U.S. population lags in accepting evolution

[drkitten]

Okay, perhaps there is room to argue whether Sternberg is an "outstanding" biologist.

There is no basis that you have laid to argue that he is.

drkitten is hardly a neutral third party, and he has yet to document his charge that Sternberg lied.

Now you're the one lying. Retract it, please.

The OSC appears to be a neutral third party

I have no reason to believe that the OSC is a neutral third party, especially given the Bush administration's history of meddling in scientific affairs at the direction of political hacks.

Do you think that there's a slim chance that the OSC got it right and that have it wrong?

A slim chance, yes. There's also a slim chance that the person picking your lock at midnight is actually intending to deliver you flowers. The preponderance of the evidence strongly suggests otherwise.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I have no reason to believe that the OSC is a neutral third party, especially given the Bush administration's history of meddling in scientific affairs at the direction of political hacks..

I had heard about there being problems between the political appointed staff there and the long term staff. Of course they had no one to go to about it.

 

[drkitten]

I had heard about there being problems between the political appointed staff there and the long term staff. Of course they had no one to go to about it.

Yup. The best example is George Deutsch, the 24-year old journalism major who attempted to re-write NASA's scientific reports to downplay global warning, to minimize references to the Big Bang, and to insert support for "intelligent design."

In particular, the idea that a political appointee at OSC would want to support a paper ostensibly about "intelligent design" cannot be dismissed out of hand. Unless Rodney has some actual evidence to present?....

 

[drkitten]

What is your evidence that Sternberg did not evaluate the Meyer paper based on its scientific merit?

How about a statement by the publisher that he didn't?

The paper by Stephen C. Meyer, "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," in vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239 of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard v. Sternberg. 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 because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history. For the same reason, the journal will not publish a rebuttal to the thesis of the paper, the superiority of intelligent design (ID) over evolution as an explanation of the emergence of Cambrian body-plan diversity. The Council endorses a resolution on ID published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml), which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID as a testable hypothesis to explain the origin of organic diversity. Accordingly, the Meyer paper does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings.

According to the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) that investigated Sternberg's complaint, in a letter to him: "In fact, there was a serious effort by some to take the drastic step of piercing the veil of peer review, an unprecedented and unethical act within your field. They assumed that you violated editorial regulations of the Proceedings because you were the primary editor of the article.

Of course, the fact that the publisher itself pointed out that Sternberg violated editorial regulations, as in the quotation above, gives a firm ground to make that assumption.

The alternative is that the publisher is lying in the statement above?


More from the OSC:

It was later revealed that you complied with all editorial requirements of the Proceedings and that the Meyer article was properly peer reviewed by renowned scientists.

The OSC says that the article was properly peer reviewed, while the publishing organization says that it wasn't. Why do you assume that the OSC is more familiar with peer review than the organization? And if the article was properly peer reviewed, why aren't any of the "renowned scientists" named? Reviewers are routinely named when controversies such as this (involving possible editorial malfiesance) come up.

 

[Kaarjuus]

Evolution is the business of biologists, anthropologists, and other scientists. One shouldn't care whether a hairdresser believes in it.

This is the equivalent of saying "Science is the business of scientists. One shouldn't care whether a hairdresser believes in homeopathy."

One should greatly care that the general public is well-informed on how the world works.

First, most of us here live in democratic countries and the general public elects the leaders, i.e. the people who matter, based on their beliefs.

Second, if people believe in things that are wrong, harm ensues. Homeopathy is a billion-dollar business world-wide. People are rejecting working medicinal practices and paying a lot for mere water. A lot of public money is spent on disproving alternative medicine.

People who do not believe in evolution make decisions based on this false belief. These decisions affect these people themselves and affect the people around them. It is important.

 

[Mercutio]

Okay, perhaps there is room to argue whether Sternberg is an "outstanding" biologist. Nonetheless, he was the managing editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington at the time the Meyer paper was submitted. The OSC found that, contrary to charges leveled against him by other Smithsonian scientists, he did nothing unethical or illegal in his handling of that paper.

We still don't know his salary, but he says that his position was equivalent to a grade GS-13. Currently, that grade has a salary range in the Washington, DC area of $77,353-$100,554. See General Schedule and Locality Pay Tables
-- http://www.opm.gov/oca/06tables
That compares to a median salary for a top level (Level 5) Biologist in the Washington area of $91,419, including bonuses, and so it appears his salary was in the same range as a median top level biologist.

drkitten is hardly a neutral third party, and he has yet to document his charge that Sternberg lied. The OSC appears to be a neutral third party and its letter to Sternberg paints him as honest and his opponents as dishonest.
[snip]
Do you think that there's a slim chance that the OSC got it right and that have it wrong?

Are you familiar with the "Panda's Thumb" coverage of the issue?

Late today, a reporter called NCSE and, asking for comment, told us that the U.S. Office of Special Counsel had dropped Richard von Sternberg’s religious discrimination complaint against the Smithsonian Institution. The short version is that Sternberg, as an unpaid research associate at the Smithsonian, is not actually an employee, and thus the OSC has no jurisdiction. This was not particularly surprising, considering that PT contributer Reed Cartwright noted way back on February 2 that exactly this might happen.

Legally, this appears to be the end of things. However, as the Panda’s Thumb has documented over the past year (Meyer 2004 Medley, google search), the Meyer/Sternberg/Smithsonian affair has been a piece of politics from the beginning. The OSC’s opinion guarantees it will be politics to the end.

 

[Rodney]

There is no basis that you have laid to argue that he is.

Okay, for the sake of argument, I'll concede the point.

Now you're the one lying. Retract it, please.

Come again? I stated that, according to Sternberg: "As managing editor it was my prerogative to choose the editor who would work directly on the paper." I then inquired of you: "What proof do you have that it was not his prerogative? To which you replied: "Because that's not what a 'managing editor' does." However, according to Sternberg:

"The process for publication of papers in the Proceedings has been straightforward. The practice was for the managing editor to receive and initially pass on all submitted papers. Then, depending on the subject matter, the managing editor would pass the paper to an associate editor with expertise in the appropriate field for soliciting peer reviews and then editing the paper as needed to prepare it for publication. The managing editor could also select an ad hoc associate editor for a particular paper if no member of the board of associate editors was suitable. Finally, the managing editor could take direct charge of a paper if that was appropriate.

" . . . In the aftermath of this controversy I met with the Council of the BSW and asked them to clarify and make explicit the rights and responsibility of the managing editor vis à vis the associate editors. At a meeting in November 2002, a near-unanimous Council backed me up completely (only the associate editor in question and one of his cronies voted against me) and formally decided that the managing editor has control over every aspect of the Proceedings and can choose and supervise the associate editors at his or her discretion. The Council ruled that the managing editor has the final say in the publication of manuscripts." See -- http://www.rsternberg.net/publication_details.htm

Do you have evidence that Sternberg's above version of event is incorrect? If so, what's the evidence?

I have no reason to believe that the OSC is a neutral third party, especially given the Bush administration's history of meddling in scientific affairs at the direction of political hacks.

So who would be a neutral third party, if not the government agency established to adjudicate disputes of this nature?

A slim chance, yes. There's also a slim chance that the person picking your lock at midnight is actually intending to deliver you flowers. The preponderance of the evidence strongly suggests otherwise.

I disagree because the evidence you cite comes from biased sources, and the OSC found Sternberg's version of events -- not their version -- to be correct.

 

[Rodney]

How about a statement by the publisher that he didn't?

Of course, the fact that the publisher itself pointed out that Sternberg violated editorial regulations, as in the quotation above, gives a firm ground to make that assumption.

The alternative is that the publisher is lying in the statement above?

More from the OSC:

The OSC says that the article was properly peer reviewed, while the publishing organization says that it wasn't. Why do you assume that the OSC is more familiar with peer review than the organization?

Presumably the OSC undertook a thorough investigation and believed Sternberg. However, one piece of evidence that would be crucial would be notes or an audio or video tape from the November 2002 meeting that Sternberg referenced: " . . . In the aftermath of this controversy I met with the Council of the BSW and asked them to clarify and make explicit the rights and responsibility of the managing editor vis à vis the associate editors. At a meeting in November 2002, a near-unanimous Council backed me up completely (only the associate editor in question and one of his cronies voted against me) and formally decided that the managing editor has control over every aspect of the Proceedings and can choose and supervise the associate editors at his or her discretion. The Council ruled that the managing editor has the final say in the publication of manuscripts."

And if the article was properly peer reviewed, why aren't any of the "renowned scientists" named? Reviewers are routinely named when controversies such as this (involving possible editorial malfiesance) come up.

Perhaps because they have not given their consent?

 

[American]

This is the equivalent of saying "Science is the business of scientists. One shouldn't care whether a hairdresser believes in homeopathy."

The condition I assume is that hairdressers don't appreciate science at any level, however much it may in fact benefit them. We've no right to force "what's good for others" on them.

Surely a barber would scold me for washing my hair with a bar of soap, and he'd be right to do so. But I don't want laws saying I must wash with shampoo, because experts say it's better.

Willful apathy is exactly what we need more of - as opposed to the nauseating sycophancy on which the world is largely modeled. (Do you know how many people think Dr. Phil is a medical doctor? Too many.)

 

[Kaarjuus]

But I don't want laws saying I must wash with shampoo, because experts say it's better.

Who said anything about laws?

Willful apathy is exactly what we need more of - as opposed to the nauseating sycophancy on which the world is largely modeled.

This is a mind-boggling statement. So the world and the people are better off if they're willfully apathetic? How do they make decisions then?

 

[drkitten]

Presumably the OSC undertook a thorough investigation and believed Sternberg.

I see no reason to make that assumption. As a matter of fact, I "presume" exactly the opposite.

As pointed out, the OSC does not have jurisdiction in this matter, a matter that a mere routine inquiry would have established.

"Thorough investigations" are expensive. No government agency will typically undertake a "thorough investigation" in an area that it knows it doesn't have jurisdiction over, because neither the funding nor the manpower is usually available.

Therefore, I conclude either that there was no "thorough investigation" undertaken, but instead a mere cursory one, and the rest is a political hack trying to keep the political issue alive (as already been established as an m.o. of the Bush administration), or the thorough investigation was sufficiently incompetently done as to not establish the question of jurisdiction until the very end, in which case the established incompetence of the investigator negates any credibility the report has.

 

[Rodney]

I see no reason to make that assumption. As a matter of fact, I "presume" exactly the opposite.

As pointed out, the OSC does not have jurisdiction in this matter, a matter that a mere routine inquiry would have established.

According to a Washington Post article of August 19, 2005: "The U.S. Office of Special Counsel . . . was established to protect federal employees from reprisals." See -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/18/AR2005081801680.html
So why do you say that OSC does not have jurisdiction?

"Thorough investigations" are expensive. No government agency will typically undertake a "thorough investigation" in an area that it knows it doesn't have jurisdiction over, because neither the funding nor the manpower is usually available.

Therefore, I conclude either that there was no "thorough investigation" undertaken, but instead a mere cursory one, and the rest is a political hack trying to keep the political issue alive (as already been established as an m.o. of the Bush administration), or the thorough investigation was sufficiently incompetently done as to not establish the question of jurisdiction until the very end, in which case the established incompetence of the investigator negates any credibility the report has.

The Washington Post article does not address in detail the thoroughness of the OSC investigation, but it casts serious doubt on your claim that Sternberg is not even a mediocre biologist:

"Sternberg is an unlikely revolutionary. He holds two PhDs in evolutionary biology, his graduate work draws praise from his former professors, and in 2000 he gained a coveted research associate appointment at the Smithsonian Institution.

"Not long after that, Smithsonian scientists asked Sternberg to become the unpaid editor of Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, a sleepy scientific journal affiliated with the Smithsonian."

 

[drkitten]

According to a Washington Post article of August 19, 2005: "The U.S. Office of Special Counsel . . . was established to protect federal employees from reprisals." See -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/18/AR2005081801680.html
So why do you say that OSC does not have jurisdiction?

