Editor Explains Reasons for 'Intelligent Design' Article (Smithsonian)

[kskiska]

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.

Within hours of publication, senior scientists at the Smithsonian Institution -- which has helped fund and run the journal -- lashed out at Sternberg as a shoddy scientist and a closet Bible thumper.

"They were saying I accepted money under the table, that I was a crypto-priest, that I was a sleeper cell operative for the creationists," said Steinberg, 42 , who is a Smithsonian research associate. "I was basically run out of there."

An independent agency has come to the same conclusion, accusing top scientists at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History of retaliating against Sternberg by investigating his religion and smearing him as a "creationist."

more…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/18/AR2005081801680.html

[Hissyspit]

1. Intelligent Design is not scientifically sound.

It just isn't.

[NYC]

2. I agree.

Good for the Smithsonian scientists.

[ixion]

32. more than that, it's not even science

the fact that it's even allowed on the table is disturbing.

[bozo299]

49. The Onion

Have you all read this week's Onion article on replacing gravity with the new theory of "intelligent falling"?

http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4133&n=2

[bnr65432]

66. that was a good read

thanks for link

[mitchum]

3. But intelligent design IS just "creationism in a cheap tuxedo"...

I'm sorry, but I can't recall the name of the very wise man who said that

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

9. What do you have against cheap tuxedos?

Even if it's cheap, a tuxedo serves some useful purpose. Discussions of "creationism" just wastes ink, airtime and bandwidth.

[mitchum]

10. You're right

my apologies to cheap tuxedoes :)

[donco6]

4. I'd have voted with the scientists.

If he could even ENTERTAIN the idea that ID is "science", he's obviously not fit for the Smithsonian.

[kestrel91316]

5. Sleeper cell operative for the creationists? Hmmmmmmm

sounds sort of like the sleeper cell Democratic Party infiltrators who have hijacked our party. They work by stealth. It is their MO.

[Zenlitened]

6. For the record, Washington Post, ID is not a theory. It's a fantasy.

An infantile one, at that.



Edited to add: Noted to Washington Post ombudsman, [e-mail]

[reprobate]

23. My email to the ombudsman

Just for the record, Intelligent design is not a theory. There is nothintg scientific about it because it says nothing about the universe except that it was 'created'. If it was 'created' by some 'creator', the proponents of ID must state by what means this 'creator' 'created' the universe, and tell us the scientific and mathamatic principles that he/she/it used in this 'creation'.

To posit a 'theory', it is incumbant on the one proposing the 'theory' to explain the forces and events that culminated in the 'creation'. Otherwise, we are not talking about science, we are proposing magic, and we all know that magic is nothing but slight of hand, or lies.

[Psephos]

61. As devil's advocate, how did the universe begin, according to science?

By inflating itself from literally nothing, through the borrowing of virtual (or to put it more plainly) imaginary mass from the vacuum. In other words, the Universe was its own Creator, and it arose by cheating the void. If that ain't magic, I don't know what is.

Call it God, call it the Universe, call it Linda, but the Original Cause did have a first moment, and that happened something like 15 billion years ago.

I do not believe ID, but I'm not afraid of it. A lot of posters here think it's the Genesis story wrapped in a lab coat. It's not...read up on it a little.

Excellent "pro" ID site:
http://www.iscid.org/

Excellent "anti" ID site:
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/

One of the biggest problems with ID is that it is long on explaining and short on predicting. Ultimately, if ID can't make testable predictions, then whatever it is, it's not science. (That's true of any hypothesis that hopes to become a theory.) If I was an ID proponent, I'd be working on getting more experiments devised to probe its predictive power.

On the other hand, in the face of the ID challenge, a lot of people are treating natural evolution as a rigid dogma, and treating those who question it as heretics. That's the exact opposite of science. It's like Torqmada all over again. Come on, lighten up! There's nothing to be afraid of here. If ID is wrong, then sunlight and air (and some incisive experiments) are what will put it in its grave.

