More on Meyer

It's a shame they did it with no links attached, had to use Google to come here.

A note also entitled More on Meyer appears on the NCSE web site:

The controversy about the publication of "intelligent design" advocate Stephen C. Meyer's article "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories" in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington is now attracting attention in the press.

First, a brief UPI story "Creationist article stirs debate" appeared in the Washington Times on August 30. The story explained that "Intelligent design supporters believe living creatures show patterns of design that are evidence of a creator. ID backers also have sought to weaken the teaching of evolution in schools. Although the claims of Discovery Institute's CSC have been rebuffed by the scientific community at large, the group has sought to get papers published in scientific journals," and also repeated NCSE's report that members of the Biological Society of Washington are "concerned about the reputation of the society and its journal after the publication of such a piece of substandard work in the apparent service of a non-scientific ideology."

Second, The Scientist published Trevor Stokes's story "Intelligent design study appears: Publication of paper in peer-reviewed journal sparks controversy" on September 3. Stokes quoted NCSE executive director Eugenie C. Scott as describing "intelligent design" as "an evolved form of creationism that resulted from legal decisions in the 1980s ruling that creationism can't be taught in schools" and as commenting, "There hasn't been anything in peer-reviewed literature about intelligent design ... Members of the intelligent design community are very hungry to get articles in peer-reviewed journals." Stokes also quoted the Panda's Thumb critique of the article as "a rhetorical edifice [constructed] out of omission of relevant facts, selective quoting, bad analogies, and tendentious interpretations."

Stokes also interviewed Richard Sternberg and Meyer for his story. Sternberg, the editor of PBSW at the time the article was published, stated that the paper underwent peer review; he also expressed concern that "some in the science community have labeled him and Meyer as creationists." The article then described Sternberg's work with the Baraminology Study Group at Bryan College. (The article provides a link to the BSG's Occasional Papers, which "is committed to publishing constructive scientific research in creation biology"; Sternberg is on its editorial board.) Stokes might have also mentioned that Palm Beach Atlantic University, with which Meyer is now affiliated, requires its trustees, officers, faculty members, and staff to believe that "man was directly created by God."

The story gives the last word to Meyer, who comments, "Public reaction to the article, however, has been mainly characterized by hysteria, name-calling and personal attack." It is worth pointing out that the Panda's Thumb critique "Meyer's Hopeless Monster" spends about 6000 words patiently explaining the scientific shortcomings of the paper. When the Discovery Institute first posted Meyer's article on its web site, it acknowledged the existence of "Meyer's Hopeless Monster" (without linking to it) and commented, "We trust that the Panda's Thumb critique of Meyer's article will seem a good deal less persuasive, and less substantive than Meyer's article itself, once readers have had a chance to read Meyer's essay. Dr. Meyer will, of course, respond in full to Gishlick et al. in due course." Perhaps significantly, no response has yet appeared, and the promise to respond -- along with any reference to "Meyer's Hopeless Monster" -- has disappeared.

[Sternberg] also expressed concern that "some in the science community have labeled him and Meyer as creationists."

— Glenn Branch

The link list on The Sciencist article is badly out of whack.

Sternberg said he was concerned that some in the science community have labeled him and Meyer as creationists. "It's fascinating how the 'creationist' label is falsely applied to anyone who raises any questions about neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory," he said. "The reaction to the paper by some [anti-creationist] extremists suggests that the thought police are alive and well in the scientific community."

Editor: Roger Sanders, 1854 Greenwood Road, Weatherford, TX 76088, USA Email: opbsgeditor@bryancore.org Assistant Editor: Todd Wood, Center for Origins Research and Education, Bryan College, Dayton, TN 37321, USA Editorial Board: Joseph Francis, Margaret Helder, Georg Huber, Richard Sternberg About the BSG: Founded in 1996, the Baraminology Study Group is a fellowship of researchers and scholars who seek to 1. Develop a new view of biology that is consistent with the Biblical record. 2. Encourage high-quality creation biology and baraminology research. 3. Sponsor conferences and other appropriate activities to promote creation biology. 4. Develop a community of creation biologists who share these goals. BSG membership is open to any who share these goals. For more information, visit the official BSG website, http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/, or email info@bryancore.org.

Calm down Gary. I understand your frustration but Sternberg is in an uneviable position right now. We have a saying in the Netherlands 'a cat when cornered will make unpredictable moves'. You made your point. There is much speculation and I am sure the Biological Society of Washington will help resolve many of these issues soon.

Pim wrote:
Sternberg is in an uneviable position right now. We have a saying in the Netherlands 'a cat when cornered will make unpredictable moves'.

Let us not forget, though, this particular cat is entirely responsible for his own en-cornered-ment.

Someone e-mailed me to let me know that Elsberry commented about my reply over at Panda's Thumb. He quotes where I write, "I find the above excerpt to be quite deplorable. Once again, the critics resort to subtle character assassination." Apparently, he replied as follows:

— Mike Gene

When someone makes as many errors as we have documented Stephen Meyer does, one naturally does wonder about his scholarship and character. But we didn't invent these problems in Meyer's work; he did that to himself. As "Dave" says, we're just doing the post-mortem.

— Wesley

I guess we are supposed to think that Elsberry, Gishlick, and Matzke had no idea who Meyer was before they approached his article. Then, as they sat down to objectively and fairly weigh it, they were stunned to find so "many errors." Only then did it occur to them to wonder about his scholarship and character. If Elsberry expects us to believe that, he's been hanging out in his personal echo chamber too long. [Smile]

— Mike Gene

Look, over here, we all know this trio are deeply political and heavily invested in defeating the DI. Their minds define ID in terms of the DI. We all know Meyer's relationship to the DI. We all know this trio also knows Meyer's relationship to the DI. Thus, we all know how this trio approached the article. We all likewise know this trio most likely had preconceptions about Meyer's "scholarship and character" prior to reading one word of his paper. [Razz]

— Mike Gene

I think that some are certainly too far in the materialist direction, and they claim that science backs them up on that. ID can at least serve a 'keeping em' honest' function, even if nothing else. I think that ID may very well have things to offer science, but I think that it is too early for ID to claim that it has done so. I don't think that it is just obvious that ID will contribute substantively to science, but I think it has that potential, and that it should be pushed as far as it can be made to legitimately go.

Del Ratzsch: ID can at least serve a 'keeping em' honest' function, even if nothing else.

How ironic! In light of the Meyer debacle and subsequent spewage from the DI and "Mike Gene" - who's going to keep the "honest-keepers" honest?

Sternberg said he was concerned that some in the science community have labeled him and Meyer as creationists. "It's fascinating how the 'creationist' label is falsely applied to anyone who raises any questions about neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory," he said.

— Sternberg

I'm sorry, I just had to re-post over at ARN. Maybe Mike Gene can either answer my simple questions, or give me the benefit of his amateur psychoanalysis. I hadn't looked at that site for a year or more. It was just like I remembered- different day same BS.

Steve Reuland quotes Richard Sternberg above:

"It's fascinating how the 'creationist' label is falsely applied to anyone who raises any questions about neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory . . . "

In the "ID Creationism" thread Wesley Elsberry quotes Phil Johnson:

"Persons who believe that the earth is billions of years old, and that simple forms of life evolved gradually to become more complex forms including humans, are 'creationists' if they believe that a supernatural Creator not only initiated this process but in some meaningful sense controls it in furtherance of a purpose."

What are the odds that Sternberg will specifically cite Johnson as one who "falsely applies" the creationist label on him?