Smithsonian in uproar over intelligent-design article

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | January 29, 2005

[Grey Rabbit]

WND EVOLUTION WATCH Smithsonian in uproar over intelligent-design article Museum researcher's career threatened after he published favorable piece Posted: January 29, 2005 1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

The career of a prominent researcher at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History in Washington 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 reported 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 Washington. 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?'

The supervisor recounted the conversation to Sternberg, who also quotes her observing: "There are Christians here, but they keep their heads down."

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 supporters 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.

Klinghoffer notes the Biological Society of Washington 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."

[JohnnyM]

I hope I did not imply that you cant be a Christian and believe in evolution. Our belief in evolution is not the basis for salvation.

My argument has always been that the Bible and evolution are incompatible. Even your example of image, if taken to mean spritual image or actual image implies a creation apart from the evolutionary process. I appreciate your comments.

JM

[mc6809e]

The Bible was written, and modified heavily, by MEN. Its infallibility is likewise a matter of faith.

As this page shows

[JohnnyM]

If you read what I wrote, you would see that I am stating that it is Jesus that is being seen. He is the image of the invisible God. The verses I posted show this. No contradiction.

JM

[mc6809e]

If you read what I wrote, you would see that I am stating that it is Jesus that is being seen. He is the image of the invisible God. The verses I posted show this. No contradiction.

But wait,

EX 33:20, JN 1:18, 1JN 4:12 God is not seen. No one can see God's face and live. No one has ever seen him.

So which is it?

[Liberty Tree Surgeon]

As I appreciate your comments. My take is the Bible and an old universe (since evolution is only part of the picture) are compatible (obviously, since I've been arguing it!), but that ultimately it is faith in Jesus that leads to salvation.

Regard, LTS

[microgood]

What I don't understand is how a Christian could use force and murder in the name of God simply to convert others to their "religion of compassion".

I am beginning to believe that those who are adept at discussing biological evolution are completely ignorant about social evolution of the human race. Religions have played a role the entire time. I guess things were better when the Attila the Hun and Genghis Khan were running around murdering for the sheer joy of it.

Christianity is a religion. All religious beliefs have been coopted by different rulers for their individual ends (check out Islam these days), but Christianity as a religion has endured, changed the world more than any other religion, and I am beginning believe you will never have a clue why.

I will give you a clue: mercy, compassion, forgiveness. It's what separates us from the beasts.

[WildTurkey]

I am beginning to believe that those who are adept at discussing biological evolution are completely ignorant about social evolution of the human race.

Apparently you miss my expose on another thread about arrogant Christians. You sir, have no clue.

[Ichneumon]

[Oh... Then why does human DNA contain relics of viral infections which are inherited from our pre-human ancestors?]

You belief we have pre-human ancestors

No, I *know* we have pre-human ancestors because that's what a massive amount of evidence -- including the type I alluded to above -- clearly indicates.

but have never found proof of a link.

Sure we have. Just because *you're* not aware of it...

Since your first assumption is wrong your whole premise is flawed.

I do not base any of this on "assumption". It is you whose "whole premise" is therefore flawed.

It is just as possible for man and animals to have similar viral infections without having common ancestory.

Not like the type I'm describing, no. It would be a mathematical impossibility.

Ever heard of feline aids?

Sure, but it's not contractable by humans, and it's not the same virus as the one which causes human AIDS. Nor could one be genetically mistaken for the other -- they're at opposite ends of these genetic phylogeny graphs of the lentiviruses (of which HIV and FIV are both members):

I know that's a bit hard on the eyes -- better resolution versions can be seen here: An overview of the molecular phylogeny of lentiviruses

But even if the *same* retrovirus actually did infect both cats and humans, separate infection events would not be mistaken for each other in the DNA analysis of which I'm speaking.

As such, they're clear evidence for the common ancestry of man and the other primates (and also for the common ancestry of more distant mammalian groups, etc.)

This has long been a very strong line of evidence for common descent, and there are no good alternative explanations for it. Do you suppose this is why the creationist books and websites "forget" to mention it (among many other strong lines of evidence), and that's why you've never heard of it? Hint: Creationist sources only talk about the evidence that they can distort or outright misrepresent in order to make evolutionary biology *appear* weak, and the creationist case to *appear* strong.

And why do you suppose all the know-it-all creationists on these threads have never heard of it either whenever I raise it? Why would someone arrogantly presume to denounce evolutionary biology without even being FAMILIAR with the evidence for it and how it is tested and confirmed on a regular basis?

[Fester Chugabrew]

Creationist sources only talk about the evidence that they can distort or outright misrepresent in order to make evolutionary biology *appear* weak . . .

IOW, if the picture others care to regurgitate back to you does not match your pre-conceived notion of evolutionary history, then they have distorted the evidence.

Sorry, Jack. No sale. Take your philosophy to some classroom that cares. Keep it out of basic, empirical science classes. The world will be a better place, and you will be pacified with the full attention of like-minded theophobes.

[Ichneumon]

[Creationist sources only talk about the evidence that they can distort or outright misrepresent in order to make evolutionary biology *appear* weak . . .]

IOW, if the picture others care to regurgitate back to you does not match your pre-conceived notion of evolutionary history, then they have distorted the evidence.

If you are going to presume to paraphrase me, it would be nice if you were able to do it accurately.

No, that's not at all what I said.

You have grossly misrepresented me, and in an insulting, childish manner. My only question is whether you have done so out of an inability to understand clear English, or through dishonesty?

Please respond, I expect an answer, so that I will better know how to treat your posts in the future.

When I said that they don't talk about the evidence that they can't explain away, that's exactly what I mean.

And when I said that they distort/misrepresent the evidence that they can, I mean *EXACTLY* that.

They lie or otherwise misrepresent THE EVIDENCE ITSELF.

Take for example the way that creationst Kent "Dr. Dino" Hovind declares that radiocarbon dating produced wildly different dates for the skin and bones of the same mammoth specimen, in order to attempt to raise questions about the accuracy of radiocarbon dating.

THIS. IS. A. LIE.

Hovind's *own* citation which he gives in "support" of this his false claim -- which is the scientific paper which is the original report on the specimens in question -- states quite clearly that they were DIFFERENT specimens taken from DIFFERENT locations.

When challenged on this point, Hovind gave specimen ID numbers which he claimed were for the samples in question (which, again, Hovind claimed were from the same individual mammoth), and looking up those IDs in the primary literature shows that not only were they indeed NOT from the same mammoth, one of them WASN'T EVEN FROM A MAMMOTH AT ALL (it was from a rhino). Nonetheless, creationist Hovind has never retracted his false claims about the evidence itself.

Freeper Havoc (a creationist) repeated Hovind's lie here on FreeRepublic.

When I pointed out that even Hovind's own citation contradicts Hovind's version, and showed him documentation of that, Havoc mumbled a reply ("you haven't displayed a falsehood, you just make these assertions") and failed to retract the false claim he had repeated from Hovind.

HAVOC THEN REPOSTED THE SAME FALSE CLAIM SHORTLY THEREAFTER ON ANOTHER THREAD.

Summary of the ability of the two creationists (Hovind and Havoc) to present information they *know* is false, and to *fail* to retract when reminded of their falsehoods, is presented here, along with links to all appropriate documentation.

(Quick aside -- Fester, do you condone this behavior of your fellow creationists? Yes or no? Is lying for the "cause" of creationism acceptable to you?)

This sort of behavior, unfortunately, is *typical* of creationists. Here, want dozens of more examples of their distortions? A few more for the road? Another? Still more, perhaps? How about even more? Ooh, here are some good examples. And there's lots more where that came from, like this and this and this and lots more here and *tons* here and countless more here and yet more here, a goodie... Wait, there's more over here, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., *ETC.*, etc., etc., etc., . How about 300 more creationist misrepresentations? Not enough, you say? Well then visit Creationist Lies and Blunders. Hey, what about Freeper metacognative's (he's a creationist) ability to accuse Daniel Dennett (evolutionary scientist) of wanting to put Christians into concentration camps for their beliefs, when Dennett was *actually* clearly writing about how RADICAL ISLAM may need to be contained? The ugly details here. Metacognative *still* shows no shame for his patently false accusation.

Fester, do you condone all *those* creationist misrepresentations of the evidence, and their misquotations of what scientists have actually said?

Tell me how many more examples you'd like me to post of creationist distortion of the evidence, and I'll be MORE than glad to post them.

So cut out the crap about how *I'm* the one with a reality problem, son. Have you *no* shame whatsoever?

For a further example, the astute reader need only look at the way you yourself have misrepresented what I actually wrote.

Sorry, Jack. No sale. Take your philosophy to some classroom that cares. Keep it out of basic, empirical science classes.

Your wish to have the very well-established, well-supported science of evolutionary biology yanked out of science classes because you have a knee-jerk bias against it, despite how clear you've made it on various threads that you have absolutely no understanding of it, and wish to acquire none, but are content with the faulty cartoon-version of evolution spoonfed to you by dishonest creationist sources, is duly noted.

The world will be a better place, and you will be pacified with the full attention of like-minded theophobes.

I am not a "theophobe", and you are strongly advised to either retract that slur, or attempt to support it if you're delusional to think you can. Or would you like to take the matter up with the moderators rather than behave like an honorable person?

Your bitterness in your posts is obvious, and it overrides your judgement. Work on it.

[Thatcherite]

It's all about mathematics and probabilities, a field I have come to find evolutionists are surprisingly weak at.

Mathematics and probability applied to real-world problems are only as strong as the assumptions and knowledge that go into them. You'll find that real biologists do plenty of prob/stats, but unfortunately for the ID mob biologists apply their prob/stats to the real problem, not a parody of it. "Scientists" like Behe and Dembski demonstrate this repeatedly with their straw-man probability arguments that make them appear to be almost wholely ignorant of what biologists believe.

[Thatcherite]

Unlike Atheists, who though few in number, murdered 100 million people in the last 80 years. But, then, they aren't as highly evolved.

Mmmm, lets look at a few examples of compassionate Christians. Some of these are close to home, so listen up...

The holocaust was largely perpetrated by practicing Christians from a Christian country.

The keeping of people as property in this country was largely perpetrated by Christians.

The seizure of our country from the people who already lived here, along with their unfortunate near-genocide was largely perpetrated by Christians.

The stamping out of the Philipine's insurrection was perpetrated by Christians.

Christians institute strategic bombing campaigns against the civilians of enemy regimes.

Down through history Christians have repeatedly used extreme violence against pretty much every other culture they encounter. (as well as endlessly against each other)

We were Christian nations all that time and that hasn't changed, so you'll have to forgive me for doubting that the compassionate nature of Christianity is what makes us behave a little better over the last few decades.

I am not saying that we should be blamed for the actions of our ancestors (though as I understand it Christianity says we are to blame for the actions of our ancestors so you may disagree) but there is rich comedy in Christianity pointing the finger at others in the violence stakes.

[Fester Chugabrew]

My only question is whether you have done so out of an inability to understand clear English, or through dishonesty?

Neither. It is out of a recognition that you fail to understand the difference between faith and science. You have a adopted a faith that expresses itself in scientific terms, and are blinded from any weaknesses your faith may have. The philosophy of evolution, like theology, should have a class of its own, reserved chiefly for ages who know how to distinguish true logic from wishful thinking.

[PatrickHenry]

M'god, that is an awesome post! I'm pinging a few others just to spread the word.

