[_ Old Earth _] See the Movie EXPELLED - atheist darwinism vs God

[Bryce]

..So is the movie any good?
:

 

[BobRyan]

The greatest thing about this thread is reading a certain person's posts and witnessing the total illusion they have about actually retorting.

Actually the greatest thing about these threads in general is the complete lack of concern on the part of many of those arguing in favor of the atheist darwinist argument -- for the perspective of the unbiased objective reader not already sold-out for atheist darwinism.

The darwinists seem to "believe" that "if they can just keep themselves devotedly believing in atheist darwinism no matter what they find here" they are succeeding. But do you really think "the point" is to convince anyone against their will? To disuade devout believers in atheist darwinism from continuing to place faith and firmly held "belief" in atheist darwinism????

Please be serious.

hint: the point is to reach the unbiased objective reader during the exchange of views.

Bob

 

[Barbarian]

How about allowing youself to at least view the wingclips list posted two posts up??

Seen lots of clips from the movie, including the part they plagiarized. How does that change the fact that Stein lied?

click and view -- see what is happening in the open marketplace of ideas.

You seem kinda put out that we do have an open marketplace of ideas here. You see, an "open marketplace of ideas" means that everyone gets to express an opinion. For example, Stephen Gould willingly accepted a YE creationist as a doctoral student to study under him, because as he said "ability is all that counts" when considering people for the position. On the other hand, the Institute for Creation Research requires a loyalty oath to creationism to even apply to their graduate school. So much for the "open marketplace of ideas;" you guys are all for freedom, unless it's for someone you don't like.

Barbarian observes:
but in the interview, he lied about the Sternberg case, saying that he had been fired. In fact, Sternberg had lied on the complaint he submitted, falsely claiming to have been an employee of the Smithsonian, for which his complaint was dismissed.

If he lied about that, I have no doubt that he would lie about other things as well.

When you attack each of the people in the video who claim they were being censored and attacked --- you simply increase the problem with your argument.

Sorry, the truth isn't always what you want it to be. It's a matter of public record; he wasn't an employee, and shouldn't have pretended he was.

The whole point of the movie is that rank censorship and shutting down academic freedom (maybe by calling everyone a liar that dares to expose data that does not flatter darwinism) --

The whole point of "Triumph of the Will" was what wonderful people Nazis were, and how awful their enemies were. Merely making a film doesn't mean it's true.

seems to be ringing a bell in your methods and response -- though you don't want to admit it to yourself while apparently wanting to demonstrate it to the group here.

Since you have not link to actual sources and facts in your diatribe against Sternberg -- let me help your readers with some facts.

McVay, who is a political appointee of the Bush administration, acknowledged in the report that a fuller response from the Smithsonian might have tempered his conclusions. As Sternberg is not a Smithsonian employee -- the National Institutes of Health pays his salary -- the special counsel lacks the power to impose a legal remedy.

A spokeswoman for the Smithsonian Institution declined comment, noting that it has not received McVay's report.

"We do stand by evolution -- we are a scientific organization," said Linda St. Thomas, the spokeswoman. An official privately suggested that McVay might want to embarrass the institution.

But this confirms what I just told you. Sternberg was not an employee, and he should not have pretended to be one. And Stein should not have lied to Newsweek about that. McVay, who is a political ally of George Bush, who wants creationism taught in schools, did what he could, but was restrained by the law.

Stein has also alleged that pressure was placed on NIH (his real employer) to fire Sternberg. Repeatedly challenged to substantiate this attack, he has declined to do so, each time.

It seems that Stein, who was Nixon's speech writer, hasn't forgotten McCarthyite tactics.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said

[quote:4af0a]Since you have not link to actual sources and facts in your diatribe against Sternberg -- let me help your readers with some facts.

Washington Post:

McVay, who is a political appointee of the Bush administration, acknowledged in the report that a fuller response from the Smithsonian might have tempered his conclusions. As Sternberg is not a Smithsonian employee -- the National Institutes of Health pays his salary -- the special counsel lacks the power to impose a legal remedy.

A spokeswoman for the Smithsonian Institution declined comment, noting that it has not received McVay's report.

