Craig Pennington wrote:
investigated that could not be acted on.

While it was pointed out that ID has nothing positive to offer, it
was not mentioned that the majority of their criticisms of
evolution are either debunked or not actual criticisms of
evolution.

All in all, a bad piece.

I thought it was a good piece, as it explained the troubles that Mr.
Sternberg experienced. I have not seen such -reprisals- since
Houghton-Mifflen and Co published -Worlds in Collision- by Immanuel
Velikovsky. The science community threatened to boycott
Houghtpn-Mifflen for publishing the piece. Now it is true that
Velikovsky is a crank and it is even more true that Velikovsky's
theories are total balderdash, but having a caniption seems to be a
bit extreme.

Sternberg should not have published the ID piece in a -scientific
journal- since ID is not a scientific theory or hypothesis (it makes
no testable predictions). Pieces that are crticial of ToE should be
published provided the criticism centers on the the following
issues.

1. An internal inconsistency in the theory.

2. Showing material evidence that the theory is incorrect.

3. Showing that a major premis of the theory is tautological
therefore not falsifiable.

One such criticism is that survival of the fittest is a tautology.
It turns out there are independent means of determining whether a
particular adaptation increases reproductive fitness, and this must
be carefully demonstrated.

These are the only valid grounds on which ToE can be attacked. The
fact that ToE is contradictory to scripture has no scientific worth
as a criticism. Scripture is nonsense when its description of the
world is taken literally. This is something I have pointed out in
other postings.

Bob Kolker

Craig Pennington wrote:

Goes through the whole McVay episode as if spoon-fed by the ID crowd

Yeah, it was pretty annoying, especially for NPR. I could tell they
were slow pitching the story even without knowing its details. Where
can I read about it?

CT

Craig Pennington wrote:

Goes through the whole McVay episode as if spoon-fed by the ID crowd

Yeah, it was pretty annoying, especially for NPR. I could tell they
were slow pitching the story even without knowing its details. Where
can I read about it?

I was pretty let down too. I can recall only one scientist they talked
to that seemed to have any idea about what was going on. They [NPR]
only got one thing correct. They called ID an "idea". CNN keeps calling
it a theory. Next month I think all the CNN anchors will be in bikinis
reading from blogs.

I was pretty let down too. I can recall only one scientist they talked
to that seemed to have any idea about what was going on. They [NPR]
only got one thing correct. They called ID an "idea". CNN keeps calling
it a theory. Next month I think all the CNN anchors will be in bikinis
reading from blogs.

I just keep asking myself, how did NPR produce such an fubared report.
I can only imagine that ignorant reporters are looking on the debate
and thinking there should be some balance or that the scientific
community shouldn't be so harsh. I'd like to see how those reporters
would feel if some of their peers just started pulling news out of
their arses and reporting on that.

Craig Pennington wrote:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5007508
<quote>
Intelligent Design and Academic Freedom
by Barbara Bradley Hagerty

I was pretty let down too. I can recall only one scientist they talked
to that seemed to have any idea about what was going on. They [NPR]
only got one thing correct. They called ID an "idea". CNN keeps calling
it a theory. Next month I think all the CNN anchors will be in bikinis
reading from blogs.

Did any of you actually listen to the entire broadcast?

The written article fell short on capturing the entire point of the piece. The
broadcast went way beyond Richard Sternberg and tried to deal with the problems
associated with the small minority of science academia who believe in
ID/Creationism. It was not an article on the validity of ID. It had
interviews with people who feel persecuted for questioning evolution. It even
has Behe on it recommending if you don't have tenure keep your mouth shut. But
it also has other academic source saying that you may not be persecuted for
questioning evolution but it does put into question your understanding of
science and that could impact your career. It also went on to say to those who
feel persecuted about their beliefs that "life is not fair". Overall I thought
it was a good piece, shedding light on a different aspect of the whole social
phenomenum that is ID.

To those who seem to have a violent knee jerk reaction to anything that smacks
of supporting ID, get over it, this article was not about ID. This article was
about people who are caught between their religious beliefs and the desire to
pursue a career in science.

Did any of you actually listen to the entire broadcast?

The written article fell short on capturing the entire point of
the piece.

The
broadcast went way beyond Richard Sternberg and tried to deal with
the problems associated with the small minority of science academia
who believe in ID/Creationism.

It was not an article on the validity of ID.

It had interviews with people who feel persecuted for questioning
evolution.

It even
has Behe on it recommending if you don't have tenure keep your mouth
shut.

But it also has other academic source saying that you may not be
persecuted for questioning evolution but it does put into question
your understanding of science and that could impact your career.

It also went on to say to those who
feel persecuted about their beliefs that "life is not fair".

Overall I thought
it was a good piece, shedding light on a different aspect of the
whole social phenomenum that is ID.

To those who seem to have a violent knee jerk reaction to anything
that smacks of supporting ID, get over it, this article was not
about ID.

This article was
about people who are caught between their religious beliefs and the
desire to pursue a career in science.

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005, Craig Pennington <cpenning@milo.org> wrote:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5007508
<quote>
Intelligent Design and Academic Freedom
by Barbara Bradley Hagerty

All Things Considered, November 10, 2005
Intelligent design -- the idea that life is too complex to have evolved
through Darwinian evolution -- is stirring up controversy not only in
high school classrooms but also at universities and scientific research
centers.

Richard Sternberg, a staff scientist at the National Institutes of
Health, is puzzled to find himself in the middle of a broader clash
between religion and science -- in popular culture, academia and
politics.
</quote>

Goes through the whole McVay episode as if spoon-fed by the ID crowd,
noting that "The office launched an investigation. Ultimately, it
could not take action, because Sternberg is not an employee of the
Smithsonian" and then goes on to quote uncritically the McVay report,
not evidently feeling any curiousity as to *why* a complaint was
investigated that could not be acted on.

While it was pointed out that ID has nothing positive to offer, it
was not mentioned that the majority of their criticisms of evolution
are either debunked or not actual criticisms of evolution.

All in all, a bad piece.

Write them. It is important for the public not to be misled on the
Sternberg affair.