Posts by AlanF

157

Evolutionary establishment tactics

by hooberus in

wednesday evenings (august 24th) fox news program "the oreilly factor" featured an interview life after "intelligent design" with dr. richard sternberg, editor, of the peer-reviewed journal "proceedings of the biological society of washington.

" dr. sternberg's home page discusses the recriminations he faced by certain members of the evolutionary establishment after publishing an arcticle by another person advocating the possibilty of intelligent design in the peer reviewed journal.

http://www.rsternberg.net/

AlanF

the_classicist said:

:: You're committing several logical blunders here. First, no one is claiming that cells evolved in one fell swoop by chance. Rather, origins scientists today generally propose that the earliest life was far simpler, probably based on unknown but simple protein sequences.

: Wait a minute, I never said cells evolved in "one fell swoop by chance."

Of course you did, unless English is a problem for you, which I know it is not. You clearly stated:

:::: What I have said is that life (as in a cell, the simplest unit of life) cannot come about by chance

I.e., a cell cannot come about by chance. Now, if you actually meant to say that a cell cannot come about through a sequence of chance steps, that would be another kettle of fish. But I'm not a mind reader.

:: I don't know enough to say more than that, but from your statements, you know a good deal less than I do, and so it would behoove you to educate yourself before making such pronouncements.

: Interesting pontification.

Upon which you've failed actually to comment.

I know plenty about ID, having read many books pro and con, and having followed it since the 1991 publication by Phillip Johnson of Darwin on Trial, which kicked the whole thing off. You've already clearly stated that all you've "heard about ID is that life is irreducibly complex and it couldn't have come about by chance." Sounds to me like you haven't done any homework, but have only been chugging along on hearsay. If your statement was, well (What's the right word? Hypobole as opposed to hyperbole? Well, you get the idea.), highly understated, then you need to learn to communicate clearly.

:: Second, you're committing the very same logical fallacy I desribed above, namely, invoking the argument from ignorance. Third, how do you know that "life cannot come about by chance"? Are you so much more knowledgeable than anyone else so that you know this, and can prove it?

: Second, actually, I'm trying to argue from agnosticism.

Knock me over with a feather!

: Neither sides can be proven, although each side would like to think that they can.

Um, no. Science never proves anything, and all scientists worth their salt admit this. Science only comes up with explanations that have varying degrees of probability, ranging from nearly zero to nearly certain. Scientists who argue against the precepts of ID mainly argue that its claims are simply not science, or that specific arguments made by ID claimants are wrong for very specific reasons. Of course, if you'd do your homework rather than relying on hearsay, you'd know this.

The most specific criticism of ID, once again, is that it is not a theory about anything. Rather it's a negative, a claim that other theories -- the theory of evolution and the notion of abiogensis -- are absolutely, certainly, 100% wrong, leaving only the notion that the Christian God created everything. ID proponents have nothing positive to replace it with, except to make noises about a vague, unspecified intelligent designer in some circles, and the Christian God as The IDer in other circles. But of course, they have absolutely no actual theories or writings about just what this IDer actually does. Read their writings and see if you can find it. Better men than you or me have tried, and failed.

A good example of this is the theory of "unspecified complexity" set forth by William Dembski in several books. He details a theory about an "explanatory filter" (have you even heard of this?) which is supposed to be able to take the specifications of some system as input, and give as output a judgment as to whether it's a natural or created system. But neither Dembski, nor his fellow IDers, nor anyone else, has successfully applied it to any real biological system. In other words, it's completely useless. As is the rest of ID.

: Of course, if scientists did form create "life" in the lab, then one side would have to hoist it's position upon it's own petard.

Indeed.

I want to point out here, that creationists of various sorts have had to retreat year by year with respect to human evolution. They've traditionally claimed that there are no "missing links", no kinds of creatures in some way "in between" ape-like creatures and full-blown humans. But over the years, all sorts of fossil evidence has proved them wrong. Every few years, another fossil shows yet another form of ancient hominid or ancient human or human-like creature. The most recent, just this past year, was the discovery on the Indonesian island of Flores of miniature Homo erectus fossils, some just 14,000 years old.

It may well be that biologists will one day show precisely how life might arise "by chance". Neither you nor I know if this is possible or not.

: So far the theory that life can come about by chance has been falsified by laboratory experiments.

Absolutely wrong. A correct statement is that so far, the theory that life can come about by chance has not been verified by laboratory experiments. The difference is profound.

: Third, how do you know that it can come about by randomness?

I never said it could. Personally, I take a wait and see attitude towards all theories relating to abiogenesis.

: Again, I'm arguining from agnosticism as to the validity of both theories and why they should both be included.

That's the proof that you don't understand real science. ID is a religious idea, period. IDers state that clearly, in Christian circles. Religious ideas have no place in science, period.

:: But there's a lot more to the ID movement than that.

: Movements and actual theories should be separated and recognized as two different entities.

