Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The NCSE’s Behind-the-Scenes Role in the Sternberg Affair

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Over a year ago I urged readers of UD to provide me with behind-the-scenes correspondence showing that the NCSE (National Center for Science Education) and others had attempted to derail Richard Sternberg’s career after The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington published an article on intelligent design by Stephen Meyer while Sternberg was still its managing editor (go here and here). I was finally sent that information. The following link takes you to the Congressional Report on the Sternberg Affair along with that correspondence, which is given in the appendix (the file is 3Mbytes):

www.uncommondescent…/Sternberg_Cong_Rep_App.pdf

Note especially Eugenie Scott’s role in this affair.

Comments
Prof Dembski: Thank you for your kind remarks. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
March 14, 2007
March
03
Mar
14
14
2007
12:12 AM
12
12
12
AM
PDT
Thanks, Kairosfocus, I was going to post these links as well (having, like you, gone to Evo News). You saved me the bother. The final page of the appendix cuts off where mine does.William Dembski
March 13, 2007
March
03
Mar
13
13
2007
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT
H'mm: The plot thickens. When I went back to the Dec 15 Evo News and Views article, the "same" links made from that page, worked. I hope they will still work from your site. Main report: here Appendix: here It now seems that a further subfolder appeared in my links when I saved them off, why, I know not -- or, did ENV update the links? I will update my own files. Apologies for the inadvertent error. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
March 13, 2007
March
03
Mar
13
13
2007
04:11 AM
4
04
11
AM
PDT
Professor Dembski: I trust your work moves ahead apace, and with good success. I have on learning of the "deadness" cross checked and indeed the pages I linked are now behind that "You are not Authorised" block that was on the original Congress pages, but then not the Souder pages I linked months ago. (Why there is such a ban on accessing a matter of plain public interest, concern, and "need and right to know," I do not claim to understand. Perhaps, there are behind the scenes legal and Congressional issues? In any case more than enough is accessible for us to draw some sobering conclusions.) Okay, how to move the matter forward. A. I have now again pulled the UD download and specifically compared it with my two files. B. My findings: 1] The main report, 29 pp, seems to be common. 2] My copy of the appendix cuts off in the middle of a sentence, on p. 74 not 103, and of course 29 + 74 = 103. 3] The cutoff is identical, so we have reason to conclude that you have all that I have. [It seems that the excerpts in the appendix at least some of the time, just took the relevant parts of the documents, they do not include the whole of the documents. That is consistent with their purpose, to provide authentic source documents and context for cites and allusions used for the main report on the investigation.] 4] So, UD's action to post the document as a single file is indeed a significant service to the public, given those blocks on access. (And, like the Pentagon Papers in a previous generation, that public interest is a major consideration in assessing the propriety of putting the documents in the public domain.) C. Kindly, pardon any concerns I may have caused, due to my own remark in response to the "cut-off" remark in comment 1 supra. D. The material issue, of course, stands: the documents make plain the nature of the witch hunt, and who were involved. That an external advocacy group --NCSE -- was involved and invited to be involved in an action of the nature documented, is a serious sign of something that has evidently gone very wrong with publicly funded science in the US. [The journalistic reports here, here and here may be helpful. The OSC letter, here is also perhaps helpful. (I trust these links are and will remain good . . .) Thank you for your kind attention and response. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
March 13, 2007
March
03
Mar
13
13
2007
03:53 AM
3
03
53
AM
PDT
Eugenie wrote: "First, if he can do good standard science, that's >all we care about. Newton did pretty good science, and had some pretty >nutty additional ideas about reality, too. So if he keeps the nut stuff out >of his basically descriptive work, that's fine. His science should stand or >fall on its own." That's so very gracious of her average intellect to give Newton ( arguably the most intelligent mind of the past four centuries) credit for "pretty good" science. After-all he only founded Calculus and the science of Physics..among a few other simple contributions.JGuy
March 13, 2007
March
03
Mar
13
13
2007
03:37 AM
3
03
37
AM
PDT
Dear Kairosfocus: I've been busy finishing a book for months and lost track of what became of the correspondence surrounding the Sternberg affair. I learned that the letters were circulating only recently, but I finally received them only today from a friend via email. So this is old news, but it's news that is worth retelling. Moreover, the links you give are dead (at least I had no success accessing the files). Think of these files being made available at UD as a public service.William Dembski
March 12, 2007
March
03
Mar
12
12
2007
06:31 PM
6
06
31
PM
PDT
Prof Dembaki I am a bit puzzled, as the report and the appendix have been out for months now, and I believe were linked through Evo News and Views. {DI's CSC as I recall did not have a link that was accessible to the public.) From my vaults . . . Full report: here Appendices: here (It is in my always linked as well, at the end of section C.) Of course the hot Darwinist advocates deny that there is any wrongdoing, assert that Souder is a political hack and fundy, and imply or assert that Sternberg walks and quacks like a duck so he should not be surprised to see that he got birdshot flying by his ears. What I have never seen in such quarters is an honest acknowledgement of serious wrongdoing, to the point of unfair accusations of dishonesty [take away his master keys, he might break into our offices. . .) and worse. This was and is a shameful episode in publicly funded scientific institutions. Serious reform is indicated, and if science will not police itself, it should not be surprised to see that in the end the public will insist on policing it. Such are the imnperatives of professionalism! GEM of TKIkairosfocus
March 12, 2007
March
03
Mar
12
12
2007
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT
That's all I received. I'll look into it.William Dembski
March 12, 2007
March
03
Mar
12
12
2007
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT
The pdf seems to cut off in the middle of a letter on page 103.russ
March 12, 2007
March
03
Mar
12
12
2007
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT

Leave a Reply