Nevertheless, some members of the organization voiced their displeasure, so the society's governing council released a statement explaining, "Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The council, which includes officers, elected councilors and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings." So how did it get published? In the words of journal's managing editor at the time, Richard Sternberg, "it was my prerogative to choose the editor who would work directly on the paper, and as I was best qualified among the editors, I chose myself." And what qualified Sternberg to choose himself? Perhaps it was his position as a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design, which promotes intelligent design, along with being on the editorial board of the Occasional Papers of the Baraminology Study Group, a creationism journal committed to the literal interpretation of Genesis. Or perhaps it was the fact that he is a signatory of the Discovery Institute's "100 Scientists who Doubt Darwinism" statement.
Meyer's article is the first intelligent design paper ever published in a peer-reviewed journal, but it deals less with systematics (or taxonomy, Sternberg's specialty) than it does paleontology, for which many members of the society would have been better qualified than he to peer-review the paper. (In fact, at least three members were experts on the Cambrian invertebrates discussed in Meyer's paper). Meyer claims that the "Cambrian explosion" of complex hard-bodied life forms over 500 million years ago could not have come about through Darwinian gradualism. The fact that geologists call it an "explosion" leads creationists to glom onto the word as a synonym for "sudden creation." After four billion years of an empty Earth, God reached down from the heavens and willed trilobites into existence ex nihilo. In reality, according to paleontologist Donald Prothero, in his 2007 magisterial book Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters (Columbia University Press): "The major groups of invertebrate fossils do not all appear suddenly at the base of the Cambrian but are spaced out over strata spanning 80 million years—hardly an instantaneous 'explosion'! Some groups appear tens of millions of years earlier than others. And preceding the Cambrian explosion was a long slow buildup to the first appearance of typical Cambrian shelled invertebrates." If an intelligent designer did create the Cambrian life forms, it took 80 million years of gradual evolution to do it.
Stein, however, is uninterested in paleontology, or any other science for that matter. His focus is on what happened to Sternberg, who is portrayed in the film as a martyr to the cause of free speech. "As a result of publishing the Meyer article," Stein intones in his inimitably droll voice, "Dr. Sternberg found himself the object of a massive campaign that smeared his reputation and came close to destroying his career." According to Sternberg, "after the publication of the Meyer article the climate changed from being chilly to being outright hostile. Shunned, yes, and discredited." As a result, Sternberg filed a claim against the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) for being "targeted for retaliation and harassment" for his religious beliefs. "I was viewed as an intellectual terrorist," he tells Stein. In August 2005 his claim was rejected. According to Jonathan Coddington, his supervisor at the NMNH, Sternberg was not discriminated against, was never dismissed, and in fact was not even a paid employee, but just an unpaid research associate who had completed his three-year term!
See what we're tweeting about
81 Comments
Add CommentI am convinced that Ben Stein is progressively losing his grasp on reality. He has called George Bush "the spiritual heir to Abraham Lincoln, to Martin Luther King, Jr., to Winston Churchill, to the late Pope John Paul II" in a 2005 american Spectator article. Just cause this guy wrote speeches for Nixon does not exempt him from idiocy. Quite to the contrary, in fact.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll this rhetoric back & forth with each group clinging to their particular viewpoint. Does anyone suspect that the ones stirring all this up, real motive is to gain a little notoriety and a little financial reward to boot? On the other hand, if they are not stood up to, we may again witness the sacking of the "Library of Alexandria".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn this article and in many of the discussions on the subject I seem to come into lately, I as a scientist have taken the following position. 1. In science or math there is no symbol for I think that..., I feel that ..., or I believe that...In science we observe and let truth reveal itself. What is believed by this group, or that one, does not apply in this search for truth. SO if they believe in intelligent design, or creationism and they want to raise a dickens, It is the world we live in. The simple matter of it is, is that religion is the price we have to pay for science....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is very well written. I hope people can see who Ben Stein really is...Just some famous person trying to push his own beliefs, nothing more. Who could have imaged? If he weren't Ben Stein, no one would listen or care what he has to say.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShermer off-handedly throws out a term like "Symbiogenesis", so that we will be so impressed that we might think that the evolutionists might acutally know how life arose and how these systems developed. Unfortunately, people like Shermer are hinging their world view on the oxymoron, "random mutation". That is why the atheistic evolutionists can never be believed or trusted.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe basic question has been avoided and continues to be avoided is that there is no definitive testable mechanism that clearly can define the mechanism of evolution. There are those like Shermer that believe that science has to be separated from religion but when he and others resolve the infamous question how does nothing become something and that something has the power to organize itself without any outside provocation, science and religion can not be separated. Perhaps the way to answer this is a atheist 's believe in the power of nothing! Stein's message is clear it might be more intelligent to believe in an intelligent Creator. TD
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't forget that during the Dover, PA trials Dr. Pennock said that there was a testable mechanism that proved the existence of evolution. What he didn't say was that this "testable mechanism" was a computer program that he co-wrote (created) that simulated natural selection on a computer (that was created).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat a load of camel dung. I wanted science here, not an apology for believing the well-proven science of evolution. I canceled my print subscription some years ago. It's now time to say goobye to the web feed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThroughout history, science has been rather polite to religion. The reverse is not true. What if every religion has to have some scientific theory in it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThomas and Realist - this is "Scientific" American. Your opinions, in addition to being ludicrous, are inappropriate here. Go post on a Christian blog.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFoolishness, thy name is acrimony and derogation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience
Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia - Cite This Source
science [Lat. scientia=knowledge]. For many the term science refers to the organized body of knowledge concerning the physical world, both animate and inanimate, but a proper definition would also have to include the attitudes and methods through which this body of knowledge is formed; thus, a science is both a particular kind of activity and also the results of that activity.http://www.reference.com/search?q=science.
