Denialism.com - A resource for countering denialist organizations, tactics and arguments. Don't Confuse Denialism with Debate!
About Denialism.com Who are we?What is Denialism? Who are the Denialists? The Denialist Deck of Cards
|
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
Finally some real research from the IDers!
Marcus Ross has written a review entitled, "Confusion over Intelligent Design and Young-Earth Creationism"(PDF). It's a real publication for the Journal of Geoscience Education, I'm so excited, it has charts and graphs and a table and everything.
It's also a total blast to read, as he creates a taxonomy of bullshit. I'm not being facetious, it's actually quite helpful. However I'll point out one major inaccuracy. He attempts to claim that ID is not creationism because it is based on science and is thus different from Young Earth Creationism (YEC). This has been proven false. When you show up, in Federal court, and say you're not creationists, then someone shows your "textbook" of Pandas and People is just a creationist textbook that you did a find-and-replace of "creationism" for "intelligent design", you're full of shit. Again this is the deceptive element which Judge Jones pointed out famously in Dover v. Kitzmiller. There is no doubt about it, the objective is the teaching of creationism, and the "Intelligent Design Science" is a farce designed to avoid failing the Lemon test. They operate the same as creationists, they make the same arguments, they use the same textbooks (with some pretty simple editing), they've been called liars by a federal judge for saying they're not creationists, and just like creationists they have no empirical evidence for their beliefs. Labels: Evolution denialism, Marcus Ross |
Denialism (n): the practice of creating the illusion of debate when there is none.
NY Times LA Times The Guardian BBC News SF Gate WSJ Science Links NatureScience NEJM JCI PLOS Biology PLOS Medicine Science Blogs A Blog Around the ClockAetiology Bad Science Conspiracy Factory Deltoid Give Up Blog Good Math, Bad Math The Intersection Pharyngula Respectful Insolence The Scienceblogs network Anti-Denialist Autism/Mercury Autism DivaNeurodiversity Bronze Dog Not Mercury Evolution The Panda's ThumbPharyngula Sandwalk Evolgen Evo Wiki Talk Reason The Talk Origins Archive Global Warming Real ClimateA Few Things Ill-Considered How to talk to a sceptic (AFTIC) Deltoid Stoat ClimateDenial Daily Grist Integrity of Science HIV/AIDS AetiologyAIDStruth.org AIDS.org AIDSmyth The Body - on denialists Alternative Medicine Respectful InsolenceCSICOP QuackWatch What alternative health practitioners might not tell you Skeptico NCCAM 9/11 Conspiracy busting Scientific AmericanPopular Mechanics Screwloosechange Debunking 9/11 Orac's Deconstruction Animal Testing Animal Crackers (archives) Research Defense Blog AnimalRights.net Pro-Test General Skepticism SkepticoConspiracy Factory Geek Counterpoint Photon in the Darkness Bad Science Respectful Insolence CSICOP Snopes Wiki Denialism Wiki
resources |
46 Comments:
Mark,
You keep referring to Dover but I don't know how comfortable I am with allowing the courts to decide what counts as science. Consider the following "characteristics of science" from McLean v. Arkansas Board of Ed:
(1) It is guided by natural law;
(2) It has to be explanatory by reference to nature law;
(3) It is testable against the empirical world;
(4) Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and
(5) Its is falsifiable. (Ruse and other science witnesses).
While tenants 1 seems fairly reasonable, tenent 2 is in conflict with certain features of quantum mechanics, especially the lack of concordance between quantum mechanics and general relativity (i.e. as currently conceived, it is often impossible for both to be true at the same time).
Tenant 3 excludes a lot of theoretical work that typically counts as science (such as multi-verses and certain strange items within quantum mechanics). Moreover, it excludes most "discovery science." You can't go out and discover some new feature and then "test" it against itself. This is like having someone grade their own test and leads to circular reasoning.
Furthermore, tenent 3 assumes some form of scientific realism wrt philosophy of science, which is not (nor has ever been) a requirement to do science.
Tenent 4 is uncontroversial (although some people act as if it's false) but tenent 5 is, again, based on a certain philosophical view of science (i.e. Popper's falsibility criterion) that is not necessarily agreeable to all scientists.
In summary, these five tenants are based on what I'd call a jr. high understanding of science. Many professional scientists don't necessarily work in concordance with these "guidelines."
When we start letting judges (who typically have little if any training in either science or, more importantly, philosophy of science) start determining what is and is not science, we are going to get burned at some point. It's fine when your side winds but what are you gonna do when a federal judge, or even the supreme court, rules in favor of a broader definition of science that could include more than material causes or is more Aristotelean in nature?
AW
April 4, 2007 1:33 PM,
I would tend to agree, when you ask scientists for their definition of science you get a lot of different definitions.
However, I'd argue two things.
1. The legal precedent isn't about defining science but what should be taught as science to public school children. In other words, it should have a higher degree of certainty, and you could make the argument that string theory and such purely theoretical ideas that have not been tested don't deserve to be taught.
2. Part of the reason for the Discovery institute and the entire idea of intelligent design is to subvert the legal definitions of science. It doesn't matter what the real scientific definitions are, they're not interested, they're just trying to get creationism in the classroom. To do that, they have to beat the legal tests, not necessarily meet the more fluid epistemological definitions of science.
Finally, I'm much more of a Popperian so the falsifiability thing to me is really important. I'm working on writing a post about how the creationists are proud of how they use inductive reasoning for their theory of ID. If you ask me science should be deductive and falsifiable. That judges need to come up with concrete definitions is just a fact of life, they have to deal with the law after all. But that definition isn't bad for identifying the solid kinds of science that belong in the classroom. When you start getting to the frontiers, yes things get a bit more hazy, but it's with the goal of one day passing tests like those.
April 4, 2007 2:08 PM,
Also I disagree with characterizing quantum mechanics and relativity failing at #2.
Each theory is easily testable in the real world, I've done tests of each in college and they are highly verified theories. The problem is getting them to interact with each other in a way that includes gravity.
You wouldn't throw out Newtonian mechanics just because they fall apart at high speeds, and they are what kids are taught first in physics class. Just because a theory operates within certain limits doesn't mean it can't be useful to learn, or not count as science.
April 4, 2007 2:25 PM,
Mark,
I see where you're coming from. I tend to be more Khunian and inductive in my approach to science. I'm one of those guys who feels that Aristotle got a bad rap in some areas. Indeed, DNA seems to make more sense from an Aristotelean perspective than a purely reductionistic perspective. The rise of systems biology is beginning to challenge reductionism directly and it will be interesting, particularly in medical research, to see what the landscape looks like when the dust settles.
Interestingly, I read the paper you linked and a lot of what he says seems to make sense. I didn't really have much of a problem with his demarkations. ID doesn't need to be equated with YEC (or any other form of creationism) in order to not count as science. Sometimes, when you hit harder than you need to, you make your opponent seem stronger than they really are. I think that the Richard Sternberg situation is a case in point.
Also, I think that by insisting that all ID folks are just attempting to push creationism into schools, you run the risk of the counter argument (that "evolution" is just an attempt to force atheism into schools) gaining more force. Of course, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett et al don't help this at all. But, aside from that, it does have the added problem of sounding a bit conspiratory. The case of Richard Sternberg is rife with the appearance of conspiracy thinking by the folks at NMNH. I mean, when NPR (not exactly a bastion of conservatism) sides with Sternberg, that suggests to me that NMNH may have taken things a bit too far - so far as to do more harm than good in the long run.
April 4, 2007 2:27 PM,
Mark,
When quantum mechanics suggests that affects can preceed causes, that the expections of the observer can effect the results of an experiment, etc. then you have to either conceed #2 or postulate alternate natural laws for the quantum world. Indeed, it is this feature of quantum mechanics that causes some scientists to reject realism.
The fact that quantum mechanics and general relativity don't play well together simply exacerbates this but, as you suggest, is not likely insurmountable.
My point is simply that when judges pretend to be philosophers of science, they are bound to mess things up.
April 4, 2007 2:35 PM,
Or you can just say that those effects are subject to Planck's constant (6.6 x 10-34 J*s) and are of little importance to anything but subatomic particles and light on a quantum scale. You get in big trouble whenever you take principles from quantum mechanics and apply them to anything much bigger than an atom so that's no excuse. Yeah, light acts really funny, I still don't think that's a violation of #2, or is inconsistent with other natural theories since we're talking about completely different natural realms. The microverse is really weird.
As far as suggesting all ID folks are trying to push creationism into schools justifies the projection defense (that the materialist darwinists are doing the same), I'm going to disagree. The evidence, from Dover v. Kitzmiller and elsewhere, demonstrates this is not a conspiracy but a directly-observable fact. It's right there to be seen and the judge saw it in this case and called them liars. That's a pretty exceptional event in the annals of jurisprudence, usually judges are, well, more judicious. Also, it's contradicted by the fact that ID has no data, no facts, no real basis for calling itself a science. So the only real reason to promulgate it is if you're a denialist, in this case, a denialist who is interested in undermining evolution because it upsets your biblical world view. There is simply no other reason for the theory to exist. There certainly isn't any good evidence for it, and as long as they're using denialist tactics, I'm going to treat them as deceptive liars.
April 4, 2007 2:48 PM,
Mark,
If that's true and the "evolution is just atheism" defense is false, then how do you deal with Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett? They say, flat out, that evolution is all about atheism and that any notion of God is just poppycock. The even go so far as to say that evolution has indeed disproven any need to appeal to God (Ken Miller says this as well). Do we just relogate them to the fringes or do we take them seriously?
It get's pretty close to a catch 22 here. If you relogate Dennett and Dawkins et al to the fringes because they insist that evolution is all about atheism then you lose two of the "big guns." However, if you conceed their point, then you have given ID it's leg to stand on. I don't see how to have it both ways.
April 4, 2007 3:01 PM,
Hell, if anything quantum mechanics is all about atheism. That's what pissed Einstein off.
I don't think that's a fair characterization of what Dawkins is saying, I'm unsure of Dennet's argument, I'm not as familiar with him. Dawkins is saying there is no proof that God exists and that if anything there is good evidence he doesn't. Every time I've seen him pressed on it he claims that he leaves open the possibility that god exists (since intellectual honesty requires atheists not to deny the possibility/can't prove negatives etc.). I have not heard him say that evolution disproves God, I've heard him say it disproves creation myths, but that's not the same thing unless you believe in biblical literalism (Ken Ham) and even the DI tries to distinguish itself from the YEC (as does Ross in the paper).
April 4, 2007 3:19 PM,
If you relogate Dennett and Dawkins et al to the fringes because they insist that evolution is all about atheism then you lose two of the "big guns."
The "big guns" are the mountains of evidence for evolution. I'm not sure if Dawkins or Dennett were ever even mentioned in the Dover trial, and it seems unlikely to me. Willing to be proved wrong, though.
Speaking of evidence, we have a pretty nice smoking gun in the form of the Wedge Document, which explicitly mentions that the ID'ers are using this as a "wedge issue" to get God back into public schools. And the "cdesign proponentists" version of the ID textbook. I am not aware of any corresponding documents of an Evil Atheist Scientific Conspiracy to Promote Evolution; certainly I wasn't ever required to sign such a thing (...IN BLOOD!).
Just because there are two camps on an issue, does not mean that each side has equal merit. Similarly, it does not mean that if one camp makes an accusation, the other camp's mirror-accusation has equal merit. How do you decide between the two? Evidence.
