Bush wants schools to teach intelligent design.

[poetsheart]

<p>Great post, Mr. B!—A needed injection of calm and rationality in this thread.</p>

<p>TheDad, “tax code” and Intelligent Design" should never share space in the same sentence—LOL!</p>

<p>Religion and politics ought to stay out of the study of evolution AND investigation into the POSSIBILITY of intelligent agency playing a part in the formation of the universe (assuming such an investigation is even possible). But alas, science has ALWAYS had to contend with those evil twins, which has invariably resulted in all manner of strife and confusion. Until we can extract the likes of Pat Robertson and “others” with obfuscating agendas from the discussion, we will be forever mired. From the heat being generated in this thread alone, I would say that ID is not yet ready for prime time, much less ready for the science classroom. Legitimate theoretical scientists should be given the opportunity to study the concept, and perhaps give it the benefit of “data”, before it gets co-opted by warring factions in religion and government. </p>

<p>The same mind-bending “push of statistics” which most scientists agree suggests that intelligent life MUST exist in other parts of the universe is seen by IDers to suggest that the statistical complexity of life on earth (and indeed, the universe itself) suggests the agency of some type of intelligent design. It’s just as logical a leap I believe. Just like the existence of life in other galaxies, it can’t yet be proved. However, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t at least look for possible evidence.</p>

[dmd77]

<p>I realized recently that we do, in fact, have evidence that there is no “intelligent designer” with regard to the overall universe: the stars and galaxies are randomly distributed. Completely randomly.</p>

[dmd77]

<p>A recent Wall Street Journal discusses the rise in college courses teaching intelligent design philopsophy. I notice that the bacterial flagellum is always presented as an example of “irreducible complexity.” In fact, there are several proposed mechanisms for its evolution; <a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>I know no biologist who claims that we’ve ansered all these questions. However, science requires that the explanation be natural, not magical. If the flagellum were “designed,” there would be no point to further study.</p>

[Woodwork]

<p>Or, why you don’t see much peer reviewed information of design in publication</p>

<p>All Things Considered, November 10, 2005 •</p>

<p>

Richard Sternberg, a staff scientist at the National Institutes of Health… was the editor of an obscure scientific journal loosely affiliated with the Smithsonian Institution, where he is also a research associate. Last year, he published in the journal a peer-reviewed article by Stephen Meyer, a proponent of intelligent design, an idea which Sternberg himself believes is fatally flawed.
Sternberg says his colleagues and supervisors at the Smithsonian were furious. He says – and an independent report backs him up – that colleagues accused him of fraud, saying they did not believe the Meyer article was really peer reviewed. It was.
Sternberg filed a complaint with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel… the special counsel, James McVay, called him with an update. "As he related to me, ‘the Smithsonian Institution’s reaction to your publishing the Meyer article was far worse than you imagined’"… in a letter to Sternberg, he wrote that officials at the Smithsonian worked with the National Center for Science Education – a group that opposes intelligent design – and outlined “a strategy to have you investigated and discredited.” Retaliation came in many forms, the letter said. They took away his master key and access to research materials. They spread rumors that Sternberg was not really a scientist. He has two Ph.D.'s in biology – from Binghamton University and Florida International University.

<a href=“http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5007508[/url]”>Intelligent Design and Academic Freedom : NPR;

[Woodwork]

<p>[Blackpenguin seems to feel we should look at the report by the U.S. Office of Special Councel. Here we will presumably find that it’s all smoke and mirrors. Let’s look:]</p>

<p>U.S. OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL
1730 M Street, N.W., Suite 218
Washington, D.C. 20036
<a href=“http://www.osc.gov/[/url]”>http://www.osc.gov/&lt;/a&gt;
August 5, 2005
From the “Sternberg” file:
[Re: OSC File No. MA-05-0371 and MA-05-0015] </p>

<p>

after the publication of the Meyer article documented a personal investigation of you and tabbed you as a "creationist."… 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.”

