Evolution Intelligent Design

Justice is on the way — Thank you Washington Post

Spread the love

Editor Explains Reasons for ‘Intelligent Design’ Article

By Michael Powell
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, August 19, 2005; Page A19

Evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg made a fateful decision a year ago.

As editor of the hitherto obscure Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Sternberg decided to publish a paper making the case for “intelligent design,” a controversial theory that holds that the machinery of life is so complex as to require the hand — subtle or not — of an intelligent creator.

MORE

9 Replies to “Justice is on the way — Thank you Washington Post

  1. 1
    Charlie says:

    “””Scott, of the NCSE, insisted that Smithsonian scientists had no choice but to explore Sternberg’s religious beliefs. “They don’t care if you are religious, but they do care a lot if you are a creationist,” Scott said. “Sternberg denies it, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it argues for zealotry.””””

    Scott speaks with authority on what the competent scientists at the Smithsonian care about and in what manner they must behave. If they didn’t need her help pulling their strings at the outset why would they need it now in defence?

  2. 2
    neurode says:

    “Scott, of the NCSE, insisted that Smithsonian scientists had no choice but to explore Sternberg’s religious beliefs. ‘They don’t care if you are religious, but they do care a lot if you are a creationist,’ Scott said. ‘Sternberg denies it, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it argues for zealotry.'”

    I don’t like the sound of that. Scott, having been plausibly fingered by the authorities as a behind-the-scenes manipulator, is accusing Sternberg of being a liar. In doing this, she lends ample credence to the accusation against her.

    Regarding Charlie’s comment that “Scott speaks with authority on what the competent scientists at the Smithsonian care about and in what manner they must behave,”, I direct your attention to the word “must”, which effectively implies that “competent scientists” are zombies of orthodoxy, constrained at all costs to obediently toe the philosophical line(s) drawn by Ms. Scott and company. This, of course, does not weigh in favor of the NCSE, and it is not complimentary of the Smithsonian.

    But perhaps Charlie is being sarcastic.

  3. 3
    Ariston says:

    I feel for Sternberg. It’s a shame to see what has happened to him. And for those of us seeking academic careers, it is a cautionary tale. Surely the establishment intended to make an example of him (a pretty effective one at that). In the short term, I think tenure might be a prerequisite for dissent when the dissenter is employed in hostile surroundings.

  4. 4
    dave says:

    I found this completely astonishing:

    “When the biological society issued a statement disavowing Meyer’s article, Sternberg was advised not to attend. ‘I was told that feelings were running so high, they could not guarantee me that they could keep order,’ Sternberg said.”

    They couldn’t guarrantee his safety at a press conference about biology?

    And Michael Ruse is afraid of the *Christians* taking over.

  5. 5
    Daniel512 says:

    His marriage has dissolved!!!. How far Scott & Co. want to go?

  6. 6
    PaV says:

    Have you heard of the “Velikovsky Affair”? The “scientific community” can be very nasty.

  7. 7
    jzs says:

    The whole atom bomb thing and the Tuskegee syphilis experiment come to mind as examples of ‘nasty’ science.

  8. 8
  9. 9
    Roger says:

    I think Charlie and neurode have captured the most damning quote by Ms Scott. In addition to implications for any intellectual case the Darwinists might have, that Ms Scott apparently thinks that scientists working for the federally chartered and funded SI should discriminate on the basis of perceived religious beliefs is astounding. I thought they were such strong believers in the Constitutional protections of religious freedom? Apparently, not when inconvenient. And what about various civil rights laws? This doesn’t seem like a clearly thought out stance calculated to garner the support of the majority of Americans.

    In regards to the jurisdictional issue vis a vis the OSC, the SI, and Title 42 Scientists, go here:

    http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/05/02/03.php

    Note that the govt’s stance has now changed, and it appears that they will now support protections for Title 42 scientists. Although that case strictly dealt with whistleblower protection, the legal arguments necessarily implicate other protections as well. They will be hard-pressed to fashion a result for one, and not the other. So with title 42 scientists and the govt supporting a change, we’ll see what becomes of the jurisdictional dispute.

Leave a Reply