Remember, it wasn't so long ago (1960s) that plate tectonics was a wild hypothesis, and static geology was the orthodoxy. Thank God there was no politico-religious pall cast over that, or we'd still be wondering why there's a Ring of Fire. Evolutionary theory is very strong, but there are some things it can't explain. Same is true of plate tectonics. Same is true of Einsteinian gravity. Same is true of EVERY theory. Evolution is not a "fact" as much as it is the best explanation we've got for what we've observed. Perhaps another theory will someday displace it, just as Einsteinian gravity replaced Newtonian gravity a hundred years ago. For my part, I don't think ID has even a longshot chance at replacing current theory, but there's only one way to find out. Suppression is not the answer.

To me, one of the strongest arguments against ID is that it adds an extra, repetitive layer to the creation story. If God created the universe, and then subsequently, designed Earthly life, then who created and designed God? As LaPlace said when asked about God's role as Creator, "Sir, I have no need of that hypothesis." In other words, if God can create himself, so can the universe...and apparently, did.

Peace.

[Alcibiades]

7. Smithsonian Chemist endorses alchemy, is also fired

"I had thought that the verdict was out on alchemy, and that my colleagues would be open-minded about it. After all, there are gaps in our knowledge of chemistry, aren't there?", said Jefferson D. Moran, Ph.D., formerly a chemist at the Smithsonian. Dr. Moran is planning a lawsuit, which may become a class action: another scientist, a medical doctor, was recently fired for espousing the notion that most disease is caused by "evil spirits."

[mitchum]

13. LMAO!

nicely done :)

[kodi]

8. one expects less than this from a bush political appointee?

this was done on purpose to provoke the naturally expected response from the scientific community.

[greyl]

16. Is he? nt

[Warren Stupidity]

37. read the article

"McVay, who is a political appointee of the Bush administration, acknowledged in the report that a fuller response from the Smithsonian might have tempered his conclusions."

Independent? Nope.

[greyl]

55. I did, homeslice.

The focus of the article is Sternberg, and I'm confident that kodi was speaking of Sternberg.

[orleans]

31. between the liberal media and the liberal scientific community...

what's a creationist to do?

[Igel]

40. The writer of the article wasn't a political appointee; the

editor of the journal wasn't, either.

The administration wonk who was to investigating the actions the Smithsonian did, was.

I don't think the pol. appointee was doing much to provoke a response. The author and editor certain did.

[depakid]

11. Oh good grief- here's Pravda on the Potomac again

with yet another slanted story designed to misinform the public and incite the far right....

:puke:

[mpendragon]

12. the same thing nearly happened to me when I proposed . . .

the Flying Spaghetti Monster

[pinniped]

14. This character could get a job at the dino museum.

.

[Maple]

15. Dreadful way to handle it though

I can well understand the scientists being furious, but 'calling him into the office' and asking for a explanation...quietly...would have been a better approach.

If he didn't back down, or retract, there are other ways of removing him...or shunting him off into an obscure corner where he'd be forgotten.

But now, from something that was a 'hitherto obscure' publication, he has national publicity, looks like a victim, and will soon gain a large following...the very outcome the Smithsonian, and science in general didn't want or need, especially at this point in American history.

He provided 'the other side' with ammunition, but they wouldn't have known about it if the Smithsonian hadn't loaded the gun and pulled the trigger.

They aren't going to like what happens after this.

Very bad crisis management skills there.

[kodi]

20. its exactly why he was placed there and why he did what he did.

what reason is a man who is paid by the Natiional Insitutes of Health doing at the Smithsonian editing scientific journals other than to act as a firebrand and provocetuer. his own mentor said he was and it is clear that his appointment at the Smithsonian was to cause problems for the established scientific community that have been antagonistic towards creation science and bush science policies in general.

this is merely another attempt by the busheviks to cast scientists as subjective partisans and undercut their generally perceived objective perspective about the world.

it was a set-up, pure and simple.

[Maple]

22. Paranoia is a wonderful thing eh?

However, set-up or not...the Smithsonian handled it in the worst possible way.

[kodi]

26. funny, i was called paranoid in 2002 when I said Bush was lying about WMDs

underestimate the busheviks at your own risk.

[Maple]

27. I said the same thing

but that's not quite on the scale of 'sleeper creationist cells' at the Smithsonian.

[kodi]

28. why's a political appointee at NIH working as an editor at the Smithsonian

the one blatant feature of the busheviks that is akin to the bolsheviks is their placing of political appointees throughout the federal government to act as gate-keepers for right-wing, conservative policies that are impacted by government actions. one sees it in the EPA, DOE, Dept of Commerce, and just about everywhere else. When something the government does naturally as part of its function impacts negatively on conservative policies there is always a gate-keeper there to undermine objective analysis. there is a distinct and constant pattern of subjective political considerations trumping objectivity. In fact, during the past budget debates in congress, Dept of commerce officials were told they would be fired if they reported to congress their negative findings about the Bush plans to change Social Security, again, told by GOP appointee gate keepers.

the fellow in question was placed at the Smithsonian for a purpose. it was to promote political agendas that benefit the conservative philosophies of his paymasters. he wasn't sent over there from NIH to play with dinosaur bones.

[Maple]

39. If that's true

then the mishandling of it was an even worse mistake than it first appeared.

[Igel]

41. He's not.

There are three people involved, one's politically appointed. He shows up in the narrative post-publication.

[northzax]

45. he was seconded

it happens all the time. I know people getting paid by NIH who work at USAMARRID. And people paid by the Smithsonian who work at the Archives, etc. it's normal.

[Warren Stupidity]

38. "creation science"? "bush science"?

I agree with your post but them things aint science. How about 'pseudo-science'?

[Alcibiades]

24. You're right

He will certainly get a book deal, and perhaps a job as a "scientific" advisor to Fox News.

[sakabatou]

17. It doesn't answer any questions

It's a chickenshit excuse.

[Zenlitened]

19. Without evolution, there is no ID. It's all a reaction to evolution.

Ever ask an ID woo-woo to explain their so-called 'theory' without using the words "evolution," "natural selection," etc.? Makes for a pretty brief conversation. ID is all about throwing stones at evolution -- there's no "there" there.

[drfresh]

29. Call me crazy, but

I don't think the two are necessarily mutually exclusive. An "Intelligent Designer" could have had evolution as part of his/her/its "design plan". The trick is finding scientifically-testable evidence to support ID.

[ikri]

34. In the theory of evolution

There is nothing that says "There is no designer". In the absence of evidence for or against the existence of a divine/universal influence nothing is discussed about it. Why would it be?

In Intelligent Design evolution CANNOT occur without the existence of an unproven divine/universal influence.

ID needs to prove, scientifically, the existence of a divine/universal influence before it can be used as a scientific theory.

[Zenlitened]

44. By all means, go find eveidence of ID. Just be sure to remember that....

... "Golly, it's complicated. Guess Gawd musta done it!" does not constitute evidence. :D

[VegasWolf]

47. or even better, "I can't figure it out, ergo Gawd must have dun it!!" nt

[Zenlitened]

48. Yes, it's "irreducible complexity." Oh really? Irreducible by whom?

Me? The republi-bot with the third-grade reading skills? A scientist in the year 2005? In the year 2015?

Oy.

[drfresh]

53. Ever read 'Contact'?

I agree with you, that is not evidence. :)

But as far as "where did this universe come from" , I think the answer of an all-powerful/supernatural being/"God" is probably the simplest explanation in Occam's Razor, so its the most logical in my book.

Anyway in Contact, IIRC, towards the end they are looking for proof of some "designer", so they start looking for messages built-in to our established physical laws and mathematical constants. Somebody builds a supercomputer to start analyzing pi, and after a while they find circle representations and messages in the digits themselves.

That I say could be evidence, but I doubt we'll find something like that. Anyway, if ID is an attempt to prove God's existence, then I say go for it. If ID is an attempt to say evolution is a fraud, then I laugh and say good luck.

[Zenlitened]

54. Major Sagan fan, here.

:hi:

Thing is, evolution doesn't really attempt to answer the question of how the universe began. That's a separate issue entirely.

[hunter]

57. Sorry, there's no mystery in the digits of pi.

The mystery you thought was in pi (3.1415926....) turned out to be an artifact of our base₁₀ counting system. (Actually, I think it was pretty crafty of God to give us ten fingers so our deeper understanding of mathematics would be screwed up right from the start. Or maybe the devil did that. :evilgrin: )

Formula for calculating any single digit of pi:



http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arc98/2_28_98/mathland.htm

(Mind you, we are talking about hexadecimal digits here.)

Okay, so maybe the magic is in the number 5...

Finding any evidence of "Intelligent Design" is a pointless task that distances you from God. You are chasing the horizon; the evidence of God's Hand is always just around the corner, just beyond your reach.

It is far more productive to approach the Creation with an attitude of appreciation and exploration. You don't even have to believe in God to do that.

I call myself a Christian, and in practice I am mostly Catholic. One of my hobbies is evolutionary biology. If "Intelligent Design" was true I would be very disappointed in God. It would be like Toto finding the man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz.

[drfresh]

60. Or IS THERE

Hi hunter,
I know there wasn't an artifact in pi, I was referring to the book 'Contact' as an example. And I'm not really an advocate of intelligent design either, but I do like stirring things up :)
Cheers
d

[Psephos]

62. Excellent posts, drfresh...

I'll look for more of 'em. :-)

Peace.

[Lars39]

18. Cheney and Frist are on the Smithsonium board of regents, fwiw.

[keopeli]

21. This is a right wing attempt to make noise.

If someone broke a law, then let's hear it.

But, firing a rogue director is still extreme.

Mr. Steinberg may be absolutely right about everything he's saying, but that doesn't make the Smithsonian's decision to fire him wrong.

Mr. Stienberg's case was wildly disruptive for scientists, and he knew it would be.

To explain the origin of life scientifically, one examines the facts through the prism of known truths. When an anomaly occurs, you have two choices - try to figure out the anomaly, or give up and say, "that's just God."

I believe in God. And I believe God gave us curiosity. And I believe God wants us to explore.

That's my faith...that all this exploring is for a purpose!

But, you do not stop exploring just because you think your time would be better spent worshiping God. Our exploration IS worshiping God!

So, science must be neutral toward faith to learn.
That's not evil - that's just smart.

And faith also must have its supporters. And the government should stay out of the business of endorsing a faith.

[fshrink]

25. After reading the article:

1- "Science only moves forward on controversy". An inexact, but revealing statement. It is inexact because controversy follows, not preceeds, scientific progress. Science only moves forward on intelligence, work and creativity.

2- "But they (the reviewers) said that people are talking about those things and we should air the views". Which restates with a slightly different wording 1-. Note also that "popular opinion", which "does more to obscure than to reveal" suddenly becomes acceptable.

3- The individual acknowledges having a "penchant for going against the system."

Bottom line: the individual is better known after the publication of an article he did not write than after the two dissertations he did write. Science does not move forward on controversy but celebrity does.

[Igel]

42. I think I partially disagree with one.

Look at the abundance of research that controversial proposals and problems have produced in the last couple hundred years.

Evolution itself was controversial, and resulted from a bit of a controversy over a number of issues that were raised. No controversy means no important questions, which means that the net result is to make sure that the 29th decimal place of Planck's constant is right, or that we have the correct proportion of hydrogen atoms in the earth's oceans ascertained.

Evolution, electron shells, ultraviolet catastrophe, even generative and historical linguistics or developmental hierachies all derive from a controversy. Frequently--I can't speak for the hard sciences, but for the soft sciences--there are review articles that summarize where we are with a problem and what's left to be done. No questions answered, except the one, Where are we on this question?

[fshrink]

56. I understand your point but

controversy is a possible result of scientific advancement, not its cause. In fact, scientific break-through usually takes everybody by surprise, and often its own author in the first place, if only through serendipity. When Darwin boarded the Beagle he did not embark on a score-settling expedition. When Galileo figured that the center was elsewhere he did not have an agenda of pissing off the church. When Freud tackled the unconscious, he was not even looking for it. Etc...
When you base scientific progress on controversy, as the editor explicitly does, you fantasize the opposite and you play the spectacular trump card: pretty much the only one we see playing nowadays. Which is why, as a dedicated foe of the spectacle, I posted.

[Igel]

58. I don't think we're in disagreement, we're just accentuating

different things.

