Religions > Atheism > WingNutDaily: Smithsonian in uproar over intelligent-design article
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jason Spaceman" |
| Date: |
29 Jan 2005 01:41:25 AM |
| Object: |
WingNutDaily: Smithsonian in uproar over intelligent-design article |
From the article:
------------------------------------------------------------------
Museum researcher's career threatened after he published favorable
piece
Posted: January 29, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
The career of a prominent researcher at the Smithsonian's National
Museum of Natural History in Washington is in jeopardy after he
published a peer-reviewed article by a leading proponent of
intelligent design, an alternative to evolutionary theory dismissed by
the science and education establishment as a tool of religious
conservatives.
Richard Sternberg says that although he continues to work in the
museum's Department of Zoology, he has been kicked out of his office
and shunned by colleagues, prompting him to file a complaint with the
U.S. Office of Special Counsel.
Sternberg charges he was subjected to discrimination on the basis of
perceived religious beliefs.
"I'm spending my time trying to figure out how to salvage a scientific
career," Sternberg told David Klinghoffer, a columnist for the Jewish
Forward, who reported the story in the Wall Street Journal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42600
J. Spaceman
.
|
|
| User: "Glenn" |
|
| Title: Re: WingNutDaily: Smithsonian in uproar over intelligent-design article |
29 Jan 2005 12:03:33 PM |
|
|
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:cdfmv0l4t3ljdtg5dtftiq7uutcjgg9nv7@4ax.com...
From the article:
------------------------------------------------------------------
Museum researcher's career threatened after he published favorable
piece
Posted: January 29, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
The career of a prominent researcher at the Smithsonian's National
Museum of Natural History in Washington is in jeopardy after he
published a peer-reviewed article by a leading proponent of
intelligent design, an alternative to evolutionary theory dismissed by
the science and education establishment as a tool of religious
conservatives.
Richard Sternberg says that although he continues to work in the
museum's Department of Zoology, he has been kicked out of his office
and shunned by colleagues, prompting him to file a complaint with the
U.S. Office of Special Counsel.
Sternberg charges he was subjected to discrimination on the basis of
perceived religious beliefs.
"I'm spending my time trying to figure out how to salvage a scientific
career," Sternberg told David Klinghoffer, a columnist for the Jewish
Forward, who reported the story in the Wall Street Journal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Read it at
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42600
Likely just another aspect of the scientific peer-review process.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bobby D. Bryant" |
|
| Title: Re: WingNutDaily: Smithsonian in uproar over intelligent-design article |
29 Jan 2005 12:11:58 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005, "Glenn" <glennsheldon@SPAMqwest.net> wrote:
Likely just another aspect of the scientific peer-review process.
Actually, it's an instance of a dishonest end-run _around_ the
peer-review process.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Giwer" |
|
| Title: Re: WingNutDaily: Smithsonian in uproar over intelligent-designarticle |
29 Jan 2005 08:05:00 PM |
|
|
Jason Spaceman wrote:
From the article:
------------------------------------------------------------------
Museum researcher's career threatened after he published favorable
piece
Posted: January 29, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
The career of a prominent researcher at the Smithsonian's National
Museum of Natural History in Washington is in jeopardy after he
published a peer-reviewed article by a leading proponent of
intelligent design, an alternative to evolutionary theory dismissed by
the science and education establishment as a tool of religious
conservatives.
Richard Sternberg says that although he continues to work in the
museum's Department of Zoology, he has been kicked out of his office
and shunned by colleagues, prompting him to file a complaint with the
U.S. Office of Special Counsel.
Sternberg charges he was subjected to discrimination on the basis of
perceived religious beliefs.
"I'm spending my time trying to figure out how to salvage a scientific
career," Sternberg told David Klinghoffer, a columnist for the Jewish
Forward, who reported the story in the Wall Street Journal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42600
"Meyer – a fellow at Seattle's Discovery Institute, a leading advocate of
intelligent design – contends supporters of Darwin's theory cannot explain how
so many different animal types sprang into existence during the relatively short
period of Earth history known as the Cambrian explosion.
He argues the Darwinian mechanism would require more time for the necessary
genetic "information" to be generated, and intelligent design offers a better
explanation."
Most of the variation from that event did not survive. Back to the stupid
designer concept.
--
America is a land of simple people who have no idea
of what is going on in the world around them.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3360
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jon Fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: WingNutDaily: Smithsonian in uproar over intelligent-design article |
03 Feb 2005 12:07:09 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 02:41:25 -0500, Jason Spaceman
<notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
From the article:
------------------------------------------------------------------
Museum researcher's career threatened after he published favorable
piece
<snip>
Jonathan Coddington, Sternberg;s supervisor/sponsor in Sternberg's
stint at the Smithsonian, has posted a response at
<http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000777.html#c14871>.
"6. As for prejudice on the basis of beliefs or opinions, I repeatedly
and consistently emphasized to staff (and to Dr. von Sternberg
personally), verbally or in writing, that private beliefs and/or
controversial editorial decisions were irrelevant in the workplace,
that we would continue to provide full Research Associate benefits to
Dr. von Sternberg, that he was an established and respected scientist,
and that he would at all times be treated as such.
On behalf of all National Museum of Natural History staff, I would
like to assert that we hold the freedoms of religion and belief as
dearly as any one. The right to heterodox opinion is particularly
important to scientists. Why Dr. von Sternberg chose to represent his
interactions with me as he did is mystifying. I can’t speak to his
interactions with anyone else."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: WingNutDaily: Smithsonian in uproar over intelligent-design article |
29 Jan 2005 03:35:39 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 02:41:25 -0500, Jason Spaceman
<notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
From the article:
------------------------------------------------------------------
Museum researcher's career threatened after he published favorable
piece
Posted: January 29, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
The career of a prominent researcher at the Smithsonian's National
Museum of Natural History in Washington is in jeopardy after he
published a peer-reviewed article by a leading proponent of
intelligent design, an alternative to evolutionary theory dismissed by
the science and education establishment as a tool of religious
conservatives.
Richard Sternberg says that although he continues to work in the
museum's Department of Zoology, he has been kicked out of his office
and shunned by colleagues, prompting him to file a complaint with the
U.S. Office of Special Counsel.
Sternberg charges he was subjected to discrimination on the basis of
perceived religious beliefs.
"I'm spending my time trying to figure out how to salvage a scientific
career,"
Why, since he's clearly no longer practicing science?
Sternberg told David Klinghoffer, a columnist for the Jewish
Forward, who reported the story in the Wall Street Journal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42600
J. Spaceman
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bobby D. Bryant" |
|
| Title: Re: WingNutDaily: Smithsonian in uproar over intelligent-design article |
29 Jan 2005 03:56:30 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005, raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 02:41:25 -0500, Jason Spaceman
<notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
"I'm spending my time trying to figure out how to salvage a scientific
career,"
Why, since he's clearly no longer practicing science?
Maybe he's thinking about going back, since Baylor isn't hiring
IDologists anymore.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: WingNutDaily: Smithsonian in uproar over intelligent-designarticle |
29 Jan 2005 11:59:48 AM |
|
|
raven1 wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 02:41:25 -0500, Jason Spaceman
<notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
From the article:
------------------------------------------------------------------
Museum researcher's career threatened after he published favorable
piece
Posted: January 29, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
The career of a prominent researcher at the Smithsonian's National
Museum of Natural History in Washington is in jeopardy after he
published a peer-reviewed article by a leading proponent of
intelligent design, an alternative to evolutionary theory dismissed by
the science and education establishment as a tool of religious
conservatives.
Richard Sternberg says that although he continues to work in the
museum's Department of Zoology, he has been kicked out of his office
and shunned by colleagues, prompting him to file a complaint with the
U.S. Office of Special Counsel.
Sternberg charges he was subjected to discrimination on the basis of
perceived religious beliefs.
"I'm spending my time trying to figure out how to salvage a scientific
career,"
Why, since he's clearly no longer practicing science?
I think I'd rather read the article before acepting that conclusion.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science
which is something I intend to do.
