Evolutionists punish scientists that dare to differ

[BobRyan]

The devotees of evolutionism have been so dogmatic in their religious intolerance of science that now they "openly" denounce fact and cling to "dogma" when confronted with a challenge.

http://www.worldmag.com/subscriber/displayarticle.cfm?id=10344

In this article they seek to fire the editor of a well respected science journal for failing to censor a peer reviewed article by Stephen Meyer,(A scientist who holds a Ph.D. from Cambridge and is a research fellow at the Discovery Institute). Dr. Meyer wrote an article titled "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories." in which he allowed his mind so much objective thought that he was willing to admit to data in favor of intelligent design.

Shocking!! (Said the atheist evolutionists!!)

Mr. Meyer submitted his paper to the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, a scientific journal affiliated with the Smithsonian Institute's National Museum of Natural History. The editor, Rick Sternberg, a researcher at the museum with two Ph.D.s in biology, forwarded the article to a panel of three peer reviewers. In scientific and other academic scholarship, submitting research to the judgment of other experts in the field ensures that published articles have genuine merit. Each of the reviewers recommended that, with revisions, the article should be published. Mr. Meyer made the revisions and the article was published last August.

Notice the doctrinal approach evolutionists take to their pet myth on "origins" - (in this quote)??

Critics of Mr. Sternberg say that the article should not have been published because the American Association for the Advancement of Science has proclaimed that Intelligent Design is "unscientific by definition." As Mr. Meyer points out: "Rather than critique the paper on its scientific merits, they appeal to a doctrinal statement."

The following tactic of evolutionists simply demonstrates the stranglehold they "believe themselves" to have on independent thought in America.

Historically, said Mr. Meyer, science has sought "the best explanation, period, wherever the evidence leads." But now the scientific establishment is requiring something else: "the best materialistic explanation for phenomenon." That rules out non-materialistic explanations from the onset, demanding adherence to the worldview that presumes the material realm is all that exists.

When evolutionists win - science loses!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Ah, something Bob and I can agree on.

There's no question the Darwinian priesthood is firmly entrenched in the scientific establishment and they will suffer no dissent to their monopoly on "science" or to their creation myth.

Dr. Meyers article is excellent. It definitely has touched a nerve (to say the least) with the philosophical materialists who conflate their metaphysical assumptions with "science". The "critical" responses (at least the ones I've seen) to the article are weak and have been adequately rebutted. I guess what's left is for the Darwinian priesthood to close ranks and dismiss any empirical challenges to their creation myth by philosophical dogmatic pontifications on what is and isn't "science".

 

[BobRyan]

Good Point.

Here is a good example of a respected peer-reviewed science journal getting "persecuted" for "failure to censor" science as demanded by the thought police.

Its one thing to "pretend" like they don't know the difference between junk science and real science - it is quite another to persecute others in the name of bias toward evolutionism.

Good to be on the same side of the fence with you DT.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Is this a case of evolutionists being too embarrassed by their own - to comment?

(I would not blame them if that were true - but it is a little surprising since they spend so much time on this board "pretending" not to get the point.)

It is possible that this post is finally at a level that is impossible to "pretend not to get"???

I was beginning to doubt there was such a thing.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

Let's see what Sternberg's boss has to say.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000777.html

Although I do not wish to debate the merits of intelligent design, this forum seems an apt place to correct several factual inaccuracies in the Wall Street Journal’s Op Ed article by David Klinghoffer, “The Branding of a Heretic” (Jan. 28, 2005). Because Dr. von Sternberg has filed an official complaint with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, I cannot comment as fully as I would wish.
1. Dr. von Sternberg is still a Research Associate at the National Museum of Natural History, and continues to have the usual rights and privileges, including space, keys, and 24/7 access. At no time did anyone deny him space, keys or access.
2. He is not an employee of the Smithsonian Institution. His title, “Research Associate,” means that for a three year, potentially renewable period he has permission to visit the Museum for the purpose of studying and working with our collections without the staff oversight visitors usually receive.
3. I am, and continue to be, his only “supervisor,” although we use the term “sponsor” for Research Associates to avoid personnel/employee connotations. He has had no other since Feb. 1, 2004, nor was he ever “assigned to” or under the “oversight of” anyone else.
4. Well prior to the publication of the Meyer article and my awareness of it, I asked him and another Research Associate to move as part of a larger and unavoidable reorganization of space involving 17 people and 20 offices. He agreed.
5. I offered both individuals new, identical, standard Research Associate work spaces. The other accepted, but Dr. von Sternberg declined and instead requested space in an entirely different part of the Museum, which I provided, and which he currently occupies.
6. As for prejudice on the basis of beliefs or opinions, I repeatedly and consistently emphasized to staff (and to Dr. von Sternberg personally), verbally or in writing, that private beliefs and/or controversial editorial decisions were irrelevant in the workplace, that we would continue to provide full Research Associate benefits to Dr. von Sternberg, that he was an established and respected scientist, and that he would at all times be treated as such.
On behalf of all National Museum of Natural History staff, I would like to assert that we hold the freedoms of religion and belief as dearly as any one. The right to heterodox opinion is particularly important to scientists. Why Dr. von Sternberg chose to represent his interactions with me as he did is mystifying. I can’t speak to his interactions with anyone else.

 

[BobRyan]

Why Dr. von Sternberg chose to represent his interactions with me as he did is mystifying. I can’t speak to his interactions with anyone else.

Hmmm - "he said - she said"??? Really??!

So the barrage of complaints about the article are "of no consequence"???

The timing of the "change of desks" is coincidental?

Do these critics not "exist"??

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Critics of Mr. Sternberg say that the article should not have been published because the American Association for the Advancement of Science has proclaimed that Intelligent Design is "unscientific by definition." As Mr. Meyer points out: "Rather than critique the paper on its scientific merits, they appeal to a doctrinal statement."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


As the article notes

In scientific and other academic scholarship, submitting research to the judgment of other experts in the field ensures that published articles have genuine merit. Each of the reviewers recommended that, with revisions, the article should be published. Mr. Meyer made the revisions and the article was published last August.

Whereupon major academic publications—Science, Nature, Chronicles of Higher Education—expressed outrage. The anger was focused not on the substance of the article, but on the mere fact that a peer-reviewed scientific journal would print such an article.

So the wrath of the Darwinists fell on Mr. Sternberg, the editor. Although he had stepped down from the editorship, his supervisors at the Smithsonian took away his office, made him turn in his keys, and cut him off from access to the collections he needs for his research.

The one in position to "receive these benefits" claims not to have them.

Odd that "he" is the one mistaken about what "he has".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

Bob

Your tales of retribution are false. According to Stanberg's own boss, he lost his office as part of a move planned before the publication of the article and was given another office in a location of his choice.

You claim that this is a case of how "Evolutionists punish scientists that dare to differ" yet there is nothing that can be pointed to that shows any punishment.

Your only somewhat reasonable complaint is that ID is defined as not scientific. So, please, tell us the testable, falsifiable predicitons that ID makes and what contributions it has made to science. If you cannot, then the defintion of it as unscientific is true.

 

[BobRyan]

Your tales of retribution are false. According to Stanberg's own boss

Your tales of "nothing to see here nothing unnusual about this" are false according to Sternberg.

"He said - she said" where you pick the side of the alleged perpetrator and say that anything they say is "true".

How "interesting" - do you call that "scientific" or do you also see that has simply you taking the case based on "he said - she said"??

Or is this rejection of objective thought -- "yet again"?

As for the demands for censorship by the publications quoted - do you "deny this" happened as well???

How much "denial" are you willing to assign to yourself in this case?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

As the article notes


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In scientific and other academic scholarship, submitting research to the judgment of other experts in the field ensures that published articles have genuine merit. Each of the reviewers recommended that, with revisions, the article should be published. Mr. Meyer made the revisions and the article was published last August.

Whereupon major academic publications—Science, Nature, Chronicles of Higher Education—expressed outrage. The anger was focused not on the substance of the article, but on the mere fact that a peer-reviewed scientific journal would print such an article.

So the wrath of the Darwinists fell on Mr. Sternberg, the editor. Although he had stepped down from the editorship, his supervisors at the Smithsonian took away his office, made him turn in his keys, and cut him off from access to the collections he needs for his research.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All "just coincidental" according to UTEOTW.

Hmm - how "instructive".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Your only somewhat reasonable complaint is that ID is defined as not scientific. So, please, tell us the testable, falsifiable predicitons that ID makes and what contributions it has made to science. If you cannot, then the defintion of it as unscientific is true.

#1. Did you "Actually read Meyers article" or are you simply spouting dogma??

#2. Did you find that the publications quoted in the article READ Meyers article and SHOWED FROM DETAILS in the artical that it was flawed - or are you just repeating Atheist Evolutionist doctrine in contradiction to the Word of God?

#3. Did you find fault with the peer reviews - or that the 3 sources of peer review were flawed -- or are you just "ignoring the details" of Meyers and Stenrbeg's complaint - since no complaint against atheist evolutionists should be tolerated??

Answers?

Objective thought?

Reason?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

"The one in position to "receive these benefits" claims not to have them."

Basically we have a case where each side says something different happened. You condemn me for accepting the view of while side even as you blast away accepting only the view of another. Can you say "hypocrit?" We don't know what happened. There seems to be a reasonable explanation but we cannot know at this point which side is telling the truth. As these things usually go, the truth will lie somewhere in the middle. My best guess would be that the move really was planned before publication and had nothing to do with the article but that Stanberg really has received some grief for letting such a piece of trash through.

But why should we be surprised. You first had your "junk science" thread where nothing in evolution was ever shown to be junk but numerable examples of YE junk were shown for which an attempt to defend was never even tried because they were so inexcusable. Then there was your "moral decay" thread where you made a claim that evolution must lead to moral decay even though in the very article you cited, scientists were opposing the same thing you opposed. You could not even share with us your own views on the matter. For all we know YOU could be in favor of the same kind of experimentation. And now we have this. The facts are in dispute yet you cling doggedly to one story and hipocritically condemn anyone who gives the other version of the story. Perhaps you should dig a little more deeply next time.

"#1. Did you "Actually read Meyers article" or are you simply spouting dogma?"

I have read some of it but not the whole thing. Have you read ANY of it?

Again though, it is not simply dogma to say that ID is by definition unscientific. In its present state, there is no science. What is the theory of intelligent design? On what specific observations is it based? What are its predictions about what we should find? What are its testable ideas? What woould falsify ID?

The fact is that ID has no testable, falsifiable, predictive theory. And, by definition, it is not science until it does. No dogma, just facts which are uncomfortable for you.

 

[Phillip]

I still mention the same thing I have mentioned before. YOUR science does not allow for a variable which could provide the possibility of a supernatural effect during creation. This variable could be anywhere from zero to infinity.

Here is the problem. If you KNOW in your heart that an omnipotent God exists; but you leave out the variable that He would or could be involved in the creation, you are therefore using "bad science" because you know for a fact that the variable does exist; but if you believe and have trusted in God, then you are admittedly using false science.

 

[BobRyan]

Let us review UTEOTW's classic attempt at misdirection and obfuscation of fact - hoping to sidtrack the devastating point this data point makes against the atheist's beloved doctrine on origins - evolutionism.

Let UTEOTW's factoid errors begin..

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Let's see what Sternberg's boss has to say.

Is this guy (Jonathan Coddington) "really" Sternberg's "boss"!!??

Notice what CODDINGTON says about it..

2. He is not an employee of the Smithsonian Institution. His title, “Research Associate,” means that for a three year, potentially renewable period he has permission to visit the Museum for the purpose of studying and working with our collections without the staff oversight visitors usually receive.

