$500 Cash Prize for OSC Letters in Sternberg Case

_{William Dembski
November 12, 2005

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

After Richard Sternberg published Stephen Meyer’s pro-ID article in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, the NCSE and the Smithsonian (where Sternberg works) exchanged emails on how best to derail Sternberg’s career (see here and here and here for background). The Office of Special Counsel (OSC) investigated and confirmed that Sternberg had been shafted (go here). But the full set of emails that the OSC examined in reaching its conclusion has to date not been made public. I’m herewith offering $500 to the first person who sends me a single pdf file under 2.5Mbytes with all this correspondence (email the file to info AT designinference DOT com). To receive the money, this needs to be an uncommondescent.com exclusive (you can’t distribute the file elsewhere for at least one week after submitting it to me). In addition to the OSC, I understand that congressman Mark Souder has all the emails. “lpadron” gives http://www.rcfp.org/foi_letter/generate.php as a freedom of information act letter generator. Good luck and good hunting!

Comments

[...] Unfortunately, the wheels of the Freedom of Information Act turn slowly. I’ve offered a $500 reward at UD (see here) to the person that makes them all public — I’ll even pay that money to Nick Matzke if he sends them my way. What do you say? Let’s see those emails (the complete stack). Funny how the anti-ID side is always working back channels to shaft our side. Anybody on the anti-ID side ever have their employment threatened for being anti-ID? [...]Don’t fire him . . . Just make his work-situation a living hell | Uncommon Descent_{May 22, 2007
May
05
May
22
22
2007
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT}

That was just my poor attempt at light-hearted humor. If I had those documents, I would send them to you for free (if I could do it anonymously). Btw, Congressman Souder is a bright fellow, one of the good guys. He must be constrained by legal disclosure limitations which supersede the requirements of the FIA. But, let us all email, call, &/or fax his office for that information. I'll do it myself later today. email address: souder@mail.house.gov D.C. phone: (202) 225-4436 D.C. fax: (202) 225-3479 Toll free phone for 3rd District of Indiana: (800) 959-3041Simus1_{November 16, 2005
November
11
Nov
16
16
2005
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT}

I called the Congressman's office, but haven't heard back yet. I mailed the Freedom of Information Act letter today as well. If I hear anything, I'll let people know.geoffrobinson_{November 14, 2005
November
11
Nov
14
14
2005
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT}

$500 is insufficient incentive for me to risk losing my job. Bill, sweeten the deal a bit--say, add one more zero to that money order. This is how the invisible hand of intelligent design works. [Convince me that you can get these documents and explain why your job would be at risk. --WmAD]Simus1_{November 14, 2005
November
11
Nov
14
14
2005
01:10 AM
1
01
10
AM
PDT}

weird. i just got an e mail from someone who attacked ID and said that the same sort of people who support ID also support free market capitalism with little govt intervention. of course, there is absolutely no comparison. even if theer were a comparison, hello- the US is the most successful nation in history on nearly any level you look at...im guessing our system works pretty well. so, im not sure how this support is a bad thing. if i supported a socialistic model, you might fault me. im seeing that mainly the attacks on ID are coming heavily from the liberal side of things. im sort of drawing a connection between the liberal idea of morality, life and the value of life, and many other issues and ID and the lefts attack on it.jboze3131_{November 13, 2005
November
11
Nov
13
13
2005
11:37 PM
11
11
37
PM
PDT}

"The complex systems in the economy are the result of the individual decisions of millions of individual (intelligent) agents. Those intelligent agents agree to make millions of mutually-beneficial economic transactions and along the way they develop things like money, stores, laws, etc. to facilitate such transactions. I don't understand how this argues against intelligent design. The economy is all about intelligent design, isn't it? How are the employees and managers of a store using their intelligence to get a candy bar to a customer analogous to proteins organizing themselves in a cell without intelligence?" Good point. I was going to point out that he also wrongly assumes that all ID proponents are laissez faire economics supporters. I am an ID proponent. I'm not a laissez faire economic supporter.dodgingcars_{November 13, 2005
November
11
Nov
13
13
2005
10:03 PM
10
10
03
PM
PDT}