[determined by the Special Counsel to be a lie intended to smear Sternberg]

An e-mail by a NMNH scientist that was sent to your supervisor sums up the sentiment of the e-mails, as it relates to this issue. It reads, “The whole situation sounds like a pain in the… neck. Hopefully, the ID folks will get distracted with something else soon. After spending 4.5 years in the Bible Belt, I have learned how to carefully phrase things in order to avoid the least amount of negative repercussions for the kids. And I have heard many amazing things!! The most fun we had by far was when my son refused to say the Pledge of Allegiance because of the ‘under dog’ part…” The e-mail concludes by lamenting that the school teacher was “religious” and it was unfortunate that there was “anti-evolution education” in the schools.

Of great import is the fact that these same SI and NMNH employees immediately aligned themselves with the National Center for Science Education (NCSE). Our investigation shows that NCSE is a political advocacy organization dedicated to defeating any introduction of ID, creationism or religion into the American education system. In fact, members of NCSE worked closely with SI and NMNH members in outlining a strategy to have you investigated and discredited within the SI. Members of NCSE, furthermore, e-mailed detailed statements of repudiation of the Meyer article to high level NMNH officials. In turn they sent them to the Society. There are e-mails that are several pages in length that map out their strategy. NCSE recommendations were circulated within the SI and eventually became part of the official public response of the SI to the Meyer article. OSC is not making a statement on whether the SI or NMNH was wrong or right in aligning with the NCSE, although OSC questions the use of appropriated funds to work with an outside advocacy group for this purpose. This is only discussed to show that the actions taken on the part of SI employees clearly had a political and religious component.

You allege in your complaint that SI managers questioned people that they thought to be your friends at the SI, regarding your religion and your political affiliations. According to your complaint, this occurred on at least two occasions. You learned this through direct statements made to you by the individuals that were questioned. the current investigative file reflects support for your allegations. First, the e-mail traffic does show that there were meetings between the individuals in question during the time frame that you allege in the complaint. For some reason there was no official record kept by the SI of what was stated in the meetings, at least based on what has been provided to OSC to date. Further, a second e-mail drafted by this same manager several months later admits that one of these meetings to place and, more importantly, these issues were discussed. To put this in context, at the same time many other actions were taken during the uproar over the Meyer article your supervisor was questioning your friends about your personal political and religious background.

Our preliminary investigation indicates that retaliation came in many forms. It came in the form of attempts to change your working conditions and even proposals to change how the SI retains and deals with future RAs. During the process you were personally investigated and your professional competence was attacked. Misinformation was disseminated throughout the SI and to outside sources. The allegations against you were later determined to be false. It is also clear that a hostile work environment was created with the ultimate goal of forcing you out of the SI.

<a href=“http://www.rsternberg.net/OSC_ltr.htm[/url]”>http://www.rsternberg.net/OSC_ltr.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[UCLAri]

<p>

The revenge of the pencil-necked ayatollahs

</p>

<p>I love the layman backlash against science. </p>

<p>Yep. This is how America is going to remain at the forefront of the world. By attacking science. </p>

<p>Nobody else finds it troubling that most of the world laughs at the fact that many, if not the majority of Americans doubt/dont’ believe in evolution? I sure do.</p>

[Woodwork]

<p>BlackPenguin also suggests we look at the BSG. Shall we? Let’s get it from the horse’s mouth, Bryan College’s own response:</p>

<p>Clarifications Regarding the BSG, Bryan College, and Richard Sternberg, modified August 19, 2005</p>

