ASA - March 2007: Re: [asa] Sternberg quote

From: Jack <drsyme@cablespeed.com>
Date: Mon Mar 26 2007 - 23:16:34 EDT

Yes it is a bit of a he said/she said.

But you also need to look at the source of your information. A government
document does not prove anything either, especially one from this
administration which has consistently shown its anti-science agenda.

For example, are you familiar with the Michael Dini case?

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_4_27/ai_104733223

Michael Dini is a professor in biology at Texas-Tech University. In 2003
he was sued by a pre-med student, who is a creationist, because Dini would
not write a letter of recommendation unless the student would "embrace a
scientific theory of human origins."

The Justice Department under B4sh took the case on, and investigated Dini.
Their purpose was to get him to alter his policy because they (the B4sh
administration) felt that this was discrimination against Christianity. In
the words of Ralph F Boyd, Jr. the head of the civil rights division of the
Justice Department, " A state-run university has no business telling
student what they should or should not belive in.."

Excuse me? We are talking about a biology professor, and the scientific
view of human origins. What does that have to do with faith, and why would
the federal government have any interest in this other than their own
agenda? The current administration agenda is clearly a literal biblical,
YEC,
dispensationalist bias, so they are not to be trusted anymore than the
"pro-evolution" sites that I referenced.

(See also global warming, stem cell research, vaccination recommendations,
Terri Schiavo, etc, etc for other examples of anti-science biases).

----- Original Message -----
From: "Donald F Calbreath" <dcalbreath@whitworth.edu>
To: <drsyme@cablespeed.com>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 3:21 PM
Subject: RE: [asa] Sternberg quote

> Take a look at the groups represented on this web site and tell me that
> the blog is reliable. All the groups represent a single point of view
> that is very pro-evolution. The NCSE has been on the forefront of
> attacking people who disagree with them (not debating, but attacking).
> You're going to have to offer a more reliable source before your argument
> that the Congressional report is biased.
>
> Don Calbreath
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: drsyme@cablespeed.com [mailto:drsyme@cablespeed.com]
> Sent: Mon 3/26/07 10:42 AM
> To: Donald F Calbreath; asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] Sternberg quote
>
>
>
> Honestly, the point you make here is the reason that I
> initiated this thread.
>
> But after some responses to this thread, and a little
> further investigation, I think now that Sternberg's claim
> of discrimination is not justified, and the Government
> Reform Subcommittee report is biased.
>
> For example, here is a blog with a good summary of the
> report.
>
> http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/02/worldnutdaily_flogs_dead_stern.php
>
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 11:03:44 -0700
> "Donald F Calbreath" <dcalbreath@whitworth.edu> wrote:
>> If we are going to discuss the Sternberg controversy,
>>let's include al the data. In December, 2006 the House
>>Government Reform Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug
>>Policy, and Human Resources issued a report that detailed
>>their investigation of Dr. Sternberg and his treatment by
>>the Smithsonian. The committee found significant
>>discrimination against Dr. Sternberg (see excerpt below)
>>
>> The full section of the congressional report dealing
>>with the violation of Dr. Sternberg's free speech rights
>>is reprinted below:
>>
>> 2. EVIDENCE OF AN INTENT TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST
>>SCIENTISTS BASED ON THEIR OUTSIDE ACTIVITIES REGARDING
>>EVOLUTION
>>
>> In the emails exchanged during August and September of
>>2004, NMNH officials revealed their intent to use their
>>government jobs to discriminate against scientists based
>>on their outside activities regarding evolution.
>>
>> In a series of emails on August 30, Dr. Ferrari and Dr.
>>Sues discussed the Smithsonian's procedures for hiring
>>and firing a Research Associate and how Dr. Sternberg was
>>approved for his RA position. Sues lamented that "The
>>Sternberg situation could not have been prevented by
>>senior management because his CV looks credible and does
>>not reveal his interactions with the creationist
>>movement." Dr. Sues seemed to be suggesting that if
>>Sternberg's supposed interactions with the "creationist
>>movement" were known, he would not have been approved as
>>an RA, and the "situation" would have been prevented.
>>
>> Dr. Ferrari's comments also suggested a very real bias
>>in the selection process: "I wonder, however, if we might
>>consider a more open process of vetting nominees? For
>>example, while a post doc here Sternberg was listed in an
>>advertisement in the NY Times as a scientist at the
>>Smithsonian Institution who did not believe in evolution.
>>I saw that page and certainly would have spoken up had I
>>known he was a prospective research associate." Ferrari
>>seemed to be suggesting that questioning evolution would
>>disqualify a candidate for a position.
>>
>> Similarly, in an email on September 9, Dr. Sues blamed
>>the scientist who nominated Sternberg as a Research
>>Associate for not adequately investigating his
>>background. "Sternberg is a well-established figure in
>>anti-evolution circles, and a simple Google search would
>>have exposed these connections." The clear implication
>>was that had a background check been conducted on
>>Sternberg's non-governmental activities, he would have
>>been barred from being a Research Associate.
>>
>> Given the attitudes expressed in these emails,
>>scientists who are known to be skeptical of Darwinian
>>theory, whatever their qualifications or research record,
>>cannot expect to receive equal treatment or consideration
>>by NMNH officials. As a taxpayer-funded institution, such
>>blatant discrimination against otherwise qualified
>>individuals based on their outside activities raises
>>serious free speech and civil rights concerns. Some NMNH
>>officials apparently believe that they have the right to
>>use their official positions to punish scientists who in
>>their outside activities express skepticism toward
>>Darwinian theory. The unwillingness of top Smithsonian
>>officials to take proactive measures to correct this
>>discriminatory environment is shameful. Imagine a
>>parallel situation in which government officials
>>expressed their intent to prohibit the appointment of
>>anyone who is found to have participated (on their own
>>time) in a gay or lesbian group, or in an abortion-rights
>>group. Action !
>> to stop such an expression of discriminatory intent
>>would be swift and certain. But in the present case,
>>Smithsonian officials seem indifferent to ensuring that
>>NMNH comply with the basic requirements of the
>>Constitution, Title V civil service law, and the
>>Smithsonian's own antidiscrimination policy.
>>
>> end of excerpt
>>
>>
>>
>> I would think that the members of ASA (ostensibly all
>>Christians) would want to protest this blatant misuse of
>>government power to silence someone who does not go along
>>with the prevailing view of evolution. The Meyer paper
>>went through appropriate peer-review. The persecution of
>>Dr. Sternberg was based on a political and philosophical
>>belief that "anything goes" when you disagree with
>>someone (a practice I have been very disturbed to see on
>>recent posts to this listserv). Or has ASA made
>>acceptance of Darwinian evolution a part of the faith
>>statement?
>>
>>
>>
>> Donald F. Calbreath, Ph.D
>>
>> Emeritus Associate Professor of Chemistry
>>
>> Whitworth College,
>>
>> Spokane WA
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>>From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of David
>>Campbell
>> Sent: Mon 3/26/07 10:10 AM
>> To: asa@calvin.edu
>> Subject: Re: [asa] Sternberg quote
>>
>>
>>
>> There's nothing wrong with focusing on some other area
>>and
>> disregarding the question of origins in biology; in
>>fact, the vast
>> majority of biologists do this.
>>
>> There is other evidence suggesting that Sternberg might
>>be a
>> creationist. He signed the Discovery Institute
>>petition, though the
>> wording of it was so open-ended as to not actually
>>require having any
>> objections to evolution. The DI petition called for
>>thorough
>> investigation of evolution, which I would like to see as
>>well, because
>> it might involve more funding for evolutionary studies
>>and perhaps
>> even a few jobs for systematists. Sternberg also
>>authored a paper on
>> baraminology a little while ago, suggesting that he is
>>associated in
>> some fashion with creation science s.l.
>>
>> My father, who is not especially up on ID, etc. spotted
>>the Meyer
>> paper and asked me what it was about, as it sticks out
>>conspicuously
>> from the normal fare for the journal.
>>
>> --
>> Dr. David Campbell
>> 425 Scientific Collections
>> University of Alabama
>> "I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of
>>clams"
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu
>>with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the
>>message.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu
>>with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the
>>message.
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Mar 26 23:17:05 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 23:17:05 EDT