Changes

The '''Smithsonian-Sternberg affair''' began with backlash over the publication of an article written by an [[intelligent design]] (ID) proponent in a peer-reviewed scientific journal loosely affiliated with the Smithsonian Institution ([[Smithsonian Institution|SI]]),<ref>[[Smithsonian_Controversy#Sources|Powell 2005 p A19]], [[Smithsonian_Controversy#Sources|Hagerty 2005]], [[Smithsonian_Controversy#Sources|Sounder Staff Report 2006]]</ref> contrary, according the the publisher, to the journal's "typical" process of also having an associate editor involved in the peer-review process.<ref name="statement">[http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html Statement from the Council of the Biological Society of Washington]</ref>  An article titled ''The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories'' by [[Intelligent Design|ID]] advocate [[Stephen C. Meyer]] was published in the August 4, 2004 volume of ''Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington,'' (PBSW)<ref>[[Smithsonian_Controversy#Sources|Meyer 2004, p 213-239]]</ref>  [[Richard Sternberg]] was the managing editor at the journal, and also a Research Associate at the [[Smithsonian Institute|Smithsonian Institute's]] National Museum of Natural History ([[National Museum of Natural History|NMNH]]), and the issue was the last he was to work on (he had previously announced his resignation from PBSW).

The '''Smithsonian-Sternberg affair''' began with backlash over the publication of an article written by an [[intelligent design]] (ID) proponent in a peer-reviewed scientific journal loosely affiliated with the Smithsonian Institution ([[Smithsonian Institution|SI]]),<ref>[[Smithsonian_Controversy#Sources|Powell 2005 p A19]], [[Smithsonian_Controversy#Sources|Hagerty 2005]], [[Smithsonian_Controversy#Sources|Sounder Staff Report 2006]]</ref> contrary, according the the publisher, to the journal's "typical" process of also having an associate editor involved in the peer-review process.<ref name="statement">[http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html Statement from the Council of the Biological Society of Washington]</ref>  An article titled ''The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories'' by [[Intelligent Design|ID]] advocate [[Stephen C. Meyer]] was published in the August 4, 2004 volume of ''Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington,'' (PBSW)<ref>[[Smithsonian_Controversy#Sources|Meyer 2004, p 213-239]]</ref>  [[Richard Sternberg]] was the managing editor at the journal, and also a Research Associate at the [[Smithsonian Institute|Smithsonian Institute's]] National Museum of Natural History ([[National Museum of Natural History|NMNH]]), and the issue was the last he was to work on (he had previously announced his resignation from PBSW).

Controversy ensued within hours of publication,<ref>[[Smithsonian_Controversy#Sources|Powell 2005 p A19]]</ref> with senior Smithsonian scientists referring to Sternberg as a "shoddy scientist" and a "closet Bible thumper."<ref>[[Smithsonian_Controversy#Sources|Powell 2005 p A19]]</ref>  Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education ([[National Center for Science Education|NCSE]]), a think-tank that promotes evolution, defended the Smithsonian:  "They don't care if you are religious, but they do care a lot if you are a [[Creationism|creationist]],"<ref>[[Smithsonian_Controversy#Sources|Powell 2005 p A19]], Statement to Washington Post reporter Michael Powell</ref> and "Some <nowiki>[</nowiki>scientists<nowiki>]</nowiki> probably did speak intemperately,"<ref>[[Smithsonian_Controversy#Sources|Hagerty 2005]] Recorded statement to [[National Public Radio]]</ref> out of frustration and annoyance over Sternberg's editorial role.

Controversy ensued within hours of publication,<ref>[[Smithsonian_Controversy#Sources|Powell 2005 p A19]]</ref> with senior Smithsonian scientists referring to Sternberg as a "shoddy scientist" and a "closet Bible thumper."<ref>[[Smithsonian_Controversy#Sources|Powell 2005 p A19]]</ref>  Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education ([[National Center for Science Education|NCSE]]), a think-tank that promotes evolution, defended the Smithsonian:  "They don't care if you are religious, but they do care a lot if you are a [[Creationism|creationist]],"<ref>[[Smithsonian_Controversy#Sources|Powell 2005 p A19]], Statement to Washington Post reporter Michael Powell</ref> and "Some <nowiki>[</nowiki>scientists<nowiki>]</nowiki> probably did speak intemperately,"<ref>[[Smithsonian_Controversy#Sources|Hagerty 2005]] Recorded statement to [[National Public Radio]]</ref> out of frustration and annoyance over Sternberg's editorial role.