Outline of Sternberg Situation

A review of l'affaire de Sternberg:

1. 12-14-05: I posted The Sternberg Saga Continues on Wednesday, December 14th. The post was a summary of the facts in the case, and was basically a review of what other bloggers and media outlets had put out already.
2. 12-16-05: By that Friday, enough attention had been turned to the post that I summarized its coverage in Honorable Mention. I have found a few more references to the saga and updated accordingly.
3. 12-18-05: By Sunday, I realized a little follow-up was necessary, ergo The Lingering Questions re Sternberg appeared at 5 AM. I focused mainly on Sternberg's handling of the paper, and on the OSC's handling of the investigation. To this day, one of the most troubling aspects of the situation, (to me at least) is the fact that the OSC didn't realize that Sternberg did not work for the Smithsonian, only at the Smithsonian, and that the "proper authorities" have not conducted an official and conclusive investigation since. If Sternberg has a case, there are other outlets for the OSC to hand its "evidence" over to. Also, the OSC's James McVay issued a personal letter (not in the capacity of representing the OSC) to Sternberg which lends credence to his claims. Problem is, this letter, self-described as a "preliminary determination" does nothing to give the Smithsonian a response or defense. Further, is this typical OSC conduct, or is Sternberg's case so politicized that when the agency drops a case it never had the legal right to begin they feel "compelled" to issue an explanation?
4. 12-18-05: A little later Sunday morning, Thinking Christian notified us that a response from the DI was forthcoming, and I commented on it in Here Comes Trouble.
   
5. 12-19-05: The next evening, Get Busy Livin', Or Get Busy Smearin' appeared on idthefuture, thanks to Jon Witt.
6. 12-19-05: I mentioned Witt's post in I Expected None Other a few hours after it appeared.
7. 12-19-05: I replied in full to Witt's "two strawmen and mushy spin-ach" in Dissecting a Frog, posted at 11 PM.
8. 12-17-06: An update to the Sternberg Saga, in response to creationist Mark Souder's Congressional effort to further the spin. Steve Reuland has details.
   

So for those few curious ones out there, this is the whole shebang. I don't expect any kind of formal response again from the DI. Feel free to comment here or at any of the posts above with questions or corrections. I don't intend to post any more on Sternberg until I have more information.
________________
Technorati tags:

Sternberg, Witt, Discovery Institute, Intelligent Design, Evolution, Creationism

Dissecting a Frog

Intro:

After an 11-hour drive with my 150-lb Saint Bernard to Virginia, I find myself comforted. Considering their money and staff resources, I was quite surprised at the two strawmen and mushy spin-ach I was served by the DI-CRSC. I actually expected something worth having…but maybe they were all too on edge due to the ruling by non-activist, Christian, Bush-appointed Judge Jones telling us all what common sense had long ago: that ID is refried creationism and that the Establishment Clause rightly and legally keeps it out of the classroom as such. I also suspect that most of the attention that had been following this “back-and-forth” has been diverted to the conclusion of KvD.

Overview:

First, I do want to say that I came into this whole (Sternberg) thing with no knowledge of the situation only a few days ago, besides hearing some TV news reports during the past year or so, and carefully reviewed the blogosphere and news articles for about 6 hours to obtain my information before the original post. I sincerely and wholeheartedly agree that some of Sternberg’s peers at the Smithsonian were likely harsh towards him in the fallout. I do not pretend, as Witt asserts, that everyone “played nice” after Meyer’s Hopeless Monster was published. Furthermore, I am quite willing to correct any misstatements of fact. The spin that the DI and others have applied to this saga is unbelievable−painting Sternberg as a sacrificial lamb for the cause of freedom:

Inquisitors at George Mason University, Ohio State University, and the Smithsonian have recently hunted down and tried to disgrace scientists and educators for daring to defy the Darwinian orthodoxy.

And

The independent federal agency has now released a report about the discrimination that biology journal editor Richard Sternberg faced…

[lie, no agency report, but a personal “closure letter” self-described by McVay as a “preliminary determination”…hardly the substantiation for Sternberg’s allegations that they wish it was]

However, it does not make a martyr to shave one’s head and paint a swastika on one’s chest then walk into an “World’s Strongest Man, Male Edition, Black / Jewish Division”, contest. Sternberg, with his respectable credentials, knows that creationism is 100% unscientific, and thus foreknew that his peers would regard him as incompetent for publishing Meyer’s Hopeless Monster in PBWS. Disparage and derision come with any stupid decision, and RS was walking into the preponderance of evidence for evolution with a sign trumpeting, “DOES NOT!”. Sternberg did not hide his long-standing association with the DI through the RAPID conference where he spoke and solicited Meyer’s paper, through the ISCID (where he was listed as a fellow pre-Meyer), and as an associate editor of a Young Earth Creationism (YEC) journal. He can use “ham-fisted reasoning” (Witt or Sternberg) all day long about that, but to those of us with half a brain, his motives and agenda were clear from the start. He did something he knew he would be “branded a heretic” for−by circumventing his own journal staff and single-handedly (without an associate editor, as he admits is necessary) publishing a review article by a philosopher arguing ID within a scientific journal. He knew he was being political, admitting in a Washington Post story that he was using his authority to “stir the pot”…and now he is reaping the whirlwind. Scientists are going to hold him in contempt for his shady actions. That is unavoidable, and is not tantamount to professional “attacks” or “persecution” … or martyrdom.

This does not excuse professional persecution (a.k.a. losing one’s job or work privelages or professional authority)…if any of that happened. But, that has yet to be shown as having happened at all, especially considering the rebuttal right from his supervisor’s mouth. Furthermore, one claim of Sternberg’s “persecution” in particular is falsified−he claims he was put under a “hostile” supervisor following the fallout, but J.A. Coddington is the only supervisor (“sponsor”) RS ever had at the Smithsonian, and the guy Coddington replaced in the position had died! This had nothing to do with RS’s blunder as editor.

Analysis of JW's Reply:

The Witt-less one blunders forth the following:

1) He accuses me of a strawman even as he paints my face upon one−This is kinda funny, watch how many times I can use the word “claim”: Jon claims that I claimed that the DI and/or Sternberg claimed that Sternberg lost his editorship due to the Meyer’s Hopeless Monster fallout. Unfortunately, this is a strawman as I never said what he accuses me of saying (that the DI or Sternberg “claimed” that he was “fired”). −see below for more in-depth on the strawmen Witt employs then attacks−

2) That I dismissed the OSC “investigation” “so lightly”, mostly due to its political ties, is yet another strawman. I reported the facts, and clearly bracketed my “opinion/rant” as just that. Further, I linked to the OSC letter, or “preliminary determination” by McVay (described in the Pheonix article as “a former Marine drill sergeant and insurance attorney with no experience in employment law, whistleblower law, or federal-sector work.”) so that people could read it for themselves. −see below for more in-depth on the strawmen Witt employs then attacks−

3) Although I listed, verbatim, Sternberg’s acknowledgments section, Witt finds it meritorious to play semantics because I used the phrase “the three reviewers” concerning Sternberg’s paper, rather than “three of the reviewers” as I should have, as though I was “hiding” the other reviewers (although I listed them all, verbatim).

4) He accuses me of “either/or” reasoning as I lay out clearly the dilemma that Sternberg faced by his own words about whether or not he ought to have sought counsel from the editorial board to make the decision to publish Meyer’s Hopeless Monster, realizing as he did “the controversial nature of the paper”. See overview above or this article #2-3.

5) He claims that my invitation to obtain permission from the reviewers to reveal their identities would not relieve Sternberg of the accusation he has faced of cherry-picking some reviewers, and would subject them all to the same “attacks” he has supposedly faced. Unfortunately for Witt, this is a double-edged sword, in that the entire question of malfeasance on Sternberg’s part lies with his claim that he acted in accordance to the procedures of publication for the journal, this he says, although he admits on the same webpage that there is supposed to be an associate editor involved in the process , and that he himself instead went outside the editorial board to a member of the Council with whom he discussed the publication. Because sufficient evidence thus arose to suspect wrong-doing on some level, and to accuse him of it in the general public sphere, the burden lies with Sternberg to validate himself, not with the public to read the facts and come to any conclusion but the obvious one − concluding that Sternberg was unethical in his handling of the paper.

6) Witt totally ignores the major lingering questions about: Sternberg’s handling of Meyer’s Hopeless Monster, whether Meyer submitted this paper anywhere else, ever, why no abstract was provided, when Meyer paid the $1600 (exact date), who the three reviewers are (to prove Sternberg didn’t cherry-pick obvious DI sycophant/ sympathizers) and why Sternberg never even mentioned the paper to anyone at the journal if he knew it was going to be a controversy.

Witt actually makes one good point:

7) He actually scores one with my confusion of wording over the peer-review process for Sternberg’s own article−score one and only for the DI. I do understand peer-review, especially considering that I had just pointed out that Sternberg, acting as managing editor, selected the three reviewers of Meyer’s Hopeless Monster. I also understand it as a graduate student in a physical sciences program…a student who is currently working towards enough research for his own first peer-reviewed article. The reason this “Fact 10” sounds so confusing is that it was a hasty edit of an earlier mistake that Stranger Fruit helped me correct. When I read SF’s earlier article about Sternberg on O’Reilly, I confused Meyer’s Hopeless Monster for Sternberg’s ANYAS article. Thankfully, SF commented on this almost as soon as my article was up. I was hasty in fixing the wording of this error and so it sounds much like the original, which was rendered out of context. The major thrust of my post was that Sternberg chose people he felt were experts/peers to help him revise his own manuscript−and it is not a to infer that where he looked for help with early revisions to his own article was a probable source of safe advisement as managing editor on Meyer’s Hopeless Monster as well. on the confusion. SF pointed out that this doesn’t “demonstrate Sternberg’s support for creationism”, but his choice to serve as an associate editor of a YEC journal for years and soliciting this paper from Meyer during his talk at ID conferences clearly does (see overview).

Witt ends this heaping portion of cold mushy spin-ach with a promo for Meyer’s Hopeless Monster, so I figure I should end with the following quote from three experts underscoring why good science, and not dogma, dictate that this paper belonged in typical creationist archives and not in a scientific journal:

Meyer tries to evaluate morphological evolution by counting taxa, a totally meaningless endeavor for investigating the evolution of morphology. Most paleontologists gave up taxa-counting long ago and moved on to more useful realms of research regarding the Cambrian (see Budd and Jensen 2000). (themselves not in relevant scientific journals). [funny, huh?]

Analysis of Witt's Strawmen:

Let’s look at the caricature Jon paints of me then attacks--

1) Straw man regarding “Fact 1”:

Most obvious among the errors, neither Sternberg nor the Discovery Institute claims he was fired from his editorship. To claim that we have claimed this is pure straw man.

Did I claim this? Read my words for yourself. Wesley Elsberry caught this strawman all of maybe 5 seconds after the post went up. Jon Witt (JW) is addressing with my “Fact 1”−where I simply emphasize that Rick Sternberg (RS) did not lose his position at the journal as a result of the fallout, as has been somewhat commonly misconceived. 95% of my “Fact 1” is a quote from RS own website. Aside from the evidence of poor journalism and purposeful spin-blogging which support the idea that stating “Fact 1”, for information purposes only, is worthwhile, JW decides to make a straw man of it. Does he really think that I said/believed that Sternberg claimed to have been fired, or forced to resign, as a result of the fallout? I quoted from RS own website!!! Does JW think I attribute schizophrenia to RS? That I believed RS would tell us all that the resignation had nothing to do with Meyer’s Hopeless Monster, on his own website, then turn around and claim persecution drove him out of the managing editor position? Sorry JW, but strawmen only scare off crows and morons.

2) Strawman regarding “Fact 4”:

Fact 4: Sternberg had the Office of Special Counsel investigate his supposed mistreatment following the publication of Meyer's article. Unfortunately for him, the Smithsonian refused to allow the investigation to continue to completion, because the OSC had no jurisdiction to investigate the Smithsonian in the first place, because Sternberg was a research associate there, employed by the NIH, not the Smithsonian. [here comes opinion, not fact: Thus, its (the OSC's) mock authority was largely a stunt of political repurcussion from Bush-appoint special counsel James McVey (see Sternberg's comments on this).]

Does this statement of fact, and clear separation of opinion, really sound "taken so lightly" in the first place? Nonetheless, let’s go more in-depth − Obviously, JW’s interpretation of the actions of an agency which had already been questioned for its handling of anti-discrimination lawsuits, though supposedly understaffed and overworked, which somehow failed to realize that Sternberg was not an employee of the Smithsonian until after spending unknown sums of dollars and man-hours on the “investigation”…is different than my own. Realize, though, that Chris Mooney, and others, have pointed out the OSC’s clear bias in its issuance of this letter to Sternberg−with wording like,

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

This, in the face of the PBWS own statement is absurd. Another fact is that the letter that McVay issued was self-described as a “preliminary determination”, and the OSC had not collected documents or depositions to make an official conclusion, so in a legal sense, IS this something to take lightly. Considering that the OSC has had some problems in the past, and all of these facts, should we take this so seriously?

Conclusion:

Good job at attacking caricatures of my argument, JW. Care to tackle the real deal? The devil is always in the details. And the god of DI apparently resides in the spin cycle of their media complaints division. I guess the good news is that this time you didn’t make a comment purporting that a response to Meyer’s Hopeless Monster ought to have been contained in the peer-reviewed literature. So I guess the DI’s intelligence is evolving…

I would love to hear from Sternberg himself regarding the lingering questions. He can email me anytime (dmorgan AT chem.ufl.edu).

The Sternberg saga is turning into a creationist canard and martyr complex for all those "poor, persecuted" IDers. The myth is that Sternberg is some kind of heroic spotless lamb who was lambasted for choosing to believe in God by godless hacks like me. A guest columnist recently wrote that science is being "silenced"…Sagas are typically dismantled when people choose to...learn the facts.

Still just as true…science is still speaking quite well, thanks in part to Judge Jones. see here for more opinions about the Sternberg saga.

________________
Technorati tags:
Discovery Institute, Intelligent Design, Evolution, Creationism, Sternberg, Witt

I Expected None Other

Than my good buddy Witt to respond to my pieces on Sternberg. I guess Thinking Christian really has some "insiders" at the DI. You know you've moved up in the blogosphere when you get an "idthefuture" spin off of your blog name: "Get Busy Livin', Or Get Busy Smearin'". Pretty Witt-y, I actually did laugh at the title...not so much the content, though. I'm pretty tired but I think I can pick out the most obvious ID-iocy in Witt's blog before leaving for Virginia bright and early tomorrow.
________________
Technorati tags:
Discovery Institute, Intelligent Design, Witt, Sternberg

Here Comes Trouble

Some people think bad attention is better than no attention at all. Regarding blogging, at least, I am inclined to agree.

After my Sternberg review, Thinking Christian promises he has received information that the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture is going to respond. My anal sphincter muscles lock up in protest at what will be forthcoming, but I will attempt to keep a little humility at the idea of having aroused such a reaction with my simple review of the media reports of the Sternberg case.

Considering the length and girth of the tentacles of DI's public relations (how many full-time bloggers, I have to wonder?)...I am sure glad I have my K-Y jelly with me. I stand ready...well, bent over clutching my ankles, actually...to correct anything that I misreported. That's a fact (#11, I think).

Who ever knew blogging could be so much fun? Here I am in the blogosphere for a measly month, and I may have already awakened a sleeping giant. *pats own back* IMHO it's better to at least have some kind of back and forth with my blogging than being in the situation of so many bloggers who rant and bitch [like me] but never elicit a reponse from the source of their angst. I'll keep you posted if this turns out to be true.
________________
Technorati tags:
Humor, Discovery Institute, Intelligent Design, Evolution, Creationism, Blogging

The Lingering Questions re Sternberg

I want to present a positive spin on the Sternberg saga by offering some questions, which, when answered, will likely evaporate much of the lingering air of malfeasance. I think that if Sternberg really feels he is still being viewed as a "heretic", the remedy for him is to answer the questions I have collected below. As Jesus is attributed as having said, "...and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

1) Did Sternberg solicit the paper from Meyer at an ID conference? Meyer reported that he did:

According to Mr. Meyer, this is the first time that proponents of intelligent design have published an argument for the theory in a peer-reviewed scientific publication. He said he had chosen the journal because Mr. Sternberg attended a conference where Mr. Meyer gave an oral presentation advancing the same arguments. The two discussed the possibility of publishing the work, he said.

Now, if there is any question that Meyer did not know his paper would be received there, a simple check would suffice of two things: 1) the date of the $1600 check he made out to PBWS (this ought to be obtainable given the DI's corporate status as nonprofit) and 2) how many other places did he submit the article?

Regarding 1, Sternberg reports:

Dr. Meyer became a paid member of the BSW after the paper was accepted and before it was published, the standard practice for first-time authors or authors whose previous membership has lapsed. He also paid all the appropriate "page charges" for his article, a bill amounting to approximately $1600.

Regarding 2, NCSE had this to say:

According to the article, Meyer “said he had chosen the journal because Mr. Sternberg attended a conference where Mr. Meyer gave an oral presentation advancing the same arguments. The two discussed the possibility of publishing the work.” Although the conference is not named in the article, it is likely that it was the Research and Progress in Intelligent Design Conference, held at Biola University in October 2002, at which Meyer spoke on “The Cambrian information explosion: Evidence of intelligent design” and Sternberg spoke on “Causal entailments in convergently developed, irreducibly complex organ systems.” Only advocates of “intelligent design” spoke at the RAPID conference, and at least one critic of “intelligent design” was expressly forbidden to attend.

Sternberg talked at this conference, and it was entitled:

“Causal entailments in convergently developed, irreducibly complex organ systems”

2) What does the document that Sternberg alludes to on his website say about the role of the managing editor?

...formally decided that the managing editor has control over every aspect of the Proceedings and can choose and supervise the associate editors at his or her discretion. The Council ruled that the managing editor has the final say in the publication of manuscripts. The Council asked me, moreover, to draft a formal process document describing the procedures of the Proceedings including their ruling on the role of the managing editor. [emphasis mine]

He reports that after a conflict of authority, the managing editor was given clear authority over, and the choice to select, the associate editors. Thus, he could have published the article over the authority of the associate editors. That is not my question. The question is--he seems to make it clear that he never notified the associate editors of the paper, ever, and it appears that he equivocates authority over and discretion to choose with ability to entirely circumvent these editors...is this a fair assessment? He even links to a form letter which clearly indicates that associate editors would be involved at some point in the process. This does nothing to further his position, nor does it answer my question. After stating the above, he goes on to say:

As discussed above, the Council of the BSW had given me, the managing editor, the discretion to decide how a paper was to be reviewed and edited as well as the final decision on whether it would be published. I had previously chosen on several occasions to handle certain papers directly and that was accepted as a normal practice by everyone involved with the Proceedings. (This was confirmed even after the controversy over the Meyer paper arose. In a description of a Council meeting called to discuss the controversy, President Dr. McDiarmid told me by email, "The question came up as to why you didn't pass the ms [manuscript] on to an associate editor and several examples were mentioned of past editorial activities where a manuscript was dealt with directly by the editor and did not go to an associate editor and no one seemed to be bothered...")

Nevertheless, recognizing the potentially controversial nature of the paper, I consulted with a colleague about whether it should be published. This person is a scientist at the National Museum of Natural History, a member of the Council, and someone whose judgment I respected. I thought it was important to double-check my view as to the wisdom of publishing the Meyer paper. We discussed the Meyer paper during at least three meetings, including one soon after the receipt of the paper, before it was sent out for review.

When the president here says that the manuscript did not get passed on to an associate editor, is it the same thing as "the managing editor never consulted with, gave a copy to, or discussed in any way the Meyer paper with anyone within the journal staff, nor notified them of the paper he intended to publish until it just appeared in the journal"? Had this ever happened before? Not just taking "editorial authority" to have the paper reviewed, but not even discussing a paper with the associate editors? And, is this "OK" by the formal process document? Further, what does the rest of the email say, because after the ellipsis, it may say something to the effect of, "...but given the controversial content of this paper, you ought to have known better than to choose not to involve anyone else at the journal..."? Who knows? After all, in the same article in which Meyer admits he and Sternberg spoke about publishing this article at an ID conference, the President of the PBWS at the time (McDiarmid) said,

[McDiarmid] did not learn about the paper until after its publication. "My conclusion on this," he said, "was that it was a really bad judgment call on the editor's part."

Did the president change his mind, or are we only being given selective slices of the picture by Sternberg? What part of the editor's judgment is the president here deriding--Sternberg's choice to keep the paper from the attention of anyone at the journal?

Since Sternberg alluded to a formal document outlining the role of the managing editor, and he used this as a sort of trump card in his argument, I think it is quite fair to ask him to present the document on his website. And it would clear him fully of the ambiguity surrounding the process and prerogative issues.

3) If he admits, as he has, that he wanted to "stir the pot"...why pretend otherwise?

Sternberg harbored his own doubts about Darwinian theory. He also acknowledged that this journal had not published such papers in the past and that he wanted to stir the scientific pot. "I am not convinced by intelligent design but they have brought a lot of difficult questions to the fore," Sternberg said. "Science only moves forward on controversy." [emphasis mine]

That is, why not just admit that he intended to publish this paper from the moment he spoke with Meyer at a conference about it, rather than pretend that Meyer's paper is "just another" that he processed according to the formal process that he followed to the letter? Why pretend he did not have a motive to incite controversy, and why feign surprise at the exact reaping of what he said he intended to sow? It appears there is a serious question here: is Sternberg standing by the position that this paper was like any other he received and he handled it as such, or did Sternberg want and expect this controversy? From his own words it appears unfounded to conclude anything except the latter.

A former professor of Sternberg's says the researcher has an intellectual penchant for going against the system. Sternberg does not deny it. "I loathe careerism and the herd mentality," he said. "I really think that objective truth can be discovered and that popular opinion and consensus thinking does more to obscure than to reveal."

And, from his website:

Nevertheless, recognizing the potentially controversial nature of the paper, I consulted with a colleague about whether it should be published.

So if you really recognized it, unless you wanted to "stir the pot", why did you then think it wise to keep the knowledge of the paper from the associate editors entirely...?? Did you know that the associate editors would disagree with your decision, and although you still had the authority, you didn't want them to know about it? Why? If the document you alluded to keeps you from having to mention this to them, and gives you full authority over them, and you had nothing to fear from the editorial board, yet you knew what a stink this would become, why?

There is nothing I could agree more with Sternberg on than his opposition to dogma. Sternberg's last sentence in the above quote on herd mentality, however, begs the question of what exactly he thinks "popular opinion" is. From every poll I've ever seen published, the idea of divine involvement, somewhere, somehow, in the origin of life is hugely popular. Is this what he "loathes"? Is this [ID/creationism] what is being obscured, or is this obfuscation itself? Did Sternberg really make this judgment call because he feels there is scientific data to support some kind of minority opinion which is being silenced by the majority? Riiiiight...

Furthermore, Meyer's paper offers no way to reclassify taxa, no constructive solution, and thus does it really "reveal" anything, at all? Even granting the premise (for argument's sake) that Meyer is right about the need to develop a new system or classification...does this paper do anything to promote Sternberg's desired "revelation"? I think the scientific community at large is still waiting on ID's long-promised revelation.

And if Sternberg admits that he decided to "stir the pot", long before sending this paper off to review, then two questions--

i) Is it the place of scientific journals to argue politico-religio-cultural questions that have nothing to do with data?
ii) Should he be surprised that he caused such a backlash? I'm not talking persecution, here (or unsubstantiated allegations thereof, as I documented elsewhere), no one deserves persecution. It is still unclear that he has been persecuted, but leave that aside for a moment. However, simply by his inciting this controversy, knowingly and willingly, by publishing this article, was he unprepared for the response?

4) Who were the three reviewers? This question is self-evident in its central importance to this saga. If it can be shown that Sternberg knowingly chose reviewers sympathetic to ID, say, anyone in the ISCID or on the "400 Scientists Who Dissent From Darwinism [But We're Not Sure If This Really Means Anything Considering Darwinism Is The Discovery Institute's Equivocation For Evolutionary Theory] List" (see here for my comments on that list)...then I think he would have to admit that he just wanted quasi-validation lent to a decision he had already made. According to his own words,

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.

Sternberg is using the three reviewers here as substantiation. If he really wants "this whole thing to go away", a simple revelation of who these three were (obviously, with their permission) would relieve a lot of the burden that he claims to bear. All they have to do is simply support his claims here, and have no obvious ties to ID/DI (same thing, considering ID is basically solely in the hands of the DI) prior to this fiasco. This would show Sternberg was interested in an objective review and opinion on the merit of the paper, and not just a fancy ass-cover to keep the flames away post-debacle. And this may even lend some credence to Meyer's Hopeless Monster.

5) Why did Meyer's paper have no abstract? See here. Every single other paper in that issue had an abstract--

Pseudopaguristes shidarai, a new species of hermit crab (Crustacea: Decapoda: Diogenidae) from Japan, the fourth species of the genus. Akira Asakura, pages 153–168.[Abstract]

A new species of Procambarus (Crustacea: Decapoda: Cambaridae) from Veracruz, Mexico.
Marilú López-Mejía, Fernando Alvarez, and Luis M. Mejía-Ortíz, pages 169–175.[Abstract]

Brackenridgia ashleyi, a new species of terrestrial isopod from Tumbling Creek Cave, Missouri (Isopoda: Oniscidea: Trichoniscidae). Julian J. Lewis, pages 176–185.[Abstract]

New species and records of Bopyridae (Crustacea: Isopoda) infesting species of the genus Upogebia (Crustacea: Decapoda: Upogebiidae): the genera Orthione Markham, 1988, and Gyge Cornalia & Panceri, 1861. John C. Markham, pages 186–198.[Abstract]

Three new species and a new genus of Farreidae (Porifera: Hexactinellida: Hexactinosida).
Kirk Duplessis and Henry M. Reiswig, pages 199–212.[Abstract]

The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories. Stephen C. Meyer, pages 213–239.[Abstract]

--but not his...Why?

Answering some of these questions would take a lot of the purported heat off of Sternberg. And, in the process, maybe he would find himself set free by the truth. But as has been pointed out, maybe the matryr myths do more to appeal to the public's sympathy (and thus garner politico-religio-cultural support) than the truth would do to repudiate allegations of malfeasance.
________________
Technorati tags:
Discovery Institute, Intelligent Design, Evolution, Creationism, Meyer, Sternberg

Honorable Mention

You've gotta love the blogosphere...

I feel like the guy who got a Purple Heart for getting a BB shot in his ass during training on a domestic base…I got some serious mention for my Sternberg review. I got a hat tip from (in no particular order) The Panda's Thumb, Dispatches from the Culture Wars, Dangerous Idea, Jim Lippard, Pooflingers Anonymous, The Uncredible Hallq, and some others.

Most of the groundwork was laid for this review months back by PT and others, so I feel all I did was scrounge around for the facts.

Thanks to Ed Brayton and Reed Cartwright for helping me see a misquote.

I am brand-spanking new to bloggin' in general and quasi-reporting in particular, so I feel pretty honored to be mentioned...

Update: 1-3-06
Some other linking sites-I'll add more as I find them---
Thinking Christian
Right Wing Professor
Farrellmedia
He Lives
Comment on Jesus' General
ID the Future
Illiterate in Four Languages
Frankenblogger
The Daism Forum
Les Lane (UNL)
________________
Technorati tags:

Humor, Discovery Institute, Intelligent Design, Creationism

The Sternberg Saga Continues

The Sternberg saga is turning into a creationist canard and martyr complex for all those "poor, persecuted" IDers. The myth is that Sternberg is some kind of heroic spotless lamb who was lambasted for choosing to believe in God by godless hacks like me. A guest columnist recently wrote that science is being "silenced":

Smithsonian scientist Dr. Richard Sternberg has his own story of persecution. Sternberg was the editor of The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, a scholarly journal. He received a submission by Stephen Meyer which argued that the Cambrian explosion is best explained by intelligent design, which he sent out for peer review, edited and published. Colleagues of Sternberg immediately began attacking him by circulating nasty emails, denying him access to the building and even his own office and creating a hostile work environment to force him out, according to the report by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel. Sternberg planned to speak on the panel at the Discovery Institute’s forum, but a family member’s illness prevented him from attending.

_____
Update 12/17/06: The "Lame Duck Congress" made sure they passed tax cuts and pardoned those involved in the Mark Foley scandal. Guess what else they did? Mark Souder, recently re-elected creationist Congressman, who co-hosted a Disco Institute event in May 2000, spearheaded a "subcommittee" investigating the years-old Sternberg saga. Isn't it lovely what a little lame duck will feel licensed to do? The Disco Institute has clamped onto this committee's findings, predictably slanted towards their POV. Steve Reuland thoroughly debunks the report.

Note that the claim of Sternberg's demotion from "Research Associate" to "Research Collaborator", cited from a letter to Mark Souder, is complete BS. According to the NHMH classifications, the only difference in those two appointments is the level of independence in research. In the former category, associates formally collaborate with other NHMH researchers and scientists; in the latter category, collaborators independently conduct research in the facilities. Thus, the boldened section of the executive summary contains a huge bold lie. There is no connotation of "demotion" -- there is only a difference in affiliation and collaboration. Another funny point that these thickheads don't seem to comprehend is that the Smithsonian doesn't have to renew his contract for RA or RC. But they did. Terribly discriminatory of them, right? You may call me cynical, but I'd love to read that letter for myself, and see the context, because I'll bet that Souder knew all of this. Some part of me doubts that, with all these accusations of violating Sternberg's rights, the Smithsonian would risk litigation by demoting him at all. In point of fact, if half of what this report alleges is true, I fully expect a lawsuit. But, since I doubt that half of Souder's claims are any more factual than this claim of "demotion", I wouldn't advise you to hold your breath waiting on a suit...
_____

Sagas are typically dismantled when people choose to...learn the facts:

Fact 1: Sternberg had resigned as managing editor from the journal (PBSW) long before Meyer even submitted the paper! From Sternberg's own website, he admits:

In October of 2003 I resigned as managing editor of the Proceedings ... I agreed to continue on as managing editor until such time as the Council could find my replacement. That happened in May 2004 ... in September 2004 Dr. Banks took over as managing editor of the Proceedings. This transition had nothing to do with the publication of the Meyer paper. [emphasis mine]

Fact 2: Meyer's paper (a.k.a. "Meyer's Helpless Monster") was submitted in early 2004 and published during the "transition" Sternberg describes above, in June 2004.

Stephen Meyer, “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 117(2004):213-239. [published June 2004]

Fact 3: Sternberg held the paper until after a replacement had already been found for him. (see #1, and link) The paper had been submitted in January, by Sternberg's admission.

Fact 4: Sternberg had the Office of Special Counsel investigate his supposed mistreatment following the publication of Meyer's article. Unfortunately for him, the Smithsonian refused to allow the investigation to continue to completion, because the OSC had no jurisdiction to investigate the Smithsonian in the first place, because Sternberg was a research associate there, employed by the NIH, not the Smithsonian. [here comes opinion, not fact: Thus, its (the OSC's) mock authority was largely a stunt of political repurcussion from Bush-appoint special counsel James McVey (see Sternberg's comments on this).]

Fact 5: Sternberg has participated on the editorial board for a young-earth creationism journal for years prior to this whole fiasco. See Sternberg's website for "clarification" of why he would do such a thing, as a rational scientist. In short, he promises that he is solely interested in the methodology of taxonomy that baraminology uses...you can make up your own mind regarding whether you believe him or not. [I would have to draw an analogy, though, to myself serving on the board of an alchemy journal, as a self-described "skeptic", but giving them constructive criticism insofar as serving to help their journal become more respected and the articles about Pb to Au transformations more scientifically coherent...]

Fact 6: The PBSW's editorial board published the following in the next issue of the journal after Sternberg had published the article for Meyer:

The paper by Stephen C. Meyer in the Proceedings ("The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239) represents a significant departure from the nearly purely taxonomic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 124-year history. It was published without the prior knowledge of the Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, or the associate editors. We have met and determined that all of us would have deemed this paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings. [emphasis mine]

We endorse the spirit of a resolution on Intelligent Design set forth by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (link), and that topic will not be addressed in future issues of the Proceedings. We are reviewing editorial policies to ensure that the goals of the Society, as reflected in its journal, are clearly understood by all. Through a web presence (link) and contemplated improvements in the journal, the Society hopes not only to continue but to increase its service to the world community of taxonomic biologists.

So Sternberg did in fact act against the wishes of the entire board and council of the journal and society...according to their own website. He denies that he did not follow the standard procedures for peer review, but appears to corroborate that he did not involve any other editors at the journal. From the form letter he links to, which serves to outline the peer-review process, it is clear that more than one editor, at some point in the process, will be involved...but this was obviously not the case here, by his own admission. Sternberg defends this by citing an example where he had not agreed with a decision by an associate editor not to publish a paper, and had it published:

During my tenure as managing editor some problems arose in the process. In one case I strongly disagreed with an associate editor in his handling of a paper. To deal with the problem, I took control of the paper again, had it reviewed and edited, and published it. For various reasons the associated editor was upset, and denied that I had the authority to do this.

Although he goes on to say that the Council upheld the managing editor's authority to override associate editors, one thing he does not say is whether or not that gives the managing editor the right to solely review a paper, without involving the associate editors or anyone else in the journal's editorial board. In fact, it appears quite obvious that he involved "reviewers" that he "discussed" this paper with outside the journal itself. The retraction by the journal and their wording appears to confirm that the managing editor ought to have conferred at some point with the other editors, even if the final authority was his.

Fact 7: Sternberg has been listed as a fellow of the ISCID since before the article was published. The ISCID is a pro-ID, 501-3(c) [tax-emempt], organization that was spearheaded by Dembski.

Fact 8: The Discovery Institute's bloggers put out an article which simultaneously whines over allegations against the Smithsonian, which have not been substantiated, but were rather summarized back to Sternberg in the letter he posted on his website by the unofficial and incomplete investigation by the OCS...described by the special counsel as a "preliminary determination"; and celebrates their ability to circulate the review article by Meyer, via their website, since the BSW withdrew the paper and their support for it (see 6). The claims made by Sternberg have been countered by his own supervisor (see 9) and have not been officially investigated to a conclusion (see 4). Thus, Sternberg is posting a preliminary investigative "determination" as though it proves something. [opinion/rant: Furthermore, the Smithsonian does not take the time to defend itself from politico-religious movements with a mirror to DI's spin blogs. Therefore, we do not know the details of the investigation or the first-hand reports, nor do the people involved have the publicity that Sternberg does through the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture's long and affluent tentacles of "public relations".]

Fact 9: The only supervisor that Sternberg has ever had (one of his complaints was being moved under a "hostile supervisor" after the fallout) at the Smithsonian has personally commented on the embellishments and outright lies spun out by the DI in their typical fashion. This supervisor, Jonathan Coddington, (JAC), directly provides information that refutes the lies:

Jonathan Coddington wrote:
1. Dr. von Sternberg is still a Research Associate at the National Museum of Natural History, and continues to have the usual rights and privileges, including space, keys, and 24/7 access. At no time did anyone deny him space, keys or access.
2. He is not an employee of the Smithsonian Institution. His title, "Research Associate," means that for a three year, potentially renewable period he has permission to visit the Museum for the purpose of studying and working with our collections without the staff oversight visitors usually receive.
3. I am, and continue to be, his only "supervisor," although we use the term "sponsor" for Research Associates to avoid personnel/employee connotations. He has had no other since Feb. 1, 2004, nor was he ever "assigned to" or under the "oversight of" anyone else.
4. Well prior to the publication of the Meyer article and my awareness of it, I asked him and another Research Associate to move as part of a larger and unavoidable reorganization of space involving 17 people and 20 offices. He agreed.
5. I offered both individuals new, identical, standard Research Associate work spaces. The other accepted, but Dr. von Sternberg declined and instead requested space in an entirely different part of the Museum, which I provided, and which he currently occupies.
6. As for prejudice on the basis of beliefs or opinions, I repeatedly and consistently emphasized to staff (and to Dr. von Sternberg personally), verbally or in writing, that private beliefs and/or controversial editorial decisions were irrelevant in the workplace, that we would continue to provide full Research Associate benefits to Dr. von Sternberg, that he was an established and respected scientist, and that he would at all times be treated as such.

Fact 10: Sternberg complained on O'Reilly that there was an:

an unstated rule that you do not accept a manuscript for per review that counters Darwinism, or seriously counters Darwinism.

Interesting, since Sternberg himself published a paper whose abstract ends with the phrase:

It is argued throughout that a new conceptual framework is needed for understanding the roles of repetitive DNA in genomic/epigenetic systems, and that neo-Darwinian "narratives" have been the primary obstacle to elucidating the effects of these enigmatic components of chromosomes.

Now, what was that rule, again, Sternberg?* (for clarification on corrections, see below)
When one investigates the paper referenced above, it is apparent that Todd Wodd, of Bryan College, of the Baraminology Study Group, as in Young Earth Creationism...was one of the three people he sent out his** own paper to, to in order to qualify it for peer review. Who else? Paul Nelson, also involved with Baraminology Conferences as far back as 1999. And the third reviewer? Why, none other than Jonathan Wells, of course. Now at least we know that Sternberg's peers, those of equivalent scholarship and glory, include 2 YECs and a guy who once said that the reason he is motivated to redefine science (i.e. bring about a "renewal" of science and culture) is--

Father's words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle.

...i.e. his Moonie faith.

Lovely. Some "peer-reviewed article" this one turned out to be. And some saga.
__________
Correction:
**I earlier posted fact 10 after misreading Stranger Fruit's article, believing that Sternberg had admitted the identities of the three persons who reviewed Meyer's Helpless Monster, in fact it was the identities of the three persons who reviewed Sternberg's own article I was confusing. The major reason fact 10 is relevant is to illustrate the types of reviewers that Sternberg selected for his own review article critical of a Darwinian interpretation of an aspect of biology. It is hardly a non sequitur to infer that he may have hand-selected similar reviewers for Meyer's paper.

The admission of the reviewer identities would do much to validate Sternberg's pretense to objectivity in having the article considered meritorious for publication. However, it does not appear forthcoming. My prediction is that all 3 of the reviewers' identities are on the DI's "Top 400" list.

In Sternberg's "Acknowledgements" section, he divulges the identities of the 3 reviewers for his paper I wanted to comment on:

I warmly thank Drs. Lien (Linda) Van Speybroeck, Gertrudis Van de Vijver, and Dani De Waele for their patience, encouragement, and comments and suggestions that greatly improved the manuscript. I also thank Drs. Paul Nelson, Stanley Salthe, Jonathan Wells, and Todd Wood (alphabetical order) for their very helpful criticisms of the manuscript.

__________
Comments:
*Stranger Fruit broke the important facts on this story a long time ago. Read here for more at PT, or here at evolutionblog. Also read here for SF's analysis of Sternberg's appearance on O'Reilly. Here is the partial transcript of the O'Reilly show.
Of course, the facts are not useful to spin doctors at the Discovery Institute. Nearly at the moment the controversy began, they had media releases regarding "the ongoing debate in the scientific community". Sure...
Plus, they displayed some “amusing hypocrisy” over the affair, especially my friend Jonathan Witt (whose work I recently critiqued), with a recent write-in to the Seattle Times. Witt also commented on Sternberg's accusations, then fairly admitted there are "two sides to every story," but instead of posting the other side, just gave a small link to it. Typical stuff. Witt goes on to make a mind-bogglingly stupid remark:

Jason Rosenhouse, dismisses Meyer's peer-reviewed article with a website critique (there has been no peer-reviewed critique of Stephen Meyer's article)

Witt, science journals are not written to debunk creationism, but rather to distribute evidence and information. How stupid are you?

Sternberg and Paul Nelson were set to go present at some kind of forum at the University of Helsinki some months back, but it got cancelled. Sternberg and Nelson ended up instead at the TKK in a self-described "hastily organized substitute event". The talk took place in October 2004. Paul Nelson whined about this a few months back (June 2005), in his perception puling that science was being silenced, and that the cancellation of the pro-ID forum at the University of Helsinki proved this. The chair of this forum was Matti Leisola, a well-known Finnish creationist who is mentioned by name in the Finnish wiki on creationism, who kindly posted the presentations. Nelson rants on about science being silenced,

...“Mike Gene.” He’s a regular contributor at Telic Thoughts, a great new ID blog. Mike has a Ph.D. in genetics. He’s an insightful biologist with interesting ideas. So why is he writing under a pseudonym? Under what circumstances would you feel compelled to do the same?

Well, let's see, Paul...why do writers of various stripes use pseudonyms? Are you implying that they are all overtly persecuted/afraid to use their real identities? He goes on to complain when Elsberry points out the invidious comparisons ID-iots make to scientific McCarthyism as vacuous. And on and on...

The Wedge continues to be pounded into American culture--if you can't convince the scientists through evidence and reasoned debate, confuse the public and make out the movement to look like legitimate science is being silenced by some kind of Evil Atheist Conspiracy. Their Wedge strategy keeps backfiring, though, in that in vilifying the "enemy" of "materialism" to equivocate to science, they reveal the "God vs. Secular Humanism/Atheism/Materialism" debate that it really is...at least for people with half a brain. And for those select few of us who know the DI well, it is clear that this has never been about science. For the rest of America, ID-iocy will rage on.
_______________
Technorati tags:
Discovery Institute, Intelligent Design, Evolution, Creationism, Evolution-creation, Sternberg, Witt

Smell Crisped Hair?

Wow.

I just read an amazing evaluation of the amicus briefs filed by the Discovery Institute, the presumptuously self-titled "Foundation for Thought and Ethics", and a group of self-described "Biologists and Other Scientists in Support of Defendants" on behalf of the defendants in the Dover Design Trial (henceforth, DDT...snicker). The Plaintiff's Response contains the full-text, but the real zingers were:

In short, the amicus briefs add nothing new to the argument for intelligent design as science. What could have been helpful to the Court, and was uniquely in control of the amicus organizations, is some explanation why the Discovery Institute’s and FTE’s own descriptions of their mission and activities as Christian apologetics are not dispositive of the religious nature of intelligent design.5

As one obvious example, the Discovery Institute does not explain — literally does not say a word about - the organization’s Wedge Document (P140), which sets forth the goals and objectives of the intelligent-design movement. The Governing Goals of the Discovery Institute are “[t]o defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies” and “[t]o replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.” P140. The Wedge Document is no anomaly, but rather reflective of the positions of the Discovery Institute and the intelligent-design movement’s leaders, such as Phillip Johnson (originator of the “Wedge” strategy described in the Wedge Document), 10: 16-17 (Forrest), William Dembski (avowed Christian apologist who advocates intelligent design as the theology of John the Apostle translated into the technical language of information theory), P357; 11: 18,48-50, 55 (Forrest), and Stephen Meyer (director of the Discovery Institute, and advocate of intelligent design as “the God hypothesis.”).6 P332; 552 (Pennock); 11: 31 (Forrest)

Similarly, the FTE declines to address facts that it is best situated to explain. Numerous documents in evidence reveal FTE to be a religious organization with religious objectives, not a scientific one pursuing scientific aims. P12; P28; P168A; P566; P633; 10:90-92, 96-101 (Forrest). The FTE ignores all this evidence in its amicus brief.

In a pre-trial hearing in this case, FTE president Jon Buell attributed religious descriptions of his organization, in legally required public filings he had signed, to mistakes by lawyers and accountants. The Court can decide whether Mr. Buell and the FTE were filing false documents with the federal government and the State of Texas, or whether they were instead misrepresenting themselves to this Court, by disowning the religious agenda stated in those documents. The overwhelming evidence from Mr. Buell’s own writings regarding his and FTE’s Christian, creationist objectives gives the Court ample basis to make that judgment. P12; P28; P168A; P566; P633; 10:90-92,96-101 (Forrest). Either way, the FTE’s submission is entitled to no credence or respect from this Court.

This is particularly true of the FTE’s rationalization for the substitution of the phrase “intelligent design” for “creation” in versions of Pandas prepared after Edwards. FTE makes the impossibly silly argument that by discarding the words “creation” and “creationism” found in early drafts, the FTE expressly rejected creationism. FTE Brief at 17. The only way the drafting history of Pandas could be interpreted as rejecting creationism is if the authors had discarded not just the word, but the explanation of what the word means — “various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features already intact — fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc.” The retention of the central creationist concepts using a different term, “intelligent design,” dictates only one inference: intelligent design equals creationism.

If this were not true, surely the FTE would have provided an explanation in its brief for why Pandas was written by two admittedly creationist authors, one of whom was an advocate for creation science in the federal courts, and for why Buell thought that the Edwards ruling on creation science would matter so much to the financial success of Pandas. P350; 10: 102-104, 126-128 (Forrest). But there is no discussion of these facts.

In summary, the amicus originations [sic] have a lot of explaining to do. But they studiously avoid their own words and history, which reveal the religious content of intelligent design.

What all three amici are clearly devoted to is getting the Court to blame any Establishment Clause violation on the defendant board members — without addressing the facts that show that the Board was right in understanding intelligent design to be a religious, God-friendly alternative to the theory of evolution. FTE has stated in a fundraising letter that if the Court “rule[s] narrowly, focusing only on the school board’s action and not ruling on the status of Pandas … that would be great news.”7 (emphasis in original). The Discovery Institute and the FTE, having provided the Dover Board with the idea and the materials to advance its religious agenda, are content to throw the Board under the legal bus, so long as it does not involve the exposure of intelligent design as an inherently religious proposition.

The reason for this approach is obvious: it allows the FTE and Discovery Institute to fight on in the culture wars — perhaps in school boards in Kansas or Ohio — where they may be able to exert greater control over the message broadcast by government officials, avoid the type of rigorous cross-examination applied in this case to expose intelligent design’s alleged scientific underpinning to be an empty vessel, and suppress the kind of revealing acknowledgments of the religious reasons for promoting intelligent design made by Dover school board members.8 As FTE and Discovery Institute attorney Wenger recently explained to a church audience, the Dover Board could have improved its case for intelligent design by being “clever as serpents.”9

If there is anything I can possibly say that has not already been said about this trial, it is this: The DI had really been ousted for exactly what they are by this case. From their betrayal of the defendants' counsel, their duplicity in supporting and opposing the teaching of ID, Behe's absolute meltdown on the stand in admitting he would like a science which included astrology in order to incorporate ID, their empty "lists" of scientists...

...people, wake up! How long does it take, knowing this group started out with a title which clearly stated its objective--"The Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture", to figure out that this is a politico-religious movement and has nothing to do with science?

Go read some facts, note the changing name and banners* of the DI, note that all of "Intelligent Design" is contained within the DI and their fellows...and freakin' think!

*the picture in the later versions of the banner is fortuitously known as the "eye of God"...hmmm...
________________
Technorati tags:
Discovery Institute, Intelligent Design, Evolution, Creationism

Abby and Her Five Senses

Recently I've had abiogenesis on my mind. After reading a PT post on the topic, I started thinking about how abiogenesis is so much like cosmology. I wrote recently about my attitude towards the unknown--that I view rational skepticism as the best approach to both (ab and cos). Some people give up with "goddidit" while others believe the answers are already in hand.

Why is it that so many fundies see methodological naturalism as "faith"? They say things like, "i have faith god made everything, you have faith things made themselves," (which is of course a straw man, considering the 1st Law and cosmology and etc.)...without realizing [one of] the huge difference[s]--that while evidence has shown time and again that observable phenomena are the result of natural law, no evidence has ever shown observable phenomena to be the result of "supernatural" activity. In fact, it is just this line of reasoning that leads me to conclude that life on earth is the result of chemistry and physics. Obviously, god can still fit in the picture as the maker/guider of chemistry and physics, but that doesn't appeal to most theists. And usually they conclude that naturalistic philosophy leads one to dismiss "evidence" that purportedly supports a supernatural cause, yet they acknowledge that rational naturalistic scenarios always fit the bill, and that Occam's razor slices god right out of the picture.

I recently compiled some really good articles on my website in list fashion regarding abiogenesis. I specifically focused on publications reviewing homochirality and other frequently-touted “problems” for abiogenesis (mostly Bonner pubs). For those of you without the access or time to look them up, this could prove a valuable resource. Also, in one of the listed pubs, Lindahl, from TA&M, put together a very good review (2004) that takes us from organic chemistry to extant metabolism via “Quasi-steady state systems”…worth your read. Keep in mind that copyright laws apply to these full-text PDFs.
________________
Technorati tags: abiogenesis, Faith, God, Religion, Philosophy

Shawshank Sunday IV: Jake's Anthro

Brooks Hatlen was an important part of the redemption story of Andy Dufresne. Brooks was, in many ways, Andy's antithesis. Brooks provided for us the contrast of what is was like to lose hope. It has been said that Brooks' crow, Jake, was meant to provide symbolism and possibly even link Hatlen to "the Birdman of Alcatraz." If one only watched the movie, and did not read the book, a deeper sort of symbolism would largely be lost on them.

When Brooks receives his parole, and tries to find a way to stay at Shawshank by threatening to kill Heywood, readers of Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption will have noted the departure from the King novella. A further departure from the source is found in the part that Jake plays in this movie.

While in the novella, Brooks finds the baby crow, nurses it back to health, releases it, and we find out what happened to Jake...this does not happen in the movie.

In both movie and novella, Jake could serve as an obvious symbol of freedom after captivity. But the consequence of captivity upon Jake can only be inferred from the book form of the story. In the book, Jake is found within the prison yard after his release...dead.

This is a realistic depiction of what would likely happen to a bird which was hand-fed and raised with no knowledge of predators or how to find food. It is also a realistic depiction of what happens to men who are institutionalized to the point that they do not know how to handle freedom. Prison can take away the ability to make a decision, to independently choose action without supervision or assistance.

The role that Brooks plays, as Andy's antithesis, is to show a man who lost his hope. Brooks does not believe that it can get better for him, and is "tired of being afraid".

Where Andy is the hero and Brooks his antithesis, Red's part falls between these two characters. Red will choose whether or not to hope, whether or not to go on after his institutionalization. But his choice is inextricably linked to our hero and to Brooks. The impact of both men is apparent in Red. Those familiar with the story know that Red chooses to hope largely due to a promise made to Andy--to go find the rock that he promised Andy he would find.

Red is almost the personification of Jake, but he "belongs to" Andy while Jake belonged to Brooks. While Brooks failed to instill the values Jake needed to survive before releasing him, Andy infused his own strength, character, and hope into Red. Just as what we nurture becomes dependent on us, Red came to a place where he realized the truth of Andy's words, and he needed to see his friend:

Red: I don't think you ought to be doing this to yourself, Andy. This is just shitty pipedreams. I mean, Mexico is way the hell down there and you're in here, and that's the way it is.

Andy: Yeah, right. That's the way it is. It's down there and I'm in here. I guess it comes down to a simple choice, really. Get busy livin' or get busy dyin'...Promise me, Red. If you ever get out, find that spot. In the base of that wall, you'll find a rock that has no earthly business in a Maine hayfield. A piece of black, volcanic glass. There's something buried under it I want you to have.

Red: [after Andy's escape and his own parole] All I do anymore is think of ways to break my parole so maybe they'd send me back. Terrible thing to live in fear. Brooks Hatlen knew it. Knew it all too well. All I want is to be back where things make sense. Where I won't have to be afraid all the time. Only one thing stops me. A promise I made to Andy...
Get busy livin', or get busy dyin'. That's god-damn right.

Red was able to choose to live because Andy gave him something that allowed it--hope.

Jake died because Brooks, codependent, made Jake just like himself--without the ability to make it on his own.

In that way, Red is like Andy's Jake. And when Andy released Red, he flew away free and lived.
________________
Technorati tags:
Hope, Faith, Shawshank

Master Painter?

a story about truth, God, and art

A man was kind enough to share with me the truth.

On a humid afternoon in July, I stepped inside the cool of the Harn Museum at the University of Florida. I had not come with the intent to learn a life lesson. I had no background in art. In fact, I had not taken a single course in art history or appreciation in my life...or read one serious article on the subject.

Yet there I was.

They have an ancient American exhibit at this museum. I was intrigued, and I've always loved South /North American culture. And I've always loved the idea of truth.

The piece was interesting.

As I studied the piece, I noted the face, especially the nose and mouth, appeared as that of a primate. I studied it for many minutes, forming my own opinions about the painting, and was preparing to move on to another piece, so that I could appreciate more of the art. Since I did not know much about the culture, I figured the best way to learn was to study all of their art, and not just one piece.

A man was staring at the piece, though. He did not seem interested in any other.

The man shared the truth with me. He told me what this painting was, who had done it, what it represented, where it was from, when it was done, what it was made of ... and what it was supposed to mean for me. He told me:

What this painting was -- Nazca art on pottery
Who had done it -- Early Nazca culture
What it represented -- Bridge-Spout Bottle of Cat God Wearing Trophy Head
Where it was from -- Ica Valley, South Coast, Peru
When it was done -- 100 B.C.E.- 300 C.E.; Early Intermediate Period
What it was made of -- Burnished polychrome ceramic

At this point, you may notice something interesting. This man had told me many facts, things that were supported by evidence. I asked him how he came to know all these wonderful facts. He replied that he relied upon the work of scholars and scientists who had amassed data for decades, if not centuries, to come to these conclusions. I asked if he had seen the evidence first-hand, analyzing the pieces from different strata and sites. This man had not participated in a single dig, nor had he ever been to South America. He told me, however, that these data were photographed and thoroughly documented and critiqued, and typically one piece was studied multiple times by multiple scholars. He told me if I wanted, I could go review these documents and check these scholars' work. I was satisfied with that. I accepted the evidence he presented, but reminded myself to check some other sources to ensure their accuracy before repeating what he had told me.

At this point, you may have noticed something: the man still hadn't told me the truth.

But he now proceeded to. He told me that these people wanted to convey a feeling of awe for the feline motif. He told me that the Cat God-style pottery was out of reverence to the deity. He told me that the god that they worshipped was not, though,

"...the true God."

He smiled when he said this last part, and I saw brimming confidence and happiness inside him.

I asked him how he knew this about what it ought to mean to me. I asked him if those people had written that somewhere. I asked him if those people had directly communicated it to him.

"No, but these people told some people, who told some people, and about 100 years later, some people from another time and place wrote it all down. And we know that word-of-mouth tradition was a vital part of their culture, and that they respected honesty and integrity."

"So, you don't have records directly from these people, or any proof of what they meant by this particular painting?" Interesting.

He asserted that he did not need to know someone personally to know what they wanted others to make of their work. Of course, this begs the question of whether or not these people did this work with anyone else in mind. Further, it begs a number of questions as to the historicity and reliability of the original sources. But he continued to tell me what it ought to mean to me, and what consequences the work had for me.

"Do you have the autographs in the native languages of the Nazcas?" I was intrigued now.

"Yes!" The man was beaming at this point.

"So, those are probably the oldest extant copies you have as to the intents of the people, right?" And now he shocked me...

"No," he was starting to look a little angry, "but some people from other cultures translated it into their languages, and many other translations and replications were made from there. And then it was back-translated into the original languages of the Nazcas."

I went on to ask the man a number of questions--how much later were the extant copies than the date of the pottery, what the autographs said, how loosely the language of the Nazcas could be construed to mean what he asserted it meant. He answered my questions with honesty--that the extant copies were hundreds of years older than the pottery's composition date, that the messages in the autographs were very subjective and cryptic, that the language of the Nazcas was notorious for its looseness in interpretation. As I cocked my eyebrows, skeptical now of his confidence in his interpretation, one of the most important questions I asked him was who actually made this particular piece. It seemed to confuse him.

"Why does it matter who made this piece," he asked, credulously, "if we know other pieces which are similar in style and content and are dated contemporary to it?"

I was a bit shocked that he regarded this question as meaningless.

"Well, sir, there are a good many people out there who have tried to convey an abstract idea before. Even some people who were trying to convey the very same abstract idea, though, by their own admission, in their own writings, had their works perceived as disparate in their intent and meaning and content. Many people have a concept, such as a concept of God, and they try to convey that concept through literature or art, but the people around them, to whom they attempt to convey it, may perceive it differently than the author or artist intended. If you don't know the exact person who did the work, if you don't know whether this person even meant something to be conveyed to other people, or just within their family, or just within their culture, or just within their lifetime, if the work is done in a subjective manner, and the original intent of the person was not recorded...by the person doing it, and if the original writings did not survive...how is it that you can tell me that this is what it ought to mean to me [that this is truth]?"

Well, needless to say, some of the light in his eyes flickered and died. He admitted that, by my reasoning, there was no way for him to have confidence in his interpretation of what the piece of pottery meant, to me, to him, or to the authors themselves. He admitted that his interpretation was no more authoritative than mine, and that both were mere speculation. He told me the truth.

I asked him if he had studied other pieces to help him form his interpretation. He told me that all the other pieces were inferior, and their makers were either weak, deluded, or just plain errant in their representations. I said nothing to this.

I had just one question left for him:

"Sir, you told me at the beginning, when we were discussing what this pottery ought to mean, that this people's god was not, in your words, the 'true God'. What did you mean by that? How did you come to that conclusion?"

The next story he told me was one which eerily resembled what we had just walked through with the Nazca art, but these people were called Hebrews. As I walked him through the evidences, the subjectivity, the historicity, I saw none of the same dying flicker in his eyes. As I neared the same question for him that I had asked of the "truth" for the Nazca art, I saw him lose not one iota of confidence. Instead, a somewhat hard look came over his face. His eyes seemed to brighten in intensity, and not to dim. He told me, for one thing, that he knew this was the truth because it made him happier, and thus a better person. He told me he had personal experiences with the true God, and that the true God was not the Nazca's god, and these experiences he knew to be authentic and genuine.

Although his reasoning was specious, although his logic fallacious, although his "facts" subjective, although his personal experiences solely his own and not mine...the man told me what truth was. I nodded and walked to the door. As I left the exhibit, I looked back over my shoulder and saw his attention turning again to the piece. His smile slowly reappeared.

A man was kind enough to share with me the truth; only, he did not know it.
________________
George Bernard Shaw once wrote,

The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.

For more on Nazca pottery, read here, or this Wiki for general stuff.
_____________
Technorati tags:
Hope, Faith, God, Religion, Philosophy, Nazca, Art