One of the biggest knocks against Intelligent Design is the lack of published peer-revieiwed articles in scientific journals. A story from last year (that I forgot about) tells the story of an evolutionists who dared to publish a piece supportive of ID. Meet Richard Sternberg, former Smithsonian researcher and editor of Proceedings of the Biological Society.
For daring to accept a paper by ID supporter Stephen Meyers, having it peer-reviewed by three scientists and publishing it, Sternberg was forced out of the Smithsonian and subject to career and life destructive rumors.
Immediately after the publication of the paper, gossip began to spread in the Smithsonian from within and without. Sternberg was accused of being a “sleeper cell operative for the creationists,” not being an acutal scientists, religious zealot and that he took bribes, rigged the peer-review process, was a Young Earth Creationist, had trained as an orthodox priest.
When the biological society issued a statement dissavowing the Meyers article, Sternberg was told not to come because “they could not guarantee [him] that they could keep order.”
All this against a guy who holds two PhDs in evolutionary biology, was praised by his professors for his graduate work and earned a coveted research associate appointment at the Smithsonian Institution.
When he was approached about publishing the paper, he sent it to three scientists who came back with close to 50 things to considered, but agreed that the paper should be published.
The U.S. Office of Special Counsel, which is to protect federal employees from reprisals, investigated the situation and worked to help Sternberg. They found that “the rumor mill became … infected” against Sternberg. So much so that a colleague had to circulate his resume to quelch rumors that somehow he was not a scientist.
For their effort the Special Counsel and the principal legal adviser, James McCay, were attacked by the Smithsonian and the National Center for Science Education, a think-tank supporting the teaching of evolution, after McCay wrote that the NCSE “work closely with” the Smithsonian to have Sternberg “investigated and discredited.”
A anonymous Smithsonian official said McCay was trying to embarrass the institution. The NCSE said he was playing out a political agenda and equated Sternberg to an employee who “embarrassed” his employer and “really blew it” for the company.
What got Sternberg in trouble was his penchant for going against the system. He knew his journal had not published papers such as the one Meyers wrote, but wanted to stir the pot. I am not convinced by intelligent design but they have brought a lot of difficult questions to the fore,” Sternberg said. “Science only moves forward on controversy.”
Even after this move has essentially ruined his career and hurt his life (his marriage even dissolved), Sternberg still believes that challenging the prevailing notions is good for science. “I loathe careerism and the herd mentality,” he said. “I really think that objective truth can be discovered and that popular opinion and consensus thinking does more to obscure than to reveal.”
The National Review and the Wall Street Journal have more on the story.
And critics wonder why ID has no peer-reviewed articles published. Let’s see as a scientist who writes the article you will receive no grant money, no recognition unless it is negative and no one will publish your work. If you are an editor of a journal you will always have the image of Richard Sternberg in the back of your mind as you refuse to publish yet another article on ID.
It must just be because ID isn’t science, of course it has nothing to do with the way anyone who even mentions the words “Intelligent Design” are treated by the scientific community. We could ask Sternberg what he thinks, but he’s just a religious zealot anyway.
I was going to write a comment but found someone (in another blog) who said it better:
/quote
”
I’m afraid it’s not in dispute that Mr. Sternberg circumvented the journal’s normal procedures. The governing council of the BSW made that explicit in their statement on the subject. You can read about it here:
http://www.biolsocwash.org/
You should ask yourself how it even occurred to Meyer to submit a general attack on evolutionary biology to a journal that normally deals with systematics and taxonomy.
Sternberg humiliated the BSW and dealt a severe blow to the credibility of their journal. I have no doubt that the other editors were furious with him for doing that. That’s not the same thing as a systematic campaign of harrassment and misinformation by a cabal of Smithsonian employees, which is what Sternberg alleged on nation-wide television.
As for journals not following their procedures, I think you will be hard-pressed to find an example where the normal procedures were not followed for the purpose of ensuring that a highly controversial paper avoids its proper scrutiny. Usually when an editor is confronted with a paper he knows will be controversial, he bends over backward to ensure that the other editors know it’s coming. What he does not do is blindside his colleagues the way Sternberg did.
” /end quote
Could you give me the link to the blog you found the statement from? I believe someone wrote it and you are directly quoting them, I'm just curious as to where it came from.
To the one link that you provide, their explanation for the printing of Meyer's article, sounds more like a plea for the scientific community to take them back and not doubt their commitment to the evolutionist dogma.
They essentially promise to never run any other article dealing with ID ever again – saying they have "reviewed and revised" their editorial policies and state that ID has "no credible scientific evidence" and therefore Meyer's piece (or any other piece on ID) does not meet their "scientific standards" and "will not [be] publish[ed]."
I'm not sure why Meyer's submitted the article to this journal. It may be because he works in the same region as this paper and has had papers printed by them before.
The journal may say that the publishing of the article went against their "normal procedures," but apparently it didn't violate any of their established policies. They say what Sternberg did was "contrary to typical editorial practices," but not that it was against policy. And besides who says it is against typical practices, the same ones that say they will never publish any ID article again. Clearly, it did not violate policy because they felt the need to change the policy to prevent an ID paper from being published again.
Their reasons behind pulling the rug out from Sternberg seem to support even more his claims of "herd mentality" and "careerism." The new editors at the journal don't want to be associated with ID by their peers and don't want it to hurt their futures in the industry of science. Sounds like group think to me.
Ahhh, now I see.
ID doesn't have a single peer-reviewed article (or scientific breakthrough or discovery) attached to it because (drum roll please) IT'S ALL A CONSPIRACY.
Isn't that the same excuse that the science-creationists and the flat-earthers and the astrologers use?
I mean, seriously, let's take the above article as the Gospel Truth (bad pun intended!).
Let's say that it all happened.
Sternberg is a martyr for the true science of ID.
ID was slapped down by the Smithonian Nazi Science police (ooh, spooky).
Even if we blindly accept all that, that's still only ONE incident by ONE guy at ONE place.
And…that's it? Shows over?
That's all it takes to shut down the scientific publishing of ID?
Golly, who would have thought it would have been so easy to shut down a new 'scientific' theory?
Guess, your average scientist in Germany or Brazil or wherever must be really just to afraid to publish, huh?
Where are you Galileo? We need you now more than ever.
Cedric, despite your sarcasm, you make an ok point. Is this just one isolated incident, or does it represent a systemic problem? Is anyone else complaining about similar anti-intellectual, orthodoxy-driven punishments in the sciences?
Seeker, thank you for seeing my point despite my sarcasm.
(I'll do my best to restrain myself in future, but I'm only human) :)
Anybody can cry 'conspiracy'.
Effortlessly simple to state it, virtually impossible to disprove it.
However, if we were to seriously take a hard-headed look at the article and find out if this is part of a pattern, your question is too vague to really be useful.
"Anti-intellectual, orthodoxy-driven punishments in the sciences" is just an open invitation for anybody to rant about how somebody, somewhere poo-pooed the 'theory' of ID. So we could ramble on about Dempski and the Baylor Uni saga or Behe and how his co-workers at Lehigh Uni don't support his work at all etc. Boring!
Complaints about 'punishments' in the sciences is just too wishy-washy.
Let's focus on the theme of why ID doesn't have any peer-reviewed articles. Anywhere. Not one. Big fat hairy zero.
..Even though the ID movement has been around for well over a decade!
…Or even though there's a 'growing scientific controversy' (according to the Discovery Institute) :).
….Or even though 'lots of scientists believe in ID' (according to Dempski) :).
If anybody has a story that connects with the above article then I'd be happy to read it.
If you'd like to read an article that examines the decidedly limp status of ID in the world of peer-reviewed articles then permit me to suggest "How can you tell it isn't science?" at http://thequestionableauthority.blogspot.com/2006…
For my money, there are no peer-reviewed scientific papers on ID because it's staggeringly odvious to the global scientific community that ID is just Paley's watch.
I am not screaming conspiracy. You're new here Cedric (I'm glad you're here), but you want find me buying into conspiracies.
Just as it is easy to yell conspiracy, it is also very easy to dismiss someone's arguement as as a conspiracy without actually debating the facts raised.
I don't think scientists get together every year and conspire on how to prevent ID from getting a fair shake. It is just a simple case of individual bias.
It is a endless circle – no journal publishes ID papers because no "reputable" scientist believe in ID because no journal publishes ID papers because….
It's funny that seeker asked if a pattern could be demonstrated and instead of saying no, you argued that we shouldn't even investigate the situation because ID'ers must be crazy and they would just ramble on.
That sounds like science in the tradition of Galileo* there – a theory different than your establishment arises, so it is dismissed and not evaluated by the major journals because it challenges accepted dogma.
Please don't bring up Galileo because you think that is some big "conspiracy" by the church to silence his theory. His issue had lots of complexities to it and he had both supporters and detractors in Christendom. So unless you believe in conspiracy theories let's not try to use Galileo as a club against ID or Christianity.
Aaron, I did not say that ID proponents are crazy.
May some are, maybe some aren't. (I don't really care)
I said that they would RANT.
Not as in 'crazy people in a mental hospital ranting' but as in endless MOANING and GROANING and WHINING about how 'the world' is 'against ID' for some reason or other.
You said "…you argued that we shouldn't even investigate the situation…"
Forgive me but that's unfair of you.
I did not say that.
By all means, investigate all you want. Post any information you desire BUT please not on this thread.
Can't you just start a different one?
Your article raised a very interesting and specific issue. Let's address it!
Why does ID not have a single peer-reviewed article?
I'd like to focus on that without this thread going off on other hard-luck stories. Is it possible to keep this thread (purely for the sake of simplicity and clarity) just on ID peer-reviewed articles and discuss how/if they are being stifled?
Is that really too much to ask?
If there is a pattern of censorship, then show the pattern of ID peer-reviewed articles being hard done by.
You said "I don't think scientists get together every year and conspire on how to prevent ID from getting a fair shake."
Glad to hear it. :)
But then you go and spoil it all and say "It is just a simple case of individual bias."
Woh there!! Individual bias? Of the whole global scientific community numbering in the millions?
You've confused me. :(
I would have thought that after we count past the first few dozen scientists or so and start moving in the mega-digit figures, we move out of the realm of 'individual bais' and into what is known as scientific consensus.
Or perhaps our definitions of 'individual bias' differ.
Besides, what of the bias of scientists who are also Christians? If they saw scientific merit in ID, then they would publish, surely?
(Not that I'm suggesting that ID is somehow religious or anything, heavens no!)
Have none of them the power to publish and say "to heck with it, God is on my side"?
Or (since ID is ABSOLUTELY NOT faith-based) perhaps they would say "to heck with it, here's a mountian of research that's just too solid to ignore"?
When can mere mortals read in the morning papers about some great scientific discovery brought about by using ID theory (as opposed to 'less-than-great' opinion polls on how the public reckon there must be something to all this ID stuff)?
And what of that unstoppable, tidal wave of scientists who are even now are flocking the the battle-standard of ID in the name of 'academic freedom' and 'real science' as declaimed by senior fellows at the Discovery Institute? (insert stifled giggle here)
Why don't they publish?
You also said "a theory different than your establishment arises, so it is dismissed and not evaluated by the major journals because it challenges accepted dogma."
Major journals?
MAJOR JOURNALS?
Gosh, ID's not even being handled by MINOR ones!!!
But seriously folks….
No, scientists love to challange dominant theories.
Happens all the time.
