Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby

FAQ

Contact

Profile

Expelled - A ToE documentary

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

Bible-Discussion.com Forum Index -> Creation vs. Evolution Debate

Author

Message

Trinity1
Emperor of the World

Joined: 02 Apr 2006

Posts: 3111

Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 6:08 am Post subject:

Ana wrote:

Trinity1 wrote:

* Our investigation also shows that there is a strong religious and political component to the actions taken after the publication of the Meyer article.
* A statement from one of the emails concerning this case: “These people to my mind are only a scale up on the fundies of a more destructive kind in other parts of the world. Depressing. Oh, if we only still had Steve Gould to lead the counter-attack."

From the wording it is clear that the sender and receiver of that email were already of similar opinion concerning IDists, so it's difficult to see how his reputation was tarnished by this. Look at the way you talk to us about "Dicky Dawkins" - how is what they said any different? Anyways, from those same emails we also see stuff like this:

Page 32 of the link to that appendix I provide later this post wrote:

First, if he can do good standard science, that's all we care about. Newton did pretty good science, and had some pretty nutty additional ideas about reality, too. So if he keeps the nut stuff out of his basically descriptive work, that's fine. His science should stand or fall on its own.

So agree with his creationism or no, these guys wanted his scientific knowledge around.

Are you kidding? We can actually refer to the Souder report without any inclination towards screaming "bias" or "agenda"? Great... it actually corroborates the OSC report... the one I citing. Funny how we can get two unassocited sources to come to the same conclusions. Confused or disgusted

and no... they didn't want him around as you insist here with your deduction...

If you want to use the Souder report to demonstrate the veracity of your argument here... lets look at what it stated in the Executive Summary:

Souder Report wrote:

“The staff investigation has uncovered compelling evidence that Dr. Sternberg’s civil rights and constitutional rights were violated by the Smithsonian.”

Lets stop right there for just a second and digest this statement of fact. This is what happened to creationists that dare to question the sacred cow Ana… and you seem all to eager to be dismissive of their reprehensible actions. Is this what happens in scientific circles when folks step out of line? Is this what is acceptable to you? The violation of civil and constitutional rights doesn’t seem to bother you… as a matter of fact… you seem pretty supportive of said actions…this is absolutely priceless.

But there is more:

Souder Report wrote:

Moreover, the agencies top officials – Secretary Lawrence Small and Deputy Secretary Shelia Burke – have shown themselves completely unwilling to rectify the wrongs that were done or to even genuinely investigate the wrongdoing. Most recently, Burke and Small have allowed NMNH Officials to demote Dr. Sternberg to the position of research Collaborator, despite past assurances from Burke that Dr. Sternberg was a ‘research associate in good standing” and would be given “full and fair consideration for his request to renew his Research Associateship.

But yet, we are suppose to take the word of the folks who have already proven to be dishonest in their treatment and exploits in this episode? But hey… he is only some fundie… who cares if we follow procedure or actually follow through with what we say… the ends justify the means here… right?

It gets better:

Souder Report wrote:

The failure of Small and Burke to take any action against said discrimination raises serious questions about the Smithsonian’s willingness to protect the freedom of speech and civil rights of scientists who may hold dissenting views on topics such as biological evolution.

You know… this is exactly what the movie “Expelled” was about Ana. Funny how a Congressional Report can make such silly accusations and nary a word is uttered from Scientific circles… because you know $$$ and research grants are tied to these folks… but just let someone outside, who does not hold the purse strings utter such blasphemous words… well… hell… they have an agenda.. they are ill informed.

There is a lot more from this report you cited but failed to mention in your post…

Trinity1
Emperor of the World

Joined: 02 Apr 2006

Posts: 3111

Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 6:29 am Post subject:

Ana wrote:

Quote:

Our thoughts parallel yours in terms of what might be done to salvage the reputation of the journal, though we have a couple of additional suggestions, or perhaps requests for information that only the President/Council could provide -- having to do with the journal's editorial procedures and whether or not they were followed.

Oho! It is about the journal's reputation.
Also, to go back to what you said above, of course there's a political and religious component here - that's all ID is. The religion and politics entered when he published that paper.

Oh… so violating his constitutional and civil rights is best practices here to remedy said areas of disagreement? Priceless. I thought this was all part of the scientific method?

Here is what the summary continued to state:

Souder Report wrote:

Officials at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History created a hostile work environment intended to force Dr. Sternberg to resign his position as a Research Assistant in violation of his free speech and civil rights.

