Sternberg

Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Evolution.
ryu238
Regular Poster
Posts: 562
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 3:04 pm

Sternberg

Postby ryu238 » Mon Apr 27, 2015 2:01 am

http://www.richardsternberg.com/smithso ... =statement
The problem is here its his word against the council and he provides no evidence for his argument.
"Oh yeah I totatally worked with some dudes but I can't tell you who they ate which means that I can't prove anything"

User avatar
Austin Harper
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4857
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:22 pm
Custom Title: Rock Chalk Astrohawk
Location: Detroit
Contact:

Re: Sternberg

Postby Austin Harper » Mon Apr 27, 2015 3:52 am

What argument?
Dum ratio nos ducet, valebimus et multa bene geremus.

ryu238
Regular Poster
Posts: 562
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 3:04 pm

Re: Sternberg

Postby ryu238 » Mon Apr 27, 2015 4:51 am

That he did peer review.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29446
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Sternberg

Postby Gord » Mon Apr 27, 2015 10:25 am

Who did peer review, and of what?
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

ryu238
Regular Poster
Posts: 562
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 3:04 pm

Re: Sternberg

Postby ryu238 » Mon Apr 27, 2015 7:03 pm

An ID paper...check the link.

User avatar
Monster
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5006
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:57 pm
Location: Tarrytown, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Sternberg

Postby Monster » Mon Apr 27, 2015 8:55 pm

ryu238 wrote:An ID paper...check the link.

Post a snippet.
Listening twice as much as you speak is a sign of wisdom.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29446
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Sternberg

Postby Gord » Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:54 am

ryu238 wrote:An ID paper...check the link.

We hate links! Every time we click on a link, someone evil rubs their hands together and laughs evilly.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

ryu238
Regular Poster
Posts: 562
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 3:04 pm

Re: Sternberg

Postby ryu238 » Tue Apr 28, 2015 2:12 pm

...then you are being lazy, because you refuse to do the work.

User avatar
Austin Harper
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4857
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:22 pm
Custom Title: Rock Chalk Astrohawk
Location: Detroit
Contact:

Re: Sternberg

Postby Austin Harper » Tue Apr 28, 2015 3:43 pm

We are lazy because we won't do your work for you?
Dum ratio nos ducet, valebimus et multa bene geremus.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19793
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Sternberg

Postby scrmbldggs » Tue Apr 28, 2015 3:57 pm

Who ate whom?
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

ryu238
Regular Poster
Posts: 562
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 3:04 pm

Re: Sternberg

Postby ryu238 » Tue Apr 28, 2015 4:30 pm

Austin Harper wrote:We are lazy because we won't do your work for you?

Look I know in the link Sternberg gives claims that he can't cash with evidence. My problem is that you force me to explain what the link is about instead of looking at it all to get me to do work.

User avatar
Austin Harper
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4857
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:22 pm
Custom Title: Rock Chalk Astrohawk
Location: Detroit
Contact:

Re: Sternberg

Postby Austin Harper » Tue Apr 28, 2015 4:38 pm

Evidence for what? We have no idea what you're talking about here.
Dum ratio nos ducet, valebimus et multa bene geremus.

User avatar
Monster
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5006
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:57 pm
Location: Tarrytown, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Sternberg

Postby Monster » Tue Apr 28, 2015 4:39 pm

ryu238 wrote:
Austin Harper wrote:We are lazy because we won't do your work for you?

Look I know in the link Sternberg gives claims that he can't cash with evidence. My problem is that you force me to explain what the link is about instead of looking at it all to get me to do work.

Post a snippet and summary.
Listening twice as much as you speak is a sign of wisdom.

ryu238
Regular Poster
Posts: 562
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 3:04 pm

Re: Sternberg

Postby ryu238 » Tue Apr 28, 2015 5:05 pm

Why? Look it's about when Sterberg, an I'D proponent, sunk in I'D into a respectable peer review journal. The link explains his defense, but forgets to show how his reviewer's were and whether or not they were qualified?

User avatar
Monster
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5006
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:57 pm
Location: Tarrytown, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Sternberg

Postby Monster » Tue Apr 28, 2015 7:02 pm

ryu238 wrote:Why? Look it's about when Sterberg, an I'D proponent, sunk in I'D into a respectable peer review journal. The link explains his defense, but forgets to show how his reviewer's were and whether or not they were qualified?

You are begging us to click the link. Most of your posts are written in a similar way. This makes me skeptical of your motives. Sorry, perhaps you're completely honest; I don't know. But you keep writing your posts designed solely to get us to click on links.
Listening twice as much as you speak is a sign of wisdom.

ryu238
Regular Poster
Posts: 562
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 3:04 pm

Re: Sternberg

Postby ryu238 » Tue Apr 28, 2015 7:37 pm

Monster wrote:
ryu238 wrote:Why? Look it's about when Sterberg, an I'D proponent, sunk in I'D into a respectable peer review journal. The link explains his defense, but forgets to show how his reviewer's were and whether or not they were qualified?

You are begging us to click the link. Most of your posts are written in a similar way. This makes me skeptical of your motives. Sorry, perhaps you're completely honest; I don't know. But you keep writing your posts designed solely to get us to click on links.

So the way I make my posts is somehow suspicious? Why?

User avatar
Monster
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5006
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:57 pm
Location: Tarrytown, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Sternberg

Postby Monster » Tue Apr 28, 2015 9:07 pm

ryu238 wrote:
Monster wrote:
ryu238 wrote:Why? Look it's about when Sterberg, an I'D proponent, sunk in I'D into a respectable peer review journal. The link explains his defense, but forgets to show how his reviewer's were and whether or not they were qualified?

You are begging us to click the link. Most of your posts are written in a similar way. This makes me skeptical of your motives. Sorry, perhaps you're completely honest; I don't know. But you keep writing your posts designed solely to get us to click on links.

So the way I make my posts is somehow suspicious? Why?

We had some guys in the past who posted stuff specifically to get us to click on the links.
Listening twice as much as you speak is a sign of wisdom.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29446
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Sternberg

Postby Gord » Tue Apr 28, 2015 9:08 pm

ryu238 wrote:
Monster wrote:
ryu238 wrote:Why? Look it's about when Sterberg, an I'D proponent, sunk in I'D into a respectable peer review journal. The link explains his defense, but forgets to show how his reviewer's were and whether or not they were qualified?

You are begging us to click the link. Most of your posts are written in a similar way. This makes me skeptical of your motives. Sorry, perhaps you're completely honest; I don't know. But you keep writing your posts designed solely to get us to click on links.

So the way I make my posts is somehow suspicious? Why?

It's because you don't post the stuff you're talking about, but instead just post a link. Everyone is suspicious of links. Most people don't click on them when they don't know ahead of time what they're going to see.

It's better to post a quote of the interesting part(s) so that no one has to click on the link to understand what you're saying. That way, they can decide for themselves if the information is interesting, or even worth bothering with.

From what you've said (and without clicking your link), I assume you're talking about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sternberg_ ... ontroversy

The Sternberg peer review controversy concerns the conflict arising from the publication of an article supporting the controversial concept of intelligent design in a scientific journal, and the subsequent questions of whether proper editorial procedures had been followed and whether it was properly peer reviewed.

One of the primary criticisms of the intelligent design movement is that there are no research papers supporting their positions in peer reviewed scientific journals.[1] On 4 August 2004, an article by Stephen C. Meyer (Director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture) titled "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories", appeared in the peer-reviewed journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. Meyer's article was a literature review article, and contained no new primary scholarship itself on the topic of intelligent design.[2] The following month, the publisher of the journal, the Council of the Biological Society of Washington, released a statement repudiating the article and stating that their former editor Richard M. Sternberg had, in an unusual manner, handled the entire review process without consultation or review from an associate editor.[3] The position of editor was unpaid and voluntary, and Sternberg had put in his resignation from it six months earlier.[4] Sternberg disputes the Council's statement and asserts that the paper was appropriately peer reviewed by three biologists who "concluded that [the paper] warranted publication".[5]

The same statement from the Council vowed that proper review procedures would be followed in the future and endorsed a resolution published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which states that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting intelligent design.[6] On September 18, the Discovery Institute issued a statement exulting over the publication of Meyer's paper in a peer-reviewed journal and chastising the National Center for Science Education for stating that the paper should not have been published.[7] The Biological Society of Washington's president, Roy McDiarmid called Sternberg's decision to publish Meyer's article "a really bad judgment call on the editor's part" and said it was doubtful whether the three scientists who peer reviewed the article and recommended it for publication were evolutionary biologists.[8]

I vaguely remember it. It was mentioned in a couple of articles in Skeptic Magazine: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-04-17/#part1

...Ben Stein came to my office to interview me about what I was told was a film about “the intersection of science and religion” called Crossroads (yet another deception). I knew something was afoot with his first question to me was on whether or not I think someone should be fired for expressing dissenting views. I pressed Stein for specifics: Who is being fired for what, when and where? In my experience, people are usually fired for reasons having to do with budgetary constraints, incompetence or not fulfilling the terms of a contract. Stein finally asked my opinion on people being fired for endorsing Intelligent Design. I replied that I know of no instance where such a firing has happened.

This seemingly innocent observation was turned into a filmic confession of ignorance when my on-camera interview abruptly ends there, because when I saw Expelled at a preview screening at the National Religious Broadcasters’ convention (tellingly, the film is being targeted primarily to religious and conservative groups), I discovered that the central thesis of the film is a conspiracy theory about the systematic attempt to keep Intelligent Design creationism out of American classrooms and culture.

Stein’s case for conspiracy centers on a journal article written by Stephen Meyer, a senior fellow at the Intelligent Design think tank Discovery Institute and professor at the theologically conservative Christian Palm Beach Atlantic University. Meyer’s article, “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,” was published in the June 2004 Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, the voice of the Biological Society with a circulation of less than 300 people. In other words, from the get-go this was much ado about nothing.

Nevertheless, some members of the organization voiced their displeasure, so the society’s governing council released a statement explaining, “Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings.” So how did it get published? In the words of journal’s managing editor at the time, Richard Sternberg, “it was my prerogative to choose the editor who would work directly on the paper, and as I was best qualified among the editors I chose myself.” And what qualified Sternberg to choose himself? Perhaps it was his position as a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design, which promotes Intelligent Design, along with being on the editorial board of the Occasional Papers of the Baraminology Study Group, a creationism journal committed to the literal interpretation of Genesis. Or perhaps it was the fact that he is a signatory of the Discovery Institute’s “100 Scientists who Doubt Darwinism” statement.

Meyer’s article is the first Intelligent Design paper ever published in a peer-reviewed journal, but it deals less with systematics (or taxonomy, Sternberg’s specialty) than it does paleontology, for which many members of the society would have been better qualified than he to peer review the paper (in fact, at least three members were experts on the Cambrian invertebrates discussed in Meyer’s paper). Meyer claims that the “Cambrian explosion” of complex hard-bodied life forms over 500 million years ago could not have come about through Darwinian gradualism. The fact that geologists call it an “explosion” leads creationists to glom onto the word as a synonym for “sudden creation.” After four billion years of an empty earth, God reached down from the heavens and willed trilobites into existence ex nihilo. In reality, according to paleontologist Donald Prothero, in his 2007 magisterial book Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters (Columbia University Press), “The major groups of invertebrate fossils do not all appear suddenly at the base of the Cambrian but are spaced out over strata spanning 80 million years — hardly an instantaneous ‘explosion’! Some groups appear tens of millions of years earlier than others. And preceding the ‘Cambrian explosion’ was a long slow buildup to the first appearance of typical Cambrian shelled invertebrates.” If an Intelligent Designer did create the Cambrian life forms, it took 80 million years of gradual evolution to do it.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

ryu238
Regular Poster
Posts: 562
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 3:04 pm

Re: Sternberg

Postby ryu238 » Tue Apr 28, 2015 10:30 pm

Ok ok, I will put more effort into explaining, though I don't think you guys shouldn't be wary of links.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10528
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Sternberg

Postby OlegTheBatty » Tue Apr 28, 2015 10:36 pm

ryu238 wrote:Ok ok, I will put more effort into explaining, though I don't think you guys shouldn't be wary of links.

I hate double negatives. One can seldom be sure if the other person intended both of them.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

ryu238
Regular Poster
Posts: 562
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 3:04 pm

Re: Sternberg

Postby ryu238 » Tue Apr 28, 2015 11:52 pm

Sorry I ment 'should be wary'.I forget to spell check sometimes

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19792
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Sternberg

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Wed Apr 29, 2015 12:00 am

ryu238 wrote:Ok ok, I will put more effort into explaining, though I don't think you guys shouldn't be wary of links.

We don't take orders from you.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26774
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Sternberg

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Apr 29, 2015 12:22 am

ryu238 wrote:Ok ok, I will put more effort into explaining, though I don't think you guys shouldn't be wary of links.


There are many reasons the members here, avoid posts that say "Read this link. It explains everything"

Firstly many people who do this, haven't actually read the link themselves. A subset of these people, simply add links as supporting evidence for their claims, even though the link says something else.

The second main reason is time. Members here have different interests and limited time. They read the other member's posted paragraph explaining the discussion or topic and, if interested, click the link. It is not possible to read all links offered on this forum, to discover what the topic and point is.

The other reason is the old problem of "I didn't say that, the link did". What this means is that a member doesn't express their own views but they link you to a website with radical views. When you point that out, the original members says "I didn't say that, the link did". This is a method for extremists to distribute propaganda on this forum.

The final reason is it is simply polite to offer an explanation or overview before asking someone to read a link.

A good example of this bad behaviour was a member called Aphrodite's Child. Every day he would post links to "things" he felt would prove the paranormal, without explanation Some of those links went to film trailers for B Grade horror movies and internet gambling websites..

ryu238
Regular Poster
Posts: 562
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 3:04 pm

Re: Sternberg

Postby ryu238 » Wed Apr 29, 2015 1:23 am

Ok. Got it.


Return to “Origins”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest