U.S. population lags in accepting evolution [Archive]

Rodney

14th August 2006, 07:05 PM

You certainly can't pursue a career in biology without being competent in evolution.
Over 600 doctoral scientists from around the world have now signed a statement publicly expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution. The statement, located online at www.dissentfromdarwin.org, reads: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

. . . Prominent signatories include . . . evolutionary biologist and textbook author Stanley Salthe; Smithsonian Institution evolutionary biologist and a researcher at the National Institutes of Health’s National Center for Biotechnology Information Richard von Sternberg; Editor of Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum --the oldest still published biology journal in the world-- Giuseppe Sermonti; and Russian Academy of Natural Sciences embryologist Lev Beloussov." See -- http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2732

thaiboxerken

14th August 2006, 08:06 PM

Over 600 doctoral scientists from around the world have now signed a statement publicly expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution.

That is a statistically insignificant number. Thanks for sharing that info, I'm sure none of us skeptical people have ever heard of this or that site (which is sponsored by the discover institute, a creationist group.)

trvlr2

14th August 2006, 08:46 PM

That is a statistically insignificant number. Thanks for sharing that info, I'm sure none of us skeptical people have ever heard of this or that site (which is sponsored by the discover institute, a creationist group.)

Ken- I followed Rodney's link- picked the Smithsonian guy, Googled , found he is not at the Smithsonian, due to his creationist bent. (Sternberg) has filed complaints against the S. for infringing on his rights to lunacy.....

I quit. It WAS a Rodney link, y'know!:)

Roboramma

14th August 2006, 09:32 PM

What's important is that the masses vote the right way and donate their money the right way, in my opinion.

And you expect them to vote that way becuase?

If I don't understand science, I obviously won't vote or donate money in a way that takes into account a good understanding of the science behind important political issues.

So, we can try to convince people to change their voting habits (or spending habits), but until we look at the underlying cause of those habits, we won't get anywhere. What needs to be addressed in scientific ignorance.
Because while people are ignorant of science, they will vote ignorantly.

Something that the creationists seem to understand quite well (see the wedge document).

andyandy

15th August 2006, 03:44 AM

rather depressing

A UK survey of university students.....http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,1844478,00.html

In a survey last month, more than 12% questioned preferred creationism - the idea God created us within the past 10,000 years - to any other explanation of how we got here. Another 19% favoured the theory of intelligent design - that some features of living things are due to a supernatural being such as God. This means more than 30% believe our origins have more to do with God than with Darwin - evolution theory rang true for only 56%.

Opinionpanel Research's survey of more than 1,000 students found a third of those who said they were Muslims and more than a quarter of those who said they were Christians supported creationism. Nearly a third of Christians and 10% of those with no particular religion favoured intelligent design. Women were more likely to choose spiritual explanations: less than half chose evolution, with 14% preferring creationism and 22% intelligent design.

While three years of learning how to weigh evidence appears to make students slightly more inclined towards evolution, with 57% of third-years choosing it compared with 54% of first-years, it does not appear to put them off belief in God. As many third-years as first-years believed in creationism, although slightly fewer supported intelligent design.

although it was probably schewed by all those students in sports science and media studies....:D

Dave1001

15th August 2006, 04:57 AM

And you expect them to vote that way becuase?

If I don't understand science, I obviously won't vote or donate money in a way that takes into account a good understanding of the science behind important political issues.

So, we can try to convince people to change their voting habits (or spending habits), but until we look at the underlying cause of those habits, we won't get anywhere. What needs to be addressed in scientific ignorance.
Because while people are ignorant of science, they will vote ignorantly.

Something that the creationists seem to understand quite well (see the wedge document).

That's not obvious to me. Perhaps instead we should convince them that they'll burn in hell if they don't vote to support fetal stem cell research and tithe to basic biomedical research. I think that's a more modest and achievable goal than teaching scientific literacy to 120 million Americans, who are already swimming in explanations of evolution and other basic scientific theories on the internet and in the media.

Dave1001

15th August 2006, 05:04 AM

rather depressing

A UK survey of university students.....http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,1844478,00.html

although it was probably schewed by all those students in sports science and media studies....:D

Three years of learning how to weigh evidence makes students slightly more inclined to favor evolution? Slightly?? What a waste of the taxpayers' dollars. I suspect we should be using Hollywood special effects to scare most of them into voting and donating their money the right way.

Cuddles

15th August 2006, 05:09 AM

brodski

15th August 2006, 05:11 AM

Three years of learning how to weigh evidence makes students slightly more inclined to favor evolution? Slightly?? What a waste of the taxpayers' dollars. I suspect we should be using Hollywood special effects to scare most of them into voting and donating their money the right way.
Just because people are trained in weighing evidence doesn't men that they will come to the right conclusions, they need to be presented with evidence for them to weigh.
I suspect that the vast majority of the US population (and the world population for that mater) who do not work in the biological sciences, or are not involved in the political battle over evolution do not have enough interest in evolution to appraise themselves of the proper facts, especially as there are a number of large and well funded anti-evolution propaganda programmes in the US.
These groups are not wasting their money, I can even see the impact they are having on this side of the Atlantic (where well funded creationists are much less common, so they tend to plagiarize their propaganda from, US sources)

Rodney

15th August 2006, 06:58 AM

Ken- I followed Rodney's link- picked the Smithsonian guy, Googled , found he is not at the Smithsonian, due to his creationist bent. (Sternberg) has filed complaints against the S. for infringing on his rights to lunacy.....

I quit. It WAS a Rodney link, y'know!:)
"he is not at the Smithsonian, due to his creationist bent." And that's the way science should operate, right? As Sternberg notes on his home page: "After Smithsonian officials determined that there was no wrong-doing in the publication process for the Meyer paper and that they therefore had no grounds to remove me from my position directly, they tried to create an intolerable working environment so that I would be forced to resign. As the OSC investigation concluded, “[i]t is... clear that a hostile work environment was created with the ultimate goal of forcing you out of the SI.” In addition, it was made clear to me that my current position at the Smithsonian will not be renewed despite my excellent record of research and publication."

You will also find that Sternberg holds two PhDs in the area of evolutionary biology, one in molecular (DNA) evolution and the other in systems theory and theoretical biology and has published more than 30 articles in peer-reviewed scientific books and publications. See -- http://www.rsternberg.net/

Mercutio

15th August 2006, 07:19 AM

In Greece, (http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_politics_100003_12/08/2006_73131)) Some 250 university academics have prepared a petition asking the government to improve the teaching of Darwin’s theory of evolution at Greek schools, which the professors say is disorganized and in some cases completely nonexistent.It's not so much that there is a big push for creationism or intelligent design, but rather that the Theory of Evolution simply is not taught. “We can criticize the USA for the fact that 150 years later the evolution of the species is still a divisive issue but in reality we are further behind,” said Papadakis. “The meaning of evolution has diffused into all areas of life but is systematically being excluded from education.”

Oh, and for Rodney, and any readers who might be impressed by "600 doctoral scientists" signing a petition...Project Steve. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve)

Dave1001

15th August 2006, 07:41 AM

You're assuming students actually learn anything. Considering that you can now take a degree on Golf or David Beckham this isn't really true. I'm sure a survey of students taking real degrees at real universities would give more encouraging results.

Eh, it's all on the internet -no one needs to learn this stuff in a university any more, if they ever did. And there are tangible real world benefits for teaching onesself to think critically: it provides great social advantages from wealth accumulation to mate seduction. I think that a large portion of the brains on this planet simply aren't a suitable medium for this level of critical thinking memes. As such, rather than waste resources convincing them to adopt a rote belief in the less-intuitive-for-them theory of evolution, I think we should spend our society dollars in such a way that we get maximum (humane) utilitarian behavior out of this large subset of the population.

Roboramma

15th August 2006, 08:05 AM

Eh, it's all on the internet -no one needs to learn this stuff in a university any more, if they ever did. And there are tangible real world benefits for teaching onesself to think critically: it provides great social advantages from wealth accumulation to mate seduction. I think that a large portion of the brains on this planet simply aren't a suitable medium for this level of critical thinking memes.
I'm not quite sure I follow this line of thought correctly, so feel free to correct me, but...
It seems that you're saying "people are too stupid to be eductated, as is obvious from the fact that they haven't been educated yet, so we shouldn't try to educate them on science. Rather we should just try to force them to adopt the policies that we think are right, because we're smart enough to educate ourselves, and thus clearly smarter than them."

As such, rather than waste resources convincing them to adopt a rote belief in the less-intuitive-for-them theory of evolution, I think we should spend our society dollars in such a way that we get maximum (humane) utilitarian behavior out of this large subset of the population.
My problem with this is that there are more issues that require scientific literacy to weight correctly than just stem cell research. In fact, it seems to me that in this modern world that is built upon science and technology, that is changing day to day due to environmental, cultural, and technological changes, scientific literacy is needed to analyze almost every political issue.
I don't think any society can function well these days if it's decision makers (and in a democracy that's the people to a large degree) don't have that necessary literacy. But maybe Carl Sagan has me a little brainwashed...

Anyway, I understand what you're saying. It's more effective to focus on the important issues that will actually make a difference than it is to try to convince an apathetic populace of a fact that there is a power group trying to suppress.
I don't think I agree, though. For instance, how do you intend to convince people that stem cell research is not evil without presenting them the with the science?
Just saying "tell them that they'll burn in hell" doesn't work. You'd need to convince the church to tell them that. And the church isn't about to do that. Nor am I convinced that people would necessarily listen (though if you could manage it, it might be worth a try). Also, I personally don't think I'd support lying to people, even if it was for a good cause. Mainly because of what happens when you inevitably are found out.

How can we inform people about the proper use of antibiotics, or pesticides or herbicides, if they don't understand evolution? How do we convince them to make that use without that understanding?

Without science and evidence to back up what we're saying, we're only left with propaganda. The problem is, the other side has that too, and they seem to be just as good or better at employing it.

Rodney

15th August 2006, 08:34 AM

Oh, and for Rodney, and any readers who might be impressed by "600 doctoral scientists" signing a petition...Project Steve. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve) The 600 doctoral scientists was not the point -- that was just background information. The point is that it is perfectly possible to be an outstanding biologist, such as Richard von Sternberg, and not be a Darwinist.

Mercutio

15th August 2006, 08:44 AM

The 600 doctoral scientists was not the point -- that was just background information. The point is that it is perfectly possible to be an outstanding biologist, such as Richard von Sternberg, and not be a Darwinist.
Possible...just vanishingly unlikely.

Just curious...what are your criteria for "outstanding biologist", and how many people on the Project Steve list would meet those criteria?

andyandy

15th August 2006, 08:57 AM

I think that a large portion of the brains on this planet simply aren't a suitable medium for this level of critical thinking memes.

evidence?

I think you're over-estimating your own innate intelligence....

Overman

15th August 2006, 09:15 AM

There is no shame is bringing back the term 'Brights' when the general population appears to be the opposite...

Rodney

15th August 2006, 09:17 AM

Just curious...what are your criteria for "outstanding biologist", and how many people on the Project Steve list would meet those criteria? I would think that two PhDs in evolutionary biology and more than 30 articles in peer-reviewed scientific books and publications would qualify one as an outstanding biologist. The Project Steve list is irrelevant to the issue at hand because I am not asserting that no one on that list is an outstanding biologist.

ponderingturtle

15th August 2006, 09:24 AM

Who cares if the mainstream population believes in evolution or creationism. The tragedy is that they don't believe in fetal stem cell research using discarded blastocytes from fertility clinics.

God ment them to be garbage and garbage they shall be!

andyandy

15th August 2006, 09:26 AM

There is no shame is bringing back the term 'Brights' when the general population appears to be the opposite...

right, so you're one of the "brights" are you? Elitist thinkers generally tend to think rather more of themselves than perhaps they should....in my humble opinion....

Cuddles

15th August 2006, 09:28 AM

ponderingturtle

15th August 2006, 09:32 AM

I would think that two PhDs in evolutionary biology and more than 30 articles in peer-reviewed scientific books and publications would qualify one as an outstanding biologist. The Project Steve list is irrelevant to the issue at hand because I am not asserting that no one on that list is an outstanding biologist.

