestrated the whole thing, according to the findings of an investigation by subcommittee staff of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform (”Report”):

Early on in the controversy, the NCSE circulated a set of “talking points” to the BSW Council and NMNH officials on how to discredit both Sternberg and the Meyer article. The OSC investigation found that the “NCSE recommendations were circulated within the SI and eventually became part of the official public response of the SI to the Meyer article.: (Report, pg. 22)
To attack Meyer’s article, Shermer cites the NCSE-inspired statement from the BSW stating that, “Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The council, which includes officers, elected councilors and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings.” Shermer should have applied some of his famous skepticism here, because that statement is in fact a falsehood: Eugenie Scott herself admitted that “other editors have not always referred all articles to the Associate Editors, and because editors justifiably have discretion,” that therefore the BSW should not “come down too hard on Dr. Sternberg for errors in the procedure followed in accepting this article.” (See Report, pages 25-26.) Shermer conveniently spares the BSW from skepticism over Eugenie Scott’s behind-closed-doors concession, which contradicts the BSW’s public statement.

Moreover, Shermer and the BSW ignore that in less-politicized statements, Dr. Roy McDiarmid, the President of the BSW and a scientist at the Smithsonian, admitted that there was no wrongdoing regarding the peer-review process of Meyer’s paper:

I have seen the review file and comments from 3 reviewers on the Meyer paper. All three with some differences among the comments recommended or suggested publication. I was surprised but concluded that there was not inappropriate behavior vs a vis [sic] the review process. (See Report, e-mail from Roy McDiarmid, “Re: Request for information,” January 28, 2005, 2:25 PM to Hans Sues, emphasis added.)
So the truth is that Meyer’s paper WAS peer-reviewed, and that Darwinists have invented the claim that it was not peer-reviewed or that there was wrongdoing regarding the publication of the article. Shermer, the famous skeptic, seems unwilling to apply his skepticism to anything the Darwinists say about this situation, blindly accepting the denials from Darwinists that any discrimination against ID took place, instead blaming the victim.

Shermer should just drop his attempts to defend the Smithsonian, but he doesn’t, calling the attacks upon Sternberg part of Ben Stein’s “case for conspiracy.” So let’s review the findings of a congressional staff investigation to see if there really was any discrimination against Dr. Sternberg (who holds two Ph.D.s in evolution), or if Shermer is right and this is all just a conspiracy inside the heads of Dr. Richard Sternberg, Ben Stein, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, and a bunch of people working at Congress. The Congressional Staff Report found the following:

Congressional Staff Report: “Officials at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History created a hostile work environment intended to force Dr. Sternberg to resign his position as a Research Associate in violation of his free speech and civil rights.” As NMNH officials wrote in e-mails:
“I suppose we could call [Sternberg] on the phone and verbally ask him to do the right thing and resign?” (Dr. Jonathan Coddington)

“a face to face meeting or at least a “you are welcome to leave or resign” call with this individual, is in order.” (Dr. Rafael Lemaitre)

“if [Sternberg] had any class he would either entirely desist or resign his appointment.” (Dr. Jonathan Coddington)
Congressional Staff Report: “In emails exchanged during August and September 2004, NMNH officials revealed their intent to use their government jobs to discriminate against scientists based on their outside activities regarding evolution.” As NMNH officials wrote in e-mails:
“Sternberg is a well-established figure in anti-evolution circles, and a simple Google search would have exposed these connections.” (Dr. Hans Sues)