So… in other words… when fundy creationists say that they are not allowed to publish… not even allowed to question Darwinian Evolution… even though they follow the methodology that science demands... well… they are only pushing a religious agenda… but you state:

Ana wrote:

Would you stay quiet and allow someone who damages your workplace's integrity (and by association, your own) to stay there and continue to damage said reputation, considering what you said about how reputation is very important? See above where it is shown that the concern was over what to do to salvage the journal's reputation.

So we simply destroy people and their reputations stepping all over their civil and constitutional rights??? Claiming all the while that is only to salvage the reputation of a their beloved journal. I find it also amazing that no one wants to discuss how this article somehow tarnished its reputation… why? Because that would mean they would actually have to try to refute Meyer’s findings... you know... participate in this method you all claim creationists won't follow... Laughing

Based on these facts it seems that if you don’t want to try to address research that destroys your sacred cow you simply destroy those who dare to publish it, and then completely ignore the findings claiming that is nothing but rubbish to begin with… and then… and this is what is so deceitful about this… at the same time people get all contorted when a movie comes out exposing these practices. This is priceless Ana… simply priceless. Laughing

More on the way...

Last edited by Trinity1 on Wed May 14, 2008 6:57 am; edited 1 time in total

Trinity1
Emperor of the World

Joined: 02 Apr 2006

Posts: 3111

Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 6:50 am Post subject:

You decided to cite a few of the peccadilloes of Sternberg found by the investigation…. Which some call biased here…

Ana's Citation of the Souder Report wrote:

Page 16 of this link shows more unprofessional acts committed by Sternberg:

Quote:

Here are some eye-openers, juts FYI (and pardon me for sounding repetitive). Said RA:
* is not known who he reports to, or what decapod groups he is working on and for what - projects/manuscripts;
* comes to work "after hours only" but nobody knows when, yet we will extend him long-term space
privileges (meaning in the daytime his assigned space could be tied up);
* keeps an unusual number of catalogued specimens in NMNH office, and for unusual lengths of time, ignoring requests from curator in charge to place them back in stacks;
* keeps in NMNH office what appear to be specimens that have not been registered through the required
TM procedures;
* has currently 50 books checked out from SI library (I checked this with the library);
* an SI staff from another NMNH department has been seen entering RA office and apparently handles
specimens without authorization from IZ CM head or curator in charge.

I’m curious… which of the aforementioned warrants the destruction of a man’s career?

Here is what the Souder report goes on to say in the Executive Summary:

Souder Report wrote:

There is substantial credible evidence of efforts to abuse and harass Dr. Sternberg, including punitively targeting him for investigation in order to supply a pretext for dismissing him…

In other words… the investigation finds that the movie Expelled was right… and all of this other smoke and mirrors shuffling of facts is not. Odd.

Here is what I have been arguing all along concerning him following procedure and then being dismissed… forced to resign… or whatever spin we are putting on this… was all about:

Souder Report wrote:

…and applying to him regulations and restrictions not imposed on other researchers.

Why is that? Why is only those who dare to question the sacred cow are questioned concerning process and procedure? It is absolutely amazing that this is always raised…

But then the appeal to the Smithsonian’s reputation and charater is always made… but report found:

Souder Report wrote:

Given the record of the Smithsonian’s pro-forma denials of discrimination are unbelievable.

So Ana… you can say what you want and cite sources from the Smithsonian or others… that is fine. However, based on what these two reports have stated… Sternberg and Expelled are absolutely right… there is a concerted bias against people who speak out against Darwinian Evolution… and those who do… are destroyed… all the while completely ignoring the research they demanded.

It is absolutely amazing that you would even try to side with this organization’s actions against Sternberg when the evidence supporting what the movie stated is so overwhelming.

Ana
King of the Jungle

Joined: 10 Mar 2006

Posts: 1549

Location: BC

Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 8:28 am Post subject:

Trinity1 wrote:

But what I find absolutely amazing is how dismissive you are about the findings of OIC investigation. I only picked a few of the comments from the investigation summary.... would you like to go through all of them? How in hell can you even try to sit there and justify what SI did?

I read the entire appendix. It really illuminates what was going on there. Those emails and letters are windows into the work world there, for sure. They're primary sources.

Trinity1 wrote:

Is this how science works? I read constantly on these boards the clamoring for published research from creationists... if there is no research there is no validity to their claims. But... but... and but again, once they do get an article published heads role and careers are ruined (and yes we WILL be going over those snipittes here shortly).