And if his arguement had merit why can't he convince anyone in it? The PHD's and articles are not all that important because 1, there are people who religious institutions have put through school to get phd's in biology just so that they had more "accreditied scientists" on their side.

Also what where those articles about? How much are they referenced in a favorable manor?

Just getting a degree does not mean he is an outstanding biologist and publishing, well did they have anything to do with evolution?

Should we also except that a geologist who is in favor of young earth creationsism? Working on proving the flood and all that.

drkitten

15th August 2006, 09:43 AM

Modern research is based very much around publications. If you don't publish you are assumed not to be doing anything and will get no funding. 30 articles in 15 years would be near the minimum I would expect from someone constantly employed in scientific research. I would class this as a completely average biologist, not outstanding at all.

I'm not sure he would scale the lofty heights of "completely average."

Biologists tend to publish like mad. At a mediocre university, a biologist who publishes only two papers per year atop his teaching duties would be considered at best mediocre. Dr. Sternberg, as far as I can tell, is a full-time soft-money postdoc, and would be expected to have much better research productivity. Here's an example of a similar researcher (http://chuma.cas.usf.edu/~garey/garey.html#cv) -- competent, but hardly a superstar -- with an equivalent publication record and a full-time teaching job.

I'm willing to go on record that, judging from his c.v., Dr. Sternberg is in no sense "outstanding" as a biologist.

Overman

15th August 2006, 09:47 AM

looks like (from the graph) that about 20% of Brits think evolution is false....:jaw-dropp

who are these people?!

From this post it appears your opinion is very humble indeed...:footinmou

andyandy

15th August 2006, 09:57 AM

From this post it appears your opinion is very humble indeed...:footinmou

i was expressing surprise that there would be such high numbers who would believe in creationism/IT seeing as i've never met such a person in the UK....

i wasn't suggesting that this meant that these people weren't "a suitable medium for [a high] level of critical thinking," the distinction should be clear for a self confessed "bright."

Rodney

15th August 2006, 09:58 AM

I'm willing to go on record that, judging from his c.v., Dr. Sternberg is in no sense "outstanding" as a biologist.

According to Sternberg's curriculum vitae, he was the Managing Editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington during 2001-2004 and has received a number of honors. See -- http://www.rsternberg.net/CV.htm

Dave1001

15th August 2006, 10:04 AM

right, so you're one of the "brights" are you? Elitist thinkers generally tend to think rather more of themselves than perhaps they should....in my humble opinion....

I agree with you. Clearly they are less elite than nontransparent elitists, and I for one am glad you're making them aware of that fact. Transparently elitist thinkers should not think more of themselves than their lot deserves. As such I think they should change their names to penultimate elitists.

drkitten

15th August 2006, 10:08 AM

According to Sternberg's curriculum vitae,

Yes, I read his c.v.. Why do you think I'm willing to make statements like "judging from his c.v., Dr Sternberg is in no sense "outstanding" as a biologist"?

Evidently you've read it, but not understood what a typical biological c.v. looks like. Did you read Dr Garey's?

Dave1001

15th August 2006, 10:14 AM

For instance, how do you intend to convince people that stem cell research is not evil without presenting them the with the science?
Just saying "tell them that they'll burn in hell" doesn't work. You'd need to convince the church to tell them that. And the church isn't about to do that.

1. I think telling them they'll burn in hell may work. Has it even been tried yet? For the muslim world we can promise 72 virgins -and not for blowing onesself up, just for supporting stem cell research. What a bargain!
2. A realist assessment of the church might be that the church cares primarily about maintaining and expanding its own power. Thus, just as the Roman Catholic Church has adapted to embrace evolution and Pat Robertson has adapted to embrace the fight against human-caused global warming (which I'm not even sure is true) I think that the most influential religious leaders can be convinced to tell their followers to support technology and approaches that will benefit these influential religious leaders -provided that doing so doesn't result in a lost of their power or prestige in the world. It's not like we're asking them to stop evangelizing, encouraging their followers to have kids, or to stop collecting money through tithing: we're just asking them to tell their followers to support using leftover blastocytes for stem cell research, etc.

Dave1001

15th August 2006, 10:16 AM

drkitten

15th August 2006, 10:18 AM

I agree with your general point that some doubt in all areas, including about darwinism, is a good thing. But why would one need a 2nd PhD in evolutionary biology?

Because the first one demonstrably didn't take.

Unfortunately, neither did the second one.

If you think of education as a cure for ignorance, then obviously Dr. Sternberg has one of the rare education-resistant infections.

Or not so rare. I think it's called "stupidity."

Rodney

15th August 2006, 10:25 AM

Yes, I read his c.v.. Why do you think I'm willing to make statements like "judging from his c.v., Dr Sternberg is in no sense "outstanding" as a biologist"? Because you're close-minded? ;) And, how, exactly, did this mediocre biologist get a job as a research associate at the Smithsonian and become Managing Editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington?

Evidently you've read it, but not understood what a typical biological c.v. looks like. Did you read Dr Garey's? No, is his typical?

andyandy

15th August 2006, 11:23 AM

I agree with you. Clearly they are less elite than nontransparent elitists, and I for one am glad you're making them aware of that fact. Transparently elitist thinkers should not think more of themselves than their lot deserves. As such I think they should change their names to penultimate elitists.

riiiight.....

are you suggesting that because i critisised people who think in elitist terms this therefore means that it is I who regards myself as a true elite....?! lol.....

by that "logic" anyone who calls into question your elitist ideals is themselves a hypocrite.....i guess that's one way of cementing a position.....

Dave1001

15th August 2006, 11:51 AM

riiiight.....

are you suggesting that because i critisised people who think in elitist terms this therefore means that it is I who regards myself as a true elite....?! lol.....

No, not necessarily. One can be decidedly non-elite and yet criticize people who think in elitist terms. For example BobbleheadBetty who expressed her disdain for elitists in the comments of this blog post http://www.naebunny.net/~mommylemur/archives/2006/02/okay_im_getting.html is probably not a nontransparent elitist. As best I can tell, she's the real thing: non-elite.

But Neil Cavuto http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/n/neilcavuto226196.html just may be a nontransparent elitist. David Sirota too http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/iraq-shows-the-growing-di_b_11601.html. And perhaps Sean Hannity too http://www.bookreporter.com/reviews/0060582510-excerpt.asp. In these links they publicly declare certain people transparently elitist due to their behavior, in contrast to themselves, in such a way as to elevate themselves morally above the transparent elitist that they're criticizing.

by that "logic" anyone who calls into question your elitist ideals is themselves a hypocrite.....i guess that's one way of cementing a position.....

I don't think so. I think a nontransparent elitist considers transparent elitists beneath them, rather than above them. And I would agree. By the way, I'm firmly in the nontransparent elitist camp. There's a reason I express these type ideas anonymously.;)

hgc

15th August 2006, 11:51 AM

riiiight.....

are you suggesting that because i critisised people who think in elitist terms this therefore means that it is I who regards myself as a true elite....?! lol.....

by that "logic" anyone who calls into question your elitist ideals is themselves a hypocrite.....i guess that's one way of cementing a position.....Why are you looking down your nose at elitists, you ... you ... something or other?

:D

Cuddles

15th August 2006, 11:57 AM

Because you're close-minded? ;) And, how, exactly, did this mediocre biologist get a job as a research associate at the Smithsonian and become Managing Editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington?

No, is his typical?

"Research associate" = basic research job. Anyone involved in any research will have a title like this.

"Managing Editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society" = secretary who writes the minutes.

Any CV tries to make itself look as good as possible, this doesn't mean most of it actually means anything.

andyandy

15th August 2006, 12:11 PM

No, not necessarily. One can be decidedly non-elite and yet criticize people who think in elitist terms. For example BobbleheadBetty who expressed her disdain for elitists in the comments of this blog post http://www.naebunny.net/~mommylemur/archives/2006/02/okay_im_getting.html is probably not a nontransparent elitist. As best I can tell, she's the real thing: non-elite.

But Neil Cavuto http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/n/neilcavuto226196.html just may be a nontransparent elitist. David Sirota too http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/iraq-shows-the-growing-di_b_11601.html. And perhaps Sean Hannity too http://www.bookreporter.com/reviews/0060582510-excerpt.asp. In these links they publicly declare certain people transparently elitist due to their behavior, in contrast to themselves, in such a way as to elevate themselves morally above the transparent elitist that they're criticizing.

ms bobblehead's quote

I hate elitists who are so much better than the rest of us that they won't watch reality based shows. They're almost as bad as the people who don't own a television because they're too good to watch it at all.

Neil Cavuto's quote

I hate elitists. I hate conceited people. I hate pompous people.

is ms bobblehead thoroughly non-elite merely because she pads out her elitist hatred?

how would one go about convincing you (apparently the arbiter on such matters) that one was in fact sincere in their dislike of elitists?

drkitten

15th August 2006, 12:12 PM

Because you're close-minded? ;) And, how, exactly, did this mediocre biologist get a job as a research associate at the Smithsonian and become Managing Editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington?

Um, you are aware that those are second-string jobs, aren't you? Possibly even third-string, depending upon your specific desires. I had a better job than those three years post-Ph.D., and I'm hardly a superstar.

A first-string job in the sciences is a professorship at a top-flight university or possibly a high-ranking (much higher than "research associate" or GS-13) administrative position at one of the various national laboratories. A second-string job in the sciences is a tenure-track position at almost any college or university. Postdocs are usually reserved for brand-new, ink-not-yet-dry Ph.D.'s. Being a soft-money postdoc for longer than five years or so is usually a sign of a scholar who isn't very good. Being a soft-money postdoc for fifteen (as Dr Sternberg is)... well, let me just point out that it's extremely far from being a good sign.

Similarly, "Managing Editor" of a third-rate journal is hardly an impressive accomplishment. (If you want to see just how bad it is, its impact factor is about 0.23, meaning only about a quarter of the papers presented in it ever get cited again. Alternatively, you could note that it costs only about $40/year for the back issues; back issues of major journals are incredibly expensive precisely because the demand is so high and they're cash cows for the publishers.) He's not even the "Editor," but just a glorified gopher -- you do know the difference between "Managing Editor" and "Editor," right?

Another sign of weakness is his lack of funding; according to the c.v. you cited, he's received two "postdoctoral fellowships," but no actual competitive project-based grants. THis alone would make him more or less noncompetitive if he tried to apply for a job at my university; after fifteen years of research in the biological sciences, he should have been able to find project funding.

So my bet is that this mediocre biologist got his slot at the Smithsonian because no "real" university would hire him, and similarly, he's was working at the third-rate journal because a) the GS-13 postdoc didn't pay very well and b) he's not good enough to work at a higher-profile journal (and he was in the Washington area). I'd be much more impressed by his credentials if he were an honest assistant professor at the University of Southeastern Mississippi.

And, yes, Dr Garey's c.v. (which I cited above) is a more typical academic career arc for a competent (if not necessarily stellar) researcher.

Overman

15th August 2006, 12:19 PM

ms bobblehead's quote

Neil Cavuto's quote

is ms bobblehead thoroughly non-elite merely because she pads out her elitist hatred?

how would one go about convincing you (apparently the arbiter on such matters) that one was in fact sincere in their dislike of elitists?

By simply stating it without the snooty elitish tone that your posts characterize.

andyandy

15th August 2006, 12:28 PM

By simply stating it without the snooty elitish tone that your posts characterize.

lol :D

snooty elitist tone? I'm just putting an argument forward....show me which bit is "snooty" or "elitist"....

i thought you were all for elitism anyway? Or is it only elitism for yourself? :)

Dave1001

15th August 2006, 12:31 PM

how would one go about convincing you (apparently the arbiter on such matters) that one was in fact sincere in their dislike of elitists?

On what do you base your belief that I'm apparently the arbiter on such matters? I'm just expressing my opinion as a member of a message board. But I'm either flattered by your belief in my power on this subject or amused by your irony.

Oh, and I think one can be a nontransparent elite and sincerely dislike transparent elites. In fact, I think many if not most do. How would a non-transparent elitist convince me that they are in fact sincere in their dislike of all elitists? By outsmarting me, which I'm sure a significant cohort of nontransparent elites do on a daily basis. And maybe, just maybe, Ms. Bobblehead is among that number.

Dave1001

15th August 2006, 12:33 PM

Or is it only elitism for yourself? :)

He'd hardly cobble together a power majority that way. I assume that it would at least be elitism for himself and a hegemonic cohort.

andyandy

15th August 2006, 12:46 PM

On what do you base your belief that I'm apparently the arbiter on such matters? I'm just expressing my opinion as a member of a message board. But I'm either flattered by your belief in my power on this subject or amused by your irony.

....i was under the impression that "nontransparent elitist" was a term of your own invention - as as such you would indeed be the arbiter as to how someone could avoid being labelled as one.....I've googled it to no success....so if you could provide me a link as to where you came across the term that would be great.....

Oh, and I think one can be a nontransparent elite and sincerely dislike transparent elites. In fact, I think many if not most do. How would a non-transparent elitist convince me that they are in fact sincere in their dislike of all elitists? By outsmarting me, which I'm sure a significant cohort of nontransparent elites do on a daily basis. And maybe, just maybe, Ms. Bobblehead is among that number.

lol just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you :D

jimlintott

15th August 2006, 12:52 PM

drkitten

15th August 2006, 01:02 PM

I'm a lay person but even I know that a petition, no matter how many names appear, is not acceptable as any sort of scientific evidence for against anything. It is only acceptable as evidence that n number of people signed a petition.

Unfortunately, that's not reasonable. "Argument from authority," although formally fallacious, is actually a pretty good way to learn stuff -- if I want to know how many stars there are in the Milky Way galaxy, I'd be much better off asking a cosmology professor than my Uncle Sid the plumber. And if I can ask lots of cosmology professors, that minimizes the chance that the one guy at the local uni is a lunatic whose view are not representative of the scientific consensus (and the preponderance of evidence that I'm too lazy to evaluate for myself).

The problem isn't with the 600 Ph.D's or with the petition. The problem is that a) few of the signatories are genuine experts (the fact that Uncle Sid once got a Boy Scout merit badge in astronomy does not make him an expert), and that b) the petition is so small and so unrepresentative as to be meaningless. Similarly, a bunch of self-interested experts producing a position paper in line with their interests -- think Tobacco Institute here -- is probably not worthwhile. But when an organization like the American Association for the Advancement of Science comes out with a position statement in favor of evolution, it does a pretty good job of representing not just a random collection of scientists, but the considered judgement of the largest and most representative body of "experts" in the United States (if not the world).

Overman

15th August 2006, 01:05 PM

lol :D

snooty elitist tone? I'm just putting an argument forward....show me which bit is "snooty" or "elitist"....

i thought you were all for elitism anyway? Or is it only elitism for yourself? :)

The snooty or elitist tones may (or may not) have simply been added by the way that I read them. From the replies that many gave I have a feeling other members may have as well...

My orginal quote was "There is no shame is bringing back the term 'Brights' when the general population appears to be the opposite..." and I find no shame in this quote.

For someone to not believe in evolution, despite past evidence, current education, and current (ongoing) observation is a err in rational thought. Is the idea that they ignore these claims while living their lives in such an accord as to not make an imaginary figure send them to a place where their flesh is roasted for thousands of years while they work like slaves a laughable concept to me? Yes.

Still, I do not consider this elitist in the sense that your accusations have termed. Do I consider myself more educated and informed (smarter) in this one area of biology? Certianly.

Do I consider myself more ethical than these people? Do I consider myself smarter in any other area of expertise than these people? Do I consider myself as somehow have more 'value' than these people?

Are these the type of questions that get lumped into your 'elitist' name calling?

Did you purposely use the term elitist to produce such a perception?

andyandy

15th August 2006, 01:12 PM

The snooty or elitist tones may (or may not) have simply been added by the way that I read them.

well none were intended :)

My orginal quote was "There is no shame is bringing back the term 'Brights' when the general population appears to be the opposite..." and I find no shame in this quote.

For someone to not believe in evolution, despite past evidence, current education, and current (ongoing) observation is a err in rational thought. Is the idea that they ignore these claims while living their lives in such an accord as to not make an imaginary figure send them to a place where their flesh is roasted for thousands of years while they work like slaves a laughable concept to me? Yes.

Still, I do not consider this elitist in the sense that your accusations have termed. Do I consider myself more educated and informed (smarter) in this one area of biology? Certianly.

Do I consider myself more ethical than these people? Do I consider myself smarter in any other area of expertise than these people? Do I consider myself as somehow have more 'value' than these people?

Are these the type of questions that get lumped into your 'elitist' name calling?

Did you purposely use the term elitist to produce such a perception?

sure, i apologise - you may have got roped into an argument over elitism with Dave over this post (and others previously)

I think that a large portion of the brains on this planet simply aren't a suitable medium for this level of critical thinking memes. As such, rather than waste resources convincing them to adopt a rote belief in the less-intuitive-for-them theory of evolution, I think we should spend our society dollars in such a way that we get maximum (humane) utilitarian behavior out of this large subset of the population.

I took your "brights" comment for a show of support for this view - which i thought was rather elitist....

ponderingturtle

15th August 2006, 01:27 PM

Dave1001

15th August 2006, 01:27 PM

I took your "brights" comment for a show of support for this view - which i thought was rather elitist....

What's elitist about that view? And why do you consider such a characterization to be pejorative?

andyandy

15th August 2006, 01:48 PM

What's elitist about that view? And why do you consider such a characterization to be pejorative?

You mean what's elitist about this -

I think that a large portion of the brains on this planet simply aren't a suitable medium for this level of critical thinking memes. As such, rather than waste resources convincing them to adopt a rote belief in the less-intuitive-for-them theory of evolution, I think we should spend our society dollars in such a way that we get maximum (humane) utilitarian behavior out of this large subset of the population.

quote?

well, it seems to fit my understanding of the term, and checking the dictionary it seems to hold up.....

1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.
2.
a. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
b. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/elitist

why do i consider it to be pejorative? Because elitism tends to autocracy. If you want to have a discussion on the merits (or otherwise) of elitism as a political system then how about starting a thread in politics? I'd be more than happy to join in.... i think this topic's been derailed enough....
oh and i'm still waiting for that link for "nontransparent elite...."

Rodney

15th August 2006, 02:09 PM

Um, you are aware that those are second-string jobs, aren't you? Possibly even third-string, depending upon your specific desires. I had a better job than those three years post-Ph.D., and I'm hardly a superstar. Who am I to question that? ;)

A first-string job in the sciences is a professorship at a top-flight university or possibly a high-ranking (much higher than "research associate" or GS-13) administrative position at one of the various national laboratories. Sternberg worked half his time at the Smithsonian and the other half at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) as a Title 42 scientist. According to a 2004 Washington Post article: "About one-third of all NIH employees employed under the Title 42 provision make less than a GS-14 Step 1 salary, which is about $83,000 a year . . . The mean salary for the group is about $118,500." See -- http://tmjoints.org/news/NIHSals.htm A top level biologist in the Washington, DC area earns a median salary, including bonuses, of $91,419. See http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layoutscripts/swzl_compresult.asp?jobcode=RD14000117&jobaltername=Biologist+V&jobtitle=Biologist+V&narrowdesc=Science+and+Research&narrowcode=RD05&zipcode=20005&metrocode=192&pagenumber=2&searchpage=&searchtype=&geo=Washington%2C+DC+20005

A second-string job in the sciences is a tenure-track position at almost any college or university. Postdocs are usually reserved for brand-new, ink-not-yet-dry Ph.D.'s. Being a soft-money postdoc for longer than five years or so is usually a sign of a scholar who isn't very good. Being a soft-money postdoc for fifteen (as Dr Sternberg is)... well, let me just point out that it's extremely far from being a good sign.

Similarly, "Managing Editor" of a third-rate journal is hardly an impressive accomplishment. (If you want to see just how bad it is, its impact factor is about 0.23, meaning only about a quarter of the papers presented in it ever get cited again. Alternatively, you could note that it costs only about $40/year for the back issues; back issues of major journals are incredibly expensive precisely because the demand is so high and they're cash cows for the publishers.) He's not even the "Editor," but just a glorified gopher -- you do know the difference between "Managing Editor" and "Editor," right?
According to Sternberg: "As managing editor it was my prerogative to choose the editor who would work directly on the paper, and as I was best qualified among the editors I chose myself, something I had done before in other appropriate cases. In order to avoid making a unilateral decision on a potentially controversial paper, however, I discussed the paper on at least three occasions with another member of the Council of the Biological Society of Washington (BSW), a scientist at the National Museum of Natural History. Each time, this colleague encouraged me to publish the paper despite possible controversy."

Another sign of weakness is his lack of funding; according to the c.v. you cited, he's received two "postdoctoral fellowships," but no actual competitive project-based grants. THis alone would make him more or less noncompetitive if he tried to apply for a job at my university; after fifteen years of research in the biological sciences, he should have been able to find project funding.

So my bet is that this mediocre biologist got his slot at the Smithsonian because no "real" university would hire him, and similarly, he's was working at the third-rate journal because a) the GS-13 postdoc didn't pay very well and b) he's not good enough to work at a higher-profile journal (and he was in the Washington area). I'd be much more impressed by his credentials if he were an honest assistant professor at the University of Southeastern Mississippi.

And, yes, Dr Garey's c.v. (which I cited above) is a more typical academic career arc for a competent (if not necessarily stellar) researcher.
So why all the hysteria from other Smithsonian biologists about an article in a third-rate journal? Why not just quietly inform the news media that there is less here than meets the eye?

drkitten

15th August 2006, 02:22 PM

Sternberg worked half his time at the Smithsonian and the other half at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). According to a 2004 Washington Post article: "About one-third of all NIH employees employed under the Title 42 provision make less than a GS-14 Step 1 salary, which is about $83,000 a year . . . The mean salary for the group is about $118,500."

This isn't relevant to anything. Or at least, I fail to see the relevance. Title 42 was specifically set up to allow hiring of junior-level consultants -- the article is complaining about the amount of money being spent on senior-level (e.g. Directors) hires under that program.

According to Sternberg: "As managing editor it was my prerogative to choose the editor who would work directly on the paper,

Yes. This is a lie.

and as I was best qualified among the editors I chose myself,

This is also a lie -- he demonstrably was NOT best-qualified.

something I had done before in other appropriate cases.

This may in fact be true, but it's highly unethical.

In order to avoid making a unilateral decision on a potentially controversial paper, however, I discussed the paper on at least three occasions with another member of the Council of the Biological Society of Washington (BSW), a scientist at the National Museum of Natural History. Each time, this colleague encouraged me to publish the paper despite possible controversy."

I have no reason to regard this statement as anything other than a lie.

So why all the hysteria from other Smithsonian biologists about an article in a third-rate journal?
Why not just quietly inform the news media that there is less here than meets the eye?

Have you ever tried to "quietly inform the news media that there is less here than meets the eye" about anything?

The media don't listen to statements like that. In fact, it's specifically because the media didn't listen to statements like that and were instead giving Sternberg the platform he craved to spread his lies, that they found it necessary to discipline him for his unethical behavior w.r.t. the paper in question.

Rodney

15th August 2006, 07:08 PM

This isn't relevant to anything. Or at least, I fail to see the relevance. Title 42 was specifically set up to allow hiring of junior-level consultants -- the article is complaining about the amount of money being spent on senior-level (e.g. Directors) hires under that program. Do you know what Sternberg's salary was? My point was that the average salary earned by Title 42 scientists is well above the median earned by the top level (Level 5) biologists in the Washington, DC area.

My Previous Post: According to Sternberg: "As managing editor it was my prerogative to choose the editor who would work directly on the paper"

Yes. This is a lie.
What proof do you have that it was not his prerogative?

My Previous Post (continued): "and as I was best qualified among the editors I chose myself"

This is also a lie -- he demonstrably was NOT best-qualified.So whom should he have chosen?

My Previous Post (continued): "something I had done before in other appropriate cases."

This may in fact be true, but it's highly unethical. Why is it necessarily unethical?

