UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (76) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: TycoonGamer Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 25048  
Subject: Expelled Date: 4/26/2008 9:18 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Does anyone know whether the makers of the film Expelled have responded to the criticisms of ExpelledExposed.com?

I've decided to wait until the debate plays out more fully before I decide whether or not to see the film.
Print the post Back To Top
Author: NigelGlitter Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14396 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 4/26/2008 9:59 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Does anyone know whether the makers of the film Expelled have responded to the criticisms of ExpelledExposed.com?

All criticisms of the film are part of the Brobdingnagian global conspiracy led by scientists and big media. The movie is not subject to factual questioning because any attempt to do so simply proves its point, that science is censoring ID.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Kazim Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14397 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 4/26/2008 11:12 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Does anyone know whether the makers of the film Expelled have responded to the criticisms of ExpelledExposed.com?

I've decided to wait until the debate plays out more fully before I decide whether or not to see the film.


I don't know if there is a single page that sums the counter-replies, but I can say that the material presented in Expelled is not all that original. If you search through the web and usenet for specific names, you'll probably find lots of old debates on each of the topics presented.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: benjd25 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14398 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 4/26/2008 11:21 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
If you go to the Expelledthemovie.com's "Press Room" and try to register, you'll find some interesting terms of use:


http://www.expelledthemovie.com/press_room.php
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/terms.php

They only grant permission to use the material on their site to promote Expelled and its ideas. Not for criticism. Criticism would be persecution, of course.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: pauls59 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14402 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 4/26/2008 8:46 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Does anyone know whether the makers of the film Expelled have responded to the criticisms

Below is the only direct response I know of to the NCSE ExpelledExposed website. It is not written by the producers of expelled, but folks at the Discovery Institute who are friendly to them.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/04/the_ncse_exposed_clunky_attack.html

Personally, I thought the movie was excellent.

JMHO

Paul

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Goofyhoofy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14403 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 4/27/2008 4:49 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
Personally, I thought the movie was excellent.

Even though it was dishonest.

In your April 14 Periscope interview with Ben Stein ("You Say You Want an Evolution?"), one of Stein's responses contained a serious error: He said, "There are a number of scientists and academics who've been fired, denied tenure, lost tenure or lost grants because they even suggested the possibility of intelligent design. The most egregious is Richard Sternberg at the Smithsonian, the editor of a magazine that published a peer reviewed paper about ID. He lost his job."

Sternberg has never been employed by the Smithsonian Institution. Since January 2004, he has been an unpaid research associate in the departments of invertebrate and vertebrate zoology at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History. Dr. Sternberg continues to enjoy full access to research facilities at the museum. Moreover, Stein's assertion that Sternberg was removed from a Smithsonian publication is not true. The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington is an independent journal and is not affiliated with the Smithsonian.

Randall Kremer, Director of Public Affairs
National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution
Washington, D.C.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/132855

Other than having the basis on which the movie is founded completely wrong, yeah, very enjoyable.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: pauls59 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14405 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 4/27/2008 6:19 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Other than having the basis on which the movie is founded completely wrong, yeah, very enjoyable.

Please do proper due dilligence before parroting someone who hasn't:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1489

Paul

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Goofyhoofy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14406 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 4/27/2008 7:22 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 10
Other than having the basis on which the movie is founded completely wrong, yeah, very enjoyable.

Please do proper due dilligence before parroting someone who hasn't:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1489


So you are willing to take the word of the guy who says he was harrassed from his job over the institution which has a list of the jobs, and which says the guy did not have a job there.

OK.

Should make for an interesting court case. I suspect they may ask him to produce "evidence", like paychecks or something. I hope he has the time to look up the meaning of "evidence", since it seems in such short supply with IDers.

Oh wait, he's an "unpaid" research assistant, who still has the same privileges as before he was supposedly "fired" or was it "demoted". Life's a pitch when you don't get what you want; imagine, scientists wanting other people to pursue science using scientific methods. What will they think of next?
 


Print the post Back To Top
Author: pauls59 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14411 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 4/27/2008 11:10 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
So you are willing to take the word of the guy who says he was harrassed from his job over the institution which has a list of the jobs, and which says the guy did not have a job there.

The link I gave you:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1489

is a United States Federal Congressional Report which includes this statement:

In November of 2004, Dr. Sternberg filed a complaint with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC), the agency charged with “protecting federal employees and applicants from prohibited personnel practices, especially reprisal for whistleblowing.”13 The OSC eventually found evidence to corroborate Sternberg’s complaint, concluding that “[i]t is... clear that a hostile work environment was created with the ultimate goal of forcing” Sternberg out of the Smithsonian.14

To answer your question, The guy had a job there. He was an editor for Proceedings Magazine, not directly employed with the Museum, but nevertheless in a position there where the Smithsonian harrassed him with the goal of making him leave. No, I don't have to take the guys word for it, I have a congressional report that spells it out in black and white. There is no mistake in what Ben Stein said and the results of a congressional inquiry to back it up.

Now the question to you is, you still want to listen to someone who is trying to blow smoke?

Paul

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: benjd25 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14414 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 4/28/2008 3:18 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
Stein being interviewed by the Trinity Broadcasting Network - go to http://tbn.org/video_portal/ and watch "Behind the Scenes" for April 21.

Stein: I also started reading more about a subject that had long interested me, the connection of Darwinism with Nazism, and the fact that Nazism had rested in large part on the idea of Darwinism, that there are superior and inferior races, and that the superior races deserve to live and they should stamp out the inferior ones...

...

Host: What can people of faith do? What do you hope comes from this film?

Stein: Well, we hope that people who have children in schools, will tell their children that if the teacher says Darwinism created everything and that there is no explanation for anything in the scientific world except Darwinism, that the student will say well, Ms. Smith or whatever the teacher's name is, how did life begin? What keeps the planets in their orbits? Is there any proof of a separate species ever being seen to evolve?

...

Stein: We're saying teach what is...what the evidence takes you to. I mean, the evidence does not take you to Darwinism about, uh, about, uh, as to the foundations of life. Darwin just had nothing to say about that. The evidence doesn't take you to Darwinism about astronomy or about the laws of physics or of thermodynamics.

...

Stein: When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers, talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to dothey were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed.

...

Stein: (speaking about the holocaust) ...That was horrifying beyond words, and that's where science - in my opinion, this is just an opinion, that's where science leads you -

Host (Paul Crouch, Jr.): That's right.

Stein: - Love of God, and compassion, and empathy, leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.

Host: Good word, good word.



In a Christianity today interview, he mentions reading From Darwin to Hitler as at least one source for these ideas.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/interviews/benstein.html

...

Did you do a lot of reading to prep for the role?

Stein: Some. I read one book cover to cover, From Darwin to Hitler, and that was a very interesting book—one of these rare books I wish had been even longer. It's about how Darwin's theory—supposedly concocted by this mild-mannered saintly man, with a flowing white beard like Santa Claus—led to the murder of millions of innocent people.


Amazing stuff.

It only lost 11 theaters after the first week, according to Box Office Mojo, from 1052 to 1041:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=daily&id=expelled.htm

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: feedmeNOWhuman Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14415 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 4/28/2008 3:21 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
What keeps the planets in their orbits? Is there any proof of a separate species ever being seen to evolve?


I could swear the answers are gravity and yes.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: feedmeNOWhuman Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14416 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 4/28/2008 3:23 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Stein: - Love of God, and compassion, and empathy, leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.


Awesome.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Tarasicodissa Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14417 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 4/28/2008 5:35 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
Stein: - Love of God, and compassion, and empathy, leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.


Awesome.

I'm confused.
If that's how they think about science, why are they so upset that they aren' allowed to be part of it ?
Why is it that they hate to be "expelled" from this scientific killer-nazi community ?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: centromere Big red star, 1000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14418 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 4/28/2008 8:18 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 25
To answer your question, The guy had a job there.

You do understand though that the OSC dropped the complaint after determining that Sternberg was an unpaid research associate at the Smithsonian and therefore not an employee.

I'm sure this was an oversight on your part and not some attempt to deceive.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14425 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 4/28/2008 11:37 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I'm confused.
If that's how they think about science, why are they so upset that they aren' allowed to be part of it ?
Why is it that they hate to be "expelled" from this scientific killer-nazi community ?


Now, T, you're asking too much! You expect them to make sense? To use logic and reason?? Silly boy!

Or perhaps it's only the existing science that is evil and promotes Nazism, but once it is replaced with theology and ID then it will be "fixed" and all will be right with the world.

1poorguy

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Umm Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14430 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 4/28/2008 1:41 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 62
"Stien:Love of God, and compassion, and empathy, leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people."

It was science that lead mankind to learn how to make airplanes. It was religion that lead mankind to use them as a tool to kill people by flying them into buildings.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Windchasers Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14431 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 4/28/2008 3:30 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
It was science that lead mankind to learn how to make airplanes. It was religion that lead mankind to use them as a tool to kill people by flying them into buildings.

Too bad Newton's Theory of Gravity led to millions of young men dying to artillery fire in the Civil War, WWI, and WWII. :( What an evil wanker that Newton was.

~w

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Kazim Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14432 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 4/28/2008 4:34 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 31
Stein: - Love of God, and compassion, and empathy, leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.

Host: Good word, good word.


It's exactly what centromere and I just said on the global warming thread. These people don't really hate evolution; they hate SCIENCE. It is a competing method of knowing things, and therefore a thread to a system of belief that says you know things primarily through church.

They pay lip service to religion and science being compatible, because they know that most modern people have confidence in science. But really, the objective is to undermine and discredit science as a whole.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: pauls59 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14435 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 4/28/2008 10:21 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
I'm sure this was an oversight on your part and not some attempt to deceive.

Deceive about what?

Dr. Sternberg did lose his position as a research associate at the Smithsonian in violation of his free speach and civil rights.

Dr. Sternberg did lose his position with Proceedings Magazine.

Nevertheless, I am amazed as to how a nit will be picked, blown way out of proportion, and characterized as a moral dilemma, when the real moral issue is the well documented violation of free speach and civil rights of the real victim in question.

I am amazed that criticism of Ben Stein from an NMNH employee carries so much weight by anyone. The congressional investigation into the NMNH subatantiated that there was a "viscerally anti-religious culture existing at the Museum." Additionally, "Secretary Small and Deputy Secretary Burke have exhibited a head-in-the-sand attitude toward wrongdoing at their agency; they have engaged in stonewalling and spin rather than dealing forthrightly with the discrimination that has occurred." Is it any wonder that the NMNH is working to discredit Ben Stein in his crusade for ID? I'm surprised that I haven't seen a lot more from them on this matter.

I do not think that Ben Stein actually said that Sternberg received a paycheck from the Smithsonian. He said Sternberg lost his job, meaning his position with Proceedings Magazine, which is true. I was only trying to explain what Ben Stein was saying. It is not unusual for an unpaid position to be called a job; it is an unpaid job.

Going back to the original post from Goofyhoofy which started this whole debate, he wrote:

Other than having the basis on which the movie is founded completely wrong, yeah, very enjoyable.

The criticism Goofyhoofy quoted was not directed at the movie itself, but at an April 14 Periscope interview with Ben Stein ("You Say You Want an Evolution?"). The criticism was made by someone at the NMNH which has notoriously smeared scientists based on anti-religious and political motivations.

The jab Goofyhoofy took at the movie was misplaced and almost certainly based on anti-religious and political motivations.

I maintain that I have made no attempt to deceive, that Expelled is an excellent movie, and that there should be better due diligence to ensure credible, reliable criticisms are made.

I will add that I do not see how the NCSE criticisms of the Expelled movie ExpelledExposed.com are credible, especially those concerning their criticisms of the Sternberg case. The Congressional investigation found that:

Many of the efforts to publicly discredit Dr. Sternberg were done under the guidance of the National Center for Science Education, a private special interest group and proevolution advocacy organization. Early on in the controversy, the NCSE circulated a set of “talking points” to the BSW Council and NMNH officials on how to discredit both Sternberg and the Meyer article. The OSC investigation found that the “NCSE recommendations were circulated within the SI and eventually became part of the official public response of the SI to the Meyer article.”

Additionally The extent to which NMNH officials colluded on government time and with government resources with the NCSE to publicly discredit Dr. Sternberg’s scientific and professional integrity and investigate opportunities to dismiss him is alarming.

It is very disturbing how hard the NCSE will fight to violate the civil rights and free speach of scientists who do anything that appears to support ID. They impeached their ethics in more than one way by working with the NMNH to discredit Sternberg.

JMHO

Paul

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: centromere Big red star, 1000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14437 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 4/29/2008 9:25 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 27
Dr. Sternberg did lose his position as a research associate at the Smithsonian in violation of his free speach and civil rights.

When? Sternberg still lists his Smithsonian email address as current, sternberg.richard@nmnh.si.edu. And he still lists being a research associate at the Smithosonian in his C.V.

His sponser, Jonathan Coddington says that Sternberg hasn't been dismissed.

Can you find independent evidence that Sternberg was fired...or do you only get your information from the movies? Hopefully you won't go see "War of the Worlds" and spend your summer hiding in the basement from martian invaders.

Dr. Sternberg did lose his position with Proceedings Magazine.

The decision to have Sternberg step down as assistant editor was made prior to the publication of the Meyer paper. The issue of the Meyer paper was Sternberg's last before his scheduled departure. There was no firing or forced resignation because of the paper.

Sternberg himself does not claim to have been forced out of this position on his web site.

I would also point out that the senior editors and the president of the Proceedings journal in question have stated that Sternberg misused his position to publish an article that did not meet journal standards. Frankly, he deserved to be fired even if he wasn't. The dude acted irresponsibly.

It is very disturbing how hard the NCSE will fight to violate the civil rights and free speach of scientists who do anything that appears to support ID. They impeached their ethics in more than one way by working with the NMNH to discredit Sternberg.

Doofus talk.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14438 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 4/29/2008 10:51 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
They pay lip service to religion and science being compatible, because they know that most modern people have confidence in science. But really, the objective is to undermine and discredit science as a whole.

I think it's more insidious than that. I think they seek to replace science with their relgio-babble. That's why centromere's idea of allowing ID in the science classroom is so dangerous. Once it is in there it likely will be a "third rail" to criticize it. One might "offend" someone's religious beliefs. So it would be presented, but not discredited (which it easily can be, as we've seen here). That's playing right into the fundies' hands.

IMO, they wish to supplant completely real science with their flavor of it. Just take a look at the string of videos MadCap linked...that's what will pass for science if we let the advocates of bronze-age learning take control.

1poorguy

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NigelGlitter Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14440 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 4/29/2008 10:54 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Nevertheless, I am amazed as to how a nit will be picked, blown way out of proportion, and characterized as a moral dilemma, when the real moral issue is the well documented violation of free speach and civil rights of the real victim in question.

Ever seen any in depth articles about the evils of religion published or distributed by religious oriented periodical?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: pauls59 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14447 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 4/29/2008 6:43 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Can you find independent evidence that Sternberg was fired...or do you only get your information from the movies? Hopefully you won't go see "War of the Worlds" and spend your summer hiding in the basement from martian invaders.

LOL

Actually, I didn't say that Sternberg was fired or dismissed or any such thing. I said he lost his position. The Congressional report I gave a link to and have been quoting said that his position as Research Associate would expire in Jan. 2007 and that Sternberg was told that he would not be reinstated, but that he could return at a demoted position. If Sternberg is there now as a RA, the Smithsonian must have been pressured by Congress to reinstate him as an RA.

The decision to have Sternberg step down as assistant editor was made prior to the publication of the Meyer paper. The issue of the Meyer paper was Sternberg's last before his scheduled departure.

Did you get that information from the NCSE? After reading the Congressional report, I wouldn't give them an ounce of credibility, or the Smithsonian, or anyone who listens to either of them.

the president of the Proceedings journal in question have stated that Sternberg misused his position to publish an article that did not meet journal standards. Frankly, he deserved to be fired even if he wasn't. The dude acted irresponsibly.

The Congressional report stated that, contrary to what was being spread around, Sternberg did have the paper properly peer reviewed.

Doofus talk.

How so. The Congressional report backs up every word of what I wrote. The report states that they worked with the Smithsonian in their efforts to violate civil rights. THey spread fals claims and talking points to the smithsonian and I believe also to the publisher. They did this work with Smithsonian employees when they were on official work hours.

Paul

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Weitzhuis Three stars, 500 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14449 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 4/29/2008 9:34 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
"Stein: We're saying teach what is...what the evidence takes you to. I mean, the evidence does not take you to Darwinism about, uh, about, uh, as to the foundations of life. Darwin just had nothing to say about that. The evidence doesn't take you to Darwinism about astronomy or about the laws of physics or of thermodynamics.

...

Stein: When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers, talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to dothey were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed."

It really boggles me how, who i thought to be, an intelligent man can say and believe such misconceptions. Among many others, the confusion of the origin of life with the evolution of life and the denigration of science and scientists in general, as depicted above. Does he not know that hordes of fine scientists, some of the greatest names known, were either forced out, kicked out or simply fled for their lives from Nazi Germany? Hitler wouldn't accept relativity as it was, "Judische Physiks"!

And this from a purported economist, who must know our modern economy just wouldn't be without those scientists with their science! I wonder if he really invests his money where his mouth is. Maybe there is a blind faith futures exchange we don't know about.

- weitzhuis

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24239755/

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: feedmeNOWhuman Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14450 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 4/29/2008 9:40 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The Congressional report stated that, contrary to what was being spread around, Sternberg did have the paper properly peer reviewed.


It should be no problem for you to list the reviewers, then.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: pauls59 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14451 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 4/29/2008 11:26 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
It should be no problem for you to list the reviewers, then.

You can read what I read, directly from the Congressional report, if you like:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1489



From the very beginning of the Sternberg controversy, there was much speculation within NMNH and the scientific community as to whether or not Dr. Sternberg had followed proper procedures in having the Meyer article peer-reviewed. In numerous emails reviewed by the Subcommittee, NMNH staff and others in the scientific community, such as the NCSE’s Dr. Scott, alleged that Dr. Sternberg must not have had the article peer-reviewed, and, if he did, the reviewers must have been either incompetent or a supporter of intelligent design.65 All of these allegations were very damaging to Dr. Sternberg’s reputation within the scientific community as it is considered the ultimate demonstration of scientific irresponsibility to publish an article without proper peer review.

As the controversy heated up in the ensuing months and the allegations about Dr. Sternberg’s mishandling of the Meyer article remained unresolved, the BSW never issued a definitive statement about whether or not the peer-review allegations were true. Only in late January 2005, when Dr. Sues asked Dr. McDiarmid via email about whether the BSW was “satisfied that a proper review by specialists was undertaken,”66 was there any recognition that the article was properly peer-reviewed. Dr. McDiarmid replied to Dr. Sues: “I have seen the review file and comments from 3 reviewers on the Meyer paper. All three with some differences among the comments recommended or suggested publication. I was surprised but concluded that there was not inappropriate behavior vs a vis [sic] the review process.”67


...

In his official capacity with NMNH, Dr. Sues also improperly influenced the BSW in its publishing of a public disclaimer and apology of sorts regarding the publication of the Meyer paper in the Proceedings. While technically the BSW and NMNH are separate entities, Dr. Sues, the #2 scientist at the Smithsonian who had also secured Smithsonian funding for the Proceedings, emailed NCSE’s executive director Dr. Scott: “I met with Roy McDiarmid [the President of the BSW and a scientist at the Smithsonian] yesterday, and urged him to publish, in the next issue of the Proceedings, an open letter to readers from the Council of BSW that Meyer’s article does not represent views endorsed by BSW and that there was a clear failure of the editorial process.”68 Additionally, Dr. Sues forwarded a copy of the NCSE’s “talking points” in an attempt to influence two BSW (and NMNH) members prior to a meeting of the BSW (which also occurred on government time) to discuss the official response to Dr. Sternberg’s publication of the Meyer paper.

The official response that came out of the BSW Council meeting on August 27, 2004, was damaging to Dr. Sternberg’s scientific reputation because it claimed that Dr. Sternberg had not followed “typical editorial practices” as it was “published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process.”69

Contrary to the statement issued by the BSW, there is evidence to suggest that all articles were not always reviewed by associate editors. Dr. Sternberg states on his website that, “As managing editor 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, something I had done before in other appropriate cases.” Dr. Sternberg states that he even consulted a colleague at NMNH who was also a member of the BSW on three occasions to “avoid making a unilateral decision on a potentially controversial paper…” “Each time, this colleague encouraged me to publish the paper despite possible controversy.”

Even NCSE’s Eugenie Scott acknowledged to Dr. McDiarmid that the BSW statement should not “come down too hard on Dr. Sternberg for errors in the procedure followed in accepting this article,” because “other editors have not always referred all articles to the Associate Editors, and because editors justifiably have discretion.”70

These statements by Dr. Sternberg and Dr. Scott directly contradict the statement issued by the BSW. While NMNH officials do not have control over the BSW and can’t force it to correct its public statement, Museum staff should not have participated in the first place (whether through improper influence or through participation in the development of the BSW statement on government time) in the smearing of Dr. Sternberg’s reputation through misinformation.


Contrast this with the spin at the NCSE evolutionexposed website:

http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/sternberg

The argument presented in the Meyer paper had previously been reviewed and rejected by scientists. Seeing this shoddy science in their journal indeed “ignited a firestorm”, but not for the reasons given in Expelled. For more on why the paper was bad science, see the review published on the Panda’s Thumb blog and the review in the Palaeontological Society Newsletter.

The first question asked by BSW members was “how did this paper ever get published?” According to the Council of the Biological Society of Washington, Sternberg failed to follow proper procedure in publishing the paper: “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.”

...

The fact that Sternberg published the Meyer paper in his second-to-last scheduled issue as editor, and that he didn’t follow normal procedure, suggests that he knew that his actions and the paper would be seen as objectionable by his fellow scientists.


Like I have been saying, the NCSE impeached their ethics. They knew the truth to be one thing, but spoke another to smear Sternberg. They continue to smear Sternberg even after they have been exposed by the OSC and Congressional report.

The NCSE is doing the same thing to the Expelled movie.

They cannot be considered credible based on their past actions.

The Expelled movie is excellent. The NCSE is deplorable.

JMHO

Paul

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: feedmeNOWhuman Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14452 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 4/30/2008 12:38 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
It should be no problem for you to list the reviewers, then.
-----
You can read what I read, directly from the Congressional report, if you like:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1489




Why not just list the reviewers?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: centromere Big red star, 1000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14453 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 4/30/2008 9:11 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 13
Actually, I didn't say that Sternberg was fired or dismissed or any such thing. I said he lost his position. The Congressional report I gave a link to and have been quoting said that his position as Research Associate would expire in Jan. 2007 and that Sternberg was told that he would not be reinstated, but that he could return at a demoted position.

Sternberg had a 3-year research associate position that terminated in 2007. His original sponsor passed away and he was passed on for the remainder of his term to the department supervisor (Coddington, and later Vari). To renew his position as a research associate he had to find another sponsor to do collaborative research with. No one wanted to sponsor him. Therefore he was offered the only position available in the absence of a sponsor, research collaborator.

Why should anyone be forced to act as Sternberg's sponsor if everyone there thought he was a doofus?

me: The decision to have Sternberg step down as assistant editor was made prior to the publication of the Meyer paper.

Pauls59: Did you get that information from the NCSE? After reading the Congressional report, I wouldn't give them an ounce of credibility, or the Smithsonian, or anyone who listens to either of them.

Here is the minutes from the 131st annual meeting of the Biological Society of Washington (the publishers of the journal in question) held on June 15, 2004.

http://www.biolsocwash.org/minutes_2004.html

excerpt: "McDiarmid announced that Proceedings Editor Richard Sternberg submitted his resignation as Editor on 9 October 2003 but agreed to remain in the position until a replacement could be found. Past President Richard Banks has agreed to serve as interim Editor beginning 1 July 2004."

The Meyer paper was published in the June 2004 volume. Sternberg submitted his resignation over 6 months BEFORE this event.

The Congressional report stated that, contrary to what was being spread around, Sternberg did have the paper properly peer reviewed.

The folks saying Sternberg did not follow procedures are the owners, publishers, and editors of the journal in question.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14456 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 4/30/2008 12:09 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Cool...now that we've wrapped up that red herring...

Video #21 in the series linked by MadCap is truly frightening, and illustrates the danger (dare I say "evil") of anti-science, creationist, fundamentalist thinking.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=UnC7Nwqw5Dg&feature=PlayList&p=AC3481305829426D&index=20

We have a living example of what happens to a nation/empire when fundamentalists take over. Let's not let that happen to us. If reason does not win the day, our children are doomed (or will need to start learning to speak European languages so they can move).

1poorguy

Print the post Back To Top
Author: pauls59 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14490 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 4/30/2008 9:37 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Why should anyone be forced to act as Sternberg's sponsor if everyone there thought he was a doofus?

Because the Smithsonian holds a responsibility to protect the free speech and civil rights of their scientists who may hold dissenting views on topics such as biological evolution.

The folks saying Sternberg did not follow procedures are the owners, publishers, and editors of the journal in question.

Roy McDiarmid [the President of the BSW and a scientist at the Smithsonian] knew for some time that Sternberg did follow the proper procedures. He kept quiet about that fact and allowed Sternberg to be smeared. He was told to make the disclaimer about the paper and followed through on it. This even though:

Only in late January 2005, when Dr. Sues asked Dr. McDiarmid via email about whether the BSW was “satisfied that a proper review by specialists was undertaken,”66 was there any recognition that the article was properly peer-reviewed. Dr. McDiarmid replied to Dr. Sues: “I have seen the review file and comments from 3 reviewers on the Meyer paper. All three with some differences among the comments recommended or suggested publication. I was surprised but concluded that there was not inappropriate behavior vs a vis [sic] the review process.”67

66 Hans Sues, “Re: Request for information,” January 28, 2005, 1:40 PM, email to Roy McDiarmid. 67 Roy McDiarmid, “Re: Request for information,” January 28, 2005, 2:25 PM, email to Hans Sues.


The evidence shows that the BSW knew that the paper received proper review, but the BSW was pressured to smear Dr. Sternberg with false allegations.

More at:

http://www.rsternberg.net/publication_details.htm

JMHO

Paul

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: feedmeNOWhuman Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14491 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 4/30/2008 9:50 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Dr. Sues asked Dr. McDiarmid via email about whether the BSW was “satisfied that a proper review by specialists was undertaken



I hate to break the news, but Dr. Suess is dead, and he wasn't a real scientist doctor.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: pauls59 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14492 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 4/30/2008 10:06 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Why not just list the reviewers?

Because Dr. Sternberg has professional integrity. He says that he was:

http://www.rsternberg.net/

Pressured to reveal peer reviewers and to engage in improper peer review. I was repeatedly pressured to reveal the names of the peer-reviewers of the Meyer article, contrary to professional ethics. I was also told repeatedly that I should have found peer reviewers who would reject the article out-of-hand, in direct violation of professional ethics which require editors to find peer reviewers who are not prejudiced or hostile to a particular author or his/her ideas.

All he will say is that:

Three reviewers responded and were willing to review the paper; all are experts in relevant aspects of evolutionary and molecular biology and hold full-time faculty positions in major research institutions, one at an Ivy League university, another at a major North American public university, a third on a well-known overseas research faculty. There was substantial feedback from reviewers to the author, resulting in significant changes to the paper. The reviewers did not necessarily agree with Dr. Meyer's arguments or his conclusion but all found the paper meritorious and concluded that it warranted publication. The reviewers felt that the issues raised by Meyer were worthy of scientific debate. I too disagreed with many aspects of the Meyer paper but I agreed with their overall assessment and accepted the paper for publication. Thus, four well-qualified biologists with five PhDs in relevant disciplines were of the professional opinion that the paper was worthy of publication.

No wonder the NCSE protested so much. This Dr. Sternberg let an ID paper worthy of publication actually get published in a peer reviewed magazine. Why, this might even spark legitimate debate for ID in the real scientific community with real scientists (not pseudo-scientists).

Paul

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: pauls59 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14493 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 4/30/2008 10:24 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Dr. Sues asked Dr. McDiarmid via email about whether the BSW was “satisfied that a proper review by specialists was undertaken



I hate to break the news, but Dr. Suess is dead, and he wasn't a real scientist doctor.


Well, I am sorry to hear the news about Dr. Suess, but Dr. McDiarmid of the BSW was the one who found that the paper was properly reviewed.

Paul

Print the post Back To Top
Author: centromere Big red star, 1000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14495 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 5/1/2008 1:31 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 15
Because the Smithsonian holds a responsibility to protect the free speech and civil rights of their scientists who may hold dissenting views on topics such as biological evolution.

Free speech means being able to criticise bad research and improper behavior. The Smithsonian has no responsibility to sponsor researchers that are not doing research of interest to the institution.

Is the Discovery Institute obligated to hire an evolutionary biologist?

Roy McDiarmid [the President of the BSW and a scientist at the Smithsonian] knew for some time that Sternberg did follow the proper procedures.

All McDiarmid said was that he did not find Sternberg's behavior inappropriate with respect to the letters of review. That was never the issue.

The allegations of impropriety was alleged because, in the words of the editorial board: "the paper was published without review by any associate editor;" and ..."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."

The evidence shows that the BSW knew that the paper received proper review, but the BSW was pressured to smear Dr. Sternberg with false allegations.

This is slander, which seems to be something you do on a regular basis. The BSW publically declared that the paper was of poor scientific quality, that Sternberg did not allow any other editor with better qualifications to examine the paper, and that the paper topic was not appropriate for the subject matter of the journal. These points are not being denied.

Interestingly, you provide no rebuttal to the clear evidence that Sternberg resigned the editorship prior to the controversy. If you accept this, then the Expelled movie was dishonest on this important point.

Furthermore, you apparently agree that Sternberg was allowed to finish out his research associate term and was allowed to apply for a renewal. Since the scientists at the Smithsonian are under no obligation to sponsor a research associate they do not feel they can work with, I see no indication that Sternberg was penalized for his questionable behavior as editor or for his religious beliefs.

Unless one can provide evidence that Sternberg was in some way more deserving than the other candidates who were given research associate positions, there aren't any grounds to claim bias. Therefore the Expelled movie was dishonest on this point as well.

Just my opinion, but I think the credibility of both the movie and you are questionable.

By the way, the congressional report you cite is a preliminary finding. The investigation was dropped before everyone could be interviewed and all the evidence examined. I think it highly irresponsible and intellectually dishonest for you to assume a preliminary report to be the gospel truth simply because of your bias against scientists and religious agenda.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: feedmeNOWhuman Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14496 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 5/1/2008 1:42 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Thus, four well-qualified biologists with five PhDs in relevant disciplines were of the professional opinion that the paper was worthy of publication.


You do understand that Sternberg counted his own two PhDs as two out of the five, right?

Combine that with the fact that he won't identify the other three, and it raises some interesting questions, hmmm?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: adonsant Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14498 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 5/1/2008 9:21 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
This Dr. Sternberg let an ID paper worthy of publication actually get published in a peer reviewed magazine.

I've read the paper, and it wasn't worthy to be published in any journal claiming to publish scientific papers. If you'd like, we can debate the paper section by section and put my claim to the test.

-Anthony

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14499 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 5/1/2008 10:52 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Because the Smithsonian holds a responsibility to protect the free speech and civil rights of their scientists

You are conflating free speech with the scientific method. They are not the same thing. If you spout off about something which you cannot justify, your credibility (and career) are shot. Simple as that. Just ask Pons and Fleishmann. Interesting you bring this up because I just finished watching this installment of the (devastatingly thorough) debunking of creationist arguments:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=NiNGK3y5Ypg&feature=PlayList&p=AC3481305829426D&index=21

Skip ahead to about 5:20 if you're impatient.

(Ben Stein is such a dolt.)

1poorguy (laughing...only creationists don't understand why)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: pauls59 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14502 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 5/1/2008 6:17 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
You do understand that Sternberg counted his own two PhDs as two out of the five, right?

Yes, I can do the math. Thie statement was to show the sum total of educational background, at the PhD level, that went into the peer review.

Combine that with the fact that he won't identify the other three, and it raises some interesting questions, hmmm?

< sigh > For the last time, this time from the independent OSC:

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.

Paul

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14516 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 5/2/2008 11:22 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Here, Paul...

Go see a proper movie (actually, you'll probably have to go to Netflix or maybe Blockbuster will have it):

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0800334/

It even has one of the ID heroes, Behe. But it wasn't moderated by a dolt like Stein.

1poorguy

Print the post Back To Top
Author: pauls59 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14520 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 5/2/2008 12:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The Smithsonian has no responsibility to sponsor researchers that are not doing research of interest to the institution.

That was never the complaint. The problem was that, based on the OSC and Congressional investigations, there is stron evidence that Sternberg was discriminated against for lawful activities outside his work at the NMNH. Per the OSC, this is unlawful for an employee, but Sternberg was not classified as an employee. Saying discrimination is ok for RAs is a double standard and should not be acceptable.

The allegations of impropriety was alleged because, in the words of the editorial board: "the paper was published without review by any associate editor;" and ..."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."

...

The BSW publically declared that the paper was of poor scientific quality, that Sternberg did not allow any other editor with better qualifications to examine the paper, and that the paper topic was not appropriate for the subject matter of the journal. These points are not being denied.


The OSC and Congressional report both strongly indicate that those statements are false and should be retracted.

If you accept this, then the Expelled movie was dishonest on this important point.

I think you are confusing an interview done somewhere with what the movie presented. In the movie, Sternberg was interviewed and told his story. It was directly from him, and, try as hard as some have, he has never found to make misstatements, and the OSC and Congressional report have only corroberated what Sternberg has said.

I see no indication that Sternberg was penalized for his questionable behavior as editor or for his religious beliefs.

He was demoted. In my opinion, based on very strong evidence, it was done unfairly.

Just my opinion, but I think the credibility of both the movie and you are questionable.

Did you see the movie? Have you really given objective consideration to all of the facts. I don't see how you can say that if you have, but that is just my opinion.

By the way, the congressional report you cite is a preliminary finding.

The evidence is compelling.

JMHO

Paul

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: pauls59 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14521 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 5/2/2008 10:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Just my opinion, but I think the credibility of both the movie and you are questionable.

By the way, the congressional report you cite is a preliminary finding. The investigation was dropped before everyone could be interviewed and all the evidence examined. I think it highly irresponsible and intellectually dishonest for you to assume a preliminary report to be the gospel truth simply because of your bias against scientists and religious agenda.


The report was complete when published:

http://souder.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=4E950503-19B9-B4B1-12EF-526CDA4C8585

In December 2006, my subcommittee staff completed an investigation of bias at the Smithsonian Institution and released a report entiteld: "Intolerance and the Politicization of Science at the Smithsonian Institution."
The report concluded that the Smithsonian's leadership permitted the harrassment and demotion of Dr. Richard v. Sternberg, a Research Associate at the National Museum of Natural History, because he allowed publication of an article favoring the theory of Intelligent Design in Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, a peer-reviewed biology journal published by the Biological Society of Washington.


No more insults from you, please. I don't deserve them.

Paul

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: centromere Big red star, 1000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14522 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 5/3/2008 1:41 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 52
No more insults from you, please. I don't deserve them.

Sure you do. People who continue to spread misinformation deserve insult.

The report you quote from as being completed was from Representative Mark Souder staff. Mark Souder is an admitted anti-evolution advocate and is hardly an unbiased source. If Hillary Clinton's staff came out with a report critical of a conservative organization, would you consider it objective?

I don't consider Souder's report to be objective or authoritative in any way as there is no requirment that it should be nonpartisan. In that sense it is like the Expelled movie. There is not even a claim or pretense of an objective investigation.

The congressional report that I referred to as being preliminary was from The Office of Special Council, a presumably more objective investigative body as it should be nonpartisan. They interviewed Sternberg, made a preliminary finding that further investigation was merited, but then dropped the case when it found that Sternberg misrepresented his position as an employee. OSC did not complete its investigation and made no official report on the case. To base an opinion on the OSC preliminary finding that was obviously incomplete is to be unfair.

So as far as I can see your entire case rests on 1) a movie funded by anti-evolution folks; 2) a report from the staff of an anti-evolution congressman; and 3) the incomplete preliminary findings (which in fairness shouldn't have been made public until complete) of the OSC, who shortly thereafter dropped the investigation. I'm not impressed

Here are the facts of the case that you have not provided any rebuttal for.

1. Every scientist who has read the Meyer paper and made a public statement has said that it is not up to publication standards. They have provided detailed reasons to justify why they believe the paper to be substandard. An editor who allows a substandard paper to be published should at the very least be reprimanded. Especially when there is evidence that the reason for the publication was to promote a religious belief shared by the editor.

2. The editorial board of the Journal in question are unanimous in their belief that Sternberg acted inappropriately.

3. Sternberg retired from the editor position 6 months before the Meyer article was published. Therefore any claim that he lost the editorship because of that event is false and should be retracted.

If you or the Expelled movie made that claim, then it should be retracted. Otherwise credibility and integrity are suspect.

4. No one has provided any evidence that Sternberg was more deserving than any of the research associates chosen by the Smithsonian in 2007. In the absence of such evidence, there is no indication that Sternberg not receiving a research associate position in 2007 was unfair.

