Sternberg and Galileo: was My article "Intelligent Design on Trial"

I now comment on another matter related to the Dover trial.
Ted wrote:
"Does this leave open the possibility that a science teacher might still
be allowed to discuss aspects of ID? If not, it would be unfortunate. It
is true that ID ideas are not now getting space in science journals,
with rare and highly controversial exceptions, such as when philosopher
Steven Meyer published an article advocating “design” in 2004
/Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington/, an action that
was soon repudiated by the scientific society that owns the journal.
(The whole affair, including the denunciation of the journal’s former
editor Richard Sternberg, amounted to a mirror image of Galileo’s trial
by the Inquisition.) "

I am sympathetic with the point that Ted is making, but I question Ted's
assessment of the Sternberg affair.It is a strong statement to say that
that affair amounted to a mirror image of Galileo' trial by the
Inquistion. From what I have read on the matter, the Sternberg affair is
far from being a cut and dried matter. It is questionable whether
Sternberg conducted the peer review of the Meyer paper in the spirit (as
distinct from according to the letter) of the journal's standard
procedure. Since the reviewers still remain confidential (as far as I am
aware) we cannot assess the extent to which Sternberg loaded the review.
The scientific merit of Meyer's paper is questionable, so it is not
unreasonable that Sternberg's action was repudiated by the scientific
society that owns the journal. It seems to me that bringing the journal
into disrepute is a reasonable basis for the withdrawal of privileges.
Don

Ted Davis wrote:

>I now have available a pdf of my article, "Intelligent Design on Trial," at
>the following URL:
>http://home.messiah.edu/~tdavis/Intelligent%20Design%20on%20Trial.pdf
>
>I'll alert readers to the fact that this journal is aimed at journalists; I
>was expected to focus some attention on news coverage of the trial, which
>took space from things I otherwise might have said. Although several cuts
>had to be made, this is still (so I am told) the longest article that
>magazine has ever published, which I assume reflects the extraordinary
>interest in this topic. Magazines quite fairly have editorial policies, of
>course, and one cannot always say everything that one would wish to say in a
>given place. Thus my views on the First Amendment (or more accurately on
>how the Supreme Court has (mis)interpreted that amendment for the past
>couple of generations) are not found in this article. That's a very
>important omission that should be kept in mind, when evaluating my views:
>there is more to say about this issue, and this represents only a fraction
>of the things I can and would say if space and place allowed it.
>
>Happy reading.
>
>Ted
>
>
>
Received on Thu Mar 2 00:04:40 2006