Tit for tat?

In a World Net Daily article, we may learn that Richard Sternberg's career may be in jeopardy after he published a review article on the state of Intelligent Design / Intelligent Origin Theory in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.

Now, this is the first time any article on ID/IOT has appeared in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is definitely raising hackles.

Now, we read a report that the editor has been asked serious questions about his world-view.

The complaint says the chairman of the Zoology Department, Jonathan Coddington, called Sternberg's supervisor to look into the matter. "First, he asked whether Sternberg was a religious fundamentalist. She told him no. Coddington then asked if Sternberg was affiliated with or belonged to any religious organization. ... He then asked where Sternberg stood politically; ... he asked, 'Is he a right-winger? What is his political affiliation?'

Now the article quotes people who allege that the Smithsonian is biased against conservative Christians, which may even be true. Certainly, I've heard any number of people making off-handed remarks about "fundies". The problme is, there are "fundies" of all stripes, including both Republican and Democrat ones.

I agree with Clayton when he says,

Sorry, but I don't see that any of these questions should have been asked. This is not the reaction of scientists who have confidence that their position is correct, and that Intelligent Design is nonsense – or even just wrong.

Indeed, in a perfect world, the proper response to the publication in a science journal on, say, astrology, would be to publish, once again, the reams of evidence that shows no force exists capable of causing the effects astrology is believed to cause, and that attempts to find statistical correlations with the positions of the planets are few and far between.

Isaac Asimov wrote an essay discussing Velikovsky's theories of the history of the solar system. On one occasion, Velikovsky was subjected to very shoddy treatment, which was wrong. AS Asimov pointed out, the "science" in the article was enough to discredit Velikovsky's work.

Clayton has some comments about Asimov, and about the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP).

By the end of the second year, The Skeptical Inquirer's tone had changed. There was an increasing level of passion involved--it had become something of a crusade, to the point where anything that disagreed with scientific orthodoxy--even ideas that were simply unproven, such as cryptozoology claims about Bigfoot--was treated as equivalent to astrology. I was also disturbed by the dishonesty of some of the people involved--people like Isaac Asimov. Asimove was writing articles that made a point of using a lower case "g" for the title of the Judaeo-Christian God. This was not considered proper English at the time (it still isn't), but it was something that militant atheists did as a childish way of expressing disapproval of theism...At the same time, Asimov published a book that purported to be a dispassionate and neutral examination of Creationist claims--at least, in the first chapter or so, which is as far as I read before I realized that he wasn't telling his readers his true feelings. Now, if you want to be a militant atheist who insists on a non-standard use of "god," fine. It's not even petty, it's just silly. But to be writing a book where you claim to be a neutral and dispassionate observer of the evolution vs. Creation argument at the same time? That's dishonest. It reminds me of those Creationists who told courts that their "young Earth" theories were not religiously based--and then sent me a fundraising letter that insisted that their campaign was part of spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I don't have much patience for dishonesty. (And sad to say, there's gobs of it in the academic community, and not all of it by leftists.)

Now that's interesting. Clayton Cramer objects to Sternberg's supervisor asking him about his beliefs, and speculating about whether Sternberg might have been acting from a hidden agenda. However, he feels perfectly comfortable judging Isaac Asimov's objectivity based on his beliefs expressed elsewhere.