Yeah! Why should scientists be asked to do science? Such requests have a chilling effect on inquiry. I miss the good old days when you could cite the Bible as a source and churn out a Topographia Christiana or some such.

I checked out Prof. Sternberg's website. He is a process structuralist, which apparently means that he thinks convergent evolution is silly and holds no historical theory of biology. The latter implies to me a certain intellectual cowardice, while the former seems to indicate a fairly small level of intellectual activity at all.

You're only getting half the story, Eric, and I find that disappointing.

First, there was no peer review. Sternberg bypassed the editorial and review process completely in order to wedge this paper into the last issue he oversaw.

Secondly, a post-publication peer review found the paper hopelessly erroneous in both its application of evidence and its conclusions. If the paper had been peer-reviewed, it would never have gotten published. One core paragraph was so egregiously wrong that it alone received an intensive review of its own to show how poorly Meyers understands the evidence he is trying to critique.

Meyer's work is, in the words of those who have reviewed it critically, "a rhetorical edifice [constructed] out of omission of relevant facts, selective quoting, bad analogies, knocking down strawmen, and tendentious interpretations."

My previous commenters have covered the topic fairly well - if you want a full in-depth look at why this guy isn't a martyr, it's over @ my blog.

Just 1 last note - the paper in which the article in question was published released a statement disavowing the paper. They stated bluntly that the normal peer review process was not followed, and if it had been, it would not have ended up in that journal.

Wow, I should've done more research. I stand corrected by Balta and the other comment. Balta's blog post is especially good, and I heartily recommend it.

That Sternberg is an ID advocate is unfortunate, but that a comparison of his web page with reality brands him a liar is unforgivable. Eric, can't you find better heroes for your cause?

Oops, I see that Balta (and the 'elf') have beaten me to the punch here. I'll just add one more link to the fire, then:
http://webapp.utexas.edu/blogs/archives/sarkarlab/002980.html#002980

Elf--it seems to me that the "peer review" question is still unsettled. Sternberg says one thing, the new editors of the journal say another. The link you posted certainly doesn't prove what really happened. Also, an article on a blog is most certainly not a formal peer review.

A Steve--when did I call Sternberg a "hero"? For that matter, what makes you think that ID is my "cause"? I do happen to believe that the universe was designed, and I've read a few things written by ID proponents, but I was only commenting on this particular situation--not on the overall merits of ID theory.

Finally, even if Sternberg violated editorial practices, the sheer intensity of the reaction against him (and not against Meyer, the author of the paper) does seem to betray a certain bias.

The author was only trying to be published, even if his paper is poorly written he has done nothing wrong. However, the editor in question has committed an ethics violation that prompted the journal to issue a retraction, how exactly do you suggest the industry to react?

I know how Balta and members of ITA reacted when journalistic standards were ignored in other areas.

Eric, with regards to the issue of peer review - first of all this post (correct link this time) is worth your time.

Moving on to your update: First of all, no where on Mr. Sternberg's page does he actually say that he followed the normal submission process for that particular journal. In the statement by the journal editors subsequent to his departure, they state that a typical review for a paper is undertaken by several members of the paper's Council, which includes officers, past presidents, and associate editors.

In Mr. Sternberg's statement, he says that he discussed the paper with 1 person, and that person encouraged him. However, he does not anywhere state that he actually followed the procedures that the journal outlined in their statement - they say that no associate editor was consulted. This is entirely consistent with Mr. Sternberg's statement - he merely says he showed it to 1 person on several occasions, and he does not say that person was an associate editor. In other words, he's basically admitting that the statement by the paper after his departure is correct, and he did not follow proper procedures.

Secondly, as to the question of its peer review. In this case, as far as I can tell, all of the reviewers did so anonymously. No page anywhere has presented me names of the reviewers, and if someone can do that for me I may retract this portion.

There are several potential issues with the review process. First and foremost, the journal in question was a journal of taxonomy. Hence, the reviewers who would contribute to that journal would be experts on taxonomy, but not necessarily experts on the varied genetic issues or evolutionary issues presented by the paper. Because this paper was so out of place in that journal, it might not have been viewed by reviewers who could actually say anything constructive about it.

Secondly, all Mr. Sternberg says is that he submitted the paper to reviewers, and 3 sent in comments which resulted in changes to the paper. However, since we don't know who did the reviewing, and the reviews are not public knowledge, there are several potential other problems; 1. The selections for the reviewers were undertaken with the same bias which led him to place the journal in that paper in the first place - i.e. the guy picking the reviewers may very well have selected reviewers he knew a priori would be sympathetic to the topic presented, 2. We don't know what their responses actually were - some may have even said don't publish or reccomended major overhauls, and 3 (again) it's highly possible that they were simply unqualified to discuss the issues presented in the manuscript beyond a cursory knowledge of some of the issues (if they didn't send it to experts on the Cambrian explosion and its biology, it wouldn't have had a very detailed examination on that subject.)

Finally, to note your comment on the sheer intensity of the reaction against his work - Yes, the reaction is intense, but so was what he tried to do. This wasn't simply some random little attempt to publish a paper out of place, this was clearly a deliberate attempt to make people notice the paper and to get the phrase "peer reviewed" attached to something which should not be.

If I went forward in a very small paper tomorrow saying that I had developed cold fusion, and then used a friendly editor to make sure the paper was published, I would expect essentially the same response; outrage at both me and the paper's editor for violating what is supposed to constitute science in order to get publicity for whatever issue I wish to discuss.

This is not a case of shouting down a person because we don't want to engage them intellectually, this is a case where because the ID folks did not want to engage a scientific and capable review process intellectually, they tried to bypass it in order to grab the "Peer reviewed" stamp.

*side note - I was particularly harsh in my initial post's language, and am going to correct it momentarily.

But what fuel this will add to the fire of those who believe that evolution shouldn't be taught in schools. The vast majority of the public that cares about this issue will only hear, and will most likely hear it yelled loudly by conservative pundits, that a peer reviewed article on intellectual design led to a professor being kicked out of his office. It'll get ten minutes of air time in which they can come to feel even more aggrieved that their religion is not given intellectual credence within academia.

ID theory has consistently been shown to be without merit. The Discovery Institute, whence you found this "controversy" is an excellent examples of it's proponents, who have a pre-determined religious, social and political agenda they are determined to advance by any means necessary, including dressing revealed belief in pseudo-scientific language.

It is not science, and the charade of calling it such exists only to claim moral equivalency and unjust discrimination against their viewpoint to the uneducated public in forums such as the WSJ and ITA. Their motivations, distortions and lack of real respect for science are transparent with the most superficial of examinations. To quote the Discovery Institute, "The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. . .The Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies."

And you complain about the intellectual honesty of those who refuse to take these "theories" seriously?

Brad,

Leaving aside your naked assertions about ID, what is intellectually dishonest about an advocacy group which so openly discloses its intents? It would be nice if certain neo-Darwinists would disclose the philosophical hostility to Christianity that motivates their arguments. (No, not all neo-Darwinists are so motivated, nor are all ID proponents motivated by a "pre-determined religious, social and political agenda.")

The vast majority of the public ... will only hear ... that a peer reviewed article on intellectual design led to a professor being kicked out of his office.

And the vast majority of the public also often hears one-sided if not substantially misleading media accounts of the latest findings by evolutionists.

Balta,

I appreciate your comments. Suffice it to say, however, I haven't seen enough evidence to conclude that Sternberg engaged in the sort of intentional dishonesty that you accuse him of (a very serious charge). Nor have I seen enough evidence to conclusively find him innocent.

The question seems to be whether Sternberg's "punishment" fits his "crime." To answer that, I'd have to see how other editors were treated in similar circumstances. Incidentally, I recall that one or more papers claiming cold fusion have actually been published, although I don't know if those were in peer-reviewed journals. It was certainly an embarassment to some scientists.