Re: The Paulos piece... The complex systems in the economy are the result of the individual decisions of millions of individual (intelligent) agents. Those intelligent agents agree to make millions of mutually-beneficial economic transactions and along the way they develop things like money, stores, laws, etc. to facilitate such transactions. I don't understand how this argues against intelligent design. The economy is all about intelligent design, isn't it? How are the employees and managers of a store using their intelligence to get a candy bar to a customer analogous to proteins organizing themselves in a cell without intelligence?russ_{November 13, 2005
November
11
Nov
13
13
2005
09:10 PM
9
09
10
PM
PDT}

Derbyshire was an abused child...DaveScot_{November 13, 2005
November
11
Nov
13
13
2005
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT}

lol. ID and the economy. down with capitalism next? and well compare IT to ID? i love how he said the blood clotting mechanism and other IC systems not being able to arise via evolution have been completely refuted. too bad thats not in any way true. ---------- also off topic, on to what i was saying before. i guess derbyshire has some explaining to do (if you google 'john derbyshire, michael behe', youll see that derbyshire is a total loon who cant stop talking about IDers. in the first link i posted in this thread, he said that ID was the theory that god of the bible created all life thru a series of supernatural miracles, yet on THE CORNER (a blog area of natl review online) he says the following which totally contradicts his first claim that ID is biblical creationism! heres what he says: "Lots of scientists believe in God. Einstein seems to have, for instance. So do I; and so do a great menay other people who think that ID theory is pure flapdoodle. It is possible to believe in God and not believe in ID; it is possible (as I pointed out in a previous post) to believe in ID but not God." okay...so if, as he claims, ID is merely the theory that says the biblical god created all life thru supernatural miracles, how does he now say that you can support ID and NOT believe in God? is he now trying to say that atheists are supporting the idea that the god of the bible created all species via miracles?!?! im starting to think derbyshire is just plain out of his mind.jboze3131_{November 13, 2005
November
11
Nov
13
13
2005
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT}

Off topic, but I came across this blurb about an article at Talk Reason: "Renowned mathematician and author of popular books on "innumeracy," John Allen Paulos, points to the inconsistency of ID advocates who argue against the natural origin of biological organisms while at the same time accepting the absence of a "guiding hand" in the country's economical system." An excerpt of the article in question from The Guardian: The mousetrap by John Allen Paulos
Life is too complex for evolution to explain, say supporters of intelligent design. Yet they insist market forces will suffice for the economy Thursday September 8, 2005 The theory of intelligent design, the purportedly more scientific descendant of creation science, rejects Darwin's theory of evolution as being unable to explain the complexity of life. How, ask its supporters, can biological phenomena such as the clotting of blood have arisen just by chance? A key supporter likens the "irreducible complexity" of such phenomena to the irreducible complexity of a mousetrap. If one piece is missing - spring, metal platform or board - it is useless. The implicit suggestion is that all the parts of a mousetrap would have had to come into being at once, an impossibility unless there were an intelligent designer. Design proponents argue that what's true for the mousetrap is all the more true for complex biological phenomena. If any of the 20 or so proteins involved in blood clotting is absent, clotting doesn't occur. So, the creationist argument goes, these proteins must have all been brought into being at once by a designer. But the theory of evolution does explain the evolution of complex biological organisms and phenomena, and the argument from design, which dates from the 18th century, has been decisively refuted. Rehashing the refutation is not my goal. Those who reject evolution are usually immune to such arguments. Rather, my intention here is to develop some loose analogies between these biological issues and related economic ones... Let me begin by asking how it is that modern free market economies are as complex as they are, boasting amazingly elaborate production, distribution and communication systems? Go into almost any drug store and you can find your favourite candy bar. And what's true at the personal level is true at the industrial level. Somehow there are enough ball bearings and computer chips in just the right places in factories all over the country. The physical infrastructure and communication networks are also marvels of integrated complexity. Fuel supplies are, by and large, where they're needed. Email reaches you in Miami as well as in Milwaukee, not to mention Barcelona and Bangkok. The natural question, discussed first by Adam Smith and later by Friedrich Hayek and Karl Popper among others, is who designed this marvel of complexity? Which commissar decreed the number of packets of dental floss for each retail outlet? The answer, of course, is that no economic god designed this system. It emerged and grew by itself. No one argues that all the components of the candy bar distribution system must have been put into place at once, or else there would be no Snickers at the corner store ...
Paulos has managed to turn the old clichÃƒÂ© on its head. He can't see the trees for the forest. If this represents the best the evolutionists can come up with, they're in deep, deep trouble.dchammer_{November 13, 2005
November
11
Nov
13
13
2005
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT}