"We do stand by evolution -- we are a scientific organization," said Linda St. Thomas, the spokeswoman. An official privately suggested that McVay might want to embarrass the institution.

[/quote:4af0a]

But this confirms what I just told you. Sternberg was not an employee, and he should not have pretended to be one.

#1. QUOTE the "pretended to be one data" exactly instead of must asserting it out of the void of empty assumption.

#2. This was the part where you were supposed to use critical thinking as YOU claimed that the only thing sufferred by Sternberg was 'a few negative emails' when in fact the Washington Post appears to discover agreement that legal action or remedy of some kind (from special counsel) was indeed needed on Sternberg's behalf but the Admininstration in question did not have jurisdiction to provide what he was due in that case.

As in all cases a bit of independant thought and critical thinking should be allowed at least for a few minutes when you are trying to make the case for Darwinism.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

..So is the movie any good?
:

Watch it and let us know what you think.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Aparently the "only" response we are going to get about the bashing of Sternberg both here and in his professional career is "was Sternberg a full time employee of the Smithsonian".

So while the atheist darwinists are still "looking for something substantive to say" -- let's highlight the INDEPENANT source we have on this story - once again.

By Michael Powell
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, August 19, 2005; Page A19

Evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg made a fateful decision a year ago.

As editor of the hitherto obscure Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Sternberg decided to publish a paper making the case for "intelligent design," a controversial theory that holds that the machinery of life is so complex as to require the hand -- subtle or not -- of an intelligent creator.

Within hours of publication, senior scientists at the Smithsonian Institution -- which has helped fund and run the journal -- lashed out at Sternberg as a shoddy scientist and a closet Bible thumper.
"They were saying I accepted money under the table, that I was a crypto-priest, that I was a sleeper cell operative for the creationists," said Steinberg, 42 , who is a Smithsonian research associate. "I was basically run out of there."

An independent agency has come to the same conclusion, accusing top scientists at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History of retaliating against Sternberg by investigating his religion and smearing him as a "creationist."

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel, which was established to protect federal employees from reprisals, examined e-mail traffic from these scientists and noted that "retaliation came in many forms . . . misinformation was disseminated through the Smithsonian Institution and to outside sources. The allegations against you were later determined to be false."

"The rumor mill became so infected," James McVay, the principal legal adviser in the Office of Special Counsel, wrote to Sternberg, "that one of your colleagues had to circulate [your résumé] simply to dispel the rumor that you were not a scientist."

The Washington Post and two other media outlets obtained a copy of the still-private report.
McVay, who is a political appointee of the Bush administration, acknowledged in the report that a fuller response from the Smithsonian might have tempered his conclusions. As Sternberg is not a Smithsonian employee -- the National Institutes of Health pays his salary -- the special counsel lacks the power to impose a legal remedy.

A spokeswoman for the Smithsonian Institution declined comment, noting that it has not received McVay's report.

"We do stand by evolution -- we are a scientific organization," said Linda St. Thomas, the spokeswoman. An official privately suggested that McVay might want to embarrass the institution.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01680.html

Though atheist darwinist believers have a demonstrated proclivity for filtering out "inconvenient facts" -- I have highlighted the salient points in the Washington Post's own review of the issue.

Interesting that this issue HIGHLIGHTS the reason that we so desperately needed a movie like EXPELLED to come out and put out in the "light of day" what atheist darwinists do behind closed doors!

So far all the devotees to atheist darwinism have contributed to this - is to CALL our attention to it as the MAIN REASON why we should NOT listen to the claims of persecution and rank censorship as they have been committed by the atheist darwinists against anyone who dares to question Darwin. AND of course they also add the substantive "this guy was not paid by the Smithsonian" just bashed by the Smithsonian and just had his career ruined by them -- but yeah -- no paychecks.

Bob

 

[Jayls5]

Hint: The Christian does not "NEED to define God's origin before it can KNOW that a car has a designer".

Obviously.

Hints don't answer my question. In fact, your response was downright irrelevant to my question of what "infinitely complex" means.

Who honestly thinks that a car made by a human in a short time period is a valid comparison to the creation of ANY life within the entire universe over a stretch of many (what is it, 13?) billion years?

It's a terrible comparison.

Obviously.

In my previous response to this I "assumed" that the discussion was between Christians who accept vs reject atheist darwinism.

Reading the post below it occurs to me that this is not the case.

I wasn't talking about darwinism at all, nor does atheism have to be tied to darwinism. Stop calling it that.

It's like me always referring to Christianity as "mormon christianity" and then asserting that the argument applies to the whole of christianity.

So given that change of context for the question - a slightly different response on my part is needed.

First a few facts.

1. The ENTIRE REASON for the I.D. Evolutionist argument instead of the atheist darwinian argument is that I.D has no "origin myth" to religiously defend. It can do things like discuss the SCIENCE of the Krebs cycle WITHOUT launching into mythology about abiogenesis or wild imaginings about how "one thing came from another -- stories easy enough to tell but they are NOT science"

http://www.johnkyrk.com/krebs.html

Sorry, darwinism has NOTHING to do with any sort of origin myth. It has NOTHING to do with abiogenesis.

If you want to argue against abiogenesis, then do it. Just don't go on rants about "atheist" darwinism that has nothing to do with any myth what-so-ever. I could very well be an atheist and a darwinist, and I could have NO opinion on how life was started due to lack of evidence. It would make more sense to call the people you want to argue against simple "abiogenesis supporters." That's the position that actually has a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life. Neither atheism nor darwinism necessarily has any sort of explanation for the origin of life, and that's why i'm getting so annoyed with your constant use of the phrase. It's not applicable.

I'm an atheist and I believe in a general notion of evolution, yet I have absolutely no position on the origin of life. If you want to be intellectually honest, direct your argument towards people who actually have a position on the origin of life!

2. Having the ability to "stick with science" apart from "story telling" is viewed as a weakness in I.D if you look closely at the OP. Clearly there is some unclear thinking going into that question in that case.

Bob

You're way to vague here to effectively make a point. Care to elaborate?

 

[Barbarian]

Aparently the "only" response we are going to get about the bashing of Sternberg both here and in his professional career is "was Sternberg a full time employee of the Smithsonian".

That's not quite the truth, is it? In fact, the issue is why Sternberg claimed to be an employee, when he was not. Whether or not some other researchers sent ugly emails to each other about him, does not excuse his behavior.

Further, the Smithsonian has documented that he kept his keys and access to his office, and even got to pick another office when the first one offered to him was not acceptable. They deny he was removed from his post as editor, and have backed that up with a letter of resignation submitted months before the issue in question, a contention that Sternberg now admits is true.

And yet, the story we get in "Expelled" is something quite different. "Almost ruined his life"; and all he's been able to show is that some people sent nasty emails to each other about him. Creationit/IDers have a strong need to feel persecuted. I wish that's the worst thing I had to go through in my life.

So while the atheist darwinists are still "looking for something substantive to say" -- let's highlight the INDEPENANT source we have on this story - once again.

Good idea. Let's see... NY Times...

Now comes word that a little-known government office has accused the Smithsonian of retaliating against a scientist who slipped an article promoting intelligent design into an obscure journal that has only very loose connections to the Smithsonian. That judgment, by the United States Office of Special Counsel, a federal agency set up to protect whistle-blowers, is the latest twist in a case that started with the publication of the article last year in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.

The article contended that evolution theory could not account for the great proliferation of life forms during the so-called Cambrian explosion some 530 million years ago, and that an intelligent agent was the best explanation. It set off an uproar among evolutionary biologists and was later disowned by the professional society that published it.

The editor who authorized publication, Richard Sternberg, filed a complaint contending that he had suffered reprisals. In an 11-page letter not yet officially released, the Office of Special Counsel said it had found support for his complaint but was dropping the investigation because he was not an employee of the Smithsonian, just a research associate.

E-mail notes show that several scientists and managers at the Smithsonian were extremely embarrassed and eager to push Mr. Sternberg out of his research niche, and that some dug around for material to discredit him. That may lead critics of evolution to see Mr. Sternberg as a martyr.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/20/opinion/20sat4.html

Not exactly "almost ruined his life", um? As I said, there's a martyr complex working. Last I heard, Sternberg was still with the Smithsonian, having been reappointed. They don't make martyrs the way they used to.

