The Scientist

Seems that the Scientist took the PR from Souder and swallowed it hook line and sinker. And yet, if they had studied the appendix, they would have realized how ill founded the accusations really are.\n\nOn Pandasthumb, Ed Brayton explains: http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/12/creating_a_mart.html\n\n

This is the second time that The Smithsonian has taken a position contrary to that of most Americans. The first time was that incredibly biased and historically inaccurate diatribe about the Enola Gay and Hiroshima. Darwinism is not a fact, merely a theory - as he himself titled his work. Intelligent design is also a theory to some people. I believe that a Reaserch Associate should be judged on his or her work and not upon his or her political or religious outlook. Those members of the Smithsonian's staff who do not subscribe to this ideal should really look for work in a McDonald's, where their insular prejudice will not harm anyone.

I have to tell you that most Australians would be wondering what all of the fuss was about: can the man do his job? If so, let him do it. If not, fire him.\n\nThis business of leaning on him over non-hurtful unpaid extra-job work simply because some people disagree with it is exactly the opposite of what science is supposed to be about. It axes the science and goes for the politics.\n\nPut the poor blighter back where he was: if you have something to say, then by all means submit an article to Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington for publication.

People can write novels, but not publish novels on scientific journals

Events at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) and the uproar surrounding the case of Richard Sternberg should not be considered in isolation. The larger context of controversies over claims of the validity of Intelligent Design (ID) "theory" is relevant here. Particularly informative is the legal decision by Judge John E. Jones (Dec. 20, 2005) in the case of Kitmiller et al. vs. Dover Area School District et al.: "... we first note that since ID is not a science, the conclusion is inescapable that the only effect of the ID Policy is the advancement of religion." (pp. 133-134). ""In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." (p. 136 -- see www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf). \nTo suggest that ID is a theory in the same way that evolution by natural selection is a theory is an inherently weak argument; it actually draws on a post-modernist, political correctness outlook, where all views are of equal merit (see the commentary "Oppressed by Evolution" by Matt Cartmill, 1998; Discover 19(3): 78-83; Cartmill is a professor of anatomy and anthropology at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, and is a past-president of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists). \nSuch "all views are valid" perspectives are simply not scientific. A couple of other particularly salient articles on this point are:\n"15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense" by John Rennie, 2002; Scientific American 287(1): 78-86 (Rennie is editor of Scientific American); and,\n"Scientific Illiteracy and the Partisan Takeover of Biology" by Liza Gross, 2006; PLoS Biology 4(5): e167.DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0040167 (PLoS Biology is an open access journal that is freely available at: www.plosbiology.org).

Could Richard Sternberg have been so naive as to believe his colleagues would not object to his publishing an article supporting Intelligent Design? Getting a job at a journal that is clearly in opposition to one's views and then publishing an article contrary to the standard editorial viewpoint is just asking for trouble. That's like publishing an article in an American history journal suggesting that the slaves should never have been freed, then wondering why people assume you're a racist.\n\nIf he finds mainstream science personally offensive, why is he trying so hard to stay in an unpaid role where he is surrounded by unbelievers? Of course, if he'd simply resigned after the initial furor, people might think he was satisfied with his role in promoting ID: hit and run propaganda.

Thomas Kuhn popularized the notion of how science progresses in his seminal work, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". Kuhn's basic thesis was that scientists representing the dominant view ascend to positions that control the scientific journals and, from those positions, block opposing views from being published resulting in an entrenchment of the dominant view. While providing a measure of stability to scientific knowledge, this type of internal politics stifles the progress of science by prevnting novel views from emerging into the scientific debate. We are clearly able to see this dynamic in operation in he current controversy over Evolution and Intelligent Design. What is new in the dialigue today is the influence being brought to bear by external politics and the judicial system. Rather than using their influence as the dominant scientific view, contemporary proponents of evolution are increasingly using the political process and the judicial system to suppress the opposing view.

If the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington is a refereed journal, how did this article ever get past the referees? If it was not, in fact, sent out for evaluation or printed despite negative evaluations, then there is no question that the person responsible for having it printed was totally and completely out of line and needs to be relieved of his/her responsibilites. Using the legal system, such as the govenment is now doing, rather than fact and evidence, to push a nonscientific, religious viewpoint, is part and parcel of the whole ID strategy.

I don't know if the Smithsonian did what is said they did but I wouldn't be surprised. Those who accept Darwinism without question have, like Darwin, a problem not just with real science, whose goal is the truth, but with a reality that contradicts their pseudoscience, which is really a religion with Charles Darwin as god. Darwin himself formed his theory in anger against the God of the Bible, thinking he knew better than God how reality should be. Human pride is responsible for this totally destructive philosophy of false reality.