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.
Okay, you're not getting away with claiming you're a member of a defunct organization. Well, if you're going to nitpick over irrelevant sidelines, so can I.
Back to the point, at least you tried to show actual retaliation against Sternberg. Too bad it got shot down, and he wasn't kicked out. Got any other real evidence of actual retaliation against Sternberg? Did they give him an atomic wedgie? Did they make the poor baby cry?
Do the words, "NCSE HAS NO BUSINESS", finally mean something to you?
So you were hoping they'd railroad Sternberg.
It was peer reviewed.
And my dog peer reviewed my homework. Doesn't make it valid, even if true. The peer review should be up to the scientific standards of the publication, and obviously this was not given the post-review condemnation. Apparently Sternberg doesn't like strict review and rigorous scientific standards, so the lax ISCID was perfect for him.
Again that is your opinion. Which along with five bucks will get you a cup of coffee.
No, that would be fact, by their own admission. The Wedge Document describes a publicity campaign designed to create doubt, starting with apologetics to an audience of Christian believers. Oh wait, I thought ID wasn't about religion.
explain how papers such as the following could possibly be published in peer reviewed journals.
Actually, many ID scientists are able to compartmentalize. Even the NCSE realized this in their emails. Oh no, those horrible emails, creating such great offense by defending Sternberg. The SI had no business getting info about ID and dealing with IDers from the leading ID information source!