Re: [asa] Sternberg quote

From: PvM <>
Date: Tue Mar 13 2007 - 11:45:21 EDT

Of course not, Meyer's paper fails on scientific grounds not because he is a
creationist. Is Sternberg guilty by association? To the extent that an
editor is responsible for the quality of the content published, yes he is,
especially when the paper seems to outside what was normally published by
the publication in question.
I am sure that some may have had additional concerns and Sternberg has
argued that he was 'punished' although the actual records fail to show
convincing evidence of such.

As to Sternberg denying being a creationist, that seems irrelevant to the
issue which was the issue of why Meyer's imho dismal paper, made it into a
publication which does not historically focus on these topics?
Contributors to the PandasThumb have done an excellent job in showing the
scientific vacuity of Meyer's paper, peer review or not. Sternberg quickly
was turned into a martyr.

The PBSW published the following

The paper by Stephen C. Meyer in the *Proceedings* ("The origin of
biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," vol. 117, no.
2, pp. 213-239) represents a significant departure from the nearly purely
taxonomic content for which this journal has been known throughout its
124-year history. It was published without the prior knowledge of the
Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents,
or the associate editors. We have met and determined that all of us would
have deemed this paper inappropriate for the pages of the *Proceedings*.

On 3/12/07, Jack <> wrote:
> How do you tell then the difference between baraminology and
> structuralism?
> I am of course referring to "The Origin of Biological Information and the
> Higher Taxonomic Categories" by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer in the *Proceedings
> of the Biological Society of Washington. * Meyer is clearly a
> creationist, but does that necessarily mean that the paper is baraminolgy,
> and therefore pseudoscience? And does that mean that Sternberg is guilty by
> association? He has repeatedly denied being a creationist. He thought the
> paper had some interesting things to say, and was hoping to start a dialog
> on the subject.
> I have no expertise in judging this paper. But it was reviewed through
> the normal peer review process, so I have no basis to believe that the paper
> is without merit. It seems clear to me however, that the
> subsequent treatment of Sternberg was motivated by more than scientific
> concerns. In my opinion, it is the role of groups like ours to help to
> prevent biases in science that are anti-religious, as much as we should be
> educating our Christian brethren about the fallacies of creationism.
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* PvM <>
> *To:* Jack <>
> *Cc:*
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 11, 2007 3:48 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] Sternberg quote
> Seems that it is not much different from cladistic methods and evo-devo.
> The lack of a historical component seems to make structuralist analysis
> complementary to the prevailing theories.
> In fact, Ruse and others have pointed out that teleology involves
> historical as well as physical constraints.
> See<>
> While evolutionary science seems to have been quite effective in using
> ideas from structuralism, it seems that baraminologist creationists have
> used (sic) the methodology to support their religious beliefs about a young
> earth with separate creations.
> On 3/11/07, Jack <> wrote:
> >
> > "Structuralist analysis is generally ahistorical, systems-oriented, and
> > non-evolutionary (not anti-evolutionary). Both creationism and neo-Darwinism
> > are, in contrast, emphatically historicist with one positing extreme
> > polyphyly (de novo creation of species) and the other radical monophyly
> > (common descent). "
> >
> >
> > Interesting stuff. My question for you is, what is wrong with this?
> > Often, it seems, that the truth lies between two extremes.
> >

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Mar 13 11:45:29 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Mar 13 2007 - 11:45:29 EDT