(BTW, Foltz, are you really comparing this incident to CBS News publishing faked documents in an attempt to influence the Presidential election?)

It seems to me that there's smoke on both sides of this issue. Sternberg might have tried to bend the rules to enter evidence into the literature that he felt had been ignored, and the powers that be at the Smithsonian reacted more intensely than they otherwise would have because of their deep personal attachment to the consensus view of evolution.

It would be nice if certain neo-Darwinists would disclose the philosophical hostility to Christianity that motivates their arguments.

But I've never met a single scientist -- and I know a great many scientists -- for whom 'hostility to Christianity ... motivates their arguments'. Their motivations, in my experience, are entirely scientific -- their motive is to try to understand the world, using the best tools they think they have. If they have any antipathy towards religion, it is because they see people with religious motives messing around with their science. That is, any anti-Christianity they may have is entirely secondary to, and not the driving force of, their commitment to evolution. (Indeed, many of the scientists I know who work within an evolutionary framework are themselves practicing Christians, so, as you note, it would be quite odd to suspect them of anti-Christianism -- but if it doesn't make sense to suspect them, why does it make sense to suspect the others who are not theologically inclined?)

An important asymmetry here between evolutionary biology on the one side, and ID on the other, is that the overwhelming majority of the practitioners & institutions of the former simply do not touch on religion at all, whereas the opposite is true of ID (as the quote from the Discovery Institute indicates).

"And the vast majority of the public also often hears one-sided if not substantially misleading media accounts of the latest findings by evolutionists."

Hearing those arguments has in no way, to the best of my knowledge, led to a movement to ban churches teaching creationism. Those discoveries in evolutionary theory that are put forward through the mass media have in no way that I know of contributed to movements to ban the teaching of religious beliefs in institutions that are meant to propagate religious beliefs. One side, the scientific community, argues that they have their place and religion has its own place, and that it is best for both to be kept separate. That separation is anathema to many fundamentalist groups, as a cornerstone of true belief for many is the complete integration of religion and life. The two cannot coincide in a modern, pluralistic society. Religion is yours, education is society's, and never the twain shall meet. Somewhat disjointed, I apologize, but it's late and I'm sleepy.

If they have any antipathy towards religion, it is because they see people with religious motives messing around with their science.

Surely you must be joking. Richard Dawkins' anti-Christian polemics (or anti-religion in general--I suppose he's an equal-opportunity offender) are only because he resents creationists who criticize him? And Dawkins is only the easiest target.

I did not mean that anti-religious views motivate these folks' scientific work. I said that it motivates their arguments--i.e. their public promotion of neo-Darwinism. And as I said, I'm only talking about some neo-Darwinists, not all. Most likely, your Christian associates who "work within an evolutionary framework" believe that evolution is what God's creation process looks like from a human point of view (assuming they don't consider it "just a model") ...an opinion that would likely drive Dawkins right up the wall.

Hearing those arguments has in no way, to the best of my knowledge, led to a movement to ban churches teaching creationism.

Oh, so misleading the public about the case for evolution is fine and dandy as long as people still have the right to believe whatever they want (and teach it in private)? So I guess it's also OK to promote creationism in misleading ways as long as atheists can still get together in atheist clubs and teach evolution.

That separation is anathema to many fundamentalist groups

You're comparing the entire scientific community to a specific subset of the religious community. Apples to oranges...and a strawman argument if you're trying to paint all ID proponents with that "fundamentalist" brush.

What, exactly, is a 'neo-Darwinist', if you mean this as something distinct from someone who endorses the theory of evolution?

And, yes, I do think that Dawkins' primary motivation in his discussions of religion (which comprise a very small part of his written work) are the attempts by various relgious groups to interfere with science & science education. But that by itself gives no reason to think that anything he says in terms of a scientific critique of a theory is automatically suspect.