SO what matters is the body of knowledge and its means of acquisition.
Science is not only about "material", but rather a search for truth and understanding. Consructively, any belittling of any position is not science. Is there any view that as not ultimately Possible?
I once heard a quote attributable to the "ancient Chinese", stating, "When you find yourself haggling over the details. a mistake was made at the beginning".
"It is perfectly okay to question Darwinism (or any other '-ism' in science), as long as" you are a member of the atheistic cognoscenti. If your worldview is not atheism, or if you believe that there is a God who might have had something to do with the origin of the universe or of life, you are by definition not a scientist. Only atheists need apply.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBen Stein has a great sense of humor. This movie is obviously a joke at the expense of the lunatic right wing fringe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJeff Whats inappropriate is your attack on Realists and Thomass right to post an opinion. Comments are definitely for opinions, and anyone with an account is welcome to post. Why don't you try disagreeing or counter-arguing instead of attacking?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSigh. Christianity and evolution need not be at odds with each other. Many of the people I know are Eastern Orthodox (and scientists--my Church is spitting distance from MIT), as I am, and not one of them denies evolution, even as we acknowledge God as creator of all things. Please do not assume that what you think you know about Christianity is true. The message has been perverted in this country by evangelical protestants--their message does not represent the essential teachings of the Church as they have been handed down since the time of Christ.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't know much about Ben Stein, but I'd thought he was mostly a fiscal conservative until this mess. All of this ID/creationism nonsense is no more than willful obtuseness, and I'd thought Stein was smarter than that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI especially applaud the aspect of Shermer's conclusion that points out the inaneness of the idea of a conflict between supernaturalism and science; there is no overlap between these two issues and therefore NO basis for argument.
Sadly, Shermer misuses the term "begging the question." Though this doesn't detract from any of the larger points.
"Two concepts that contradict each other are clearly the same kind of concept." ID in its broadest sense accommodates theistic evolution. Michael Behe, on of the lead scientists of ID theory, is apparently a good example of a proponent of such. The reason that SciAm, Shermer, et al., must approach ID by belittiling, deriding, and resorting to personal attack is because ID shows exactly that theism is not welcome in science, be it ever so evolutionistic. Dover proved that: Evolution must be taught atheistically or not at all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolutionism is simply willful obtuseness - and a Trojan horse for atheism at that!
ID is a very US American issue .. In Italy some years ago a conservative government tried to add ID to school courses, but nothing came of the proposal.. Here in Europe nobody could care less about ID.. Most of people would happily agree that Man descends from Apes!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a danger of obscurantism here, more from political than religious reasons, but it is not so terrible.. I agree that the case is different in the US, and so SciAm is right in addressing the issue there.. I am confident that film will never be shown here..
Robeto Bannella
I think it interesting that SA is happily proving the position of Stein. That anyone who questions the orthodoxy of Darwinism is harangued and persecuted.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisArgument is useless for many of these evolution deniers. They choose to believe because it makes them feel better. There is no science to it, except psychology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this> "Two concepts that contradict each other are clearly
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this> the same kind of concept." ID in its broadest sense
> accommodates theistic evolution. Michael Behe, on of
> the lead scientists of ID theory, is apparently a
> good example of a proponent of such. The reason that
> SciAm, Shermer, et al., must approach ID by
> belittiling, deriding, and resorting to personal
> attack is because ID shows exactly that theism is not
> welcome in science, be it ever so evolutionistic.
> Dover proved that: Evolution must be taught
> t atheistically or not at all.
>
> Evolutionism is simply willful obtuseness - and a
> Trojan horse for atheism at that!
That was your reply to my post? Substituting creationism words in a paraphrase? I'd thought your choice of the same words a striking coincidence at first, but it was apparently just a sophomoric mimicry or lack of originality.
Of course theism isn't welcome in science. It's not dis-provable, which is a necessary aspect of science. If you want to argue philosophy of science or religion, then you've got a valid topic for your philosophy blog. ID is still not science.
I accept your premise that two things that contradict each other are of the same kind. If I argue that the world is flat, it is an argument about the same thing as the astronomer's about the spheroidal shape of the world. It doesn't make it an argument worth entertaining. Nor would the fact that you don't know the difference between a astronomical spheroid and a bowling ball.
Ben Stein apparently knows as much about evolution as he did about housing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoZV5jt9puc
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthe economy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoZV5jt9puc
and financial stocks:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDcIYchtFRY (He recommended MER at 76... it is now 45... and Bear Stearns was the "cheapest". Why does anyone listen to this guy?
You don't have to be a psychologist to know that people will believe what they want to believe. Of course Evolution is just a theory, just like the other sciences it helps us understand our world. Take the "theory" of mathematics for example; (a "theory" based on ten fingers) seen the number 3 lately? Nope, doesn't exist, we only see what it represents. I long ago accepted mathematics as "just a theory", but it sure does help to balance a checkbook and cut a piece of wood. What upsets me is those that dispute the process of Evolution. How shallow and self serving they are when scientists the world over right now are using the "theory" to combat mutations in contagious diseases that could effect us all. It may not happen in my lifetime, but I'm sure the "Flat Earthers" will dwindle in numbers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTag, I guess.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisID says, "We are not sure whether evolution is true or not, but the biome bears marks which make it look more like the product of intelligent design than of random accident."
Evolutionist say, "ID is religion."
One of these is a conclusion from the facts. The other is a dogmatic proclamation.
You tell me which is science.
Further, ID and evolution are clearly opposites, hence are the same kind of proposition. Blind faith in an atheistic worldview may belong in the salon, but does it belong in the classroom?
I am surprised to read that it took until GS for Mr. Shermer to decide that evolution makes more sense than religioun-based interpretations biology. If one born again Christian can see the light, maybe more can.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet's assume everyone has faith in a creator. Certainly those with belief in the creator would still want to reap the benefits of discovering the rules that would underly the physical manifestations of such a creator's will right? In other words, you would still want to have scientific inquiry in order to produce technology, understanding of physical phenomena, etc. right? Or would you rather observe something and declare it as "God's will" and leave it at that, with no benefit of greater understanding? If you choose the latter, I'm afraid you would be left in circumstances not unlike humanity's situation 10,000 years ago. It seems to me that all scientists want to do is simply improve their understanding of reality. To do this effectively, they must leave out God, because ANYTHING could be simplistically explained as God's will. Evolution is currently the best explanation for scientist's observations in this area. So even if you believe in a creator, it seems very unfruitful to dismiss this topic simply as "God's will" when there are obvious benefits to gaining a greater scientific understanding of the topic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy world view, for what it's worth; is that I'll take circumstantial evidence over biased testimony any day.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article was obviously written by a guy who thinks it's his job to fight religious thought. Religion is like disco. It will never go away. Eugenics is like disco. It will never go away. Racism is like disco. It will never go away. The list goes on and on.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi don't see how any bible believing christian can believe in evolution. the bible clearly states that only descendants of adam can be saved. therefore, no evolved human being can escape death (eternal punishment)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThese people are fanatics. Fanatics can't reason. They believe what they believe for unexamined reasons, and there is no arguing with them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGod done it once and then quit forever antiscience folks have a difficult time refuting science. The tool they must use is science itself. They try to move the earth with that lever but the only place they can stand is on that same lever.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease, please, please cease wasting time on what properly belongs to the "supermarket" tabloid media. Y'all paying far too much attention to nonsense and this is what these people an' others of this ilk revel in - public recognition - an' thus providing them with their platform. "See," they tell each other " S.A. is tryna hide the truth! An' we wo'nt lettem." Not realising, of course that the 21st century version of S.A. is little better than Popular Mechanics. Let this matter now lie and devote your time to really relevant matters.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs long as the term "God" is clearly understood to mean "the forces of nature collectively participating in shaping the cosmos such as it is", and nothing more, I have no objection to it. Any personification of this figurative deity, however, and any endowment of it with will, purpose and providential intelligence is sheer superstition and not to be foisted off on rational people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy spend so much energy trying to belittle or write off theories about a God you don't even believe in? Seems to me that the "scientists" have an "unscientific" agenda of their own as well.... to spread the notion that what we "know" is supreme when there's so much we don't know...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSam Harris' article "The Problem with Atheism" is a well-written eye-opener. Without denigrating religion or faith, he nonetheless convinces us that only religious people should worry about religion (as long as it isn't getting out of hand, of course).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sam_harris/2007/10/the_problem_with_atheism.html
Why spend so much energy trying to belittle or write off theories about a God you don't even believe in?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBecause "intelligent design" isn't about God. It's about opposing science with a faith-based "theory". I have no problem with people of faith. Faith and logic are both tools for dealing with the world. However, like any tool, there are places where one is useful, and the other isn't.
I don't use an antivirus program to dig a hole in concrete. I don't use a jackhammer to remove computer viruses from my computer.
I don't use logic to believe in God. I don't use faith to deal with science.
I saw Shermer debate a creation scientist at UCLA in the early 1990s. The debate was actually sponsored by the UCLA Humanist Society. The creation scientist (Dr. Gish) thoroughly trounced Shermer with scientific evidence. Even the humanist college students were congratulating Gish on his victory one by one during the Q&A. I guess Shermer didn't learn anything from the debate since he still calls ID "psuedo science". heh
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReligion is the greatest evil on this planet and threatens the long term survival of the human race. Religion is a character flaw, it varies from a crack to a gaping chasm in some people. The greater the flaw, the more the person is likely to impose their views on others and be intolerant of science or anything that refutes their beliefs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"... demonstrating that evolution happened."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, Michael evolution 'happens', still!
Ben Stein: from speech writer for Nixon to comic relief for Neal Cavuto. His persistent nasal drone perfectly reflects the mind-set he represents.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf Intelligent Design is not science, why is SciAm commenting extensively on it? It seems to justify that Mr. Ben Stein, et al,, have a strong case. Do yourself a favor: See Expelled: The Movie
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA change in movie title is hardly deceptive. It happens all the time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIntelligent Design (ID) and Creation are quite different. Many evolutionists support some version of intelligence behind all the complexity and design in the world. Does that make them Creationists? I think not. This ID-Creationism label is a straw man at best, with zero credibility.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe keep hearing about this "massive evidence" for evolution, but when pressed, only a few poor examples are produced. Where is the real science there? It makes one want to support ID, or even creation theories. My favorite "evidence" is "the Universe's size". What does size have to do with anything?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh please stop the nonsense. An actual picture of God or at least a letter would help. Even an instance where you could say God did this instead of "it couldnt happen any other way so God did it" would be sufficient for investigation. But never have any of these been provided to scientists- ever!!! Keep God in the Church or move Darwin into the Church with God and teach evolution in the Church then perhaps scientists can make room for God in science. Until then Id be happy to pay for a real picture of God, a signed manuscript, a tape recording, or any other real evidence that there actually is a God.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell Zeal I think the evidence support Darwin is right under your nose-Avian Flu, and just about every other influenza that caused a pandemic along with things like antibiotic resistant mycobacterium tuberculosis. I dont think the bacterium just prayed to God for a change in its DNA to save themselves from antibiotics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShermer's remark that Ben Stein, as a Jew, surely knows that the Germans were, as pointed out in Goldhagen's book, willing executioners is an example of slipshod reasoning and slipshod scholarship that throws a bucket of slop on Scientific American's reputation and is pretty ironic in the face of Shermer's grand posturing about the wonders of scientific method and knowing that is truly sublime. It seems that nobody edits this guy. It's a shame, he needs it. I mean, look, Ben Stein is a total zero, and so on and so on, but that does not justify us getting our cars off the track just because of this outside disturbance. Scholarship is scholarship. Either you do it or you don't. Shermer didn't.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShermer's scholarship is lacking in the way he brings up Goldhagen's book. Grossly lacking. About on the level of Ben Stein and his pals. It does not reflect well on Sci. Am. This guy needs to be edited.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI often feel that whenever money gets involved, it's not a good idea to trust what it says unless there is a LOT of verifiable evidence. And another rule of thumb: whenever beliefs get involved, don't trust anyone. I'm a Christian, and I respect those who believe in creationism (though personally, I feel it is misguided, and often has motives other than truth). But no one is completely honest about everything anyways.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this>From Haeckel to Hitler
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven more disturbing than these distortions is the films other thesis that Darwinism inexorably leads to atheism, communism, fascism, and could be blamed for the Holocaust. <
Gee, where have I heard this before? O yeah, it was "frequent SA contributor James Burke" in The Day the Universe Changed 8. Darwins Revolution
> The concept of survival of the fittest was later adapted to justify Nazism, robber baron capitalism, and Communism. <
http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=73065527529648&mkt=en-US&lang=en-US&w=6b9c46a0&FORM=CVRE9
Ok, he didnt say it will inexorably happen. He just said that it did happen.
--
Edited by Whail1 at 04/17/2008 10:36 AM
"We do not know the precise environments of the early earth in which these events occurred; we do not know the exact chemistry of some of the important chemical reactions that led to life; and we do not have any knowledge of life in a pre-RNA world." This is not an example of controversy over evolution. this is simply an example of someone who has excepted evolution and is now reaching to explain it. Th fact is that everything about origins is a guess and cannot be proved nor tested. It's just another story.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswe are entitled to free speech and from what i gather, while this is about nonsensical intelligent design or creationism, it's still purely undiluted bull all the way around. according to id(iots), our ancestors could have been riding dinosaurs, which itself is a terrible pile of rubbish perpetrated on young minds by a right-winged gathering of anencephalic dolts. simply shameful.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi will make myself more clear. Shermer writes: "...surely he knows that the German people were, in Harvard political scientist Daniel Goldhagen's apt phrase (and book title), "Hitler's willing executioners."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince Shermer uses the words "surely he knows", the quotes Shermer uses are apparently for emphasis. By writing "surely he knows", Shermer is implying that the statement "the German people were Hitler's willing executioners" is a true statement and one that Shermer himself ascribes to specifically. In other words, implicitly Shermer is saying in his own right: _The German people_ were Hitler's willing executioners. Period.
You cannot use quotes to imply you do not go along with something and the phrase "surely he knows" together like that. They point in opposite directions. And Shermer does not seem to be trying to distance himself from it anyway.
This is a somewhat anecdotal manner of speaking: "The German people". This phrase is not precise. Who does it include? The majority, a significant minority, a representative minority, whatever that may be...? I don't speak scientifically every minute of my life either, but I don't represent Scientific American.
Without question, it included a significant segment of German society, but not all of it. It was, of course, shameful beyond words. But that doesn't indict the entire German people. Once the Nazi terror got going, what were people to do? To resist the terror of a police state requires great courage and, importantly, cohesive numbers.
Goldhagen excelled at historical data collection. He deserves credit for that. He is not universally viewed as the gold standard of historical analysis.
It seems that a little collateral damage happened here, the fervor of defense of this saint of science, Darwin, was so great in Shermer's mind that one bystander in the argument -- the German people, 1933-1945, could just get smacked.
I can only guess. The result was not pleasing to me.
Ben Stein, has the chance to help the people, but winds us up as if we were brainless toy's and all for his monetary gain, thinking even less of the repercussions that divides man. Let's put aside religious or not ethics. We need to come together and focus on what is good for humanity. The frightening environmental issues that we are facing today. An appreciation for life no matter how we came to be it must be communicated. Bin Stein you are far from being smart on this one!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBIN STEIN, YOU MISREPRESENTED MR. MICHAEL SHERMER.
He unites men and shows by exsample what it means to be a true humanitarian. He uses understanding and compassion. Ben you seem to complicate lives with useless harmful head games. The movie "Expelled." I don't know maybe there is something to be said about shaking things up a bit. We are understanding our universe and our place in it. As a humanitarian I humbly appeal to you Mr. Ben Stein. Please find out who Mr. Michael Shermer is. Thank you. Toni
Excuse me, but Ben Stein does not "fall for" a "conspiracy theory". To fall for something would mean that he was believing in something that was ridiculous. Believing that God could possibly be that "something" that put all of this to being, as the scientists (even the people like Richard Dawkins) have said there had to be, is not ridiculous. Secondly, this is not a conspiricy theory. It is real, it's going on, and those who do not recognize it and try to dissuade people from considering it, are tearing down the very essence of this country: our freedom of speech. Even Richard Dawkins believes in "another form of life" "out there" that had to have created the cell that started it all (such as aliens) but it cannot be called God. Heaven forbid that! Richard Dawkins tells people that to believe in Intelligent Design is to believe in fairy tales, well believing in aliens is just the same.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this--
Edited by Shocknasty at 05/01/2008 7:36 AM
Criminal Brief (http://www.criminalbrief.com/?p=798) discusses Expelled, which includes a reference to this article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's always great seeing Mr. Michael Shermer kicking fundy ass -- Fredric L. Rice
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't have a problem with any religion and thier respective beliefs, but when you start to teach science faction to impressionable young minds, has a point of fact, then you have to except that all the other religious bodies will want to do the same, if you are a creationist , how would you feel if an Islamic leader curried enough favour ( pending on where he/she lived) to have a bill passed to teach islamic believes to your children along side Evolution Science and creation theory. I personally would not have a problem as long as it was underpinned with science, and where science breaks down , then speculation is just speculation. I have a suggestion .........instead of spending your donation on Museums that re-educated the faction that disagree with you , why don't you just open your own schools?, that why you can teach your beliefs to those who believe , and leave Science where it is that why every tax payer is happy. Ps, regarding the article in question..........the whole reason to rent a hall for a lecture in a university , is a guise to make it appear that they have been invited....thus trying to show the world how excepted their so called science is ....it's not...and trust me I talk to thousands of people a year that are very concerned for the young minds that don't get a chance to make a choice in what they belief ...due to being given no other option.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually OneEye, it's ok to question evolution, that's how one gets educated. It is not ok to say that evolution is a lie when there are moutains of evidence to support evolution and none that supports the claim, "Jebus did it!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are missing one significant point in your argument. There isn't a shred of scientific evidence to support ID. THAT is why it is dismissed. The fact that it is rooted in religious belief is irrelevant.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThomas & Realist, please watch this video and get back to us with your examination: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe language (and culture) of any religion has its own system of rules, and the language (and culture) of science has its own system of rules--like languages. If someone were to go to Japan and speak Tagalog to someone who speaks only Japanese, there would be difficulties.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSimilarly, the system of beliefs of creationism and intelligent design (ID) are inappropriate in the domain of science and vice versa. For example, a theory is a general statement that allows scientists to make predictions, the accuracy of which either supports or falsifies the particular theory. Evidence that supports a theory leads to greater acceptance of the theory, but is does not make it "true." Anomalies and counterexamples could be found that lead scientists to abandon that theory and search for another. For creationists (and perhaps for many ID proponents), a "theory" is a "guess," with little or no support. They apparently speak different languages.
Someone who speaks only science would have a difficult time conversing with someone who only speaks only ID or creationism. ID proponents propose that gaps in the fossil record "disprove" evolution, offer ID as an alternative without supporting evidence. (In mathematics, theorems can be proved, but in science, theories are supported but not proved.) But gaps do not constitute counter evidence--if the numbers 1 and 10 represent some measure of a characteristic of two fossils, then there is a gap. The gap is not filled when a fossil with a measure of 5 is found, because now there are two smaller gaps. The only way to fill all of the gaps is to have a fossil record of all past living creatures who ever existed.
Allowing ID advocates to speak or write about ID to an organization of scientists and purporting that it is science (as Expelled seems to want) is as absurd as insisting that speaking Tagalog in Japan to Japanese people is just as communicative as speaking Japanese.
Science describes our awe inspiring world and the plants and animals in it--even though parts put me to sleep. Religions gives me ideas that make me a better person--even though some promote cruelty and intolerance. I don't speak evolution in religious discussions or ID in science discussions, even though I call upon a higher power occasionally. I have also spent time in the Philippines and Japan and do not speak Japanese in Manila or Tagalog in Tokyo, which to my mind is equivalent to speaking ID in discussions of cosmology, evolution, and physics.
Don't let facts get in the way of a good cover up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDr. Guillermo Gonzalez's department requirements for granting tenure state, "For promotion to associate professor, excellence sufficient to lead to a national or international reputation is required and would ordinarily be shown by the publication of approximately fifteen papers of good quality in refereed journals." In this regard, Dr. Gonzalez has over 350% more peer-reviewed science articles than what his department ordinarily requires for indicating the type of reputation that demonstrates research excellence.
So much for being skeptical, hey Shermer?
Don't let evidence restrict an argument/opinion
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow many articles did Dr. Gonzalez's present after joining iowa state ?
How many tenure's were available ?
How many people were considered ?
How many articles did they present when at Iowa state
How many were rejected ?
ie. what was the level of competition for tenure.
Just because someone has an excellent record does not mean they will obtain tenure if their "opponents" have a better current record
According to Wikipedia
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Chronicle of Higher Education said of Gonzalez and the Discovery Institute's claims of discrimination
"At first glance, it seems like a clear-cut case of discrimination ... But a closer look at Mr. Gonzalez's case raises some questions about his recent scholarship and whether he has lived up to his early promise." The Chronicle observed that Gonzalez had no major grants during his seven years at ISU, had published no significant research during that time and had only one graduate student finish a dissertation."
If were an employer I would not tend to employ someone in a secure position who does not generate any income, does little work and has very little output
Skeptic254
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDont let evidence get in the way of prejudice or opinion
Laughing Gravy - "ie. what was the level of competition for tenure."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince Gonzalez joined ISU in 2001, he beat all tenured ISU astronomers in both normalized publication count and normalized citation count.
Gonzalez’s department even nominated him for an “early achievement” award in research at ISU in 2004.
A tenured physicist in Dr. Gonzalez's department who voted on Gonzalez’s tenure has now publicly admitted that he voted against Gonzalez solely because he disagreed with Gonzalez’s view that intelligent design is science.
But like I said, none of that matters, cos Shermer said that it was because the competition was better, end of.
Are you saying that The Chronicle of Higher Education investigation was wrong ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou mention "A tenured physicist "
Which specific physicist, where and when did his "admission" occur ?
How many other people voted ?
Skeptic254
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow many papers, articles did gonzales publish during his period at ISU ?
Skeptic254
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou refer to an earlier question of mine
"ie. what was the level of competition for tenure."
And then proceed to refer to those already it tenure.
Were they in competition for tenure? - If not then they are irrelevent to the question
You then refer to nomination for "early achievement" again nothing to do with my question. Also I have no idea as to why the nomination, perhaps for work complteted before joining ISU (also citations to this work)
Lastly you refer to some admission by "tenured physicist" -also nothing to do with my question.
At the end the say "none of it matters"
YOU make an allegation of prejudice because of a persons belief in id
There were several investigations of this alleged prejudice, all concluded there was no prejudice.
So I would say your allegation matters and should be substantiated.
skeptic254
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn your post 4/25 you claim Gonzales had 350% more articles published "than what his department ordinarily requires for indicating the type of reputation that demonstrates research excellence" (nominally 15 )
FOR YOUR INFORMATION
According to my source he published a total of 20 "new" articles during his time at ISU
Thats 133% (near enough) not 350%
("new" as in not re-analysis of earlier papers)
Of these only 5 were as first author
More importantly the rate of publication was declining with only 10 published in the latter 5 years (out of 7 years), the decline starting in 1999 i.e 2 years before joining ISU
Certainly prior to 2000 the academic record was excellent, but not after 2000
However the film claimed a "stellar academic record." with no qualification.
This I would say is a lie as the film director knew or should have known the facts, but made this claim with the intent to deceive.
(along with many other lies in the film)
skeptic254
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour post
" In this regard, Dr. Gonzalez has over 350% more peer-reviewed science articles than what his department ordinarily requires for indicating the type of reputation that demonstrates research excellence"
Quote from Centre for Science and culture (An ID/creationist web site)
“The denial of tenure is all the more incredible given the fact that Dr. Gonzalez exceeds by 350% the number of peer-reviewed journal publications required by his department to meet its standard of excellence in research.”
Similar ?
Also according to "The discovery institute's" (now theres a laugh) own data
Dr Gonzales has published 68 reviewed papers from 1987 to 2007
(68/15 = 450% (near enough) ie 350% more than required - could this be the 350% identified)
However the data lists 41 published BEFORE joining ISU
(I understand the criteria for tenureship is for papers released WHILE AT ISU)
i.e 26 Whilst at ISU (+1 of them after leaving ISU)
Of these 2 are reviews + 1 a re-evaluation of old data)
Leaving 23
Didn't bother normalising however a few were as single author, + a few as first author
So I would say the DI's assertion of "spectacular ability" is somewhat of a lie
Interestingly the same page on the CSC web site also lists 2 people supposedly discrimated against (in 2007) and also appear in Expelled.
BOTH of their stories in Expelled have been exposed as LIES
Nothing like a few facts to spoil prejudice.
skeptic254
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA bit more info for you
Just added them all up I think the normalised count comes to about 9 (and I think this is erring on the high side) during 2001 to 2007
A bit short of 15
Not surprising since the DI are frequently economical with their facts.
"(68/15 = 450% (near enough) ie 350% more than required - could this be the 350% identified)"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't understand, is this supposed to be a counter argument? Because all it proves is that 350% is a conservative, minimal amount. Pointing out that it's 450% rather than 350% strengthens Gonzalez's case, not hinders it.
At the end of the day Gravy it boils down to this:
Gonzalez exceeded ISU's published criteria for tenure (nowhere does it mention 'normalized', 'first author' papers only). Even if Gonzalez's performance did drop whilst at ISU he still outperformed most, if not all, of the already tenured professors there. If Gonzalez isn't good enough to be a tenured professor, then neither are the current tenured professors. Objective readers, does it really sound like it was a fair review?
The ExpelledExposed website you keep referring to is written by the same people (NCSE) who were a major active proponent of getting several ID proponent professors fired—hardly the most authoritative, fair, and unbiased source is it?
I don't even believe in ID and yet even just a small amount of research reveals that Gonzalez was unfairly denied tenure. Objective viewers, in my opinion, will ultimately come to the same conclusion.
You get the last word.
"I don't understand, is this supposed to be a counter argument? Because all it proves is that 350% is a conservative, minimal amount. Pointing out that it's 450% rather than 350% strengthens Gonzalez's case, not hinders it."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs you say you dont understand - this is the TOTAL number of document , and includes reviews + re-evaluations of data -( i.e NOT original work) -
IT IS NOT THE NORMALISED DOCUMENT COUNT
According to the Discovery institutes's own list of documents (a creationist/id institution), the TOTAL number of documents he produced from 1987 to 2007 was 68 the ie. 350% more than required.
However this figure assumes he was the only author of the paper, and ignores that sometimes there are other authors. It also assumes all papers are equally valid. i.e orginal papers are the same as reviews, or the re-analysis of old work.
The only way you can take this into account is to calculate the "normalised" document count.
( This is important because it takes account of the contributions of the listed authors.
The order of the listed authors indicating the contribution made by each.
So if there are 2 authors listed then each is credited with 1/2 the document , NOT the whole document
If there are 3 listed then the first is credited with 1/2 the other 2 with 1/4 each.
This is a far fairer system than saying ALL listed authors have made 100% contribution, and is the way ALL scientists are assessed.
However according to the CSC even if you are the bottom of say 10 authors, you have made the same contribution as the first listed, and the same as a single author)
Following this system the normalised document count from 1988 to 2007 was 28.86
This comprises 19.22 before joining, + 9.64 AFTER joining ISU
So even if you include ALL the documents written his count was 92% more than required NOT 350%
However AFTER joining ISU his count was 35% BELOW that required
At the end of the day it boils down to
1) the Centre for Science and Culture (CSC) misled people by quoting the TOTAL number of documents, did NOT quote the normalised document count, and ignored the requirement that the documents be those written while at ISU
I would say that the CSC LIED to the public
2) In fact he fell SHORT of the required count by 35%
3) His document count had dropped by 50% after joining ISU.
4) The CSC claimed a"stellar academic record."
I would say this falls WELL short of providing an unbiased claim.
I would say a far less biased statement would be that "there had been a sharp decline after the start of a very promising career)
"Gonzalez exceeded ISU's published criteria for tenure (nowhere does it mention 'normalized', 'first author' papers only). "
You brought up the normalised count. Why did YOU bring it up if it is not important?
Sorry the Normalised count does matter.
While I agree that the all papers contribute to a scientists document count, not just those where he is first named, to ignore the position in the list of authors is saying that all have made equal contributions. when this is not the case. I also understand it is standard practice that ALL scientists are judged by the normalised document count, NOT the number of documents where they appear as author.
"Even if Gonzalez's performance did drop whilst at ISU he still outperformed most, if not all, of the already tenured professors there. If Gonzalez isn't good enough to be a tenured professor, then neither are the current tenured professors.
That MAY well be true, but it is irrelevent as you are comparing apples with oranges.
You are also ignoring the decline, This is also important. While you might expect the rate of document authoring to vary over time, to see a 50% drop in documents after joining ISU to those before joining I would say is a problem.
"Objective readers, does it really sound like it was a fair review?"
Does WHAT sound like it was a fair review?
There were SEVERAL investigations of the case ALL concluded that there was no prejudice.
"The ExpelledExposed website you keep referring to is written by the same people (NCSE) who were a major active proponent of getting several ID proponent professors firedhardly the most authoritative, fair, and unbiased source is it?"
Sorry I must have missed something.
I dont recall EVER referring to ExpelledExposed web site (In ANY posts I have EVER made)
The Center for Science and culture - yes
The discovery institute - yes
Both of these are creationist/id institutions.
As regards being fair an unbiased - 2 of the "several" id proponents supposedly fired
1 was not actually employed by companies they were supposedly fired from.
1 was on fixed term contract, which terminated normally.
1 supposedly "shoved" into a small office, chose the office himself.
But the CSC does not let facts get in the way.
"I don't even believe in ID and yet even just a small amount of research reveals that Gonzalez was unfairly denied tenure. "
I would say a VERY small amount of research - Did you read ANY of the investigations, or just the claims of creationist web sites.
"Objective viewers, in my opinion, will ultimately come to the same conclusion."
Objective readers, in my opinion, will not come to your conclusion.
Skeptic254
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The ExpelledExposed website you keep referring to is written by the same people (NCSE) who were a major active proponent of getting several ID proponent professors fired hardly the most authoritative, fair, and unbiased source is it"
refer my previous post - re My non-existent references to expelledexposed
Further info
- Interesting you say that several ID proponent professors
ExpelledExposed lists 6 people in Expelled supposedly persecuted (perhaps there were more in the film)
(note - I have NOT identified the names (I believe they have SOME right to privacy) except one already posted previously by other people on this site)
1) Was not a professor, and was not fired (because he wasn't employed)
According to ExpelledExposed he was
"the voluntary, unpaid editor ....., and had given notice of his resignation as editor six months before (leaving)"
2) Guillermo Gonzalez - which I have already commented on, was NOT a professor at the time of the alledged persecution.
3) Was not a professor but was employed on fixed term contract (to teach at a university), but ".. was not fired and continued to teach her course after student complaints", presumably until the end of contract. She was not rehired.
4) Was and still is a professor at the same college, i.e. not fired
5) Was and still is a journalist, i.e. NOT a professor, nor fired
6) Was and still is a physician, i.e. NOT a professor, nor fired.
Perhaps there were some professors who were persecuted and fired, but are not listed by ExpelledExposed, perhaps not.
But according to ExpelledExposed 6 people alledged to have been persecuted by Expelled only 1 was a professor, and 3 continue in employment as before the alledged "firing". NONE were fired.
So I would say say your statement was "hardly the most authoritative, fair, and unbiased source"
In fact unless you can show that ExpelledExposed is in error, or can identify some other "professors" who were actually "fired", I would say you dont do your research very well.
parable
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKen Miller - re fact
"A fact is a repeatable, verifiable observation or a result"
First of all I do not trust Michael Shermer as a source of objectivity and does he not have some alterior motive? For those of you who hold to this illogical and unprovable theory, science and the study thereof comes from God! The ability to think and reason? God. We did not come here from some other alien life form "piggy backing" on some molecules as Richard Dawkins (who is angry at God suggests). When you Know the Truth you will be set free from the bondage of evolutionary lies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you read the same article I did, you also saw that the author defined (very well) the term that you question. He also reiterates, for the millionth time, the components of the scientific method.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo what's your point? You are attempting a straw-man argument, and using inductive logic to do so.
Moderator says: "Sit down. You know better."
There are many flaws in the pure Darwinist theory. Just look at the absurd reply when asked how life began. Unfortunately the author confuses intelligent design and religion, which are two separate issues. The hubris and pompous stupidity of these dogmatic pedagogues to pontificate their paltry understanding of the universe WITHOUT evidence to answer the fundamental questions of life is staggering, and I have no doubt will be the source of endless ridicule by future, more enlightened generations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIntelligent design is an important issue. Is roots are in Sexual Selection, the problem is that Evolutionist only think in Natural Selection, not seeing that the complexity were impossibly only with Natural Selection. Intelligent Design really doesn't exist, however intelligence, or cognition, plays an important rule in morphologies of species, and is an essential part in Sexual Selection. More about this can be found in: http://nature-sucks.blogspot.com/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this