This is how office dynamics work. As far as science goes, surely you saw where I quoted from the primary sources where they were talking about letting the science stand or fall on its own merits. That's how science works.

Trinity1 wrote:

and now you want to infer that the Meyer article was outside the scope of the journal... OK... we shall see.

That was one of the things Expelled Exposed talked about, which they got from here:

Quote:

But this simply was not true. Systematics (the study of taxonomy) is the subject of the PBSW and it is the subject of Sternberg's expertise, but it is not the subject of Meyer's paper. The primary subject of the paper is the Cambrian explosion and, ostensibly, bioinformatics as it pertains to the origin of the higher phyla. This is not the focus of Sternberg's research, nor does it have much of anything to do with systematics other than an obligatory discussion of how many phyla and sub-phyla originated during the Cambrian. The most appropriate reviewers, then, would be paleontologists. Among the associate editors at the time (and still today) was Gale Bishop, an expert in invertebrate paleontology. There were three other specialists on invertebrates among the associate editors as well, including current PBSW editor Stephen Gardiner, Christopher Boyko and Janet Reid, all specialists in invertebrate zoology (the Cambrian fauna was almost entirely made up of invertebrates). Yet Sternberg felt no need to let any of those people, all more qualified than him on the subject, even look at the paper, or even make them aware of its existence.

Trinity1 wrote:

Lets take a look at the last point here first. This is what Sternberg had to say about that issue:

Sternberg wrote:

I'm taking inappropriate to mean one of two things, either a faux pas such as wearing brown shoes with a blue suit, or something politically incorrect.

He should be taking it as "unprofessional" and/or "unethical".

Trinity1 wrote:

So…when you write:

Ana wrote:

The guy published a paper that had very little to do with the PBSW in the first place by bypassing the standard editorial procedure. He did a bad job as an editor. His unprofessional act may have damaged the Smithsonian's reputation, though, and so one would think that you would consider that heinous.

You are really not being completely honest with your assessment… just because in the opinion people may feel that the article fell outside of the scope does not mean the article fell outside the scope of the journal... now does it? Sternberg explains this and if you were not cherry picking quotes from his website... you might have noticed this error.

More on the way.

Here's more:

This source wrote:

As it turns out, the council actually said that they would have turned down the paper because it dealt with a subject that was far outside what the journal normally publishes. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington is a journal that publishes systematics papers. These are papers that basically deal with how organisms get sorted. The vast majority of the papers published in this journal consist of the description of new species of organisms - usually living, but occasionally fossil. The issue of the journal that the Meyer paper appeared in is (with that one glaring exception) typical for the journal. As you can see from just a list of the titles, his paper stands out like a sore thumb:

* Pseudopaguristes shidarai, a new species of hermit crab (Crustacea: Decapoda: Diogenidae) from Japan, the fourth species of the genus
* A new species of Procambarus (Crustacea: Decapoda: Cambaridae) from Veracruz, Mexico
* Brackenridgia ashleyi, a new species of terrestrial isopod from Tumbling Creek Cave, Missouri (Isopoda: Oniscidea: Trichoniscidae)
* New species and records of Bopyridae (Crustacea: Isopoda) infesting species of the genus Upogebia (Crustacea: Decapoda: Upogebiidae): the genera Orthione Markham, 1988, and Gyge Cornalia & Panceri, 1861
* Three new species and a new genus of Farreidae (Porifera: Hexactinellida: Hexactinosida)
* The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories

If you look at the table of contents for the issue before, the issue after, the current issue, or (as far as I can tell) any other issue, you're going to see a lot of papers that deal with things like describing new species and genera, and absolutely nothing that has to deal with anything that bears even the faintest resemblance to the things Meyer was writing about. Simply put, this is not a journal that you would expect to find the Meyer paper in.

That, of course, brings us to the very obvious question: why did Meyer submit his paper to a journal that had never, ever published anything remotely like it? Casey, Ben Stein and the rest of the Expelled propagandists, Meyer, and Sternberg have been avoiding this question like the plague, probably because they are painfully aware that there is no good answer to that question.

Ana
King of the Jungle

Joined: 10 Mar 2006

Posts: 1549

Location: BC

Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 9:23 am Post subject:

Trinity1 wrote:

Here is what happened according to Sternberg:
1. The paper was received, he conferred with a colleague as to whether or not he should send it out to be peer reviewed. Was told it should be.

No mention of who this colleague is, though, eh? Nobody forthcoming? Funny how none of these other folks involved in this totally legit, by-the-book publishing will stand by him.

Trinity1 wrote:

2. The paper was sent to four scientists to be reviewed. Three reviewed it. Did you see that Ana… 3 scientists reviewed and then made recommendations for corrections.

The appendix says 4 - 6 reviewers ought to have been used for a paper with such a broad reach (page 20). Further, it is interesting that the other three alleged reviewers won't stand by their decision to pass this paper. If it was a legit thing to do, then they should have no problem standing by it.

Trinity1 wrote:

5. Sternberg approved the final draft for publication, AS HE HAD DONE BEFORE. This paper was in his area of expertise and he was qualified to do it. So he did.

His expertise was in ALL of the topics the Meyer paper talks about? See the list below.

Trinity1 wrote:

6. Then, everyone has a conniption…

Here is what he had to say about the procedures he evidently violated:

Sternberg wrote:

I followed the standard peer review process, sending the paper to four qualified scientists, three of whom agreed to review it. The reviewers' comments were provided to Dr. Meyer who made changes in the paper accordingly.

Page 33 of the appendix wrote:

>-Again generalizing from other journals' procedures, I assume the article
>then would be sent for peer review to individuals with expertise in the
>area covered by the article. Was this procedure followed? Who among the
>list of reviewers for PBSW has expertise in, for example, information
>theory? Paleontology? Self-organization? Bioinformatics? Compuer science?
>Again, given the subject matter of this article, its inclusion in PBSW
>seems odd.
>
>-If allowed by journal procedures, it would be most helpful if the
>President or other Council members could examine the comments submitted by
>the reviewers. If the reviewers were competent, they would have recognized
>the substandard scientific quality of the article, and the evaluations
>would have been negative. Therefore the editor would have accepted the
>article in spite of these negative evaluations. If so, why?

Trinity1 wrote:

So… please tell me where or what procedure, as everyone keeps insisting was violated… but please be careful…. As if he did violated a procedure, I would like some type of citation of why this wasn’t a big deal before.

Publishing a shoddy paper about an irrelevant topic after reviewing it himself (conflict of interest given his outside affiliations)? You know, I keep getting this scenario in my head where a priest or pastor preaches about evolution to a church like one from Jesus Camp.

Ana
King of the Jungle

Joined: 10 Mar 2006

Posts: 1549

Location: BC

Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 9:53 am Post subject:

Trinity1 wrote:

If you want to use the Souder report to demonstrate the veracity of your argument here... lets look at what it stated in the Executive Summary:

Souder Report wrote:

“The staff investigation has uncovered compelling evidence that Dr. Sternberg’s civil rights and constitutional rights were violated by the Smithsonian.”

Lets stop right there for just a second and digest this statement of fact.

What civil rights and constitutional rights? Is there a right not to have people voice personal opinions about you in private? What are the bad things that happened to him?

If there were any anything to Sternberg's cries of unfairness, why did he not arrange to have his case reviewed by someone who did have jurisdiction to do so? If constitutional rights were violated, why isn't this a court case?

Trinity1 wrote:

But there is more:

Souder Report wrote:

Yes, I read the letter where Burke tells Sternberg he can renew his Research Associateship, where they have no allowance to give him funding to hire his own team (something no other RA there gets) and then pointed him toward associations where he could go for this type of funding, where she corrects his assertion that he had no sponsor and that nobody would step up (whereas in fact two people did), and that all his stuff is where he left it, but for the stuff that was not his (specimens and library books) and had thusly been returned to where they belong, as well as a reprimand to return keys in accordance with policy (reasonable access was, however, not denied him, as evidenced by his receipt of an access badge just like everyone else).

I also read her response to Souder, which includes this:

Quote:

Dr. von Sternberg was associated with a controversial viewpoint, and other scientists reacted in
strong disagreement to the expression of that viewpoint. While the tone of the disagreement between scholars may seem harsh, disagreement does not equal discrimination.

Again, note the last line. So where is this discrimination?

Trinity1 wrote:

But yet, we are suppose to take the word of the folks who have already proven to be dishonest in their treatment and exploits in this episode?

Justify?

Trinity1 wrote:

It gets better:

Souder Report wrote:

Speaking of $$$, there's no way Ben Stein could have made a movie like this for $$$. Speaking of $$$, that's the only thing Burke denied him - money which would have been unfair to give him - he was asking for a bribe, essentially.

Ana
King of the Jungle

Joined: 10 Mar 2006

Posts: 1549

Location: BC

Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 10:14 am Post subject:

Trinity1 wrote:

I’m curious… which of the aforementioned warrants the destruction of a man’s career?