The scenario you describe is akin to a man found holding a knife, covered in blood, with the victim at his feet, saying to the police "Well maybe YOU'RE the murderers, huh?!"
April 4, 2007 3:46 PM,
Tim,
If the "Wedge Document" is the smoking gun that ID is just an attempt to sneak God into schools, the "The God Delusion" is the smoking gun that evolution is an attempt to force God out of schools. In it, Dawkins equates early religious education with child abuse. I find it hard to take that any other way than suggesting that any talk of religion in school is bad.
Of course, Dawkins does display his cowardice in that he directs most of his vitriole at Christianity. Imagine if he had the stones to speak of Islam and Mohamed in the same fashion...
April 4, 2007 5:57 PM,
darwin denier,
I think you're giving Dawkins a bit too much credit. I can't imagine that most scientists share his radical atheism. Besides, when was the last time he published a real scientific paper.
I can speak for no one but myself but I have a hard time taking Dawkins too seriously. He's just to "out there" for my taste.
aw
April 4, 2007 6:09 PM,
The various comments about quantum mechanics have been about the philosophical interpretation rather than the science. These feature heavily in popular science books but aren't really part of day to day science such as magnetic resonance which is all about preparing quantum states, manipualting them and reading them out.
Likewise Dennett and Dawkins are primarily popularisers of evolution. Their views about evolution and religion are philosophical and not scientific. It is not really part of day to day science involving evolution.
Dennett and Dawkins might be the highly visible face of evolution that many people see but if you really want to get a good impression then you should look at the thousands of research papers written every week.
The distinction between science and ID is that of course ID has only popularisers and no actual research.
April 4, 2007 6:56 PM,
But... but the consistent public statements of a Ken Miller or Francis Collins that evolution only strengthens their faith in God's creation must mean that evolution is a religious conspiracy as well as an atheistic one! I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S TRUE ANYMORE!
Wait, perhaps there's a difference between the nonscientific opinion of a scientist and the mission statement of an entire movement. A mission statement that makes it clear that they are being publicly dishonest about their beliefs, motives and strategy, and that the basis of the "theory" is wholly unscientific.
Nahhh, that can't be it.
April 4, 2007 8:10 PM,
Since you insist on continuing to insult my intelligence...
An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: "I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one." I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.
-- Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, p. 6
The more you understand the significance of evolution, the more you are pushed away from the agnostic position and towards atheism.
-- Richard Dawkins, from The New Humanist, the Journal of the Rationalist Press Association, Vol 107 No 2
Are science and religion converging? No. There are modern scientists whose words sound religious but whose beliefs, on close examination, turn out to be identical to those of other scientists who straightforwardly call themselves atheists.
-- Richard Dawkins, The Devil's Chaplain (2004)
For example, Ken Miller gives lip service to God while relogating him to the Heisenberg Uncertaintity Principle - the last remaining "gap" into which to stuff God. Paraphrase from Finding Darwin's God
Francis Collins is only dragged out when you need to invoke a scientist who isn't an atheist. The rest of the time you are ashamed of his position as a theistic evolutionist (or is Francis Collins really your hero and you have just failed to mention it till now?).
Let's stop playing games, shall we. In order to be a scientist in good standing, one must either actually be an atheist or pretend to be an atheist.
darwin denier
emphasis added in all quotes
quotes "mined" from
Positive Atheism's Big List of Richard Dawkins Quotations
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/dawkins.htm
April 5, 2007 1:19 AM,
DD,
Perhaps I'd be less condescending if you didn't demonstrate a consistent fondness for evading the point, like all reality deniers. It's tiresome and of course I'm going to get snappish.
But for your benefit I'll repeat myself once.
I never denied that Dawkins has opinions like that. But as I said, his opinions are not shared by all biologists, many of whom are religious, nor is there any systemic effort to promote atheism through evolution.
Again I challenge you to show me a single document, like the Wedge or the ICR's Statement of Faith, that requires atheism or evolution.
Not to mention that the approaches are diametrically opposed: those Dawkins quotes you posted quite clearly state that he feels atheism is the conclusion that proceeds from the evidence (evolution). The DI and ICR, on the other hand, quite clearly spell out (in the Wedge and Statement of Faith, respectively) that they have The Truth and it's just a matter of ginning up some evidence to fit that conclusion.
Not to mention the DI's dishonesty about their motives (getting God into public life while publicly disavowing that their "designer" is God) while at least Dawkins is upfront and very, very vocal about his motives. Who has something worse to hide?
Francis Collins is only dragged out when you need to invoke a scientist who isn't an atheist. The rest of the time you are ashamed of his position as a theistic evolutionist (or is Francis Collins really your hero and you have just failed to mention it till now?).
Who, me? So you're a mind reader now?
I've made a grand total of maybe ten posts here so far. Less, if you don't count snotty one-liners. I think I've maybe written three or four replies directly to you. None of my posts had said anything about theistic evolutionists until then; in fact I deliberately avoided mentioning them in the previous post because I felt the emphasis should remain on the evidence of dishonesty of the Disco Institute at an institutional level, of which there is plenty.
But I must have hit a nerve there for you to whine like that. Care to actually address the point head-on this time? Does the existence of many religious biologists not undermine your idea that evolution is some grand atheistic conspiracy?
April 5, 2007 8:58 AM,
Hell, the majority of people in my lab are Christian, the majority of people in science are religious. The idea that science is an atheist conspiracy is one of the more poorly justified statements I've heard yet. The stats indicate that about 40% of scientists have formal religious beliefs, another 15% have vague or agnostic belief, and atheism is actually a (narrow) minority unless you start restricting the field to just the National Academy which is majority atheist.
I've known and worked with excellent scientists who had religious beliefs and still believed in evolution (and who think you guys are crackpots).
April 5, 2007 9:36 AM,
Hell, the majority of people in my lab are Christian, the majority of people in science are religious. The idea that science is an atheist conspiracy is one of the more poorly justified statements I've heard yet. The stats indicate that about 40% of scientists have formal religious beliefs, another 15% have vague or agnostic belif, and atheism is actually a (narrow) minority unless you start restricting the field to just the National Academy which is majority atheist.
I've known and worked with excellent scientists who had religious beliefs and still believed and evolution (and who think you guys are crackpots).
April 5, 2007 9:36 AM,
I can't believe what I'm reading on this blog. Richard Dawkins is the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. This is like the most important university in the world. He's like the most important science writer in the world. His views are as close to the "official" view of evolution and science as there is and you guys are backing off on him? So, now I suppose you're gonna try and tell me that Richard Dawkins doesn't represent mainstream thought? What about Stephen Hawking? He agrees with Dawkins. Is he out of the mainstream? And Peter Singer? All these guys say the same thing - if you have evolution and science then you don't need God to explain anything.
In my opinion, Dawkins is exactly right. Sure, there are scientists who claim to be religious but, as Dawkins says, they aren't really any different from the ones who are atheists so their religion must not be very important.
As far as ID and creationism, in my opinion, they're exactly the same. ID is just an attempt to dress up creationism and make it look acceptable. For this Chris fellow to suggest that ID and YEC are extremely different is nothing but a pathetic equivocation.
You guys need to grow some balls and be prepared to support the truth that Darwin made the world safe for atheism. Religion is nothing but a cop out. Like Dawkins said, it's a viral meme that, like any virus, needs to be wiped out. Nothing good ever came from religion, just prejudice, war, death, etc.
darwin's finch
April 5, 2007 11:17 AM,
His views are as close to the "official" view of evolution and science as there is
...
...
You have a creationist's level of understanding of science. Good grief.
The closest thing to an "official view" in science is a consensus view -- still not the same thing and no guarantee of truth, but the closest thing nonetheless -- and as we've been saying (fruitlessly, it seems), Dawkins does not represent a consensus, and his philosophical viewpoint is not scientific.
Dawkins is right that many religions make testable claims (and unsurprisingly, fail those tests). He is in a much weaker position when he tries to argue the philosophical position that evolution rules out religion, as you are when you try to imply that this is a scientifically-supported view.
But I don't know, maybe you can point me to some of the peer-reviewed scientific literature in support of the hypothesis that evolution rules out religion.
... Oh, there isn't any? Then you have no business trying to pass that off as a "scientific" viewpoint.
You also oversimplify the ID'ers motives. Many are literalists in an unconvincing disguise, yes. ID grew out of the creationist movement, it is true. Hell, their Wedge document even explicitly calls for a return to "the traditional doctrine of creation" in churches.
But I have no doubt that some IDers' views are exactly as they represent them. Keep in mind that creationism encompasses both "old earth" and "young earth", depending on the creo's personal threshold of how much evidence would be too insane to ignore. Behe is a Catholic -- conservative, yes, but not a Jesus-jumpin' fundie -- and he's been pretty consistent in public about his acceptance of evolution/common descent. I tend to think he's genuine.
There's also the Straussian/neo-con perspective, where simplistic religious beliefs are used as a tool of social control, to be employed but not believed by the "intellectual ruling class."
The rank-and-file, of course, end up confusing ID and YEC anyway, but how could they not, given the motives of many of the ID leaders and the recycled creationist strategies?
But that's still nowt to do with the diversity in viewpoints of their leaders. So, yes, the ID movement does encompass a wide range of irreconcilable opinions, but as has been aptly pointed out, they, like all crackpots, dare not argue with one another lest their own pet ideas come apart under similar scrutiny.
April 5, 2007 12:07 PM,
I don't see anyone backing off from Dawkins, I think he's being made to sound more extreme than he really is.
I'd rather not have the discussion of the tactics of denialism devolve into a debate over whether or not science disproves religion though. That debate is better for other blogs, or hang with PZ Myers.
Here we are interested in discussing what makes a crank a crank. How do you identify a crank. How should we get the word out that this organization exists to perpetuate the ideas of cranks.
If Dawkins comes in as part of the discussion I see him only as a distraction from the facts. Evidence supports evolution, and intelligent design is just creationism. Their wedge document proves it, their actions prove it, their complete absence of evidence for their ideas prove it. They are denialists.
I'm not going to waste my time with philosophical discussions about the implications of evolution. I'm interested in describing what makes a crank. Sorry DF, not every blog can be about prosyletizing your particular point of view.
April 5, 2007 12:15 PM,
Hell, the majority of people in my lab are Christian, the majority of people in science are religious.
For the most part I have no idea whether my colleagues are christian, atheists or whatever and I don't particularly care. The same goes for most people I know. Nobody asked me whether I was an atheist. Reviewers don't know the religious views of the authors of the papers they review.
The idea that you have to swear allegiance to Darwin and Dawkins to be permitted to do science is just plain stupid. It indicates that Darwin Denier has little or no experience of science.
April 5, 2007 8:32 PM,
Chris Noble said:
"The idea that you have to swear allegiance to Darwin and Dawkins to be permitted to do science is just plain stupid."
darwin denier responds:
Tell that to Richard Sternberg. Better yet, try writing a grant for a line of research that involves testing an hypothesis that disagrees with Darwin (or evolution in general).
April 6, 2007 12:56 AM,
The Richard Sternberg case is a trumped-up case of false martyrdom invented by the Disco Institute to try to gain sympathy for ID.
Hilariously, the appendix to the Souder report on the whole affair, compiling the emails on which the report is supposedly based, directly contradicts most, if not all, of the major claims of this supposed case of "persecution". It certainly doesn't paint a very flattering picture of him at any rate. For some reason my IP is blocked from viewing those PDFs at work (perhaps because I'm at the NIH? OMGCONSPIRACY!!1!), but maybe you'll be able to. Otherwise those three links I posted up top give a pretty thorough account of what's in them, and a debunking of the whole affair.
Best part is, he's still employed in his prior positions at the NIH and NMNH. So... how did he suffer, exactly? Is it because those nasty, nasty "Darwinists" asked questions (GASP!) about the paper he shepherded through the editorial process, a situation that would raise questions even if real science were involved?
I guess that's it, really, the most offensive thing to creationists: how DARE Darwinists expect us to giuve straight answers, and try to expose our unethical behavior! Why, I'm getting the vapors!
...
Better yet, try writing a grant for a line of research that involves testing an hypothesis that disagrees with Darwin (or evolution in general).
Why should we do something the ID'ers never bothered to do themselves? Why can't the Disco Institute spend some money of their own to fund such research? They have quite the sizable budget, enough to keep a few decent-sized labs running.
Oh, right, it's easier to issue press releases, make up martyrdom complexes, and whine, whine, whine.
April 6, 2007 8:03 AM,
Better yet, try writing a grant for a line of research that involves testing an hypothesis that disagrees with Darwin (or evolution in general).
Most research that is funded tests part of the current science. Most papers that get published show new results that challneg what has been published before. There is a constant pressure to do novel research. You don't get anywhere in science by just blindly regurgitating textbooks. Ironically, this leads to standard Denialist tactic number 25a - "Science keeps on changing, Truth is constant".
The Periodic Table according to the Kansas school board
April 8, 2007 6:49 PM,
Tim,
In the e-mail traffic, folks at NMNH were, in the course of a punitive investigation, asking questions about Sternberg's religious beliefs and political affiliations. "Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of l964 prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals because of their religion in hiring, firing, and other terms and conditions of employment. The Act also requires employers to reasonably accommodate the religious practices of an employee or prospective employee, unless to do so would create an undue hardship upon the employer (see also 29 CFR l605)." - Source: EEOC Religious Discrimination website
So these sorts of questions were inappropriate on their face. And to alledge, as does Eugenie Scott, that Sternberg kept his position after the dust settled doesn't pass muster. The very fact that questions about his religious and political beliefs were raised is a violation of the the Civil Rights Act. This isn't "trumped up" by the Discovery Institute, it's a matter of public record and law.
But consider the possible implications of this. NPR, a bastion of conservatism, considered the incident significant to academic freedom. According to NPR, Sternberg's reason for allowing the article through was:
"Because evolutionary biologists are thinking about this. So I thought that by putting this on the table, there could be some reasoned discourse. That's what I thought, and I was dead wrong." (emphasis added)
If Sternberg's academic freedom can be quashed in such a cavelier fashion, who's to say that your views, where they happen to stray from the mainstream, won't be next? In fact, the whole point of academic freedom is to protect views that stray from the mainstream.
Finally, it seems to me that the whole situation is counter productive from the perspective of NCSE, this blog, PT and others. A major criticism of ID is the lack of peer-reviewed publications. Steven Meyer manages to get a paper published and the editer who published it is harrassed to the point of attracting a congressional investigation. To the outside observer, it would appear that certain folks are determined to make sure that ID *never* has a paper published. If ID is such a crack-pot view, then let it be published and kicked around. If it's as silly and misguided as you suggest, then it will go the way of phlogiston and ether theory.
dd
April 9, 2007 12:45 PM,
Here's the broken link for the NPR article.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5007508
April 9, 2007 12:48 PM,
Sternberg made a huge and obvious mistake. Don't publish articles by bullshit artists in a scientific journal read by scientists.
ID has no novel data, they have no real research, all they can do is point at other researchers and tell us that if we squint, it looks like ID.
They publish silly reviews, and they make unsubstantiated claims about biological engines (Wells even did this at ASCB last year in a poster), but where is the benchwork? ID is trying to skip a step. They're trying to be taken seriously as a science without doing the work of proving their hypothesis.
Sternberg was wrong to allow that paper to be published. It unjustifiably contaminates the literature with creationist bullshit. I'd be pissed too, and criticize him endlessly for it, he was nuts to do this. So what if people gave him a raft of shit? He deserved it, and that's what happens in science when you give journal access to crackpots. Academic freedom violation my ass, the Smithsonian researchers had far more reason to heap criticism on him and chastise him than he had to publish bullshit from liars.
This is the problem. Denialists want to be treated as honest brokers in some kind of debate. But there is no debate here, and they're not honest brokers (do we really need to bring the wedge document into another discussion?).
We're not going to just let HIV/AIDS denialists publish papers in real journals just because some people believe that bullshit. There is no parity of scientific belief here, you guys are denialists and bullshit artists and your demands to be treated as equals will fall on deaf ears until you guys actually do some real work rather than nitpicking at others and making up BS journals so you can publish your flat earth silliness.
Sorry, you deserve little more than contempt, and that's what you're going to get. Every single ID argument is torn to pieces, they're jokes, the intelligent design movement is a fundamentally dishonest political ploy to get creationism taught in schools, and you have no primary research. Anyone who publishes crap from the DI deserves to be mocked brutally for being taken in by scoundrels.
April 9, 2007 1:53 PM,
Mark,
The problem, however, is that the vitriol in the NMNH will quite possibly lead to legislation that will make Sternberg's treatment criminal. It could also lead to legislation that would prevent a public university from denying employment to a qualified candidate based on their espoused beliefs in ID. This would be bad indeed, don't you think?
It is one thing to criticise Sternberg professionally for publishing the Meyer paper. It is quite another to attempt to bring his religious and political beliefs into the fray. This was a clear violation of his civil rights and, IMHO, beyond the pale for professional conduct. Moreover, it could very well end very badly for us. Lest we forget, Chief Justice Roberts is the new Chancellor of SI.
AW
April 9, 2007 3:22 PM,
It is unclear to me how much of that was done by his actual superiors and how much was just Smithsonian scientists trying to find explanations as to why he would publish creationist articles. Yes, we should not break the law. I'm with you there. But for his colleagues to give him hell is perfectly ok by me. I have trouble believing they would manage to legislate away the ability of scientists to criticize their peers.
This false-persecution complex though is getting kind of old. One thing the supporters of the Discovery Institute and the ID creationism in general don't understand is that once you've been proven to have falsified in science, no one ever listens to you again. They complain about these barriers erected to unfairly keep them from publishing, well, you know, advancing a creationist agenda under false pretenses and getting caught lying about it in federal court is the kind of thing that permanently dampens scientific enthusiasm for your future submissions.
You think Hwang Woo Suk will ever be able to publish again as a leader of a lab? No. Science has a tendency to blacklist liars permanently. As far as I'm concerned they got caught cheating, none of them should be allowed to publish ever again. Just like all the other liars and fabricators that have been caught before. So if a paper were to come to me under the DI letterhead? Instant rejection. Liars can't be trusted.
I also don't really believe that the DI and their ilk are really churning out papers with novel data every day and are just being held back by big mean peer reviewers and editors. Most of the stuff they manage to slide through are reviews and fluff. No original data, nothing to justify their continued contribution. You can't create a theory based entirely on publishing reviews you know. You need real papers that aren't just hypotheses and conjecture (like that crap Wells was pushing at ASCB last year).
April 9, 2007 3:52 PM,
Questions about his affiliations were very relevant to the issue at hand, considering that he and Meyer were fellow-travelers in the same 'intellectual' circles, had attended the same closed conferences, and very likely had at least heard of each other, if not been in actual contact.
Professionally, this is the sort of situation that typically calls for an editor to recuse himself and pass it on to another editor, or at least to allow greater transparency in the editorial process itself. Sternberg did not furnish the names of his selected editors to his senior editor, even though that information could have been kept confidential.
Furthermore, the article was completely outside of the journal's scope. The journal deals with taxonomy, and Meyer's article is a hopeless mess of typically mealy-mouthed, poorly-defined mumbling about "information." And he bypassed the Council (which does have the final say in the matter, and which would strike down papers of inappropriate content) to sneak it into publication.
Sternberg does have a history of collusion and shepherding as well: his own paper was "reviewed" (very critically, I'm sure) by fellow baraminologist Todd Wood, and DI Fellows Paul Nelson and Jonathan Wells.
Given all this, questions of his associations are very relevant in such a matter. They just happened to be crank associations in this case, and gave them their opening to cry "persecution!"
Al, I doubt anything will come of this legislatively. At best there are a few cranks like Souder still pushing this issue, but nobody's listening. Souder's case is weaker than a baby panda with MS.
April 10, 2007 8:33 AM,
Mark and Tim,
I certainly respect your right to disagree with me but it makes me pretty nervous when a person's religious beliefs can be brought to bear in a situation like this. What's next: putting questions about religious affiliation and beliefs on job applications at university biology departments and research institutes? Will people be asked to show their voter registration cards to prove they are members of the "correct" political party?
I have no problem if the paper was judged inappropriate after-the-fact but the questions about his religious beliefs and political affiliations were out of line, IMHO.
aw
April 10, 2007 12:37 PM,
Tim wrote:
"Sternberg does have a history of collusion and shepherding as well: his own paper was "reviewed" (very critically, I'm sure) by fellow baraminologist Todd Wood, and DI Fellows Paul Nelson and Jonathan Wells."
What paper is this? In the reading I have done, Sternberg has staunchly refused being a creationist of any sort, or even a theological evolutionist. To call him a barminologist seems pretty extreme.
aw
April 10, 2007 12:40 PM,
Sternberg and Baraminology
and his treatment at the NMNH
April 10, 2007 1:04 PM,
What paper is this? In the reading I have done, Sternberg has staunchly refused being a creationist of any sort, or even a theological evolutionist. To call him a barminologist seems pretty extreme.
Hi Al,
I have to (gasp) admit to an error. I'd recalled that Sternberg was accused of this, but shamefully did not double-check. Sternberg thanked those individuals for "criticism" at the end of his paper, but it does not appear that they were peer reviewers (referees) for the journal. The Wiki article doesn't directly accuse him of shepherding, but they placed that section immediately after discussion of the Meyer paper, so the implication is pretty strong. I moved those sentences up a bit to a more appropriate area, and tried to make it clearer that they didn't seem to be referees for the article.
Nonetheless the point still stands that the Meyer paper was extremely badly handled, to say the very least, and he gave no indication of being cooperative when questions were raised, so he gets no sympathy if suspicion spills over to his other published work.
Secondly, the association with a "baraminology" group is puzzling if one does not share their fundamental views. As Mark and I have pointed out repeatedly, YEC requires denying mountains of well-established facts about the age of Earth, fossils, DNA, etc., that are fundamentally incompatible with even OECs.
I'll take his word that he's not a YEC. As far as I'm aware he hasn't denied being an OEC, ID'er, baby-eatin' atheist evilutionist, UFO cultist, or anything else so it's hard to say where exactly he stands. That said, the entire point of the baraminology group is to undermine mainstream science and come to completely contrafactual conclusions about the nature of life, the Universe, and everything. One does have to wonder why Sternberg would offer "friendly criticism" over formal details about structuralism when, for instance, his talk at this baraminologist conference has him rubbing shoulders with someone who references Noah's Flood as a given.
