Nick Matzke: NSCE Public Information Project Director

Andrea: As for my day job, of course I keep it, but I think fostering science education among the general public is also an important activity. To you tell the people being educated (in science) that teh materialistic anti-ID position is nothing more than sheer-dumb-luck, as exemplified by Monod?:

"Chance alone," the Nobel Prize-winning chemist Jacques Monod once wrote, "is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, is at the very root of the stupendous edifice of creation."

And if you do not one must wonder why... Joseph

Andrea wrote: but I think fostering science education among the general public is also an important activity. Besides, doing this stuff keeps me busy following general biology topics I would not focus on for my own research. I am generally amused by the ID crowd, often frustrated, sometimes frankly irritated (although I can’t think of a time I really lost my temper, though that may have happened

Well, thank you for communicating that. As for me, I promised myself in2004 that I'd bail out of the ID movement after the poll I conducted at JMU was mentioned in the press. Well, I broke that promise to myself. I was interested in ID for personal reasons and being an activist was not my intent. But I kept encountering science students who wanted to learn more about ID, and it was hard to turn my back on them. The internet was the perfect way to practice dealing with difficult questions and debates and to "test drive" materials that I distribute to others... I've not been deeply involved in the public school issue. If parents want their kids (and if the kids themselves) want to be raised as Darwinists and Atheists, I think public schools should allow that freedom even if I personally think such choices by those individuals are mistakes, they deserve the freedom to make the choice. God wants people who come to Him willingly, not those coerced. Public school should not be a tool for evangelism, that's what missionaries and pastors are for. I don't advocate mandating ID in science classes. However, where it started to become a cause for me is when I see pro-ID university faculty, students, and prospective employees encountering problems because of the issue, then that bugs me big time. I don't know that any laws can remedy the situation. The only way I see a fix is to let people know it's counter-productive to be driving off 1/2 of the US population from scientific disciplines and good employees in the scientific industry over the issue. Employers and Unversity staff may not like ID, but driving IDers away affects the bottom line. In light of that, maybe the climate in the universities and work places can improve as people realize this. The time is coming and already is here when discouraging scientifically qualified pro-ID individuals on the basis of their acceptance of ID is just plain bad for business. I credit the University Presidents having the insight to adopt the position they did last year. See: Creationism, Cowardice, and Science Education The faster adminstrators and industry follow suit, the faster pro-IDers will fill the scientific industry and be unencumbered to be who they really are. scordova

Oh, I am aware Sternberg claimed that - I think it's even on his web site. I am asking why it and any evidence for it didn't make it into Congressman Souder's staff report and Appendix. Andrea

Andrea asked: I can’t seem to find any mention of that in either Congressman’s Souder staff Report or the Appendix, and I suspect it would be prominently there if true. Do you have any evidence corroborating this claim, and where from?

See: http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050213-121441-8610r.htm

Mr. Sternberg also says he was "called on the carpet" by his bosses at NIH after they were besieged by phone calls and e-mails from Smithsonian staffers, seeking his ouster. He said one Smithsonian official even wanted to know if he is a "right-winger." "My lawyer called some people on Capitol Hill," who intervened and saved his job at NIH, Mr. Sternberg said.

scordova

Sternberg gives his reasoning for publishing the paper. Andrea says- “Actually, that statement is one of the least credible.” Even after Sternberg said he thinks ID is wrong and that he’s not a creationist! Well, perhaps I should rephrase it to make it more clear: either Sternberg was not being truthful when he claimed he thought the surreptitious publication of Meyer’s paper would magically elicit fruitful scientific discussion about ID, or he is naïve to the point of being dumb. I just don’t think he’s dumb. Even though RS says he’s a friendly critic- that’s not good enough for Andrea. Sternberg is clearly lying, because he can’t provide a book length review of the criticisms he has with YEC, ID, OEC, whatever…We’re back to the fact that no amount of evidence or facts will please him. The point is that iall the evidence that we have and facts that we know about show that he was friendly with Baraminologists, and never a critic. He himself wrote stuff that could have been written by a Baraminologist. If his critical position amounted to anything, he could have easily produced evidence of his criticisms of Baraminology – paper reviews, conference proceedings, e-mails – but he didn’t – his criticisms have left no trace that we know of. Not even Todd, who defended him, really pointed out to any specific criticism other than "It was my impression at the time (and still is) that he does not accept the young earth position." (Note that Reasons to Believe-style Creationists are openly skeptical of the young-Earth position too.) And it’s not like criticizing Baraminology is exceedingly complicated – the guys believe entire groups of living things (at the family or order level) were poofed into existence within the last 6,000 years, for Pete’s sake! As I said, I take him at his word on the matter but I can easily understand if someone else does not. Totally mind blowing logic here. Sternberg says he’s not a creationist (Andrea complains he only denies being an “outright YEC.”- is he a semi-YEC, partial-YEC? What does this even mean?!) Yet then Andrea says Sternberg won’t say if he’s a “full-fledged creationist”!!! (what on earth is a “full-fledged creationist. I have a feeling anyone who says there’s ANY design in nature, the cosmos, etc. would get Andrea’s wrath.) Furthermore- Sternberg’s idea could fit into a creationist worldview, Andrea says. Read again. I said that a) while Sternberg may not be a YEC, he could still be a Creationist of some other kind (e.g. a OEC, or a progressive Creationist, or even simply agnostic as far as the age of the Earth goes), and b) that while he has claimed to be a “process structuralist”, he has made it clear that he thinks structuralism, in at least some forms, can encompass Creationism, even as intended by the Baraminologists. So, to say “I am not a YEC, I am a process structuralist” does not resolve the question of whether one is a creationist. I believe it is the right word since a Smithsonian employee tried to prod the NIH to have Sternberg dismissed. I can’t seem to find any mention of that in either Congressman’s Souder staff Report or the Appendix, and I suspect it would be prominently there if true. Do you have any evidence corroborating this claim, and where from? The bottom line is at least a few NMNH employees wanted Sternberg gone because he was unwilling to give the secret handshake (gratuitous support for Darwinian dogma). No, some (actually, mostly just one guy) wanted him out of the SI because they felt his behavior with regard to the Meyer paper was inappropriate and brought disrepute to the SI and the PBSW. However, Sternberg’s superiors and Genie Scott were adamant from the beginning that as long as he did not violate critical SI or professional rules, his Associate position should not be endangered just because of his beliefs, extracurricular activities, or poor judgment with regard to the Meyer paper. As a result, Sternberg’s Associate position at the SI was never threatened. It strikes me as curious that someone like you involved in virus and immune system research spends his time fighting ID. Wouldn’t your time be better spent fighting HIV, auto-immune disorders, or something a bit more challenging than putting down ID? Is your hatred of us possibly inspired by a desire to draw attention away from the monumental failures of your profession? Which profession? Immunology? It seems to be doing just fine, thanks. So is evolutionary biology, of course. As for my day job, of course I keep it, but I think fostering science education among the general public is also an important activity. Besides, doing this stuff keeps me busy following general biology topics I would not focus on for my own research. Finally, I don’t feel hatred for any of you, and I certainly would not send threatening e-mails wishing people painful deaths, or publicly mock their severe ailments, if you know what I mean. I am generally amused by the ID crowd, often frustrated, sometimes frankly irritated (although I can’t think of a time I really lost my temper, though that may have happened). I despise the dishonesty of some who clearly should know better, but I do not wish ill to any of them either. Andrea

Over at TT, Matzke has informed me that Eugenie Scott notified the Smithsonian of the statement disproving the rumor about Sternberg being a YEC as soon as it was published, on September 16, 2004. Krauze

andrea It strikes me as curious that someone like you involved in virus and immune system research spends his time fighting ID. Wouldn't your time be better spent fighting HIV, auto-immune disorders, or something a bit more challenging than putting down ID? Is your hatred of us possibly inspired by a desire to draw attention away from the monumental failures of your profession? DaveScot

That’s exactly why he was never in danger of being “fired”(*), as clearly transpires from the Appendix material Congressman Souder’s staff kindly attached to their to report. Some of the Smithsonian staff at least knew they couldn't directly violate Sternberg's first amendment rights. Others didn't. The bottom line is at least a few NMNH employees wanted Sternberg gone because he was unwilling to give the secret handshake (gratuitous support for Darwinian dogma). I fully agree with the report. There should be disciplinary action against the employees in question. I resent my tax dollars being used to employ such people and will continue writing to my congressmen urging them to clean house at the NMNH. DaveScot

and whatever value it was claimed to have originally had been pretty much rejected by the scientific community.

That's highly inaccurate. A majority view does mean every scientist has made his mind up. Actually since Meyer's paper, there have be a few more ID articles accepted in minor journals. Furthermore, we continue to hear rumblings of dissatisfaction with prevailing evolutionary theories. In view of that, one might argue there is a slowly growing increase of interest and willingness to study and discuss it. But so what if the scientific community has rejected it. There is an old saying, "if at first you don't succeed, try try again." Anyway Andrea, for government employees to be involved in trying to ruin another government employees career and work environment based on religious prejudice is highly unethical. Furthermore, if the basis for that prejudice was speculation rather that fact, that's two wrongs committed. There is a third wrong here, they were allowing themselves to be manipulated by the NCSE, a private lobbying group. You're colleague at Pandas Thumb, Richard Hoppe had a little more sense. I seem to recall he suggested the Smithsonian staff involved in this affair be fired for their stupidity. Salvador scordova

Andrea, Did you bother to read any of Richard Sternberg's site? Letter from BSG. http://www.rsternberg.net/BSG.htm Frankly, I am angry that it matters at all if scientist are YECs, OECs. The tree is falling down all over the place. Michaels7

Andrea wrote: “Fired” is not the right word actually, since Sternberg was never a Smithsonian employee, but I get your point.

I believe it is the right word since a Smithsonian employee tried to prod the NIH to have Sternberg dismissed. That is still pretty sketchy as far as I'm concerned. scordova

Face it guys...nothing on earth will convince Andrea or Nick they're flat wrong. No matter how many facts you throw their way- they refuse to apologize for attacking him. Andrea, in this post, makes it clear he finds EVERYTHING that Sternberg says suspect. Sternberg gives his reasoning for publishing the paper. Andrea says- "Actually, that statement is one of the least credible." Even after Sternberg said he thinks ID is wrong and that he's not a creationist! Guilt by association as well from Andrea here and Nick over at TT (Nick needs to stop digging his hole over there, by the way!): Andrea says:

I also note that Sternberg, while defining himself as a “friendly critic” (or somesuch) of baraminologists, has yet to provide any example of what his criticisms amounted to, while the published examples of his sympathetic positions vis-a-vis baraminology are readily available.

See? Even though RS says he's a friendly critic- that's not good enough for Andrea. Sternberg is clearly lying, because he can't provide a book length review of the criticisms he has with YEC, ID, OEC, whatever...We're back to the fact that no amount of evidence or facts will please him. More... Andrea says:

"Sternberg has been rather ambiguous on this. On the one side, he has denied being an outright YEC (corroborated in this by baraminologist Todd Wood), and has claimed to be a “process structuralist”. However, in one of his talks to the baraminologists, he clearly made an argument that structuralism can fit pretty well within a Creationist framework...Assuming Sternberg sees himself a proponent of this kind of structuralism, he may well be a full-fledged Creationist and also a structuralist. We don’t know, and he wouldn’t say."

Totally mind blowing logic here. Sternberg says he's not a creationist (Andrea complains he only denies being an "outright YEC."- is he a semi-YEC, partial-YEC? What does this even mean?!) Yet then Andrea says Sternberg won't say if he's a "full-fledged creationist"!!! (what on earth is a "full-fledged creationist. I have a feeling anyone who says there's ANY design in nature, the cosmos, etc. would get Andrea's wrath.) Furthermore- Sternberg's idea could fit into a creationist worldview, Andrea says. Wow- that must mean that he's a creationist! Ken Miller seems to say that he thinks God worked in some quantum space to bring about the world and mankind to worship him. This might fit into a creationist worldview- thus Miller is a closeted YEC! From point A to Z and we only skipped, well...all of the supposed connections. Like I said- don't even try to get through to them. A mountain of facts will fall from the sky, and they'll continue saying 'well, he could be a creationist, because we haven't read his mind...he could harbor evil creationist ideas in the very back of his mind, which would mean NCSE was right to attack him! What? He held a press conference where he called himself a Darwinist? Poppycock. He's lying to save his butt! Let's do MRI's to make sure he doesn't hold a tiny creationist though in the recess of his memory somewhere!' JasonTheGreek

