Hooberus said Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things.
The existence of God/Creation is also not a fact but a belief and faith system -YOU CAN NOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS MY FRIEND
Evolutionary establishment tactics
by hooberus 157 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
tetrapod.sapien
this actually shows, in an obvious way, the intellectual dishonesty of hooberus. he has been schooled many times over regarding the point that evolution is a theory and a fact. that scientists use the word theory in a different sense than how it is used in a court of law. and yet he continues to put the same crap out there, even though he knows it is a lie.
what sort of person does this?
someone grasping onto straws. someone trying to maintain faith, even in the teeth of evidence.
TS
-
Daunt
This is a vicious cycle that some individuals that rely on pure emotion rather than evidence tend to do. They only find stuff that attacks the opponents view, rather than concreting their own view and learning more about the opponents views. This creates a barrier that's more solid that metal.
Know Thine Enemy is a great peice of logic. Doing the opposite creates oppression and isolation of ideas. -
Forscher
Tetrapod, your argument doesn't hold water. You think it proper to suppress ID because the ignorant masses (boy do you have a high opinion of people) might take it seriuously? If that isn't an attempt to divert the issue, I don't know what is! Alanf, Sternberg was UNRTHICAL in publishing that article? BULL!!!! Apparently you didn't bother to read the story. Although he knew it would be contreversial, he followed the ethics all the way. The article was properly peer-reviewed, the changes suggested by by the qualified scientists who reviewed the paper were duly made by the author. None of the scientists suggested that the article should not be published. I can only conclude that you are ignorant of those facts since you took the position you did. Sternberg's critics spread slander about him. They misrepresented his credentials which include two, read that TWO doctorates in biology. They spread slander that his degrees were in religion, that he was a young-earth creationist, and that he wasn't a scientist at all. They tried to get him fired. Failing that, they made his working conditions impossible. The governmental agency which attempted to investigate the matter concluded that the actions of Sternberg's critics was highly unethical and possibly even illegal. How can you defend such behavior? Can't you see how closed-minded and dogmatic the scientific community has become when that sort of disgusting behavior is not only tolerated but incouraged? The problem is that materialists are becoming scared. No matter how much they scream otherwise, ID is making inroads in the scientific community that has the materialists freaking out. That is the dirty little secret in the scientific community today. That is why they are trying to suppress it by whatever means necessary. Forscher
-
Forscher
Tera said: "that scientists use the word theory in a different sense than how it is used in a court of law"
I can't believe you said that. The difference is really marginal. It is misleading to imply that a theory is anywhere near a fact, even in science. I know that some scientists are saying that to try and bolster macroevolution, but that is very misleading. -
tetrapod.sapien
Tetrapod, your argument doesn't hold water. You think it proper to suppress ID because the ignorant masses (boy do you have a high opinion of people) might take it seriuously?
if it doesn't hold water, then how do you explain our moronic species thinking for thousands of years that the earth was created in 6 literal days? suppressing ID is like suppressing a hypothesis for astronomy classes that there is a tea cup orbiting saturn.
i tell you what forescher, if some quack can prove that there is a tea cup orbiting saturn, then i will let it into the science classrooms of the children of the most powerful nation in the world.
speaking of america and ID: why just america? why are you guys all alone in this whole ID thing? why do biologists all over the world hold to evolution as a fact? why do the lay folk of america disagree? you can't very well call yourselves civilized when you would prefer to teach your kids cosmic alchemy in science class rather that simple facts.
If that isn't an attempt to divert the issue, I don't know what is!
please try not to divert the issue forescher.
first YOU PROVE to me that God exists. second prove to me that it's the god of the bible. third prove to me that he wanted genesis interpreted literally. fourth prove to me how he managed the miracles of biological diversity without evolution, and i will ALLOW you to treat the idea of ID like a real scientific theory. oh yes, you guys still have YET to actually FORMULATE a theory that can be tested, and submit ANY findings to peer reviewed journals.
Sternberg was UNRTHICAL in publishing that article? BULL!!!!
- well, if you say so forescher. if you say so.
The article was properly peer-reviewed, the changes suggested by by the qualified scientists who reviewed the paper were duly made by the author.
so, is the the first lie, or one of many down a list of creationist propaganda?
They misrepresented his credentials which include two, read that TWO doctorates in biology.
wow! so two doctorates in the same subject! so he went to school for 24 years to pull that off, or do you care to elaborate with sources?
How can you defend such behavior?
how can you spread lies about biological diversity, and still think jesus is smiling down on you?
The problem is that materialists are becoming scared.
is this really a problem for you?
No matter how much they scream otherwise, ID is making inroads in the scientific community that has the materialists freaking out.
yes indeed. if your children were being lied to about the nature of the universe, wouldn't you freak out too? oh yes, thats right, you don't really care about the true nature of the universe. you would prefer a cozy, warm, lovable, predicatable small universe for you and your children. time for home schooling!
That is the dirty little secret in the scientific community today.
nonsense. you have it all wrong my dear chap. the dirty little secret of the international community of scientists, is that America is quickly becoming a third rate scientific nation, thanks to the almighty power of lay people and democracy.
It is misleading to imply that a theory is anywhere near a fact, even in science. I know that some scientists are saying that to try and bolster macroevolution, but that is very misleading.
actually, it's misleading to lie about the nature of the universe and the reason for biological diversity on planet earth. it's misleading to focus on piddly little snippets of language, whilst blithely ignoring a mountain of evidence. it's misleading to take vacinations developed by bioengineers who use the theory of evolution in their daily work, and then still show up at your local school board meetings to spread lies about the very science that cured you in the first place.
TS
-
AlanF
Forscher, you're showing the usual cretinist braindeadness. You ignored everything I carefully documented.
: Alanf, Sternberg was UNRTHICAL in publishing that article? BULL!!!!
The governing council of the journal that Sternberg worked for explicitly stated that had he run the article by them, they wouldn't have approved it. He knew that perfectly well. That's why he didn't do it. Anyone with common sense who didn't have an agenda would know this, and Sternberg is no dummy. Sternberg's agenda was obviously to get a pro-ID article published in a peer-reviewed journal, no matter the cost. That is most certainly unethical. And of course, the fact that his fellow scientists now refuse to work with him proves that they've made the same judgment.
: Apparently you didn't bother to read the story.
I read all of it. Where do you think I got the documention I presented?
: Although he knew it would be contreversial, he followed the ethics all the way.
No, he followed "the letter of the law" and circumvented real ethics.
: The article was properly peer-reviewed,
As Weitzel pointed out in the Skeptic article, this was most likely done by young-earth creationists of the Baraminology Study Group, who also happened to have full scientific degrees. Why do you think none of these people are willing to come forward? Because they don't want their underhandedness to be exposed.
: the changes suggested by by the qualified scientists who reviewed the paper were duly made by the author.
Sez he. There is nothing but Sternberg's word to prove this, unless he produces documentation.
: None of the scientists suggested that the article should not be published.
Being YECs, of course not.
: I can only conclude that you are ignorant of those facts since you took the position you did.
I'm well aware of the facts, having already pointed them out, and having pointed them out to you in this post.
: Sternberg's critics spread slander about him. They misrepresented his credentials which include two, read that TWO doctorates in biology. They spread slander that his degrees were in religion, that he was a young-earth creationist,
So you DO think it's slanderous to accuse someone of being a YEC. I'll admit that I'd consider myself slandered if I were so accused, but Sternberg is on the editorial board of the YEC Baraminology Study Group. So how could it be slander for someone to make the obvious conclusion that such a person is a YEC? Indeed, as I pointed out, Sternberg nowhere denies being a creationist.
: and that he wasn't a scientist at all. They tried to get him fired.
He should have been fired for such unethical conduct. Let me repeat what I previously posted, and you dutifully ignored:
I'll summarize with a comment from one website ( http://www.steveverdon.com/archives/evolutioncreationism/002031.html ):
Sternberg is simply getting what he deserves. If I was the deacon of some church, or some paid staff member of the Southern Baptist Convention, or some other group, and I inserted an atheistic screed into the monthly magazine, I think that I'd have failed in upholding the standards of conduct that the church expected of me and have generally acted irresponsibly and I'd expect to be fired.
This is the same prinicple at work. Sternberg was required to publish scientific articles and not articles that had as a central thesis that life is created by magic. This isn't science and doesn't belong in a science journal. He brought disrepute to the journal and the sponsoring organization and as is clearly evident by how his colleagues are treating him, and onto himself as well, for he seems to have placed personal religious belief over his responsibilities and training as a scientist and editor.
Let him make scrambled eggs with the mess he's made. I have no sympathy for his plight and that no other scientists want to co-author research with him. I wouldn't want my name attached to research with someone of ill-repute.
I have no doubt that you'll ignore the point once again.
: Failing that, they made his working conditions impossible.
Which is the only practical way to remove someone from a government job.
: The governmental agency which attempted to investigate the matter concluded that the actions of Sternberg's critics was highly unethical and possibly even illegal.
Sure, and that agency happens to be the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, whose principle legal adviser and the man who headed the investigation of Sternberg's charges, happens to be one James McVay, a political appointee of the Bush administration. Naturally, one expects that McVay subscribes to the same right-wing creationist agenda that George W. Bush and so many other of his political appointees do, so it's hardly to be expected that McVay would be other than harsh on Sternberg's critics. In other words, he's playing out a political agenda.
An article in The Washington Post of Aug. 19, 2005 ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/18/AR2005081801680.html ) contained the following:
The special counsel accused the National Center for Science Education, an Oakland, Calif.-based think tank that defends the teaching of evolution, of orchestrating attacks on Sternberg.
"The NCSE worked closely with" the Smithsonian "in outlining a strategy to have you investigated and discredited," McVay wrote to Sternberg.
NCSE officials accused McVay of playing out a political agenda. "I must say that Mr. McVay flatters us beyond our desserts -- the Smithsonian is a distinguished organization of highly competent scientists, and they're not marionettes," said Eugenie Scott, the group's executive director. "If this was a corporation, and an employee did something that really embarrassed the administration, really blew it, how long do you think that person would be employed?"
The Office of Special Counsel, by the way, dropped its investigation for lack of jurisdiction.
: How can you defend such behavior?
I abhor the unethical lack of professionalism shown by Sternberg.
: Can't you see how closed-minded and dogmatic the scientific community has become when that sort of disgusting behavior is not only tolerated but incouraged?
Note the bolded quotation from Eugenie Scott above. You should answer it:
"If this was a corporation, and an employee did something that really embarrassed the administration, really blew it, how long do you think that person would be employed?"
: The problem is that materialists are becoming scared.
Scared that Fundamentalist American religious fanatics will force their views on society. Of course!
: No matter how much they scream otherwise, ID is making inroads in the scientific community that has the materialists freaking out.
Wrong. ID is not making inroads in the scientific community. That's why Sternberg had to go under the table to ensure that an extremely poor article on ID was published in a peer-reviewed journal. As I've pointed out, ID is certainly making inroads in the political arena and with that same ignorant 59% of Americans who believe that the prophecies of Revelation will have a literal fulfillment.
: That is the dirty little secret in the scientific community today. That is why they are trying to suppress it by whatever means necessary.
Nope. ID isn't even science -- it's religion. That's why most scientists -- even Christian ones -- won't deal with it. ID has produced no "theory of creation" of its own. What it has produced is a massive amount of rhetoric that's negative about evolution. Ask an IDer for a clear, positive statement about the science backing their ideas, and you'll get nothing. Really, all ID is, is a wordy way of expressing "the argument from ignorance" -- "I can't conceive how evolution works, so it doesn't. So creation must be right." Even you should be able to see how silly such a position is.
AlanF
-
hooberus
As is usual with creationists, we find hooberus here putting forth one-sided and misleading information about this Dr. Sternberg's publishing a creationism-oriented article in a peer-reviewed taxonomic journal. I recently read an article on this in Skeptic magazine (Vol 11, No. 4, 2005, pp. 66-69) and so I was interested in hooberus' information.
The information I presented was not "misleading" and was backed up a govenment investigation letter.In a nutshell, what happened was that Dr. Sternberg, a Christian creationist, misused his position as editor of the minor technical journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington to bypass the normal editorial reviewing process to get published an article by the Intelligent Design creationist Dr. Stephen Meyer.
"In the case of the Meyer paper I followed all the standard procedures for publication in the Proceedings. As managing editor it was my prerogative to choose the editor who would work directly on the paper, and as I was best qualified among the editors I chose myself, something I had done before in other appropriate cases. In order to avoid making a unilateral decision on a potentially controversial paper, however, I discussed the paper on at least three occasions with another member of the Council of the Biological Society of Washington (BSW), a scientist at the National Museum of Natural History. Each time, this colleague encouraged me to publish the paper despite possible controversy." "The Meyer paper underwent a standard peer review process by three qualified scientists, all of whom are evolutionary and molecular biologists teaching at well-known institutions. The reviewers provided substantial criticism and feedback to Dr. Meyer, who then made significant changes to the paper in response. Subsequently, after the controversy arose, Dr. Roy McDiarmid, President of the Council of the BSW, reviewed the peer-review file and concluded that all was in order. As Dr. McDiarmid informed me in an email message on August 25th, 2004, "Finally, I got the [peer] reviews and agree that they are in support of your decision [to publish the article]."" If the normal review process were followed, the article never would have been published, partly for obvious reasons and partly because its content was quite out of character with the articles on taxonomy that the journal normally handles.
The normal review process was followed. The following explains this (and answers many objections such as the above):
http://www.rsternberg.net/publication_details.htm#Process
Furthermore, it appears likely that Sternberg chose some of his creationist buddies who hold science positions at several Christian colleges to do the required peer review.
The reviewers held qualified degrees in science.
Naturally, the scientists at the Smithsonian Institution who were hoodwinked and embarassed by Sternberg's unethical conduct took action against him.
The unethical conduct was against Sternberg, not by him.
I completely agree with all efforts that were made to censure Sternberg for his unethical conduct.
I'm sure you do Alan.
One website I found contains a good deal of information on this business ( http://www.geocities.com/lclane2/pbsw.html ), and I'm putting some of its information in this post.
On his website ( http://www.rsternberg.net/ ) Sternberg states that:
Smithsonian officials determined that there was no wrong-doing in the publication process for the Meyer paper.
Perhaps not wrongdoing in the sense of violating a specific rule (although the governing council of the journal disputes this), but Sternberg knew exactly what he was doing when he did an end-run around the normal review process.
Sternberg followed the "normal process"
He knew what he was doing when he chose his creationist buddies to do the peer-review,
Since we don't know his thoughts, (nor the identity of the reviewers) statements such as the above are unsubstantiated.
and when he didn't run an article he knew would be extremely controversial by the board of editors of the journal.
http://www.rsternberg.net/publication_details.htm#Process
"At no time during my nearly three years as managing editor did I ever ask the Council as a body for its input on any editorial decision regarding any particular paper. Nor did the Council itself or anyone on the Council intimate to me that the Council ought to be in any way involved in editorial decision-making with regard to particular papers."
" Nevertheless, recognizing the potentially controversial nature of the paper, I consulted with a colleague about whether it should be published. This person is a scientist at the National Museum of Natural History, a member of the Council, and someone whose judgment I respected. I thought it was important to double-check my view as to the wisdom of publishing the Meyer paper. We discussed the Meyer paper during at least three meetings, including one soon after the receipt of the paper, before it was sent out for review.
After the initial positive conversation with my Council member colleague, I sent the paper out for review to four experts"
He knew quite well that the article wouldn't pass muster if non-creationists reviewed it, and that it was altogether inappropriate for that journal. So Sternberg certainly violated normal science ethics, and was guilty of professional misconduct.
There violation of "normal science ethics" and "professional misconduct" was not perpetuated by him, but rather against him.
-
hooberus
On his website, Sternberg complains that his reputation was smeared by false allegations, but gives little supporting evidence.
There is the letter from the U.S. OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL supporting several of his assertions.
http://www.rsternberg.net/OSC_ltr.htm -
hooberus
Sure, and that agency happens to be the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, whose principle legal adviser and the man who headed the investigation of Sternberg's charges, happens to be one James McVay, a political appointee of the Bush administration. Naturally, one expects that McVay subscribes to the same right-wing creationist agenda that George W. Bush and so many other of his political appointees do, so it's hardly to be expected that McVay would be other than harsh on Sternberg's critics. In other words, he's playing out a political agenda.
What direct evidence do you have that McVay subscribes to a "right-wing creationist agenda"?