Dispatches from the Creation Wars

Worldnutdaily Flogs Dead Sternberg Horse

Jack Cashill, the Worldnutdaily’s resident conspiracy loon, has a column up recounting the Sternberg saga in all its distorted and highly exaggerated glory. He’s swallowed every claim in the Souder report uncritically, and even added a few of his own distortions to the story.

One day students might study this report – damningly titled “Intolerance and the Politicization of Science at the Smithsonian” – as a turning point in the history of science. For the time being, however, the report and the scandal at the heart of it attract very close to no attention in the media, let alone in the nation’s schools.

Says Dr. Richard Sternberg, the Galileo of the Smithsonian scandal, “The press has not wanted to touch [the report]. Things like this aren’t supposed to happen.”


Well I’ve noticed it. And I’ve touched it. And I did something Cashill hasn’t bothered to do – read the actual evidence on which the report is based. And I noticed that the claims in the report are flatly contradicted by that evidence time and time again.

What did happen to Dr. Sternberg is shocking even by Washington standards. The damage done to his career is real, irreversible and symptomatic of the lengths the science establishment will go to suppress challenges to the most vulnerable of its paradigms, namely Darwinism and its derivatives.

Utter nonsense. What happened to Sternberg was that he conspired to skirt the normal peer review procedures in order to sneak a substandard and off-topic article in to a journal he was editing, in the very last issue he would have control over, and his unprofessional behavior quite reasonably caused his colleagues to question his actions. There was no damage done to his career at all; before it happened he was employed as a scientist with the NIH; he still is.

For any number of uneventful years, the evolutionary biologist Sternberg was a member in good standing of that very establishment. Employed by the National Institutes of Health in association with the Smithsonian, he served as the managing editor of the Smithsonian-affiliated journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.

This is nonsense. He was employed by the NIH; he is still employed by the NIH. His appointment as a Research Associate at the Smithsonian had nothing to do with his job at the NIH; it most certainly was not “in association” with the Smithsonian. The Smithsonian appointment was purely a courtesy, an unpaid position that merely allowed him to have access to the collections of the National Museum of Natural History to do research completely unrelated to his job with the NIH. One simply had nothing to do with the other.

In 2004, Sternberg chose to publish a tightly argued paper by the Discovery Institute’s Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, titled “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories.”

Actually, it was a badly argued paper that was quite effectively shredded by the Panda’s Thumb crew. Scientists who specialized in the Cambrian era, like paleontologist Ronald Jenner, also showed the many flaws in the article. For their part, the DI, after promising a 6 part response to the critique, simply gave up on it and didn’t bother after the first two.

Popularly known as the Cambrian Explosion, this relatively brief period of pre-history witnessed the emergence of most forms of complex animal life, seemingly without any evolutionary trail. To date, evolutionary biologists have made little progress in resolving the mystery of their origins.

There’s that silly claim that “most forms of complex animal life” just popped in to existence during the Cambrian; this is simply nonsense. If you asked most people to give examples of complex animal life they would no doubt talk about all kinds of mammals (bears, dogs, monkeys, horses, people) and birds and reptiles and amphibians. Guess what? None of those existed in the Cambrian. Indeed, even the amphibians, the earliest land animals to evolve, would not exist until well over 100 million years after the Cambrian ended.

Now this is where things really get interesting:

Shortly before receiving Meyer’s paper, Sternberg had attended an in-service training module on the ethics of peer review. What Sternberg took away from the training is that the “peers” selected to review a given paper be neither prejudiced against the topic or partial to it for reasons of self-interest.

Although not himself an intelligent design (ID) theorist or an advocate of the same, Sternberg thought the subject worthy of discussion. He identified three fellow scientists who shared his open-mindedness, though none of them was an ID advocate, either. These scientists offered some useful revisions. Meyer incorporated them, and the paper was published in August 2004.

Now this is very, very interesting. First of all, the claim that Sternberg is not an ID advocate is a flat out lie. We know that because he presented a pro-ID paper at the RAPID conference, a conference that was open only to ID advocates. In fact, that conference also featured Meyer presenting a paper on the very subject of the PBSW article and it was at that conference that Meyer and Sternberg began conspiring to get it published in that forum.

Now, one would think that someone who had just been through training on the ethics of peer review would know that if you are editing a journal and you solicit an article to be submitted that you know is going to be controversial, that advocates an idea that you yourself advocate but virtually no one else does, that is being written by a friend of yours, and that is on a subject in which neither you nor the author of the article has any particular expertise, the ethical thing to do would be to recuse yourself from the process of deciding whether that article should be published or not.

Did Sternberg do the ethical thing and recuse himself from the peer review of that paper? Of course not. In fact, not only did he not recuse himself, he made sure that he was the only person on the editorial staff of the journal to even see the article or know of its existence prior to publication. He had no fewer than 4 associate editors with an expertise in invertebrate zoology (almost all life in the Cambrian was invertebrate), but he made sure that not one of them even knew the article had been submitted until after it was published. And he wants to talk about his training in the ethics of peer review?

Lastly, I find it very curious that Cashill claims to know who the peer reviewers were. Sternberg has flatly refused to reveal who the reviewers were. Cashill has no way of knowing anything about those reviewers without knowing their identities, yet he claims to know a good bit about them. Did Sternberg tell Cashill who they were? Or did he just tell them that they’re not ID advocates but were just “open minded” and Cashill swallowed it whole without any evidence? Either is possible. But given that Sternberg dishonestly claims not to be an ID advocate himself when he clearly is, his word in this regard just isn’t worth much at this point.

Given what has happened since, these scientists have chosen to remain anonymous to preserve their careers. After considerable review of the files, however, no one questions the legitimacy of the process.

That’s an even bigger lie. Virtually everyone at the NMNH questions the process, for the obvious reasons stated above. And also because this was not the first time Sternberg had skirted the normal peer review process. On another paper, known as the Nizinski manuscript, Sternberg had to be badgered into sending it out to the normal peer reviewers for such a paper, then he went ahead and printed it despite all of the reviews arguing against publication.

Coddington’s own plan was to meet with Sternberg and “hint that if he had any class he would either entirely desist or resign his appointment.” When Sternberg failed to take the hint, Coddington and colleagues settled on a bold plan of petty revenge, death by a thousand academic cuts.

For Sternberg to keep his research associate position, he would have to detail the exact research projects he would be working on, the papers he planned to write, their schedule of completion, the journals to which he would be submitting, a complete list of the specimens and materials he would be using, the catalog numbers for those specimens and materials, the times and dates he would plan to use them, and even his planned office hours.

Let’s call this one lying by omission. What is Cashill omitting? A hell of a lot. Like the fact that Sternberg had been doing his work at the NMNH for nearly 3 years with no supervision; his sponsor had died 2 weeks after his Research Associate appointment began (an RA position is defined as one which works closely with a staff scientist there). Coddington had no idea who Sternberg was. Sternberg was in the habit of showing up only at night, and often went months at a time between visits.

Coddington suddenly finds out he has someone in his own department without a sponsor and no one at the museum has any idea what he’s actually doing there. He’s got reports from Sternberg’s research assistant that he kept hundreds of specimens in his office at a time without properly curating them and that he had some 50 books checked out from the library and had ignored repeated requests to return them and then lied to her and said he had done so when he hadn’t.

No one else in the department wanted to be his sponsor, so as the chair of the invertebrate zoology department, it fell on Coddington to be his default sponsor for the remainder of his RA appointment. But the only thing he knows about Sternberg at that point is his unprofessional handling of specimens and research materials and his unprofessional behavior as editor of the PBSW. Is it any wonder that Coddington wanted Sternberg to bring him up to speed on exactly what he was doing there, what research materials he needed and what research was actually being done?

