Posted on 09/04/2009 8:50:36 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Once again, a NASA space probe is supporting the 6,000-year biblical age of the solar system...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
I guess I am. So, revision, not reviewed according to the policy of the journal. My guess was probably right, it was reviewed by DI fellows.
I see you've dropped the whole "anonymous peer-review" thing, seeing that it wasn't anonymous. It was cherry-picked yes men.
Then there would have been no reason to even mention them, since they should have been irrelevant.
If you had read things, you'd know some of his fellow scientists were calling for his head because of his beliefs. Calmer heads prevailed.
No NCSE was involved only because they wished to suppress any inkling of thoughts counter to the paradigm.
Yet somehow their main involvement with the SI seems to have been calling for removing his beliefs from any decision. Right, right again.
And you have yet to show me what action was taken against him by the SI for his beliefs. You can't have a persecution if no wrong is actually done. Well, you can, but only in liberal-think.
I've done no such thing. They remain anonymous to the general public. And you can claim what you like, it doesn't mean a thing. The evidence is the evidence. You have been proven wrong multiple times.
If you had read things, you'd know some of his fellow scientists were calling for his head because of his beliefs. Calmer heads prevailed.
Oh, it was just coincidental that they found their dislike of Sternberg's belief only after NCSE stirred the pot. He had worked at SI for about six years.
Yet somehow their main involvement with the SI seems to have been calling for removing his beliefs from any decision.
That is pure B.S. They are as guilty as heck. NCSE has no business at SI period.
And I point to the witch hunt evidenced in the emails which you openly admit was based upon his beliefs or at least what those there at SI thought about what he believed.
Which has nothing to do with the concept of anonymous peer review. You cited a poster saying anonymous peer review was good in order to support Sternberg's supposed use of anonymous peer review, only there is no evidence Sternberg did an anonymous peer review. Most likely, they were Meyer cronies who knew the author, thus not an anonymous peer review.
You just quoted that without knowing what an anonymous peer review was, didn't you?
Oh, it was just coincidental that they found their dislike of Sternberg's belief only after NCSE stirred the pot.
No, it's not coincidental after Sternberg's actions became known.
They are as guilty as heck.
Guilty as heck of what, trying to keep his religion out of it?
And again I ask for one thing the SI did to him because of his beliefs. You have yet to answer. Without the SI persecution, this all a lot of bluster about nothing, a tempest in a teapot cooked up so the IDers could claim persecution.
What red herring are you trying to tout. You piss and moan that no one knows who the reviewers were including NCSE, even going so far as to accuse Sternberg of not having had it reviewed at all. Then when I demonstrate from your own citation mind you, that you are wrong, you try to say that it is meaningless. Well, go piss up a rope. Until you give evidence instead of your unsubstantiated opinions, you are wrong.
No, it's not coincidental after Sternberg's actions became known.
Precisely my point. NCSE stuck its nose into relationship between SI and Sternberg.
Guilty as heck of what, trying to keep his religion out of it?
You don't seem to understand English. NCSE HAD NO BUSINESS CONTACTING THE SMITHSONIAN CONCERNING STERNBERG FOR ANY REASON. There did you see that?
The question is why the NCSE was mad, and that's well established. He let a substandard paper by one of his friends into the journal by circumventing the normal peer review process. Falsely claiming anonymous review doesn't help. This made the scientists in the society, many of them SI members and associates themselves, quite mad, because what's in the journal reflects upon them and their reputations. And there's your connection between the journal and the SI too.
Still waiting for any action SI took that could give him this persecuted status. Without it there isn't any case in the first place, nothing really to discuss.
I've given that to you several times. It is in the OSC letter.
INTOLERANCE AND THE POLITICIZATION OF SCIENCE AT THE SMITHSONIAN
A CHRONOLOGY OF RETALIATION
1. EVIDENCE OF HARASSMENT AND A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT...
2. EVIDENCE OF AN INTENT TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST SCIENTISTS BASED ON THEIR OUTSIDE ACTIVITIES REGARDING EVOLUTION...