Whether Sternberg of the ID community are ultimately right or wrong on the issues, I would certainly give him the benefit of the doubt regarding his statement: Dr. STERNBERG: Why publish it? Because evolutionary biologist are thinking about this. So I thought that by putting this on the table, there could be some reasoned discourse. That’s what I thought, and I was dead wrong. Actually, that statement is one of the least credible. By 2004, ID had been already discussed back and forth by scientists in a variety of fora, and whatever value it was claimed to have originally had been pretty much rejected by the scientific community. Meyer's paper itself contained no new arguments whatsoever, including those related to its focus points, the Cambrian origin of many animal phyla and "biological information" (sensu IDii) . Sternberg must have understood perfectly well that the publication Meyer paper would have generated no substantial scientific discussion, but just a lot of heat and some PR for the ID movement. The fact that he handled the submission secretively suggests precisely that he knew what he was getting into. Had he had valuable scientific discussion at heart, he would have managed the submission openly, chosen strong reviewers for the paper, and let Meyer defend his arguments against the strongest criticisms scientists could muster in front of the full PBSW editorial board. Whether he excercised bad judgement or not, trying to get him fired on the grounds of being a creationist when he was not is wrong. Even if he were a creationist, that would still be wrong. That's exactly why he was never in danger of being "fired"(*), as clearly transpires from the Appendix material Congressman Souder's staff kindly attached to their to report. (*) "Fired" is not the right word actually, since Sternberg was never a Smithsonian employee, but I get your point. Andrea

kvwells, "I prefer the commonsense meaning of the term “creationist”: someone who believes the Universe was created by a personal agency." I guess that there is a highly significant connotation to the term Creationist that must be reconed with, which is that the courts have decided that teaching "Creationism" is equivelant to teaching religion. I fail to understand, however, how the views of bona-fide scientists can be seen as unscientific and "religious" just because those views provide no explanation but that "a designer must have done this." bFast

Andrea, I respect your skepticism and you are free to express it even though I disagree intensely. What is at issue is when a speculation becomes a defacto accusations that influence hiring, firing, promotion, and other decisions. Whether Sternberg of the ID community are ultimately right or wrong on the issues, I would certainly give him the benefit of the doubt regarding his statement:

Dr. STERNBERG: Why publish it? Because evolutionary biologist are thinking about this. So I thought that by putting this on the table, there could be some reasoned discourse. That’s what I thought, and I was dead wrong.

Whether he excercised bad judgement or not, trying to get him fired on the grounds of being a creationist when he was not is wrong. Even if he were a creationist, that would still be wrong. Sternberg by all counts is a respected evolutionary biologist, even according to his research "supervisor" Coddington at the Smithsonian. Sternberg is not even an ID proponent. You spent a lot of time defending guys on your side for their hasty judements and intemperate actions. I think it only appropriate to be standing up for a victim of your colleagues indiscretions. Any way, I respect you for your willingness to visit a hostile forum and argue you side of the story. regards, Salvador scordova

21. bFast Excellent points. However I prefer the commonsense meaning of the term "creationist": someone who believes the Universe was created by a personal agency. My own position is this: I am often mistaken. God is never mistaken. God created a Universe which I mostly misunderstand and inspired the authoring of a book I mostly misunderstand. Both of these creations are "true" and where they intersect they cannot, by simple logic, contradict. It is, of course, a great comfort to me that I've never seen such a contradiction demonstrated. "Well, what if you do see that someday?" It is also a great comfort that I have never seen anything to contradict my notion that my wife is faithful to me. I prefer to continue to believe she is, and will be, faithful to me than to become neurotically paranoid based on ad futurum fallacies. kvwells

The reason that the situation is not black-and-white is that Sternberg has been rather ambiguous on this. On the one side, he has denied being an outright YEC (corroborated in this by baraminologist Todd Wood), and has claimed to be a "process structuralist". However, in one of his talks to the baraminologists, he clearly made an argument that structuralism can fit pretty well within a Creationist framework : "In keeping with this perspective [that "no real evolution has occurred" and that organisms are "instantiated" in a finite morphospace], some structuralists are striving to establish a “rational systematics" - a predictive morphospace - that would reflect the ‘Plan of Creation’.” http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/dis01.pdf Assuming Sternberg sees himself a proponent of this kind of structuralism, he may well be a full-fledged Creationist and also a structuralist. We don't know, and he wouldn't say. I also note that Sternberg, while defining himself as a "friendly critic" (or somesuch) of baraminologists, has yet to provide any example of what his criticisms amounted to, while the published examples of his sympathetic positions vis-a-vis baraminology are readily available. So, while one can accept his word on the issue, I would say there is ample reason to feel skeptical without being unfair. Andrea

EJ wrote: I beg to differ, Salvador. He did not deny that he was every kind of creationist. He denied Young-Earth creationism and Theistic Evolution. That leaves nontheistic evolution, nontheistic design, and theistic design, namely, the many kinds of old-earth creationism.

