Saturday, January 29, 2005
Rusty Nails, 1/29/05...
A salute to the brave and courageous voters in Iraq, by DarkSyde, in To Those About to Vote: We Salute You.
##########
Smart Christian is organizing a gathering of Christian bloggers at The Christian Blogosphere Convention (GodBlogCon). Tenative place and date: Mesa, Az., 10/2005, with Hugh Hewitt as keynote speaker. Stop by Smart Christian to express your interest and suggestions.
##########
Inspired by the idea of a Christian blogger convention, Stacy Harp, at Media Soul, would like to organize a southern California blogger get-together. Check for contact info at So Cal Bloggers Meet Up.
##########
In the category of: Be careful what you wish for...
Critics of ID contend that the ranks of ID proponents are mostly filled with non-scientists or scientists with little to no academic stature in their respective fields. The perpetual cry from neo-Darwinists is that ID produces no testable theories, that there are no reputable scientists within its ranks, or that it produces no peer-reviewed studies. In The Branding of a Heretic, from the Wall Street Journal, we read of one Richard Sternberg, a "research associate at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History in Washington." Sternberg, who holds two Ph.D.s in biology, was also the managing editor of the scientific journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. Sternberg's future in research is in jeopardy though. The reason? He approved for publication an article by Stephen Meyer titled, The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories. Meyer posits ID.
The backlash against Sternberg has been severe enough for him to state, "I'm spending my time trying to figure out how to salvage a scientific career."
The neo-Darwinist's bluff has been called. They've asked for what they thought could not be produced. Now they're left with either admitting (supposedly asked for) peer-reviewed articles, or doing a "soft shoe" around the issues at hand. If their edifice is so strong and true, then why do they continually resort to strong-arm tactics to suppress critical inquiry?
HT: Mere Comments
Note: Joe Carter also reports on this incident.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Paul & Dark,
You both seem to miss the point that the issue at stake isn't whether an article or study is worthy of peer review or whether it has been shredded (supposedly).
The message that has been so clearly sent is that deviation from neo-Darwinian dogmatism will not be tolerated and those who attempt to promote any type of critical inquiry will be dealt with swiftly and harshly.
As I said, the bluff has been called.
Post a Comment