Theories, even long accepted ones, are constantly open to challenge. That's an essential element of science.
Question everything.
In fact, if you do it well enough, you get a Nobel Prize.
But, and it's a very big 'BUT', you've GOT to run the gauntlet of scientific scrutiny.
If your theory doesn't have the hard evidence to back it up then.. it's back to the drawing board!
It's this process that allows us to separate the astrologers from the astronomers or the crystal healers from the geologists.
Oddly enough, I notice that since my last posting of over a week ago, there still hasn't been a single ID peer-reviewed article published.
Naturally, I'm surprised.
"Oddly enough, I notice that since my last posting of over a week ago, there still hasn't been a single ID peer-reviewed article published.
Naturally, I'm surprised."
…………………………………….
Well, boys and girls, it's been a FULL YEAR since my last posting on this thread.
So, how many ID peer-reviewed articles have there been since then?
Yep, that's right. None.
Creationists will tell you how H.M.S. Darwin is sinking, that the Theory of Evolution is being rejected by more and more scientists. Yet evolutionary biologists put out thousands of peer-reviewed articles every year. They actively gather fresh data. They actively conduct research in every part of the globe, from deep sea diving to antarctic expeditions to the jungles of Sumatra. Enough real scientific work and scientific research to sink a battleship or two.
Yet what of the 'theory' of ID?
Where's their workload on ID science?
They've got fundy money and lots of it.
But no peer-reviewed articles on ID.
They've got over 700 silly people who signed up on the "Dissent from Darwinism" thingy. (Yawn)
But no peer-reviewed articles on ID.
So there's 700 scientists out there on ID's side?
Yeah? Really? So…where's the science?
[insert sound of crickets chirping here]
For those who are in the mood for a chuckle, please check out http://www.iscid.org .
This is the ID movements version of a 'scientific journal'.
It's a "…quarterly online peer-reviewed journal".
Who's on the board? Oh, the usual suspects.
Dempski, Mills and the rest of the ID crew.
It's about as ID friendly as you can get.
The minimum standards for the journal are less than zero and it has no credibility in the scientific community.
So, it's the perfect playground for an ID 'scientist'!
Last journal issue?
Volume 4.2, November 2005.
November, 2005?
November, 2005??
November, 2005?!?!
Hmm.
Well, I'd like to make three predictions.
First, that in one years time, the Discovery Institute will have 'discovered' a total of 800 "Dissenters from Darwinism".
(Keep a bottle of champagne on ice for that one)
Second, that the Discovery Institute will continue to pump millions of dollars into press releases and Op-Eds as part of a slick PR campaign.
And thirdly, by this time next year, there will STILL be no peer-reviewed article on ID.
See you next year.
………………………………
(Off-topic)
Oh, if anybody has any scientific evidence for ID or can even demonstrate that ID is a real scientific theory at all then please open a thread at the (After the Bar Closes) forum at http://www.pandasthumb.org where I am a regular lurker/poster.
Well folks, it's been another year.
How did I do on my predictions….
"First, that in one years time, the Discovery Institute will have 'discovered' a total of 800 "Dissenters from Darwinism".
(Keep a bottle of champagne on ice for that one)"
Well, I lose that one. The "Dissenters" list is still hovering at about the 700 mark.
(The champagne will keep. Project Steve is doing well though)
"Second, that the Discovery Institute will continue to pump millions of dollars into press releases and Op-Eds as part of a slick PR campaign."
One point to me.
"And thirdly, by this time next year, there will STILL be no peer-reviewed article on ID."
Gosh. Another point to me. What were the chances?
……………………………………
For those of you who are interested here's a video on creationism done by cdk007. He (she?) has make a brilliant series of videos cheerfully ripping in to the nuttery of creationism with an extra double helping directed at YECism. Check them all out.
This particular one is called What Every Creationist Must DENY. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nj587d5ies&featur…
See you next year.