Perhaps in principle, but it can't be done in practice. And as I've shown, IDers have a clearly stated agenda of getting the notion that their biblical, Judeo-Christian God created everything back into general acceptance, and of getting that notion accepted into every part of modern society. Do you really want that?

: I've seen neo-Darwinists argue against non-Darwinist theories by associating it with creationist movements.

Examples, please.

: Instead, we don't focus on what each movement wants, but what the actual theory says and it's own merits.

Show me someone apart from the Discovery Institute who promotes an intelligible theory of intelligent design, and I might go along with you.

:: Do you really think that they'd quietly accept a public school teaching that, say, Thor is The Intelligent Designer?

: Why not? Didn't you know the universe was forged by Thor's hammer? [/sarcasm]

Funny, but my point is dead serious. Why not answer it seriously?

:: Science continually improves, and so my main point is that you can't claim that merely because science can't explain something today, it never can. That's an obviously false claim.

: Explaning something and showing it is logical and rational is not equivalent to what actually happened. [sarcasm]

Do tell. But that has nothing to do with my comment.

: Just because scientists can't build anti-gravity wells today, doesn't mean that they never can.[/sarcasm]

Again funny, but your point is a good example of what I'm talking about. Do you have real knowledge that anti-gravity wells can't be made? I have no idea myself, but what if next year a breakthrough were made and such became practical? Don't think it can't happen. About 1895, the famous scientist Lord Kelvin pronounced that pretty much everything that could be discovered had been, and guess what? The next year Roentgen announced the discovery of X-rays, and shortly after that atomic radiation in the form of alpha particles was discovered, which quickly revolutionized science. A few years later Einstein again revolutionized physics with three Nobel-prize quality papers in one year. A few years after that we had quantum mechanics. Then we had electronics and all sorts of things not even imaginable to our ancestors. Don't be so sanguine.

: Science today says that we cannot create life or even reproduce the mechanisms that supposedly created life.

Correction: can't do it as of today. A century and change ago, "science said we couldn't fly because no one could do it." Your claim is demonstrably silly.

: Unless some scientists cannot show otherwise, to say that life cannot come about by randomness is a valid theory.

Sure. It's as valid as 150 years ago claiming that it's impossible for mankind to fly.

: It's not the same as saying, "Well, God must've done it." No, it's saying that "Life is so complex that, due to the inability of scientist to reproduce the mechanisms that produce life, this leads some to think that life could not have come about by chance," or something to that effect.

Well that's a perfectly reasonable way of putting it. But that contradicts everything you've said so far, which has been to dogmatically state that, just because it can't be done today, it's impossible.

AlanF

157

Evolutionary establishment tactics

by hooberus in

wednesday evenings (august 24th) fox news program "the oreilly factor" featured an interview life after "intelligent design" with dr. richard sternberg, editor, of the peer-reviewed journal "proceedings of the biological society of washington.

" dr. sternberg's home page discusses the recriminations he faced by certain members of the evolutionary establishment after publishing an arcticle by another person advocating the possibilty of intelligent design in the peer reviewed journal.

http://www.rsternberg.net/

AlanF

the_classicist wrote:

: Seems to be arguing non-Darwinian evolution.

"Seems" is the watchword. You're being taken in by the rhetoric, and apparently you're not understanding that their position is religious, not scientific.

: I don't see what's unscientific about that.

In and of itself, it may be a valid viewpoint. But there's a lot more to the ID movement than that. On the first page of this thread, I posted some comments from Skeptic magazine by author Robert Weitzel. You should read them if you haven't already. Here are some relevant excerpts:

IDers maintain that life is too complex to have developed solely by evolutionary mechanisms. They believe this complexity could only have been engineered by an intelligent designer. Strategically, they refrain from identifying the nature of the designer. This tactic is designed to give their notion of creation a patina of scientific credibility and protection from First Amendment challenges.. . .
The CSC's [Center for Science and Culture] guiding principle is to "replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and humans are created by God." They will accept nothing less than the "complete overthrow of materialism and its damning cultural legacies." To achieve this end, [leading ID advocate Phillip] Johnson, with help from the Fellows at the CSC, developed the Wedge Strategy, a 20-year plan with the ultimate goal "to see design theory permeate our religion, cultural, moral and political life." However, it is the first strategic objective of the Wedge, "to see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences," that set the knights of the CSC to searching for creationism's Holy Grail, a peer-reviewed scientific article.

According to these peoples' own statements of policy, ID is religious. Who is the Intelligent Designer but the Judeo-Christian God? Do you really think that they'd quietly accept a public school teaching that, say, Thor is The Intelligent Designer?

::: The onus is actually upon the non-ID people to show that life can come about by chance;

:: . . . Going against the basics of evolution as shown in the fossil record would be like a 19th century science-skeptic claiming that light works by God's direction, because after all, scientists couldn't explain exactly how light works. Well, we've come a long way since then in the science of electromagnetic radiation, and still have many fundamental problems to solve, but no one in his right mind thinks that photons are hurried along their paths by direct divine intervention.