What destruction? The fact that he voluntarily left one position and kept his other position? The fact that he now works for the Discovery Institute? The fact that he's now some sort of folk hero to people such as yourself? Oh, what a horrible fate, to be sure. Rolling Eyes

Oh yeah, and about that demotion (which I forgot to address in the previous post), the only difference seems to be about working on joint projects, vs working solo - he had submitted his planned work and it fell under 'solo'.

Trinity1 wrote:

Here is what the Souder report goes on to say in the Executive Summary:

Souder Report wrote:

There is substantial credible evidence of efforts to abuse and harass Dr. Sternberg, including punitively targeting him for investigation in order to supply a pretext for dismissing him…

What abuse? What harassment? Are we just going on say-so here?

Trinity1 wrote:

Here is what I have been arguing all along concerning him following procedure and then being dismissed… forced to resign… or whatever spin we are putting on this… was all about:

Souder Report wrote:

…and applying to him regulations and restrictions not imposed on other researchers.

Such as?

Trinity1 wrote:

there is a concerted bias against people who speak out against Darwinian Evolution… and those who do… are destroyed… all the while completely ignoring the research they demanded.

There is a concerted effort to maintain scientific integrity (something which Sternberg didn't always do, given his destruction of specimens and his publication of poorly formatted improperly reviewed papers). This effort is not a bad thing.

Your use of the word 'destroyed' is pure rhetoric as he was not destroyed, but was still gainfully employed in his choice field.

His research was not ignored. They made an effort to keep the good and toss out the bad - remember it is not his science that was shoddy - it was Meyer's. Meyer also has not been 'destroyed'. Meyer's work has since been reviewed (not ignored) by many people - look it up. It is still dismissed (not ignored) as being shoddy. The only reason IDists like it is because it was published. It's not hailed as bringing anything new to the table. It is not touted for its originality. It was only propped up because it was published, and now it is brushed aside in favour of Sternberg's martyrdom.

Trinity1
Emperor of the World

Joined: 02 Apr 2006

Posts: 3111

Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 10:55 am Post subject:

Ana wrote:

Trinity1 wrote:

Here is what happened according to Sternberg:
1. The paper was received, he conferred with a colleague as to whether or not he should send it out to be peer reviewed. Was told it should be.

No mention of who this colleague is, though, eh? Nobody forthcoming? Funny how none of these other folks involved in this totally legit, by-the-book publishing will stand by him.

Yeah... right... after seeing what happened to Sternberg I'd be the first one raising my hand shouting it was me... I told him the article had validity... go ahead with the peer review process... it was me who told him that.

Get a grip Ana... Sternberg has withheld the name in confidence for a reason... and the example is himself. He doesn't want to expose his colleague to the fire storm that has become his life...

Quote:

Trinity1 wrote:

2. The paper was sent to four scientists to be reviewed. Three reviewed it. Did you see that Ana… 3 scientists reviewed and then made recommendations for corrections.

See above answer... are you #$%^ing kidding me... would you? After seeing the reaction and actions from all involved here I'd be back tracking mighty quick too... but you don't seem to recognize this for some reason... Confused or disgusted

Quote:

Trinity1 wrote:

5. Sternberg approved the final draft for publication, AS HE HAD DONE BEFORE. This paper was in his area of expertise and he was qualified to do it. So he did.

His expertise was in ALL of the topics the Meyer paper talks about? See the list below.

This is right from his website Ana... and you seemd to either ignore it or dismiss it:

Quote:

In the case of the Meyer paper, I followed all the standard procedures for publication in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. 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.

He was the most qualified of those available. I suppose if he had an unlimited budget... and others were availble you might have a point.. but neither is true in this case... and you know it.

Trinity1 wrote:

6. Then, everyone has a conniption…
Here is what he had to say about the procedures he evidently violated:

Sternberg wrote:

Quote:

Trinity1 wrote:

Hmmm... 'shoddy paper' is a relative term... and he did not review it himself.... and since he is a creationists... well... we know they are neither qualified or objective.

This is in spite of the conclusions of two seperate third party investigations... which one is more creditable Ana.. .your opinion.. or these reports?

Last edited by Trinity1 on Wed May 14, 2008 11:17 am; edited 1 time in total

Trinity1
Emperor of the World

Joined: 02 Apr 2006

Posts: 3111

Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 11:16 am Post subject:

Ana wrote:

What civil rights and constitutional rights? Is there a right not to have people voice personal opinions about you in private? What are the bad things that happened to him?

Are you kidding? He wasn't the target of an internal investigation predicated on his religious beliefs? Do I need ot go back to the OSC report... wait... yea I do... lets see what these folks said here... here it is:

OSC Report wrote:

After the publication when many in the SI were investigating your background one of the e-mails raised concerns that you had "extensive training as an orthodox priest." Another e-mail stated, "Scientists have been perfectly willing to let these people alone in their churches, but now it looks like these people are coming out and invading our schools, biology classes, museums and now our professional journals. These people to my mind are only a scale up on the fundies of a more destructive kind in other parts of the world.

So yea... his religious views were considered. That is discrimatory and against the dat-gum law... but... of course.. that doesn't bother you... no... ends justify the means here, DESPITE WHAT THE REPORTS SAY!

Quote:

If there were any anything to Sternberg's cries of unfairness, why did he not arrange to have his case reviewed by someone who did have jurisdiction to do so? If constitutional rights were violated, why isn't this a court case?

You know... Bouncer asked the very same question... and the answer is pretty simple. If Sternberg brings a lawsuit, then that opens him up for criticism for 'not being very Christian'. The guy is doomed either way. I, for one, am actually proud of the fact that he has not got down in the gutter with the Smithsonian and their ilk... despite the fact that they would deserve it.

Quote:

You got to be kidding.... revoke his library card for crying out loud... and who hasn't followed the letter of the procedures concerning key control. I spent 21 years in the Army.. .around some of the most sensitive material and information you could imagine... and the procedures and processes around key control were ALWAYS less than 100%... and this is your basis for ruining a mans life? Because his books were overdue.. forgot to sign a key control ledger? Remind me to have you dismissed from any jury you might serve on. Rolling Eyes

Quote:

I also read her response to Souder, which includes this:

Quote:

Again, note the last line. So where is this discrimination?

See above... I'm sure no one has ever questioned her religious beliefs before... and if they did... she would be perfectly OK with that... again... it makes absolutely no sense at all.

Quote:

Trinity1 wrote:

But yet, we are suppose to take the word of the folks who have already proven to be dishonest in their treatment and exploits in this episode?

Justify?

I cited the Souder report... that is what their conclusion was. They were a disinterested third party investigating this. that is my justification. What is yours for not agreeing?

Ana wrote:

Trinity1 wrote:

It gets better:

Souder Report wrote:

You know… this is exactly what the movie “Expelled” was about Ana. Funny how a Congressional Report can make such silly accusations and nary a word is uttered from Scientific circles… because you know $$$ and research grants are tied to these folks… but just let someone outside, who does not hold the purse strings utter such blasphemous words… well… hell… they have an agenda.. they are ill informed.
There is a lot more from this report you cited but failed to mention in your post…

Yada yada yada Ana... that is your only answer to the violation of a man's civil and constitutional rights, the outright suppression of science done right, and then the railing against those who expose it... and you are worried about Ben Stein making a buck when the issue was indeed exposed.... and people get are exercised when creationists point this hypocrisy out... Rolling Eyes

Ana
King of the Jungle

Joined: 10 Mar 2006

Posts: 1549

Location: BC

Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 12:32 pm Post subject:

Trinity1 wrote:

He brought this 'fire storm' upon himself.

If nobody will admit to doing this with him, it means they are hiding something, or he is lying.

Trinity1 wrote:

He was the most qualified of those available. I suppose if he had an unlimited budget... and others were availble you might have a point.. but neither is true in this case... and you know it.

This source wrote:

Trinity1 wrote:

This is in spite of the conclusions of two seperate third party investigations... which one is more creditable Ana.. .your opinion.. or these reports?

When did I ever say it was my opinion. I always refer to my sources. It is collective opinion that the paper was improperly formatted, to say the least. Here, from the same source:

Quote:

We should also note that the fact that the paper was substandard, poorly reasoned and full of questionable claims has been well-established. A lengthy and detailed critique of the paper was published at the Panda's Thumb, written by Alan Gishlick, Nick Matzke and Wesley Elsberry. They were hardly alone in their critique. The paleontologist Ronald Jenner likewise criticized the quality of the paper, saying that it reads "like a student report" and calling it "an inadequate review" because "readily available papers that depart significantly from his conclusions are omitted without excuse." The Discovery Institute promised a detailed, 6-part response to the first critique, but never got beyond part one; it seems even they aren't terribly interested in defending the validity or quality of the actual paper.

Ana
King of the Jungle

Joined: 10 Mar 2006

Posts: 1549

Location: BC

Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 1:19 pm Post subject:

Trinity1 wrote:

There you go with the feet-stamping rhetoric again. He pushed through a religious paper into a science journal - DUH they checked into his religious background. Did they do anything with regards to that, or was it repeatedly emphasized that his professional actions be looked at only? Hint, it's not the former. They didn't do anything discriminatory against him at all - everyone with like position was always treated the same (except one instance where they extended him special extra privileges by way of that master key). No action at all means certainly no discriminatory action.

Trinity1 wrote:

Quote:

Balderdash - he did go through some other similar channels, so I guess he did get his hands dirty after all. If he really had something, he should have gone through the correct channels.

Trinity1 wrote:

You need to quit saying his life was ruined because it wasn't. He had 50 overdue library books, and wherever he was keeping them, he didn't have them in the areas he was authorized to have them in. Not giving them back amounts to theft, especially if he took them from the premises. As for the key, just because you are bad at handing in keys doesn't mean that it's okay, for you, him or anyone else. Anyways, the point was that Burke didn't treat him unfairly at all.

Trinity1 wrote:

Quote:

Again, note the last line. So where is this discrimination?

See above... I'm sure no one has ever questioned her religious beliefs before... and if they did... she would be perfectly OK with that... again... it makes absolutely no sense at all.

What does questioning someone's religious beliefs have to do with discrimination?

Trinity1 wrote:

I cited the Souder report... that is what their conclusion was. They were a disinterested third party investigating this. that is my justification. What is yours for not agreeing?

All the source I've cited, including Souder's sources.

Trinity1 wrote:

Yada yada yada Ana... that is your only answer to the violation of a man's civil and constitutional rights,

Oh, goody, your responses to me are devolving into more and more rhetoric. There weren't any rights being violated. If there were, tell me which rights.

Trinity1 wrote:

the outright suppression of science done right, and then the railing against those who expose it... and you are worried about Ben Stein making a buck when the issue was indeed exposed.... and people get are exercised when creationists point this hypocrisy out... Rolling Eyes

They weren't oppressing Sternberg's science. They explicitly said that his science would stand or fall on its own. His science is never talked about in relation to this fiasco.

Also, I'm not worried about Ben Stein making money off of this - you were the one crying about scientists trying to get money (for research, not for lining their own pockets - oh, the horrors). And you've got to be kidding about Ben Stein not pushing an agenda. I'm only pointing out your hypocrisy there.

Trinity1
Emperor of the World

Joined: 02 Apr 2006

Posts: 3111

Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 1:20 pm Post subject:

Ana wrote:

He brought this 'fire storm' upon himself.
If nobody will admit to doing this with him, it means they are hiding something, or he is lying.

Yea... he brought the violation of his civil and consitutional rights upon himself... He follows procedures and practices he has used before... and gets rail roaded. That is not bringing anything upon themselves.

Also... the independent investigations idicate who is and who isn't tellingthe truth... it is obvious the Smithsonian lying through their teeth to protect their 'priestly image'.

Quote:

When did I ever say it was my opinion. I always refer to my sources. It is collective opinion that the paper was improperly formatted, to say the least.

You're right... it is the opinion of your sources and I should not make it personal by placing their views on you. My apologies. If you are, however, going to cite them as justification... I am assuming you share their opinions.

Ana
King of the Jungle

Joined: 10 Mar 2006

Posts: 1549

Location: BC

Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 1:25 pm Post subject:

Trinity1 wrote:

Yea... he brought the violation of his civil and consitutional rights upon himself...

One more time: which rights, and how?

Trinity1
Emperor of the World

Joined: 02 Apr 2006

Posts: 3111

Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 5:10 am Post subject:

Ana wrote:

Trinity1 wrote:

Yea... he brought the violation of his civil and constitutional rights upon himself...

One more time: which rights, and how?

The one's statedd in the Souder Report... the report which you cited... Let me help you by listing them... this way there is no more confusion...

Lets start with freedom of religion... his religious views were questioned. Why... because the Smithsonian wanted to ensure he attended church regularly? Noooooo... because that no one would dare question Darwinian Evolution unless there was a religious beleif. So, the start digging into his religious views. That, in of itself, is discriminatory and a violation of his civil rights.

His right to privacy. Who in the hell do these folks think they were digging into this man's past, without his consent, to try to discredit him. They looked into his off duty conduct and considered his views towards evolution. The folks at the NMNH, in emails, indicated that he was not going to be considered for re-appointment at the end of his term based on his views (emails by Sues indicates this). It was only after the publication of this report was an offer of renewal exteneded... and we both know why... don't we? So... discrimination towards his activities outside the workplace effecting his job reknewal.

OSC investigation revealed in emails by Schotte she was concerned that he was religious... a fundamentalist, and of course... he was an evil republican... Why do they need to know this Ana? What does this have to do with the contents of the Meyer article? Why is it necessary to first determine if a man is a fundamentalist... republican... or otherwise to determine the veracity of an article? I thought this was science? So... digging itto his political and religious affiliations... his right to privacy without a warranted search.

He was publically smeared by the NMNH, in collaboration with the NCSE, using governmental time and equipment. The report indicates that although criticism is is perfectly consistent with science and its methodology, this campaign went way beyond reasonable and fair criticism.... and using their position and governmental equipment to do this to someone under their charge is actually against the law. Which also demonstrates my point that his career was ruined by these folks.... a point that I, and most folks who are not biased towards the NMNH or NCSE, can see plain as day.

The Souder Report, on page 6, also indicates that Dr. Small and Burke both would not hire someone at the Smithsonian who is critical of Darwinian Evolution. That... is not only discriminatory.... that is a hue point of creationists.... if you can't even be allowed to participate in this debate... how in the hell do you ever expect that any 'creditable' evidence will ever be published demonstrating your point?

Lastly... free speech. Why is it that no one can be critical of Darwinian Evolution? If they are, their careers are ruined, they are smeared, and rail roaded... this is only a classic case of it happening... there are several other cases we can mention here too... but this is the blatant... and the absolute depravity of it all is that folks still try to defend the actions of the Smthsonian of this issue stating that Sternberg deserved it. Even after two independent reports demonstrate this... you still have the gull to imply that he somehow deserved this.

So.. to answer your question… his religious views were question, his privacy violated, he career was ruined using taxpayer equipment and time, and the was a plot to deny his further employment. His civil and constitutional rights were trampled on Ana… and your refusal to even acknowledge these is truly amazing.

Trinity1
Emperor of the World

Joined: 02 Apr 2006

Posts: 3111

Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 6:13 am Post subject:

Ana wrote:

Trinity1 wrote:

There you go with the feet-stamping rhetoric again. He pushed through a religious paper into a science journal...

Breaking the law is considered ‘feet stamping’ now huh?
Ana... tell me how the Meyer paper is religious. I mean… lets really apply some logic here. Current theory can not account for biological complexity… mutational changes and natural selection do not account for the goo-to-you scenario.. period. Meyer offers a logical, cogent, and yes, scientific justification for this. Current theory makes just as many inferences… steps outside of empirical science… just as often.. if not more than Meyer does… and theirs is counted as science and his is counted as religious. This is simply the truth of the matter.. we both know this.

This a brief description of the article:

Quote:

Dr. Meyer argues that no current materialistic theory of evolution can account for the origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms. He proposes intelligent design as an alternative explanation for the origin of biological information and the higher taxa.

If no materialistic theory is able to account of the existence of this information, and someone draws a line towords an obvious conclusion... is that religious, or (using extant data) is that science? The problem is (for you) is that Meyer is indeed correct... his article demonstrates as much. The article did indeed go through the peer review process... withstood the scrutiny… and now... you simply can't stand it. Period.

Quote:

What does questioning someone's religious beliefs have to do with discrimination?

What does it have to with science Ana? This is the point. If I asked those who are supportive of Darwinian Evolution if they are atheists... do you think that they would have a problem with that? If I went around digging into their personal beliefs... they wouldn't have a problem with that? If I were their supervisor doing this... they wouldn't have a problem? Ana... you simply have to start applying any sense of proportionality here… you have wondered off the reservation of reality and logic...

Quote:

Trinity1 wrote:

I cited the Souder report... that is what their conclusion was. They were a disinterested third party investigating this. that is my justification. What is yours for not agreeing?

All the source I've cited, including Souder's sources.

Right... and the conclusion of two independently conducted investigations revealed that Sternberg was indeed targeted for retaliation... his rights were violated...

Quote:

Trinity1 wrote:

Yada yada yada Ana... that is your only answer to the violation of a man's civil and constitutional rights,

Oh, goody, your responses to me are devolving into more and more rhetoric. There weren't any rights being violated. If there were, tell me which rights.

Well, when you refuse to pay any attention to the sources I provide you... direct quotes from these investigations... yeah... the remaining responses are more or less going to be rhetorical... I am citing directly from the conclusions of the investigations Ana. Disinterested parties conducted these investigations and constructed these reports..