The ultraviolet controversy was a real controversy: it was solved by a breakthrough, but it was a real problem.

I'm used to having summary/review articles come out from time to time in linguistics (whether Slavic or psycholinguistics). That's Chomsky's real contribution for the last 25 years in the field--summarizing what's said, pointing out controversies, and focusing the field on what's controversial. Then 7-10 years later some of the old controversies are resolved, and new ones have popped up. Same in psycholinguistics; Slavic linguistics is pretty moribund, but they try.

It would be of interest to do two things. Actually read the article. And to look at the reviewers comments.

[fshrink]

59. We share the same deep structure.

[splat]

30. What if the "intelligence" turns out to be advanced alien insects? n/t

[annabanana]

33. Odd that the article refutes it's own claims....

"The U.S. Office of Special Counsel" did the "independent survey"

James McVay is the principal legal adviser in the Office of Special Counsel.

McVay is a political appointee of the Bush administration.

"An official privately suggested that McVay might want to embarrass the institution."

"President Bush recently said that schoolchildren should learn about the theory alongside Darwin's theory of evolution -- a view that goes beyond even the stance of intelligent design advocates."

[unhappycamper]

35. The Flying Spagetti Monster should be taught also.

Link to all that is noodly:
http://www.venganza.org/

[fasttense]

36. ID is simply a philosophy and not a science

It should never be included in a scientific report because it is philosophy and clearly not science. There is not evidence to support it as there is no evidence to support any other philosophy. The arguments and logic behind it might make sense but there is no direct evidence of a creator so it can't be science.

[bleedingheart]

43. Seems like a way to "launch his career"

although at the end of the Post article it states that he is against "careerism"...

[ismnotwasm]

46. I would like to read the paper

Although not a scientist, I read stuff like that and then cross reference the proposed facts backing it up. They usually don't hold much weight. Why are the ID proponents so impatient? If there is a intelligent designer, it is part of the universe, and part of universal laws, and the scientific method will reveal it sooner or later. Or not. Science takes it's time, uses measurable evidence. Why do they want to cram it down our throats? So far, there isn't a glimmer of evidence, just desire based on psychological need. I'm for all things spiritual I guess, but science needs to stay science. This is getting beyond ridiculous.

[iverglas]

50. I liked this one better

My first-ever email hoax letter (and only someone as gullible as me would even have thought it a hoax rather than just a damned good joke).

If the guy at the Smithsonian had just started a chain letter with the intelligent-design paper instead, he would have saved himself a lot of bother, and amused millions.

Heck, he could even have staged a debate between the ID guy and the Australopithecus spiff-arino guy.

Paleoanthropology Division
Smithsonian Institute
207 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20078

Dear Sir:

Thank you for your latest submission to the Institute, labeled "211-D, layer seven, next to the clothesline post. Hominid skull." We have given this specimen a careful and detailed examination, and regret to inform you that we disagree with your theory that it represents "conclusive proof of the presence of Early Man in Charleston County two million years ago." Rather, it appears that what you have found is the head of a Barbie doll, of the variety one of our staff, who has small children, believes to be the "Malibu Barbie". It is evident that you have given a great deal of thought to the analysis of this specimen, and you may be quite certain that those of us who are familiar with your prior work in the field were loathe to come to contradiction with your findings. However, we do feel that there are a number of physical attributes of the specimen which might have tipped you off to its modern origin:

1. The material is molded plastic. Ancient hominid remains are typically fossilized bone.

2. The cranial capacity of the specimen is approximately 9 cubic centimeters, well below the threshold of even the earliest identified proto-hominids.

3. The dentition pattern evident on the "skull" is more consistent with the common domesticated dog than it is with the "ravenous man-eating Pliocene clams" you speculate roamed the wetlands during that time. This latter finding is certainly one of the most intriguing hypotheses you have submitted in your history with this institution, but the evidence seems to weigh rather heavily against it. Without going into too much detail, let us say that:

A. The specimen looks like the head of a Barbie doll that a dog has chewed on.

B. Clams don't have teeth.

It is with feelings tinged with melancholy that we must deny your request to have the specimen carbon dated. This is partially due to the heavy load our lab must bear in it's normal operation, and partly due to carbon dating's notorious inaccuracy in fossils of recent geologic record. To the best of our knowledge, no Barbie dolls were produced prior to 1956 AD, and carbon dating is likely to produce wildly inaccurate results. Sadly, we must also deny your request that we approach the National Science Foundation's Phylogeny Department with the concept of assigning your specimen the scientific name "Australopithecus spiff-arino." Speaking personally, I, for one, fought tenaciously for the acceptance of your proposed taxonomy, but was ultimately voted down because the species name you selected was hyphenated, and didn't really sound like it might be Latin.

However, we gladly accept your generous donation of this fascinating specimen to the museum. While it is undoubtedly not a hominid fossil, it is, nonetheless, yet another riveting example of the great body of work you seem to accumulate here so effortlessly. You should know that our Director has reserved a special shelf in his own office for the display of the specimens you have previously submitted to the Institution, and the entire staff speculates daily on what you will happen upon next in your digs at the site you have discovered in your back yard. We eagerly anticipate your trip to our nation's capital that you proposed in your last letter, and several of us are pressing the Director to pay for it. We are particularly interested in hearing you expand on your theories surrounding the "trans-positating fillifitation of ferrous ions in a structural matrix" that makes the excellent juvenile Tyrannosaurus rex femur you recently discovered take on the deceptive appearance of a rusty 9-mm Sears Craftsman automotive crescent wrench.

Yours in Science,

Harvey Rowe
Curator, Antiquities

Discussed at Snopes:
http://www.snopes.com/humor/letters/smithson.htm
which dates it (carbon?) to 1995, so maybe a youngster or two here hasn't seen it before ...

[Ratty]

51. Oh great. More "religious persecution" evidence for the fundies

The article strongly emphasizes and implies an anti-christian hysteria sweeping through the scientific community. Look for it on the right-wing blogs and websites. It's a shame that a person's religious background has to be questioned when examining motives, but they're the ones who brought this on themselves. They're the ones waging a cultural war and working to get "stealth candidates" (their words!) onto school boards and into colleges and universities for the sole purpose of advancing their own agendas.

There are unanswered questions in Darwinian theory, and there have been rigorous challenges that have been taken quite seriously by the scientific establishment. Punctuated equilibrium is a great example. It's a scientific theory, it's testable, reproduceable, and falsifiable and it's built on established scientific principles. There have been other, lesser known challenges to darwinian evolution that have also been taken seriously by evolutionary scientists. But it all has to be science, first and foremost: science.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

52. If the fundies really believe that God is a scientific phenomenon

they should take the money they crank into their (unchristian) political aspirations and spend it on attempting to scientifically prove that God does indeed exist.

Or are they too chickenshit?

[tomg]

63. Some background and a number of omissions

As to the science and whether Meyer's paper was, in the first case, legitimate, I would refer folks to Panda's Thumb archives:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000430.html

It is a knockout, and came out in response to the Meyers article in 2004. It is long, involved ( at least to someone who almost failed high school biology) but get to the end where Alan Gishlick, Nick Matzke, and Wesley R. Elsberry discuss the nature of peer-reviewed journals and the political implications of the decision to publish.
The issue of just who did the peer-review is important, and it would be to Sternberg's and Meyer's advantage to release the names.


A few things not mentioned in the news article. Stephen Meyers, the author of the article, is the Program Director of the Discovery Institute ( whistles and bells should go off here) and Sternberg was one of the signatores of "Discovery Institute’s “100 Scientists Who Doubt Darwinism” statement."

Unfortunately, as Gishlick, Matzke and Elsberry pointed out last year, in their calls to examine the paper on its scientific merits ( or lack thereof):

"Intemperate responses will only play into the hands of creationists, who might use these as an excuse to say that the “dogmatic Darwinian thought police” are unfairly giving Meyer and PBSW a hard time. Nor should Sternberg be given the chance to become a “martyr for the cause.” Any communication with PBSW should focus upon the features that make this paper a poor choice for publication: its many errors of fact, its glaring omissions of relevant material, and its misrepresentations of the views that it does consider."

[Pepperbelly]

64. How could anyone critique the paper if it isn't available?

I clicked on your link with an eye toward reding the paper and then the response but the link provided in the article did not lead to the initial study. If they would actually link to the article with which they disagree, I might be more convinced that it has " ... its many errors of fact, its glaring omissions of relevant material, and its misrepresentations of the views that it does consider."

It's merely mental masturbation to critique something that you haven't read.

[tomg]

65. The paper itself is only available

through Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington
Volume 117, Number 2 June 2004
by way of http://apt.allenpress.com/aptonline/?request=get-toc&issn=0006-324X&volume=117&issue=02

Subscription content

The paper in question came out in 2004, and I've read about it well before this. The reason that this particular paper is so controversial in and of itself is because, as a number of people have pointed out, this is the first time that the Discovery Institute people have been able to get anything published in a peer-reviewed journal (it is not a top-tier journal, but still a fairly respected one).

What makes Sternberg's case far more politically important is that the determination that his dismissal as the editor of the journal is unwarranted is cause for the David Horowitzs of the Academic Bill of Rights crowd to bolster their case which is allied to the ID people.

As to the article itself:
This is subscription content, although I imagine that if you have access to an academic or a research library, they can get it for you. What is unusual is that the abstract for the article has been pulled by the site. What is more, as early as October 2004, THE COUNCIL OF THE BIOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON on their website published a disavowal of the paper( http://www.biolsocwash.org. )I am wondering if the paper itself is in their archives.

The people at Panda's Thumb were doing what academics or researchers do: they were simply reviewing the article ( to which they clearly had access)which they assumed most of the readers of their cooperative blog either had access to or could easily get access to. From my point of view ( as a non-biologist, but someone involved in academia who has gone through the peer-reviewed), the issue involved was 1) is the decision to publish such a paper that is clearly outside the normal purview of the journal ( and there are clearly times to do this) at the sole discretion of the editor. In this case, at least from the disavowal, it appears not. The second issue is the qualifications of the peer reviewers, which are fundamental. I have been a reviewer (for example, I just finished reviewing a manuscript and one of mine is at the end of a very long process) and, given the controversy surrounding the issue, it would be reasonable to at least release the names or qualifications.

Sorry if you went looking for the article itself. Oh, one last point: the issue of the referees is extremely important. The case of "scientists" who are, in fact, Intelligent Design advocates is not that uncommon. The individuals, like Stephen Meyer, though pass themselves off as scientists when, in fact, they are in "philosopy of science" or "science education."

Again, sorry if the paper itself isn't linked.

[Pepperbelly]

68. I would like to read it because ...

truthfully, I had hopes for the Intelligent Design notion on first blush but the papers I have thusfar read gave me nothing to hang my hat on. The only specifics are, to put it mildly, debateable. They are also quite sparse.

Does this guy do any better?

That's what I'm curious about.

on edit, the critique asserts that none of the things I was looking for were presented in the paper. Of course, I have not read it but without a model and support for each part of ID, I am left with nothing to get excited about.

[tomg]

69. I found it for you, Pepperbelly

It is at the Discovery Institute:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177

I hope the link to Meyer's article works.

Incidentally, as I've said, I am not in science, so I can't judge this; however, from experience in other areas ( and vetting), I have a pretty good sense of when people writing critiques have their chops down. After you read it ( and it is 26 pages long), I would be interested in you feedback. Again, I can see where deliberately presenting highly controversial material can serve a purpose, provided it is intellectually sound. I recognize that different kinds of orthodoxies can take hold in any community ( academic, religious, economic, whatever). So the reviewing process is crucial.

This thing really is a political mess.

on edit: the controversy is a political mess; whether the article is one, I'll leave to others to decide.

also: one for clarity

[Pepperbelly]

71. thanx ...

after reading it, he doesn't even offer as much as Dembski. I was left dissatisfied after reading his paper.

[bnr65432]

67. article called intelligent design a theory

it is b.s.
theories make predictions that can supported by observations or proved wrong by observations it doesnt do any of this

[Miss Chybil]

70. I guess free speech has its limits.

Depending on who you work for.