Though Creationists getting over the problem of not having peer reviewed
support for their work by doing the reviewing and publishing themselves
seems not to counter the argument
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn" |
|
| Title: Re: WingNutDaily: Smithsonian in uproar over intelligent-designarticle |
29 Jan 2005 01:18:30 PM |
|
|
"Ash" <ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ctgiui$493$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
raven1 wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 02:41:25 -0500, Jason Spaceman
<notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
From the article:
------------------------------------------------------------------
Museum researcher's career threatened after he published favorable
piece
Posted: January 29, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
The career of a prominent researcher at the Smithsonian's National
Museum of Natural History in Washington is in jeopardy after he
published a peer-reviewed article by a leading proponent of
intelligent design, an alternative to evolutionary theory dismissed
by
the science and education establishment as a tool of religious
conservatives.
Richard Sternberg says that although he continues to work in the
museum's Department of Zoology, he has been kicked out of his office
and shunned by colleagues, prompting him to file a complaint with
the
U.S. Office of Special Counsel.
Sternberg charges he was subjected to discrimination on the basis of
perceived religious beliefs.
"I'm spending my time trying to figure out how to salvage a
scientific
career,"
Why, since he's clearly no longer practicing science?
I think I'd rather read the article before acepting that conclusion.
About _Sternberg_ "clearly no longer practicing science"?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: WingNutDaily: Smithsonian in uproar over intelligent-designarticle |
29 Jan 2005 01:34:20 PM |
|
|
Glenn wrote:
"Ash" <ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ctgiui$493$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
raven1 wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 02:41:25 -0500, Jason Spaceman
<notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
From the article:
------------------------------------------------------------------
Museum researcher's career threatened after he published favorable
piece
Posted: January 29, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
The career of a prominent researcher at the Smithsonian's National
Museum of Natural History in Washington is in jeopardy after he
published a peer-reviewed article by a leading proponent of
intelligent design, an alternative to evolutionary theory dismissed
by
the science and education establishment as a tool of religious
conservatives.
Richard Sternberg says that although he continues to work in the
museum's Department of Zoology, he has been kicked out of his office
and shunned by colleagues, prompting him to file a complaint with
the
U.S. Office of Special Counsel.
Sternberg charges he was subjected to discrimination on the basis of
perceived religious beliefs.
"I'm spending my time trying to figure out how to salvage a
scientific
career,"
Why, since he's clearly no longer practicing science?
I think I'd rather read the article before acepting that conclusion.
About _Sternberg_ "clearly no longer practicing science"?
ah, I'd assumed the "clearly no longer practising" was in reference to
him publishing the ID article
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn" |
|
| Title: Re: WingNutDaily: Smithsonian in uproar over intelligent-designarticle |
29 Jan 2005 02:17:32 PM |
|
|
"Ash" <ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ctgofp$thk$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
Glenn wrote:
"Ash" <ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ctgiui$493$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
raven1 wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 02:41:25 -0500, Jason Spaceman
<notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
From the article:
------------------------------------------------------------------
Museum researcher's career threatened after he published favorable
piece
Posted: January 29, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
The career of a prominent researcher at the Smithsonian's National
Museum of Natural History in Washington is in jeopardy after he
published a peer-reviewed article by a leading proponent of
intelligent design, an alternative to evolutionary theory
dismissed
by
the science and education establishment as a tool of religious
conservatives.
Richard Sternberg says that although he continues to work in the
museum's Department of Zoology, he has been kicked out of his
office
and shunned by colleagues, prompting him to file a complaint with
the
U.S. Office of Special Counsel.
Sternberg charges he was subjected to discrimination on the basis
of
perceived religious beliefs.
"I'm spending my time trying to figure out how to salvage a
scientific
career,"
Why, since he's clearly no longer practicing science?
I think I'd rather read the article before acepting that conclusion.
About _Sternberg_ "clearly no longer practicing science"?
ah, I'd assumed the "clearly no longer practising" was in reference to
him publishing the ID article
What's the difference?
Where is the "practicing of science" in the removal of Meyer's article
and criticism of Sternberg?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Guillory" |
|
| Title: Re: WingNutDaily: Smithsonian in uproar over intelligent-designarticle |
29 Jan 2005 03:54:44 PM |
|
|
Glenn wrote:
<snip>
Where is the "practicing of science" in the removal of Meyer's article
and criticism of Sternberg?
