Going deeper into a DI Lie

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/12/creating_a_martyr_the_sternber.php-Goes through the public record to show categorically that Sternberg's claims that he was retaliated and treated badly because of his views on Design are unfounded; digs deeper into the political nature of the DI and its supporters (such as Rep. Souder) in its attempt to wage a cultural war within the borders of the U.S. -Key notes: The paper that caused controversy for Sternberg was that the Meyer paper wasn't appropriate for his journal (Systematics) and that he didn't follow the normal guidelines for Peer Review; he handled the whole thing himself instead of the normal process of having it reviewed by associate editors. (This by itself is job malfeasance on the part of an editor.) His claim for doing this was that the associate editors weren't qualified. However his own area of expertise is Systematics and NOT Cambrian Paleontology; he should have forwarded the paper on to an expert in Cambrian Paleontology.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

Post reply

4533 views

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/12/creating_a_martyr_the_sternber.php&... 
> Goes through the public record to show categorically that Sternberg's claims that he was retaliated and treated badly because of his views on Design are unfounded; -I've read the stuff. Thank you for it. See my next note. Read Horowitz. His findings are the real issue.-Of course Frances Collins breaks the rule, but again, one person is equal to anecdotal.

Post reply

4634 views

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/12/creating_a_martyr_the_sternber.php&... > 
> > Goes through the public record to show categorically that Sternberg's claims that he was retaliated and treated badly because of his views on Design are unfounded; 
> 
> I've read the stuff. Thank you for it. See my next note. Read Horowitz. His findings are the real issue.
> 
> Of course Frances Collins breaks the rule, but again, one person is equal to anecdotal.-I would say that considering his profile that the general (and absolute) silence of any voices condemning him for his theological views proves my point. Why attack Behe or Dembski, and not Collins? Answer: Collins didn't try to publish his religious views in scientific journals, and has clearly delineated his views between science and religion. Also, Collins didn't politicize his views. If you play with fire, one would expect to be burned. If there was such a "conspiracy" behind silencing ID, then there should be a huge fight between Collins and the rest of the academic community--just like with other ID authors. Where's the fight? I suppose, he's magically "better connected" than say, Behe, and therefore is safe from the Illuminati! Seriously David? Sarcasm aside, you need to think more deeply about why DI authors face the battles they do. They're "self-made martyrs." -Checked out Horowitz's blog. First entry deals with speech codes, which I know existed at least at one point at Berkeley. (Big shocker there!) I share Penn Gillette's views on that. (See the appropriate BULLSH!T episode on the first amendment.)

Post reply

4661 views

I would say that considering his profile that the general (and absolute) silence of any voices condemning him for his theological views proves my point. -We are talking around the issue I tried to address before. The tremendous liberal slant in the colleges and universities, and in the science labs. That is not good for American education, research, or politics. You are right,Collins is acceptable, but Rush Limbaugh is not, in his case for the NFL. 95% of Hollywood is very liberal. That propaganda machine can slant any national discussion. Most of the newspapers and their writers are liberal, again around 90%. Freedom of the press was constitutionally suppposed to inform us and protect us from misinformation. But not on a one way slant. This is what I was driving at. I don't care a wit about the DI. But some of the information that they point out is worth discussing as this article on trying to set up an evolutionary tree by using genes, instead of morphology. It has been shown in the past that common proteins create different trees than morphology, or just mess up the morphology tree. (Evolution, A theory in Crisis, Michael Denton, 1985.) This article shows that getting to a single tree is a problem:- http://genomebiology.com/2007/8/6/R109#IDATWFPL

Post reply

4553 views

I would say that considering his profile that the general (and absolute) silence of any voices condemning him for his theological views proves my point. 
> 
> We are talking around the issue I tried to address before. The tremendous liberal slant in the colleges and universities, and in the science labs. That is not good for American education, research, or politics. You are right,Collins is acceptable, but Rush Limbaugh is not, in his case for the NFL. 95% of Hollywood is very liberal. That propaganda machine can slant any national discussion. Most of the newspapers and their writers are liberal, again around 90%. Freedom of the press was constitutionally suppposed to inform us and protect us from misinformation. But not on a one way slant. This is what I was driving at. I don't care a wit about the DI. But some of the information that they point out is worth discussing as this article on trying to set up an evolutionary tree by using genes, instead of morphology. It has been shown in the past that common proteins create different trees than morphology, or just mess up the morphology tree. (Evolution, A theory in Crisis, Michael Denton, 1985.) This article shows that getting to a single tree is a problem:
> 
> http://genomebiology.com/2007/8/6/R109#IDATWFPL-You grew up in a much more liberal time. I frankly do not see more liberal excesses than conservative ones, and in the long wrong the conservative excesses are actually more damaging, especially to individual liberty. I became an active citizen under Bush and the Patriot Act, passed by a congress too scared to stand up to the political capital he gained after 9/11. The patriot act allows for deep packet sniffing of any internet traffic that goes through the US, without warning nor warrant. Canada and Europe route all of their traffic around the U.S. because of this. Analytically, only two countries have similarly archaic privacy laws, Saudi Arabia and China. The liberal excesses? Global warming? Vegetarianism? Yeah. That sounds really threatening.

Post reply

4565 views


> You grew up in a much more liberal time. I frankly do not see more liberal excesses than conservative ones, and in the long wrong the conservative excesses are actually more damaging, especially to individual liberty. -Actually I grew up in a time when the NY Times was quite conservative as was Time magazine, Chicago Tribune, etc. My parents were very liberal and taught me to be so. You cannot have the background I have with roughly 50 years age difference. It is interesting that Horowitz and I have followed the same general pattern in our thinking. So you and I will differ in this area.

Post reply

4546 views

RSS Feed of thread

AgnosticWeb.com

Going deeper into a DI Lie (Politics)