My Previous Post (continued): "In order to avoid making a unilateral decision on a potentially controversial paper, however, I discussed the paper on at least three occasions with another member of the Council of the Biological Society of Washington (BSW), a scientist at the National Museum of Natural History. Each time, this colleague encouraged me to publish the paper despite possible controversy."

I have no reason to regard this statement as anything other than a lie. Based on what evidence?

Have you ever tried to "quietly inform the news media that there is less here than meets the eye" about anything?

The media don't listen to statements like that. In fact, it's specifically because the media didn't listen to statements like that and were instead giving Sternberg the platform he craved to spread his lies, that they found it necessary to discipline him for his unethical behavior w.r.t. the paper in question.So the media is anti-evolution? What about influential newspapers such as the Boston Globe, Washington Post and New York Times? And the burden is still on you to document that Sternberg is lying.

Oldpossum

15th August 2006, 08:31 PM

Based on what evidence?

Base on the fact that he has supposedly two PHD's, that are in subjects that have a great deal of overlap.
From this fact alone, I can deduce that he is a lying scumbag, and as such anything he writes can be dismissed as irrelivent.

trvlr2

15th August 2006, 10:02 PM

"Research associate" = basic research job. Anyone involved in any research will have a title like this.

"Managing Editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society" = secretary who writes the minutes.

Any CV tries to make itself look as good as possible, this doesn't mean most of it actually means anything.

Cuddles-Thanks, ya beat me to it.

Also, thanks, DR Kitten.

Rodney just doesn't get it ,that his man was heaved because creationism does not equal science. I doubt he ever will.(Get it)

American

15th August 2006, 10:11 PM

X-COM

15th August 2006, 11:17 PM

As long as the people who matter believe in it, there is little problem.

Evolution is the business of biologists, anthropologists, and other scientists. One shouldn't care whether a hairdresser believes in it.

Personally I belives that everones opinion do matter, scientists need finace and that has to come from somewhere. Donations or taxes, the well of cash are going to dry up if the financers don't belive that the money are spent on something useful. Besides, even dumb people get to vote...

Dave1001

16th August 2006, 03:28 AM

Personally I belives that everones opinion do matter, scientists need finace and that has to come from somewhere. Donations or taxes, the well of cash are going to dry up if the financers don't belive that the money are spent on something useful.

How much of science is funded by donations from the working and middle class? But that's a good argument for straussian manipulation of the masses into tithing to support scientific endeavors.

Besides, even dumb people get to vote...

Hmmm ... you're convincing me to become a supporter of diebold technology.

Euromutt

16th August 2006, 06:03 AM

As long as the people who matter believe in it, there is little problem.

Evolution is the business of biologists, anthropologists, and other scientists. One shouldn't care whether a hairdresser believes in it.To extrapolate on X-Com's last sentence, it matters when you have elected school boards, and that hairdresser decides to consciously vote for Creationist candidates.

I'll be frank, I think that giving a school board of elected laymen, with no requisite qualifications except sufficient votes, the power to set school curricula is a terrible idea. I understand why they exist in the American system, in which you don't get to choose which (public) school you want your child to go to, because otherwise parents would have no way of influencing their child's education. But I grew up in the Dutch system, in which schools--at least secondary schools--got to set their own curricula, and parents were free to choose the school they wanted their kid(s) to attend, thus forcing even fully state-funded schools to compete for students. Personally, I believe that American public secondary education could be greatly improved simply by abolishing the "catchment area" system which assigns students to a particular public school, and allowing parents to choose which public school they want to send their kids to. Sure, the teachers' unions probably still wouldn't like it, but it's less radical (and less of a threat to the public education budget) than voucher schemes. Simultaneously, the authority to set curricula should be devolved from district school boards to the schools themselves, in order to give them the means to become competitive.

ponderingturtle

16th August 2006, 07:00 AM

To extrapolate on X-Com's last sentence, it matters when you have elected school boards, and that hairdresser decides to consciously vote for Creationist candidates.

I'll be frank, I think that giving a school board of elected laymen, with no requisite qualifications except sufficient votes, the power to set school curricula is a terrible idea. I understand why they exist in the American system, in which you don't get to choose which (public) school you want your child to go to, because otherwise parents would have no way of influencing their child's education. But I grew up in the Dutch system, in which schools--at least secondary schools--got to set their own curricula, and parents were free to choose the school they wanted their kid(s) to attend, thus forcing even fully state-funded schools to compete for students. Personally, I believe that American public secondary education could be greatly improved simply by abolishing the "catchment area" system which assigns students to a particular public school, and allowing parents to choose which public school they want to send their kids to. Sure, the teachers' unions probably still wouldn't like it, but it's less radical (and less of a threat to the public education budget) than voucher schemes. Simultaneously, the authority to set curricula should be devolved from district school boards to the schools themselves, in order to give them the means to become competitive.

There would be difficulties with this involving transportation and such. America can be a very big place and there might not be a different school with in an hours transit. And I can say from personal experiance that having a hour and a half bus trip each way, to school is a poor way to spend your childhood.

This is done in cities to my knowledge, but it is the other areas that it becomes more complex.

Rodney

16th August 2006, 07:50 AM

Base on the fact that he has supposedly two PHD's, that are in subjects that have a great deal of overlap.
From this fact alone, I can deduce that he is a lying scumbag, and as such anything he writes can be dismissed as irrelivent.
Apparently your powers of deduction are greater than any of Sternberg's opponents at the Smithsonian because -- to my knowledge -- none of them has accused Sternberg of falsifying his academic record. By the way, Sternberg says that one PhD is in Theoretical Biology and the second is in Molecular Evolution -- not exactly the same subjects.

Cuddles

16th August 2006, 08:12 AM

Base on the fact that he has supposedly two PHD's, that are in subjects that have a great deal of overlap.
From this fact alone, I can deduce that he is a lying scumbag, and as such anything he writes can be dismissed as irrelivent.

No. PhDs are extremely specific. A person could do two PhDs in exactly the same subject and still have no overlap between them. There seems no reason to doubt his qualifications, only the way he presents other parts of his CV.

Do you know what Sternberg's salary was? My point was that the average salary earned by Title 42 scientists is well above the median earned by the top level (Level 5) biologists in the Washington, DC area.

What does salary have to do with it?

My Previous Post: According to Sternberg: "As managing editor it was my prerogative to choose the editor who would work directly on the paper"

What proof do you have that it was not his prerogative?

I'm not sure how this works, but I would think it quite possible that he could do this.

My Previous Post (continued): "and as I was best qualified among the editors I chose myself"

So whom should he have chosen?

Since he clearly is biased towards the creationist viewpoint he should choose an objective editor who would consider it scientifically. I don't know who the other choices were, but any good scientist would consider a paper on it's own merits, which is presumably why he didn't want them to.

My Previous Post (continued): "something I had done before in other appropriate cases."

Why is it necessarily unethical?

Choosing an editor based on their opinions and not the scientific merit of the paper is extremely unethical. This is no better than publishing it because your best friend wrote it.

My Previous Post (continued): "In order to avoid making a unilateral decision on a potentially controversial paper, however, I discussed the paper on at least three occasions with another member of the Council of the Biological Society of Washington (BSW), a scientist at the National Museum of Natural History. Each time, this colleague encouraged me to publish the paper despite possible controversy."

Based on what evidence?

I would not necessarily say this is a lie. It is entirely possible that other biologist support creationism. Or alternatively that he was encouraged to publish so that he could be shown wrong conclusively via peer review. On the other hand, what evidence is there that he did ask anyone else?

So the media is anti-evolution? What about influential newspapers such as the Boston Globe, Washington Post and New York Times? And the burden is still on you to document that Sternberg is lying.

The media is not anti-evolution. They just publish anything that anyone sends them that will sell. Sternberg's views were more sensational than the people saying "He's wrong", and so the media happily spread them because "one man fighting the oppressive establishment" sells better. When have you ever seen the headline "Evolution Still True"? This is true fall all papers, influential or not.

I would say drkitten's statements that he is lying are unfounded, as far as I know, and I would be interested to see any evidence of this. Some of his statements are definately unethical though, and I have seen nothing to suggest he was wrongly punished.

drkitten

16th August 2006, 08:30 AM

My Previous Post: According to Sternberg: "As managing editor it was my prerogative to choose the editor who would work directly on the paper"

What proof do you have that it was not his prerogative?

Because that's not what a "managing editor" does.

That's like someone saying "as department secretary, it was my job to make sure that everyone got paid accurately and on time." No, it isn't. That's the job of the payroll office -- the secretary is at best responsible for distributing paychecks to the members of the department.

In 2004, the "editor" of Proc. BIo. Soc. Wash (http://web.archive.org/web/20041012090621/http://www.biolsocwash.org/proceedings.html) was Richard Banks; it would have been his job to select a specific editor for a controversial paper. A "managing editor" is a glorified secretary whose job is is to make sure that the manuscripts get filed properly and delivered to the right people. Sternberg overstepped his authority.

Similarly, we know from Sternberg's CV that he was paid at a GS-13 scale, which means that he gets paid substantially less than the median listed in your article. (The lower third, if your source is correct.) Again, that's hardly a mark of an "outstanding," or even "average," scientist. He holds a bad job and he's badly paid relative to his peers at that job?

Furthermore, holding multiple Ph.D.'s in related areas is also a bad sign. A Ph.D. is research training; holding two Ph.D.'s is like holding two high school diplomas. There is nothing you can do with the second Ph.D. that you couldn't do with just the first. The "usual" meaning of multiple Ph.D.'s (esp. in closely related fields -- obviously it's a little different with a J.D. and an M.D. or something like that) is that the holder was unable to find a job after getting the first one, and so decided to stay in school until the job market picks up. If he was such a brilliant biologist, why didn't he get a postdoc after the first job -- or a tenure track professorship?

In fact, you notice that he tried -- in 1995, he worked as an Adjunct Assistant Professor at Miami-Dade Community College, before returning to graduate school for a second degree. So he evidently wasn't willing/able to hold a long-term job teaching at a community college.

Basically, you have presented nothing that indicates that he can manage to reach the lofty heights of mediocrity.

Rodney

16th August 2006, 09:16 AM

No. PhDs are extremely specific. A person could do two PhDs in exactly the same subject and still have no overlap between them. There seems no reason to doubt his qualifications, only the way he presents other parts of his CV.
I'm happy to see that we're in agreement on the PhDs, but what is wrong with the rest of his CV?

What does salary have to do with it?
Hopefully there is some correlation between salary and expertise. However, I agree that this can be misleading in some cases.

I'm not sure how this works, but I would think it quite possible that he could do this.
Agreed.

Since he clearly is biased towards the creationist viewpoint he should choose an objective editor who would consider it scientifically.
By an objective editor, do you mean an atheist?

I don't know who the other choices were, but any good scientist would consider a paper on it's own merits, which is presumably why he didn't want them to.
Have you read the Meyer paper?

Choosing an editor based on their opinions and not the scientific merit of the paper is extremely unethical. This is no better than publishing it because your best friend wrote it.
What is your evidence that Sternberg did not evaluate the Meyer paper based on its scientific merit?

I would not necessarily say this is a lie. It is entirely possible that other biologist support creationism. Or alternatively that he was encouraged to publish so that he could be shown wrong conclusively via peer review. On the other hand, what evidence is there that he did ask anyone else?
According to the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) that investigated Sternberg's complaint, in a letter to him: "In fact, there was a serious effort by some to take the drastic step of piercing the veil of peer review, an unprecedented and unethical act within your field. They assumed that you violated editorial regulations of the Proceedings because you were the primary editor of the article. These comments were made to and by SI and NMNH managers and were published to several outside organizations. It was later revealed that you complied with all editorial requirements of the Proceedings and that the Meyer article was properly peer reviewed by renowned scientists. As an aside, the information received by OSC does not indicate that any effort was made to recall or correct these comments once the truth was made known.

"During the impromptu background investigation allegations were also made that you mishandled specimens and collections during your scientific research. You have clearly explained how damaging this is for a scientist in your position. This information was also shared outside of the SI. And once again managers later had to admit that the allegations were false. And as with the editorial issue there was no effort, as far as we can tell, to correct this misconception." See -- http://www.rsternberg.net/OSC_ltr.htm

The media is not anti-evolution. They just publish anything that anyone sends them that will sell. Sternberg's views were more sensational than the people saying "He's wrong", and so the media happily spread them because "one man fighting the oppressive establishment" sells better. When have you ever seen the headline "Evolution Still True"? This is true fall all papers, influential or not. Perhaps, but in this case, the Office of Special Counsel investigation revealed that Sternberg's complaint that false allegations were made against him by other Smithsonian scientists was well-founded. The OSC here is the objective third party -- it's not the Darwinists that dominate the ranks of the Smithsonian.

I would say drkitten's statements that he is lying are unfounded, as far as I know, and I would be interested to see any evidence of this. Me too, but don't hold your breath.

Some of his statements are definately unethical though, and I have seen nothing to suggest he was wrongly punished. What statements of Sternberg's are unethical? Again, the OSC investigation came down overwhelmingly on his side, except in the respect that he was not entitled to normal civil service protection because of his status as a Title 42 scientist. So, in that sense, he was not wrongly punished, but the behavior of other Smithsonian scientists is very telling. Their attitude toward him was about the same as the attitude of the medieval Catholic Church toward anyone raising questions about Church dogma.

drkitten

16th August 2006, 09:22 AM

Me too, but don't hold your breath.

Yawn. Already posted. What evidence do you have that he did not misrepresent and overstep his authority (as the position title suggests)?

Cuddles

16th August 2006, 09:52 AM

I'm happy to see that we're in agreement on the PhDs, but what is wrong with the rest of his CV?[quote]

Sorry, I put this wrong. I meant the way you interpret his CV. You presented it as an outstanding biologist, while anyone with experience in research (or with CVs) wold see it as mediocre at best.

[quote]Hopefully there is some correlation between salary and expertise. However, I agree that this can be misleading in some cases.

Salary is largely based on where you are working, rather than what your job is. For example, in London you would get paid much more, for doing exactly the same job, than a small town in north England. I assume it works the same in the US. And as drkitten pointed out, he was actually quite badly paid compared to his peers.

Agreed.

Unfortunately for your position, drkitten apparently knows more than me about this and clearly states that this was not his job. I will defer to him on this point.

By an objective editor, do you mean an atheist?

No. I mean an objective editor. Personal beliefs have nothing to do with it.

Have you read the Meyer paper?

Yes. It is pure garbage from start to finish. The only argument he uses is the "I can't understand how it happened so it didn't" argument. He repeatedly uses the long discredited arguments about information not being generated by mutations. If you think this is valid I recomend reading The Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins.

What is your evidence that Sternberg did not evaluate the Meyer paper based on its scientific merit?

Because there is no science in it. As I say above, he merely repeats unfounded ideas from information theory. Any reasonable scientist would realise this, especially in their specialist area, and so he must have had a personal agenda to publish it.

According to the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) that investigated Sternberg's complaint, in a letter to him: "In fact, there was a serious effort by some to take the drastic step of piercing the veil of peer review, an unprecedented and unethical act within your field. They assumed that you violated editorial regulations of the Proceedings because you were the primary editor of the article. These comments were made to and by SI and NMNH managers and were published to several outside organizations. It was later revealed that you complied with all editorial requirements of the Proceedings and that the Meyer article was properly peer reviewed by renowned scientists. As an aside, the information received by OSC does not indicate that any effort was made to recall or correct these comments once the truth was made known.

"During the impromptu background investigation allegations were also made that you mishandled specimens and collections during your scientific research. You have clearly explained how damaging this is for a scientist in your position. This information was also shared outside of the SI. And once again managers later had to admit that the allegations were false. And as with the editorial issue there was no effort, as far as we can tell, to correct this misconception." See -- http://www.rsternberg.net/OSC_ltr.htm

This does not show that he asked anyone else about publishing. That it was peer reviewed does not support the statement you quoted.

Perhaps, but in this case, the Office of Special Counsel investigation revealed that Sternberg's complaint that false allegations were made against him by other Smithsonian scientists was well-founded. The OSC here is the objective third party -- it's not the Darwinists that dominate the ranks of the Smithsonian.

I never said they were. I just pointed out that sensationalism sells, whether it is Sternberg calling the Smithsonian liars or them calling him a liar, both of which happend in this case.

Me too, but don't hold your breath.

What statements of Sternberg's are unethical? Again, the OSC investigation came down overwhelmingly on his side, except in the respect that he was not entitled to normal civil service protection because of his status as a Title 42 scientist. So, in that sense, he was not wrongly punished, but the behavior of other Smithsonian scientists is very telling. Their attitude toward him was about the same as the attitude of the medieval Catholic Church toward anyone raising questions about Church dogma.

In my contract there is a clause saying I may not take part in any out-of-work activity that would conflict with my work. His editing of the Proceedings was out of work, as stated in the OSC report. Since he chose to publish a paper unfounded in science and edited it himself despite the conflict of interest apparent (since it supports his own personal beliefs) this can be seen as conflicting with his work at the Smithsonian, which is based on proper scientific conduct. His contract may not have had such a clause, and so the OSC found in his favour, but I entirely understand the Smithsonian's position, effectively he was undermining their credibility by associating himself, and therefore them, with meaningless pseudoscience.

Rodney

16th August 2006, 01:14 PM

Sorry, I put this wrong. I meant the way you interpret his CV. You presented it as an outstanding biologist, while anyone with experience in research (or with CVs) wold see it as mediocre at best.
Okay, perhaps there is room to argue whether Sternberg is an "outstanding" biologist. Nonetheless, he was the managing editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington at the time the Meyer paper was submitted. The OSC found that, contrary to charges leveled against him by other Smithsonian scientists, he did nothing unethical or illegal in his handling of that paper.

Salary is largely based on where you are working, rather than what your job is. For example, in London you would get paid much more, for doing exactly the same job, than a small town in north England. I assume it works the same in the US. And as drkitten pointed out, he was actually quite badly paid compared to his peers. We still don't know his salary, but he says that his position was equivalent to a grade GS-13. Currently, that grade has a salary range in the Washington, DC area of $77,353-$100,554. See General Schedule and Locality Pay Tables
-- http://www.opm.gov/oca/06tables
That compares to a median salary for a top level (Level 5) Biologist in the Washington area of $91,419, including bonuses, and so it appears his salary was in the same range as a median top level biologist.

Unfortunately for your position, drkitten apparently knows more than me about this and clearly states that this was not his job. I will defer to him on this point. drkitten is hardly a neutral third party, and he has yet to document his charge that Sternberg lied. The OSC appears to be a neutral third party and its letter to Sternberg paints him as honest and his opponents as dishonest.

No. I mean an objective editor. Personal beliefs have nothing to do with it. But what's an "objective" editor? You seem to believe that any ID proponent is hopelessly biased, but that is not true of Darwinists.

Yes. It is pure garbage from start to finish. The only argument he uses is the "I can't understand how it happened so it didn't" argument. He repeatedly uses the long discredited arguments about information not being generated by mutations. If you think this is valid I recomend reading The Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins.
Because there is no science in it. As I say above, he merely repeats unfounded ideas from information theory. Any reasonable scientist would realise this, especially in their specialist area, and so he must have had a personal agenda to publish it.
This does not show that he asked anyone else about publishing. That it was peer reviewed does not support the statement you quoted.
Don't sugarcoat it. ;) Bear in mind, though, that the OSC letter to Sternberg concluded:

"At this same time, many e-mails from within the management of the SI and from outside sources stated that the only way the Meyer article was published was through 'serious editorial oversight.' Other managers called it an 'egregious instance of editorial incompetence...' They could not fathom that they Meyer article had been peer-reviewed and, if it was, it could only have been reviewed by 'like minded individuals.' In fact, there was a serious effort by some to take the drastic step of piercing the veil of peer review, an unprecedented and unethical act within your field. They assumed that you violated editorial regulations of the Proceedings because you were the primary editor of the article. These comments were made to and by SI and NMNH managers and were published to several outside organizations. It was later revealed that you complied with all editorial requirements of the Proceedings and that the Meyer article was properly peer reviewed by renowned scientists."

I never said they were. I just pointed out that sensationalism sells, whether it is Sternberg calling the Smithsonian liars or them calling him a liar, both of which happend in this case. Fine, but when a U.S. Government agency concludes that it is mainstream Smithsonian scientists who behaved unethically, that is news, and it should be.

In my contract there is a clause saying I may not take part in any out-of-work activity that would conflict with my work. His editing of the Proceedings was out of work, as stated in the OSC report. Since he chose to publish a paper unfounded in science and edited it himself despite the conflict of interest apparent (since it supports his own personal beliefs) this can be seen as conflicting with his work at the Smithsonian, which is based on proper scientific conduct. His contract may not have had such a clause, and so the OSC found in his favour, but I entirely understand the Smithsonian's position, effectively he was undermining their credibility by associating himself, and therefore them, with meaningless pseudoscience. Do you think that there's a slim chance that the OSC got it right and that have it wrong?

drkitten

16th August 2006, 01:34 PM

Okay, perhaps there is room to argue whether Sternberg is an "outstanding" biologist.

There is no basis that you have laid to argue that he is.

drkitten is hardly a neutral third party, and he has yet to document his charge that Sternberg lied.

Now you're the one lying. Retract it, please.

The OSC appears to be a neutral third party

I have no reason to believe that the OSC is a neutral third party, especially given the Bush administration's history of meddling in scientific affairs at the direction of political hacks.

Do you think that there's a slim chance that the OSC got it right and that have it wrong?

A slim chance, yes. There's also a slim chance that the person picking your lock at midnight is actually intending to deliver you flowers. The preponderance of the evidence strongly suggests otherwise.

ponderingturtle

16th August 2006, 01:53 PM

I have no reason to believe that the OSC is a neutral third party, especially given the Bush administration's history of meddling in scientific affairs at the direction of political hacks..

I had heard about there being problems between the political appointed staff there and the long term staff. Of course they had no one to go to about it.

drkitten

16th August 2006, 02:11 PM

I had heard about there being problems between the political appointed staff there and the long term staff. Of course they had no one to go to about it.

Yup. The best example is George Deutsch, the 24-year old journalism major who attempted to re-write NASA's scientific reports to downplay global warning, to minimize references to the Big Bang, and to insert support for "intelligent design."

In particular, the idea that a political appointee at OSC would want to support a paper ostensibly about "intelligent design" cannot be dismissed out of hand. Unless Rodney has some actual evidence to present?....

drkitten

16th August 2006, 02:25 PM

What is your evidence that Sternberg did not evaluate the Meyer paper based on its scientific merit?

How about a statement by the publisher (http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html) that he didn't?

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.

According to the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) that investigated Sternberg's complaint, in a letter to him: "In fact, there was a serious effort by some to take the drastic step of piercing the veil of peer review, an unprecedented and unethical act within your field. They assumed that you violated editorial regulations of the Proceedings because you were the primary editor of the article.

Of course, the fact that the publisher itself pointed out that Sternberg violated editorial regulations, as in the quotation above, gives a firm ground to make that assumption.

The alternative is that the publisher is lying in the statement above?

More from the OSC:
It was later revealed that you complied with all editorial requirements of the Proceedings and that the Meyer article was properly peer reviewed by renowned scientists.

The OSC says that the article was properly peer reviewed, while the publishing organization says that it wasn't. Why do you assume that the OSC is more familiar with peer review than the organization? And if the article was properly peer reviewed, why aren't any of the "renowned scientists" named? Reviewers are routinely named when controversies such as this (involving possible editorial malfiesance) come up.

Kaarjuus

16th August 2006, 02:59 PM

Evolution is the business of biologists, anthropologists, and other scientists. One shouldn't care whether a hairdresser believes in it.

This is the equivalent of saying "Science is the business of scientists. One shouldn't care whether a hairdresser believes in homeopathy."

One should greatly care that the general public is well-informed on how the world works.

First, most of us here live in democratic countries and the general public elects the leaders, i.e. the people who matter, based on their beliefs.