Sternberg is not even an ID proponent! scordova

Kvwels, I was referring to Schroeder, I am unaware of Humphreys. I also understand that Ross extends the age of man. My understanding is that he does so, while maintaining the "authority of Scripture" by pointing to the possible interpretation of "begat" to suggest that generations can be jumped. Though there is tension between the YEC and OEC communities, both are determined that every word of the Bible be somehow "valid". I think it is somewhat splitting hairs to suggest that these communities hold science and the Bible as equal authorities, or hold the Bible as higher than science. In either case when there is disagreement, they question the interpretation of the findins of science, or they question the interpretation of the Bible. At the end of the day the two must match, or they are unhappy. When either gets unhappy, it is my experience that science gets shot. It remains, there must be a demarcation between "Creationist" and "not Creationist." To me, anyone who searches their holy writings to judge the truth of scientific findings or interpretation is a Creationist. Anyone who does not do so, even if they read the evidence of science to suggest teleology, is not a Creationist. Its that simple. As such, though many of us IDers practice our religion with all sincerety, and many of us hope that at the end of the day we will see our holy writings unify with science, when we refuse to push science through the filter of our holy writings, we are not acting as Creationists. bFast

Consider the fact that Sternberg said he thinks ID is fatally flawed (see NPR transcript and Hagerty's narrative). Now another person who feels this way is Allen MacNeill. MacNeill felt an appropriate way to deal with the issue was to put the issue on the table (just like Sternberg). MacNeill did this through a class at Cornell. Now, consider that people at Panda's thumb were calling for MacNeill to be fired. There are parallels here. Sternberg may be ambivalent and even negative to the idea of intelligent design. The Darwinists had no inhibition about savaging and destroying his career even though, as far as we can see, he is not even an ID proponent!!!!! Oh, by the way, Sternberg not being an ID proponent somewhat flies in the face of Matke's claims Sternberg is a creationist. scordova

Joy and TT has unloaded both barrels on poor Nick Matzke. Thing is, Nick appears to be in denial of his own metaphysical filters and is unlikely to gain any insight of his own from her scathing rebuke. OT: I think literalist schools of thought want to pick and choose what is literal and what is figurative in the bible. Jesus told his followers to eat his flesh and drink his blood and lost many literalists, did he not? It seems to reasonable to me that if all prophecies were figurative (see the Pharisee error - expecting a messiah king to overthrow Rome), then events revealed to present acting man lending eternal vision to future events would similarly apply to eternal vision of past events - the perspective of time-bound man is too limited to see through an eternal lens clearly. todd

s'okay amigo. It's good you pointed up the diffs between Oldsters and Youngsters. BTW, I've made it a policy to not even discuss the ageoftheearth problem with fellow believers if there is even a hint of dogmatism in their demeanor. It is just too trivial an issue, spiritually, to risk an offense. kvwells

Sorry, kvwells, I didn't realize you'd already addressed the subject before I "waxed eloquent"--I should have read the whole thread before spouting off. jb

bFast: "This hypothesis, unlike YEC and OEC, does not bluntly try to marry a “holy” “authoritative” document with the evidence; rather it presents an hypothesis based upon the evidence." It should be noted that YEC's do not necessarily reject natural selection. (This may come as a surprise). At least from what I've seen at AiG and ICR, they acknowledge speciation within "kinds." This is how it is explained that Noah was able to fit all the animals on the ark. Rather than a representative of every species of dog, dingo, wolf, etc., for instance, there was at that time one kanine "kind" which would have later split into the various species. This sounds consistent with your description of Baraminology to me. However, I'm not a scientist, so I could be way off (only a "layman" with some interest in the subject--and a LOT to learn!). jb