Here is a good place to look for that answer:
http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html
Regards,
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn" |
|
| Title: Re: WingNutDaily: Smithsonian in uproar over intelligent-designarticle |
29 Jan 2005 05:00:00 PM |
|
|
"Jim Guillory" <jdguil@cox-internet.com> wrote in message
news:10vo16ho313h57a@corp.supernews.com...
Glenn wrote:
<snip>
Where is the "practicing of science" in the removal of Meyer's
article
and criticism of Sternberg?
Here is a good place to look for that answer:
http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html
That is a statement. Where is the peer-reviewed article that includes
the evidence for the claims made and the tools by which the statements
can be verified or refuted?
And why did you not include Sternberg's response? As your reference was
only a statement, his response would seem to be appropriate, even
essential, in order for readers to even begin to determine the facts.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: WingNutDaily: Smithsonian in uproar over intelligent-designarticle |
30 Jan 2005 10:43:02 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 16:00:00 -0700, "Glenn"
<glennsheldon@SPAMqwest.net> wrote:
"Jim Guillory" <jdguil@cox-internet.com> wrote in message
news:10vo16ho313h57a@corp.supernews.com...
Glenn wrote:
<snip>
Where is the "practicing of science" in the removal of Meyer's
article
and criticism of Sternberg?
Here is a good place to look for that answer:
http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html
That is a statement. Where is the peer-reviewed article that includes
the evidence for the claims made and the tools by which the statements
can be verified or refuted?
And why did you not include Sternberg's response? As your reference was
only a statement, his response would seem to be appropriate, even
essential, in order for readers to even begin to determine the facts.
LOL, it was reviewed as it should have been before it was snuck into
the journal and found to lack any evidence. And no, the response from
the writer is not essential to review something. The power is not in
the writer, but in the reviewers. Too bad.
So it didn't work to go around the process. Doesn't say much for the
ethics of creationists does it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn" |
|
| Title: Re: WingNutDaily: Smithsonian in uproar over intelligent-designarticle |
30 Jan 2005 04:02:05 PM |
|
|
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:41ff0d6e.36653906@news-west.newscene.com...
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 16:00:00 -0700, "Glenn"
<glennsheldon@SPAMqwest.net> wrote:
"Jim Guillory" <jdguil@cox-internet.com> wrote in message
news:10vo16ho313h57a@corp.supernews.com...
Glenn wrote:
<snip>
Where is the "practicing of science" in the removal of Meyer's
article
and criticism of Sternberg?
Here is a good place to look for that answer:
http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html
That is a statement. Where is the peer-reviewed article that includes
the evidence for the claims made and the tools by which the
statements
can be verified or refuted?
And why did you not include Sternberg's response? As your reference
was
only a statement, his response would seem to be appropriate, even
essential, in order for readers to even begin to determine the facts.
LOL, it was reviewed as it should have been before it was snuck into
the journal and found to lack any evidence.
While you are laughing, show where it was peer-reviewed "even before it
snuck into the journal". To my knowledge it was not published until that
time.
And no, the response from
the writer is not essential to review something. The power is not in
the writer, but in the reviewers. Too bad.
The "power", huh. You mean the power for the journal to write the
statement, and for you to swallow it hook, line and sinker. Because it
suits you.
Sternberg claims he operated within normal procedures, the article was
independently reviewed and he had discussed the issue of publishing the
article with a senior journal member. If that is true, it means in
essence that the journal "changed their minds", and that would indicate
politics, not science.
I'm asking for where the evidence can be found to verify who is telling
the truth. Apparently you don't like that and wish to obfuscate the
issue.
So it didn't work to go around the process. Doesn't say much for the
ethics of creationists does it?
Actually, your post doesn't say much for your ethics.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: WingNutDaily: Smithsonian in uproar over intelligent-designarticle |
30 Jan 2005 05:15:03 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 15:02:05 -0700, "Glenn"
<glennsheldon@SPAMqwest.net> wrote:
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:41ff0d6e.36653906@news-west.newscene.com...
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 16:00:00 -0700, "Glenn"
<glennsheldon@SPAMqwest.net> wrote:
"Jim Guillory" <jdguil@cox-internet.com> wrote in message
news:10vo16ho313h57a@corp.supernews.com...