: Now, AlanF, that's a strawman as I'm not arguing about evolution, but the origins of life.

I wasn't making a real argument, but giving you an analogy. We all know that analogies don't prove anything, right? One of my points is that the same principle is involved in examining general evolution, the origins of life, and notions of the nature of light. Science continually improves, and so my main point is that you can't claim that merely because science can't explain something today, it never can. That's an obviously false claim.

: I never said life never evolved nor getting rid of the fossil record.

Ok. . .

: What I have said is that life (as in a cell, the simplest unit of life) cannot come about by chance and the non-ID people have failed to show that it can even though they have tried many times.

You're committing several logical blunders here. First, no one is claiming that cells evolved in one fell swoop by chance. Rather, origins scientists today generally propose that the earliest life was far simpler, probably based on unknown but simple protein sequences. I don't know enough to say more than that, but from your statements, you know a good deal less than I do, and so it would behoove you to educate yourself before making such pronouncements. Second, you're committing the very same logical fallacy I desribed above, namely, invoking the argument from ignorance. Third, how do you know that "life cannot come about by chance"? Are you so much more knowledgeable than anyone else so that you know this, and can prove it?

AlanF

157

Evolutionary establishment tactics

by hooberus in

wednesday evenings (august 24th) fox news program "the oreilly factor" featured an interview life after "intelligent design" with dr. richard sternberg, editor, of the peer-reviewed journal "proceedings of the biological society of washington.

" dr. sternberg's home page discusses the recriminations he faced by certain members of the evolutionary establishment after publishing an arcticle by another person advocating the possibilty of intelligent design in the peer reviewed journal.

http://www.rsternberg.net/

AlanF

the_classicist wrote:

: I'm not sure I understand the ID correctly as many people hold it to mean different things.

Such as?

: Now all I've heard about ID is that life is irreducibly complex and it couldn't have come about by chance. This is the ID argument and there isn't anything particularly religious about it.

You obviously haven't studed ID, then. There are numerous resources on the Net, which are easy to find. One skeptical website is: http://skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.html . Of course, you can always get the real IDers' dope at the Discovery Institute website: http://www.discovery.org/ . There are also some excellent books on ID from a skeptic's viewpoint, which if you really want to know the pros and cons of ID, you should read. I can suggest some if you like.

The bottom line is that ID is a rather wordy way of expressing the argument from ignorance: "I can't imagine how X can be so, therefore it isn't. Therefore Y is so." I'm sure you can see the other fallacy in such a claim.

: The onus is actually upon the non-ID people to show that life can come about by chance;

Well, to a certain extent this has already been done. The fossil record is unequivocal that life has evolved. Whether it has evolved by Darwinian or related mechanisms, by unknown mechanisms, or by divine guidance is a different question. Of course, the science of origins is still in its infancy, and so a great many questions -- most, even -- remain to be answered. But the evidence we have for general evolution is extremely strong.

Going against the basics of evolution as shown in the fossil record would be like a 19th century science-skeptic claiming that light works by God's direction, because after all, scientists couldn't explain exactly how light works. Well, we've come a long way since then in the science of electromagnetic radiation, and still have many fundamental problems to solve, but no one in his right mind thinks that photons are hurried along their paths by direct divine intervention.

I guess you don't yet understand that IDers don't simply propose that life couldn't have come about by chance. Indeed, their real proposal is that the Judeo-Christian God created the universe, and so their foray into other proposals is just a way to get around American First-Amendment rules and Supreme Court decisions prohibiting teaching such religion in government sponsored arenas such as public schools.

AlanF

157

Evolutionary establishment tactics

by hooberus in

wednesday evenings (august 24th) fox news program "the oreilly factor" featured an interview life after "intelligent design" with dr. richard sternberg, editor, of the peer-reviewed journal "proceedings of the biological society of washington.

" dr. sternberg's home page discusses the recriminations he faced by certain members of the evolutionary establishment after publishing an arcticle by another person advocating the possibilty of intelligent design in the peer reviewed journal.

http://www.rsternberg.net/

AlanF

You two, hooberus and Forscher, are really amusing stereotypes of the Fundamentalists who cause such trouble for reasonable Christians. You ignore everything you can't deal with, which includes the most telling arguments against your claims. Even when pointed questions are emphasized, you ignore them. That's dishonest, and exactly what I've come to expect from such people over the years. In that, you're much like the typical JW apologists who cherry pick what they'll respond to, and ignore most of the arguments they're confronted with.

Now to business.

As I've pointed out, and you've ignored, Richard Sternberg seems not to have violated "the letter of the law" as regards Smithsonian Institution rules and the written guidelines of the Proceedings journal. If he had, he would almost certainly have been fired. But he most certainly violated the unwritten rules of ethics that all scientists are expected to observe. In particular, he violated the common sense ethical rule for journal editors that if an editor wants to publish an article he knows will be extremely controversial and is liable to embarass most everyone else on the journal's staff, he should get a buy-in from the editorial board or governing council as a whole. It's irrelevant whether the journal has written rules about this -- it's a common sense ethical practice. All scientists are expected to have this common sense after having gone through a Ph.D. program. People who don't have this common sense are by definition bad scientists and should not be allowed to practice science in a reputable institution.