3. I am, and continue to be, his only “supervisor,” although we use the term “sponsor” for Research Associates to AVOID personnel/employee connotations. He has had no other since Feb. 1, 2004, nor was he ever “assigned to” or under the “oversight of” anyone else.

Get it??? "yet" UTEOTW???!!

He is NOT employed BY Coddington NOR is Coddington "Sternberg's boss".

Rather Sternberg has the right to "VISIT the Smithsonian" without supervision!!

Down goes UTEOTW's first pillar of error.

Number 2 is next.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

In the "actual" OP article the POINT was that Sternberg was condemned by atheist evolutionist scientists for daring to differ in thought.

Whereupon major academic publications—Science, Nature, Chronicles of Higher Education—expressed outrage. The anger was focused not on the substance of the article, but on the mere fact that a peer-reviewed scientific journal would print such an article.

HERE IS a salient point in the article easy enough to address. DID this happen - yes or no?

Does UTEOTW show ANY interest, intent, to LOOK at this evidence for the primary claim made in the article?


Errrr uummm "predictably" -- no.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Again though, it is not simply dogma to say that ID is by definition unscientific. In its present state, there is no science. What is the theory of intelligent design? On what specific observations is it based? What are its predictions about what we should find? What are its testable ideas? What woould falsify ID?

The fact is that ID has no testable, falsifiable, predictive theory. And, by definition, it is not science until it does.

#1. These failings can only apply to the myth we know today as the religion of evolutionism. Hardly worthy to even be called "junk-science".

#2. ID is NOT by definition "not science" -- it would be like saying that there CAN BE no way to KNOW if a painting was made by accident NO test, NO ability to DETERMINE intelligence has made it.

YET WE DO have statistics don't we?? (or the hallowed halls of evolutionism's myths and foibles have the priests there convinced people like UTEOTW that hard science does NOT EXIST!!??)

Clearly - there is no corner into which evolutionists will not paint themselves in a faith-filled defense of their god.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

"Is this guy (Jonathan Coddington) "really" Sternberg's "boss"!!??

Notice what CODDINGTON..."

Before you jump all over me, you better go back to your original source and correct them on their use of terminology to report the story. I believe my very first post on this thread is the one that contained the correct description of the relationship.

But you never let a good fact get in the way of an argument, do you?

"HERE IS a salient point in the article easy enough to address. DID this happen - yes or no?

Does UTEOTW show ANY interest, intent, to LOOK at this evidence for the primary claim made in the article?"

Well, the title of your thread was about his punishment. Being mad, your "salient point" in your own words, has nothing to do with being punished. And I did address it. By pointing out that in y opinion they had a right to be upset by the publishing of a non-scientific paper in a science journal. I then support my assertion by pointing out that ID has not testible, predictive, falsifiable theory. It is not science.

Your allegations of actual punishment have been thrown in doubt by my words directly from Coddington. So much so that you now shy away from your original charges about punishment and make your "salient point" anger over non-scientific works being published. It is fun to see you back peddle.

"#1. These failings can only apply to the myth we know today as the religion of evolutionism. Hardly worthy to even be called "junk-science".

#2. ID is NOT by definition "not science" -- it would be like saying that there CAN BE no way to KNOW if a painting was made by accident NO test, NO ability to DETERMINE intelligence has made it."

I'll just copy and paste from another recent post here about how evolution does follow scientific principles. If ID also does, then maybe you can show how they follow the process.

For giggles, let's Google "scientific method." The first hit is

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

It states the scientific method as follows.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The scientific method has four steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

So let's see how evolution stacks up.

Step 1. I have given you a partial list of observations above. So check.

Step 2. Well, we hypothesize that these observations seem to show that all life may be related. So we will go with that as a hypthesis. New life forms can develop from other life forms.

Step 3. Now the fun begins. Let's look at a few examples.

Take whales for example. They are sea dwelling mammals. During their development, they have cute little legs and feet that emerge and then are reabsorbed. Sometimes this programmed cell death does not occur and the whales are born with full on rear legs. Well, we'll predict that whales have a land dwelling ancestor and we should be able to find fossil of such. And we do. Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Basilosaurus and many others. Well, once we have the fossils we see that they show whales evolving from ungulates. So if we test modern ungulates we should find them closely related to whales. We test and they are. Now, if whales came from land animals, they then once had a functional sense of smell. We might be able to find the remains of the genes for this system. And guess what, whales have scores of pseudogenes of a sense of smell just like what the land animals to which it is related have.

Man has traits that makes us another ape. There should be links between us and the other apes. And there are. (For a whole thread on the genetic links see http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/66/19.html? ) Some of the links are genetic. We find shared pseudogenes and retroviral inserts and transposons between man and the other apes. We have a rich fosil record leading back to common ancestors.

The fossil record shows the horses and rhinos share a common ancestor. We predict that genetics should show the same link. And it does.

Darwin even predicted that there must be a means for carrying the instructions for making life. Last century we found it, DNA.

So, evolution passes the thrid step with flying colors. This third step is where we really spend all of our time in debates.

Step 4. Well here we refine our theory as we make more observations and we see how different scientists support different notions with new discoveries. Some ideas are cast off in favor of new ones, such as cladogenesis replacing orthogenesis for the most part, but such is the process. We have lab experiments where rapid evolution can be observed. Evolution meets the criteria of the fourth stage.

So we see, contrary to your assertion, that evolution does follow the scientific method. </font>[/QUOTE]

 

[El_Guero]

Bob

UTEOTW takes the prize again.
Maybe his ability to read his bias in the news is as good as his ability to google his belief?

If he can google for junk science to support evolution so well, why can't he google a little news piece?

Then he might not feel that you were "jumping on him".

Before you jump all over me, you better go back to your original source and correct them on their use of terminology

But, in that world view ... there was no need to seek the truth.

Sternberg's integrity was attacked, his intelligence has been doubted, and it has all been because he chose to publish an article on Intelligent Design.

All sides agree on that basic paragraph. Just his side thinks that this is not discriminatory behavior. This side of the world sees it as discriminatory when we are disparaged for our faith in the Creator.

Bob, Creation rocks !!!

Wrote it quick ... But, keep defending the faith Brother!

 

[El_Guero]

Bob,

Maybe instead of reading UTEOTW's cross posting and wasting our time, we could peer review his faith in evolution?

IMHO, he should have logically infered that his peers have already done so. However, it may be that he can't take the hint.

 

[El_Guero]

UTEOTW:

IMHO, You have chosen to place your faith in evolution to answer the questions found in Nature, and you have not placed faith in the Creator to answer the same questions.

I place faith in the Creator to Create as He willed ... Neither the Creator, nor Science have revealed evidence that is conclusive about which method He used when He Created the universe and mankind. However, from what He has revealed in Genesis and in the Creation itself, I will believe in ID as His process.

 

[BobRyan]

Good points all El Guero!

Keeping this "simple" so UTEOTW won't be confused and sidetracked.

The article says that Meyer's paper was peer reviewed and should be published.

The dogmatists priesthood of evolutionism said that simply THINKING that God is intelligent, designs something OR SHOWS that He has a hand in anything (as the Bible states) is not worth looking at NO MATTER WHAT THE EVIDENCE!

UTEOTW posts his own point here - IN AGREEMENT!

The dogmatist priesthood of evolutionism hammered not ONLY the author Meyer BUT ALSO the EDITOR - AS DOES UTEOTW!!

The point of the POST is that this is clearly and obviously an attack on scientists "that DIFFER" WITHOUT even reading their papers or admitting to the peer review process!

UTEOTW is the poster boy for that claim so far on this thread IN HIS posts!!

How much more "obvious" does it get???!!!

What is really amazing is that UTEOTW has to "admit" that God is NOT SHOWING intelligent design in His intelligent design of nature and all living things!!! What a hoot!

You could not ask for a more compromised position to be taken in (swallowed?) by a Christian evolutionist!

In Christ,

Bob