"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?
I read their comments before. They didn't focus on the scientific merits either. Controversy was their consideration.
"What about the president of the BSW who reviewed the peer review file and said that, scientifically, the paper was justified in being published?"
Procedure was followed, that's all the pres. can claim, because the paper itself is junk science.
"Are all of these people part of a mass conspiracy to prevent science from occurring?"
ID isn't science.
Proof:
ID uses the laws of physics to 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 observaitons."
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 unknown arbitrary force.
Take your choice:
The laws of physics are not sufficient and you abandon science and hire a shaman to conjure up the arbitrary force(s), else they are and you stick with science, admit ignorance and work harder.