The fact is that the governing council of the Proceedings journal issued an official statement that Sternberg violated their confidence by making an end run around the unwritten rules he was well aware of. Sternberg knew in advance that publishing the ID article would be highly controversial. That's why he was careful to pick exactly the right people to discuss his plans with. It's extremely significant that none of the parties involved -- neither Sternberg's supposed peer-reviewers, nor the person on the Proceedings council who he claims he discussed it with (who is almost certainly another IDer, like Sternberg) -- have come forward to verify Sternberg's claims. So all we have is Sternberg's word. And of course, no one in the regular science community trusts him anymore, given his track record.

Obviously you two refuse to admit that you understand any of this, so let me once again pose the question from Eugenie Scott:

"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?"

Your refusal to give a proper answer will prove that you're thoroughly dishonest.

What you two are really doing is playing Pharisee, just like Sternberg. You're ignoring the spirit of an honest and open science community, and substituting a Pharisaic "rule of law", where you think that if there isn't a specific rule or law to cover a situation, anything goes. Well I've got news for you: Neither science nor business works that way. Anyone who is a real player in those fields understands that there's a lot more to playing than following a written set of rules.

Now for some specific responses to your comments.

Hooberus said:

: The information I presented was not "misleading" and was backed up a govenment investigation letter.

The information was incomplete and therefore misleading. You failed to present any comments at all from anyone who took Sternberg to task. Therefore your information was as biased as anything from the Watchtower Society.

I had said:

:: 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.

You replied with a quotation from Sternberg:

: In the case of the Meyer paper I followed all the standard procedures for publication in the Proceedings. . .

This is precisely the sort of Pharisaic, Watchtowerish response I've come to expect from Fundies.

I had said:

:: 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.

So Sternberg claims, but refuses to prove. But when something as obviously controversial as publishing a pro-ID paper in a normal science journal is contemplated, the "normal review process" -- by scientific convention and simple common sense -- must include getting the approval of the entire editorial board. Sternberg followed the normal process for the type of article normally published in Proceedings -- articles on taxonomy and such. Common sense says that anything out of the ordinary should be given extraordinary treatment.

: The following explains this (and answers many objections such as the above):

Already dealt with in previous posts. Let's continue:

:: 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.

What's your proof? All we have is Sternberg's word. And since he's violated a trust, why should anyone trust anything he says?

I'll again quote Weitzel writing in the Skeptic article I quoted:

Dr. Sternberg further asserts that "Meyer's paper underwent a standard peer review process by three qualified scientists, all of whom are evolutionary and molecular biologists teaching at well-known institutions." Since it is not unusual for reviewers to remain anonymous, it is entirely possible that Sternberg sent the article to the qualified scientists of his Baraminology Study Group at Bob Jones University, The Master's College, and Bryan College, all of which are well-known Christian institutions that require their faculty to sign a statement of belief in the inerrancy of Holy Scripture.

Do you disagree with this latter assessment, hooberus? If so, can you explain why any normal scientist would agree to review a pro-ID article and recommend its publishing in an obscure taxonomy journal?

Furthermore, whoever these reviewers were, they're demonstrably incompetent. As Weitzel wrote (see my earlier post for more context):

In a summary, the authors of "Meyer's Hopeless Monster" conclude that Meyer has merely constructed "a rhetorical edifice out of omissions of relevant facts, selective quoting, bad analogies, knocking down strawmen, and tendentious interpretations."

Any scientist who fails to see such blatant bad argumentation in a scientific paper is certainly incompetent. And of course, Sternberg is shown to be equally incompetent.

:: 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.

You didn't deal with the various questions I've raised about this. It's perfectly normal for government managers who are forced to deal with an unethical employee who hasn't violated specific written laws to use whatever legal means they can to force the employee out. They have little choice, given the ridiculously restrictive government rules about firing employees. This is common knowledge. Furthermore, the actions taken by Sternberg's employers were not truly unethical -- otherwise they would have been fired. (See how two can play the game?)

:: 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.

The scientists who were hoodwinked are not dummies. Who do you think you're dealing with? A typical bunch of dumb Fundies like the JWs?

:: 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.

Once again you sidestep the point. Yep, hooberus, you're dishonest.

:: 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.

Which contains precious little by way of actual smears. He was called a young-earth creationist by certain people, but he never actually denies being one, and his associations prove that he's an ID creationist. Some people naturally called his credentials into question, but another associate circulated his curriculum vitae to prove he really had degrees. And so it goes. Piddly stuff, really.

But what Sternberg never addresses is the most important question of all -- why he didn't have the courtesy, or common sense, to run such a controversial article by the entire Proceedings council, knowing the extent of embarassment it would cause his employers. And it's obvious why he didn't.

:: 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"?