bFast: "*alternative days — one fellow, I forget his name, has suggested that because of Einstein’s time-warping equations, the days of Genesis 1 are literal, just from a different vantage point." Sounds like you are referring to D. Russell Humphreys. Humphreys is a YEC--not an OEC--and is associated with Answers in Genesis. He wrote a book called "Starlight and Time" that addresses the idea you describe. Hugh Ross actually has been very critical of Humphrey's hypothesis. YEC's and OEC's generally do not get along well with each other. YEC's see OEC's as compromising the literalness of Genesis (and thus by implication calling into question the inerrency of the entire Bible), and OEC's see YEC's as an embarrassment to the cause of Creationism due to their unwillingness to acknowledge the "standard" scientific evidence for an old earth/universe (the starlight issue, radiometric dating, etc.). Moreover while YEC's try to dismiss radiometric dating, etc., OEC's acknowledge the conclusions of these "standard" scientific dating techniques, but do not see them as problems to direct creation (hence, a more "poetic" interpretation of Genesis 1). I believe OEC's also point to the Big Bang as evidence of creation at a point in time, while YEC's generally reject Big Bang cosmology because it implies a unverse much too old. jb

9. bFast Actually, I think you are looking for Gerald Schroeder (Unless your mean Russell Humphreys). Schroeder calles upon General Relativity to square the Kabbalist interpretations of the Genesis "days" and events with his rather advanced understanding of cosmology. As far as Ross and RTB are concerned, their "creation model" as they call it places the creation of humankind at somewhere between 30-50 thousand years ago, if memory serves. Also, the official RTB line is that scientific fact and biblical teaching will not contradict, not that the bible is a greater scientific authority than objective science itself. This is standard christian apologetics, and a challenge that has been answered with a deafening silence (discounting the standard straw men that Genesis must be interpreted as if it were not a culturally specific, thousands year old document, and/or that it is a direct verbatim translation from ancient Hebrew.) kvwells

Andrea, The fact is the Baraminaology Study Group actively seeks input from those with other views. They clearly state that not all of those on the editorial board hold to the YEC position.

Although leadership is composed largely of those espousing a Young Earth Creation (YEC) position, we do not require such a position to participate in conferences or serve on the editorial board. We do strive to select fair and respectful individuals to speak at our conferences and serve on the editorial board, and we encourage specialists of any position who would like to participate or just watch to come to our conferences. When you go to makes affirmative statements about someone, the burden is on you to verify them not on the person accused.

Jehu

Andrea, Before I say anymore, thank you taking time to visit our weblog. Even opponents should try to keep the channels of communication open, and I'm glad both sides dialogue and can talk publicly in the same forum. Welcome. Sal scordova

And we must remember that it is far from clear what Matzke's definition of creationist is. What is clear is that his definition is not my definition of Creationist, as presented in post #9, above. bFast

Nick wrote yesterday: it's far from clear that Sternberg isn't a creationist.

Far from clear what Sternberg's position is? In that case, one should not be publicly making the ssertion Sternberg "happens to be a creationist". Any retractions by Matzke himself or the NCSE (not Andrea Bottaro on behalf of Pandas Thumb)? scordova

Andrea, Even if that inference was a semi-honest mistake, it was still wrong, and we're talking about someone's career and reputation that was ruined by a false inference being circulated. I definitely pick up absolutely no remorse for this harmful rumor being circulated. Sternbergs reason for publishing the article:

Dr. STERNBERG: Why publish it? Because evolutionary biologist are thinking about this. So I thought that by putting this on the table, there could be some reasoned discourse. That's what I thought, and I was dead wrong.

scordova

HodorH, let me clarify what an OEC is. The leading OEC is Hugh Ross. His website, reasons.org. The OEC position is that the Bible is the "Word of God, inerent". The scientific evidence is asked by the OEC community to fit with the Bible. Their view looks something like this: The days of creation in Genesis 1 are figurative or "alternative"*, but the activities of creation are carefully defined in order. Man was created about 6000 years ago. According to Ross, there was a Noah, and a flood that reduced man's population to 7. However, Ross suggests that man had not spread far afield when the flood happened. He suggests that all humans were in a small region, that region, rather than the whole world, was flooded. All of man, save seven, died. *alternative days -- one fellow, I forget his name, has suggested that because of Einstein's time-warping equations, the days of Genesis 1 are literal, just from a different vantage point. If the earth is moving away from some point at near the speed of light, then time would slow down. Though millions of years pass on earth, it may be seen from the vantage point as only hours. The bottom line is very simple. The large C Creationists hold their "holy documents" as authoritative over scientific discovery. The "baraminology hypothesis", if I understand correctly, is designed to address a specific issue in the scientific evidence. It would seem that the farther we assend the phylogenic tree, the less is the evidence for transition. It is usually pretty easy to find evidence for species transitions, yet for phylum and class transitions there is virtually none. This is contrary to what NDE would expect. So the baraminology hypothesis responds to this scientific data by suggesting that somewhere up the tree common ancestry ends, and common design replaces it. This hypothesis, unlike YEC and OEC, does not bluntly try to marry a "holy" "authoritative" document with the evidence; rather it presents an hypothesis based upon the evidence. The scientific community rejects this hypothesis out of hand solely because it does not fit the current scientific metaphysics, not because it does not fit the evidence. Hope that helps. bFast

That Sternberg was a YEC was a logical conclusion based on his long-standing and active involvement with the baraminologists. I have discussed those here: http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/08/sternberg_and_t.html This involved not only being on a Baraminologist editorial board and participating in baraminologist meetings, but writing material that is indistinguishable from baraminologist material. In retrospect one can choose to accept Sternberg's subsequent denials, but that the time the Meyeraffaire broke out, all the evidence indicated that Sternberg was indeed a closet YEC. Andrea

I beg to differ, Salvador. He did not deny that he was every kind of creationist. He denied Young-Earth creationism and Theistic Evolution.

In that case, I will quote Matzke's boss:

Regarding von Sternberg's views, he is, in fact, a YEC [young-earth creationist]. Eugenie Scott to a government official at the Smithsonian

scordova

I didn't want to cut and paste the entire TelicThougts thread. The issue was not just that one statement about Sternberg being a creationist, but I posted it merely a lead in to the entire dialogue there at TelicThoughts. I respect Mike Gene's opinion greatly, and this was the thing that really caught my attention in that discussion:

Nick, if you’ll remember, the one reason I ever stuck my nose into this debate was because of something you and your two friends did – you publicly “wondered” whether the manuscript ever saw peer review. I thought, and think, that crossed the line and was unethical. Now I learn that Eugenie Scott, representing the NCSE, was privately pressing the same point to the #2 scientist at the Smithsonian and this scientist then proceeds to pass on the gossip that Sternberg sent the manuscript to his previous co-authors (who knows what else was said and passed on in the hallways and offices). We also learn that the one scientist who actually reviewed the files was forced to reach the surprising conclusion “that there was not inappropriate behavior vs a vis the review process.” For me, there is thus a sense of closure – I was right to express concern about your unsubstantiated and harmful rumor. Like I said, I think you seriously crossed the line on this one, but then, the end justifies the means, right? Perhaps 10-20 years from now, you’ll look back and feel a slight tinge of guilt about what you did for “the cause” (as Eugenie puts it). I know that I personally could never do something like that; I wouldn’t be able to sleep.

scordova

Isn't Sternberg involved in something called the Baraminology Study Group or somesuch, with baraminology being the study of created kinds? I've certainly heard of people describing themselves as old earth creationists, and I suspect that Mr. Cordova has as well. And I suspect the term was not invented by the "Darwinazis" either. HodorH

As the term "creationist" becomes ever-expanding to include anyone who believes that some creator played some role in the universe's coming to be, it is time we expand the term even further to include Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, and Matzke. Because they maintain that no creator was involved, or need be detected, to account for the universe in any way, they too are creationists, since "no" merely modifies the sort of creator they believe in. We are all creationists now! Creationists unite! francisbeckwith

Nick Matzke certainly does seem to be good at arguing his way out of seemingly unwinnable situations. In the UK, the only comparable person I can think of is our Prime Minister, 'Teflon Tony' Blair. Nothing ever seems to stick. (google 'teflon tony' for examples) However, the truth will always come out in the end. Teflon doesn't last for ever. antg

I’m not an evangelical. I’m not a fundamentalist. I’m not a young Earth creationist. I’m not a theistic evolutionist.

I beg to differ, Salvador. He did not deny that he was every kind of creationist. He denied Young-Earth creationism and Theistic Evolution. That leaves nontheistic evolution, nontheistic design, and theistic design, namely, the many kinds of old-earth creationism. EJ Klone

Thanks Sal :D jwrennie