3. EVIDENCE OF HOSTILITY BASED ON ANTI-RELIGIOUS AND POLITICAL MOTIVATIONS...
4. EVIDENCE OF A CAMPAIGN TO SMEAR DR. STERNBERG BY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS...
You may be blind to all of the activity indicated in the emails, but it is reasonable evidence of the plot to deprive Sternberg of his position at the institute. In fact, his position was downgraded and it is plainly apparent that the downgrade was a response to the plotting, so indicated in the letter provided by the OSC. And once more, NCSE HAD NO BUSINESS CONTACTING THE SMITHSONIAN IN ANY FASHION OVER STERNBERG.
The OSC letter is a bogus report written for Souder, who was looking for persecution. First, it's not the result of a full investigation, just a sympathetic lawyer looking through stuff. Second, it has blatant false conclusions. For example, it says there's no evidence he mishandled anything, yet right there is an earlier letter about his mishandling of artifacts, and another by his supervisor to him about his loans from the library.
And even then all I see in this list is some hostility. Boo hoo. Your fellow workers are mad at you for making them look bad? The rank and file scientists there reasonably didn't want to be associated with Sternberg after what he pulled. As I said before, people were calling for his head, but nothing actually happened. Those people didn't get their way.
Now show me something that the SI management actually did to him for his beliefs or quit this whole baseless charade. You said he was "kicked out," right? Show me him actually being kicked out. Show me how losing his keys was because of his beliefs. Show me how moving offices was because of his beliefs. Show me how he lost access to collections because of his beliefs. Show me something other than a whining "they don't like me here anymore because of my dishonest and unscientific actions." By his actions in this case I'd think he was a whining liberal.
Prove it. It is a document produced by an official government entity and is posted on an official government system. It is official.
And it is more than hostility, it was an active conspiracy to remove Sternberg from the Smithsonian. That is indisputable.
By your logic Squeaky Fromme was innocent because she missed Gerald Ford. Yeah right! /sarc
Like that makes it true. Do you believe everything the government writes? Are you going to believe the Obama speech today? It was produced for a proponent of ID. It is not a bipartisan report, it isn't even a full commission report that's been approved. It's just a staff report to a Congressman who is on Sternberg's side. And I just established the false conclusion in it.
it was an active conspiracy to remove Sternberg from the Smithsonian.
So, was he removed? Did he lose his keys? Did he lose his office? Did he lose access to the collections? You can't actually show repercussions against Sternberg, can you? Hell, you can't even show repercussions for his actual violations of SI procedures regardless of his beliefs.
By your logic Squeaky Fromme was innocent because she missed Gerald Ford.
Applying this logic, Fromme would have realized that shooting Ford was a bad thing and never even tried. Some of the SI scientists were calling for his head because of the stunt he pulled, but the management ignored them.
Contrary to you establishing persecution, I've proven Sternberg got special consideration because of his beliefs.
It is backed up by more than your opinions. And there are actually two reports. One by the OSC and the other the in depth Congressional report that I referenced.
Are you going to believe the Obama speech today?
Red Herring.
It is not a bipartisan report, it isn't even a full commission report that's been approved. It's just a staff report to a Congressman who is on Sternberg's side. And I just established the false conclusion in it.
Another red herring. There were two investigations, OSC and Congressional. What is really telling is your concern that the report be bipartisan. We all know what that means. Only Democrats insist bi-partisanship.
So, was he removed? Did he lose his keys? Did he lose his office? Did he lose access to the collections? You can't actually show repercussions against Sternberg, can you? Hell, you can't even show repercussions for his actual violations of SI procedures regardless of his beliefs.
Irrelevant, the conspiracy existed. What SI procedures did he violate?
Contrary to you establishing persecution, I've proven Sternberg got special consideration because of his beliefs.
Brother are you screwed up. Only you can consider a conspiracy against a person as something beneficial. You've proved nothing but you've spouted a lot of opinion which has been debunked by the facts. The article was peer-reviewed. And NCSE HAS ABSOLUTELY NO BUSINESS CONTACTING THE SMITHSONIAN FOR ANY REASON CONCERNING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STERNBERG AND THE INSTITUTION.