None, or I would have posted it. But until a couple of weeks ago, I had no direct evidence that George W. Bush was an IDer, although I certainly suspected it. Keep in mind that most of Bush's political appointees are right wingers -- otherwise they wouldn't have been appointed. Most of them claim to be Christians and a great many of them are Fundamentalists, some quite extreme, like John Ashcroft. Furthermore, reading McVay's comments to Sternberg gives a strong impression that he's quite biased toward Sternberg, something to be expected of a fellow creationist. Again, who do you think you're dealing with here?

Forscher wrote:

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

LOL!

: You contend that it was somehow unethical for Sternberg to have the article in question peer-reviewed and then published.

I said nothing of the kind. I said that it was unethical for him not to run the article by the entire editorial board, knowing that it was highly controversial, inappropriate for the journal, and would most certainly embarass the Proceedings governing council. And of course, the governing council issued a statement saying that.

: As hooberus showed with the appropriate links, Sternberg followed the procedure that was set up. That is hardly unethical.

It was a legalistic, Pharisaical, Watchtowerish endrun around normal science ethics. See my above comments.

: 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.

I said nothing remotely like that in my first post. In my second post I said something that someone might interpret that way:

:: Your position ignores political reality. ID is in no sense science -- it is religion. IDers have a political strategy they call "The Wedge" which is designed to take advantage of the ignorance of the majority of Americans about most science issues and to play on their natural sense of fairness: "Why not let people examine all sides of the evolution/creation issue?" Well of course, good science is not done by majority vote, but by hard work in testing theories and making observations. IDers want to circumvent this process by ultimately legislating that the Christian brand of creationism (as opposed to, say, the Hare Krishna brand) be taught in public schools as if it had undergone the rigorous testing that the theory of evolution has for a century and a half. The problem for science is that American religion has enough political clout to do exactly that.

: 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!

You certainly have a way of thoroughly mistunderstanding what's going on. The Skeptic article I quoted was extremely clear about the real reasons that IDers want to get an article published in a peer-reviewed journal, why for some 15 years it's been their Holy Grail. Let me requote some important points:

Like the medieval prince who forfeited his kingdom in a quest for the Holy Grail, Intelligent Design creationists (IDers) have embarked on the equally quixotic quest to place a peer-reviewed article in a bona fide scientific journal. This 21st-century Grail is a linchpin in the intelligent design movement's strategy for winning their case in both the court of law and the court of public opinon.
. . .
Their Grail, however plastic, was secured the moment the ink dried on the Proceeding's pages. Thereafter they can claim that intelligent design has passed the litmus test of a peer-reviewed journal. They will just leave out a few details, such as the particular circumstances of the essay's publication or its official denunciation by the BSW.

Why do you think these guys conspired to get Meyer's article published in such an obscure journal? It certainly wasn't to disseminate the information. Indeed, the Discovery Institute and its leading authors already sell books containing the same stuff by the truckload. It was as Weitzel says: to be able to "claim that intelligent design has passed the litmus test of a peer-reviewed journal." And of course, Sternberg's fellows at the Smithsonian and the Proceedings journal don't like to be used in such an unethical manner.

: 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.

Your remarks are extremely stupid and ignore the political reality that I've explained several times now: to get a merely unethical government employee fired is virtually impossible, so other means are used. This is standard practice in government. Anyone who doesn't know how this works is naive.

And yes, Sternberg's managers were fully justified in making working conditions difficult for him so that he'd voluntarily leave.

: That you can so blithely defend such a smear campain and even quote it's propaganda (that means lies, friend) is nothing short of amazing.

That you can so blithely misunderstand and ignore so much is, well, typical.

AlanF

157

Evolutionary establishment tactics

by hooberus in

wednesday evenings (august 24th) fox news program "the oreilly factor" featured an interview life after "intelligent design" with dr. richard sternberg, editor, of the peer-reviewed journal "proceedings of the biological society of washington.

" dr. sternberg's home page discusses the recriminations he faced by certain members of the evolutionary establishment after publishing an arcticle by another person advocating the possibilty of intelligent design in the peer reviewed journal.

http://www.rsternberg.net/

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

157

Evolutionary establishment tactics

by hooberus in

wednesday evenings (august 24th) fox news program "the oreilly factor" featured an interview life after "intelligent design" with dr. richard sternberg, editor, of the peer-reviewed journal "proceedings of the biological society of washington.

" dr. sternberg's home page discusses the recriminations he faced by certain members of the evolutionary establishment after publishing an arcticle by another person advocating the possibilty of intelligent design in the peer reviewed journal.

http://www.rsternberg.net/

AlanF

Here are some comments from the latest Skeptic magazine (Vol. 11, No. 4, 2005, pp. 66-69) article "Creationism's Holy Grail: The Intelligent Design of a Peer-Reviewed Paper" by Robert Weitzel, which comments on Intelligent Design creationist Stephen Meyer's article "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories" published in Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington (Vol. 117, No. 2, pp. 213-239; the Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture has made Meyer's article available here: http://www.geocities.com/lclane2/pbsw.html ; note that the Discovery Institute was started by today's leading Intelligent Design advocates). The then managing editor of Proceedings, one Dr. Richard von Sternberg, snuck past the normal editorial review process and got the article published, which would never have happened if he had done due diligence. Sternberg, in fact, violated professional ethics by doing so. No surprise, really, because it appears that he's an Intelligent Design creationist himself. See my above post for more details.

Weitzel writes:

Like the medieval prince who forfeited his kingdom in a quest for the Holy Grail, Intelligent Design creationists (IDers) have embarked on the equally quixotic quest to place a peer-reviewed article in a bona fide scientific journal. This 21st-century Grail is a linchpin in the intelligent design movement's strategy for winning their case in both the court of law and the court of public opinon.
IDers maintain that life is too complex to have developed solely by evolutionary mechanisms. They believe this complexity could only have been engineered by an intelligent designer. Strategically, they refrain from identifying the nature of the designer. This tactic is designed to give their notion of creation a patina of scientific credibility and protection from First Amendment challenges.
. . .
The CSC's [Center for Science and Culture] guiding principle is to "replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and humans are created by God." They will accept nothing less than the "complete overthrow of materialism and its damning cultural legacies." To achieve this end, [leading ID advocate Phillip] Johnson, with help from the Fellows at the CSC, developed the Wedge Strategy, a 20-year plan with the ultimate goal "to see design theory permeate our religion, cultural, moral and political life." However, it is the first strategic objective of the Wedge, "to see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences," that set the knights of the CSC to searching for creationism's Holy Grail, a peer-reviewed scientific article.
Imagine the sense of vindication felt by ID's rank-and-file when, after waiting nearly 15 years, a review article written by Stephen Meyer, Director and Senior Fellow of the CSC and professor at the theologically conservative Christian Palm Beach Atlantic University, appeared in a bona fide scientific journal. Predictably though, their long awaited golden chalice turned out to be little more than a Tupperware cup.

Weitzel briefly describes the article, as I've described in my above post, and continues:

Considering the odds against Meyer's article appearing in the BSW journal, one can only infer that its publication was engineered by an "intelligent designer." The intelligent designer in this case is the Proceedings' editor at the time, Dr. Richard Sternberg. In defending his decision to publish Meyer's article, Dr. Sternberg claims to have followed the Society's editorial policy for peer-review. On his homepage Dr. Sternberg writes: "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." What he does not emphasize on his site are his affiliations that qualifed him to favorably review an article on intelligent design.
In addition to his work as a taxonomist at the National Center for Biotechnology Information, Dr. Sternberg is on the editorial board of the Occasional Papers of the Baraminology Study Group, a creation journal committed to the literal interpretation of Genesis. He is a Fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design, which promotes intelligent design creationism. He is also a signatory of the Discovery Institute's "100 Scientists who Doubt Darwinism" statement.
Dr. Sternberg further asserts that "Meyer's paper underwent a standard peer review process by three qualified scientists, all of whom are evolutionary and molecular biologists teaching at well-known institutions." Since it is not unusual for reviewers to remain anonymous, it is entirely possible that Sternberg sent the article to the qualified scientists of his Baraminology Study Group at Bob Jones University, The Master's College, and Bryan College, all of which are well-known Christian institutions that require their faculty to sign a statement of belief in the inerrancy of Holy Scripture.

Weitzel goes on to critique Meyer's article, using material from a critique titled "Meyer's Hopeless Monster" (Alan Gishlick, Nick Matzke, and Wesley R. Elsberry; http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000430.html ). He concludes:

In a summary, the authors of "Meyer's Hopeless Monster" conclude that Meyer has merely constructed "a rhetorical edifice out of omissions of relevant facts, selective quoting, bad analogies, knocking down strawmen, and tendentious interpretations." But the documentation of massive errors and omissions by members of the scientific community is of little consequence to Meyer and the CSC. Despite their rhetoric about the censorship of an entrenched scientific brotherhood, recognition by the "brotherhood" is far less important to the achievemnt of the CSC's ultimate goal than is recognition by an uninformed, voting public. Their Grail, however plastic, was secured the moment the ink dried on the Proceeding's pages. Thereafter they can claim that intelligent design has passed the litmus test of a peer-reviewed journal. They will just leave out a few details, such as the particular circumstances of the essay's publication or its official denunciation by the BSW.
Even though the proponents of ID have so far failed to place an article in a journal with an impact factor similar to that of Nature, Science, or Cell, they have been remarkably successful in the Op-Ed pages of leading U.S. newspapers, where opinion trumps the scientific method. As CSC founding Fellow Michael Behe pointed out in a February 7, 2005, New York Times opinion piece: "Whatever special restrictions scientists adopt for themselves don't bind the public, which polls show, overwhelmingly, and sensibly, thinks that life was designed." Sadly, according to a 2002 Times/CNN poll, 59% of that same public also expects the prophecies found in the Book of Revelation to come true.
It is this 59% of the American public that IDers at the CSC had in mind when they engineered the Wedge Strategy. They are counting on this majority, whose members have never cracked the spine of a scientific journal in search of a peer-reviewed article, to cary the banner of their Kulturkampf from the local school board, through the court, and onto the public square.

