The Smithsonian/Sternberg controversy
Cast doubt on Darwin, get cast out
by Pam Sheppard (AiG-USA)
August 22, 2005
What happens when an editor of a technical biology journal decides, along with others,
to publish the first peer-reviewed technical article that casts doubt on Darwin
and lays out the evidence for an intelligent designer?
In the case of Richard Sternberg, a Smithsonian research associate and former managing
editor of the independent journal called the Proceedings of the Biological Society
of Washington, it meant being cast out of the prestigious Smithsonian Institution
in Washington, D.C. Shortly after publishing the article ‘The Origin of Biological
Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,’ senior scientists at the
Smithsonian Institution lashed out at Sternberg, calling him a ‘shoddy scientist’
and a ‘closet Bible thumper,’ according to a Washington Post
article (August 19).
In August 2004, news agencies around the world reported on the controversy as Sternberg
came under intense scrutiny and even persecution for publishing the article written
by Stephen Meyer, a Discovery Institute fellow.
‘I was singled out for harassment and threats on the basis that they think
I’m a creationist,’ Sternberg said in a Washington Times article
(February 14, 2005).
Now, the incident is back in the international spotlight with the yet-to-be published
report by an independent USA agency, the Office of Special Counsel. This group,
which investigates cases of federal government employees who feel they have been
unfairly treated or dismissed, reached the same conclusion—top scientists
at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History (where the Proceedings
is published) retaliated against Sternberg by investigating his religion and falsely
labeling him as a creationist, as reported by the Washington Post (August
19). However, according to an article in the UK’s Independent (August
20), Sternberg insists that he is agnostic about intelligent design, is not a young
earth creationist and believes that science only moves forward on controversy.
As reported by the Post, although Sternberg holds two PhDs in theoretical
biology and molecular evolution, some Smithsonian scientists disseminated so much
false information about him and his credentials, James McVay, the legal adviser
in the Office of Special Counsel wrote in his findings, that one of his colleagues
had to circulate his résumé simply to dispel the rumor that Sternberg
was not a scientist.
According to an article in the National Review (August 16), the government’s
findings were based largely on email traffic among top Smithsonian scientists. A
lengthy and detailed letter from McVay to Sternberg includes some telling summaries,
which include the following:
Our preliminary investigation indicates that retaliation [against Sternberg by his
colleagues] came in many forms. It came in the form of attempts to change your working
conditions ... . During the process you were personally investigated and your professional
competence was attacked. Misinformation was disseminated throughout the SI [Smithsonian
Institution] and to outside sources. The allegations against you were later determined
to be false. It is also clear that a hostile work environment was created with the
ultimate goal of forcing you out of the SI.
Also included in the National Review article was another email from a scientist
at the museum who gave further evidence of the contempt some evolutionist scientists
have towards Bible-believing Christians. The writer of the email told of how, after
‘spending 4.5 years in the Bible Belt,’ he had learned how to deal with
religious Christians. For example, he described the ‘fun we had’ when
‘my son refused to say the Pledge of Allegiance because of the ‘under
dog’ [meaning presumably the ‘under God’] part.’
Furthermore, according to the Post (August 19), the special counsel accused
Darwinian lobbyist group, the National Center for Science and Education (NCSE),
of orchestrating attacks on Sternberg.
Eugenie Scott, the group’s executive director and herself a vocal anti-creationist,
insisted that Smithsonian scientists absolutely had to explore Sternberg’s
religious beliefs. ‘They don’t care if you are religious, but they do
care a lot if you are a creationist,’ Scott said in the Post article.
Ironically, a frequent criticism made by the NCSE has been that scientists who support
intelligent design don’t publish peer-reviewed articles and don’t make
their case at scientific conferences. When an article, which is peer-reviewed, appears,
then the NCSE objects.
Dr. John West, Associate Director of the Discovery Institute, spoke to this issue
in a Discovery Institute News article shortly after Myer’s article
was published in the journal (September 8, 2004). ‘Now an article has appeared
in a biology journal that even the NCSE can’t find a way to spin out of existence.’
He goes on to say, ‘So what does it do? Claim the article shouldn’t
have been published despite the fact it was approved by peer-review. Apparently
politicians aren’t the only ones who do flip-flops.’
Speaking of doing flip-flops, this isn’t the first time the Smithsonian Institution
has been accused of altering its stance after being pressured by Darwinists. In
June 2005, the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History reneged on
its decision to co-sponsor a screening of the Discovery Institute’s film,
‘The Privileged Planet,’ when they determined
that the content was not ‘consistent with the mission of the Smithsonian’s
scientific research.’
Where’s the evidence—where’s the science?
So, where’s the science in all of this? Why is there so much name calling
and game playing instead of having an open debate on origins?
Ken Ham [pointed out], ‘We have found time and time again, that it’s
the creationists who use good scientific arguments and the evolutionists who often
respond with ad hominem attacks—not reasoned scientific statements.’
Ham, who recently visited the Smithsonian Natural History Museum in Washington D.C.,
remarked about the changing storyline of evolution he witnessed firsthand. Several
signs in the Human Evolution exhibit provided proof that evolutionists frequently
change their ideas as to how man supposedly evolved over time (see picture, right).
One sign admitted that much of the original material on display is now out of date
and will soon be replaced by a new exhibit.
‘If a creationist questions any aspect of evolution, then such people are
not seen as scientists!’ Ham said. ‘But evolutionists can change their
ideas all the time and that’s okay—as long as they don’t question
evolution itself.’
Ham said as he walked through the Smithsonian (which in 2004 had a budget of more
than $560 million for its various museums and projects, supported by taxpayer dollars)
that he didn’t see any evidence of evolution in the glass cases or the other
exhibits. As is the case with the Smithsonian and most other science museums, he
said, ‘Evolution is the story on the labels used to try to interpret the evidence
in a particular way. Such museums are really churches of humanism. The public is
being brainwashed into accepting an atheistic religion and they need to wake up
to what is happening to them and their children.’
Opening the door to an intelligent debate
Why is there such an emotional reaction when someone dares to allow people to even
consider that there could be an intelligence behind the origin of the universe?
As one who has been on the front line of this battle for many years, Ham knows it
comes down to a spiritual battle.
‘To just suggest the possibility of some sort of intelligence, even if such
a person is not talking about the God of the Bible, the idea cannot be tolerated
by secular evolutionary humanists,’ Ham observed. ‘This would be opening
a door to suggest there is more to life than just molecules—which means it
could lead to the possibility that there is a God, even the God of the Bible, which
means all are sinners and that all are accountable to God, not ourselves.’
As many scientists have noted, sooner or later the design issues will have to be
debated in a reasoned manner.
But the bigger question is this: will the evolutionists be able to stop themselves
from being the first to cast their stones in order for truth to prevail and for
science to move forward? Only time will tell.
Related articles
| They say time is money. Well, this site provides over 30 years of information. That’s a lot of money and time. Would you support our efforts to keep this information coming for 30 more years?  | | |
|
