Dr. Richard Sternberg (evolutionary biologist supporting ID) on O'Reilley

[aargh57]

From http://www.billoreilly.com/show;jsessionid=9CF538E3AD73E8BC4072642A94AD80D4?a ction=viewTVShow&showID=423#5

The theory of "intelligent design," which posits that the universe must have been created according to a plan, has become increasingly controversial. Biologist Richard Sternberg, who edited a scientific journal, published an article defending the theory. Dr. Sternberg told The Factor what happened next. "A number of outside groups demanded my ouster. Apparently there is an unstated rule that you don't accept a manuscript that counters Darwinism and I had committed the terrible sin of allowing this to be published. It's an attempt to suppress dissent, and it's politically and religiously motivated." The Factor asserted that some scientists are eager to quash unpopular opinions. "This is a concerted effort in a fascist way to punish anyone who might want to inject a 'higher power' into any scientific discussion."

Does anyone know more about the article. I know it was from a man named Dr. Stephen C. Meyer who is a Cambridge grad. According to :http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=11&isFellow=true

"Meyer earned his Ph.D. in the History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge University for a dissertation on the history of origin of life biology and the methodology of the historical sciences. Previously he worked as a geophysicist with the Atlantic Richfield Company after earning his undergraduate degrees in Physics and Geology. "


I looked at Dr. Sternberg's website:
http://www.rsternberg.net/index.htm
and I have to say his credentials look impressive to me (I'm just an average shmoe, but 2 PHD's don't seem too bad). I guess my questions about this are:
1) Could the scientific community be dismissing the article without giving it it's due?
2) Is there any validity to Dr. Sternberg's claims that he was being harassed by the scientific community?
3) What kind of implications does this article have concerning the validity of ID? Specifically, is this a feather in the IDers cap concerning teaching it in schools?

Anyway, I'm very opposed to ID being taught in school but I can see how someone could easily be swayed by a person like Dr. Sternberg especially when he has a venue like The Factor.

[pgwenthold]

1) What journal?
2) What were the reviewers recommendations?

If he published it on the basis of referee recommendations, there is nothing to defend. He was justified, and could just say it. If he published it contrary to referee recommendations, then he is probably overstepping his responsibilities. There is also a middle ground where it is fuzzy.

If it is not a refereed journal, then it's all blowing wind in the first place.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by aargh57
"Meyer earned his Ph.D. in the History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge University for a dissertation on the history of origin of life biology and the methodology of the historical sciences. Previously he worked as a geophysicist with the Atlantic Richfield Company after earning his undergraduate degrees in Physics and Geology. " What I'm not seeing here is any work in actual biological science. It looks as if his dissertation is on the history of biology, not biology itself. Then there is the unrelated geophysics degrees.

Not to say that he isn't a very smart guy, but I wouldn't necessarily expect a music historian to be able write an opera.

[aargh57]

Tricky,

I noticed this too. However, I think the danger is that people are impressed with degrees from prestigeous universities regardless of the degree.

Also, I don't think that's necessarily the issue. If he had a degree in evolutionary biology, that in itself wouldn't make his paper credible. Shouldn't we look at the paper on it's merit alone? Isn't this the same argument that people use to discredit Randi (the "He's just a magician, not a scientist argument)?

Edit to add:
Just re-read your post and don't want to come across as too harsh. I know that you didn't say that we shouldn't look at the paper on merit alone.

[hgc]

Originally posted by aargh57
...
Shouldn't we look at the paper on it's merit alone? Alright. But if it turns out to have been co-authored by Deepak Chopra, then I'm outta here!!! :p

[Martin]

Here's what the Biological Society of Washington - those in charge of the journal in question - have to say on the matter:

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.

Source (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2004/ZZ/608_bsw_repudiates_meyer_9_7_2004.asp)

[stamenflicker]

We endorse the spirit of a resolution on Intelligent Design set forth by the American Association for the Advancement of Science

Hence ID is in a perpetual double-bind. It needs to be able to demonstrate that the science is good enough to be published in scientific journals, but the scientific journals themselves have adopted the resolution of ID that expects them to "not publish" it. I for one tend to just chuckle when I read things like, "ID theory has yet to have a major article published in a scientific journal." Especially when you read the text of the AAAS resolution.

Points from the resolution:

Whereas, ID proponents claim that contemporary evolutionary theory is incapable of explaining the origin of the diversity of living organisms;

That's their first point. So you have a group out there saying that theory X is incapable of explaining what it says it does / or will / or wants to. Automatically your first point of contention is one of dogma and anti-science, not science. Good science should welcome anyone who holds the belief that any theory cannot do what it says it does, and from that claim issue an observational / experimental rebuttal.

Whereas, to date, the ID movement has failed to offer credible scientific evidence to support their claim that ID undermines the current scientifically accepted theory of evolution;

Credible being the key word, and crediblility is established by the very "gate-keepers" if you will to whom this memo is addressed.

Whereas, the ID movement has not proposed a scientific means of testing its claims;

This is the strongest point in the resolution; however testing claims about origin are quite difficult, as evolutionists have seen. What is interesting to me is only that there has been a challenge issued regarding origin, and rather than demonstrate their theory, they expect the opponent too. In reality, neither side can demonstrate anything utterly conclusive about origin from experiment, or they wouldn't be wearing the clothes of theory, they'd be facts.

Therefore Be It Further Resolved, that AAAS calls upon its members to assist those engaged in overseeing science education policy to understand the nature of science, the content of contemporary evolutionary theory and the inappropriateness of "intelligent design theory" as subject matter for science education;

And further down here, we see it summarized nicely. It is to be deemed inappropriate by "those engaged in overseeing science education policy..." sort of kill it before its written approach to scientific papers.

In short, the attitude here is in my opinion (and I've said this before) bad science. It's a methodology of control, not over science (it can take care of itself), but rather of ideas. Although I continue to emphasize that I am not an ID proponent, again I am NOT a proponent, but I must say that censure of any reasonalbe idea because it is a) non-demonstrable; and/or b) contrary to current understanding isn't the path of the Reason.

That said, ID theory probably belongs more in the realm of philosophical discourse, or more speculative-enterprising scientific journals than one with such a strict focus as described by the editors.

Flick

[kedo1981]

But you see Flick, you just fall back onto the same pile of woo-poo that the ID’ers have to spout; oh it’s just a big anti Jesus conspiracy. (and I know you’re no saying that, I’m just making a generalization). Out of all the 10s of thousands scientists out there you would think there would a few that would like the fame and notoriety that upsetting a major scientific would bring them?

[stamenflicker]

By the way,

The thread title kind of has Sternberg supporting ID. Sternberg however isn't really in either camp. He calls himself a process structuralist:

http://www.rsternberg.net/Structuralism.htm

Also, in the OT, question #2

2) Is there any validity to Dr. Sternberg's claims that he was being harassed by the scientific community?

The following is from the Office of Special Council's findings:

have carefully considered the information you provided. Based upon my evaluation of the facts and law applicable to your claim, I have made a preliminary determination to close our investigation into your allegations. My decision is not based upon the substance of your allegations; in fact, our preliminary investigation supports your complaint. My decision is founded upon a complicated jurisdictional puzzle and your position as a Research Associate (RA).

Upon investigation, many of this guy's complaints were verified. He was removed from his position, subjected to harsher working conditions, and forced to move offices; and his personal religious beliefs were "investigated," contrary to the 1st Amendment.


kedo1981,

Out of all the 10s of thousands scientists out there you would think there would a few that would like the fame and notoriety that upsetting a major scientific would bring them?

One would hope that pursuit of truth would be their motivation... but even so, if the rules were set to deny them the opportunity, then what?

Flick

Flick

[stamenflicker]

Does anyone know if the claim is true... that being that this is the first major paper by an ID theorist to make a scientific journal?

Flick

[Beerina]

Originally posted by Tricky
What I'm not seeing here is any work in actual biological science. It looks as if his dissertation is on the history of biology, not biology itself. Then there is the unrelated geophysics degrees.

Not to say that he isn't a very smart guy, but I wouldn't necessarily expect a music historian to be able write an opera.

Curiously, this is the same argument economist Julian Simon (http://juliansimon.org) uses when pointing out how environmental scientists make observations, then predict gloom and doom for humanity, whereas gloom and doom (http://juliansimon.org/writings/Ultimate_Resource/TCHAQ02A.txt) is an economic concept