Well, in 4 months, there have been holes punched in the article left
and right... perhaps he only got his name right in it. For some of
those critiques, you can look at
http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000430.html.
And in those 4 months of critiques, there doesn't seem to be many
sup****ting him, in specifics. There is talk about the flack Mr.
Sternberg is taking, or just general attacks on evolution. But no one
seems to be even attempting to rebutt the critiques. And that,
probably, is where Mr. Sternber's problems are arising from - as
editor, to include an article that doesn't seem to hold up, the blame
should fall on him.
On Saturday, 29 Jan 2005 08:50:27 -0600,
"Antimulticulture@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" wrote:
>
>EVOLUTION WATCH
>Smithsonian in uproar over intelligent-design article
>Museum researcher's career threatened after he published favorable piece
>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42600
>January 29, 2005
>
>The career of a prominent researcher at the Smithsonian's National Museum
of
>Natural History in Wa****ngton is in jeopardy after he published a
>peer-reviewed article by a leading proponent of intelligent design, an
>alternative to evolutionary theory dismissed by the science and education
>establishment as a tool of religious conservatives.
>
>Stephen Meyer's article advocates the theory of intelligent design.
(Photo
>courtesy Discovery Institute)
>
>Richard Sternberg says that although he continues to work in the museum's
>Department of Zoology, he has been kicked out of his office and shunned
by
>colleagues, prompting him to file a complaint with the U.S. Office of
>Special Counsel.
>
>Sternberg charges he was subjected to discrimination on the basis of
>perceived religious beliefs.
>
>"I'm spending my time trying to figure out how to salvage a scientific
>career," Sternberg told David Klinghoffer, a columnist for the Jewish
>Forward, who re****ted the story in the Wall Street Journal.
>
>Sternberg is managing editor of a nominally independent journal published
at
>the museum, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Wa****ngton. His
trouble
>started when he included in the August issue a review-essay by Stephen
>Meyer, who holds a Cambridge University doctorate in the philosophy of
>biology.
>
>Hans Sues, the museum's No. 2 senior scientist, denounced Meyer's article
in
>a widely forwarded e-mail as "unscientific garbage."
>
>According to Sternberg's complaint, which is being investigated, one
museum
>specialist chided him by saying: "I think you are a religiously motivated
>person and you have dragged down the Proceedings because of your
religiously
>motivated agenda."
>
>Sternberg strongly denies that.
>
>While acknowledging he is a Catholic who attends Mass, he says, "I would
>call myself a believer with a lot of questions, about everything. I'm in
the
>postmodern predicament."
>
>The complaint says the chairman of the Zoology Department, Jonathan
>Coddington, called Sternberg's supervisor to look into the matter.
>
>"First, he asked whether Sternberg was a religious fundamentalist. She
told
>him no. Coddington then asked if Sternberg was affiliated with or
belonged
>to any religious organization. ... He then asked where Sternberg stood
>politically; ... he asked, 'Is he a right-winger? What is his political
>affiliation?'
>
>[Ed. "..Liberating tolerance is intolerance against movements from the
>Right, and toleration [only] of movements from the Left..." - Herbert
>Marcuse ]
>
>The supervisor recounted the conversation to Sternberg, who also quotes
her
>observing: "There are Christians here, but they keep their heads down."
>
>[Ed. They don't need to keep their heads down, evolution has no
scientific
>basis...]
>
>The complaint, according to the Journal column, says Coddington took away
>Sternberg's office, which prevents access to the specimen collections he
>needs. Sternberg also was assigned to the close oversight of a curator
with
>whom he had professional disagreements unrelated to evolution.
>
>"I'm going to be straightforward with you," said Coddington, according to
>the complaint. "Yes, you are being singled out."
>
>Meyer's article, "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher
>Taxonomic Categories," cites mainstream biologists and paleontologists
from
>schools such as the University of Chicago, Yale, Cambridge and Oxford who
>are critical of certain aspects of Darwinism.
>
>Meyer - a fellow at Seattle's Discovery Institute, a leading advocate of
>intelligent design - contends sup****ters of Darwin's theory cannot
explain
>how so many different animal types sprang into existence during the
>relatively short period of Earth history known as the Cambrian explosion.
>
>He argues the Darwinian mechanism would require more time for the
necessary
>genetic "information" to be generated, and intelligent design offers a
>better explanation.
>
>The Journal notes Meyer's piece is the first peer-reviewed article to
appear
>in a technical biology journal laying out the evidential case for
>intelligent design.
>
>The theory holds that the complex features of living organisms, such as
an
>eye, are better explained by an unspecified designing intelligence than
by
>random mutation and natural selection.
>
>[Ed. Random mutation ..... hahahahah!!]
>
>Klinghoffer notes the Biological Society of Wa****ngton released a
statement
>regretting its association with Meyer's article but did not address its
>arguments.
>
>Klinghoffer points out the circularity of the arguments of critics who
>insisted intelligent design was unscientific because if had not been put
>forward in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
>
>"Now that it has," he wrote, "they argue that it shouldn't have been
because
>it's unscientific."
>
>[Ed. Checkmate!]
|
