Evolutionary establishment tactics (page 4)

hooberus

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

What specific statements of mine are you referring to?

Correct me if I'm wrong (entirely possible), but this isn't a "free speech" issue, nor is it an "ID versus evolution" issue, it's just a question of how an organization handled an editor of one of their publications when he committed an error. (And perhaps as a side-issue, whether or not the error was intentional).

Regardless of my feelings about ID, I have to believe publishing the article was a serious mistake. Exactly the same as the Watchtower publishing a pro-atheist article, or Microsoft publishing a pro-Linux article. It's not about the ideas, it's about the inappropriateness of the forum chosen to voice them.

It was a poor choice, and now he's suffering for it professionally. If I made as poor a choice in my job -- say, created an application that prompts for a password, but if you enter "atheistsRule!" as the password it would let you in -- I would expect no better treatment.

Dave

Midget-Sasquatch

IYou're right AA. He didn't make a sound editorial decision for that journal, even going so far as to put forward a competing agenda. And as AlanF has posted, he abused his position to do so. He really circumvented the self-checking mechanism thats supposed to be the heart of the process.

Also as a review article, it should have presented the best and strongest evidence each side of the issue has to offer. It didn't do that. It chose to ignore some very good evidence against the editor's pet view. That was a failure in a key function for such an article and, as I see it, reason enough to not having it published as it was. I'd really like to know who were the peer reviewers and if their expertise included the Cambrian taxa. Poor choices as reviewers, but understandable if they had a vested interest in seeing that article published as well.

Forscher

Since hooberus did a good job of rebutting many of the points raised, there isn't much I can add beyond this.

You contend that it was somehow unethical for Sternberg to have the article in question peer-reviewed and then published. As hooberus showed with the appropriate links, Sternberg followed the procedure that was set up. That is hardly unethical.

In your first post you contended that one of the reasons the publication was unethical was that people you consider ignorant might read it and think that somehow had some legitimacy. Since the magazine in question is an obscure scientific publication aimed at fellow scientists that the public in general doesn't have ready access to, I can only assume that you think trained scientists are incapable of examining the material critically and coming to the proper conclusions. Apparently the scientists at the Smithsonian and the think-tank invovled agree with you!

Again, you come up with no ethical justification for the conduct of both the think-tank and the folks at the Smithsonian. You simply brush that issue off with an excuse ("well, they were right to do whatever they had to to get rid of this guy" pretty much sums up your argument) that smacks of the end justifys the means, one of the lowest of ethical justifications out there.

hooberus

Correct me if I'm wrong (entirely possible), but this isn't a "free speech" issue, nor is it an "ID versus evolution" issue, it's just a question of how an organization handled an editor of one of their publications when he committed an error. (And perhaps as a side-issue, whether or not the error was intentional).

What was the "error"?

Regardless of my feelings about ID, I have to believe publishing the article was a serious mistake. Exactly the same as the Watchtower publishing a pro-atheist article, or Microsoft publishing a pro-Linux article. It's not about the ideas, it's about the inappropriateness of the forum chosen to voice them.

The problem analogies such as these is the fact that entities (such as the watchtower and Microsoft) have a specific pre-existing bias agena, whereas scientific journals usually don't claim to. If the publication in question had an "evolution only" doctrine statement in the front (which I don't believe that it had) then you would probably have a valid point. However, if the publication simply dealt with biology, then there shouldn't be a problem with the the printing of diverse papers (provided they are specifically on biological subjects). Evolutionists frequently claim that one of the reasons why ID should be rejected as "unscientific" is becasue ID arcticles are not found in "peer-reviewed" journals. The only way that such an argument could be valid would be if such journals are at least possibly open to such papers (if written properly, and if review is passed).

hooberus

IYou're right AA. He didn't make a sound editorial decision for that journal, even going so far as to put forward a competing agenda.

The only way that the arcticle could have put forward "a competing agenda" would be if the publication already had an agenda.

If "peer-reviewed" journals have an agenda, then evolutionists need to admit it and stop their frequent charge against ID merely because ID papers do not "appear" in them (see above).

If however these publications do not have an agenda, then they need to stop claiming that Sternberg did something wrong merely because of publishing a non-evolutionary biology.

the_classicist

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.

And as AlanF has posted, he abused his position to do so. ;He really circumvented the self-checking mechanism thats supposed to be the heart of the process.

Which is, ironically, what Galileo got in trouble for. Instead of publishing his Copernican works in Latin for the scholars, he represented the Copernican hypothesis as truth in his book, although unproven, and published it in the vernacular, so that peer-review was circumvented.

peacefulpete

As people having escaped a society that was highly proficient at misdirection and half truth we should be quite aware of how slippery fanatics can be. A brain fog of sorts clouds the judgment and ethics of somone under the spell of supernaturalism. I remember compiling a booklet so as to 'disprove' evolution when I was under the spell of Jehovahism. There was nothing wrong with my brain functioning or my generally ethical nature, I was just so desperately in need of proof that my powers of judgment were impaired. I'm quite willing to assume the same for those involved in ID propaganda. I also remember how easy it was to bewail "persecution!" when ever my opinions were mocked or refuted by those more knowledgable. The extent that this single story has spread is absolutely incredible. Every day thousands of papers are submitted for review to science journals, most are declined. Legitamate but marginalized science has a difficult time overcoming consensus all the time. Eventually the peer review process works as it should and science is benefitted. This story does not deserve and would never have been seen as news worthy if it was not intimately associated with leading and powerful ID supporters.

AlmostAtheist

The problem analogies such as these is the fact that entities (such as the watchtower and Microsoft) have a specific pre-existing bias agena, whereas scientific journals usually don't claim to. If the publication in question had an "evolution only" doctrine statement in the front (which I don't believe that it had) then you would probably have a valid point. However, if the publication simply dealt with biology, then there shouldn't be a problem with the the printing of diverse papers (provided they are specifically on biological subjects).

On that basis, shouldn't scientific journals publish every creation myth ever formulated by man?

What if medical journals worked that way? The medical establishment has rejected the idea that radiation is "healthy". If somebody decides they don't believe that anymore -- despite overwhelming medical evidence to the contrary -- would JAMA still publish an article promoting it? If they refused, could they be accused of having an anti-radiation agenda?

ID isn't science, so it shouldn't be in a science journal. It's not a question of it being "right" or not, it's just about what category it belongs in. ID is a religious argument, it belongs in religious forums.

Dave

Evolutionary establishment tactics

Share this