ive e mailed behe for some input on derbyshires claims of ID and Behe himself. have started a post to discuss this issue here. http://thebluesite.com/?p=533 this will be, hopefully, the first of many posts to come. if any scientist or layperson wants to add their input as to what their own views of ID are (to show that ID isnt creationism as derbyshire claims), feel free to email me at josh@thebluesite.com hopefully Dr. Dembski can add his own 2 cents, considering Derbyshire was basically impugning the character of ID theorists and supporters in general.jboze3131_{November 13, 2005
November
11
Nov
13
13
2005
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT}

in the end, he was attacking IDers...equating them and their work with flat earthism and all sorts of other nonsense. he did this just to attack them and make them look foolish. thus, his original piece itself was rude as can be...not to mention false. ID doesnt say 'god created life thru a series of miracles.' it doesnt say that or anything close to it! an obvious lie...and i cant imagine a reporter wouldnt have the basic research skills to know this is false. so, i easily conclude he is lying (he admits in another NRO forum piece that he doesnt like IDers and they get under his skin big time.) if my pointing out his baseless attacks and lies of what ID is (a lie that is easily exposed, as many IDers are agnostic, so you can hardly argue theyre advocating miracles from the bible to show how life got here!)...if all of that is rude to him, then so be it. its not rude in general, its honest. if he cant take honesty in regards to his own lies, then maybe he should refrain from, i dunno, lying maybe??! this guy is lowclass all the way if you ask me. he makes false claims to attack reputable scientists, portraying them as imbicles, then when called out on his lies, he attacks his audience. amazingly stupid. its okay, i replied and told him ill fwd his comments to behe to see how badly hes misrepresenting behes work and his ideas. i will do the same for other DI fellows if i get a chance (not sure ill get any replies), but i wont let these false statements stand.jboze3131_{November 13, 2005
November
11
Nov
13
13
2005
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT}

Oh and I don't believe your email to him was that rude at all, but I have a feeling that many in the media truly have thin-skins (probably because they receive more criticisms of their work than praise). I once got a nasty email back from a radio personality after I criticized one of his movie reviews. I didn't even think my email was that rough on him, but he certainly took much offense to it.dodgingcars_{November 13, 2005
November
11
Nov
13
13
2005
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT}

I think he's mistaking Behe's personal beliefs (his belief in a personal God) and Intelligent Design itself. I have no doubt that Behe does believe in a supernatural cause for the origin of life -- however, that doesn't mean that ID "teaches" this.dodgingcars_{November 13, 2005
November
11
Nov
13
13
2005
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT}