AlanF

157

Evolutionary establishment tactics

by hooberus in

wednesday evenings (august 24th) fox news program "the oreilly factor" featured an interview life after "intelligent design" with dr. richard sternberg, editor, of the peer-reviewed journal "proceedings of the biological society of washington.

" dr. sternberg's home page discusses the recriminations he faced by certain members of the evolutionary establishment after publishing an arcticle by another person advocating the possibilty of intelligent design in the peer reviewed journal.

http://www.rsternberg.net/

AlanF

Forscher wrote:

: let me see if I get this right.

You didn't.

: The evolutionists here have no problem with fellow evolutionists acting in an unethical, possibly illegeal in the defense of evolution? It's allright to destroy a man's career by SLANDERING him for allowing an article contrary ot the establishment's position to be published?

Obviously you either didn't read the above material, or didn't read enough to get the sense of it, or simply failed to understand what you read.

The points are simple:

Sternberg violated professional ethics by allowing an inappropriate article to be published in a narrow technical journal.

Sternberg violated common sense by allowing what he knew would be a very controversial article to be published in said journal without first running it by the full editorial board.

Sternberg clearly knew what he was doing, and therefore deliberately created a highly charged situation.

Sternberg was not slandered. (Or do you consider calling him a young-earth creationist slander?)

Sternberg got precisely the treatment to be expected for anyone who violates professional ethics and common sense the way he did.

: What do you folks have to fear if the ID position is as foolish as you say? Nothing! If it is that rediculous as I constantly read here, than you have nothing to fear. Others would see it for what it is. But, then, it is feared because it makes a valid point. And that is why no measure is to low to be used in suppressing it. Looks the same as the WTBTS to me!!

Your position ignores political reality. ID is in no sense science -- it is religion. IDers have a political strategy they call "The Wedge" which is designed to take advantage of the ignorance of the majority of Americans about most science issues and to play on their natural sense of fairness: "Why not let people examine all sides of the evolution/creation issue?" Well of course, good science is not done by majority vote, but by hard work in testing theories and making observations. IDers want to circumvent this process by ultimately legislating that the Christian brand of creationism (as opposed to, say, the Hare Krishna brand) be taught in public schools as if it had undergone the rigorous testing that the theory of evolution has for a century and a half. The problem for science is that American religion has enough political clout to do exactly that.

AlanF

55

Do any jw pubs say "Due time has approached" ala Luke 21:8?

by Check_Your_Premises in

luke 21:8.

8 he said: "look out that you are not misled; for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, i am he, and, the due time has approached.

just curious.

AlanF

CYP said:

: Where can I find one of those printed indexes?

At your local Kingdom Hall. You want something like the 1985-2000 Publications Index.

AlanF

157

Evolutionary establishment tactics

by hooberus in

wednesday evenings (august 24th) fox news program "the oreilly factor" featured an interview life after "intelligent design" with dr. richard sternberg, editor, of the peer-reviewed journal "proceedings of the biological society of washington.

" dr. sternberg's home page discusses the recriminations he faced by certain members of the evolutionary establishment after publishing an arcticle by another person advocating the possibilty of intelligent design in the peer reviewed journal.

http://www.rsternberg.net/

AlanF

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.

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. 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. 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. Naturally, the scientists at the Smithsonian Institution who were hoodwinked and embarassed by Sternberg's unethical conduct took action against him. I completely agree with all efforts that were made to censure Sternberg for his unethical conduct.

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. He knew what he was doing when he chose his creationist buddies to do the peer-review, and when he didn't run an article he knew would be extremely controversial by the board of editors of the journal. 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. It's no wonder that other scientists now refuse to work with him. He violated the integrity of the scientific process.

Here is an official statement (undated) from the journal's editorial board ( http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html ):

STATEMENT FROM THE COUNCIL OF THE BIOLOGICAL

SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON
The paper by Stephen C. Meyer, "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," in vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239 of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard v. Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history. For the same reason, the journal will not publish a rebuttal to the thesis of the paper, the superiority of intelligent design (ID) over evolution as an explanation of the emergence of Cambrian body-plan diversity. The Council endorses a resolution on ID published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml), which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID as a testable hypothesis to explain the origin of organic diversity. Accordingly, the Meyer paper does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings.
We have reviewed and revised editorial policies to ensure that the goals of the Society, as reflected in its journal, are clearly understood by all. Through a web presence (http://www.biolsocwash.org) and improvements in the journal, the Society hopes not only to continue but to increase its service to the world community of systematic biologists.

Here is a dated statement from the board, from the National Center for Science Education ( http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2004/ZZ/608_bsw_repudiates_meyer_9_7_2004.asp ):

BSW repudiates Meyer

A new development in the controversy about the publication of "intelligent design" advocate Stephen C. Meyer's article "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories" in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.

The Biological Society of Washington issued a statement on September 7, 2004, reading, in its entirety:

The paper by Stephen C. Meyer in the Proceedings ("The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239) represents a significant departure from the nearly purely taxonomic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 124-year history. It was published without the prior knowledge of the Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, or the associate editors. We have met and determined that all of us would have deemed this paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings.

We endorse the spirit of a resolution on Intelligent Design set forth by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml), and that topic will not be addressed in future issues of the Proceedings. We are reviewing editorial policies to ensure that the goals of the Society, as reflected in its journal, are clearly understood by all. Through a web presence (www.biolsocwash.org) and contemplated improvements in the journal, the Society hopes not only to continue but to increase its service to the world community of taxonomic biologists.

According to the PBSW's instructions for contributors, "Manuscripts are reviewed by a board of Associate Editors and appropriate referees." It seems, therefore, that Meyer's paper was not published in accordance with the journal's established review procedure.

On his website, Sternberg complains that his reputation was smeared by false allegations, but gives little supporting evidence. He complains that he was:

Pressured to reveal peer reviewers and to engage in improper peer review. I was repeatedly pressured to reveal the names of the peer-reviewers of the Meyer article, contrary to professional ethics. I was also told repeatedly that I should have found peer reviewers who would reject the article out-of-hand, in direct violation of professional ethics which require editors to find peer reviewers who are not prejudiced or hostile to a particular author or his/her ideas.

Since the peer-reviewers he chose were almost certainly his creationist buddies, of course he would come under pressure to reveal them. But he certainly didn't want to do that, and he knew that peer reviewers are normally kept anonymous, and so he knowingly used the normal ethics of the review process to engage in unethical conduct. A simple solution would have been for the peer-reviewers to allow Sternberg to reveal their names, but it's quite obvious why none of these guys wanted that done.

Sternberg states his view of what happened:

In sum, it is clear that I was targeted for retaliation and harassment explicitly because I failed in an unstated requirement in my role as editor of a scientific journal: I was supposed to be a gatekeeper turning away unpopular, controversial, or conceptually challenging explanations of puzzling natural phenomena. Instead, I allowed a scientific article to be published critical of neo-Darwinism, and that was considered an unpardonable heresy.

In view of the above facts, it's clear that Sternberg's summary is a misrepresentation of what happened. He was targeted, not for violating the unstated requirement he mentioned, but for violating normal professional ethics. He knew perfectly well that Meyer's article would never pass normal peer review, and so he misused his professional position to get around the normal process. The article could not pass normal peer review for a very simple reason: the ideas of Intelligent Design it promoted are not science but Christian religion. Really, simple common sense should have told Sternberg that he should have gotten a buy-in from the entire editoral board before publishing an article he knew perfectly well would be highly controversial.

Sternberg states that he actually did run his plan to publish the article by a fellow staffer at the National Museum of Natural History, but he does not name him. I suspect that this staffer is also a creationist. And of course, the entire editorial board has stated that it would have rejected the article, as shown above.

Sternberg argues that the paper was not outside the scope of the journal's normal contents, but the editorial board disagrees with him.

Sternberg complains of being labeled a young-earth creationist, but in all of his website, he does not deny being a creationist. He's closely associated with the "Baraminology Study Group" (he's on the editorial board of its newsletter), which is basically a young-earth creationist think-tank sort of group. He published some words about his association here: http://www.rsternberg.net/BSG.htm . Reading between the lines, it appears that Sternberg is an old-earth creationist of some sort -- a position held by most of the major players in the Intelligent Design community. Sternberg's statements are more interesting for what they don't say than for what they do. More information on this can be found here: http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/08/sternberg_and_t.html#more . Furthermore, according to one web article ( http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/evolution/issues/peerreview.shtml ), "He is also a Fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design (ISCID), which promotes intelligent design." According to another ( http://webapp.utexas.edu/blogs/archives/sarkarlab/002980.html ), "Sternberg was also a signatory of the Discovery Institute's “100 Scientists Who Doubt Darwinism” statement." The Discovery Institute is the official home of the self-styled Intelligent Design Movement.

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.

AlanF

55

Do any jw pubs say "Due time has approached" ala Luke 21:8?

by Check_Your_Premises in

luke 21:8.

8 he said: "look out that you are not misled; for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, i am he, and, the due time has approached.

just curious.

AlanF

The Watchtower Society's very basis, right from its inception, has been to say "the due time has approached". That's what the 1914 doctrine that Russell preached was all about. He laid out all his teachings on this in his 1889 book The Time Is At Hand. The Society has published quite a few books and booklets with titles saying essentially that. Titles that come to my mind are:

The Time Is At Hand (1889)

The Kingdom Is At Hand (1943)

The Approaching Peace of a Thousand Years (1969 booklet)

God's Kingdom of a Thousand Years Has Approached (1973)

Just take a look in one of the printed Indexes at the titles of Watchtower publications down through the years and you'll find more.

AlanF