Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 2:
Line 2: + + + +
differences of opinion and the judgments based upon them are part of the healthy interchange of ideas we call science
Dr. Sternberg became the victim of retaliation by [[evolutionists]] after he allowed the publication as managing editor of an article by an advocate of [[intelligent design]] in a scientific publication,<ref>The article was by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, entitled "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories."</ref> despite the fact that Dr. Sternberg followed all the standard [[peer review]] procedures for publication in the journal, the "Proceedings of the Biological Society."<ref>http://www.rsternberg.net</ref> Three qualified scientists, all of whom are evolutionary and molecular biologists teaching at well-known institutions, approved the paper. The Journal issued a statement in which it stated that "The Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history". <ref>http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html</ref>
Dr. Sternberg became the victim of retaliation by [[evolutionists]] after he allowed the publication as managing editor of an article by an advocate of [[intelligent design]] in a scientific publication,<ref>The article was by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, entitled "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories."</ref> despite the fact that Dr. Sternberg followed all the standard [[peer review]] procedures for publication in the journal, the "Proceedings of the Biological Society."<ref>http://www.rsternberg.net</ref> Three qualified scientists, all of whom are evolutionary and molecular biologists teaching at well-known institutions, approved the paper. The Journal issued a statement in which it stated that "The Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history". <ref>http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html</ref>
Sternberg wrote:
:Judgment about the merits of a scientific work cannot be entirely divorced from theoretical perspectives. A neo-Darwinian will have a perspective on an evolutionary topic that is different from (and sometimes in opposition to) that of a self-organization theorist or a structuralist such as myself. Nevertheless, such differences of opinion and the judgments based upon them are part of the healthy interchange of ideas we call science. What should not be part of science is the attempt to impugn the peer-review process after the fact because it led to a controversial or unwanted result. [http://www.rsternberg.net/CHE.htm]
== References ==
== References ==