Glenn wrote:
<snip>
Where is the "practicing of science" in the removal of Meyer's
article
and criticism of Sternberg?
Here is a good place to look for that answer:
http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html
That is a statement. Where is the peer-reviewed article that includes
the evidence for the claims made and the tools by which the
statements
can be verified or refuted?
And why did you not include Sternberg's response? As your reference
was
only a statement, his response would seem to be appropriate, even
essential, in order for readers to even begin to determine the facts.
LOL, it was reviewed as it should have been before it was snuck into
the journal and found to lack any evidence.
While you are laughing, show where it was peer-reviewed "even before it
snuck into the journal". To my knowledge it was not published until that
time.
Not reading too well, are you. 'as it should have been before it was
snuck into the journal' In other words it wasn't peer reviewed when
it should have been.
And no, the response from
the writer is not essential to review something. The power is not in
the writer, but in the reviewers. Too bad.
The "power", huh. You mean the power for the journal to write the
statement, and for you to swallow it hook, line and sinker. Because it
suits you.
If you don't think the standards of review of the journal are valid,
why are you complaining that the article was not allowed to stand?
Sternberg claims he operated within normal procedures, the article was
independently reviewed and he had discussed the issue of publishing the
article with a senior journal member. If that is true, it means in
essence that the journal "changed their minds", and that would indicate
politics, not science.
Indeed - somebody got around the science and tried to use politics and
it didn't work.
I'm asking for where the evidence can be found to verify who is telling
the truth. Apparently you don't like that and wish to obfuscate the
issue.
Verify? verify what - so you can pretend that it's still who screams
the loudest and pretends the most that makes for science?
I hate to tell you, creationism is so obviously not science that only
buffoons and morons try this crap.
So it didn't work to go around the process. Doesn't say much for the
ethics of creationists does it?
Actually, your post doesn't say much for your ethics.
Still trying to bully your lie into being recognized as science eh?
Pathetic.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn" |
|
| Title: Re: WingNutDaily: Smithsonian in uproar over intelligent-designarticle |
30 Jan 2005 06:20:24 PM |
|
|
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:4204684b.59914812@news-west.newscene.com...
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 15:02:05 -0700, "Glenn"
<glennsheldon@SPAMqwest.net> wrote:
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:41ff0d6e.36653906@news-west.newscene.com...
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 16:00:00 -0700, "Glenn"
<glennsheldon@SPAMqwest.net> wrote:
"Jim Guillory" <jdguil@cox-internet.com> wrote in message
news:10vo16ho313h57a@corp.supernews.com...
Glenn wrote:
<snip>
Where is the "practicing of science" in the removal of Meyer's
article
and criticism of Sternberg?
Here is a good place to look for that answer:
http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html
That is a statement. Where is the peer-reviewed article that
includes
the evidence for the claims made and the tools by which the
statements
can be verified or refuted?
And why did you not include Sternberg's response? As your
reference
was
only a statement, his response would seem to be appropriate, even
essential, in order for readers to even begin to determine the
facts.
LOL, it was reviewed as it should have been before it was snuck
into
the journal and found to lack any evidence.
While you are laughing, show where it was peer-reviewed "even before
it
snuck into the journal". To my knowledge it was not published until
that
time.
Not reading too well, are you. 'as it should have been before it was
snuck into the journal' In other words it wasn't peer reviewed when
it should have been.
My reading is just fine, thank you. It was peer-reviewed, and when it
should have been. It went through the process, and was published.
And no, the response from
the writer is not essential to review something. The power is not
in
the writer, but in the reviewers. Too bad.
The "power", huh. You mean the power for the journal to write the
statement, and for you to swallow it hook, line and sinker. Because
it
suits you.
If you don't think the standards of review of the journal are valid,
why are you complaining that the article was not allowed to stand?
Read carefully. I asked for evidence. If that is what you consider
complaining, so be it.
Sternberg claims he operated within normal procedures, the article
was
independently reviewed and he had discussed the issue of publishing
the
article with a senior journal member. If that is true, it means in
essence that the journal "changed their minds", and that would
indicate
politics, not science.
Indeed - somebody got around the science and tried to use politics and
it didn't work.
Gotta love those innuendos.
I'm asking for where the evidence can be found to verify who is
telling
the truth. Apparently you don't like that and wish to obfuscate the
issue.