Unless you can tell me which successful candidate was less deserving than Sternberg and why, the charge that Sternberg lost his research associate position because of bias should be retracted.

5. Every major scientific organization in the world that has expressed an opinion on the subject say that ID is a religious assertion rather than a scientific theory. A federal court presided by a Bush appointed federal judge ruled that ID is religion not science. Yet Sternberg allowed the publication of a paper promoting ID in a scientific journal. The impropriety seems pretty obvious.

Suppose an editor of a medical journal allowed the publication of a paper asserting that HIV was created by Europeans to kill Africans. Furthermore, suppose every major scientific organization subsequently denounced that paper as being substandard and non-scientific. Furthermore, suppose it was shown that the editor believed the assertion of the paper and was a member of organizations that espoused that belief. I think most would agree that that editor should be fired and it would not be a controversial decision. It's not about free speech, it's about meeting the rigorous standards of scientific publication.

But of course, Sternberg wasn't fired. He retired before the event occurred, sly devil. He deserved to be reprimanded and, frankly, got off too easy.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: pauls59 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14523 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 5/3/2008 3:46 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Sure you do. People who continue to spread misinformation deserve insult.

It is deformation of character and a tactic used when you cannot stand on your arguments. If you had good arguments, you wouldn't have to resort to insults.

If Hillary Clinton's staff came out with a report critical of a conservative organization, would you consider it objective?

If the talking points that were used for the disclaimer of the Meyer paper came from the NCSE, would they be objective? If the president of the BSW, a Smithsonian scientist, was told to write the disclaimer by the same manager who was discriminating against Dr. Sternberg, would that be unbiased?

The congressional report that I referred to as being preliminary was from The Office of Special Council, a presumably more objective investigative body as it should be nonpartisan. They interviewed Sternberg, made a preliminary finding that further investigation was merited, but then dropped the case when it found that Sternberg misrepresented his position as an employee. OSC did not complete its investigation and made no official report on the case. To base an opinion on the OSC preliminary finding that was obviously incomplete is to be unfair.

You are confused. The OSC report is incomplete, but it is not a congressional report. The OSC is completely independent from Congress. Though incomplete, they did have something conclusive about the case, and they did have opinions about the case. Those do have merit as opinions. In what you said, that Dr. Sternberg misrepresented himself to the OSC as an employee, is misinformation you are spreading. Dr. Sternberg would have immediately been dismissed from the NMNH for that misrepresentation, and he wasn't. But don't worry, I won't insult you. My arguments have merit.

Every scientist who has read the Meyer paper and made a public statement has said that it is not up to publication standards.

You mean every scientist who you qualify as a scientist. The scientists associated with ID don't count to you. Talk about bias.

The editorial board of the Journal in question are unanimous in their belief that Sternberg acted inappropriately.

A member of the board encouraged Dr. Sternberg to publish it, per Dr. Sternberg. There was no inappropriate behavior in the review process per the BSW President. The NCSE admitted that Dr. Sternberg's procedure in publishing the paper could not be criticised.

JMHO

Paul

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: pauls59 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14524 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 5/3/2008 3:48 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Sure you do. People who continue to spread misinformation deserve insult.

It is deformation of character and a tactic used when you cannot stand on your arguments. If you had good arguments, you wouldn't have to resort to insults.

If Hillary Clinton's staff came out with a report critical of a conservative organization, would you consider it objective?

If the talking points that were used for the disclaimer of the Meyer paper came from the NCSE, would they be objective? If the president of the BSW, a Smithsonian scientist, was told to write the disclaimer by the same manager who was discriminating against Dr. Sternberg, would that be unbiased?

The congressional report that I referred to as being preliminary was from The Office of Special Council, a presumably more objective investigative body as it should be nonpartisan. They interviewed Sternberg, made a preliminary finding that further investigation was merited, but then dropped the case when it found that Sternberg misrepresented his position as an employee. OSC did not complete its investigation and made no official report on the case. To base an opinion on the OSC preliminary finding that was obviously incomplete is to be unfair.

You are confused. The OSC report is incomplete, but it is not a congressional report. The OSC is completely independent from Congress. Though incomplete, they did have something conclusive about the case, and they did have opinions about the case. Those do have merit as opinions. In what you said, that Dr. Sternberg misrepresented himself to the OSC as an employee, is misinformation you are spreading. Dr. Sternberg would have immediately been dismissed from the NMNH for that misrepresentation, and he wasn't. But don't worry, I won't insult you. My arguments have merit.


JMHO

Paul

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: pauls59 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14525 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 5/3/2008 3:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Sorry for the duplication in the last post, I am having technical difficulties posting, for some reason. Here is the rest:

If you or the Expelled movie made that claim, then it should be retracted.

If I did, it is retracted. I don't recall exactly what the movie said, but Dr. Steinberg's story came from his own words in the interview.

No one has provided any evidence that Sternberg was more deserving than any of the research associates chosen by the Smithsonian in 2007.

He was said to be in good standing. Then he was demoted to a position that was beneath him. He could not get fair treatment because nobody could sponsor him for fear of reprisal. That is in the Congressional report

Yet Sternberg allowed the publication of a paper promoting ID in a scientific journal. The impropriety seems pretty obvious.

He consulted another editor who on 3 occasions told him it should be published. He had 3 peer reviews, all from qualified scientists, who told him, though they disagreed with some things, it was publishable. There are many good scientists who consider ID to be science. There are 700 who have signed the petition against evolution. This is about the freedom of scientific inquiry. Even if 1 considers it to be worth questioning, there should not be such intolerance. Science should be open to such inquiry.

He deserved to be reprimanded and, frankly, got off too easy.

That is extremely biased. It is also discriminatory. Diversity is valued in the Federal agencies. Bias and discrimination in any form will destroy that diversity.

The evidence that Dr. Sternberg was discriminated against is compelling and can be found here:

http://www.souder.house.gov/_files/AppendixtoReportIntoleranceandthePoliticizationofScienceattheSmithsonian.pdf

JMHO

Paul

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: feedmeNOWhuman Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14526 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 5/3/2008 7:35 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
The scientists associated with ID don't count to you. Talk about bias.


When are they planning on doing some science?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: feedmeNOWhuman Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14527 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 5/3/2008 7:37 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
There are 700 who have signed the petition against evolution.


It's not a petition against evolution.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: GusSmed Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14528 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 5/3/2008 8:20 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
There are 700 who have signed the petition against evolution.

How many scientists* will they need before evolution will stop? And if that works, do you think we could get a petition against aging going? I'd like to live forever, myself, and I think we ought to get the ball rolling on that project ASAP.

I'm assuming they'll need more than the Steve-o-Meter. You know, the list of scientists named Steve who support this statement:

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.

As of today, they're up to 880, so the quacks have a little catching up to do before they have enough votes to change reality.

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/meter.html

Really, we don't know precisely how far behind the "petition against evolution" is, because they don't list the all-important Steve vote. I believe it's about 9 right now, but I could be wrong.

- Gus
* "Scientist" is a pretty loose term in connection with that list, since it includes TV script writers and theologians as "scientists," and very few actual biologists.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: crassfool Big funky green star, 20000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14529 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 5/4/2008 12:37 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
pauls says

It is deformation of character and a tactic used when you cannot stand on your arguments. If you had good arguments, you wouldn't have to resort to insults.

For Christ's sweet sake, learn to spell defamation. Thank you.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: pauls59 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14530 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 5/4/2008 8:14 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
You said:

Here are the facts of the case that you have not provided any rebuttal for.

And I gave you a link for the evidence that clearly shows rebuttal to most items regarding Sternberg. It is, on its face, compelling and if you cannot see what happened when reviewing the evidence, well, I cannot do any more to help you or anyone else make a proper conclusion. It is the best evidence of discrimination. Carry on and be oblivious to it if you like.

What if the shoe was on the other foot. What if the ID had complete controll of science and disallowed any serious consideration of evolution. For your part, you would be the one disenfranchised (sp). You would be certain that science is suffering and freedom of inquiry was lost. We have the same evidence. The same old bones, but Behe would be the king of science and evolution would be mocked, be pseudo science, all because the hitler of science is an Intelligent Design scientist. You now have to attend the church of intelligent design in the science classroom.

The opposite is what Intelligent design supporters find in the atheist church of evolution without any room for thoughtful Scientific debate.

I will make one final comment with the thing that started the fury on this. Goofyhoofy made a notion that the Expelled movie was flawed because of this interview:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/130619

The interview was not from the movie yet it was attributed to the movie, Goofyhoofie's post in itself was misleading. Besides that, Newsweek may have abbreviated or otherwise erred in the translation of the interview, and what Stein said may not have been properly transcribed onto the newsweek site. Newsweek has the usual disclaimer (see paragraph 8):

http://www.newsweek.com/id/30181

There was confusion, but on this board, Stein was condemned for his movie, totally misplaced, and I was made to be confused and had to come through a firestorm over this myself.

In the final conclusion, after all the finger pointing NOBODY HAS GIVEN ANY EVIDENCE OF WHAT THE MOVIE ACTUALLY PORTRAYED ABOUT STERNBERG, YET THE MOVIE HAS BEEN SMEARED FOR THIS ISSUE.

If you haven't guessed, I make no apology for what I have said or the movie showed until someone gives me something to apologize about.

I will be waiting for that something. (crickets chirping)

JMHO

Paul

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: feedmeNOWhuman Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14531 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 5/4/2008 8:17 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 15
What if the ID had complete controll of science and disallowed any serious consideration of evolution.


We already had that, but the evidence proved otherwise.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: feedmeNOWhuman Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14532 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 5/4/2008 8:18 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
The same old bones, but Behe would be the king of science and evolution would be mocked,


You realized that Behe believes in common descent, right?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: pauls59 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14533 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 5/4/2008 8:40 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
You realized that Behe believes in common descent, right?

Then Ken Ham of AIG if you prefer.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: pauls59 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14534 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 5/4/2008 9:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
We already had that, but the evidence proved otherwise.

A dinosaur tried to tell me that once, but then I reminded him about the flood.

Sorry, But I'm over it for right now. I have some other pressing issues and don't have time for it.

JMHO

Paul

Print the post Back To Top
Author: centromere Big red star, 1000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14535 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 5/5/2008 6:34 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 28
I understand that you believe everything pro-sternberg. The only way to decide how credible that belief is is to examine the details of the accusations. But you refuse to discuss the details, you only keep referring back to some web sites.

Let's recap. In post http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=26603955 you made two assertions:

Dr. Sternberg did lose his position as a research associate at the Smithsonian in violation of his free speach and civil rights.

Dr. Sternberg did lose his position with Proceedings Magazine.


Let's consider them one at a time.

1. Dr. Sternberg did lose his position as a research associate at the Smithsonian in violation of his free speach and civil rights.

First we have established that Sternberg completed his full term as a research associate. We also established that his original sponsor passed away during that term. He reapplied for the position but was not able to find another sponsor so was given a research collaborator position instead. There is nothing improper about this. For an assertion of bias, one would have to demonstrate that the research associate positions were given to folks less qualified than Sternberg. I've seen no evidence to that effect. I've seen no evidence that the Sternberg application was treated any differently than normal.

I think we can safely say that this assertion is false.

2.Dr. Sternberg did lose his position with Proceedings Magazine.

Sternberg was an acting editor of the of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. I presented you with the minutes of the annual meeting in 2004 announcing that Sternberg had retired from the editorship in October of 2003 and was awaiting replacement. This retirement was over 6 months BEFORE the controversy.

I think we can safely say that this assertion is also false.

I conclude then that anyone, who when given this information still continues to make the same assertions, displays questionable credibility and integrity on the issue. That's not so much of an insult and as it is an objective appraisal based on the available information.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: NigelGlitter Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14536 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 5/5/2008 7:43 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I conclude then that anyone, who when given this information still continues to make the same assertions, displays questionable credibility and integrity on the issue. That's not so much of an insult and as it is an objective appraisal based on the available information.

You need to translate your posts into doofus talk so they can be understood. Altavista has a good, free, online translator.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: centromere Big red star, 1000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14537 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 5/5/2008 9:36 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 9
You need to translate your posts into doofus talk so they can be understood.

Oh they are understood. Integrity just doesn't matter.

I don't think it is a surprise that these assertions of bias against IDists, all of which involve supposed grievous violations of civil rights and free speech, are not being pursued legally, at least to my knowledge. That would require following rules of evidence and actually having to prove the allegations with facts.

Much easier to wage the battle via web sites where all you need are allegations and innuendo.

Congressman Souder claims to have uncovered this terrible injustice being inflicted on Sternberg. So what does he do? Urge a larger investigation? Involve the justice department? Try to get to the bottom of this vast anti-ID conspiracy?

None of the above. Nothing as far as I can see. It is all simply a PR campaign.

What afterall is Sternberg complaining about? He decided to publish a highly controversial paper and has become controversial. What exactly did he expect? He decided to publish a paper that the vast majority of scientists and all of his colleagues do not consider to be science, and he became unpopular with his colleagues. Again, what did he expect?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14538 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 5/5/2008 10:02 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I conclude then that anyone, who when given this information still continues to make the same assertions, displays questionable credibility and integrity on the issue. That's not so much of an insult and as it is an objective appraisal based on the available information.

I think you're wasting your time, centromere. He's taking the sadly typical creationist approach of quoting a discredited source, and then sticking his fingers in his ears and saying "la la la la la la la la la la la!!". His mind is made up, don't try to confuse him with silly stuff like facts and evidence. He might actually have to admit he made an error, and that would be the wedge that could lead to the revelation that he made other errors! Horrors!

1poorguy

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Kazim Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14539 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 5/5/2008 10:51 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
You need to translate your posts into doofus talk so they can be understood. Altavista has a good, free, online translator.

I found a translator, but I'm not sure it's exactly the dialect of doofus that you had in mind.

http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~jbc/home/chef.html
Sternberg ves un ecteeng ideetur ooff zee ooff zee Pruceedeengs ooff zee Beeulugicel Suceeety ooff Vesheengtun. I presented yuoo veet zee meenootes ooff zee unnooel meeteeng in 2004 unnuoonceeng thet Sternberg hed retured frum zee ideeturship in Ooctuber ooff 2003 und ves eveeeting replecement. Thees returement ves oofer 6 munths BEFORE zee cuntrufersy.

I theenk ve-a cun seffely sey thet thees essershun is elsu felse-a.

I cuncloode-a zeen thet unyune-a, vhu vhee geefee thees inffurmeshun steell cunteenooes tu meke-a zee seme-a essershuns, deespleys qooesshuneble-a credeebility und integreety oon zee issooe-a. Thet's nut su mooch ooff un insoolt und es it is un oobjecteefe-a eppreeesel besed oon zee efeeeleble-a inffurmeshun.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: GusSmed Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14540 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 5/5/2008 11:43 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
That program needs to interject "bork bork bork" between paragraphs.

- Gus

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NigelGlitter Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14541 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 5/5/2008 3:05 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I don't think it is a surprise that these assertions of bias against IDists, all of which involve supposed grievous violations of civil rights and free speech, are not being pursued legally, at least to my knowledge. That would require following rules of evidence and actually having to prove the allegations with facts.

One does not have to travel far to see how poorly Free Speech is understood. Just visit TMF's own Censorship & Board Admin Issues and you'll be treated to a plethora of cries about how TMF violates posters First Right Amendments.

When the US government starts shutting down religious publications, I'll start listening to the claims.

Doofus Speak translation:

I have the constitutional right to say or write whatever I want, any place, and at anytime. The fact that I am not a constitutional lawyer and am not conversant in constitutional law is just as irrelevant as the fact that I am not a scientist and not conversant in the topics I'm telling you you know nothing about. My religious leader talks to god, and god made you, so he's smarter than you.

Please don't ever insult my intelligence again because when you do, you insult not only my religious beliefs, but god himself. The first is rude and classless, the second is a guaranteed fast track ride to eternal damnation.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14542 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 5/5/2008 3:43 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
...the second is a guaranteed fast track ride to eternal damnation.

"You'll smoke a tvrd in h*ll for that!"

:-)

1poorguy

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheMoonglade Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14543 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 5/5/2008 7:46 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Sternberg ves un ecteeng ideetur ooff zee ooff zee Pruceedeengs ooff zee Beeulugicel Suceeety ooff Vesheengtun. I presented yuoo veet zee meenootes ooff zee unnooel meeteeng in 2004 unnuoonceeng thet Sternberg hed retured frum zee ideeturship in Ooctuber ooff 2003 und ves eveeeting replecement. Thees returement ves oofer 6 munths BEFORE zee cuntrufersy.

I theenk ve-a cun seffely sey thet thees essershun is elsu felse-a.

I cuncloode-a zeen thet unyune-a, vhu vhee geefee thees inffurmeshun steell cunteenooes tu meke-a zee seme-a essershuns, deespleys qooesshuneble-a credeebility und integreety oon zee issooe-a. Thet's nut su mooch ooff un insoolt und es it is un oobjecteefe-a eppreeesel besed oon zee efeeeleble-a inffurmeshun.


By Oak and Ash, it's the croc from Pearls Before Swine...

Moonglade

Print the post Back To Top
Author: pauls59 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14544 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 5/5/2008 9:39 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
He reapplied for the position but was not able to find another sponsor so was given a research collaborator position instead.

You don't have your facts straight. He had a sponsor, Dr. Vari. The appendix to the Congressional report includes a letter from the Smithsonian that assures Dr. Sternberg that he did not lose his sponsor. I gave you the link to the appendix in a recent post.

It was Dr. Vari, who was Dr. Sternberg's sponsor and continued as his sponsor as a Research Collaborator, who wrote him and told him he would be a Reasearch Collaborator due to a new change in the system at the NMNH.

Honestly though, reading the evidence, the NMNH had e-mails where they discussed asking him to leave. They investigated his religious affiliations (a big problem with their non-discrimination policy). They had the NCSE monitor his outside activities. They moved him under an unfriendly supervisor. The requested more reporting than was required of any other RA. They restricted his acces to the Smithsonian. They took his master key. The evidence shows clear intent to make things very uncomfortable for Sternberg in an effort to get Sternberg to resign.

There is a lot of evidence and it is clear that Sternberg was an RA in good standing, but they wanted to get rid of him because of the Meyer paper. There is no explanation about the "new system". It did not say that Sternberg was less qualified. He was told that he was an RA in good standing, which should have been enough to renew his RA.

I think we can safely say that this assertion is false.

Check it out:

http://www.souder.house.gov/_files/AppendixtoReportIntoleranceandthePoliticizationofScienceattheSmithsonian.pdf

See PDF pages 11 and 24. Your assertion that he lost his RA because he lost his sponsor is definitely not true. You don't sound like you know what you are talking about. It sounds like the doofus talk that I am being accused of.

Sternberg was an acting editor of the of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. I presented you with the minutes of the annual meeting in 2004 announcing that Sternberg had retired from the editorship in October of 2003 and was awaiting replacement. This retirement was over 6 months BEFORE the controversy.

I think we can safely say that this assertion is also false.


I already told you that I was origionally mislead by Goofyhoofie's post indicating that the Expelled movie made this assertion. I don't recall exactly what Sternberg said about this, but I trusted that Sternberg didn't misstate anything in the movie. It turns out that the Newsweek quote said "he lost his job" not the movie. Newsweek may have even misquoted Stein and the original accusation against Stein is in doubt. This is really nothing more than a smokescreen to throw darts at me and make me look foolish.

I agree that the assertion is false and I made a mistake, but it fell out of an assertion against the movie that was misrepresented. I was misled and that led me to the wrong conclusion. Nevertheless, I apologize for not being more carefull to check the facts and shot from the hip because I took the bait.

Now, about the Dufus talk, the integrity talk, and all the other garbage talk, I have apologized. But you shot me down with a misrepresentation of why Dr. Sternberg was demoted. I heard what you said. I looked up the facts. You have no room to talk about me. The question is, are you big enough to apologize to me for the misstatements of fact you have made. Trying to make me believe he had no sponsor and had to compete all over again for another sponsor. In truth it was a "new system in place". No explanation of what the new system is or why it resulted in his demotion. Sounds more like a "by the way, new system, Your'e demoted, gotta run, (we don't think we need to give you an explanation)."

JMHO

Paul

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: feedmeNOWhuman Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14545 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 5/5/2008 10:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"You'll smoke a tvrd in h*ll for that!"


You honky mofo!

Print the post Back To Top
Author: feedmeNOWhuman Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14546 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 5/5/2008 10:05 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
By Oak and Ash


Let's leave the evil magical stuff out of this, m'kay?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: centromere Big red star, 1000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14547 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 5/6/2008 8:26 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 12
I don't really want to spend too much more time on the Sternberg issue as I think I've learned about as much as I care to about the matter, so I'll try to make this short.

Your assertion that he lost his RA because he lost his sponsor is definitely not true...But you shot me down with a misrepresentation of why Dr. Sternberg was demoted. I heard what you said. I looked up the facts. You have no room to talk about me. The question is, are you big enough to apologize to me for the misstatements of fact you have made. Trying to make me believe he had no sponsor and had to compete all over again for another sponsor. In truth it was a "new system in place". No explanation of what the new system is or why it resulted in his demotion.

Everything I said I believe is still accurate and can be verified by original emails. I don't have the time and may not have the legal right to print them here but they can be found at http://www.sciam.com/media/pdf/2008-04-09_expelled_souter-report-appendix.pdf, which I believe is the appendix of the Souter report.

Sternberg was taken on as an RA in 2004 with Brian Kensley as his original sponsor. Kensley passed away shortly thereafter. Coddington, the chairperson of the department Kensley was in took over the sponsorship.

Excerpt from email of Coddington to Sternberg, 2/16/2004

"We met on Oct. 13, 2004 to discuss your plans. I explained that normally NMNH Research Associates must have a staff scientist as sponsor. In your case, however, Brian Kensley's death 15 days after your appointment left you, as you put it, "incertae sedis." No other lnvertebrate Zoology research scientist offered to sponsor you, so by default as Chair of the then Zoology Department I agreed to take responsibility for you and to act as your sponsor for the duration of your current research associate appointment (until 4 Jan. 2007)."

Note that no one wanted to be Sternberg's sponsor even before the controversy.

When Sternberg transferred to the department of Vertebrate Zoology, his sponsorship was transferred to the chair of that department, Richard Vari. Sternberg complete his full RA term with Vari.

Excerpt from email of Vari to Sternberg, 10/3/2006

"Your Research Associate appointment at the National Museum of Natural History will expire at the end of the year. If you would like to be considered for renewal of your appointment, please send me an updated CV along with a brief statement of the projects you would like to pursue in the Division of Fishes."

Note, and this is important, Coddington and Vari inherited Sternberg, they did not choose him. There is no indication that either was interested in his research or were impressed with his abilities. They were obligated to take over his sponsorship because they were the chairmen of the relevant departments when Sternberg's original sponsor died.

RA positions are temporary. Sternberg's RA position term ended Jan. 4 2007. At that point he would have to reapply for the position. In order to reapply, he would have to find someone willing to sponsor him. No one was willing to sponsor him. This is not surprising since the person originally interested in him is deceased, and there is no indication that anyone else was interested in his research.

Note that a Reseach Associate position is described as: "scholars who formally and actively collaborate with NMNH scientific staff through collaborative projects, proposal submission, co-authored publications, etc."
(http://www.nmnh.si.edu/rtp/other_opps/apintro.html). If no one on staff wants to collaborate, you are out of luck.

In comparison, a collaborator "are those professionals working independently within the National Museum of Natural History research and collection facilities". This sounds more like Sternberg, who didn't seem to care much about what his colleagues at the NMNH thought.

To summarize. Sternberg's original sponsor died. Since RAs require a sponsor, the Smithsonian probably could have got rid of him then. Instead, they found nominal sponsors so that he could complete his RA term. Sounds to me like the Smithsonian acted appropriately.

As for your question: "The question is, are you big enough to apologize to me for the misstatements of fact you have made."

The answer is no, I am a big weenie. Fortunately, I made no factual misstatements, at least none of any substance.

Because I am a big weenie, I try not to make bold assertions and slandorous accusations about things I have only a limited understanding. Otherwise, I run the risk of sounding like a doofus. Perhaps you should consider becoming a big weenie, as you are about to enter the doofus Hall of Fame.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: centromere Big red star, 1000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14548 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 5/6/2008 9:41 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 9
One more thing.

Pauls59: "It was Dr. Vari, who was Dr. Sternberg's sponsor and continued as his sponsor as a Research Collaborator, who wrote him and told him he would be a Reasearch Collaborator due to a new change in the system at the NMNH...
There is no explanation about the "new system"...
No explanation of what the new system is or why it resulted in his demotion. Sounds more like a "by the way, new system, Your'e demoted, gotta run, (we don't think we need to give you an explanation)."


Here is the evidence that there really was a change in the system that applied throughout NMNH, not just Sternberg.

In May, 2005 there were 44 collaborators and 245 RAs.

In May, 2006 there were 99 collaborators and 317 RAs.

In May, 2007 there were 139 collaborators and 275 RAs.

Most recently, there are 148 collaborators and 245 RAs.

It appears there was a change in policy beginning in 2006 that is generally converting a lot of RA positions to Collaborators. I see no evidence that Sternberg was specifically targeted for "demotion".

This is another allegation that needs to be retracted.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheMoonglade Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14550 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 5/6/2008 7:48 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
By Oak and Ash

Let's leave the evil magical stuff out of this, m'kay?


I gotta be me!

Moonglade

Print the post Back To Top
Author: pauls59 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14551 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 5/6/2008 10:26 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Excerpt from email of Coddington to Sternberg, 2/16/2004

"We met on Oct. 13, 2004 to discuss your plans...No other lnvertebrate Zoology research scientist offered to sponsor you, so by default as Chair of the then Zoology Department I agreed to take responsibility for you...

Note that no one wanted to be Sternberg's sponsor even before the controversy.


That e-mail to Dr. Sternberg was 2/16/2005. They met Oct. 13, 2004. You may want to re-think that comment.

...In order to reapply, he would have to find someone willing to sponsor him. No one was willing to sponsor him. This is not surprising since the person originally interested in him is deceased, and there is no indication that anyone else was interested in his research.

He has a sponsor as collaborator, Dr. Vari. http://www.nmnh.si.edu/rtp/other_opps/intern/associates.html The demotion was a "new system" never explained to him. We have no idea what the new system is. We do know that a lot of e-mails showed intent to ask Sternberg to leave, try to catch him violating a rule so he could be dismissed (the NCSE was even asked to monitor him for this), one e-mail said to be fair to him only until his term was over, one e-mail talked about demoting him. The higer-ups with decision-making authority over RAs showed that they intended to have a policy to discriminate against anyone who had any ID background, absolutely inconsistent with the diversity policy. Sternberg wasn't doing any ID research at the NMNH and didn't consider it. He really just wanted to do the research that he was assigned.

The NMNH e-mails say NMNH would be fair to Dr. Sternberg only until is RA expired and then they will demote him, or just not renew his research position. I think the only reason they kept him on was because of congressional pressure to do so. The e-mails show that they had to be discrete in their unfairness to him, and to walk the line between making a Martyr of Steinberg and pressuring him to resign. The e-mails clearly show that they wanted him to leave because of the Meyer paper, or they believed him to be a Creationist, YEC, or whatever. The SI policy prohibits that kind of discrimination as you can read in the appendix. An SI employee even identified the discrimination in one e-mail. Naturally the SI denies the discrimination.

This is a polarizing issue. Either you are an idiot who supports the claim that Sternberg was discriminated against, or you are an idiot who supports the opposite. Which kind of idiot you are depends on what side of ID you are on.

To summarize. Sternberg's original sponsor died. Since RAs require a sponsor, the Smithsonian probably could have got rid of him then. Instead, they found nominal sponsors so that he could complete his RA term. Sounds to me like the Smithsonian acted appropriately.

He has a sponsor. They couldn't "get rid of him then" and should never have considered it in view of SI diversity policies.

Fortunately, I made no factual misstatements, at least none of any substance.

If you don't make mistakes you never learn. If you don't jump into the water you will never learn to swim. I have been researching this issue as I have been debating it, and I have learned a lot. Why such fear of making a mistake. Don't venture out of the protective bubble. Don't take any risks. Some big weenie might call you a doofus. Hey, it won't be the first or the last time. A co-worker of mine was mugged today in the parking lot, broken nose, gash over his eye, fractured hip. Put into perspective, being called a doofus really isn't all that bad.

If the norm for you is that ID cannot ever be debated, it is bad science, it is religion, anyone who publishes it deserve their just desserts, then you can easily see the NMNH as doing the right thing. The e-mails don't bother you.

Sternberg actually didn't expect much to come of the paper being published. http://www.richardsternberg.org/pdf/sternintellbio08.pdf He was interested in seeing what would fall out of a scientific debate on the article. He did not understand the intolerance towards ID.

We did get a little scientific debate from the paper, but mostly we got a collosal political/religious fight.

Expelled has exposed the fight to many who like Dr Sternberg, didn't understand the intolerance the scientific Elite has towards ID. It is having an impact. I am sure you are aware of some legislative action in several states.

JMHO

Paul

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: centromere Big red star, 1000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14552 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 5/7/2008 7:58 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
That e-mail to Dr. Sternberg was 2/16/2005. They met Oct. 13, 2004. You may want to re-think that comment.

Typoed the email date wrong. You got me. Otherwise the comment stands. Kelsey died (Jan. 19, 2004) a couple of weeks after Sternberg joined NMNH. No one in the group wanted to be his sponsor, so it fell by default to Coddington (in Feb, 2004). All this happened prior to the controversy (Meyer paper published June 2004).

So again I'll state, no one wanted to be Sternberg's sponsor even before the controversy.

He has a sponsor as collaborator, Dr. Vari.

C'mon, you can read the emails. Vari was a sponsor by default, no one else wanted the honor and Vari was the Department chair. There is no indication of any scientific collaboration. Vari was the sponsor until Sternberg's term as RA expired in Jan 07. That's the end of it.

Sternberg couldn't get a sponsor in 2007 so he could not renew his research associate position. It's all very clear.

The only person who wanted to sponsor Sternberg died in 2004. I don't understand why you have to assume nefarious reasons why he couldn't find a sponsor in 2007. Even at the beginning of 2004, no one wanted to be his sponsor once Kensley passed away.

The demotion was a "new system" never explained to him. We have no idea what the new system is.

I presented data showing that since 2006, research associate positions are being converted to research collaborations. There is nothing nefarious going on.

If you don't make mistakes you never learn.

So you think it is justifiable to make public allegations about the integrity of a people or organization that aren't accurate? I guess I have a different set of values. I think one should avoid such allegations until one is sure of the facts. I think one should always try to avoid making slandarous allegations that are inaccurate. Isn't there some sort of Christian rule about that...something about false witness?

If the norm for you is that ID cannot ever be debated, it is bad science, it is religion, anyone who publishes it deserve their just desserts, then you can easily see the NMNH as doing the right thing. The e-mails don't bother you.

I've been debating ID for a long time. ID is bad science, just like astrology. ID is religion, just like belief in Noah's flood. Anyone who publishes a religious article in a scientific journal in order to pursue a religious agenda should get their just desserts.

I don't see that NMNH did anything wrong. Aside from a few mean-spirited emails. But don't people have a right to have negative opinions about a colleague who they believe acted improperly?

The emails are irrelevant. What matters is whether Sternberg was treated unfairly. I see not one bit of convincing evidence that Sternberg was mistreated. This is probably why the matter isn't being pursued legally. There is no case.

It's all ID propaganda.

It is having an impact. I am sure you are aware of some legislative action in several states.

The creatonists come and go. Ultimately, it will be economics that will decide this thing. Biotechnology is a growing business, the wave of the future. Biotechnology firms establish themselves in places that are science-friendly so that they can recruit a science-educated work force. The last thing their scientist employees want is to have their kids educated in an anti-evolution school system.

High-tech companies have and will continue to avoid the anti-evolution states and counties.

And once high-tech companies establish themselves in an area their employees, all science-train and evolutionists at heart, will dominate local politics.

Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. It's just a matter of time.

Sorry dude, but this is getting boring. From here on out you can debate yourself. Hope you win.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14554 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 5/7/2008 9:57 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Biotechnology is a growing business, the wave of the future. Biotechnology firms establish themselves in places that are science-friendly so that they can recruit a science-educated work force. The last thing their scientist employees want is to have their kids educated in an anti-evolution school system.

Totally OT here...but I was wondering if you could name a few you thought were particularly promising (on the assumption that Bush and his policies go away next January. I'm aware that stem cell research cannot proceed until that ignorant fool is gone.). Sorry to touch on investing here, but I've been thinking along these lines lately and this seemed a good opportunity to learn something. IMO, stem cells are going to be ENORMOUS. Comparable to the development of antibiotics, probably bigger.

TIA,
1poorguy

P.S. Have no fear naming names. I do my own DD. I'm just looking for a starting point. I'm responsible for all my own decisions.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: pauls59 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14569 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 5/7/2008 10:20 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
No one in the group wanted to be his sponsor, so it fell by default to Coddington (in Feb, 2004). All this happened prior to the controversy (Meyer paper published June 2004)

So again I'll state, no one wanted to be Sternberg's sponsor even before the controversy.



See page 42 of http://www.souder.house.gov/_files/AppendixtoReportIntoleranceandthePoliticizationofScienceattheSmithsonian.pdf

Coddington said, on Sept 1, 2004, a day or two after he was asked about it, "I Oobviously am not going to be able to find a sponsor for Sternberg ... If you don't want to make a martyr out of him, I'll sponsor him"

Obviously, this was after the controversy, Coddington didn't actually ask anyone to be his sponsor, and Coddington decided to be his sponsor. It was the discriminatory atmosphere, not any dislike for Sternberg prior to the controversy that caused the problem. You are so sure that it happened in February 2004 that you read and copied the incorrect date for the February 2005 as 2004, even though you properly typed the Oct. 2004 date when Coddington discussed it with Sternberg. Yor bias is so strong that you are reading your own presuppositions into the evidence, when the evidence states something different.

You jump to the conclusion that based on raw data, there was a system change. The assumption could be several other things. You won't acknowledge that Dr. Vari is presently Dr. Sternbergs sponsor, and that it is politics and discrimination at the Smithsonian which is the reason for Dr. Sternberg's demotion.

It is clear that you are reading what you want to into the evidence.

So you think it is justifiable to make public allegations about the integrity of a people or organization that aren't accurate? I guess I have a different set of values.

I am trying to get at the truth, and I made a mistake because someone else made mistaken allegations about the integrity of the movie, allegations that was inaccurate. When I figured out what happened, I accepted it and apologised. Nobody is perfect and I learned what the truth is. I was as much the victim in that as anyone. You insist on blaming the victim, me.

The emails are irrelevant. They show the truth, and you can't handle the truth.

But don't people have a right to have negative opinions about a colleague who they believe acted improperly?

He published a ID paper in a peer reviewed journal. He actually followed proper procedure, as admitted by his accusers. They never cleared his name because that would legitimize the ID article. THe e-mails prove it. The OSC preliminary report stated it and the Congressional report corroborated the OSC report. But it is the evidence that is damming. The NCSE are the propogandists who led the attack on Dr. Sternberg, smeared his name, and did it to make sure an ID paper was legitimate.

I am not a Doofus. This is all in the record. It is backed up by the Congressional report. These are the facts and your agenda doesn't allow you to accemt them. Like the NCSE you are biased. Like the NCSE you have to make accusations and never back down from them.

It's all ID propaganda.

Its the facts. The propoganda is what the NCSE is spinning.

Ultimately, it will be economics that will decide this thing.

Actually, the neo-Darwinists are slowly starting to see that new reasearch is causing problems for the theory, this from well credentialed scientists in the Expelled movie.

Wake up, its later than you think.

JMHO

Paul

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: centromere Big red star, 1000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14570 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 5/8/2008 8:04 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Totally OT here...but I was wondering if you could name a few you thought were particularly promising (on the assumption that Bush and his policies go away next January. I'm aware that stem cell research cannot proceed until that ignorant fool is gone.).

I don't really know. My guess is that Biotech will follow the same path as the pharmaceuticals. The very high R&D costs and the inherent riskiness of basic research favor larger companies with resources. I'd continue to go with the Genentechs and Amgens. Obvious I know, but there are so many regulatory hurdles and startup costs are so high that it is difficult for the smaller entrepreneur to do much in this field.

BTW, after 3 weeks, revenues and # of theaters have dropped precipitously for the Expelled movie. IMDB gave it a 3.7/10 rating.

I'm betting they will soon start giving out free DVDs to schools.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14572 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 5/8/2008 10:15 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I'm betting they will soon start giving out free DVDs to schools.

Cool. Just drill a hole on the edge of each disc, run a thread through it, and you can make a cool mobile.

Alternatively, take either 4 or 5 little rubber feet (self-adhering), put them on the printed side (unless you really want to see the label) evenly spaced around the edge, and you've got a coaster!

1poorguy (helpful)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 0x6a74 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 14585 of 25048
Subject: Re: Expelled Date: 5/8/2008 7:08 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I'm betting they will soon start giving out free DVDs to schools.

nah ...they'll get churches to buy the DVDs to donate to schools.


=b

Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (76) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement