Sternberg should have did his job and rejected the paper on the grounds that it's not science. He didn't. Instead he allowed the paper to be published as if it actually was science.
"Sternberg should have did his job and rejected the paper on the grounds that it's not science."
What about the evolutionary biologists who reviewed it?
What about the president of the BSW who reviewed the peer review file and said that, scientifically, the paper was justified in being published?
Are all of these people part of a mass conspiracy to prevent science from occurring?
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."