Verify? verify what - so you can pretend that it's still who screams
the loudest and pretends the most that makes for science?
Apparently you can't read.
I hate to tell you, creationism is so obviously not science that only
buffoons and morons try this crap.
And the buffoon Sternberg just pulled the wool over everyones eyes down
at the Proceedings, went off on his own and published the article,
didn't get the article peer-reviewed, didn't discuss publishing the
article with superiors, right? You are the buffoon.
So it didn't work to go around the process. Doesn't say much for
the
ethics of creationists does it?
Actually, your post doesn't say much for your ethics.
Still trying to bully your lie into being recognized as science eh?
Pathetic.
What is pathetic is to see you painfully avoiding the issue. You're
afraid.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: WingNutDaily: Smithsonian in uproar over intelligent-designarticle |
29 Jan 2005 03:36:55 PM |
|
|
Glenn wrote:
"Ash" <ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ctgofp$thk$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
Glenn wrote:
"Ash" <ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ctgiui$493$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
raven1 wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 02:41:25 -0500, Jason Spaceman
<notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
From the article:
------------------------------------------------------------------
Museum researcher's career threatened after he published favorable
piece
Posted: January 29, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
The career of a prominent researcher at the Smithsonian's National
Museum of Natural History in Washington is in jeopardy after he
published a peer-reviewed article by a leading proponent of
intelligent design, an alternative to evolutionary theory
dismissed
by
the science and education establishment as a tool of religious
conservatives.
Richard Sternberg says that although he continues to work in the
museum's Department of Zoology, he has been kicked out of his
office
and shunned by colleagues, prompting him to file a complaint with
the
U.S. Office of Special Counsel.
Sternberg charges he was subjected to discrimination on the basis
of
perceived religious beliefs.
"I'm spending my time trying to figure out how to salvage a
scientific
career,"
Why, since he's clearly no longer practicing science?
I think I'd rather read the article before acepting that conclusion.
About _Sternberg_ "clearly no longer practicing science"?
ah, I'd assumed the "clearly no longer practising" was in reference to
him publishing the ID article
What's the difference?
Where is the "practicing of science" in the removal of Meyer's article
and criticism of Sternberg?
Because merely publishing an article on ID does not mean he has no
scientific integrity
.
|
|
|
| User: "rich hammett" |
|
| Title: Re: WingNutDaily: Smithsonian in uproar over intelligent-designarticle |
29 Jan 2005 03:55:37 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins Ash <ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
Because merely publishing an article on ID does not mean he has no
scientific integrity
If he publishes a purported "scientific" article _promoting_
ID, then he's either revealing his ignorance or his lack
of integrity.
rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ "Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world;
\ than the pride that divides
/ when a colorful rag is unfurled."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: WingNutDaily: Smithsonian in uproar over intelligent-designarticle |
29 Jan 2005 07:46:51 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 21:55:37 -0000, rich hammett
<bubbarichau@warmmail.com> said in alt.atheism:
In talk.origins Ash <ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
Because merely publishing an article on ID does not mean he has no
scientific integrity
If he publishes a purported "scientific" article _promoting_
ID, then he's either revealing his ignorance or his lack
of integrity.
The lack of integrity wasn't in publishing an article about IS, it was
circumventing the peer-review process.
--
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: WingNutDaily: Smithsonian in uproar over intelligent-designarticle |
29 Jan 2005 05:45:22 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 21:36:55 +0000, Ash
<ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
Where is the "practicing of science" in the removal of Meyer's article
and criticism of Sternberg?
Because merely publishing an article on ID does not mean he has no
scientific integrity
Where's the science in ID?
What is the theory of ID?
What useful predictions does it make?
How is it falsifiable?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: WingNutDaily: Smithsonian in uproar over intelligent-designarticle |
30 Jan 2005 05:12:26 AM |
|
|
raven1 wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 21:36:55 +0000, Ash
<ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
Where is the "practicing of science" in the removal of Meyer's article
and criticism of Sternberg?
Because merely publishing an article on ID does not mean he has no
scientific integrity
Where's the science in ID?
What is the theory of ID?
What useful predictions does it make?
How is it falsifiable?
Which is why I said I would want to read the article before condeming
him (though if has been suggested he bypassed peer review and normal
editorial procedures to get this in, then he deserves condeming anyway)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "FreeThink" |
|
| Title: Re: WingNutDaily: Smithsonian in uproar over intelligent-designarticle |
29 Jan 2005 12:22:34 PM |
|
|
Ash wrote:
raven1 wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 02:41:25 -0500, Jason Spaceman
<notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
From the article:
------------------------------------------------------------------
Museum researcher's career threatened after he published favorable
piece
Posted: January 29, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
The career of a prominent researcher at the Smithsonian's National
Museum of Natural History in Washington is in jeopardy after he
published a peer-reviewed article by a leading proponent of
intelligent design, an alternative to evolutionary theory dismissed
by
the science and education establishment as a tool of religious
conservatives.
Richard Sternberg says that although he continues to work in the
museum's Department of Zoology, he has been kicked out of his
office
and shunned by colleagues, prompting him to file a complaint with
the
U.S. Office of Special Counsel.
Sternberg charges he was subjected to discrimination on the basis
of
perceived religious beliefs.
"I'm spending my time trying to figure out how to salvage a
scientific
career,"
Why, since he's clearly no longer practicing science?
I think I'd rather read the article before acepting that conclusion.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science
which is something I intend to do.
Though Creationists getting over the problem of not having peer
reviewed
support for their work by doing the reviewing and publishing
themselves
seems not to counter the argument
Theres an idea. Thanks for the link.
It is just a lot of the ususal "The world is too magical for there not
to be an ID" except with more vocabulary.
The only basis for this is the Cambrian Explosion. I would expect there
to be what appears as an "explosion" of life with population growth
being exponential an all...
-E
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: WingNutDaily: Smithsonian in uproar over intelligent-designarticle |
29 Jan 2005 05:02:03 PM |
|
|
On 29 Jan 2005 10:22:34 -0800, "FreeThink" <zeno7772004@yahoo.com>
said in alt.atheism:
The only basis for this is the Cambrian Explosion. I would expect there
to be what appears as an "explosion" of life with population growth
being exponential an all...
An explosion of life? Or an explosion of forms that fossilize better
than those that came before?
--
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious
conviction."
- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn" |
|
| Title: Re: WingNutDaily: Smithsonian in uproar over intelligent-designarticle |
29 Jan 2005 05:21:40 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:8e5ov0helv4ttrrovhfcjiqe1mlgtckblq@4ax.com...
On 29 Jan 2005 10:22:34 -0800, "FreeThink" <zeno7772004@yahoo.com>
said in alt.atheism:
The only basis for this is the Cambrian Explosion. I would expect
there
to be what appears as an "explosion" of life with population growth
being exponential an all...
An explosion of life? Or an explosion of forms that fossilize better
than those that came before?
--
What came before?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: WingNutDaily: Smithsonian in uproar over intelligent-designarticle |
29 Jan 2005 06:52:45 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 16:21:40 -0700, "Glenn"
<glennsheldon@SPAMqwest.net> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:8e5ov0helv4ttrrovhfcjiqe1mlgtckblq@4ax.com...
On 29 Jan 2005 10:22:34 -0800, "FreeThink" <zeno7772004@yahoo.com>
said in alt.atheism:
The only basis for this is the Cambrian Explosion. I would expect there
to be what appears as an "explosion" of life with population growth
being exponential an all...
An explosion of life? Or an explosion of forms that fossilize better
than those that came before?
What came before?
Before the Cambrian most life was soft tissue forms. Soft tissue
doesn't fossilize well.
--
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your
Christ."
- Mohandas Gandhi
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn" |
|
| Title: Re: WingNutDaily: Smithsonian in uproar over intelligent-designarticle |
29 Jan 2005 10:30:42 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:btbov0phu1doa4p7pasj4ce1jas5j0251m@4ax.com...
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 16:21:40 -0700, "Glenn"
<glennsheldon@SPAMqwest.net> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:8e5ov0helv4ttrrovhfcjiqe1mlgtckblq@4ax.com...