off topic, (and i hope this okay) but i wanted to share with everyone how insane the anti-ID crowd is. now, if you havent read john derbyshires piece on ID, and the many lies within it, please do- you can find it in my comment above with a link to his personal website. i can imagine what bill goes thru if this is a reply i got from a supposedly respected journalist! here is my letter to him. i dont think it was rude...i was pointing out his blatant lies!
> Mr. Derbyshire > > I read National Review Online all the time, and I always thought highly > of your work. > > When I noticed your August article on Intelligent Design...well, let's > say I won't be reading another article you write. This quote was > extremely obscene: > > *"Why stop with Intelligent Design (the theory that life on earth has > developed by a series of supernatural miracles performed by the God of > the Christian Bible, for which it is pointless to seek any naturalistic > explanation)?"* > > You're a journalist? Don't you think a journalist should take the time > to actually get the very BASIC facts of a story before making false > claims such as this? Philip Johnson, considered the man who started ID > really big over a decade ago doesn't believe in a literal Genesis or > supernatural acts that brought about all life. Nor does Michael Behe, > author or Darwin's Black Box- in fact, Behe has NO problem with common > descent! Many other IDers have similar views...I don't think any of > them hold to a literal genesis and a series of miracles that brought > about all the species! > > You, I'm afraid to say, are quite aware of this. There is no way this > level of ignorance is truly ignorance at all...it's blatant lies being > sold as journalism. > > I thought this was above you, and I really thought it was about NRO. > You just lost a reader, and I've no doubt you've heard this same comment > about this totally false claim you make from many others. > > Sadly, it turns out, not even the American people can trust journalists > outside of the MSM. > > Josh Bozeman > www.thebluesite.com
Here is his reply, where he continues to tell obvious lies:
First, if you want your emails read, cut out the rudeness. I tell no lies. You are a very ill mannered person, and this is the last reply you'll get from me. Second, I.D.-ers, including Behe (whom I had an opportunity to discuss this with in person last week) most certainly do believe that the Origin of Species is miracles performed by the Christian God. Behe denies implicitly that speciation -- or even "irreducibly complex" modules within a species! -- can originate in any other way. I asked Michael the following question: "Suppose a research student of yours came to you with a proposal to develop a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the bacterial flagellum. Would you try to dissuade him?" Michael: "Yes." Bad manners for bad manners, I was always told. So: Now go f*** [he actually wrote the word out] yourself. Sincerely, John Derbyshire olimu@optonline.net http:\\www.olimu.com
this is why the average american is on the side of ID and even creationism. behe does INDEED believes in the supernatural origin of all species? debryshire messed with the wrong guy here...ill do everything i can to expose him for the liar he is, not to mention a pathetic excuse for a journalist from a respected magazine! can anyone explain what on earth derbyshire is talking about? ive read quotes from behe where he said he believes in common descent and has no problem with it!jboze3131_{November 13, 2005
November
11
Nov
13
13
2005
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT}

Anyone other than Dembski being accused of wrongdoing? Mutiny.Ben Z_{November 13, 2005
November
11
Nov
13
13
2005
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT}

This is the kind of thing that makes my blood boil, its unnerving to me the level of negative / biased views these pro evolution groups take. I mean to go after a guy who is not even pro ID for publishing one article that just makes me so frustrated!. I know Sternberg is not the first & there's been other scientist who had similar cases thats happen to them. This is simply a fear tactic... Its all about silencing the "ney sayers" so they can say & continue the stance of saying in "Science" there's no controversy... Sure threaten enough people with their jobs, livelihood etc and most people wont say anything against evolution. This would normally be a slam dunk for pro evo groups like NCSE but the problem for groups like these are some scientist are still publishing their views despite the threats to their jobs, being labeled a religious nut etc even if it isn't pro evolution material. For the NCSE and other groups using this tactic is successful because the outcome is usually guaranteed! [ie no one will diss Darwin]. Then these -----'rds argue those in the ID field to publish or haven't published anything peer reviewed.... I think Sternberg should file a major lawsuit against both camps and its no doubt that with these documents his rights have been violated. He has a clear cut case, so after he wins @ the court and gets his job/ all his privileges back [if not die a happy man $$] he should publish more pro-Id related material just to give the "bird-e" or an "in your face" type of thing to those people who went after in such a manner. I know i would..... CharlieCharliecrs_{November 12, 2005
November
11
Nov
12
12
2005
10:25 PM
10
10
25
PM
PDT}

this is an old article, but did anyone see this? ill never read derbyshire again if this article passes as research on the subject! http://olimu.com/WebJournalism/Texts/Commentary/TeachingScience.htm you realize he did zero research and was dishonest as possible from the start when he makes this absurd claim:
"This is Bush at his muddle-headed worst, conferring all the authority of the presidency on the teaching of pseudoscience in science classes. Why stop with Intelligent Design (the theory that life on earth has developed by a series of supernatural miracles performed by the God of the Christian Bible, for which it is pointless to seek any naturalistic explanation)? Why not teach the little ones astrology? Lysenkoism?..."
i used to read his stuff all the time- but never again. if he cant get his facts straight and keep his ideology out of this matter, he can hardly be trusted to get his facts straight with any other story either! these obscenely bogus claims are enough to make all of us weary of reporters in general.jboze3131_{November 12, 2005
November
11
Nov
12
12
2005
10:06 PM
10
10
06
PM
PDT}

UncommonDescent becomes the GrokLaw of ID!johnnyb_{November 12, 2005
November
11
Nov
12
12
2005
08:19 PM
8
08
19
PM
PDT}