Second, if people believe in things that are wrong, harm ensues. Homeopathy is a billion-dollar business world-wide. People are rejecting working medicinal practices and paying a lot for mere water. A lot of public money is spent on disproving alternative medicine.

People who do not believe in evolution make decisions based on this false belief. These decisions affect these people themselves and affect the people around them. It is important.

Mercutio

16th August 2006, 05:04 PM

Okay, perhaps there is room to argue whether Sternberg is an "outstanding" biologist. Nonetheless, he was the managing editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington at the time the Meyer paper was submitted. The OSC found that, contrary to charges leveled against him by other Smithsonian scientists, he did nothing unethical or illegal in his handling of that paper.

We still don't know his salary, but he says that his position was equivalent to a grade GS-13. Currently, that grade has a salary range in the Washington, DC area of $77,353-$100,554. See General Schedule and Locality Pay Tables
-- http://www.opm.gov/oca/06tables
That compares to a median salary for a top level (Level 5) Biologist in the Washington area of $91,419, including bonuses, and so it appears his salary was in the same range as a median top level biologist.

drkitten is hardly a neutral third party, and he has yet to document his charge that Sternberg lied. The OSC appears to be a neutral third party and its letter to Sternberg paints him as honest and his opponents as dishonest.
[snip]
Do you think that there's a slim chance that the OSC got it right and that have it wrong?
Are you familiar with the "Panda's Thumb" coverage of the issue? (http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/08/sternberg_compl.html)Late today, a reporter called NCSE and, asking for comment, told us that the U.S. Office of Special Counsel had dropped Richard von Sternberg’s religious discrimination complaint against the Smithsonian Institution. The short version is that Sternberg, as an unpaid research associate at the Smithsonian, is not actually an employee, and thus the OSC has no jurisdiction. This was not particularly surprising, considering that PT contributer Reed Cartwright noted way back on February 2 that exactly this might happen.

Legally, this appears to be the end of things. However, as the Panda’s Thumb has documented over the past year (Meyer 2004 Medley, google search), the Meyer/Sternberg/Smithsonian affair has been a piece of politics from the beginning. The OSC’s opinion guarantees it will be politics to the end.

Rodney

16th August 2006, 07:19 PM

There is no basis that you have laid to argue that he is.Okay, for the sake of argument, I'll concede the point.

Now you're the one lying. Retract it, please. Come again? I stated that, according to Sternberg: "As managing editor it was my prerogative to choose the editor who would work directly on the paper." I then inquired of you: "What proof do you have that it was not his prerogative? To which you replied: "Because that's not what a 'managing editor' does." However, according to Sternberg:

"The process for publication of papers in the Proceedings has been straightforward. The practice was for the managing editor to receive and initially pass on all submitted papers. Then, depending on the subject matter, the managing editor would pass the paper to an associate editor with expertise in the appropriate field for soliciting peer reviews and then editing the paper as needed to prepare it for publication. The managing editor could also select an ad hoc associate editor for a particular paper if no member of the board of associate editors was suitable. Finally, the managing editor could take direct charge of a paper if that was appropriate.

" . . . In the aftermath of this controversy I met with the Council of the BSW and asked them to clarify and make explicit the rights and responsibility of the managing editor vis à vis the associate editors. At a meeting in November 2002, a near-unanimous Council backed me up completely (only the associate editor in question and one of his cronies voted against me) and formally decided that the managing editor has control over every aspect of the Proceedings and can choose and supervise the associate editors at his or her discretion. The Council ruled that the managing editor has the final say in the publication of manuscripts." See -- http://www.rsternberg.net/publication_details.htm

Do you have evidence that Sternberg's above version of event is incorrect? If so, what's the evidence?

I have no reason to believe that the OSC is a neutral third party, especially given the Bush administration's history of meddling in scientific affairs at the direction of political hacks. So who would be a neutral third party, if not the government agency established to adjudicate disputes of this nature?

A slim chance, yes. There's also a slim chance that the person picking your lock at midnight is actually intending to deliver you flowers. The preponderance of the evidence strongly suggests otherwise. I disagree because the evidence you cite comes from biased sources, and the OSC found Sternberg's version of events -- not their version -- to be correct.

Rodney

16th August 2006, 07:45 PM

How about a statement by the publisher (http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html) that he didn't?

Of course, the fact that the publisher itself pointed out that Sternberg violated editorial regulations, as in the quotation above, gives a firm ground to make that assumption.

The alternative is that the publisher is lying in the statement above?

More from the OSC:

The OSC says that the article was properly peer reviewed, while the publishing organization says that it wasn't. Why do you assume that the OSC is more familiar with peer review than the organization?
Presumably the OSC undertook a thorough investigation and believed Sternberg. However, one piece of evidence that would be crucial would be notes or an audio or video tape from the November 2002 meeting that Sternberg referenced: " . . . In the aftermath of this controversy I met with the Council of the BSW and asked them to clarify and make explicit the rights and responsibility of the managing editor vis à vis the associate editors. At a meeting in November 2002, a near-unanimous Council backed me up completely (only the associate editor in question and one of his cronies voted against me) and formally decided that the managing editor has control over every aspect of the Proceedings and can choose and supervise the associate editors at his or her discretion. The Council ruled that the managing editor has the final say in the publication of manuscripts."

And if the article was properly peer reviewed, why aren't any of the "renowned scientists" named? Reviewers are routinely named when controversies such as this (involving possible editorial malfiesance) come up.
Perhaps because they have not given their consent?

American

16th August 2006, 07:46 PM

This is the equivalent of saying "Science is the business of scientists. One shouldn't care whether a hairdresser believes in homeopathy."

The condition I assume is that hairdressers don't appreciate science at any level, however much it may in fact benefit them. We've no right to force "what's good for others" on them.

Surely a barber would scold me for washing my hair with a bar of soap, and he'd be right to do so. But I don't want laws saying I must wash with shampoo, because experts say it's better.

Willful apathy is exactly what we need more of - as opposed to the nauseating sycophancy on which the world is largely modeled. (Do you know how many people think Dr. Phil is a medical doctor? Too many.)

Kaarjuus

17th August 2006, 03:49 AM

But I don't want laws saying I must wash with shampoo, because experts say it's better.

Who said anything about laws?

Willful apathy is exactly what we need more of - as opposed to the nauseating sycophancy on which the world is largely modeled.

This is a mind-boggling statement. So the world and the people are better off if they're willfully apathetic? How do they make decisions then?

drkitten

17th August 2006, 08:05 AM

Presumably the OSC undertook a thorough investigation and believed Sternberg.

I see no reason to make that assumption. As a matter of fact, I "presume" exactly the opposite.

As pointed out, the OSC does not have jurisdiction in this matter, a matter that a mere routine inquiry would have established.

"Thorough investigations" are expensive. No government agency will typically undertake a "thorough investigation" in an area that it knows it doesn't have jurisdiction over, because neither the funding nor the manpower is usually available.

Therefore, I conclude either that there was no "thorough investigation" undertaken, but instead a mere cursory one, and the rest is a political hack trying to keep the political issue alive (as already been established as an m.o. of the Bush administration), or the thorough investigation was sufficiently incompetently done as to not establish the question of jurisdiction until the very end, in which case the established incompetence of the investigator negates any credibility the report has.

Rodney

17th August 2006, 09:36 AM

I see no reason to make that assumption. As a matter of fact, I "presume" exactly the opposite.

As pointed out, the OSC does not have jurisdiction in this matter, a matter that a mere routine inquiry would have established.
According to a Washington Post article of August 19, 2005: "The U.S. Office of Special Counsel . . . was established to protect federal employees from reprisals." See -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/18/AR2005081801680.html
So why do you say that OSC does not have jurisdiction?

"Thorough investigations" are expensive. No government agency will typically undertake a "thorough investigation" in an area that it knows it doesn't have jurisdiction over, because neither the funding nor the manpower is usually available.

Therefore, I conclude either that there was no "thorough investigation" undertaken, but instead a mere cursory one, and the rest is a political hack trying to keep the political issue alive (as already been established as an m.o. of the Bush administration), or the thorough investigation was sufficiently incompetently done as to not establish the question of jurisdiction until the very end, in which case the established incompetence of the investigator negates any credibility the report has.
The Washington Post article does not address in detail the thoroughness of the OSC investigation, but it casts serious doubt on your claim that Sternberg is not even a mediocre biologist:

"Sternberg is an unlikely revolutionary. He holds two PhDs in evolutionary biology, his graduate work draws praise from his former professors, and in 2000 he gained a coveted research associate appointment at the Smithsonian Institution.

"Not long after that, Smithsonian scientists asked Sternberg to become the unpaid editor of Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, a sleepy scientific journal affiliated with the Smithsonian."

drkitten

17th August 2006, 09:51 AM

According to a Washington Post article of August 19, 2005: "The U.S. Office of Special Counsel . . . was established to protect federal employees from reprisals." See -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/18/AR2005081801680.html
So why do you say that OSC does not have jurisdiction?

Because the OSC stated in its letter that it did not have jurisdiction. "This case exempts Title 42 Scientists from Title 5 protections, which would effectively remove you from the protections granted under the auspices of OSC." Once it was established that he was a Title 42 employee, which a competent OSC investigator could have established with a single telephone call, there is, lliterally no case to investigate.

The Washington Post article does not address in detail the thoroughness of the OSC investigation, but it casts serious doubt on your claim that Sternberg is not even a mediocre biologist:

No, it doesn't. The Post, like any other newspaper, exists to sell newspapers and therefore looks to create controversy, by casting the underdog in the best possible light.

"Sternberg is an unlikely revolutionary. He holds two PhDs in evolutionary biology, his graduate work draws praise from his former professors, and in 2000 he gained a coveted research associate appointment at the Smithsonian Institution.

As has been pointed out earlier, none of those are actually statements of professional competence. Every researcher draws praise from former professors (or you'd not have gotten the degree in the first place. Few competent researchers want a second Ph.D. or covet an RA appointment that long post-Ph.D.

ponderingturtle

17th August 2006, 10:53 AM

As has been pointed out earlier, none of those are actually statements of professional competence. Every researcher draws praise from former professors (or you'd not have gotten the degree in the first place. Few competent researchers want a second Ph.D. or covet an RA appointment that long post-Ph.D.

Exactly anyone with two Phd's has something weird going on, and thinking that they are both relevent makes it even weirder.

Rodney

17th August 2006, 12:23 PM

Because the OSC stated in its letter that it did not have jurisdiction. "This case exempts Title 42 Scientists from Title 5 protections, which would effectively remove you from the protections granted under the auspices of OSC." Once it was established that he was a Title 42 employee, which a competent OSC investigator could have established with a single telephone call, there is, lliterally no case to investigate.
The OSC letter to Sternberg makes clear that his case was pending when the Fishbein v. D.H.H.S case was decided. The latter case is the one that exempted Title 42 scientists from Title 5 protections. So, the OSC had an obligation to investigate Sternberg's complaint at least until the Fishbein case was decided.

No, it doesn't. The Post, like any other newspaper, exists to sell newspapers and therefore looks to create controversy, by casting the underdog in the best possible light.
The Post wants to cast Sternberg in the best possible light? It has editorialized against the teaching of Intelligent Design.

As has been pointed out earlier, none of those are actually statements of professional competence. Every researcher draws praise from former professors (or you'd not have gotten the degree in the first place. Few competent researchers want a second Ph.D. or covet an RA appointment that long post-Ph.D.
I guess readers of this forum are free to believe either you or the anti-ID Washington Post about Sternberg's competence. :)

thaiboxerken

17th August 2006, 12:27 PM

Anti-ID posts!! LOL.

That's hilarious!!

The reality is that the few scientists that signed onto the discovery propoganda are:
A. Not experts in the field of evolution or,
B. Quacks.

Regardless of A or B, there still exists no scientific evidence or basis to support ID.

drkitten

17th August 2006, 12:36 PM

The reality is that the few scientists that signed onto the discovery propoganda are:
A. Not experts in the field of evolution or,
B. Quacks.

To the best of my knowledge, they're uniformly both. I have not seen anyone supporting ID or the Discovery Institute who isn't wildly uninformed about evolution and also obviously a quack.

I'm sure Rodney would be delighted to provide us with some examples of other "outstanding" scientists in this field -- "outstanding" experts with four Master's degrees, a publication record that I would expect of a late-stage graduate student, and a current job teaching at an unaccredited Bible college....

Rodney

17th August 2006, 01:16 PM

To the best of my knowledge, they're uniformly both. I have not seen anyone supporting ID or the Discovery Institute who isn't wildly uninformed about evolution and also obviously a quack.

I'm sure Rodney would be delighted to provide us with some examples of other "outstanding" scientists in this field -- "outstanding" experts with four Master's degrees, a publication record that I would expect of a late-stage graduate student, and a current job teaching at an unaccredited Bible college.... I already did earlier in this thread: Evolutionary biologist and textbook author Stanley Salthe, Editor of Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum Giuseppe Sermonti, and Russian Academy of Natural Sciences embryologist Lev Beloussov.

thaiboxerken

17th August 2006, 01:18 PM

Another quack, Rodney.

drkitten

17th August 2006, 01:20 PM

Another quack, Rodney.

... and inexpert in evolution, would be my guess. Want to post their CVs so that the biologists here can point and laugh?

ponderingturtle

17th August 2006, 01:23 PM

Another quack, Rodney.

I thought that in this context the accepted term was crank not quack.

drkitten

17th August 2006, 01:33 PM

I thought that in this context the accepted term was crank not quack.

I thought that the difference was one of intent. A "crank" is well-meaning and mostly harmless but incompetent (the kind of person who spends twenty-five years trying to duplicate the cube in an attic), while a "quack" is a malicious liar, actively attempting to deceive, for example, by selling snake oil.

The history of ID is littered with examples of deliberate, knowing, untruths and attempts to deceive, many of them by the self-same Discovery Institute. I don't think that anyone can possibly claim that any Discovery Institute member or associate is "well-meaning."

They're liars telling malicious falsehoods, acting in bad faith, and hoping to skip out of town before their true agenda is known.

And Sternberg is one of them.

Rodney

17th August 2006, 01:46 PM

Another quack, Rodney.

Thanks for yet another highly insightful post.

Rodney

17th August 2006, 01:48 PM

I thought that the difference was one of intent. A "crank" is well-meaning and mostly harmless but incompetent (the kind of person who spends twenty-five years trying to duplicate the cube in an attic), while a "quack" is a malicious liar, actively attempting to deceive, for example, by selling snake oil.

The history of ID is littered with examples of deliberate, knowing, untruths and attempts to deceive, many of them by the self-same Discovery Institute. I don't think that anyone can possibly claim that any Discovery Institute member or associate is "well-meaning."

They're liars telling malicious falsehoods, acting in bad faith, and hoping to skip out of town before their true agenda is known.

And Sternberg is one of them.
Except that the only third parties -- OSC and the Washington Post -- disagree with you.

drkitten

17th August 2006, 01:53 PM

Except that the only third parties -- OSC and the Washington Post -- disagree with you.

Yawn. As has been pointed out, their "neutrality" in this issue is disputed.

Come back when you have some evidence.

Mechbob

17th August 2006, 02:06 PM

Gee, I was glad to see that the number of undecided had TRIPLED from 7% to 21%. Yes, the number believing had decreased slightly, but the number overtly not believing had decreased. This indicates that Americans are now seriously considering the issue. You can't change the minds of the relegious faithful, but you can present logical arguments and facts to the undecided, and they are the source of the majority. As for the rest of the world, I don't really know what their knowlege base is so I can't judge them.

Rodney

17th August 2006, 02:15 PM

Yawn. As has been pointed out, their "neutrality" in this issue is disputed.

Come back when you have some evidence.

The burden's on you.

drkitten

17th August 2006, 02:17 PM

The burden's on you.

Already asked and answered.

Cuddles

18th August 2006, 08:18 AM

But what's an "objective" editor? You seem to believe that any ID proponent is hopelessly biased, but that is not true of Darwinists.

There is no such thing as a Darwinist. This seems to be your major misunderstanding. The argument is between ID proponents who believe certain things and try to find evidence to support this, and real scientists who gather the data first and then decide what to make of it, in this case accepting natural selection as the most reasonable theory. Any ID proponent is hopelessly biased. Any scientist without an axe to grind would immediately see this paper as worthless.

ponderingturtle

18th August 2006, 08:33 AM

There is no such thing as a Darwinist. This seems to be your major misunderstanding. The argument is between ID proponents who believe certain things and try to find evidence to support this, and real scientists who gather the data first and then decide what to make of it, in this case accepting natural selection as the most reasonable theory. Any ID proponent is hopelessly biased. Any scientist without an axe to grind would immediately see this paper as worthless.

Yes it is a fundamental error to made by many(on both sides) to equate science with religion. When science properly operates you don't need to believe it in or not, it is self evident that its predictions are valid.

So ID is really rather like the flat earthers in that they do not reject their beliefs(which they call theories) when contradictory evidence emerges.

Rodney

18th August 2006, 08:46 AM

There is no such thing as a Darwinist. This seems to be your major misunderstanding. So those who call themselves Darwinists are also laboring under a misunderstanding?

The argument is between ID proponents who believe certain things and try to find evidence to support this, and real scientists who gather the data first and then decide what to make of it, in this case accepting natural selection as the most reasonable theory. Any ID proponent is hopelessly biased. Any scientist without an axe to grind would immediately see this paper as worthless.
In your opinion. But Sternberg contends that the Meyer paper passed peer review with three scientists. If you think he's lying, show me some evidence.

drkitten

18th August 2006, 09:01 AM

But Sternberg contends that the Meyer paper passed peer review with three scientists. If you think he's lying, show me some evidence.

The publisher contents that it didn't (cite above). If you think they're lying, show me some evidence.

Cuddles

18th August 2006, 09:05 AM

So those who call themselves Darwinists are also laboring under a misunderstanding?

I have never heard anyone refer to themselves as a Darwinist. I have only ever heard it from those arguing against them as a straw man. I believe this point was also made by Dawkins several times in his books. If you show me evidence of someone who described themselves as a Darwinist I will be very surprised and would consider them to be just as biased as an anti-Darwinist.

In your opinion. But Sternberg contends that the Meyer paper passed peer review with three scientists. If you think he's lying, show me some evidence.

I never said he was lying. If you read my post you'll notice I say "any scientist without an axe to grind". I have no doubt that he could easily find three friends who agreed with all his beliefs. Presumably this is why the Smithsonian wanted to take the unsual step of reviewing the referees, so that they could see if there was bias involved. I should also point out that peer review has many failings and there have been examples where it was shown the referees hadn't even read the papers they were reviewing.

hgc

18th August 2006, 09:07 AM

Yes it is a fundamental error to made by many(on both sides) to equate science with religion. When science properly operates you don't need to believe it in or not, it is self evident that its predictions are valid.Thanks for pointing this out. This is a concept which figures prominently in the JREF Challenge rules, and one which cranks and quacks who don't like Randi's conditions have a difficult time comprehending.

ponderingturtle

18th August 2006, 09:12 AM

Thanks for pointing this out. This is a concept which figures prominently in the JREF Challenge rules, and one which cranks and quacks who don't like Randi's conditions have a difficult time comprehending.

It just bugs me when people compare science to religion. Properly science does not work like that. Now many people even people who like what the scientists tell them fail to understand the distiction.

It is rather like people who fail to understand how ID is not a scientific theory as it makes no testible predictions, so there is no way of verifying or important in any testible prediction the possibility of an outcome that falsefies it.

Ezekiel

18th August 2006, 09:23 AM

As a complete aside to the debate about that petition by scientists saying they doubt Darwin's theory, the original article on acceptance of evolution prompted me to wonder if there might be some connection between the level of atheism in a particular country and it's position on the issue of evolution.

This in turn made me read up on studies on atheism in various countries, which was quite interesting in it's own right.

If anyone is interested, the "results" (with no claim as to the scientific accuracy of this, I was just bored at work ;)) are here : www . nicolas-lefebvre.eu/blog/?p=12 (wish I could provide a real link... sorry)

PS: I don't know if this sort of thing (linking out to a personal site) is frowned upon or not; please tell me if it is and I'll remove the link. Considering the length of what I wrote and the use of links and images, I figured I'd have a hard time copying this here.

Rodney

18th August 2006, 09:51 AM

The publisher contents that it didn't (cite above). If you think they're lying, show me some evidence.
Sternberg's claim is this: "In the aftermath of this controversy I met with the Council of the BSW and asked them to clarify and make explicit the rights and responsibility of the managing editor vis à vis the associate editors. At a meeting in November 2002, a near-unanimous Council backed me up completely (only the associate editor in question and one of his cronies voted against me) and formally decided that the managing editor has control over every aspect of the Proceedings and can choose and supervise the associate editors at his or her discretion. The Council ruled that the managing editor has the final say in the publication of manuscripts."

The publisher's response is this: "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."

So, the publisher's response contends that what Sternberg did was contrary to TYPICAL editorial practices, but it does not deny that at the November 2002 meeting it gave Sternberg as managing editor "control over every aspect of the Proceedings and [the right to] choose and supervise the associate editors at his or her discretion." Don't you find it at all curious that the publisher doesn't contradict Sternberg's account of the November 2002 meeting? So I'm not accusing the publisher of lying -- only of weasel-wording to make it appear that Sternberg had done something he lacked authority to do.

thaiboxerken

18th August 2006, 10:47 AM

Rodney

18th August 2006, 12:34 PM

So, still no scientific evidence for ID? I didn't think so. Thanks Rodney, come again when you have some evidence.

What you fail to understand HotRod, is that it doesn't matter how many scientists support ID or deny evolution. 4 Billion scientists could support ID and deny evolution, without evidence, every single one of their opinions is irrelevant. (1) Oh, I don't know about that: Four billion scientists would constitute a majority of earth's population, so that would be pretty relevant to most people, evidence or no evidence. :)

(2) ID is not necessarily opposed to evolution, only to contemporary Darwinian Theory.

(3) My posts on this thread have not addresed this Theory pe se; rather, they have addressed scientists who have challenged this Theory.

drkitten

18th August 2006, 12:39 PM

(1) Oh, I don't know about that: Four billion scientists would constitute a majority of earth's population, so that would be pretty relevant to most people, evidence or no evidence. :)

Nope. Alfred Wegener was still right (and his opponents still wrong), even when he was the only person who believed that continents moved.

Science is not a democracy.

Rodney

18th August 2006, 12:52 PM

Nope. Alfred Wegener was still right (and his opponents still wrong), even when he was the only person who believed that continents moved. You're misreading my post. I didn't say that the 4 billion would be right, only that their views would be relevant.

Science is not a democracy.For once, we agree. Which is why you should not argue that, because a majority of scientists oppose something, that proves it is wrong.

hgc

18th August 2006, 12:59 PM

...
(2) ID is not necessarily opposed to evolution, only to contemporary Darwinian Theory.
...What is "contemporary Darwinian Theory?" What other kind of evolution is there? Please be specific.

drkitten

18th August 2006, 01:04 PM

For once, we agree. Which is why you should not argue that, because a majority of scientists oppose something, that proves it is wrong.

I don't believe I have. I've argued that because there is no evidence for Intelligent Design (or indeed, for any theory substantially different than the modern theory of evolution), and becuse there is ample evidence against it, and because the supporters of ID are well-aware of this, and are almost without exception liars, plagiarists, perjurers, and other types of scoundrels, because if they told the truth about ID, they would be unable to muster any support at all--- that proves ID is wrong

Hellbound

18th August 2006, 01:08 PM

I don't believe I have. I've argued that because there is no evidence for Intelligent Design (or indeed, for any theory substantially different than the modern theory of evolution), and becuse there is ample evidence against it, and because the supporters of ID are well-aware of this, and are almost without exception liars, plagiarists, perjurers, and other types of scoundrels, because if they told the truth about ID, they would be unable to muster any support at all--- that proves ID is wrong

Don't hold back, drkitten, tell us how you really feel :)

You also forgot "that can't explain their theory without mentioning evolution"

Meffy

18th August 2006, 01:22 PM

I find it astonishing that anyone could genuinely believe it right to reserve the boon of scientific thought to an intellectual elite, not allowing such difficult concerns to weigh upon the (doubtless air-filled, right?) little heads of hairdressers and the like. Not only is this an appalling variety of casteism -- so much so I'm strongly tempted to view expressions of support for it as mere trolling, but will try to treat them as serious -- it supposes that it's somehow desirable to be one of a select few living among ignorant masses. Doesn't seem desirable to me. Sounds downright nightmarishly dystopic.

To those who think this kind of setup would be appropriate, how many hairdressers do you know personally, deeply enough to evaluate their intelligence, their interests, their capacities for growth, their aspirations? How many car mechanics? Janitors? Truck drivers? Short-order cooks? Sales clerks? Think they're all dumb bunnies who should be treated as inferiors, functionaries, deltas and epsilons? If so, I think you don't know many people... or don't know them as well as you suppose you do.

While we're at it, would it be right to insist that scientists not be trained in non-scientific pursuits? I mean, why waste the solid utility of a fine chemist like, say, Borodin on trivial nonsense like composing music? Ineffective use of resources, isn't it? Shall we deny the benefits of scientific thought to a lowly patent office assitant -- that Albert what's-his-name, for instance? There are plenty more examples of brilliance emerging from unexpected characters.

I am firmly behind teaching critical thought, science, and a wide variety of subjects to EVERYONE. I don't want to be awash in a sea of ignorance, however appealing that might be to a few posters in this thread. The very idea of limiting knowledge to those who (in a given poster's unqualified estimation) will make the best use of it is beyond offensive, it's downright disgusting. IMO.

drkitten

18th August 2006, 01:38 PM

I am firmly behind teaching critical thought, science, and a wide variety of subjects to EVERYONE. I don't want to be awash in a sea of ignorance, however appealing that might be to a few posters in this thread.

On the other hand, I'm also very firmly behind not trying to teach pigs to sing.

Part of the problem is the way that this whole question has been framed, as it excludes a rather large middle ground. In a democracy like the UK (and especially the USA, where religion plays such a role in shaping scientific and public policy), people are expected to have well-founded opinions on scientific matters such as stem cell research, public school curricula, the future of manned space flight, and so forth. However, there's little incentive/reward for them to actually do so. My vote (or my letter to my Congressman/MP) counts for exactly as much regardless of whether I'm a Ph.D-equipped evolutionary biologist or a fish-and-chippie.

Basically, the uneducated have neither the incentive and in many cases not even the ability to distance themselves from science.

I don't bother to change my own oil. There's a man down the street who will do it for me every few months, for a price I barely notice. I usually don't even transport myself long distances -- there's an airline pilot who will do that for me, too. I don't have to snake out my own toilets, paint my own walls, compound my own medicines. They're too much work.

But the plumber can't let me, a trained and professional scientist, handle his science for him?

The problem isn't one of not letting people do science. It's one of not letting people NOT do science. And when people who don't want to do science are forced to do it anyway, they do it very badly indeed.....

Meffy

18th August 2006, 01:41 PM

What I'm in favor of is 1) making learning accessible to everyone who wants it, and 2) doing our best as a society to make people want to access that learning. IOW, lead the horses to water and make it as tasty and clean as possible. Enough will drink, I think. :-}

[edit] BTW, I wasn't including you in the group whose ideas strike me as so appalling.

Meffy

18th August 2006, 01:46 PM

drkitten

18th August 2006, 01:47 PM

What I'm in favor of is 1) making learning accessible to everyone who wants it, and 2) doing our best as a society to make people want to access that learning. IOW, lead the horses to water and make it as tasty and clean as possible.

So what are you going to do about the people who still don't want to drink?

And what are you going to do about the folks like Rodney that not only don't want to drink, but that want to pollute the water to prevent other people from drinking?

Meffy

18th August 2006, 01:50 PM

About those who don't want to drink I can do little except to tempt them -- even trick them -- into learning, using entertainment to open the door and then hitting them with facts, reasoning techniques, good examples, whatever it takes.

About those like Rodney all I can do is to try to point out where the polluted areas are, and do my best (little as that is) to counteract the poison by presenting the other side. By myself that would be futile. With others more knowledgeable than I, it's a battle that can, I think, often be won.

Rodney

18th August 2006, 01:52 PM

What is "contemporary Darwinian Theory?" What other kind of evolution is there? Please be specific.
Contemporary Darwinian Theory holds that, not only has evolution occurred, it has occurred solely due to random mutations and natural selection. The "Dissent from Darwin" statement signed by more than 600 scientists reads: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life." So, some signers of that statement may believe that evolution has occurred, but not due solely to random mutations and natural selection, with the emphasis likely being on the former.

drkitten

18th August 2006, 01:57 PM

On the radio a couple days ago a commentator brought up an interesting point about the origin of public education in the USA -- that under theocracy, old-school monarchy, and other authoritarian governments there's no need for the masses to be educated; ignorant masses do just fine for such repressive regimes. They cause less trouble. =9_9=

But when the "Founding Fathers" died off it became more apparent that if a democracy is to survive and prosper, more than a thin veneer of educated elite is needed. Without an educated electorate not only are elections easily transformed into awful travesties, but there's an insufficient pool of intelligent, thoughtful people from whom the next generation of intellectual and opinion leaders can emerge.

I'm not sure of the historical accuracy of that analysis (only because rule 8 probably prohibits me from using phrases like "load of tosh.")

First, the tradition and origin of American public education dates from well-before the "Founding Fathers." But even then, "public education" has almost never been thought of as "mass education" until the 20th century.

Second, the political system as designed by the "Founding Fathers" was specifically designed to be run by an educated elite. Congressmen were elected by popular vote, as were state officials of various sorts, and as were "electors" for the Presidency. Senators, in turn, were elected by the votes of the state officials, and the President was elected by the electors. Judges, of course, were appointed by the President in consultation with the Senate. The whole point of this multilevel approach was to create a "pool of intelligent, thoughtful people from whom the next generation of intellectual and opinion leaders can emerge." The idea was not that I elected someone who shared my opinion on the issues of the minute, but that I elected someone whose judgement I trusted (even if I didn't understand it fully) so that he would be in place to solve the issues of the next minute.

That's still how informal organizations usually run -- for example, at my university, I "vote" for my representative to the University Senate, but the person for whom I vote is typically a colleague whose judgement I trust, precisely so that I don't need to be aware of the minutia of the day-to-day running of the school. I similarly vote on a representative to the promotion/tenure committee so that I don't have to look at all the applications myself. By electing the smartest, most honest, and most honorable member of the department -- and fortunately, I know who he is and I wish he wasn't stepping down this year -- I can concentrate on other stuff.

We've even, by pure happenstance, got someone in the department who has a degree in ethics in addition to his field specialization degree. Who do you think we're going to elect to the Judicial Committee? Not because he will make a decision that agrees with ours, but because he'll make the right decision. Because we trust him, his knowledge, and his judgment.

Meffy

18th August 2006, 02:07 PM

Public education in the sense I mean it (as universal as possible) didn't really get under way in the USA until the 19th century. And it took a while after that before it really "took." (In fact, during my lifetime, just a few miles from where I live, the county government shut down the entire public school system for years rather than admit a class of people the majority considered inferior and not needing education.) Anyway, I summarized what the commentator said, probably poorly, from a faulty memory. No doubt a transcript would be less flawed than my recollection. *shrug* I thought it was of interest and relevant to the topic.

Though I agree with much of what you said I disagree with other parts. I can't argue point by point against you; I can't even type fast enough to keep up. I've said what I believe and why. That will have to do. I think any disagreements we have are probably in detail rather than overview. If not, too bad. [edit: as in "I can live with that."]

Roboramma

18th August 2006, 06:56 PM

Contemporary Darwinian Theory holds that, not only has evolution occurred, it has occurred solely due to random mutations and natural selection. The "Dissent from Darwin" statement signed by more than 600 scientists reads: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life." So, some signers of that statement may believe that evolution has occurred, but not due solely to random mutations and natural selection, with the emphasis likely being on the former.

I think you'll be hard pressed to find a competent biologist that thinks that random mutation and natural selection completely account for evolution on their own. Most, for instance, will admit that genetic drift has a role to play as well (however minor), yet this is distinct from natural selection, and more complex than simple random mutation.

This "Comtemporary Darwinian Theory" that you are proposing seems to be a straw man of your own construction.

Meffy

18th August 2006, 07:10 PM

I don't think Rodney deserves credit for the construction, just picking it up and playing marionette. I've seen the same straw used by plenty of others who preferred to attack a misconception instead of authentic current theory.

Rodney

18th August 2006, 07:21 PM

I think you'll be hard pressed to find a competent biologist that thinks that random mutation and natural selection completely account for evolution on their own. Most, for instance, will admit that genetic drift has a role to play as well (however minor), yet this is distinct from natural selection, and more complex than simple random mutation.

This "Comtemporary Darwinian Theory" that you are proposing seems to be a straw man of your own construction. Then please educate me and explain what components must be added to random mutation and natural selection to complete the theory to which most "competent biologists" subscribe.

thaiboxerken

18th August 2006, 07:22 PM

Then please educate me and explain what components must be added to random mutation and natural selection to complete the theory to which most "competent biologists" subscribe.

Are you actually interested in learning science, or just bashing it? There are many other factors that go into evolution, environmental stress is one.

Meffy

18th August 2006, 07:34 PM

Take a walk on the wild side, Rodney. Read some Stephen Jay Gould. His ideas aren't universally accepted but they'll show you that -- who'da thunk it? -- evolution science evolves.

[edit] Darned entertaining to read too.

Roboramma

18th August 2006, 11:08 PM

Then please educate me and explain what components must be added to random mutation and natural selection to complete the theory to which most "competent biologists" subscribe.

Well, here's the problem with that: I'm not an expert on evolutionary biology. I can't pretend to be able to explain (let alone explain well) every aspect of a science that I am in many ways ignorant of.

But a complete knowledge of evolutionary theory isn't required to realise that it encompasses more than just random mutation plus natural selection.

Let's look at speciation, for instance. In order for speciation to occur some sort of separation has to occur between distinct populations within a species. One form of separation is geographic (say a river or mountian range). This allows those two populations to build up genetic changes to the point that when they do come into contact again they are unable to interbreed, and can be classified as separate species.
So, what's the point of this? Well, that process of speciation certainly relies on random mutation + natural selection, but if we didn't bring in the geographic separation (or some other form) there wouldn't be a chance for speciation to occur.
And speciation is an important aspect of evolution.

I already mentioned genetic drift as another important aspect of evolution that isn't just random mutation and natural selection. Maybe there are others, I don't know.

But clearly the theory of evolution as it stands, after 150 years of science since Darwin, is not as simple than you make it out to be.

Rodney

19th August 2006, 11:43 AM

Well, here's the problem with that: I'm not an expert on evolutionary biology. On the other hand, Richard von Sternberg is. :)

I can't pretend to be able to explain (let alone explain well) every aspect of a science that I am in many ways ignorant of.For a skeptic, you seem willing to take a lot on faith. ;)

But a complete knowledge of evolutionary theory isn't required to realise that it encompasses more than just random mutation plus natural selection.

Let's look at speciation, for instance. In order for speciation to occur some sort of separation has to occur between distinct populations within a species. One form of separation is geographic (say a river or mountian range). This allows those two populations to build up genetic changes to the point that when they do come into contact again they are unable to interbreed, and can be classified as separate species.
So, what's the point of this? Well, that process of speciation certainly relies on random mutation + natural selection, but if we didn't bring in the geographic separation (or some other form) there wouldn't be a chance for speciation to occur.
And speciation is an important aspect of evolution.

I already mentioned genetic drift as another important aspect of evolution that isn't just random mutation and natural selection. Maybe there are others, I don't know.

But clearly the theory of evolution as it stands, after 150 years of science since Darwin, is not as simple than you make it out to be.
It's not so much what I make it out to be -- it's what the 600+ scientists who signed the "Dissent from Darwin" statement make it out to be. But I think you'll find the major focus of the dissenters is on the vast numbers of random mutations that have supposedly taken place over the millenia to bring life to its present level of complexity.