Likewise with the members of the scientific community who have been the primary respondents to Sternberg's actions. You're looking to raise issues about their motives, but you're doing so in the complete absence of any evidence that they've done anything wrong.

Maybe I'm confused by the work/arguments distinction you've invoked. Everything that's been said by the editorial board of the paper, the AAAS, etc. would fall into the 'work' side of that distinction, I would think. So what are the arguments in question, that we're supposed to be worrying about?

Actually Philosopher, I'm not sure that Eric's using it in this sense, but the whole way of thinking about evolution at present could well be called Neo-darwinism.

At the time Darwin postulated his theory, he could well explain what was happening, but without work on genetics, he couldn't say exactly what the method of carrying phenotypic information from 1 generation to another was.

On top of that, there are some new ways of thinking, developed in particular by geobiology, that ascribe more specific theories to evolution - focusing on punctuated equilibria, for example.

A few decades ago there was sort of a "Modern Synthesis" on evolution that was created, which made an effort to embrace some of the newer genetic findings. Today, there is still quite a bit of debate over some of the mechanisms, the rates of speciation, relationships, etc. So Neo-Darwinism could actually be viewed as a name for a legitimate school of thought.

Of course, none of that means that there is any doubt that it's actually happening.

Balta: Yeah, I'm aware of that usage, but that really doesn't seem to be what Eric has in mind -- since the term seems to mean, in his usage, something that is automatically in tension with Christianity, and so I don't think that what he means is, e.g., anything about the debate between adaptationist vs. non-adaptationist approaches to evolutionary theory.

I suppose by "neo-Darwinist" I'm referring to those who dogmatically assert that completely naturalistic evolution has been proven to be the method by which all the species on earth came to exist, and that those who question it may as well be questioning the law of gravity.

We'll have to agree to disagree on Dawkins. I think his antipathy towards religion goes far deeper than being irritated at creationists (surely his skin is not so thin). I'm not saying that calls into question his scientific critiques, any more than ID-ers who are motivated by their pre-existing beliefs. But when he and others like him diverge from science into philosophy (arguing, in essence, that religious people are simply ignorant), we should keep in mind that their scientific credentials no longer apply.

And this line of discussion has little to do with Sternberg. We're well off on a rabbit trail. And now I'm tired. Sleepy, as well as tired of this thread. I think we've pretty well exhausted all the worthwhile subject matter.

Everyone can of course use language however they want, so long as they're clear about it. But I must confess that this seems like a somewhat misleading use of "neo-Darwinist", since I'm pretty sure neither Darwin nor most all contemporary proponents of evolution in biology, psychology, etc., think that anything much has ever been "proven" about how "all" the species on earth came to exist, since the question of the origin of life itself is still fairly opaque. So Darwin wouldn't count as any sort of precursor of neo-Darwinism, and more to the point approximately no one involved in debates over science & science education are neo-Darwinists.

However, if we adjust your definition slightly to the following, I think pretty much the entire scientific community would count as "neo-Darwinist" as "those who assert that completely naturalistic evolution* is overwhelmingly the best theory we have of the change & development of species over time, and that those who question it may as well be questioning the law of gravity".

*(construed broadly enough to include the various versions of contemporary evolutionary theory; cf. Balta's comment above)

Eric wrote:

I appreciate your comments. Suffice it to say, however, I haven't seen enough evidence to conclude that Sternberg engaged in the sort of intentional dishonesty that you accuse him of (a very serious charge). Nor have I seen enough evidence to conclusively find him innocent.

But Eric, I would point out that you also don't have enough evidence to conclude that Sternberg was treated unfairly either. All you have at this point is a second hand article based upon his accusations with no response from the other side. You also aren't likely to get their response for a while, as their attorneys are likely to tell them not to respond publicly until it gets a hearing in court or in front of the agency it has been referred to. Klinghoffer isn't exactly a credible source, I might add, and given the often false and exaggerated stories we have gotten lately on other hot button issues (how many times have you read that the Cupertino school district "banned the Declaration of Independence" or that the ACLU has sued stores to make them stop saying "Merry Christmas" lately? Both claims are utterly false but shouted loudly by the right wing media), it seems reasonable to be a tad bit skeptical about this uncorroborated report. You also wrote:

Leaving aside your naked assertions about ID, what is intellectually dishonest about an advocacy group which so openly discloses its intents? It would be nice if certain neo-Darwinists would disclose the philosophical hostility to Christianity that motivates their arguments.

There is absolutely nothing intellectually honest about the Discovery Institute's discussion of their intentions. That blog that you praised so effusively in your post contains virtually daily postings complaining whenever a press report mentions their religious motivations and their real goals. They scream holy hell when their own words are mentioned. I have documented the dishonesty with which they attempt to hide their theological goals from the media while playing them up to their followers many times on my blog. They also scream about how horribly they're mistreated when someone compares creationism to holocaust deniers, yet virtually all of the DI fellows have repeatedly compared evolutionary biologists as Nazis and Stalinists. They are engaged in little more than a dishonest PR campaign. Again, I have documented this in dozens of posts on my blog.

The nice thing about this whole hullabaloo is it finally exposes the creationists to the same kind of harassment they've been pelting biologists with for the past century. "What about piltdown man?" Never mind that piltdown was never widely accepted and the fraud was shown to be a fraud by the scientific method.

Eric, ID is stillborn as ideology. It's not merely bad science, it's bad theology, as it limits what the Divine can do by proposing that His actions can be grasped and divined by humankind. Dembski has the ultimate hubris to claim that his consciousness can illustrate divinity in action. Not one of Behe's "black box" examples has survived rigid scrutiny, but you won't hear the Discovery Institute admit that.

Biology can finally point to Sternberg's (man, I hope I'm not closely related to the guy) shennanigans and show that not only is the ID camp as capable of fraud as the ocassional desperate-for-attention researcher, but that ID's fraud, like that of other frauds, is best brought to light not by prayer but by scientific investigation.

If there's a lot of reaction against Sternberg, there should be: no scientist who circumvents the safety system that produces valid science should be allowed to get away with it. In the end, this isn't about ID; Sternberg's suffering the same consequences as Pons and Fleischmann, and for the same reasons.

Thanks for the links so we can check for ourselves! This is, I think, one of the main differences between blogs and newspapers. The former have an avocation to truth wherever it leads, the latter do not. Meanwhile, even Newton believed in ID as did Aquinas and the discussion will continue.

Newton also believed in a universal frame of reference. Pity, that.

He also spent much of the last years of his life trying to turn lead into gold.

So? Would you like to examine his evidence for his scientific conclusion? Aquinas spent the rest of his life not writing. So?

Eric,

In comments above and in other posts, you have displayed skepticism on the efficacy of "evolution" (and I think you mean natural selection) to create new species. You have suggested a sharp distinction between the validity of theories of microevolution and macroevolution, without realizing that the same theories describe both processes thanks to the work of evolutionary biologists decades ago. Before I refute your errors, I will also point out that the term "neo-Darwinism" has been thrown around carelessly in many threads by many people - even by professional biologists. "Neo-Darwinism" was first used by George Romanes to describe the Darwinism that rejected the inheritence of acquired characteristics, which was refuted in 1883 by August Weismann and established without question by molecular biology's central dogma in the middle of the last century. Neo-Darwinism has been misused by some historians of science as a term for the bundle of theories emerging from the evolutionary synthesis, and at last again by creationists and other non-scientists to refer to anyone acknowledging the truth of evolution by any mechanism.

On speciation, it is difficult to know where to begin with a skeptic such as yourself. As I understand it, you accept the concept of anagenesis (the gradual evolution of established populations through time) but reject cladogenesis (the branching of populations that results, ultimately, in separate species). Other than invoking God - how do you explain biodiversity on this account? The evolutionary synthesis that Balta referred to, in which Mendel's discoveries in genetics were incorporated into Darwinism, resulted in the grand unified theory of adaptation and "microevolution", or anagenesis. This synthesis began soon after the rediscovery of Mendel's work in 1900. After IU's very own H. Muller's work on mutation, it was suggested that speciation might take place in saltations after a mutation that causes a single jump giving rise to a new species. Due to evidence in the fossil record and the existence in the natural environment of great and gradual populational biogeographic variation, saltations were soon found obsolete. Between 1915 and 1932, mathematical population geneticists such as Fisher, Wright, and Haldane showed that genes with only small selective advantages in due time could be incoporated into the genotype of populations. The debate between the population geneticists and Darwinian eventually produced the first synthesis that resolved the problem of adaptation - adaptedness is the result of natural selection acting on abundant populational variation. Many geneticists with backgrounds in the physical sciences found gradualism hard to accept at first since they were typologists in the Aristotelian and Platonic sense - every species is an ideal form and individuals are less-than-perfect copies. Variation, according to this view, is nothing more than imperfection. Typological thinking, so useful in physics where universal mathematical laws explain a great deal, is quite useless in biology and is responsible for much Victorian and contemporary racism.

(continued)

Above I described the synthesis resulting in our modern consensus on phyletic evolution over time within a given population - "microevolution" as you call it. This consensus was broadly reached by 1932. The second great synthesis,largely solved by 1947 with only minor conceptual questions (just how gradual is evolution? what is the unit of selection) remaining since. Dobzhansky, who famously said that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution, initiated this synthesis with the publication of his "Genetics and the Origin of Species" The second synthesis was concerned with the means by which species multiply and proliferate at a given time (cladogenesis). Dobzhansky's greatest achievement was to describe the processes occuring when two populations of a species become physically separated from each other and how they become reproductively isolated either through physical barriers or behavioral incompatibilities. Mayr added much to this work in his work on the biological species concept and his studies in biogeography. This work added a mountain of evidence to the concept of speciation by geographic isolation, including, for example, the existence of certain species of squirrels living atop mountains in the middle of the desert who were isolated from other squirrel populations by the retreat of the glaciers at the end of the last ice age. Sometimes the geographic separation occurs because of a new physical barrier (a new mountain range or body of water), in what is called dichopatric speciation, and sometimes it occurs because a founder population establishes itself beyond the species' previous range, in what is called peripatric speciation. These are both referred to as geographic speciation. Other forms of isolation besides such habitat isolation occur. Besides behavioral isolation, there is temporal isolation in which two populations that breed during different times of day, different seasons, or different years cannot mix their gametes. Changes in the ability of coexisting populations to mix gametes occurs largely by what is called sympatric speciation. Intrinsic factors, such as chromosomal changes in plants and nonrandom mating in animals alter gene flow. Sympatric populations become genetically isolated even though their ranges overlap. The second synthesis thus largely concluded that isolation between populations coupled with phyletic changes in gene frequency within those populations leads to branching. This is a remarkably simple concept and I find it nearly humorous that so many people have a hard time accepting it. Such rejection of well established science is common, however, for people who come to the conversation with preconceived notions not based on evidence that they will refuse to reconsider regardless of the evidence given them. It even makes otherwise Christian biologists mock the fundamentalists who bury their heads in the sand.

"Meanwhile, even Newton believed in ID as did Aquinas and the discussion will continue."

So? Even Einstein was famously wrong about quantum physics--a debate in his own field! If long-dead authorities are all you have, then yes, the discussion is over.

Tierney is right and Chuck's comments are a perceptive summary of the state of play. From Lynn Margulis's work on the "hijacking" of mitochondria to the intense, but highly technical, debates between Dawkins and Gould over issues like punctuated equilibrium, it is so blatantly obvious that evolution by natural selection without intelligent design is the mainstream position, and the only scientific one, that critics of this position are either ignorant of the science or willfully blind to it.