Because the OSC stated in its letter that it did not have jurisdiction. "This case exempts Title 42 Scientists from Title 5 protections, which would effectively remove you from the protections granted under the auspices of OSC." Once it was established that he was a Title 42 employee, which a competent OSC investigator could have established with a single telephone call, there is, lliterally no case to investigate.

The Washington Post article does not address in detail the thoroughness of the OSC investigation, but it casts serious doubt on your claim that Sternberg is not even a mediocre biologist:

No, it doesn't. The Post, like any other newspaper, exists to sell newspapers and therefore looks to create controversy, by casting the underdog in the best possible light.

"Sternberg is an unlikely revolutionary. He holds two PhDs in evolutionary biology, his graduate work draws praise from his former professors, and in 2000 he gained a coveted research associate appointment at the Smithsonian Institution.

As has been pointed out earlier, none of those are actually statements of professional competence. Every researcher draws praise from former professors (or you'd not have gotten the degree in the first place. Few competent researchers want a second Ph.D. or covet an RA appointment that long post-Ph.D.

 

[ponderingturtle]

As has been pointed out earlier, none of those are actually statements of professional competence. Every researcher draws praise from former professors (or you'd not have gotten the degree in the first place. Few competent researchers want a second Ph.D. or covet an RA appointment that long post-Ph.D.

Exactly anyone with two Phd's has something weird going on, and thinking that they are both relevent makes it even weirder.

 

[Rodney]

Because the OSC stated in its letter that it did not have jurisdiction. "This case exempts Title 42 Scientists from Title 5 protections, which would effectively remove you from the protections granted under the auspices of OSC." Once it was established that he was a Title 42 employee, which a competent OSC investigator could have established with a single telephone call, there is, lliterally no case to investigate.

The OSC letter to Sternberg makes clear that his case was pending when the Fishbein v. D.H.H.S case was decided. The latter case is the one that exempted Title 42 scientists from Title 5 protections. So, the OSC had an obligation to investigate Sternberg's complaint at least until the Fishbein case was decided.

No, it doesn't. The Post, like any other newspaper, exists to sell newspapers and therefore looks to create controversy, by casting the underdog in the best possible light.

The Post wants to cast Sternberg in the best possible light? It has editorialized against the teaching of Intelligent Design.

As has been pointed out earlier, none of those are actually statements of professional competence. Every researcher draws praise from former professors (or you'd not have gotten the degree in the first place. Few competent researchers want a second Ph.D. or covet an RA appointment that long post-Ph.D.

I guess readers of this forum are free to believe either you or the anti-ID Washington Post about Sternberg's competence.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Anti-ID posts!! LOL.

That's hilarious!!

The reality is that the few scientists that signed onto the discovery propoganda are:
A. Not experts in the field of evolution or,
B. Quacks.

Regardless of A or B, there still exists no scientific evidence or basis to support ID.

 

[drkitten]

The reality is that the few scientists that signed onto the discovery propoganda are:
A. Not experts in the field of evolution or,
B. Quacks.

To the best of my knowledge, they're uniformly both. I have not seen anyone supporting ID or the Discovery Institute who isn't wildly uninformed about evolution and also obviously a quack.

I'm sure Rodney would be delighted to provide us with some examples of other "outstanding" scientists in this field -- "outstanding" experts with four Master's degrees, a publication record that I would expect of a late-stage graduate student, and a current job teaching at an unaccredited Bible college....

 

[Rodney]

To the best of my knowledge, they're uniformly both. I have not seen anyone supporting ID or the Discovery Institute who isn't wildly uninformed about evolution and also obviously a quack.

I'm sure Rodney would be delighted to provide us with some examples of other "outstanding" scientists in this field -- "outstanding" experts with four Master's degrees, a publication record that I would expect of a late-stage graduate student, and a current job teaching at an unaccredited Bible college....

I already did earlier in this thread: Evolutionary biologist and textbook author Stanley Salthe, Editor of Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum Giuseppe Sermonti, and Russian Academy of Natural Sciences embryologist Lev Beloussov.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Another quack, Rodney.

 

[drkitten]

Another quack, Rodney.

... and inexpert in evolution, would be my guess. Want to post their CVs so that the biologists here can point and laugh?