You've read the paper?
Ah. Did it contain any of the following words: God, Creator, Bible, Genesis, Scripture, doctrine, Divine, Providence, Psalm, Almighty, Omniscient, Omnipotent, Savior, Adam, Eve, Satan, Eden, Sabbath, spirit, soul, angel, supernatural, heaven, hell, or eternity?
On the other hand, did it deal with concepts such as: mathematics, statistics, probability, cosmology, molecular biology, genetics, quantum physics or mechanics, information theory?
I would suggest that the former list would indicate a focus on religion, and the latter, a focus on science: something which both Meyers and von Sternberg ought to be able to have vetted by their scientific peers (which they did) and which their peers ought to be able to discuss without threats, insults and reprisals.
Unless threats, insults and reprisals are now considered part of the "scientific method."
Did it? ID says the laws of physics are insufficient to govern the world.
Proof:
ID uses the laws of physics to model reality and make some calculation. The ID guy swears his logic is OK and his math likewise. The output of his calculation says, "the result of the calculation can't explain the observations."
There are then 2 remaining possibilities, because he swears his model is good:
1) The model is missing some -knowledge and understanding(of physics)
2) The model is right, the physics are 100% correct, that's all the physics there is, and there's an intelligent force
Take your choice:
The laws of physics are not sufficient and you abandon science to inject an IDer, else they are and you stick with science, admit ignorance and work harder. Biology is based on, and is a result of the physics. The paper Sternberg published is junk science supporting the abandonment of science. It was a call for the work to be turned over to shamans.
"I would suggest that the former list would indicate a focus on religion, and the latter, a focus on science:
I note that once the later list is knocked out, all that's left is the former.
RWP's post above gives a link with some facts regarding this case. Here's one:
"Fact 6:
The PBSW's editorial board published the following in the next issue of the journal after Sternberg had published the article for Meyer:
The paper by Stephen C. Meyer in the Proceedings ("The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239) represents a significant departure from the nearly purely taxonomic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 124-year history. It was published without the prior knowledge of the Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, or the associate editors. We have met and determined that all of us would have deemed this paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings.
We endorse the spirit of a resolution on Intelligent Design set forth by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (link), and that topic will not be addressed in future issues of the Proceedings. We are reviewing editorial policies to ensure that the goals of the Society, as reflected in its journal, are clearly understood by all. Through a web presence (link) and contemplated improvements in the journal, the Society hopes not only to continue but to increase its service to the world community of taxonomic biologists.
So Sternberg did in fact act against the wishes of the entire board and council of the journal and society...according to their own website."