<p>What is the relationship between the BSG and Richard Sternberg?
Richard Sternberg is a structuralist and was invited to speak at the 2001 BSG conference on the subject of structuralism. At the time, we were aware that Dr. Sternberg was not a creationist. At the conference this was confirmed in personal conversations between Dr. Sternberg and several BSG members. Dr. Sternberg specifically expressed incredulity about young-earth beliefs about age of the earth and rapid speciation. He was very pleasant and cordial in his disagreements, however, and left a good impression on all he spoke with. When Roger Sanders suggested that we start our own journal, we chose to assemble an editorial board strictly to provide regular peer review of papers. We felt that a critical review from a skeptic would be more valuable than many sympathetic reviews from BSG supporters. We therefore asked Dr. Sternberg to serve on the editorial board. Much to our surprise, he agreed. The journal launched in the spring of 2002, and Dr. Sternberg’s name has been listed on our website since then. </p>

<p>Is Richard Sternberg a creationist?
Not to our knowledge. Dr. Sternberg is a structuralist and remains very skeptical of creationist beliefs, including those of the BSG members. </p>

<p>What about those who say that Sternberg is a creationist who works with the BSG, which is affiliated with Bryan College?
Despite our efforts to set the record straight, these rumors persist. Sternberg has never worked with the BSG on the website or conferences. Since the editorial board exists to review papers, he did not contribute to the development of the journal itself. Sternberg attended only one BSG conference (in 2001) and has never been to Bryan College. </p>

<p>Why do these claims persist?
That’s a very good question. No member of the BSG has been contacted for clarification regarding Sternberg’s activities with the BSG or our relationship to Bryan College. Sternberg’s connection to the BSG has been published in Nature (431:114), and the connection between the BSG and Bryan College was published on the AAAS website and in The Scientist. Apparently, people have seen his name on the website or the website on a Bryan College server, and assumed the rest. If nothing else, it highlights the ongoing propaganda war that surrounds the entire creation/evolution issue, which makes discovering the truth about both sides that much more difficult. </p>

<p>Isn’t his service on the editorial board enough evidence to conclude that he is at least sympathetic to or biased towards creationism?
Based on our interactions and conversations with Dr. Sternberg, we conclude that his interest is largely methodological, since the techniques of structuralism and modern baraminology are very similar. His service on the editorial board reflects that interest. </p>

<p>Will the BSG join the propaganda war to defend Sternberg?
As researchers, we are not interested in an endless propaganda war. We are interested in truthfully representing our relationship with Sternberg, which we have done now on two occasions (on Sternberg’s website and here). Since there is no other information to provide, we will not comment further.
<a href=“Loading...”>Loading...;

[Woodwork]

<p>UCLAri or anyone else,</p>

<p>Is this how the scientific method is supposed to work?</p>

<p>If not, why did it?</p>

<p>[noticed you didn’t object to the use of the designation “Ayatollah”…they are, by all accounts, fair game in these little chats…I think some people are very sensitive]</p>

[UCLAri]

<p>I objected to your whole silly attack on scientists.</p>

<p>Look, put yourself in the shoes of biologists:</p>

<p>Scopes Trial followed by a century or so of people trying to keep the most important theory in biology out of the classroom, followed by ID (which is as unscientific as creationism.)</p>

<p>You don’t think they’d get a bit cranky?</p>

<p>Yes, they’re overreacting. But there IS a precedent.</p>

[Woodwork]

<p>You might want to become familiar with the real history of the Scopes Trial. Edward Larson won the 1998 Pulitzer Prize for his book “Summer of the Gods” which debunks the mythology you and others seem to swallow whole and regurgitate to others.</p>

<p>Here is a review:</p>

<p>

it is because of its importance as a reference point in numerous continuing debates in modern American society that the Scopes trial has moved from history into legend. Since the trial took place, efforts have been made to magnify the importance of the evolution–creation debate, to glorify the role played by many of the characters involved in the trial, and ultimately, to promote false myths regarding the outcome of the actual trial. Problematically, many of the respected popular historical works on the trial incorporate aspects of the myth into their analysis.

<a href=“http://www.utpjournals.com/product/cras/322/wood.html[/url]”>http://www.utpjournals.com/product/cras/322/wood.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>In case you want to buy the book:
<a href=“http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465075096/103-7495990-5237427?v=glance[/url]”>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465075096/103-7495990-5237427?v=glance&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>…“whole silly attack on scientists”, please. I made a funny! Besides, my wife is a research scientist with a Phd from Johns Hopkins in Bio-tech and an undergrad in Chemical Eng. I got to have a sense of humor.</p>

<p>My daughter, a frequent poster here, is writing for the undergraduate journal of science at her school as a freshmen…I live this stuff!</p>

<p>[EDIT: to clarify, my scientist/wife has a very elegant and graceful neck]</p>

[UCLAri]

<p>Okay, it doesn’t mean that what you said wasn’t silly.</p>

[Mr.B]

<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/15/science/sciencespecial2/15evol.html[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/15/science/sciencespecial2/15evol.html&lt;/a&gt;
New York Times article today.</p>

[Woodwork]

<p>MrB,</p>

<p>I’m about to click on your link, but I’m curious, what do you think of the case of the only peer-reviewed “design” paper’s career in the scientific community? </p>

<p>What do you think it says to scientists interested in questions in the field?</p>

<p>Will this help or hurt the prospects of science in biology? even if it is weak science.</p>

<p>What do you think?</p>

[Woodwork]

<p>One more thing.</p>

<p>It is my opinion that this is why there is so much room for people like Pat Robertson to step into the void from this side of the balance. Serious thinkers are shouted down and vilified (as they are here) whenever they try to make a reasonable (though potentially wrong) statement or comment or thesis on the subject of design.</p>

<p>You don’t want to give those like Robertson more power…than at least treat people like Dr Sternberg (and Meyers) with a modcum of respect and civility.</p>

[UCLAri]

<p>I can see that. But again, I do think that from the biological scientists’ point of view, evolution is always under attack anyway. At least that’s what I gather.</p>

[bneg]

<p>UCLAri: " Considering that ID is a supposed counter-explanation to the prevailing theory of evolution, it makes sense."</p>

<p>Kluge: bush: " schools should discuss “intelligent design” alongside evolution when teaching students about the creation of life."</p>

<p>ULCAri: “But it doesn’t matter. Abiogenesis IS NOT EVOLUTION.”</p>

<p>umm…yeah!! you guys can say it yourselves now!! when science tries to explain “the creation of life” (which on this thread is called metaphysics=ireelevant to science), ID is opposed to teaching that (which isn’t really relevant nor supported) to be the one and only hypothesis taught in science class. </p>

<p>and kluge, it is obvious now you are just trying to hang on desperately. you cannot answer this question: what’s up with the 'fountainsiren disagreement"? now if you come up with “oh, bneg, i’m so tired of explaining it to you”, i’ll just post it here first: you’ve never explained it; and i doubt that you can. so if you cannot explain your own fallacy you can actually stop making presumptuous statements like or keep stressing that the arguments of others are fallacious: “You’re not interested in trying to understand anything which doesn’t support your point of view, and I’m tired of hearing you repeat the points you feel explain everything.”!!! Ooh~~ so rich that it almost sounds sweet. </p>

<p>Mr.B: “there are those who deeply believe in God but do not want public school science teachers teaching religion in the classroom.” & “…all adults inclluding public school teachers, teach their religious views everyday through their behavior.”</p>

<p>yes!!! since religion is taught no matter what, so even if ID is pure religion…it’s not going to be the only thing that destorys the Majestic Purity of science classes. </p>

<p>TheDad: “Driver, and so it will be until ID proponents understand the difference between physics and metaphysics and the meanings of “science” and “theory” in the reality-based world.”</p>

<p>so we only imply that there is no creator, inject a certain view of metaphysics, and push away all others…i get it now TheDad! gradeschool is supposed to be unfair, and we shall continue the tradition!~</p>

<p>Driver, are you on your break??? i think fountainsiren is on hers…hope i get to join you soon!!</p>

[kluge]

<p>Woodwork, regarding Richard “peer reviewed” von Sternberg, a couple of things which haven’t been highlighted by your sources: v. Sternberg has not identified the three “peers” he claims reviewed the work. As to the associate editors at the publication v. Sternberg was editor of, and who ordinarily would have been provided copies of the proposed publication to review, er, well, apparently v. Sternberg “forgot” to have them review it. As the board responsible for the journal states:

‘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.

</p>

<p>So having slipped the article past the normal review process, v.Sternberg then cried victim when he was caught with his hand in the cookie jar. </p>

<p>As to the report by the OSC, did anyone mention to you that

The current head of the OSC is a zealous religious conservative whose tenure at OSC has been largely driven by ideology. Most notably, he has purged many of the office’s career lawyers . . . and he’s refilling the ranks of career attorneys with litmus-tested candidates (his favorite “feeder” school is Ave Maria Law School, a non-ABA-accredited conservative Catholic law school)."

If you’re in the market for some Nigerien yellowcake I think i know a guy who can help you out…</p>

<p>The claims of retaliation by the Smithsonian have been denied (wth specifics) by v. Sternberg’s supervisor. And you left out my favorite quote from the OSC letter:

The first actions taken against you after the Meyer article were to research your scientific education and writings.

Ooooooh, can’t have that, can we? Clearly a case of retaliation…</p>

[Woodwork]

<p>Kluge,</p>

<p>I don’t know what to make of your post. Somehow I am not surprised that you either approve or are uninterested in the politburo tactics used agaist Sternberg. </p>

<p>Interestingly, nothing in your diversion bears on what happened to Sternberg.</p>

<p>Why would anything you have suggested on this point matter? </p>

<p>Apparently, Thedad is a committed Christian (nothing indicates that Sternberg is) and yet I do not know that we should all discount his scientific or cultural views (such as they are) because of it. Perhaps I should–maybe we should all assume someone’s view is somehow congenitally wrong if and when they hold the wrong political and religious affiliations.</p>

<p>My wife is a Muslim scientist, though I have it on good authority she is not a terrorist, neither politically or scientifically. Perhaps her research will be equally suspect in your eyes…of course, that is unless she reaches your pre-determined conclusions.</p>

<p>You have a fascinating sense of science in a free society…if we can be so generous as to call your preferred scientific society free.</p>

<p>Character assassination and brute conspiracies seem to be part of good science to you…where would we locate this refined aspect of the scientific method?</p>

<p>Even those who often agree with your cultural views have weighed in on this one and condemned these tactics…NPR, Washington Post, NYT…not even they could stomach this one, even in a good cause—you, Kluge, are apparently made of sterner stuff.</p>

[TheDad]

<p>Woodwork, I will go ahead and discount the scientific and cultural views of some of my co-religionists on Kluge’s behalf. Many are literate, many are not. And while you will find all kinds in every denomination, some denominations are skewed more one way or the other. Even within a denomination, there will be clusters by geography. I had a priest at a wedding once ask me what parish we were from and when I told him he pursed his lips and made no answer. I pretty much figured out why he was asking and knew that our parish was pretty much antithetical to his, up and down the line, on across a broad range of political, cultural, and theological issues. For ex, he would have hives if he saw as many females active on the altar as we have in our parish: altar servers, cantor, and the overwhelming majority of eucharistic ministers and sacristans.</p>

<p>Bneg, you can take the metaphysical view wherever you wish and I wouldn’t care. It’s trying that to pass of metaphysics as a counterfeit coin for physics (or just science in general) that I will nail.</p>

[bneg]

<p>you don’t understand theDad…the metaphysical view is already there when some science teachers who imply that evolution and life coming from inorganic material is evidence of that there is no creator in the universe. So to do nothing about that (metaphysics into science) while trying to keep the suggestion of that there could be a creator in science classrooms is simply unfair.</p>