----- Original Message -----
Sent: January 29, 2005 15:10
Subject: [TruthTalk] Smithsonian in
uproar over intelligent-design article FYI
Looks like the 'fundies' have invaded the Smithsonian
also ... and the
prevailing liberalism is 'threatened' What is
going on here?
Saturday, January 29, 2005
EVOLUTION WATCH
Smithsonian in uproar over intelligent-design
article
Museum researcher's career threatened after he published favorable
piece
Posted: January 29, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
� 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
The career of a prominent researcher at the
Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History in Washington is in jeopardy
after he published a peer-reviewed article by a leading proponent of
intelligent design, an alternative to evolutionary theory dismissed by the
science and education establishment as a tool of religious conservatives.
Richard Sternberg says that although he continues to work in the museum's
Department of Zoology, he has been kicked out of his office and shunned by
colleagues, prompting him to file a complaint with the U.S. Office of Special
Counsel.
Sternberg charges he was subjected to discrimination on the basis
of perceived religious beliefs. "I'm spending my time trying to figure out how
to salvage a scientific career," Sternberg told David Klinghoffer, a columnist
for the Jewish
Forward, who reported the story in the Wall Street Journal.
Sternberg is managing editor of a nominally independent journal
published at the museum, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.
His trouble started when he included in the August issue a review-essay by
Stephen Meyer, who holds a Cambridge University doctorate in the philosophy of
biology.
Hans Sues, the museum's No. 2 senior scientist, denounced Meyer's
article in a widely forwarded e-mail as "unscientific garbage." According to
Sternberg's complaint, which is being investigated, one museum specialist
chided him by saying: "I think you are a religiously motivated person and you
have dragged down the Proceedings because of your religiously motivated
agenda." Sternberg strongly denies that. While acknowledging he is a Catholic
who attends Mass, he says, "I would call myself a believer with a lot of
questions, about everything. I'm in the postmodern predicament."
The complaint says the chairman of the Zoology Department, Jonathan
Coddington, called Sternberg's supervisor to look into the matter. "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 recounted the conversation to Sternberg, who also
quotes her observing: "There are Christians here, but they keep their heads
down." The complaint, according to the Journal column, says Coddington took
away Sternberg's office, which prevents access to the specimen collections he
needs. Sternberg also was 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 Coddington, according to the complaint.
"Yes, you are being singled out."
Meyer's article, "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher
Taxonomic Categories," cites mainstream biologists and paleontologists from
schools such as the University of Chicago, Yale, Cambridge and Oxford who are
critical of certain aspects of Darwinism. Meyer � a fellow at Seattle's
Discovery Institute, a leading advocate of intelligent design � contends
supporters of Darwin's theory cannot explain how so many different animal
types sprang into existence during the relatively short period of Earth
history known as the Cambrian explosion.
He argues the Darwinian mechanism would require more time for the
necessary genetic "information" to be generated, and intelligent design offers
a better explanation. The Journal notes Meyer's piece is the first
peer-reviewed article to appear in a technical biology journal laying out the
evidential case for intelligent design. The theory holds that the complex
features of living organisms, such as an eye, are better explained by an
unspecified designing intelligence than by random mutation and natural
selection.
Klinghoffer notes the Biological Society of Washington released a
statement regretting its association with Meyer's article but did not address
its arguments. Klinghoffer points out the circularity of the arguments
of critics who insisted intelligent design was unscientific because if had not
been put forward in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. "Now that it
has," he wrote, "they argue that it shouldn't have been because it's
unscientific."