Bipartisan means it would be more than just telling a politician what he wants to hear, as is the case here. And do you notice nothing was ever done to the SI or its staff for the supposed wrongs? Kind of hard to push a full congressional investigation based on BS.
the conspiracy existed.
No, a bunch of his coworkers loudly complaining about him existed. That's not a conspiracy, it's your coworkers not liking you and being quite vocal about it for a good reason -- malfeasance in publishing the article. Poor baby, not well liked by his peers for what he did. Boo hoo.
Shall I take this consistent refusal to show a wrong done to Sternberg as admitting that the SI never actually did anything to him for his beliefs? Are you admitting that the movie lied?
Only you can consider a conspiracy against a person as something beneficial.
The emails clearly show that management was being very careful where Sternberg was concerned for fear of exactly the kind of unfounded outrage that was perpetrated by the DI. Remember, one email showed an SI employee offering to sponsor Sternberg just so he wouldn't be made a martyr. Such an offer wouldn't have been made had it not been for Sternberg's beliefs. Thus he got special consideration because of his beliefs.
NCSE HAS ABSOLUTELY NO BUSINESS CONTACTING THE SMITHSONIAN FOR ANY REASON CONCERNING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STERNBERG AND THE INSTITUTION.
Talk about your red herrings. And even in the biased report it looks like the NCSE was on the level. They distributed materials to their members and the members of the Society that runs the journal refuting the Meyer article and Sternberg's claims. Many of those members are also SI employees and associates, which is probably why I originally thought the Society was directly related to the SI. The institutions of science are pretty intertwined. Then the SI went back to the NCSE for input.
And all this talk about limiting his freedom of speech is complete BS. A scientist gets a position at the SI by virtue of his standing as a scientist. As a scientist, anything he says, anything he does, anything he publishes in relation to science is part of his standing as a scientist. The SI definitely has an interest in such things and would of course go to the source of the problem for information. Had Dr. Hwang Woo Suk been an SI Associate, do you think it would have been wrong for the SI to contact Seoul National University concerning the problems over his stem cell research?
Wrong. There are two reports. One before the Congressman got involved. The fully documented one was the last one done by the staff. And your opinion remains your opinion. The fact that two indepentdent agencies came to the same conclusion indicates you are blowing smoke.
No, a bunch of his coworkers loudly complaining about him existed.
BULL! NCSE is not a co-worker.
Shall I take this consistent refusal to show a wrong done to Sternberg as admitting that the SI never actually did anything to him for his beliefs?
Well, I'm taking your refusal to see the facts presented in the two investigations as an asinine denial. What you consider as just a little hostility, is against the law when conducted against a government employee. The email traffic indicates the religious discrimination. What saved the Smithsonian is that Sternberg was not an employee. But a similar treatment to an employee would have resulted in head rolling. He was reduced to an RC from an RA after the controversy.
The emails clearly show that management...
NCSE is in no way connected with management. Their intrusion into the relationship is a de facto indication of a conspiracy.
Talk about your red herrings. And even in the biased report it looks like the NCSE was on the level
Blithely attempting to brush off the fact that NCSE has no reason to be involved. Repeat all you want. The fact still remains that NCSE HAS ABSOLUTELY NO BUSINESS CONTACTING THE SMITHSONIAN FOR ANY REASON CONCERNING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STERNBERG AND THE INSTITUTION.
And all this talk about limiting his freedom of speech is complete BS. A scientist gets a position at the SI by virtue of his standing as a scientist.
Sternberg got a "position" at SI. He retained a "position" at SI, even though the "position" was a "demotion" caused by the conspiracy. That is plain fact. And if NCSE was concerned about science they should have pursued Axelrod with the same rigor as they did for Sternberg whose only "sin" was to allow the publication of an article counter to the dogma promoted by NCSE.
Independent, driven by partisanship.
NCSE is not a co-worker.
The hateful emails came from his coworkers, people at the SI. The NCSE was the calm voice of reason in this after they got involved. Poor baby's got a thin skin, especially for the cutthroat world of science.
What you consider as just a little hostility, is against the law when conducted against a government employee.
That might have something to do with this case if Sternberg had been a government employee.
He was reduced to an RC from an RA after the controversy.
Bringing up that discredited claim again? His term as an RA was coming to its scheduled end and he didn't get a new sponsor (that guy who offered apparently didn't follow through) to renew his status as an RA. They were gracious and offered him an RC position after his term expired despite his mishandling of SI artifacts, despite his disgrace as a scientist, and despite all the supposed discrimination.
Blithely attempting to brush off the fact that NCSE has no reason to be involved.
Why not? The SI would want to get more information about the scientific misconduct of one of its RCs. Are you saying the SI was supposed to turn a blind eye to conduct that threatened the good standing of a scientist associated with the SI? The NCSE is a clearinghouse for information on the IDers, why not go there?
He retained a "position" at SI, even though the "position" was a "demotion" caused by the conspiracy. That is plain fact.
See above. It's a plain fact that his term ended as is normal SI procedure for all SAs.
whose only "sin" was to allow the publication of an article counter to the dogma promoted by NCSE.
Whose only sin was to bypass normal editorial policy in order to railroad an inferior publication authored by a freind of his, subjecting the Journal and the Society, and by extension the SI, to ridicule. Interesting how Sternberg stepped down right after putting that into the Journal. He probably knew he'd be fired for such gross malfeasance.
Your opinion. So what?
NCSE was the calm voice of reason in this after they got involved.
It doesn't matter what they were. They had no business there. PERIOD. Their involvement is de facto evidence of a conspiracy. You no doubt would be screaming to high heaven had DI approached the Smithsonian as intimately as NCSE did. You have fits and conniptions over DI sending a DVD or two and book to a school board.
That might have something to do with this case if Sternberg had been a government employee
Of course, it would have to do with liability. The actions of SI and NCSE remain.
His term as an RA was coming to its scheduled end and he didn't get a new sponsor
Another lie or misstatement. Dr. Vari was his sponsor. All appointments evidently need sponsors.
Scholars seeking an academic appointment must be formally nominated by a member of the NMNH research community. A complete curriculum vita is required as part of the nomination packet as well as reprints of recent publications.
The NCSE is a clearinghouse for information on the IDers, why not go there?
First, Sternberg is neither a YEC nor likely an ID'er. Second, NCSE intruded, they were not asked in after somebody stumbled on a misconduct. Sternberg was not charged with any misconduct. Read the congressional report. The BSW council could only state that they would not have published the paper. They admit that the editor has great leeway. Third, NCSE, as you have admitted acted with authority that they didn't have. You routinely conflated them with SI management.
Whose only sin was to bypass normal editorial policy in order to railroad an inferior publication authored by a freind of his, subjecting the Journal and the Society, and by extension the SI
SI has no connection to the BSW. Railroad is your opinion as was your opinion that it had not been peer-reviewed.
My opinion, based on facts. Even better is the fact that the reports are faulty, ignoring evidence and making unsupported claims, as I've shown.
You no doubt would be screaming to high heaven had DI approached the Smithsonian as intimately as NCSE did.
Why? I'd have no problem with it.
You have fits and conniptions over DI sending a DVD or two and book to a school board.
Why would I? It's the standard practice of the DI in their "teach the controversy" effort. You're the one who tried to deny it. I just said manufactured lawsuits are common.
Another lie or misstatement. Dr. Vari was his sponsor. All appointments evidently need sponsors.
His sponsor who got him the appointment died not long after he started. He needed a new sponsor, and nobody was willing to risk his reputation by sponsoring Sternberg. Even if he had obtained a new sponsor, there's the problem that applicants for RA must have a good reputation as a scientist, something he'd just previously blown with the Meyer paper.
First, Sternberg is neither a YEC nor likely an ID'er.
Not likely an IDer, huh? Care to explain the fact that he was a fellow of the "International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design" along with Dembski, Behe, Campbell and others? Note the great amount of cross-pollination between this place and the Discovery Institute. It was basically set up so that ID papers could be published by a scientific journal (well, at least one that called itself scientific). It had quite relaxed peer review rules, of course.
The BSW council could only state that they would not have published the paper.
No, they also said that what he did was against editorial policy. Sternberg abused his power as editor and didn't disclose his conflict of interest.
Third, NCSE, as you have admitted acted with authority that they didn't have.
How is that possible when they exercised no authority?
SI has no connection to the BSW.
You haven't been reading. The members often are also members and associates of the SI. Sternberg was, do you think he was the only one? They are scientists in the field, in D.C., what do you expect? The BSW isn't a place scientists go to work for, it's a group of scientists who work at other places and get together to discuss their interests and present their papers.
Railroad is your opinion as was your opinion that it had not been peer-reviewed.
Let's see, all the post-publication reviewers said they would have rejected it. Sternberg and Meyer were friends, both IDers, and after Meyer presented essentially the same thing at a conference that was in the BSW paper, Sternberg decided to publish it. But unless he's a complete idiot he knew it would not get approved through the normal peer review process, so he either did no peer review (or as claimed went outside for the supposed review), submitted it, and resigned before publication to avoid any repercussions.
That sounds like railroading to me.
There was only one conspiracy in this whole mess: Sternberg and Meyer conspiring to push through an ID paper in a scientific journal in order to fulfill that goal of the Wedge Document. Means, prior established motive, opportunity, plus evidence. Easy conviction.
Everything else was natural fallout from Sternberg's own actions. Conspiracy? Kind of difficult when you're emailing your displeasure to everybody. What, a conspiracy of the whole SI staff? It's not a conspiracy if everybody knows.
So is anthropogenic global warming. And it is just as valuable as your opinion.
Why would I? It's the standard practice of the DI in their "teach the controversy" effort. You're the one who tried to deny it. I just said manufactured lawsuits are common.
So now you are stating that DI was not involved in a conspiracy since you consider NCSE's action as nonconspiratorial(and I am not saying Discovery Institute was conspiratorial --- sending DVD's a darn sight less provocative than actively being a part of a campaign to harrass someone). Typical of you.
His sponsor who got him the appointment died not long after he started. He needed a new sponsor, and nobody was willing to risk his reputation by sponsoring Sternberg. Even if he had obtained a new sponsor, there's the problem that applicants for RA must have a good reputation as a scientist, something he'd just previously blown with the Meyer paper.
Admitting you are wrong. Read the Congressional report. It contains a letter from SI to Sternberg confirming multiple sponsors for him upon the death of his original sponsor.
Plus you are incredibly ignorant of Sternberg. 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. Here is a link to the invertebrate divisions newsletter. In it you can see that Sternberg was second only to Lemaitre in publications listed and Lemaitre was a big player in the conspiracy, (peer rivalry as motivation -- see I can wildly through around charges just as you can). The point being is that SI had no problems with Sternberg until Meyer was published and NCSE stuck its nose in.
No, they also said that what he did was against editorial policy.
Read the Congressional Report. They couldn't say much due to this, "Because other editors have not always referred all articles to the Associate Editors, and because editors justifiably have discretion, the Council doesn't want to come down too hard on Dr. Sternberg for errors in the procedure followed in accepting this article." That was from the Congressional report. It was contained in a letter from NCSE to the BSW and that letter also shows that NCSE was even suggesting to the BSW what to print. NCSE has no business in doing that either.
How is that possible when they exercised no authority?
What are you talking about? They had no authority but they exercised authority. Just like Obama and the Czars.
The members often are also members and associates of the SI. Sternberg was, do you think he was the only one?
Well, Tiger Woods belongs to the "Tiger Woods Foundation" and belongs to the "PGA". That does not connect the two institutions in the way you wish to imply the connection.
Let's see, all the post-publication reviewers said they would have rejected it.
So? It was not their call.
Sternberg and Meyer were friends, both IDers
Friends? Associates sure, but friends? Prove it. And the ID question
Care to explain the fact that he was a fellow of the "International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design" along with Dembski, Behe, Campbell and others?
Yes, I am a member of ISCID. So I can say that being a fellow does not make you an ID'er. ISCID invites those whose talents impact on any or all of the fields mentioned in the name. Dr. James Shapiro, who is not an ID'er readily participated in an online discussion. That did not make him an ID'er.
That sounds like railroading to me.
No, that is the sound of the facts rolling over your opinions.
Kind of difficult when you're emailing your displeasure to everybody.
Everybody was not involved. Unless you care to prove it. NCSE was involved, ipso facto, a conspiracy.
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.
And the report reaches conclusions opposite the emails. My earlier example, supposedly no evidence for mishandling of artifacts, yet there's the evidence right in the emails.
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."
Now you're nitpicking to distract from the point. I change it to "after his term started" and the fact remains that he lost his sponsor.
they acted with authority in directing how the SI personnel should act.
So you have a problem with their suggestion (yes, suggestion) that Sternberg's beliefs should be off-limits? Or you hoping for an actual dismissal so you could claim persecution? Oh, right, you don't need an actual dismissal to claim persecution. You apparently don't need any action by the SI against Sternberg for his beliefs to claim persecution.
So far you still haven't shown something the SI management did to him for his beliefs. Oh, I forgot, Expelled told me they took the poor baby's keys away from him.
since NCSE would have no reason to be involved
This specific bit is about the society, not the NCSE.
It shows they may have disagreed with the reviewers. Not every peer reviewer agrees that a particular article should be published.
Just disagreed? Every single non-ID (read: real) scientist who reviewed the paper said it was substandard. The only possible way Sternberg could get a positive review would be to go to cherry-picked IDers. And apparently that's what he did, if he did at all.
the ongoing public fascination reveals a deeper wisdom
That would be the ongoing public fascination created by the modern ID movement guided by the Wedge Document and currently executed through the Teach the Controversy program. It's all there in the wedge document: convince the public first, and the science will follow. Bass-ackwards.
A charge is not evidence of anything but the charge. Calling a person an idiot is proof of calling someone an idiot, not evidence that the person is an idiot, you idiot. /sarc <--- for your benefit.
I change it to "after his term started" and the fact remains that he lost his sponsor.
Who denied that? Nevertheless, you used the word "started". You are not getting away with it.
So you have a problem with their suggestion
No sh*t, Sherlock. Do the words, "NCSE HAS NO BUSINESS", finally mean something to you?
This specific bit is about the society, not the NCSE.
This has to do with conspiracy, so it does involve NCSE.
Every single non-ID (read: real) scientist who reviewed the paper said it was substandard.
You don't get to define your way out of a situation. It was peer reviewed.
That would be the ongoing public fascination created by the modern ID movement guided by the Wedge Document
Again that is your opinion. Which along with five bucks will get you a cup of coffee. On the other hand, the individual, Dr. James Shapiro, not an ID'er, who wrote that opinion which also along with five bucks will buy a cup of coffee, gets my respect. You don't.
Which brings the final point. If Shapiro is called an ID'er and Sternberg is called an ID'er and being an ID'er is not being a scientist, then you, the NCSE, Judge Jones and others of your ilk had better explain how papers such as the following could possibly be published in peer reviewed journals.
ABSTRACT
There are clear theoretical reasons and many well-documented examples which show that repetitive DNA is essential for genome function. Generic repeated signals in the DNA are necessary to format expression of unique coding sequence files and to organise additional functions essential for genome replication and accurate transmission to progeny cells. Repetitive DNA sequence elements are also fundamental to the cooperative molecular interactions forming nucleoprotein complexes. Here, we review the surprising abundance of repetitive DNA in many genomes, describe its structural diversity, and discuss dozens of cases where the functional importance of repetitive elements has been studied in molecular detail. In particular, the fact that repeat elements serve either as initiators or boundaries for heterochromatin domains and provide a significant fraction of scaffolding/matrix attachment regions (S/MARs) suggests that the repetitive component of the genome plays a major architectonic role in higher order physical structuring. Employing an information science model, the ‘functionalist ’ perspective on repetitive DNA leads to new ways of thinking about the systemic organisation of cellular genomes and provides several novel possibilities involving repeat elements in evolutionarily significant genome reorganisation. These ideas may facilitate the interpretation of comparisons between sequenced genomes, where the repetitive DNA component is often greater than the coding sequence component.
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.