Or maybe they do; it wouldn't hurt to show how much "intellectual freedom" IDers are willing to grant, when they are in the driver's seat:

Thursday, November 29, 2007
Texas Education Agency director of science curriculum fired for announcing Barbara Forrest talk

Chris Comer, the director of science curriculum for the Texas Education Agency, was forced to resign from her position. Her offense? Forwarding an email from the National Center for Science Education announcing a talk by philosopher and intelligent design critic Barbara Forrest, and adding the text "FYI."

The call to fire Comer came from Lizzette Reynolds, formerly at the U.S. Department of Education and former deputy legislative director for Texas Gov. George W. Bush. She wrote in an email to Comer's supervisors that "This is highly inappropriate. I believe this is an offense that calls for termination or, at the very least, reassignment of responsibilities."

The movie "Expelled" makes a big deal about cases like the Sternberg affair, where nobody lost a job or responsibilities, and the denial of tenure to Guillermo Gonzales, whose publication record didn't merit tenure. But here's a case of someone who appears to have actually been removed from her position for sending out an announcement of a talk critical of intelligent design--a subject which the courts have already ruled is unconstitutional to teach in the science classroom.

This is a real case of persecution; not just some nasty emails; someone got fired for doing her job, because an IDer/Creationist had the power to get away with it. Kinda puts it all in perspective, um?

 

[BobRyan]

Hint: The Christian does not "NEED to define God's origin before it can KNOW that a car has a designer".

Obviously.

Hints don't answer my question. In fact, your response was downright irrelevant to my question of what "infinitely complex" means.

Who honestly thinks that a car made by a human in a short time period is a valid comparison to the creation of ANY life within the entire universe over a stretch of many (what is it, 13?) billion years?

It's a terrible comparison.

Actually it fits perfectly. The point remains.

But ... isn't this from "another thread"???? Make your post there and I will respond.

Let's keep this one on track.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Aparently the "only" response we are going to get about the bashing of Sternberg both here and in his professional career is "was Sternberg a full time employee of the Smithsonian".

That's not quite the truth, is it? In fact, the issue is why Sternberg claimed to be an employee, when he was not. Whether or not some other researchers sent ugly emails to each other about him, does not excuse his behavior.

No --- that's not quite the truth AND that is not quite the quote you were asked for to at least add "some" credibility to your rabbit-trail argument.

The "independant" objective analysis is already available. You know "independant" as in NOT "me quoting me" NOR even "me quoting Creationists". (See - that would be like "you NOT quoting you" and "you NOT quoting the PERPS in this alleged crime" as your "reliable sources")

By Michael Powell
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, August 19, 2005; Page A19

Evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg made a fateful decision a year ago.

As editor of the hitherto obscure Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Sternberg decided to publish a paper making the case for "intelligent design," a controversial theory that holds that the machinery of life is so complex as to require the hand -- subtle or not -- of an intelligent creator.

Within hours of publication, senior scientists at the Smithsonian Institution -- which has helped fund and run the journal -- lashed out at Sternberg as a shoddy scientist and a closet Bible thumper.
"They were saying I accepted money under the table, that I was a crypto-priest, that I was a sleeper cell operative for the creationists," said Steinberg, 42 , who is a Smithsonian research associate. "I was basically run out of there."

An independent agency has come to the same conclusion, accusing top scientists at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History of retaliating against Sternberg by investigating his religion and smearing him as a "creationist."

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel, which was established to protect federal employees from reprisals, examined e-mail traffic from these scientists and noted that "retaliation came in many forms . . . misinformation was disseminated through the Smithsonian Institution and to outside sources. The allegations against you were later determined to be false."

"The rumor mill became so infected," James McVay, the principal legal adviser in the Office of Special Counsel, wrote to Sternberg, "that one of your colleagues had to circulate [your résumé] simply to dispel the rumor that you were not a scientist."

The Washington Post and two other media outlets obtained a copy of the still-private report.
McVay, who is a political appointee of the Bush administration, acknowledged in the report that a fuller response from the Smithsonian might have tempered his conclusions. As Sternberg is not a Smithsonian employee -- the National Institutes of Health pays his salary -- the special counsel lacks the power to impose a legal remedy.

A spokeswoman for the Smithsonian Institution declined comment, noting that it has not received McVay's report.

"We do stand by evolution -- we are a scientific organization," said Linda St. Thomas, the spokeswoman. An official privately suggested that McVay might want to embarrass the institution.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01680.html

"The issue" is clearly defined in that independant review -- the rabbit trail solution of trying to focus on "something else" just doesn't cut it.

"Almost ruined his life"; and all he's been able to show is that some people sent nasty emails to each other about him. Creationit/IDers have a strong need to feel persecuted.

The whining and spin-doctoring of the Washington Post's review in the form of "dirty rotten stinking Creationist" just does not cut it -- "obviously".

The spin doctoring "a few bad emails" is NOT what the Post found NOR what independant reviewers found in the article quoted above -- but it makes for good vaccuous side-trail whining "I suppose".

I was just hoping for "substance instead" in your post.

Oh well...

Bob

 

[Barbarian]

So Sternberg lied about being an employee, but people did write nasty emails about him. Compare that to the Texas IDers who fired someone for accepting evolution. That's genuine persecution; can you imagine how they'd whine if that happened to Sternberg?

Compare the way the Discovery Institute will not accept dissenters in their organization, to the way evolutionist Stephen Gould accepted YE creationist Kurt Wise as a doctoral candidate.

Nothing better illustrates the essential difference between scientists and IDers.

 

[BobRyan]

As editor of the hitherto obscure Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Sternberg decided to publish a paper making the case for "intelligent design," a controversial theory that holds that the machinery of life is so complex as to require the hand -- subtle or not -- of an intelligent creator.

Within hours of publication, senior scientists at the Smithsonian Institution -- which has helped fund and run the journal -- lashed out at Sternberg as a shoddy scientist and a closet Bible thumper.
"They were saying I accepted money under the table, that I was a crypto-priest, that I was a sleeper cell operative for the creationists," said Steinberg, 42 , who is a Smithsonian research associate. "I was basically run out of there."

An independent agency has come to the same conclusion, accusing top scientists at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History of retaliating against Sternberg by investigating his religion and smearing him as a "creationist."

-----

Really? An "independant agency has come to the SAME conclusion?? Wow that is interesting!

(Notice that the source here is NOT the alleged perp).

So how is it that railroading this guy out of a job is "a good thing"???

Oh no wait! It is the MAIN reason for bashing EXPELLED the Movie -- because he was only being run out of his job -- while NOT getting PAID by the Smithsonian.

Oh yeah -- that is right - hmmm "how substantive" or should I say... "not", to complain about Exppelled because all we have is INDEPENDANT confirmation that Sternberg was run out.

How "awful" of Sternberg to report such modest censorship and pogrom tactics. Well if he is going to tell everyone about it -- "then why allow yourself the luxury of seeing EXPELLED the movie "-- eh?

You have made my case -- perfectly.

Many thanks.

Bob

 

[Jayls5]

Really? An "independant agency has come to the SAME conclusion?? Wow that is interesting!

(Notice that the source here is NOT the alleged perp).

So how is it that railroading this guy out of a job is "a good thing"???

Oh no wait! It is the MAIN reason for bashing EXPELLED the Movie -- because he was only being run out of his job -- while NOT getting PAID by the Smithsonian.

Oh yeah -- that is right - hmmm "how substantive" or should I say... "not", to complain about Exppelled because all we have is INDEPENDANT confirmation that Sternberg was run out.

How "awful" of Sternberg to report such modest censorship and pogrom tactics. Well if he is going to tell everyone about it -- "then why allow yourself the luxury of seeing EXPELLED the movie "-- eh?

You have made my case -- perfectly.

Many thanks.

Bob

Just to clarify, he was run out from his non job? He was expelled from the job he didn't have?

 

[Barbarian]

The point, of course, is that he wasn't railroaded out of a job. He lied about that. He wasn't an employee at all.

He was an unpaid research associate, and still is. The Smithsonian renewed him as a research associate, and he still has an office there. He submitted a resignation from the journal months before he inserted the article into it. Sternberg still has his real job. No one fired him there, either.

So no, he wasn't "run out of there." He just lied about it. Granted, some people weren't pleased that he put a rather shoddy article into a journal, and wrote some uncomplimentary emails. Compare that to the Texas worker who was fired from her job by IDers for publicizing a talk by a noted scientist they didn't like.

That pretty much sums up the difference between IDers and scientists.

 

[BobRyan]

FIRST le'ts hear "substance" on the point from INDEPENDANT reviewers --

By Michael Powell
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, August 19, 2005; Page A19

Evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg made a fateful decision a year ago.

As editor of the hitherto obscure Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Sternberg decided to publish a paper making the case for "intelligent design," a controversial theory that holds that the machinery of life is so complex as to require the hand -- subtle or not -- of an intelligent creator.

Within hours of publication, senior scientists at the Smithsonian Institution -- which has helped fund and run the journal -- lashed out at Sternberg as a shoddy scientist and a closet Bible thumper.
"They were saying I accepted money under the table, that I was a crypto-priest, that I was a sleeper cell operative for the creationists," said Steinberg, 42 , who is a Smithsonian research associate. "I was basically run out of there."

An independent agency has come to the same conclusion, accusing top scientists at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History of retaliating against Sternberg by investigating his religion and smearing him as a "creationist."

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel, which was established to protect federal employees from reprisals, examined e-mail traffic from these scientists and noted that "retaliation came in many forms . . . misinformation was disseminated through the Smithsonian Institution and to outside sources. The allegations against you were later determined to be false."

"The rumor mill became so infected," James McVay, the principal legal adviser in the Office of Special Counsel, wrote to Sternberg, "that one of your colleagues had to circulate [your résumé] simply to dispel the rumor that you were not a scientist."

The Washington Post and two other media outlets obtained a copy of the still-private report.
McVay, who is a political appointee of the Bush administration, acknowledged in the report that a fuller response from the Smithsonian might have tempered his conclusions. As Sternberg is not a Smithsonian employee -- the National Institutes of Health pays his salary -- the special counsel lacks the power to impose a legal remedy.

A spokeswoman for the Smithsonian Institution declined comment, noting that it has not received McVay's report.

"We do stand by evolution(ISM??) -- we are a scientific organization," said Linda St. Thomas, the spokeswoman. An official privately suggested that McVay might want to embarrass the institution.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01680.html

"The issue" is clearly defined in that independant review -- the rabbit trail solution of trying to focus on "something else" just doesn't cut it.
[/quote]

Let's contrast the arguments made in the Washington Post article vs a more 'filter-all" "deny-all" approach to "darwinism at any cost".

Just to clarify, he was run out from his non job? He was expelled from the job he didn't have?

Let the reader be "informed".

Bob

 

[Jayls5]

Just to clarify, he was run out from his non job? He was expelled from the job he didn't have?

Let the reader be "informed".

Bob

I don't even really understand what you're talking about. I'm trying to discuss something from you, and you make another rhetorical comment about educating the audience. I'm discussing something with you, not the audience you sophist. We've got the information, it's been posted numerous times. I'm trying to clarify something with you, and instead of answering me, you make that comment?

 

[BobRyan]

FIRST le'ts hear "substance" on the point from INDEPENDANT reviewers --

By Michael Powell
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, August 19, 2005; Page A19

Evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg made a fateful decision a year ago.

As editor of (the hitherto obscure?) Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Sternberg decided to publish a paper making the case for "intelligent design," a controversial theory that holds that the machinery of life is so complex as to require the hand -- subtle or not -- of an intelligent creator.

Within hours of publication, senior scientists at the Smithsonian Institution -- which has helped fund and run the journal -- lashed out at Sternberg as a shoddy scientist and a closet Bible thumper.
"They were saying I accepted money under the table, that I was a crypto-priest, that I was a sleeper cell operative for the creationists," said Steinberg, 42 , who is a Smithsonian research associate. "I was basically run out of there."

An independent agency has come to the same conclusion, accusing top scientists at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History of retaliating against Sternberg by investigating his religion and smearing him as a "creationist."

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel, which was established to protect federal employees from reprisals, examined e-mail traffic from these scientists and noted that "retaliation came in many forms . . . misinformation was disseminated through the Smithsonian Institution and to outside sources. The allegations against you were later determined to be false."

"The rumor mill became so infected," James McVay, the principal legal adviser in the Office of Special Counsel, wrote to Sternberg, "that one of your colleagues had to circulate [your résumé] simply to dispel the rumor that you were not a scientist."

The Washington Post and two other media outlets obtained a copy of the still-private report.
McVay, who is a political appointee of the Bush administration, acknowledged in the report that a fuller response from the Smithsonian might have tempered his conclusions. As Sternberg is not a Smithsonian employee -- the National Institutes of Health pays his salary -- the special counsel lacks the power to impose a legal remedy.

A spokeswoman for the Smithsonian Institution declined comment, noting that it has not received McVay's report.

"We do stand by evolution(ISM??) -- we are a scientific organization," said Linda St. Thomas, the spokeswoman. An official privately suggested that McVay might want to embarrass the institution.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01680.html

"The issue" is clearly defined in that independant review -- the rabbit trail solution of trying to focus on "something else" just doesn't cut it.

Let's contrast the arguments made in the Washington Post article vs a more 'filter-all" "deny-all" approach to "darwinism at any cost".

Just to clarify, he was run out from his non job? He was expelled from the job he didn't have?

Let the reader be "informed".

I don't even really understand what you're talking about. I'm trying to discuss something from you, and you make another rhetorical comment about educating the audience. I'm discussing something with you, not the audience you sophist. We've got the information, it's been posted numerous times. I'm trying to clarify something with you, and instead of answering me, you make that comment?

Within hours of publication, senior scientists at the Smithsonian Institution -- which has helped fund and run the journal -- lashed out at Sternberg as a shoddy scientist and a closet Bible thumper.
"They were saying I accepted money under the table, that I was a crypto-priest, that I was a sleeper cell operative for the creationists," said Steinberg, 42 , who is a Smithsonian research associate. "I was basically run out of there."

An independent agency has come to the same conclusion, accusing top scientists at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History of retaliating against Sternberg by investigating his religion and smearing him as a "creationist."

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel, which was established to protect federal employees from reprisals, examined e-mail traffic from these scientists and noted that "retaliation came in many forms . . . misinformation was disseminated through the Smithsonian Institution and to outside sources. The allegations against you were later determined to be false."

It may help to have the entire post in view when trying to understand it. The Washington Post article "appears to be easily read and understandible" in its report on the independant review that was done of Sternberg's case. Apparently the "indepentance reviewers" agreed with Sternberg's assessment.

Apparently so did the makers of Expelled and this is why they included his testimony regarding the things done to him-- in the movie.

I am hoping these details are not as confusing to you as you claim. If you have a specific question on a specific point in the Post article -- feel free at any time to ask it.


BTW - those attacking "Expelled the Movie" are the ones bringing up "the details of Sternberg's case" not me. I am simply going and FINDING indepent data on that case and presenting it as a balancing view to their "attack all for darwinism" methods so far.


hint: "The point" in all of these discussions to present a cogent argument that deals with the "inconvenient facts' such that the unbiased objective reader has a clear choice to make. Simply retreating behind name calling and "i wont I wont -- you can't make me" is not a compelling form of exchange. No real substance there so why not address the points raised?

Bob

 

[Barbarian]

So Stein lied when he said Sternberg was fired. Sternberg kept his job at NIH. Sternberg was also renewed as Research Associate at the Smithsonian; Stein lied about that, too. And Sternberg submitted a letter of resignation from the journal months before the article was inserted.

So "run out of there" was just a story. He lied about it.

Feel free to show where he was fired from anything.

 

[Jayls5]

So Stein lied when he said Sternberg was fired. Sternberg kept his job at NIH. Sternberg was also renewed as Research Associate at the Smithsonian; Stein lied about that, too. And Sternberg submitted a letter of resignation from the journal months before the article was inserted.

So "run out of there" was just a story. He lied about it.

Feel free to show where he was fired from anything.

That's pretty much the impression I was getting too.

 

[Barbarian]

I think it will be a long, long time before we see any evidence.

"I saw it in a movie, so it must be true."

Sure.