On 29 Jan 2005 10:22:34 -0800, "FreeThink" <zeno7772004@yahoo.com>
said in alt.atheism:
The only basis for this is the Cambrian Explosion. I would expect
there
to be what appears as an "explosion" of life with population
growth
being exponential an all...
An explosion of life? Or an explosion of forms that fossilize
better
than those that came before?
What came before?
Before the Cambrian most life was soft tissue forms. Soft tissue
doesn't fossilize well.
--
So what? Apparently some things fossilized well enough for you to be
able to claim something came before. A record exists for them, just not
for what you expect, and your excuse is that soft tissue doesn't
fossilize well.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: WingNutDaily: Smithsonian in uproar over intelligent-designarticle |
29 Jan 2005 11:21:07 PM |
|
|
"Glenn" <glennshel...@SPAMqwest.net> wrote:
"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
"Glenn" <glennshel...@SPAMqwest.net> wrote:
"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
An explosion of life? Or an explosion of forms that
fossilize better than those that came before?
What came before?
Before the Cambrian most life was soft tissue forms. Soft
tissue doesn't fossilize well.
So what? Apparently some things fossilized well enough for
you to be able to claim something came before. A record exists
for them, just not for what you expect, and your excuse is that
soft tissue doesn't fossilize well.
This seems rather like a fact to me rather than an "excuse." Does it
bother you so much that this is a fact?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn" |
|
| Title: Re: WingNutDaily: Smithsonian in uproar over intelligent-designarticle |
30 Jan 2005 02:12:02 PM |
|
|
"Dave" <galt_57@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107062467.483278.162320@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
"Glenn" <glennshel...@SPAMqwest.net> wrote:
"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
"Glenn" <glennshel...@SPAMqwest.net> wrote:
"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
An explosion of life? Or an explosion of forms that
fossilize better than those that came before?
What came before?
Before the Cambrian most life was soft tissue forms. Soft
tissue doesn't fossilize well.
So what? Apparently some things fossilized well enough for
you to be able to claim something came before. A record exists
for them, just not for what you expect, and your excuse is that
soft tissue doesn't fossilize well.
This seems rather like a fact to me rather than an "excuse." Does it
bother you so much that this is a fact?
Uh, not at all, Al.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: WingNutDaily: Smithsonian in uproar over intelligent-designarticle |
31 Jan 2005 01:33:57 PM |
|
|
"Glenn" <glennshel...@SPAMqwest.net> wrote:
"Dave" <galt_57@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107062467.483278.162320@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
"Glenn" <glennshel...@SPAMqwest.net> wrote:
"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
"Glenn" <glennshel...@SPAMqwest.net> wrote:
"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
An explosion of life? Or an explosion of forms that
fossilize better than those that came before?
What came before?
Before the Cambrian most life was soft tissue forms. Soft
tissue doesn't fossilize well.
So what? Apparently some things fossilized well enough for
you to be able to claim something came before. A record exists
for them, just not for what you expect, and your excuse is that
soft tissue doesn't fossilize well.
This seems rather like a fact to me rather than an "excuse."
Does it bother you so much that this is a fact?
Uh, not at all, Al.
So then fewer pre-Cambrian fossils being found makes sense, right?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn" |
|
| Title: Re: WingNutDaily: Smithsonian in uproar over intelligent-designarticle |
31 Jan 2005 10:06:46 PM |
|
|
"Dave" <galt_57@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107200037.652931.61120@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
"Glenn" <glennshel...@SPAMqwest.net> wrote:
"Dave" <galt_57@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107062467.483278.162320@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
"Glenn" <glennshel...@SPAMqwest.net> wrote:
"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
"Glenn" <glennshel...@SPAMqwest.net> wrote:
"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
An explosion of life? Or an explosion of forms that
fossilize better than those that came before?
What came before?
Before the Cambrian most life was soft tissue forms. Soft
tissue doesn't fossilize well.
So what? Apparently some things fossilized well enough for
you to be able to claim something came before. A record exists
for them, just not for what you expect, and your excuse is that
soft tissue doesn't fossilize well.
This seems rather like a fact to me rather than an "excuse."
Does it bother you so much that this is a fact?
Uh, not at all, Al.
So then fewer pre-Cambrian fossils being found makes sense, right?
What makes no sense is to assume something "makes sense" concerning this
subject.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