“In a memo prepared on February 8, 2005, NMNH scientist Marilyn Schotte admitted that after publication of the Meyer paper, Dr. Coddington wanted to know “if Dr. Sternberg was religious.” Dr. Schotte further admitted telling Coddington that Sternberg “was a Republican.” Schotte even conceded that Coddington may have asked her whether Sternberg “was a fundamentalist” and whether “he was a conservative.”” (Description of a memo is discussed in the Report)
Congressional Staff Report: “NMNH officials conspired with a special interest group on government time and using government emails to publicly smear Dr. Sternberg; the group was also enlisted to monitor Sternberg’s outside activities in order to find a way to dismiss him.” As one NMNH official wrote in an e-mail:
“From now on, I will keep an eye on Dr. (von) Sternberg, and I’d greatly appreciate it if you or other NCSE specialists could let me [know] about further activities by this gentleman in areas poutside [sic] crustacean systematics.” (Dr. Hans Sues)

(For more details, see National Center for Science Education Asked to Spy for the Government According to Congressional Report.)
Michael Shermer apparently has unlimited skepticism when it comes to the claims of Darwin-skeptics—he’s unwilling to believe any of their statements that they have experienced persecution. But Dr. Sternberg summarized the discrimination taken against him as follows:
I was transferred from the supervision of a friendly sponsor (supervisor) at the Museum to a hostile one....I was twice forced to move specimens from my office space on short notice for no good reason, my name plate was removed from my office door, and eventually I was deprived of all official office space and forced to use a shared work area as my work location in the Museum....I was subjected to an array of new reporting requirements not imposed on other Research Associates....My access to the specimens needed for my research at the Museum was restricted. (My access to the Museum was also restricted. I was forced to give up my master key.)
Rather than admit that any of this evidence exists, Shermer happily applies infinite skepticism to the persecuted, and withholds all skepticism from the statements of the persecutors: Shermer even e-mailed Jonathan Coddington, the chief persecutor of Richard Sternberg, asking him about the situation. It comes as no surprise that Coddington personally wrote back to Shermer claiming there was nothing to see here. In Coddington’s words: “Sternberg was not discriminated against, was never dismissed, and in fact was not even a paid employee, but just an unpaid research associate who had completed his three-year term!” This is consistent with Coddington’s prior behavior, as the congressional staff investigation’s report concluded, “Given the factual record, the Smithsonian’s pro-forma denials of discrimination are unbelievable.” So are Shermer’s denials.

And how did Eugenie Scott handle this situation? Unlike Coddington, Scott didn’t deny that Sternberg was ousted when she spoke to the Washington Post, but rather she admitted that there was an ousting of Sternberg, and tried to justify it:
[S]aid Eugenie Scott, the group’s executive director[:] “If this was a corporation, and an employee did something that really embarrassed the administration, really blew it, how long do you think that person would be employed?” ... Scott, of the NCSE, insisted that Smithsonian scientists had no choice but to explore Sternberg’s religious beliefs. “They don’t care if you are religious, but they do care a lot if you are a creationist,” Scott said. “Sternberg denies it, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it argues for zealotry.”

(Michael Powell, “Editor Explains Reasons for ‘Intelligent Design’ Article,” Washington Post, August 19, 2005, emphases added)
So there you have it: Everything that Jonathan Coddington denies, Eugenie Scott essentially admits—and justifies—because she thinks it’s permissible to persecute and investigate someone if they sympathize with the “creationists.” If Michael Shermer should be skeptical of anything, it is the contradictory claims of the Smithsonian and leading Darwinists like Eugenie Scott which expose the attempts to cover-up the unfair treatment of Dr. Sternberg.

Thus, we see Shermer’s method of dismissing the discrimination of Darwin-skeptics is as follows:
(1) Ignore all the facts showing there was persecution;
(2) E-mail the persecutor and ask them if there was any anti-ID discrimination;
(3) Withhold all skepticism from the statements of the persecutors, and then trumpet their response as evidence that there is no persecution against ID proponents, blaming the victim for losing their job and then claiming those who feel there is persecution are just promoting a “conspiracy.”

http://www.discovery.org/a/4689

Yep- attack the messenger- then blame the messenger all the while DENYING discrimination- win win for macroevolution... “Who us? Ahhhrm... we’d never discriminate agaisnt anyone- those claiming otherwsie are just simply paranoid”

[CottShop]

[[The post you responded to was a response to another post that was about people allegedly losing their positions.]]

au contraire mon ami- My post was in response to the fella that insinuated the Stenberg couldn’t be trusted because he was ‘denied tenure’, and that steinberg apparently presented ‘lies’ in expelled (although the person making hte claim didn’t prove any lies were presented- they just accused without providing proof- once again- par for hrte course with antiChristians)

[AndrewC]

I know it was a test trial. So was Dover.

Scopes was not just a test trial, it was a conspiracy to bring about the charges. Read the link I presented. The ACLU was involved in both cases. You know them, they are the conservative legal group. /sarc

[antiRepublicrat]

Scopes was not just a test trial, it was a conspiracy to bring about the charges.

That's pretty much what test trials are. The Discovery Institute was in "a conspiracy to bring about" the Dover trial.

[antiRepublicrat]

I consider any child as a gift.

We agree on that, but we can have our wishes. I would have been happy with all daughters anyway.

[antiRepublicrat]

Basic fact, he was denied tenure because his work wasn’t up to par. Then he goes whining about persecution, and the IDers are more than happy to use him to push the aura of paranoia.

[AndrewC]

As you point out, what lies did Sternberg make? They(Darwinians) harp about "job" or some such thing being the lie. But the facts are explicit. NCSE, which has no attachment to or authority over the Smithsonian nor to the group which published the journal in which Sternberg allowed an article supporting ID, was intruding into the relationship between Sternberg and the Smithsonian. And that intrusion was solely due to Sternberg's allowing the publication of the article in question.

Smithsonian's and NCSE's actions are examples of suppression of free thought.

[AndrewC]

The Discovery Institute was in "a conspiracy to bring about" the Dover trial.

Put your money where your mouth is. My understanding is that DI did not want the trial and thought it was a poor choice.

AP Cites Discovery Institute's Opposition to Dover School Board Policy

By: Martha Raffaele
Associated Press
November 12, 2004


Discovery Institute's opposition to the Dover School District policy on intelligent design has been highlighted in an Associated Press story by reporter Martha Raffaele:

"...the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which supports scientists studying intelligent-design theory, opposes mandating it in schools because it is a relatively new concept, said John West, associate director of the institute's Center for Science and Culture.

"We're completely against anyone who says you should downgrade or limit the teaching of evolution," West said.

[AndrewC]

Basic fact, he was denied tenure because his work wasn’t up to par.

Again, put your money where your mouth is. You are at a severe disadvantage since tenure was not involved and "Darwinians" contend that Sternberg did not have a job to lose.

[antiRepublicrat]

My understanding is that DI did not want the trial and thought it was a poor choice.

The DI was in on it from the beginning, giving advice to the board on how to go about introducing ID. The DI got worried after they found out the defense had already exposed their religious motives. That would be a killer since the whole charade is about presenting ID as science, not religion. The DI then quit the case, not wanting to be behind a failed test case, and didn't let Dembski and Meyer testify as planned.

They were smart to pull out. Turns out the Christian ID proponents in question made a mess of it, perjuring themselves under oath.

opposes mandating it in schools because it is a relatively new concept

That is completely opposite of their stated plan to get ID into schools by 2003, regardless of whether it is accepted science. The statement is spin, believable only by those who don't know the facts.

[antiRepublicrat]

ou are at a severe disadvantage since tenure was not involved and "Darwinians" contend that Sternberg did not have a job to lose.

Two different guys from the movie. The one who didn't get tenure was Guillermo Gonzalez. His publication rate had sharply declined since joining ISU, he wasn't mentoring his grad students well enough to complete their programs, and he was bringing in relatively very little money in research grants. Someone with a record like that shouldn't get tenure.

Sternberg really didn't have a job. He was a research associate, someone not employed by the SI, but affiliated in order to do research. You get that position for a set period of time by being sponsored by an SI director. When the term's up, you leave, unless your sponsor renews your status.

[goodusername]

I’m pretty sure the post was referring to Guillermo Gonzalez, not Sternberg (considering Sternberg is not a professor and doesn’t work at a University, what “tenure” could he have been going for?)

[goodusername]

I haven’t seen the film yet (although I have read quite a few articles pro and con on the film), but I have read the article by Meyer allowed through by Sternberg.
It offers no new ideas, facts, or research (which is what such journals are FOR). It’s mostly a long history lesson and diatribe against macro-evolution. In the process it covers embryology, information theory, the Cambrian Explosion, population genetics, etc which brings up another problem – the journal that Sternberg was editor of is about *taxonomy*. (The title of the article does include the word “taxonomic”, I guess to help people not notice how inappropriate the article was for that journal).

Here’s an example of the journal. Although you’d have to sign up to read the journals articles, you can at least see the titles and an abstract:
http://www.bioone.org/toc/pbsw/122/1?cookieSet=1

Feel free to scroll through past issues as well. Notice that virtually all the articles it publishes are just descriptions of new species and genera found, or sometimes redescriptions of known species or ideas on reclassifying species, etc.

So not only was the article inappropriate for ANY science journal, it was PARTICULARLY inappropriate for THAT journal.

So the people complaining about the article were hardly trying to suppress free thought. In fact, that the article was pro-ID is the ONLY reason it saw the light of day... if it was pro-evolution NO journal would have published it - particularly the journal in question.

[nuke rocketeer]

And its very obvious you do not know science very well.

[metmom]

And its very obvious you do not know science very well.

The typical evo knee-jerk response of *You don't understand science*, to anything that an evo can't respond to.

Fail....

Here are some definitions of faith....

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith

faith
   –noun

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith

faith
   –noun

3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction;

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/faith

faith
   –noun

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

Are you telling us now that you do not trust the scientific method to yield reproducible results? You don't trust scientists to use it properly? You don't believe that the laws of physics apply everywhere the same for all time, even though no one has been to the past and future in distant places to verify it?

All those questions I asked previously still remain unanswered.

Why do you put your confidence in science if you don't have faith that it's accurate, correct, and reliable?

This nonsense about not needing faith because you have evidence is a strawman to avoid dealing with the issue that everyone has faith, even scientists.

Faith has been so disparaged by atheists that they don't even want to admit that they also depend on it, but their denial of the patently obvious just goes to show the level of delusion that they are operating under.

[AndrewC]

The statement is spin, believable only by those who don't know the facts.

Well, show them. I have posted a newspaper excerpt which indicates what I stated. The wedge document has been explained by the CSC and is no plan for a "test" case, especially in relation to Dover, which, as I demonstrated, was rejected by the Discovery Institute. So show your "conspiratorial" facts. The link I provided to the University of Missouri is fairly clear on the conspiracy in the Scopes case.

[AndrewC]

Sternberg really didn't have a job. He was a research associate, someone not employed by the SI, but affiliated in order to do research. You get that position for a set period of time by being sponsored by an SI director. When the term's up, you leave, unless your sponsor renews your status.

That is a B.S. argument. NCSE was involved in the situation and if your explanation was true, would have had no business in contacting the Smithsonian about a publication by another entity located in Washington State.

[AndrewC]

Here’s an example of the journal

What is novel about this from your link?

The Stephen H. Long Expedition (1819–1820), Titian R. Peale's Field Illustrations, and The Lost Holotypes of The North American Shrews Sorex Brevicaudus Say and Sorex Parvus Say (Mammalia: Soricidae) from The Philadelphia Museum

And so what if it was inappropriate for the journal. His "position" at the Smithsonian was not measured by any particular editing function for any particular magazine. It was in no way related to the Smithsonian. NCSE raised the issue there after it hunted him down following the publication of Meyer's paper.

[Oztrich Boy]