Finally, yielding to the paranoia, Coddington asked that Sternberg relinquish his set of master keys. As the House Report notes, his colleagues were “very uncomfortable” with Sternberg having keys. “They were afraid that he might break into their offices, stealing or disturbing their materials.” The fact that Sternberg had worked there for the last five years without incident pacified no one.

This is all nonsense. In fact, the whole facility was being rekeyed for security purposes. It had been discovered that Sternberg and a few others had master keys to the facility, keys that not only gave access to all the collections but to the private offices of every person there. That’s a security nightmare. And here’s the kicker: Sternberg was notified that he would have to turn in his keys before the Meyer article was ever published. That’s right, folks. Having to turn in his keys had precisely nothing to do with the controversy; it was planned before anyone even knew about his actions on the Meyer article.

All of that is in the emails that the Souder committee used as the basis for their reports; the fact that they and Cashill are still pretending that he had his keys taken away in retaliation despite the fact that he was informed by email, along with a bunch of other people at the NMNH, about the situation before the issue ever came up just goes to show you how dishonest they are willing to be to build a false case for martyrdom. If the truth doesn’t support the claim, then lies will do; after all, they’re lying for Jesus and that’s okay.

When Sternberg asked if the other research associates were being subjected to the same treatment, Coddington replied, “This is not about the other RAs. This is only about you.” He continued, “You are being treated differently, but you know perfectly well why you’re being treated differently.”

Another distortion. This was not in the emails at all but is only Sternberg’s recounting of a conversation. But that conversation was about having to give Coddington a detailed description of his research work and what access was required. Again, given that Sternberg had been working with no staff supervision whatsoever, that virtually no one at the museum even knew who he was and that he had been holding hundreds of specimens in his office and mishandled them, is this really such an odious requirement? Coddington suddenly had full responsibility for a man he didn’t know, in fact who was known by virtually no one there, but who had a track record of malfeasance in regard to the NMNH collections. You can bet your ass I’d want to know what research he was actually doing and with what materials.

Today, Dr. Richard Sternberg hangs on at the National Institutes of Health by his fingernails. “I have a position,” he says wryly.

This is hogwash. Even Sternberg has never even alleged that anyone at the NIH, where he actually works, has ever said so much as a cross word to him over what happened at the Smithsonian. Indeed, he filed charges with the OSC and the OSC said they had no jurisdiction over it because the RA appointment was not his job, the NIH is his employer. If Sternberg had any evidence at all of anything that threatened his job at the NIH, he would surely have given it to the OSC so they wouldn’t drop his case.

All of this is one big fraud. Despite his extraordinarily unprofessional and dishonest handling of this entire situation, absolutely nothing happened to Sternberg. He still has the same access to the collections at the NMNH that he always had. Indeed, even after his RA position ran out they offered him a Research Collaborator position so he could continue his research there; given his actions, he hardly deserves that. And he continues to work at the NIH as he always has without so much as a hint of any risk to his job there at all. In the end, despite his appalling behavior throughout this ordeal, Sternberg has gotten off without any damage at all to his career. That’s the real story here.

Comments

  1. #1 J-Dog
    February 16, 2007

    Ed – Outstanding research and critique as usual – thanks.

  2. #2 Reed A. Cartwright
    February 16, 2007

    Please post this on PT.

  3. #3 Ed Brayton
    February 16, 2007

    Was already planning to, Reed.

  4. #4 Jason Spaceman
    February 16, 2007

    Possibly the dumbest part of Cashill’s essay:

    “I will keep an eye on Dr. (von) Sternberg,” wrote the Smithsonian’s Dr. Hans Sues to the NCSE’s Eugenie Scott, “and I’d greatly appreciate it if you or other NCSE specialists could let me [know] about further activities by this gentleman in areas poutside [sic] crustacean systematics.”

    The extent of this collusion “on government time and with government resources” the House Committee described as “alarming.” Nor did Sternberg’s colleagues limit their pique to those who needed to know. Indeed, they sent word of his heresy to scientists around the world.

    Wrote one Dutch scientist back to a Smithsonian colleague: “These people are coming out and invading our schools, biology classes, museums and now our professional journals. These people to my mind are only a scale up on the fundies of a more destructive kind in other parts of the world.”

    Ah yes, “these people.” Some of them publish papers on intelligent design. Others fly planes into the World Trade Center. The earlier “von” remark suggests a comparison to Nazis as well.

    No Jack, they use ‘von’ because ‘von’ is part of Sternberg’s full name. Sternberg himself uses ‘von’ on his own CV for pete’s sake.

  5. #5 JS
    February 16, 2007

    He’s complaining that the institute wants a catalog of the specimens, a schedule of office hours, and a publication schedule? Chez wha? I don’t think I’ve ever known an active researcher who didn’t have a publication schedule and some kind of office hours. It should be a simple matter of pushing the ‘print’ button on his word processor.

    - JS

  6. #6 Gerard Harbison
    February 16, 2007

    Well-written, comprehensive demolition. Nice work, Ed.

  7. #7 Reed A. Cartwright
    February 16, 2007

    “Was already planning to, Reed.”

    Thanks

  8. #8 Skemono
    February 16, 2007

    Jack Cashill, the Worldnutdaily’s resident conspiracy loon

    You mean they’ve only got one?

  9. #9 Daniel Morgan
    February 16, 2007

    This is a pretty authoritative take-down of the whole saga. I hope this information gets as widely disseminated as the WingNutDaily article; yet of course, the much-needed debunking won’t spread as fast or far as the drama-fueled lies. Just wait for UncommonlyDense to put up something on it soon, I’m sure most of those guys have WND in their RSS reader.

  10. #10 Ed Brayton
    February 16, 2007

    Daniel-

    I find it interesting that no one has ever responded to my several thorough and detailed refutations of this report. No one from the DI, or from UD or any other ID source, nor Sternberg himself, has ever even attempted to refute it. They’ve responded to many other things I’ve written, so they obviously read the page; the lack of response speaks volumes, I think.

  11. #11 tacitus
    February 16, 2007

    Ed, you don’t exactly make it easy for them :-).

    When was the last time UD posted something that came close to the thought and effort you put in on this single post? Most of their contributors simply snag an article from elsewhere, paste a couple of paragraphs, and add a sneering comment about one evolutionist or another. No thought required. (The exception is DaveScot whose postings don’t even rise to that level. Clearly, his grip on reality is weakening fast.)

    They are call armchair critics for a reason.

  12. #12 Kevin
    February 16, 2007

    Do you really find it that interesting? These people are still parroting the same tripe about the Cambrian explosion, about Heckle’s embryos, about bacterial flagellum decades after they’ve been corrected (and have continued to be corrected over the decades). That they don’t acknowledge the absolute thrashing that you’ve given them (and a few others have as well) shouldn’t come as a surprise. It is actually the only thing they can do. I mean, what could they possibly offer? They know that their “base” won’t read you, nor will they believe you over them, so why even give you any publicity?

    They’re selling a product and they know their customers very well. If they respond to you, that might cut into the future book sales detailing the oh so sad saga of Sternberg. And they can’t have the truth get in the way of their agenda.

  13. #13 Glen Davidson
    February 16, 2007

    Yes, excellent take-down of the commentary surrounding Sternberg’s constant whine, “Mommy, the big boys aren’t nice to me.”

    I heard Behe talk relatively recently, who complained of the unfairness of Nature writing something along the lines of, ‘the DI planted a mole, Sternberg, at the journal he was editing’ (unsurprisingly I don’t have the quote, but it was close to that). Even as hyperbole, that is a dishonest rendering of the reporting done on Sternberg’s scurrilous ramming-through of Meyer’s apologetics.

    Naturally they don’t have any real persecution stories, so they have to make one out of the understandable response to Sternberg’s shady actions.

    And imagine anyone thinking that a member of the Baraminology Study Group might be an advocate of ID. Does anyone really believe that Sternberg is unbiased about pseudosciences like ID?

    Glen D
    http://tinyurl.com/35s39o

  14. #14 Steve Reuland
    February 16, 2007

    …despite his appalling behavior throughout this ordeal, Sternberg has gotten off without any damage at all to his career. That’s the real story here.

    Actually, the real story IMO is collusion on the part of Sternberg, the Disco Institute and their allies (which includes Cashill), Scott Bloch at the OSC, and Rep. Mark Souder to slander and smear the Smithsonian Institute and its employees. There was persecution going on alright. But those claiming to be the victims are the actual perpetrators. Of all the crap the ID people have pulled, the Sternberg affair is perhaps the most vile and despicable.

  15. #15 ck1
    February 16, 2007

    I spoke with Jack Cashill last night. He was the token creationist for a panel discussion following a screening of Flock of Dodos. I had read his Sternberg article earlier in the day, and when Cashill brought it up in conversation after the formal event was over, I told him the article had multiple inaccuracies in my opinion, such as the fact that Sternberg clearly had ID/creationist ties before the Meyer submission. I mentioned the Biola conference and the Baraminology Study Group. Cashill did not believe me and challenged me to send him documentation. I have not yet done so but plan to do this later in the day since I am curious to see if he will respond.

    And this was a great point-by-point fisking of that article.

  16. #16 Ed Brayton
    February 16, 2007

    Point him to my response. I’ll be happy to send him all the documentation he needs. But I’m willing to bet he’ll ignore it.

  17. #17 ck1
    February 16, 2007

    I plan to send him a link to your comments.

    My impression meeting Cashill was that he was not an extremist, but I cannot for the life of me remember anything he actually said during the panel discussion on the movie. He was, however, seriously in the minority (the other panel members were Olson, Barbara Forrest and a lawyer I think was affiliated with a humanist group.) There did not seem to be any creationists in the audience, so he may have modulated his viewpoint. I can see, however, from other articles he has written that he is definitely not a moderate. But I will still try to contact him.

  18. #18 doctorgoo
    February 16, 2007

    I’d think that anyone who pays attention to the Sternberg saga for any length of time would realize how stupid this lie is.

    I guess the only thing the DI and the WND can do is to constantly spread these lies to new people, and to convince them before they hear both sides of the story.

    Great job of debunking this junk once again, Ed.

  19. #19 raj
    February 17, 2007

    Good post, but I believe there must be something missing. Why would WorldNutDaily be trying to revive this dead horse–a rather obscure one, at that–unless they are or shortly will be trying to sell something?

    If they aren’t currently trying to sell something related to this, they probably shortly will be. Follow the money. It’s always follow the money with these people.

  20. #20 D. Blackstone
    February 17, 2007

    I see Ed Brayton’s a partner in political consulting firm. He has political connections no doubt. He probably knew the House was inquiring in the Sternberg matter.

    If what Brayton wrote is true, why didn’t Brayton’s info make it into the House Report? Why did Brayton wait until after Cashill’s article came out to reveal all this?

  21. #21 doctorgoo
    February 17, 2007

    lol Blackstone. You sure are funny looking with that tinfoil hat of yours.

  22. #22 NJ
    February 17, 2007

    I see Ed Brayton’s a partner in political consulting firm. He has political connections no doubt. He probably knew the House was inquiring in the Sternberg matter.

    And you know what else? Ed has never denied being in the the same restaurant as Jimmy Hoffa the day Hoffa disappeared!

    I know I’m putting my own life at risk by revealing this but the truth must come out.

    {whop-whop-whop-whop…}

    Whoops! Gotta go, I hear a black helicopter nearby.

  23. #23 Ed Brayton
    February 17, 2007

    D. Blackstone wrote:

    I see Ed Brayton’s a partner in political consulting firm. He has political connections no doubt. He probably knew the House was inquiring in the Sternberg matter.

    If what Brayton wrote is true, why didn’t Brayton’s info make it into the House Report? Why did Brayton wait until after Cashill’s article came out to reveal all this?

    That may be the single dumbest comment anyone has ever left here, and considering that the likes of Larry Fafarman, DaveScot and Robert O’Brien have left comments here, that’s really quite an accomplishment. First of all, I am no longer the partner in a political consulting firm; that was a short-lived project that was folded quite some time ago. I don’t know where you saw that information, but if it is still listed somewhere I need to have it removed.

    But even if it was still true, the conclusion that you draw from that is just plain idiotic. Do you really think that everyone involved in every political consulting firm knows the contents of every report requested by the chairman of each of the hundreds of Congressional subcommittees in existence? And even if they did, do you really think that they could get whatever information they wanted into such a report even if they wanted to do so? Such reports are done at the request of a politician, usually one with a specific agenda in mind, and they generally find whatever he wants to find for that reason. Souder is strongly pro-ID and, surprise surprise, his report concluded exactly what he wanted it to conclude. The problem, as I’ve pointed out in great detail, is that the evidence they provided does not support the conclusions of the report; in fact, in most cases the evidence flatly contradicts those conclusions. You could, of course, dispute my arguments in that regard; the fact that you chose this incredibly stupid argument instead suggests that you could find no grounds for doing so.

  24. #24 doctorgoo
    February 17, 2007

    I am no longer the partner in a political consulting firm; that was a short-lived project that was folded quite some time ago. I don’t know where you saw that information, but if it is still listed somewhere I need to have it removed.

    Ed, here’s one place that needs to be changed:
    http://positiveliberty.com/ed-brayton/

  25. #25 doctorgoo
    February 17, 2007

    While you’re at it, you could update the pic on the About tab here on sci-blogs…

    And also update the science blogs listed on your blogroll. About a quarter of them point to outdated links! (cause they also moved to sci-blogs.

  26. #26 Ed Brayton
    February 17, 2007

    Ah, thanks. I’ll have Jason remove that information.

    I decided to do a little investigative work to find out who D. Blackstone is. The email address was debra.blackstone@gmail.com and a google search for Debra Blackstone turns up this site, which lists Debra Blackstone with a different email address – webmaster@cashill.com. It appears that she is the webmaster for Jack Cashill’s official website. One would hope that the ridiculous argument made above is not the best that Cashill can do in response to my critique of his many false claims in regard to the Sternberg saga.

  27. #27 Anonymous
    February 18, 2007

    (Note: http:// prefixes on URL links have been removed to prevent this comment from hanging up on the spam filter)

    Ed, your links to the Sternberg report and the separate appendix don’t work, so I had to get the links from Evolution News & Views at –

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/the_house_government_reform_su.html

    The links are —

    Report –

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

    Appendix –

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

    Ed, considering that you were not a direct participant in the events described in the report and the appendix, how were you able to give such an amazingly detailed answer to Cashill’s article within hours after that article appeared? Do you go around constantly with all of this information at the top of your head? Also, you don’t specifically reference your sources — i.e., there are no quotations, document names, page numbers, etc. (the appendix is 74 pages long and it is very difficult to find something without a page number or a description of a letter, email, or other document contained in the appendix). How do we know that you are not just spinning another yarn?

    One thing that surprised me about the Sternberg report is the many references to emails. I save very few of my emails.

  28. #28 DuWayne
    February 18, 2007

    Anonymous -
    One thing that surprised me about the Sternberg report is the many references to emails. I save very few of my emails.

    The only email I ever delete, is spam. Every one of the hundreds of emails I have sent or recived, since opening my gmail account, is still there. I have found that to be quite handy, for a host of reasons.

  29. #29 Anonymous
    February 18, 2007

    Duwayne replied,

    “One thing that surprised me about the Sternberg report is the many references to emails. I save very few of my emails.”
    The only email I ever delete, is spam.

    OK, I’ll put it this way: I don’t understand why people would save potentially incriminating emails.

  30. #30 Ed Brayton
    February 18, 2007

    Anonymous wrote:

    Ed, considering that you were not a direct participant in the events described in the report and the appendix, how were you able to give such an amazingly detailed answer to Cashill’s article within hours after that article appeared? Do you go around constantly with all of this information at the top of your head?

    Because I had already written a long and detailed refutation of the Souder report itself, which you apparently visited (since you inform me that the links in that refutation don’t work) and therefore should have known. There is very little in Cashill’s column that is not taken, quite credulously and without bothering to look at the actual evidence, from the Souder report. However, I do have a very good memory for such details, so I didn’t have to refer back to that post all that much in writing the response to Cashill’s claims.

    Also, you don’t specifically reference your sources — i.e., there are no quotations, document names, page numbers, etc. (the appendix is 74 pages long and it is very difficult to find something without a page number or a description of a letter, email, or other document contained in the appendix). How do we know that you are not just spinning another yarn?

    Another yarn? Have I spun yarns before? Do tell. However, you’re flat wrong when you say that I did not provide quotes, document names and page numbers. Go and read my refutation of the Souder report. It quotes from many of the emails in the appendix, with correct labeling of who wrote it, when it was written and on what page it can be found in the appendix. Thus you find passages like this one:

    Nor was this the first time Sternberg’s handling of a controversial manuscript an issue. There is also mention in an email from Frank Ferrari (p. 20) that this was not the first time Sternberg had published a substandard article after initially not following normal review procedures. Ferrari says:

    What is troubling is the implication in the article that the manuscript was peer-reviewed. I doubt it was, based on my experience with Sternberg and the infamous Nizinski manuscript, which Sternberg also wanted to publish and also insisted had been peer-reviewed. Prior to publication, I asked him who reviewed the Nizinski manuscript, but he would not give me any names. When I insisted that the manuscript be reviewed internationally, the consensus of 4 international reviewers was rejection (sadly, Sternberg published it anyway).

    Noted the source and the page number it can be found on.

    I don’t understand why people would save potentially incriminating emails.

    In this case, those emails exonerate the people in question, not incriminate them. As I’ve documented in great detail, the contents of those emails flatly contradicts the report’s conclusions in numerous places.

  31. #31 Foggg
    February 18, 2007

    In case anyone doubts Souder’s position on ID and understanding of evolution. Interesting that nowhere on Souder’s site is there now a link to the Sternberg “report”=hatchet-job-by-his-handpicked-subcommittee-staff, at least that I could find.

  32. #32 Ed Brayton
    February 19, 2007

    Sorry Larry, you don’t get to post here no matter how many times you change your nickname.

  33. #33 Michael J
    February 21, 2007

    Still waiting for the promised response from Wing Nut Daily.

    Michael

  34. #34 Jason Spaceman
    February 22, 2007

    Cashill must have read your blog entry on the Sternberg affair, as his WingNutDaily column this week reads, in part:

    A few at the “Dodos” event tried to engage me on the subject of global warming. I demurred. No fact was going to penetrate that mindset, not even the 5-degree wind chill outside, and I knew how quick this discussion could turn ugly.

    As I have gleaned from this and other such forums, on this and virtually all topics held dear to our progressive friends, they tend to divide their opposition into two camps – fools and hucksters.

    The “fools,” the great mass of the opposition, they hope to “educate.” Taking me for one, a woman I met at the event subsequently e-mailed me a presumably corrective blog entry about my Smithsonian article that began: “Jack Cashill, the Worldnutdaily’s resident conspiracy loon …”

    And the weird thing is she thought that she was being helpful.

    The blog entry captures almost perfectly the smug contempt of the science community that Olson chides in “Dodos.” More than that, however, it suggests the comfort secular progressives feel in expressing their disdain for subjects about which I write and about which they know little, if anything, at all.

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.