Posted on 01/31/2005 8:34:48 PM PST by freespirited
The paper by Stephen C. Meyer, "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," in vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239 of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard v. Sternberg. 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 because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history. For the same reason, the journal will not publish a rebuttal to the thesis of the paper, the superiority of intelligent design (ID) over evolution as an explanation of the emergence of Cambrian body-plan diversity. The Council endorses a resolution on ID published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml), which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID as a testable hypothesis to explain the origin of organic diversity. Accordingly, the Meyer paper does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings. We have reviewed and revised editorial policies to ensure that the goals of the Society, as reflected in its journal, are clearly understood by all. Through a web presence (www.biolsocwash.org) and improvements in the journal, the Society hopes not only to continue but to increase its service to the world community of systematic biologists.
Ping
I have never understood why scientists think the things we make are the result of "intelligent design", and the things God makes are just the result of random mutations.
Very interesting, and wrong of him to publish it like that.
However, the treatment by his employer, The Smithsonian....verbal harrassment..his office being locked up from him etc.....is not appropriate.
Yup. 2 wrongs makes for 2 wrongs.
An astute observation but it has a simple explanation - scientist are smarter than God. However, I am still waiting for them to replicate evolution as a testable hypothesis.
I have never understood why scientists think the things we make are the result of "intelligent design", and the things God makes are just the result of random mutations.
Don't Christians believe that God works in mysterious ways?
This is a complicated story that will probably wind up in court. Sternberg himself advocates a variant of ID. He pushed the article through to publication despite the fact that the reviewers disagreed with its conclusions. He published the article without publishing the reviewer's disagreements or mentioning that there were disagreements.
His fight with the Smithsonian is another matter altogether. I'm not convinced they have any reason to push him out.
I read the paper. I felt that it was too poorly written to be published. The author made no pretense of argument, but only made assertions using undefined terms.
Thanks for the ping. I'll ping the list for this one.
|
Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper [by Stephen C. Meyer] was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process.The record of creationoid integrity remains unbroken.[snip]
The Council endorses a resolution on ID published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science click here, which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID as a testable hypothesis to explain the origin of organic diversity. Accordingly, the Meyer paper does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings.
Because he knew that legitimate scientists know that ID is unscientific crap. He apparently wanted to make it appear that this creationism-in-sheep's-clothing has the appearance of an acceptance in the scientific community that it, in fact, does not have. He knew that the only way he could do this is to cheat, because anyone who seriously proposed publishing this garbage in the normal manner would be laughed out of the building.
However, the treatment by his employer, The Smithsonian....verbal harrassment..his office being locked up from him etc.....is not appropriate.
Well, but you are assuming the truth of the allegations made by him against the institution. If the assertions in the statement by the Smithsonian are believed, on the other hand, then Sternberg had no problem with breaking the rules in order to get this crap published. If he was willing to do that, what makes you believe he wouldn't lie about this supposed harassment that he details in his legal complaint?
I'm not saying that I believe this, I'm just saying that none of us know the facts, sufficient to determine what exactly happened here. There are certainly insufficient facts to determine that the Smithsonian is at fault here, or to, as some jackass on another thread proposed, send thousands of harassing emails to people at the Smithsonian.
Because as far as we have been able to observe the details each process, that is how they have occurred.
They don't
Did he fear the paper would never have made it into print unless he used handpicked reviewers as opposed to allowing the normal review process to operate?
That gets my vote. He knew exactly what he was doing. He made a judgment that that his desired end justified his means. And he deserves the consequences of his actions.
He's an IDiot?
Got it in one.
Silly Biological Society.
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.