Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Nick Matzke: NSCE Public Information Project Director

Salvador Cordova
December 18, 2006
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The Young Nick Matzke

TelicThoughts has a wonderful exchange going on with Nick Matzke: Eugenie Scott, director of NCSE, spreading false information. I will let the readers at UD comment and decide for themselves about the issues. However I thought the dialogue at that website was too juicy to pass up. I invite the readers to visit that exchange.

It was pointed out (HT Analyysi) that Nick Matzke, Public Information Project Director said:

Sternberg happens to be a creationist

Compare with the truth from Dr. Sternberg, PhD PhD himself:

ID and Academic Freedom (NPR Report Transcript)

Dr. RICHARD STERNBERG (Scientist, National Institutes of Health):

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

Now, let me set the record straight as far as me an Nick and the NCSE. I have no animosity toward him nor the NCSE despite all their misdeeds. As much as the NCSE is a villain, they and their staff have been on cooperative and civil terms with me and the organization (IDEA) I’ve been affiliated with. I’d much rather deal with them than the likes of certain Darwinists whom I shall refrain from mentioning…

Still, I feel I must post this blog to prod Mr. Matzke to remedy something that needs to be remedied. Nick, are you going to make a retraction and apology? C’mon bro, I know you’ve got it in ya.

And for the record, here is some relevant commentary on Matzke’s writings and dealings:

One Long Bluff

In several installments over the next few days and weeks we will focus primarily on the scientific aspects of this controversy. In the process we will show that GME [Gishlick-Matzke-Elsberry] misunderstand Meyer’s arguments in significant respects, and that the evidence they adduce to rebut those arguments does nothing of the sort.
…
They misconstrue Meyer’s argument, ignore what he says, and criticize him for something he didn’t say.

PS
Before I forget, I promised Jason Rennie that I’d post a link to Nick giving his honest opinions about ID (just like he does about Sternberg): Nick Matzke on the Sci Phi Show

Comments
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
December 19, 2006
December
12
Dec
19
19
2006
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT
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
December 19, 2006
December
12
Dec
19
19
2006
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT
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
December 19, 2006
December
12
Dec
19
19
2006
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT
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
December 19, 2006
December
12
Dec
19
19
2006
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT
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
December 19, 2006
December
12
Dec
19
19
2006
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT
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
December 19, 2006
December
12
Dec
19
19
2006
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT
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
December 19, 2006
December
12
Dec
19
19
2006
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT
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
December 19, 2006
December
12
Dec
19
19
2006
02:07 AM
2
02
07
AM
PDT
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
December 18, 2006
December
12
Dec
18
18
2006
11:02 PM
11
11
02
PM
PDT
Thanks Sal :Djwrennie
December 18, 2006
December
12
Dec
18
18
2006
08:05 PM
8
08
05
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply