Comment #14918

Posted by Nick (Matzke) on February 3, 2005 05:50 PM (e) (s)

OK, so if anyone sees any of those 15 sources that were parroting Klinghoffer/Sternberg retract their claims and apologize for jumping the gun, post the link here…

Comment #14925

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on February 3, 2005 07:15 PM (e) (s)

Readers should feel free to also link other instances of jumping to grand overrarching conclusions based solely on Klinghoffer’s opinion piece.

Here’s another one, this one comparing scientists to the Inquisition:

Weapon of Mass Distraction

Comment #14928

Posted by Bryson Brown on February 3, 2005 08:08 PM (e) (s)

This looks far worse for Dr. Sternberg than the original publication of Meyer’s piece.  That merely involved publishing work he seems to be sympathetic to without proper review.  But if Dr. Sternberg has really attempted to falsely portray himself as a martyr, Dr. Coddington has grounds for legal action.  On the other hand, if the story has been distorted by Mr. Klinghofer, his reputation as a journalist is (or should be) toast after this.

Comment #14929

Posted by PvM on February 3, 2005 08:33 PM (e) (s)

Bryson, first of your claim ‘without proper review’ seems at odds with what is known since there were three reviewers who commented. One may question the quality of the peer review but the peer review step was not skipped here. Secondly, we do not know the full story although/because we have now two sides of the same story. Let’s not jump to conclusions either way until we have sufficient data to make an educated decision.

Comment #14930

Posted by Michael Buratovich on February 3, 2005 08:33 PM (e) (s)

Maybe this whole mess is the result of one person not liking another.  It is possible that either Sternberg does not like Coddington or Coddington does not like Sternberg and their political and religious differences are simply fodder for the rumor mill.  Perhaps this is a row that these two grown-up, mature chaps should resolve on their own without the papers gossiping about it.  Maybe a trip to pub is due and after a few vittels and grog they will see that the other is really not such a bad bloke in the first place.  Why get the papers involved?  Sternberg has not been fired or sacked.  He should just get one with his work (whatever that might be).  If the papers call, Sternberg should tell them to go chase an ambulance and then eat some crow.  However if Sternberg is the one who called the papers in the first place, then he should either publish a formal apology or resign his position at the museum.

Comment #14931

Posted by PvM on February 3, 2005 08:39 PM (e) (s)

Michael, do you feel that Sternberg should resign if details show that Sternberg called the papers, even if his description of what happened is found to be credible and supported by evidence? Just for ‘calling the papers’?
Let’s not blow things out of proportions until a clearer picture arises. Perhaps the WSJ or the author of the original piece will be able to contribute their side(s) of the story? So many unanswered questions remain and such little data we possess. Let’s not rush to judgement.

Comment #14932

Posted by Keanus on February 3, 2005 08:42 PM (e) (s)

When I read Klinghoffer’s piece a week ago, the quotes Klinghoffer attributed to Dr. Coddington and his colleagues sounded like something from a grade B Hollywood detective movie, too perfect for the piece to be real. In real life, such quotes would reflect more contradictions and inconsistencies than they did. And I seriously doubt that the Smithsonian professional staff would say anything so stupid, to Sternberg or Klinghoffer. It  also seemed, with his many errors in describing ID and evolution, that Klinghoffer understood little about the issues involved and was in all likelihood an ID sympathizer. But extrapolating from Coddington’s claims in his posting, there seems to much more to Sternberg’s relationship with the Smithsonian than his handling of the Meyer paper. Given the proclivity of ID backers for martyrdom and persecution, I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if Coddington’s brief statement is much closer to the truth than Klinghoffer’s.

Incidentally, I wonder how the Wall Street Journal came to publish the column. Klinghoffer is not a WSJ staffer, nor do I recognize his name (I’ve subscribed to the WSJ since the early ‘70’s) as an occasional contributor. They must have had some doubts about the piece because it was not on the editorial/op-ed pages but on the opinion page that graces the last page of their weekend section on Fridays, a section filled with fluffy articles about trivial subjects and ads for expensive vacation houses and over priced objects.

Comment #14933

Posted by Keanus on February 3, 2005 08:45 PM (e) (s)

When I read Klinghoffer’s piece a week ago, the quotes Klinghoffer attributed to Dr. Coddington and his colleagues sounded like something from a grade B Hollywood detective movie, too perfect for the piece to be real. In real life, such quotes would reflect more contradictions and inconsistencies than they did. And I seriously doubt that the Smithsonian professional staff would say anything so stupid, to Sternberg or Klinghoffer. It also seemed, with his many errors in describing ID and evolution, that Klinghoffer understood little about the issues involved and was in all likelihood an ID sympathizer. But extrapolating from Coddington’s claims in his posting, there seems to much more to Sternberg’s relationship with the Smithsonian than his handling of the Meyer paper. Given the proclivity of ID backers for martyrdom and persecution, I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if Coddington’s brief statement is much closer to the truth than Klinghoffer’s.

Incidentally, I wonder how the Wall Street Journal came to publish the column. Klinghoffer is not a WSJ staffer, nor do I recognize his name (I’ve subscribed to the WSJ since the early ‘70’s) as an occasional contributor. They must have had some doubts about the piece because it was not on the editorial/op-ed pages but on the opinion page that graces the last page of their weekend section on Fridays, a section filled with fluffy articles about trivial subjects and ads for expensive vacation houses and over priced objects.

Comment #14934

Posted by Gary Hurd on February 3, 2005 08:48 PM (e) (s)

Here are some YEC (young earth creationist) comments following a repost of Klinghoffer’s accusations.

Oh, no! The eviloutionsts must be wringing their ape like hands as they now converge to cannibalize him - one of their own, no less!

Still the evilutionist must dig in their heels and continue to defy the religion of evolution. Their pride and name are at stake. They must band together and marginalize and vilify this person since their PRIDE and credibility are at stake. All of the premises an evolutionist has are based on NO GOD at all hence, God or “Intelligent Design” must not be given credence much less mentioned. After all why would an atheist want to give credit to the masterpiece of the universe to Someone he/she doesn’t believe in? God? It would make more sense to credit something else and rob Him of His credit and deny His words in Genesis.

In case you haven’t figured it out yet, evolution is a religion. It’s commonly called atheism. Even some “Christians” have their ears tickled by the idea of evolution - most unwise … .

Very interesting, God keeps trying to make Himself known even to unbelievers through His Creation. They are certainly not scientifically minded for they should want to know the truth even if it is in war with their long held beliefs. That is what science is all about. Researching all aspects even those that are “distasteful” to our views. Look at what has happened in the past when Mankind was not open minded to the truth. We would still believe the planet is flat along with the idea that the earth is the center of the universe if scientifically minded people did not buck the “known truths” of the time.

As science continues to explore biology and the stars there are more than enough reasons to question Darwinism now than ever before. One has to ask, what are they afraid of? Why is this fear not any different than the fear the church had centuries before when centralized earth was in question?

All this reminds me of the garden of eden … Eve takes the fruit and Adam eats some of it - all to be WISE. It is the foolish “wisdom” of man and his pride that is pushing evolution … certainly not scientific facts. God is not the author of confusion and that is what godless evolution and origins are based on - random confusion made into order.

Comment #14939

Posted by Nick (Matzke) on February 4, 2005 12:57 AM (e) (s)

PvM speaketh wisely…

Comment #14943

Posted by Jeremy Hallum on February 4, 2005 08:24 AM (e) (s)

There’s a second freeper thread on the subject.  The first was pulled as it was a duplicate of this one:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1332845/posts#comme…

No mention of the Panda’s Thumb thread (yet)

Comment #14951

Posted by ACW on February 4, 2005 12:07 PM (e) (s)

As this story develops, I will be especially interested in the eventual resolution of one particular discrepancy between Klinghoffer’s account and Coddington’s.

Coddington says (C3, supra) that he was von Sternberg’s only “supervisor”.  Klinghoffer reports, however, that Coddington “called Mr. Sternberg’s supervisor” to ask questions about von Sternberg.  Klinghoffer uses a feminine pronoun to refer to the person Coddington purportedly called.

OK.  This is good.  We now have a Mystery Woman, and I for one would like to know who she is and hear her side of the story directly.

Comment #14956

Posted by Les Lane on February 4, 2005 01:10 PM (e) (s)

Some insights on Klinglhoffer

Comment #14991

Posted by Keanus on February 4, 2005 07:22 PM (e) (s)

The Wall Street Journal published four letters today re Klinghoffer’s report on the Sternberg/Meyer affair. One straightforwardly supported evolution, describing ID as failing “…to add anything to our understanding.” Another mentions Sternberg’s membership on the editorial board of the Baraminology Study Group, the nature of that organization, and the shortcomings of ID as science. A third support Sternberg, likening him to Galileo. The fourth, which follows, sheds some actual light on the circumstances of Sternberg’s presence at the Smithsonian, to wit…

To set the record straight:

  It should be noted that Richard Sternberg is not a Smithsonian employee. He is a staff member of the National Center for Biotechnology Information at the National Institutes of Health. As a research associate he has permission to study collections at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History for a three-year term.

  Dr. Sternberg’s characterization of his work conditions and treatment at the Smithsonian is incorrect. He was never denied office space, keys or access to the collections. More importantly, the private religious beliefs of employees and research associates are respected by the museum, and have no bearing on their professional standing within the museum.

Randall Kremer
Director of Public Affairs
National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution
Washington

Enough said.

I also came across a web site include Sternberg’s CV, a letter from the BSG’s organizer, and Sternberg’s relating in detail of how he handled Meyer’s paper, the events following its publication, and some narrative about his position at the Smithsonian and his relationship with colleagues there. I neglected to note the URL, but one should be able to turn it up via Google.

Comment #14992

Posted by Great White Wonder on February 4, 2005 07:30 PM (e) (s)

Thanks for the interesting link, Les.

My most intense reaction to [Klinghoffer’s] book, however, was stark disbelief that someone as intelligent as Klinghoffer could be fooled by some of the bad logic he presents in this book. Every argument Klinghoffer makes regarding the need to believe in the divine authorship of the Torah and the Talmud I could refute on simple basic logic.

So, it seems we have another fundamentalist eager to characterize scientists as anti-religious, and religion as scientific fact.  Yawn.

Comment #14993

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on February 4, 2005 07:33 PM (e) (s)

I also came across a web site include Sternberg’s CV, a letter from the BSG’s organizer, and Sternberg’s relating in detail of how he handled Meyer’s paper, the events following its publication, and some narrative about his position at the Smithsonian and his relationship with colleagues there. I neglected to note the URL, but one should be able to turn it up via Google.

Or via The Meyer 2004 Medley, which links to Richard von Sternberg’s home page, as well as a lot of related information.

Comment #15001

Posted by David Wilson on February 5, 2005 01:06 AM (e) (s)

ACW wrote:

Coddington says (C3, supra) that he was von Sternberg’s only “supervisor”.  Klinghoffer reports, however, that Coddington “called Mr. Sternberg’s supervisor” to ask questions about von Sternberg.  Klinghoffer uses a feminine pronoun to refer to the person Coddington purportedly called.

OK.  This is good.  We now have a Mystery Woman, and I for one would like to know who she is and hear her side of the story directly.

I would presume she is Sternberg’s supervisor at the National Centre for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), where he is apparently employed as a staff scientist.  In fact, having noted in Reed Cartwright’s earlier posting that he was so employed at NCBI, I first assumed that his supervisor there was the one being referred to in the extract from his complaint quoted in Klinghoffer’s article.  But a subsequent part of the quotation seemed to throw some doubt on this. The “supervisor” is quoted as having said “There are Christians here, but they keep their heads down.”  The presence of Christians who keep their heads down at NCBI would seem to me to be irrelevant to an understanding of the goings-on at the Smithsonian.

There is one other curious thing about Coddington’s response.  He says

I am, and continue to be, his only “supervisor,” although we use the term “sponsor” for Research Associates to avoid personnel/employee connotations. He has had no other since Feb. 1, 2004, nor was he ever “assigned to” or under the “oversight of” anyone else.

But the NMNH’s own list of research associates names one Brian Kensley as Sternberg’s staff sponsor, not Jonathon Coddington.

Comment #15002

Posted by PvM on February 5, 2005 01:08 AM (e) (s)

Another example is Salvador on ARN who ‘argues’

Well, I edited to take the word Darwinist out, if you care to I can list the the organizations like the NCSE, NAS, PandasThumb, bloggers who are professors at universities, etc. who are officially sympathetic to ensuring Sternberg and friends views are permanently silenced in the scientific community…

RBH has asked Sal for some evidence, so far Sal has done little to support his claim, but we should at least admire his leap in logic in the Topic: Official Declarations that Sternberg and Friends should be silenced

Sal states: Official Declarations that Sternberg and friends views should be silenced pertaining to intelligent design.

Example quoted

These encouraging signs tend to get lost in the ongoing hullabaloo over “intelligent design creationism: (IDC). Creationism “and this is true of all its guises” is an antiscientific worldview. It rejects the fundamental precept of science that phenomena in the natural world should be interpreted through naturalistic explanations that are accepted (always tentatively) or rejected by reference to observation. Followers of IDC are no different from the creationists of old; at some point each wants to back away from rational scientific inquiry and explain phenomena by appeal to supernatural causation.

  Joel Cracraft

Sal: If ID is unscientific, Cracraft implicit declares appeals to Intelligence are not within the scope of science. Appeals to Intelligent are by definition unscientific in his view therefore should be suppressed.
—————

Thanks Sal…

Comment #15007

Posted by David Wilson on February 5, 2005 07:46 AM (e) (s)

In comment #15001

I wrote:

… having noted in Reed Cartwright’s earlier posting that he [Sternberg] was so employed at NCBI, I first assumed that his supervisor there was the one being referred to in the extract from his complaint quoted in Klinghoffer’s article.  But a subsequent part of the quotation seemed to throw some doubt on this. The “supervisor” is quoted as having said “There are Christians here, but they keep their heads down.”  The presence of Christians who keep their heads down at NCBI would seem to me to be irrelevant to an understanding of the goings-on at the Smithsonian.

I have just realised that if the supervisor is Sternberg’s superviser at NCBI then this observation of hers would make perfect sense if it were made to Coddington in response to his alleged queries about Sternberg’s religious and political views.  It seems to me that the words used in Klinghoffer’s article could be interpreted as saying this—-though I must admit I don’t think it’s the most natural way of reading them.

Comment #15010

Posted by PZ Myers on February 5, 2005 09:03 AM (e) (s)

Speaking as someone who is probably the most brutally, harshly atheistical and flamingly left-wing of all of the contributors to the Panda’s Thumb, I gotta say that Klinghoffer’s account of religious persecution was patently absurd. I would never declare that a colleague should be singled out for harassment because they were religious or conservative, nor would I try to get them fired for their beliefs. Most scientists are far more respectful of the religious perspective than I am, so my bullshit detector was ringing loudly throughout that entire WSJ piece—it simply doesn’t jibe with how scientific institutions are administered, but does fit with the right-wing extremist’s caricature of academia.

Comment #15012

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on February 5, 2005 09:33 AM (e) (s)

Wilson wrote:

But the NMNH’s own list of research associates names one Brian Kensley as Sternberg’s staff sponsor, not Jonathon Coddington.

I suspect that Kensley was Sternberg’s old supervisor and the NMNH’s listing hasn’t been update.

Comment #15016

Posted by mumon on February 5, 2005 10:35 AM (e) (s)

You left off <a href=”http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/001173.html#more…“>Evangelical Outpost</a>, in the credulousness AND attacking scientists department…check out my link in the trackback there.

Comment #15017

Posted by PvM on February 5, 2005 10:47 AM (e) (s)

The ARN moderators, who are quick to ban critics seem to be a bit clueless when it comes to behavior by Sal or other ID proponents

Originally posted by RBH:
Provide specific references to support the charge of “officially sympathetic to ensuring Sternberg and friends views are permanently silenced in the scientific community” or withdraw it.
RBH

RBH,

ARN Moderator 6: Are you objecting to the word “permanently”?

——————————
the original comment by Sal was

Well, I edited to take the word Darwinist out, if you care to I can list the the organizations like the NCSE, NAS, PandasThumb, bloggers who are professors at universities, etc. who are officially sympathetic to ensuring Sternberg and friends views are permanently silenced in the scientific community….

So far Sal has provided little supporting evidence relevant to his claim. For instance PT authors have been very clear on this topic.

Comment #15021

Posted by Great White Wonder on February 5, 2005 03:49 PM (e) (s)

PZ writes

Speaking as someone who is probably the most brutally, harshly atheistical and flamingly left-wing of all of the contributors to the Panda’s Thumb

I support a cap on personal income at $1,000,000/yr.  Top that, bro’! ;)

As far as Sal’s comments are concerned, they are completely over-the-top.  Sternberg is free to say whatever he wants about any scientific topic.  And scientists (and non-scientists) are free to laugh out loud, ignore him, or praise him as a brave genius fighting to save modern biology from itself.

As Pim and others point out, the facts regarding Sternberg’s lawsuit are mostly unknown to us. 

But Sternberg has admitted to other facts which, in my mind at least, indicate a lack of sound judgment that can’t be waved away by appeals to “healthy skepticism”.  All this assumes, of course, that a reasonable scientist is not interested in promoting the agendas of groups who seek to pull the rug out from under basic principles of biology.

Comment #15022

Posted by Steve Reuland on February 5, 2005 04:09 PM (e) (s)

Salvador Cordova wrote:

Well, I edited to take the word Darwinist out, if you care to I can list the the organizations like the NCSE, NAS, PandasThumb, bloggers who are professors at universities, etc. who are officially sympathetic to ensuring Sternberg and friends views are permanently silenced in the scientific community….

While this sort of thing royally pisses me off, you’ll hardly find a better demonstration of how ethically bankrupt the ID crowd is.  This statement is slander, plain and simple.  Our “official” statement, if you can call it that, is in fact the exact opposite of what Sal claims.  And since Sal has seen it mulitiple times, he has no excuse.  I can only assume that this kind of behavior is the result of small-minded malice.  If this is not the case, then Sal is welcome to come here and apologize profusely, if he has any honor or decency.

Comment #15027

Posted by PZ Myers on February 5, 2005 07:16 PM (e) (s)

$1 MILLION? What are you, some kind of plutocrat? Who needs more than $100K?

Comment #15030

Posted by jeff-perado on February 5, 2005 08:40 PM (e) (s)

I say let’s be semi-plutocratic, split the difference and cap wages at $550 G’s a year….

But getting back to the issue at hand, why hasn’t anyone pointed out that Klinghoffer’s piece of (pseudo)news never even bothered to attempt to find out what the Smithsonian’s side of the story was?  He took Sternberg’s story as “gospel” truth, and that was that.

I would like to see how well a WSJ journalist fares if they were to print a story from a person who claims they were abducted by aliens and the government is conspiring to cover up the whole incident….  After all, one person’s claim of a truthful story is just as valid as another person’s!

I’m not equating Sternberg to an alien abductionist, but why print a story without even attempting to find out if the facts are true???

Comment #15045

Posted by Steve Reuland on February 6, 2005 10:05 AM (e) (s)

jeff-perado wrote:

But getting back to the issue at hand, why hasn’t anyone pointed out that Klinghoffer’s piece of (pseudo)news never even bothered to attempt to find out what the Smithsonian’s side of the story was?

In the article, he claims he attempted to contact Coddington and the other guy he smears (Sues?).  He says they didn’t return his phone calls.  I wouldn’t have either.  But either way, he should have made it clear that Sternberg’s allegations were nothing more than that — allegations.  One gets the impression that Klinghoffer had throughly vetted his source, when it turns out that the materially important claim (i.e. Sternberg’s loss of access) was flat-out false according to the museum.

Comment #15050

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on February 6, 2005 11:54 AM (e) (s)

Steve Reuland wrote:

One gets the impression that Klinghoffer had throughly vetted his source, when it turns out that the materially important claim (i.e. Sternberg’s loss of access) was flat-out false according to the museum.

It gets worse with the retelling, too. Take a look at the WorldNetDaily article. There is nothing more in it than what appeared in Klinghoffer’s opinion piece, but it is written to give the impression of an independent report. Notably, WND left off the bits about trying to contact the Smithsonian. Probably didn’t even cross their minds as something to try.

WorldNetDaily wrote:

“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.

The above is as close as the WND writer comes to crediting his source. Klinghoffer wrote an opinion piece, but to the WND that becomes a report in the Wall Street Journal.

I’ll be happy to make a public apology to the anonymous WND author if he can demonstrate that he had actually accessed Sternberg’s OSC complaint prior to writing the article. Somehow, i don’t think that circumstance will arise.

Comment #15051

Posted by Andrea Bottaro on February 6, 2005 11:56 AM (e) (s)

I think it’s very surprising that the Smithsonian Institution came out so quickly, and officially, on Coddington’s side.  It would have been much safer for them to simply say that an investigation is under way, state some abstract principle about freedom of expression and declare they do not tolerate workplace discrimination.  That was either entirely foolish on their part, or they have very good evidence that Sternberg’s claims, at least as presented in the WSJ, have no substance.

Comment #15052

Posted by steve on February 6, 2005 12:08 PM (e) (s)

Has nobody started a Lies of WingNutDaily site yet? These propagandists are creating a right-wing bloc which is growing and growing.

Comment #15055

Posted by Steve Reuland on February 6, 2005 12:36 PM (e) (s)

I think it’s only a matter of time before WorldNetDaily gets slapped with a massive lawsuit.  I don’t think anyone could have lower standards of journalism if they tried.  Sooner or later it’s going to bite them in the ass.

As for a website that catalogs WND lies, try Ed Brayton’s blog.

Comment #15058

Posted by Keanus on February 6, 2005 01:17 PM (e) (s)

Friday’s Wall Street Journal (4 Feb 05) offered its weekly “Science Journal” by Sharon Begley on “People Believe a ‘Fact’ That Fits Their Views Even if It’s Clearly False.” In it Begley reports on a study led by Stephan Lewandowsky, of the University of Western Australia to be published shortly in Psychological Science regarding the beliefs and the veracity of those beliefs, even after they’re proved wrong. Specifically the study queried people in Germany, Australia and the US about reports from Iraq, some true and some not, and the later retractions for those that were untrue. Lewandosky noted “By the time they [the subjects] receive a retraction, the original misinformation has already become an integral part of that mental model, or world view. And disregarding ti would leave the world view a shambles.” Lewandosky and his co-authors conclude “People continue to rely on misinformation even if they demonstrably remember and understand a subsequent retraction.” Interestingly it was Americans who were most vulnerable to believing in what they “knew” to be untrue. As Begley writes “…the simple act of remembering that they had once heard something was enough to make them regard it as true, retracction be damned. Even many of those who remembered a retraction still rated the original claim as true.”

I suspect many of our politicians treat their campaign statements, or those of their surrogates, like toothpaste—once it’s out of the tube, you can’t put it back. And as Begley concludes “The findings…offer Machiavellian possibilities for politicians.. They can make a false claim that helps their cause, contritely retract it—and rest assured that some people will…keep thinking…” it’s true.

We all probably have anecdotal experience in our own lives for such behavior, but I think Sternberg, Klinghoffer, and the theocrats of ID manifest it in spades.

The article is available to subscribers or for a one-time fee at wsj.com.

Comment #15060

Posted by PvM on February 6, 2005 01:21 PM (e) (s)

Another goodie from ARN, combines evolution Nazis and other buzz words in one posting

ID's Bulldog wrote:

The way Dr. Sternberg (& Dr. Meyer’s article) have been attacked shows me the Nazi thought-police, ie materialistic naturalisms’ finest, are still out in force.

This is not only a travesty to intellectual freedom, critical thought and sound deductive reasoning, it reflects very poorly on the mettle of mankind.

Are people realy this whiny and frightened of new ideas? The thought makes me shudder.

Funny how ID’s bulldog seems to object to the peer review process of the Meyer paper…

Comment #15063

Posted by Mike Walker on February 6, 2005 01:52 PM (e) (s)

I suspect many of our politicians treat their campaign statements, or those of their surrogates, like toothpaste—once it’s out of the tube, you can’t put it back. And as Begley concludes “The findings…offer Machiavellian possibilities for politicians.. They can make a false claim that helps their cause, contritely retract it—and rest assured that some people will…keep thinking…” it’s true.

I can’t agree more, and while I’m sure that people of all political persuasions are guilty of distorting the facts to get across their agenda, the right-wingers are increasingly unashamedly unapologetic doing it.

This is from the PBS show NOW With Bill Moyers last year:

http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript351_full.html

HANNITY [10/29/04]: Why would Osama bin Laden, who’s been quiet for so long, come out and virtually try and influence the election today in favor of John Kerry by attacking the president the way he did?

MOYERS: Do you think what Sean Hannity said is fair?

VIGUERIE: Oh, absolutely.

MOYERS: But there’s no fact to back that up. There’s no effort to substantiate that with documentation.

VIGUERIE: That’s what journalism is. It’s just all opinion. Just opinion.

MOYERS: So says Richard Viguerie, a founding father of the modern conservative movement and still one of its most powerful figures. In this new book, Viguerie tells the story of how over the past 40 years the right came to dominate American politics by creating alternative and new media, everything from computerized direct mail to Fox News.

So, basically, the facts don’t matter - if you can get your message across and people believe you then the real truth is of no consequence.

This is a sad day for America.

Comment #15072

Posted by Steve on February 6, 2005 03:36 PM (e) (s)

Comment #15055

Posted by Steve Reuland on February 6, 2005 12:36 PM

I think it’s only a matter of time before WorldNetDaily gets slapped with a massive lawsuit.  I don’t think anyone could have lower standards of journalism if they tried.  Sooner or later it’s going to bite them in the ass.

As for a website that catalogs WND lies, try Ed Brayton’s blog.

I want to believe this is true, despite the fact that Limbaugh is just as slanderous, yet hasn’t been stopped by a lawsuit.

Comment #15073

Posted by Steve on February 6, 2005 03:40 PM (e) (s)

IDiot bulldog wrote:

Are people realy this whiny and frightened of new ideas? The thought makes me shudder.

Since you want to replace a 140-yro idea with a 1000’s of years-old idea, perhaps they are.

Comment #15074

Posted by Great White Wonder on February 6, 2005 04:08 PM (e) (s)

Steve, that is an awesome and devastating rebuttal to one of the stupidest creationist claims about biologists.  Good job.

Comment #15075

Posted by RBH on February 6, 2005 05:04 PM (e) (s)

PvM wrote

Another goodie from ARN, combines evolution Nazis and other buzz words in one posting

To be fair, I reported that post and responded in-thread.  I just received an email from the mods.  ID Bulldog’s comment has been edited to take the “Nazi” remark out and my in-thread objection to it has been deleted.

RBH

Comment #15077

Posted by PvM on February 6, 2005 05:33 PM (e) (s)

Yes I noticed. An ID critic would by now have been banned…

Comment #15079

Posted by Ed Darrell on February 6, 2005 05:46 PM (e) (s)

There is a story in the Dallas Morning News this week about high school journalists at Cedar Hill High — they’ve exposed some wrongdoing and poor fiscal management in education administration.  Really solid reporting.

It’s a tragedy when high school students demonstrate better journalism skills than a major conservative opinion maker, and higher ethics.  The tragedy, of course, is the behavior of the World Net Daily people.

Their procedures do not qualify as complying with the ethical standards of the Society of Professional Journalists.  I wonder if they have any ethical code?  Does anybody know?

Comment #15083

Posted by melior on February 6, 2005 06:55 PM (e) (s)

I, for one, applaud the creationists’ and right-wing-media’s newfound admiration for my man Galileo Galilei. I’m heartened that in so doing they are decisively rejecting Biblical inerrancy, as well as the coupling of church and state.

“The Earth is firmly fixed; it shall not be moved.” -Psalms 104:5

“The doctrine of the movements of the earth and the fixity of the sun is condemned on the ground that the Scriptures speak in many places of the sun moving and the earth standing still… I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the Scriptures, but with experiments and demonstrations.” - Galileo

“Freedom of belief is pernicious.  It is nothing but the freedom to be wrong.” - Cardinal Robert Bellarmine

“Because I have been enjoined, by this Holy Office, to abandon the false opinion that the Sun is the center and immovable, …I abjure, curse, and detest the said errors and heresies…contrary to the said Holy Church.” - Galileo (under threat of torture and death by the Holy Church)

“Divine revelation is perfect and, therefore, it is not subject to continual and indefinite progress in order to correspond with the progress of human reason…. No man is free to embrace and profess that religion which he believes to be true, guided by the light of reason…  The Roman Pontiff cannot and ought not to reconcile himself or agree with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.” - Pope Pius IX

Now, can we get them to agree to renounce torture, as used by the Inquisition?

Comment #15084

Posted by PvM on February 6, 2005 08:27 PM (e) (s)

See the latest bloopers from the “Media Complaints Division” of the Discovery Institute’s Center for the renewal of Science and Culture

More on Sternberg: DI Heal Thyself

A classic blooper is

DI wrote:

While this criticism has problems of its own, there is no question that the publication of Meyer’s article was a bitter pill for ID critics to swallow. Instead of saying, “Okay, score one for ID. But it’s still 84,702 to 1,” the defenders of neo-Darwinian orthodoxy raised a series of bogus objections to avoid even the appearance of a debate.

When in fact PT stated the following

We congratulate ID on finally getting an article in a peer-reviewed biology journal, a mere fifteen years after the publication of the 1989 ID textbook Of Pandas and People, a textbook aimed at inserting ID into public schools.  It is gratifying to see the ID movement finally attempt to make their case to the only scientifically relevant group, professional biologists.  This is therefore the beginning (not the end) of the review process for ID.  Perhaps one day the scientific community will be convinced that ID is worthwhile.  Only through this route — convincing the scientific community, a route already taken by plate tectonics, endosymbiosis, and other revolutionary scientific ideas — can ID earn a legitimate place in textbooks.

Comment #15086

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on February 6, 2005 09:43 PM (e) (s)

Mature commentary on “intelligent design” shenanigans from PT contributors appears to be a bitter pill for ID advocates to recognize, much less represent accurately.

Comment #15087

Posted by Josh Narins on February 6, 2005 10:05 PM (e) (s)

The WSJ still publishes everyone who lied to them about Saddam’s WMD, and Clinton-Monica attack dog (and the guy who slept with the daughter of his ex-lover, made possible when the mother called him to ask him to help the daughter out in NY, and then forced the daughter to get an abortion).

The WSJ is shameless… assuming there is a profit in it.

Comment #15092

Posted by DaveScot on February 7, 2005 12:46 AM (e) (s)

I sure hope this nonsense isn’t being done on the taxpayer’s nickel.  We aren’t paying people at the Smithsonian to engage in this kind of silliness.  I hope for everyone’s sake that no one is using federally funded facilities or equipment to participate in this ideological flame war.

Comment #15094

Posted by Mike Walker on February 7, 2005 01:49 AM (e) (s)

Well the OSC is a federal agency so no matter who is in the wrong, federal funds are being spent. What’s your point?

All we have are allegations of inappropriate treatment by one or a few members of staff - even if the allegations are true, that is not a “flame war”.

Comment #15130

Posted by Steve Reuland on February 7, 2005 10:43 AM (e) (s)

Ed Darrell wrote:

Their [WND] procedures do not qualify as complying with the ethical standards of the Society of Professional Journalists.  I wonder if they have any ethical code?  Does anybody know?

Their sole ethical standard seems to be this:  Anything which advances The Cause is appropriate.  All other concerns (like honesty) are at best secondary.

I think the difference between these kind of people and the rest of us is that we consider good information to be necessary for forming a qualified opinion.  In other words, when one seeks the truth, it’s crucial to get the facts straight.  But they aren’t seeking the truth, they’re quite certain that they already possess it, and not only is it true, it’s True™, meaning it’s not potentially open to revision.  That being the case, the facts don’t really matter.  There’s nothing to be discussed, only converts to be won.

Comment #15170

Posted by Ken Willis on February 7, 2005 12:23 PM (e) (s)

I was very interested to find this site and read all the comments on ID, science and the Stephen Meyer/Richard Sternberg affair.  I agree completely with the viewpoint expressed here that ID is religion and not science.  I believe some shenanigan must have occurred for Meyer’s paper to have ever made it into a peer reviewed scientific journal.  But when I saw that most of the posters here have their own superstitutions and believe so much left wing tripe, all the air went right out of my enthusiasm.  Gads, just when I was wanting to believe how smart you all are you show me how gullible you are.

Comment #15171

Posted by PvM on February 7, 2005 12:26 PM (e) (s)

Hi Ken. You seem to be using quite a broad brush to characterize the various participants on this board.

Comment #15209

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on February 7, 2005 02:08 PM (e) (s)

Ken Willis wrote:

I was very interested to find this site and read all the comments on ID, science and the Stephen Meyer/Richard Sternberg affair.  I agree completely with the viewpoint expressed here that ID is religion and not science.  I believe some shenanigan must have occurred for Meyer’s paper to have ever made it into a peer reviewed scientific journal.  But when I saw that most of the posters here have their own superstitutions and believe so much left wing tripe, all the air went right out of my enthusiasm.  Gads, just when I was wanting to believe how smart you all are you show me how gullible you are.

I don’t believe you.

Comment #15227

Posted by Ed Darrell on February 7, 2005 02:37 PM (e) (s)

Not gullible, Ken.  More careful of what we claim to be fact, I think.

For my part, I’m a Christian who spent my early career in science and education policy on the staff of Orrin Hatch, and held a Reagan Administration appointment at the U.S. Department of Education. 

Does that make me a believer of “left wing tripe?”  Heck, back in those days, even conservative Republicans and Christians thought the truth, and facts, to be of value.  Now it’s only left-wingers who do?

Moral decay moves in ways that even the suspicious don’t suspect or expect, it might appear.

How would the beliefs of anyone here affect the facts of the Sternberg claims?  They wouldn’t.  What’s your beef?

Comment #15281

Posted by Steve Reuland on February 7, 2005 05:47 PM (e) (s)

*Sigh*.  What is with people on ARN anyway?  I don’t know why I succumbed to the temptation to look at it, but I find my name being mentioned.

teleologist wrote:

Steve Reuland wrote:

“One gets the impression that Klinghoffer had throughly vetted his source, when it turns out that the materially important claim (i.e. Sternberg’s loss of access) was flat-out false according to the museum.”
…
While Elsberry complains about people taking Klinghoffer’s article as gospel, he and Reuland doesn’t seem to have problem taking Coddington’s post as gospel.

I’m not sure what part of according to the museum wasn’t clear.  The museum has responded and disputed Sternberg’s main charge.  What I said was a simple fact.  I acknowledge the possibility that the museum could be wrong, but it’s absolutely true that this is their position.

Mike Gene wrote:

Steve Reuland:

quote:
—————————————————
In the article, he claims he attempted to contact Coddington and the other guy he smears (Sues?).
—————————————————

Sues is mentioned twice in the article:

1. “Neither Mr. Coddington nor Mr. Sues returned repeated phone messages asking for their version of events.”

2. “Soon after the article appeared, Hans Sues—the museum’s No. 2 senior scientist—denounced it to colleagues and then sent a widely forwarded e-mail calling it “unscientific garbage.””

Why is this a “smear?”

Yanked completely out of context, it’s not.  Yet it’s clear in the article that Sues’ is playing the roll of Evil Darwinist #2 next to Coddington’s Dr. Evil, the leader of the Evil Darwinist Conspiracy.  Persecution stories need persecutors, and they’re it.

Comment #15289

Posted by Bryson Brown on February 7, 2005 08:36 PM (e) (s)

PvM:  Though this stretches back a little while, I’ll do a little backfilling now that life has vouchsafed me another semi-quiet evening.  I tend to think of proper review as more than just finding some referees—content, not form, is the point. For example, when I submit an article critical of another philosopher the target is often asked to act as a reviewer.  In the case of Meyer’s article, that would call for a few evolutionary theorists, and I’m convinced (in part by material posted here) that the piece couldn’t survive such a review.  Moreover, it’s been widely noted that the subject of Meyer’s piece is well outside the usual run of papers in the journal.  So on that issue (absent some dramatic new information) I don’t think Sternberg has much credibility. 

For the rest, it was appearances I was talking about, not conclusions.  I do think this looks very bad for Sternberg— but, fair enough, it could still turn out that Sternberg really is the injured party.  Or that it’s all some honest but tangled misunderstanding.  Is anyone prepared to offer odds?

Comment #15296

Posted by Marty Erwin on February 7, 2005 09:40 PM (e) (s)

Research associate is historically a rather interesting and not uncommon title for someone working at the Smithsonian. Ellis Yochelson’s histories of C.D. Walcott include comments on a period of time when Walcott held the same title while effectively running the institution during the tail-end of Langley’s tenure as director. Sternberg’s conflict with Coddington isn’t unusual either, in the historic annals of science and bureaucracy inside the beltway. People ambitious for power and position are attracted to the area like bees to honey; is there any reason to think that ambition will not lead to personal conflict at some level? Sternberg and Coddington are to some degree both victims of media excesses. Sadly, they won’t be the last to suffer the slings and arrows of such outrageous fortune.

Now…for a completely unrelated question…does anyone know if this Sternberg is genetically related to the Sternberg family of fossil collecting fame? My irony meter awaits a response from those in the know.

Comment #15298

Posted by Ken Willis on February 7, 2005 09:58 PM (e) (s)

PvM is right, I am painting with too broad a brush and I apologize for that. Surely there is a wide range of political viewpoints on this board. I read some pretty left wing comments and just reacted to it. A cap on income?

I don’t fit in anywhere because I agree with conservatives on everything except intelligent design theory which I think is nonsense. I agree with the left on evolutionary biology but disagree with them on everything else.  I’m a lost soul.

Comment #15301

Posted by Ken Willis on February 7, 2005 10:10 PM (e) (s)

Ed Darrell:  Sorry, I guess I painted you with my broad brush.  You’re right.  A person’s beliefs do not affect the facts.  But I think a person’s beliefs might affect their perception of facts.  When someone has what seems to me to be a weird belief, such as that a cap on income would be good for us, or that something they call “irreducible complexity” renders 140 years of solid science untrue, I distrust their perception of reality and tend not to trust what they say in other areas.  Just me I guess.

Comment #15304

Posted by Great White Wonder on February 7, 2005 10:28 PM (e) (s)

Ken

I don’t fit in anywhere because I agree with conservatives on everything except intelligent design theory which I think is nonsense.

There is no reason that conservatives, especially those that are interested in America’s standing as a leader in science and medical technology, shouldn’t fight for science and against pseudoscience.

And we are more similar than you might think.  Look at it this way: we both agree that a $100,000 cap on income is ludicrous! ;)

In all seriousness, my understanding of macroeconomics is just a tad higher than the typical creationist apologist’s understanding of biology (one semester in college).  I rely on experts and my elected representatives to sort out the details.

Comment #15305

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on February 7, 2005 10:34 PM (e) (s)

Ken Willis,

PT has a longish list of contributors. The political views of each are not something that we have inquired into. Timothy Sandefur is a libertarian, and Ed Brayton either is or leans that way, too. PZ Myers is liberal, all right. Just check out Pharyngula.org. I don’t know whether we have someone in exactly your position politically, but I do regularly correspond with people matching your political description. About the only thing that we PT contributors all agree upon is that science education is too important to let people put in religious stuff and call it science. Everything else is noise. We aren’t, as a group, asking you to become a liberal, and I hope that you do come back to read articles here even if there are liberal comments to be found here, too.

I hope that you didn’t mind my jest a few comments ago, but as I hadn’t put in anything particularly leftist in the article up at the top, your comment has me somewhat mystified. This last comment of yours helped clear that up.

Comment #15309

Posted by RBH on February 7, 2005 11:35 PM (e) (s)

Ken Willis wrote

But when I saw that most of the posters here have their own superstitutions and believe so much left wing tripe, all the air went right out of my enthusiasm.  Gads, just when I was wanting to believe how smart you all are you show me how gullible you are.

Funny how some folks think only left-wingers believe that good science is important.  As it happens, I am an officer of the local Republican Party and am old enough to have voted for Barry Goldwater.  I am incensed that my party has been hijacked by a bunch of know-nothing science-twisting politicians who wouldn’t know a genuine conservative principle if it bit ‘em on the ass.

RBH

Comment #15318

Posted by jeff-perado on February 8, 2005 01:02 AM (e) (s)

Ken Willis:

I am sorry that you took our little salary capping joke so seriously, but it was nothing more than humor — although in reality a wide range of real jobs that real people who work do indeed have salary caps, government jobs, some professional sports, etc.  And the day that Wal Mart starts paying their greeters million dollar salaries, sign me up.  So don’t be too offended.

Anyway, yes, please don’t go away just because of some views of some of the commentors, we are all here for the science, not political ranting (there are any number of blogs for that)

Comment #15353

Posted by Ken Willis on February 8, 2005 10:05 AM (e) (s)

Well, I am both bowled over and chagrined.  I’m bowled over at the graciousness you all have shown me after my faux pas; and chagrined for not realizing the income cap was intended as humor.  I am touched by all of your comments, and especially overjoyed to find agreement from you that a true conservative would value scientific truth over emotional needs.  I look forward to learning a lot here, and hope that I can occasionally make a contribution.

Comment #15359

Posted by Ken Willis on February 8, 2005 10:48 AM (e) (s)

BTW, I recently found some hope on the right.  John Derbyshire, a writer for National Review, has called the Johnson-Demski-Behe arguments for intelligent design theory, “flapdoodle.”

Comment #15407

Posted by steve on February 8, 2005 03:53 PM (e) (s)

Derbyshire’s latest bit really hits the IDers hard. I’m sad to report I saw the link to it in today’s Kevin Drum post about ID, wherein he (Drum) totally botches macro and micro.

Comment #15410

Posted by Great White Wonder on February 8, 2005 04:07 PM (e) (s)

Steve

I’m sad to report I saw the link to it in today’s Kevin Drum post about ID, wherein he (Drum) totally botches macro and micro.

I saw that too.

I have noted that there is a tendency which may be unfortunate on the part of pro-scientists to argue that the terms “microevolution” and “macroevolution” are terms that were made up by creationists and have no meaning to scientists.

What seems to be correct is that the two terms *as used by creationists* are not meaningful (insofar as it is unclear where micro ends and macro begins and, more importantly, why one sort of evolution is “allowed” by creationist “science” and the other “not”).

But the terms are used by evolutionary biologists and have meanings (different from the meanings ascribed by creationists).  The terms even popped up in Mayr’s obituary.

THe bottom line, I guess, is that pro-science advocates should avoid arguing that the terms are “meaningless” and “scientists don’t use them”.  It’s really the definitions of the terms, as used by creationists, that are not useful to scientists.

Comment #15415

Posted by Ed Darrell on February 8, 2005 04:24 PM (e) (s)

Ken,

Way too often a blog is a means of whacking the “other” guys over the head, and nothing more.

I hope that you won’t let minor disagreements — or major disagreements — about political stuff scare you off from PT.  I hope we can find some common ground.

If you stick around, I suspect you’ll find some of your views may change, but I’d wager you’ll change the views of others even more.

In the meantime, there is dastardy afoot, and science- and truth-loving people everywhere have a stake in the scrap.  If Henry Waxman and Orrin Hatch can get together on health issues, if Churchill could sit down with Stalin to plan the liberation of Europe from one set of totalitarians, you and I, and others at PT, can probably find enough common ground upon which to take a principled stand, and do some good.

Science needs the support of thinking conservatives, too, at least as much as thinking conservatives need science.

Comment #15417

Posted by David Heddle on February 8, 2005 04:29 PM (e) (s)

A serious question. GWW wrote:

I have noted that there is a tendency which may be unfortunate on the part of pro-scientists to argue that the terms “microevolution” and “macroevolution” are terms that were made up by creationists and have no meaning to scientists

Could someone provide a simple explantion of these terms as used by biologists?

Comment #15418

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on February 8, 2005 04:34 PM (e) (s)

People could try out my old Jargon File over on the TalkOrigins Archive:

Microevolution

(n) [FAQ] 1. Evolution within the species level. [den., science] 2. Change in allele frequency in a population over time. [conn., SciCre] Note that this connotation is equivalent to evolution(1). All SciCre-ists so far admit that microevolution(2) is observed. Some TAEs may not. 3. Adaptation or variation. [conn., those TAEs who balk at microevolution(2)]

Macroevolution

* (n) [FAQ] 1. Evolution at or above the species level. [den., science] The boundary between macro- and micro- is fuzzy, as some researchers prefer to include speciation in micro- and others reason that the only macro- process that gives distinctive events is speciation. Speciation events are thus, to many scientists, examples of macroevolution. 2. Evolution too imperceptible to be observed within the lifetime of one researcher [conn., Goldschmidt, 1940]. While SciCre-ists are fond of quoting Goldschmidt when discussing his hopeful monster conjecture, they show no inclination to accept Goldschmidt’s connotation of the term macroevolution. 3. Evolution at a level which is not currently observed. [conn., TAE] This is a common connotation among SciCre-ists and TAEs, since it is open ended and easy to adjust with announcements of new observations. Depending upon the astuteness of SciCre-ists and TAEs in your local community, this may be asserted to be at levels ranging from species to family, with a marked preference for the word kind. Given the manner in which kind is defined, this becomes a tautology.

(Jargon File "M")

John Wilkins has a very nice essay on the origins and usage of the term “macroevolution” in evolutionary biology. It even comes up as the first hit on a Google search for “macroevolution”.

At the TOA, we are working to get a recently compiled dictionary of the history of the evolution/creation controversy. That should significantly extend or supersede my old effort in the Jargon File, which was meant to impart a bit of information in an amusing fashion.

Comment #15421

Posted by Steve F on February 8, 2005 04:39 PM (e) (s)

David,

As I understand it, macro refers to speciation, micro to evolution within a species.  YECs would, I think refer to macro being evolution across ‘kinds.’

Comment #15426

Posted by Paul King on February 8, 2005 04:49 PM (e) (s)

YECs would, I think refer to macro being evolution across ‘kinds.’

Which is impossible by definition.  Kinds are defined as being unrelated.

Comment #15451

Posted by Ralph Jones on February 8, 2005 06:21 PM (e) (s)

Paul King,

Would you define “kind” and give an example?

Comment #15458

Posted by David Heddle on February 8, 2005 06:50 PM (e) (s)

Wesley & Steve,

Thank you for the definitions.

Comment #15461

Posted by Great White Wonder on February 8, 2005 06:58 PM (e) (s)

Thank you for the definitions.

tick tock, tick tock, tick tock, tick …

Comment #15492

Posted by Ken Willis on February 8, 2005 11:05 PM (e) (s)

John Derbyshire is a well respected conservative writer in a highly regarded conservative magazine, so his words may help the cause of scientific and intellectual honesty among conservatives.  I think.  I hope.

I urge everyone so inclined to get a copy of the February 14, 2005 edition of National Review and read the whole article.  It is a cogent argument that other conservatives cannot easily ignore.  I want to cry when I hear William Buckley, a man I greatly admire, say he believes intelligent design, but I suppose maybe he just hasn’t given it much thought.  But he’s thought about everything, hasn’t he?  Oh well, I know he certainly will read or has read this article by Derbyshire. One of the many great things Derb said was:

It is odd to be reminded that I.D. is still around. I had written it off as a 1990s fad infecting religious and metaphysical circles, not really touching on science at all, since it framed no hypotheses that could be tested experimentally.

Comment #15531

Posted by Ralph Jones on February 9, 2005 06:06 AM (e) (s)

Surely, Buckley doesn’t support the teaching of ID as science!

Comment #15563

Posted by Russell on February 9, 2005 09:26 AM (e) (s)

Surely, Buckley doesn’t support the teaching of ID as science!

Read it , and weep. For many of us, just one more reason NOT to admire WFB.

Comment #15574

Posted by Paul King on February 9, 2005 10:27 AM (e) (s)

The most developed form of the “kind” concept may be found here: