Lame Ducks Weigh In

Mark Souder is an anti-evolution, conservative evangelical. His staff knows what he wants, and gives it to him.

It's amusing that a staff report prepared for a single Republican congressman became, in Sal Cordova's hands, a finding by the 'United States Congress.'

Andrea: we had a discussion on this topic. It seems as though my point of view was correct.

Is anyone contrite on the Darwinian side?

P.S. I'm posting this; but I'm not going to bother to check up on responses, etc.

I'm posting this; but I'm not going to bother to check up on responses, etc.

you are gaining in wisdom, limbless knight.

Is anyone contrite on the Darwinian side?

— Blast

... and we eat our young, too.

Next they'll be telling us that Los Alamos should hire people who have doubts about gravity.

"Should he[Sternberg] seek an extension of his appointment when it expires in January 2007, his application will receive full and fair consideration."

Blast wrote: Is anyone contrite on the Darwinian side? Of course not. As you know, workplace harassment is a central tenet of Darwinism.

It looks like the lame ducks in Washington have decided to issue an opinion and an appendix accusing the Smithsonian of discriminating against Sternberg and politicizing science.

Andrea: we had a discussion on this topic. It seems as though my point of view was correct. Is anyone contrite on the Darwinian side?

Gerard, our pal Sal is an incoherent babbler with delusions of adequacy. I fear for his sanity, actually.

In 2003, Souder introduced the "Ronald Reagan Dime Act", to put Reagan's image on the dime in place of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. "I believe he represents conservative values as we would see them implemented through a president better than anybody else we've had in American history," Souder said. "He, to conservatives, represents kind of the reverse of FDR, who is kind of the liberal icon. Ronald Reagan is the conservative icon."

— Wikipedia

Is anyone contrite on the Darwinian side?

Souder's efforts carry the exact same weight as McKinney's recent efforts:

http://gnn.tv/articles/2791/BREAKING_Congresswoman_McKinney_Files_Articles_of_Impeachment

that is to say, other than media spectacle, none.

In 2003, Souder introduced the "Ronald Reagan Dime Act", to put Reagan's image on the dime in place of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. "I believe he represents conservative values as we would see them implemented through a president better than anybody else we've had in American history," Souder said. "He, to conservatives, represents kind of the reverse of FDR, who is kind of the liberal icon. Ronald Reagan is the conservative icon."

— Wikipedia, via Coin

The Mercury dime was replaced in 1946 by the Roosevelt dime, designed in honor of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who died in April 1945. Although other coins were eligible for an updated design, the dime was chosen due to Roosevelt's work in founding the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis, now known as the March of Dimes.

— Wikipedia

Souder's efforts carry the exact same weight as McKinney's recent efforts: http://gnn.tv/articles/2791/BREAKING_Congresswom... that is to say, other than media spectacle, none.

It seems as though my point of view was correct.

I hope everyone here takes some time to read through the Appendix. The disconnect between the report and the evidence (in the appendix) on which it was based is simply breathtaking.

Expect WorldNet Daily and other reputable news organizations to run with the story.

the article contains this line

And it suggests their attacks on a scientist who just edited an article on intelligent design are just the tip of the iceberg of an industry-wide fear of anything that suggests man might not have come from a puddle of sludge.

---------

What really annoys me about all this is that for almost all of human history the only reason for how we came to be was "goddditit". Now, with modern science we can lift the veil a little. Yet these people now talk as if they are the supressed truth holders, when all along religion did it's best to prevent the truth leaking out. For 99% of recorded history, they had the only game in town. They really dont like being on the loosing side...

They say "goddidit"
We say "puddle of sludge".

Come back in 50 years and tell me how the positions have developed huh?

If only we could leave them to their ignorance.

Not surprisingly, Souder's idiocy also extends to abstinence (intelligent copulation?):

NIH: Faulty research removed two years ago
United Press International - December 5, 2003
Steve Mitchell
WASHINGTON, Dec. 5 (UPI) -- Despite news reports that recent, federally funded research on the effectiveness of a sex education program may have included fabricated data, the researchers involved actually were exposed more than two years ago and the skewed information was excluded from the final study, the National Institutes of Health said Friday.

"It was found two years ago and the data in question were removed right away from the database and were not published," Alan Price, associate director of NIH's Office of Research Integrity in Bethesda, Md., told United Press International.

The study, which appeared in last January's issue of the journal Pediatrics, found teens who participated along with their parents in an educational program had lower rates of sexual intercourse and unprotected sex than kids who went through the program on their own. The program featured messages about both abstinence and safe-sex practices.

The ORI reported in the Dec. 2 issue of the Federal Register that three data collectors -- who were not listed on the study as authors -- employed by the University of Maryland at Baltimore's department of pediatrics admitted to falsifying interviews with some teens.

A story in Friday's Washington Times quoted Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind., an abstinence proponent, as saying: "If not caught, the lives of countless children may have been put at risk by ineffective, perhaps dangerous, prevention messages developed from this fabricated research."

However, the skewed interviews were detected in August 2001 by the study's own principal investigator, Dr. Bonita Stanton, then at UMBC. Stanton, who now is at Children's Hospital of Michigan, told UPI she promptly notified the NIH at that time. The institutes had funded the study.

In addition, Stanton tossed out all the interviews the three researchers -- Lajuane Woodard, Sheila Blackwell and Khalilah Creek -- had conducted.

In an interview with UPI, Souder accused the researchers of "contrived research to try to make an ideological point." He added: "It's a fairly significant fabrication because on the abstinence side we don't have to fabricate the data."

Stanton rejected Souder's contentions.

"Absolutely no fabricated data were used in any of these analyses and we went out of our way to make sure any of the (information collected by) these data collectors ... was eliminated ... even if it looked good," she said.

Indeed, UMBC temporarily halted the study in 2001 and asked a panel of professors from several different institutions to review it to ensure the questionable data collectors had not tainted the conclusions.

Stanton also dismissed Souder's accusations she was ideologically driven. "This was not trying to make an argument for or against abstinence or safe-sex education," she said. "The purpose was to look at ways to bring parents back into the loop to get them to talk to their children."

Though some of the education program in question did discuss components of safe sex and abstinence, a lot of it was about encouraging parents to talk to their children and find out who their friends are and where they are going, Stanton said.

Souder questioned why the NIH did not inform Congress of the falsified data. Told the NIH had already concluded its investigation into the matter and published it in the Federal Register, a daily publication about federal government activities that is available to both members of Congress and the public, Souder said, "That's news to me."

He added, however, whatever was contained in the Register may not be sufficient. "We're certainly not going to buy without further detail that the rest of study was fine," he said.

i got down to about pg 14 .....the overall impression i got was that sternberg was incompetant and they were trying to reduce his screwups .....

the penny just dropped ..smalls had an editoral in the smithonian mag recently showing who was on the committee that sorta regulates the smithsonian ...some of the politicians are anti-evolutionists

It is just amazing. Nothing that the writers of the report offer to support the report supports the report. I kept looking for the smoking gun in the appendix, there was none. Yes there were harsh things said and harsh questions asked, but I wish my PhD defense had only been that hard.

While 3 Republican incumbents were turned out of office, saddly Souder retained his seat from the 3rd district.

If we really care about the anti-reason, anti-science threat, then active political work must be done to elliminate these people.

The final vote tally in Souder's district was 54-46%. A shame really.

Congress slams Smithsonian's anti-religious attacks: Report documents 'invidious discrimination' in campaign against Darwin dissenters

Gosh, WND, "Smithsonian's anti-religious attacks"? I thought ID was scientific, not religious!

These bozos really don't learn, do they? I hope they never do. They all but ensure that court decisions will continue to go our way, in perpetuity.

I'm curious about a couple of things.

First, the agency with clear jurisdiction over such an investigation is the Smithsonian's inspector general. That would be clear to anyone reading the Federal Manual, or to anyone with a few months' experience in Washington. Why didn't Sternberg take his complaints to the Smithsonian's IG? Especially after OCS noted that it lacked jurisdiction, why didn't he file a complaint, then, with Smithsonian's IG?

Second, it seems to me that, under the canons for ethical behavior of lawyers in D.C., and under federal law, the OCS was obligated to turn over any findings of misfeasance or malfeasance to the appropriate agency -- the Smithsonian IG. Generally, their failure to do so should be indicative that the OCS staff found nothing violating any law or regulation. Why didn't OCS turn over its findings to the Smithsonian IG, if there were, indeed, findings of any violation of any law or regulation? Is OCS completely incompetent, or were there no significant findings of wrongdoing?

As a final set of observations, it appears to me that this report is not for any official purpose, and it was not given in floor debate. Under the well-established precedent of Sen. Proxmire's Golden Fleece awards, such releases of information are not privileged. If they are found to be defamatory, Souder and others could be held liable for libel. Sheila Burke is a long-time public servant, having served Sen. Bob Dole as staff on the Finance Committee during his long Senate career. Her integrity wins respect on all sides of the political-dividing aisle. The claims that she was less than rigorous in complying with the law are libelous if untrue. I think they are inaccurate at best. The claims against scientists also cross into defamation, especially the raw conjecture that some tried to get Sternberg removed, when the record does not support such a claim.

Souder should be questioned about why his committee staff are working to defend unethical actions by researchers. Congress has long been concerned that federal research be accurate and honest, even imposing criminal penalties on some breaches of research ethics. Sternberg was found to have misused his position at editor of a journal (remember the Society apologized and struck the publication), and while there is so far as I know no claim that federal money was involved, such a misuse is a breach of ethics. In short, should not his fellow scientists have done even more to hold him accountable than merely discuss in e-mails how to protect the integrity of federal research?

Souder's report is a waste of government money, probably libelous, and a bad defense of what would be crime if Stermberg's actions had been done on federal time and money. Souder's anti-evolution history is of no consequence -- this report is an abuse of public office. I hope Souder comes to his senses and repudiates the report.

The report, called "Intolerance and the Politicization of Science at the Smithsonian," suggests that a special federal law giving scientists "freedom of speech" regarding evolution and other theories might be needed to protect Sternberg and others. "Because of the Smithsonian's continuous refusal to take action in the Sternberg case, Congress should consider statutory language that would protect the free speech rights regarding evolution of scientists at all federally-funded institutions," the report recommended.

The report, called "Intolerance and the Politicization of Science at the Smithsonian," suggests that a special federal law giving scientists "freedom of speech" regarding evolution and other theories might be needed to protect Sternberg and others. "Because of the Smithsonian's continuous refusal to take action in the Sternberg case, Congress should consider statutory language that would protect the free speech rights regarding evolution of scientists at all federally-funded institutions," the report recommended.

Sorry about that, folks.

I must have hit the "Post" button twice.

My sincere apologies.

So, Sternberg had a job where he came in twice a week and did, well, sod all.

Poked crabs.

Hey, for all you biologists out there I'm available to poke crabs twice a week.

Have finger, will poke.

Name your price.

Hey, for all you biologists out there I'm available to poke crabs twice a week.

BACK TO CAPITOL HILL: INFLUENCING CONGRESS? The May 10 capitol hill "briefing" drew about fifty visitors, including a small contingent of congressional staffers and, according to AGI, several Members of Congress. Republican Sen. Sam Brownback introduced some CRSC speakers, and remarked on the controversy in his home state of Kansas over evolution -- members of a state committee want to insert creationist disclaimers in science texts -- and even compared this to the rebellion of antislavery activist John Brown. One hears this sort of martial rhetoric increasingly, especially in regard to culture war issues like creationism, school prayer, or display of the Ten Commandments in classrooms. "More significant was the appearance of Rep. Tom Petri (R-WI), who warmly introduced several of the speakers." Petri is slated to become the next Chairman of the House Education and Workforce Committee next year. Others listed in the press release for the Discovery Institute/CRSC "briefing" as "co-hosts" included House Science Committee members Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Rep. Joseph Pitts (R-PA), Rep. Charles Stenholm (D-TX) and Education Committee member Mark Souder (R-IN). Souder, a strong supporter of the religious right agenda inside the beltway, was instrumental last year in introducing legislation (H.AMDT. 201) which would "allow governmental entities that make grants to nongovernmental entities to also make grants or enter into contracts with religious organizations." Rep. Pitts is a member of Tom DeLay's "Values Action Team" (VAT), charged with carrying out the social agenda of religious right groups like James Dobson's Focus on the Family. VAT members have ushered a number of proposals through the congressional legislative process, including bills calling for school prayer, display of the Ten Commandments, and public funding for faith-based social outreaches.

Education Committee member Mark Souder

Yawn. Can't they come up with anything original after their devastating loss in Dover?

"It's vile," said Rep. Mark Foley, R-West Palm Beach. "It's more sad than anything else, to see someone with such potential throw it all down the drain because of a sexual addiction."

Clearly Darwinists are never ever in error.

And the intellectual dishonesty around here mounts...not to mention the denail of reality. Any objective fair reading of the Sternberg affair makes it perfectly clear that Sternberg's "crime" was to have the audacity to question Darwinism on scientific grounds. For that, he received the worst sort of treatment at the hands of those who were supposed to be colleagues.

— Donald M

To claim that Sternberg's crime was to question Darwinism on scientific grounds is plainly ridiculous.

Donald M. thinks that the politics of the congressman who commissioned this opinion are irrelevant. However, they are extremely relevant to determining whether this opinion is due to an unbiased, independent investigation or by someone who is one of the DI's top men in Washington.

The fact is that Souder's well-known political connections and stances, establish that he and his staff are too biased to issue an independent, non-political opinion on the matter. There is no reason why we should trust his or his staff's opinion on this topic.

In fact, reading the opinion and the appendix of emails makes it clear that the opinion was written by a very biased person and not supported by the appendix.

Take for instance that DI et al. have been claiming for a while that email from NCSE staff show that NCSE was trying to get Sternberg fired etc., when in reality NCSE staff made it clear that they didn't want the Smithsonian to repremand Sternberg for his mishandling of Meyer's paper. Only a very biased eye can see "don't make him a martyr" and read it as "let's make him a martyr".

I have seen the review file and comments from 3 reviewers on the Meyer paper. All three with some differences among the comments recommended or suggested,publication. I was surprised but concluded that there was not inappropriate behavior vs a vis the review process. Whether one would consider the reviews appropriate is another issue and I would be pleased to share my views on that with you if you so desire. ROY

An objective reading of the Sternberg affair shows that it was all blown out of proportions. Sternberg had the poor judgement to, what appears to be, rushing through a poorly written 'paper' which had little relevance to ID but was nevertheless quoted as 'relevant peer reviewed literature'. When Sternberg complained the OSC found that it lacked jurisdiction, since Sternberg was not an employee of the Smithsonian. Now, Souder has done us a favor by releasing the emails in an appendix which paints an interesting picture. To claim that Sternberg's crime was to question Darwinism on scientific grounds is plainly ridiculous.

Yawn...whatever, Pim. Thanks for proving my point! It's never

Any objective fair reading of the Sternberg affair makes it perfectly clear that Sternberg's "crime" was to have the audacity to question Darwinism on scientific grounds. For that, he received the worst sort of treatment at the hands of those who were supposed to be colleagues.

— Donald M

The response here at PT? 1.Denial --- "That's right; anti-evolution politicians are accusing the Smithsonian of being the one responsible for politicizing science"...because it would be impossible, for Darwinists to do this!!

2. ad hominem attacks upon anyone who disagrees with the "official" line ---"Souder's idiocy also extends"...blah, blah blah,

3. red herrings "The opinion was prepared by congressional staff and was commissioned by Congressman Mark Souder, the chairman of the subcommittee on criminal justice, drug policy, and human resources, and who in 2000 co-hosted a Discovery Institute briefing on intelligent design aimed at persuading congress that ID needed political support. Soon after the briefing, he even read a defense of ID, given to him by the Discovery Institute, into the congressional record. On his website you can find the typical pedestrian arguments against evolution." As if any of that has anything to do with whether or not Sternberg was discriminated against.

4. genetic fallacies --- "Next they'll be telling us that Los Alamos should hire people who have doubts about gravity."

5. The usual attempts to avoid admitting the obvious.

What is very clear is that Sternberg was punished for letting the Meyer article get published. That was his unpardonable sin and its plain for all to see.

Rafa gave me a heads up about the Nature - News. What is troubling is the implication in the article that the manuscript was peer-reviewed. I doubt that 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 concensus (sic) of 4 international reviewers was rejection (sadly, Sternberg published it anyway).

And the intellectual dishonesty around here mounts...not to mention the denail of reality.