I've written about Stephen Meyer and his peer-reviewed article on the theory of intelligent design, and those posts attracted a large number of comments on his ideas, as well as on evolution and science in general. I'm very curious to read what you all think of the recent witch hunt targeting Richard Sternberg, the journal editor who okayed Dr. Meyer's paper for publication in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.
Whatever the article's ultimate merits--beyond the judgment of a layman--it was indeed subject to peer review, the gold standard of academic science. Not that such review saved Mr. Sternberg from infamy. Soon after the article appeared, Hans Sues--the museum's No. 2 senior scientist--denounced it to colleagues and then sent a widely forwarded e-mail calling it "unscientific garbage."Meanwhile, the chairman of the Zoology Department, Jonathan Coddington, called Mr. Sternberg's supervisor. According to Mr. Sternberg's OSC complaint: "First, he asked whether Sternberg was a religious fundamentalist. She told him no. Coddington then asked if Sternberg was affiliated with or belonged to any religious organization. . . . He then asked where Sternberg stood politically; . . . he asked, 'Is he a right-winger? What is his political affiliation?' " The supervisor (who did not return my phone messages) recounted the conversation to Mr. Sternberg, who also quotes her observing: "There are Christians here, but they keep their heads down."
Worries about being perceived as "religious" spread at the museum. One curator, who generally confirmed the conversation when I spoke to him, told Mr. Sternberg about a gathering where he offered a Jewish prayer for a colleague about to retire. The curator fretted: "So now they're going to think that I'm a religious person, and that's not a good thing at the museum."
In October, as the OSC complaint recounts, Mr. Coddington told Mr. Sternberg to give up his office and turn in his keys to the departmental floor, thus denying him access to the specimen collections he needs. Mr. Sternberg was also assigned to the close oversight of a curator with whom he had professional disagreements unrelated to evolution. "I'm going to be straightforward with you," said Mr. Coddington, according to the complaint. "Yes, you are being singled out." Neither Mr. Coddington nor Mr. Sues returned repeated phone messages asking for their version of events.
Are Mr. Coddington and Mr. Sues acting like scientists, or religious zealots persecuting a heretic?
I'd particularly like to hear Mark's answer to your question, Michael, since I know he is opposed to both intelligent design and persecution. Mark?
To be honest, I don't really care... one way or the other.
The whole evolution vs. creationism thing is just such a wash, in my opinion. They're both theories... replete with assumptions, exaggerations, hyperboles, and distortions that comes from the diversity by which they're interpreted.
I've been trying to understand the rationale behind Sternberg's treatment. It's possible that appearing to support the Intelligent Design argument (btw, I don't think Sternberg has supported it, he merely edited a journal which published an article about it...) affects the legitimacy of his institution. His colleagues are probably most worried about protecting the image of the society, which is necessary to secure continued funding of course. They probably feel like they have no choice but to very clearly distance themselves from him. I expect they want him to leave the museum.
Why does ID has such a very bad reputation among scientists? Well, it may not be entirely rational, but unfortunately there are so many poor arguments for it which all compete for our attention that the whole idea has become contaminated by them. That is unfortunate.
I too am most interested to see the article itself.
There is the issue of scientists suspiscious of religious people persuing science because of their religion: that has always been the case, hasn't it? Darwin, Newton, Pythagoras etc. were motivated by their religions, as are all kinds of other creative types. Seems to be an odd thing to complain about.
The only reasonable objection I can think of would be to an evangelical perverting the means of science publication in persuit of spreading his (unscientific) message. But with peer review, that is impossible.
I'm somewhat bothered by the whole notion of Intelligent Design as science, because it really isn't. It's philosophy, or possibly speculative history, but not science. Science deals strictly with things which can be controlled, tested and repeated. Origin theories, even those which purport to explain all origins using purely scientific terms and concepts, will never fall under this definition.
Evolution is science. It's been demonstrated, proven and confirmed repeatedly. It belongs in this realm. But scientific evolution explains nothing about how we got here or where the world came from, does not demonstrate that mankind shares a common ancestor with monkeys, or any other similar, ridiculous claim that's often attributed to it as "scientific." All it says is that some mutation is possible over the course of successive generations in response to environmental factors.
The other claims often attributed to it are, in fact, theories, and nothing more. There may be cirucumstantial evidence to suggest a connection, but they have never been observed, demonstrated or tested at all, much less under controlled conditions. And so, as an origin theory, evolution is pure speculation, no more or less so than Intelligent Design, Creationism or the ancient Babylonian belief of the world's creation on the back of a giant tortise.
However, that admission isn't forthcoming from most biological scientists, who seem to prefer to worship at the Holy Altar of All-Encompassing Evolution, and consider said worship to be a catechism of membership into the life sciences. Those who violate its holy writ are expelled with much fervor... as poor Dr. Sternberg has learned.
I think this is a very unfortunate turn of events. One of the most-cited pro-evolution arguments is "Creationists' ideas are so poor that they are never published by peer reviewed journals". The creationist response has always been "That's because journals will ostracize anyone who publishes a pro-creationism article".
Well, the, errr, scientists who attacked Richard Steinberg for publishing a vaguely pro-creationism article in a peer reviewed journal will now not be able to defend themselves from the "Of course there are no pro-creationism articles in peer-reviewed journals. No one wants to have Richard Steinberg's fate".
This whole episode makes one of the more common creationist claims a fact. This is a step backwards for theistic evolutionists like myself.
- Sam