[Ichneumon]

M'god, that is an awesome post! I'm pinging a few others just to spread the word.

Thanks, but I personally think I like my next one better.

[Junior]

I have a hypothesis as to why creationists repost the same tired falsities over and over and never appear to learn anything. To wit: the creationists who actually check out the details and go to the effort to learn something eventually cease being creationists. All that are left are the die-hard types who refuse to see the evidence lest their souls be damned.

[Ichneumon]

[You have grossly misrepresented me, and in an insulting, childish manner. My only question is whether you have done so out of an inability to understand clear English, or through dishonesty?]

Neither. It is out of a recognition that you fail to understand the difference between faith and science.

Really? You grossly misrepresented me in an insulting, childish manner out of a "recognition that I fail to understand the difference between faith and science"?

But how is misrepresenting what I wrote justifiable even I had actually failed to understand that?

Your thought processes (not to mention your moral sense) appear to be... strange.

You also failed to address these other questions:

(Quick aside -- Fester, do you condone this behavior of your fellow creationists? Yes or no? Is lying for the "cause" of creationism acceptable to you?)

[...]

Fester, do you condone all *those* creationist misrepresentations of the evidence, and their misquotations of what scientists have actually said?

Tell me how many more examples you'd like me to post of creationist distortion of the evidence, and I'll be MORE than glad to post them.

So cut out the crap about how *I'm* the one with a reality problem, son. Have you *no* shame whatsoever?

I count four still unanswered questions in there, as well as a request for you to tell me how many more creationist lies you'd like me to list for you (since you earlier attacked me pointing out that creationist sources distort and misrepresent the evidence for evolution).

Or have I already listed enough of them in my most recent post to you that I've supported my point and you will no longer challenge me when I say that creationist sources misrepresent the evidence?

That's question five for you to answer, by the way.

In case you missed the lists of creationist dishonesty (I know your attention to detail isn't too good sometimes) here it is again for easy reference:

Summary of the ability of the two creationists (Hovind and Havoc) to present information they *know* is false, and to *fail* to retract when reminded of their falsehoods, is presented here, along with links to all appropriate documentation.

(Quick aside -- Fester, do you condone this behavior of your fellow creationists? Yes or no? Is lying for the "cause" of creationism acceptable to you?)

This sort of behavior, unfortunately, is *typical* of creationists. Here, want dozens of more examples of their distortions? A few more for the road? Another? Still more, perhaps? How about even more? Ooh, here are some good examples. And there's lots more where that came from, like this and this and this and lots more here and *tons* here and countless more here and yet more here, a goodie... Wait, there's more over here, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., *ETC.*, etc., etc., etc., . How about 300 more creationist misrepresentations? Not enough, you say? Well then visit Creationist Lies and Blunders. Hey, what about Freeper metacognative's (he's a creationist) ability to accuse Daniel Dennett (evolutionary scientist) of wanting to put Christians into concentration camps for their beliefs, when Dennett was *actually* clearly writing about how RADICAL ISLAM may need to be contained? The ugly details here. Metacognative *still* shows no shame for his patently false accusation.

[Ichneumon]

I have a hypothesis as to why creationists repost the same tired falsities over and over and never appear to learn anything. To wit: the creationists who actually check out the details and go to the effort to learn something eventually cease being creationists. All that are left are the die-hard types who refuse to see the evidence lest their souls be damned.

I think you may be right -- I posted a similar observation on another thread:

Meyer is clearly vastly ignorant on this subject. But then, that's pretty much a prerequisite for being an anti-evolutionist (since most folks who actually *learn* the fundamentals of the field and bother to look at the evidence supporting it end up going, "oh, *now* I see...").

[VadeRetro]

HAVOC THEN REPOSTED THE SAME FALSE CLAIM SHORTLY THEREAFTER ON ANOTHER THREAD.

Yep. Another BADAAS! (Not a typo.)

(Back Again, Dumb As A Stump person.)