I still maintain that the questions about whether he was a YEC'er are relevant. He travels with them, speaks at their conferences, of course it's natural to assume that he's one. This isn't just a matter of religious persecution as well (though I thought YEC was supposed to be 'science' and could be divorced from religion...), it's a matter of honesty and accuracy. Creationists are fundamentally dishonest about the facts, about science, and about their motives for shoehorning creationism into schools. It's something to be worried about when your institution's good reputation for accurate science is on the line.
So, fine: let's say Sternberg isn't a YEC or even an ID'er. He still acted dishonestly in shepherding the Meyer paper. He hangs around with YEC'ers, apparently ignoring the 800 lb. gorilla in the room as long as he gets to talk about structuralism (something he could do at any mainstream scientific meeting if he wished). If this creationist's account of one of his talks at a baraminology conference is to be believed, he misrepresents structuralism completely, stating -- quite unbelievably -- that structuralists think that "these rules of development never evolved, but were provided from outside nature" (emphasis mine), which is not just outside any sort of conventional scientific view, it is flatly and trivially false of structuralists in specific. He has no problems attaching his name to that hatchet job of a Souder Report, and letting people badmouth his supervisor and the Smithsonian in general when the internal e-mail evidence didn't support his claims in the slightest.
Frankly, I wouldn't believe him if he said he was a carbon-based humanoid. It's like we've been saying, though, this is "big tent ID", where the main point is getting Jesus into public schools (indeed, all aspects of public life), not getting the science right.
April 10, 2007 2:45 PM,
From Sternberg's page on the Meyer paper:
"...I discussed the [Meyer] paper on at least three occasions with another member of the Council of the Biological Society of Washington (BSW), a scientist at the National Museum of Natural History. Each time, this colleague encouraged me to publish the paper despite possible controversy."
"The Meyer paper underwent a standard peer review process by three qualified scientists, all of whom are evolutionary and molecular biologists teaching at well-known institutions... Subsequently, after the controversy arose, Dr. Roy McDiarmid, President of the Council of the BSW, reviewed the peer-review file and concluded that all was in order. As Dr. McDiarmid informed me in an email message on August 25th, 2004, "Finally, I got the [peer] reviews and agree that they are in support of your decision [to publish the article]." " (empasis added)
It seems that there are at least five other people (the unnamed collegue, the three anon reviewers and Dr. Roy McDiarmid) who are equally responsible for the publication of this paper. Why is it that only Sternberg has been targeted for harrassment? Why has no one looked into the religious beliefs of Dr. Roy McDiarmid or any of the reviewers?
April 10, 2007 4:23 PM,
Here's a more complete quote from McDiarmid:
I have seen the review file and comments from 3 reviewers on the Meyer paper. All three with some differences among the comments recommended or suggested,publication. I was surprised but concluded that there was not inappropriate behavior vs a vis the review process. Whether one would consider the reviews appropriate is another issue and I would be pleased to share my views on that with you if you so desire.
There's more to this than Sternberg is telling.
There are still a lot of details missing, too; did McDiarmid know who the reviewers were? Nobody else does; Sternberg has kept pretty schtum about that. The reviewers also apparently recommended acceptance, pending revisions; what were those revisions? Had they been incorporated? Again, McDiarmid doesn't say.
None of which really alters the fact that the content of the article did not fall within the journal's purview, and that large portions of Meyer's article were rehashes, if not outright copies from past Meyer articles. Appropriateness of content and originality of the work are vital criteria for publication in a scientific journal, and deliberate sidestepping of those standards is, in itself, an undeniable breach of ethics in scientific publishing.
Also, I finally found working links to the Souder report and the appendix containing the emails in question. The emails show the Smithsonian people pretty much bending over backwards to make sure he gets treated fairly, not to mention disproving Sternberg's other specious claims (the key-return policy, etc.).
It's fun reading, I encourage our resident denialists to check it out. At the very least if you have some specific claims of incidents of harassment, name them or scan the emails yourself for some indication of what might have really been going on.
April 10, 2007 6:20 PM,
Tim wrote:
"There are still a lot of details missing, too; did McDiarmid know who the reviewers were? Nobody else does; Sternberg has kept pretty schtum about that. The reviewers also apparently recommended acceptance, pending revisions; what were those revisions? Had they been incorporated? Again, McDiarmid doesn't say."
I thought the whole point of anon reviewers was to allow them to be as ruthless as necessary to adequately review a paper without fear of reprisal. In this situation, it makes even more sense that they would not want to come forward. Given the fallout that Sternberg has experienced, it's not at all suprising.
As far as the changes recommended, I have never seen a paper that pointed out what changes the reviewers suggested. I'm not even sure that would be appropriate, just as knowing the identity of the reviewers is generally considered inappropriate.
April 10, 2007 8:01 PM,
All I said was we don't know if McDiarmid knew who the reviewers were, or knew of their affiliations, if any. I have no reason to doubt McDiarmid's sincerity, but all we have to go on is a brief and ambiguous email, which Sternberg selectively quoted.
As far as the changes recommended, I have never seen a paper that pointed out what changes the reviewers suggested.
Where did I say that it should be in the paper? I just said that has never been made clear in this whole mess, either from McDiarmid's brief email or Sternberg's own words.
And again, WHAT "fallout"? The fallout where Sternberg got his appointment renewed at the Smithsonian? You're taking as a given what is in dispute here. If you could give a specific example it would help.
Again, read the emails. There were very real, and legitimate concerns about his (poor) handling of specimens, his hoarding of books, and the fact that barely anyone knew who he was given that his supervisor had died two years before and he tended to show up on off-hours. He was asked to turn in his key because they were switching to a keycard system and he had access to other peoples' private offices, which is out of the question for anyone in his position (not a full employee, working under supervision, after-hours access).
Anyway all of these things are quite clear in the e-mails in the appendix. Again I recommend reading it then coming back with something more specific in mind.
April 10, 2007 8:57 PM,
"[Sternberg's] association with a "baraminology" group is puzzling if one does not share their fundamental views."
It doesn't seem all that uncommon for workers from disperate points of view to collaborate in areas where their methods sufficiently overlap, which is what Sternberg suggests on his page.
Lynn Margulis has a fundamental disagreement with most evolutionists over how life began and developed and yet she is the president of Sigma Xi. It is likely that most of the membership disagrees with endosymbiosis (at least to the extent Margulis espouses it) but they are still able to work together. (Personally, I find a lot to be commended in endosymbiotic theory.)
It's not strange to me that Sternberg might recognize that the baraminologists are working towards an understanding of the inter-relatedness of life-forms from their own perspective (with which he disagrees) but is still able to collaborate where their methods overlap. It seems to me to be the mark of a very mature and self-secure person when they can productively collaborate with folks with whom they substantially disagree.
dd
April 11, 2007 7:29 PM,
Margulis' disagreements are somewhat out there, but nowhere near the level of denial of reality that would necessitate belief in a 6000 year old Earth, a worldwide flood, etc. Again, as with SJG/SCM, she agrees on the facts but has her own framework and conceptual models to apply.
There are plenty of biologists with whom Sternberg can collaborate who aren't trying to overthrow 200 years of scientific knowledge. If he wished to, anyway. Their "methods" aren't even all that similar, since mainstream structuralist models explicitly call for time frames and rates of change that are flatly denied by YECers. It's like a mathematician collaborating with someone who thinks 2 is 3.
April 11, 2007 8:46 PM,
Tim,
I doubt that a young earth, global flood, etc are implicit in baraminology. Afterall, there are old earth creationists who believe in fixity of type (at whatever taxonomic level they ascribe this to be). All of them would deny a young earth (most hold to standard cosmologies) and many, if not most, would tend to hold to more of an anthropologically universal flood than a geographically universal flood (I tend to favor the former myself).
Again, I think that you are attempting to lump folks together needlessly. There is an extraordinary breadth of opinion on both sides of the discussion. On the one side, you have folks like Michael Behe, who has more in common with Ken Miller than with Henry Morris. On the other side, you have folks that run the gammot from the recent resurgence of Larmickianism to standard gradualists to punc eq/hopeful monster/macro-mutation and, of course, endosymbiotic theory (which is difficult to place on any continuum with more standard darwinian/lamarckian views).
dd
April 12, 2007 12:55 AM,
I doubt that a young earth, global flood, etc are implicit in baraminology.
Not according to the BSG mission statement, no (which nonetheless notes that its leadership is comprised of YECs).
But that's not my point.
My point is, again we're getting back to the hypocrisy of "big tent" creationism/ID. I've looked through their meeting programs, and everyone has their own personal hobby-horses to ride, but nobody's addressing the 800 lb. gorilla in the room, which is that there are still individuals espousing ideas that have been contradicted by 200+ years of accumulated scientific evidence.
These are not trivial differences; if Sternberg were to "helpfully" collaborate with a YEC and conclude that the morphological distance between two taxa could be accounted for if one uses conventional geological time, and the YEC rules that out out-of-hand because that's a longer period than 6,000 years, how does that help either researcher? Sternberg thinks ("micro")evolution can account for the difference, but the YEC does not; two different conclusions on the same evidence, tainted by a preconception contradicted by mountains of evidence. Sternberg has just "unwittingly" helped a YEC garner underserved legitimacy for a wrong conclusion based on assumptions that have no factual basis. (Structuralists also accept common descent, which is explicitly rejected out of hand by the a priori religious beliefs of the BSG, according to their own statement.)
The only benefit out of such a relationship is the perception that science has been done, and that science supports a creationist position.
Whether Sternberg believes YEC, OEC, or ID himself is irrelevant. He is participating in a sham relationship to present a unified front. To give a false veneer of legitimacy to pseudoscientific proceedings.
April 12, 2007 7:58 AM,
And I'm still waiting for somebody to give me any evidence that Sternberg was harassed and persecuted. Any specific incident would be swell.
Be sure to read the report and the appendix, so we're on the same page.
Or is it that you all have read the appendix and found the accusations to be baseless...?
April 12, 2007 8:01 AM,
Tim,
I have already expressed my opinion that the questions regarding his religious beliefs and political affiliations were inappropriate and, legally, can constitute harassment. If these sorts of questions are considered illegal (according to the Civil Rights Act) in terms of hiring, firing, promoting, etc, then they are inappropriate in this situation as well.
Whether the questions came from his supervisors or co-workers matters not. It still can be construed as creating a hostile work environment. Workplace harassment has progressed well beyond sexual harassment and now includes issues exactly like this.
I know that you disagree with that characterization but it is indeed an answer to your question.
aw
April 12, 2007 1:26 PM,
What were the questions? When were they asked and in what context? If you can supply a specific reference (page number, etc.) in the Souder report it might help.
April 12, 2007 2:56 PM,
I drove Al away. :(
But perhaps I made a new friend, since Sal Cordova himself seems to be paying attention to this thread!
Hi Sal!!! :)
Al and I are in quite a pickle, Sal, quite a pickle indeed! We cannot seem to find the part of the Souder report where Sternberg was grilled about his religious beliefs? But I am very absent-minded and willing to correct myself when in error (see above). Perhaps you can help!
Please say you will, Sal, it would be ever so nice. As you can see I am not being mean-spirited at all, I am merely seeking information!
Thanks!!!! :) :) :) :) :)
April 16, 2007 12:21 PM,
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home