More about the Meyer article

Clayton Cramer has written about the Intelligent Design controversy. Based on the article, indeed, based on the allegations in Sternberg's complaint, Mr. Cramer has stated that the questions alleged in the complaint should not have been asked.

A post The Panda's Thumb presents a comment from one Jonathan Coddington, one of the principles in the Sternberg case. He offered his corrections to some points made in Klinghoffer's article, which appeared in the Wall Street Journal and was the major source for the World Net Daily piece.

It seems the questions may not have been asked. At the very least, that matter's in dispute.

In my post linked to the title, I pointed out what I considered an inconsistency in Mr. Cramer's position. When Sternberg was being accused of bypassing the normal review process because of his agenda, Mr. Cramer stated that his colleagues had no business asking the question. When he decided Isaac Asimov was not credible in one treatment he wrote because he had demonstrated an anti-theist bias elsewhere.

Mr. Cramer's comment to me is:

Discrimination in employment based on religious practices or beliefs is a violation of federal law. I would prefer that everyone have their agendas out in the open, but being silent about your agenda is substantially different from lying about it.

I responded,

So between Sternberg and Asimov, which was "being silent" and which was "lying"? Or were both? Neither? What criteria do you use to distinguish?

This remains a problem, since Mr. Cramer has decided that one person is capable of setting his private agenda aside and carrying out his duties in a professional manner, and the other isn't. The only criterion I can imagine being applied here is that he likes one argument and doesn't like the other.

Now, with Coddington's statement available throught The Panda's Thumb, we see the issue of "employment discrimination" is far from settled. Coddington basically denies the claims of discrimination raised in the Klinghoffer article. At the very least, it seems this was not, strictly speaking, an employment situation. The person closest to being a "supervisor" denies the allegations. If other research associates think he's a moonbat because of his belief in ID/IOT science, it's hard to argue they don't have a right to their beliefs.

So the main issue comes down to why Sternberg is credible, and his agenda is off limits, but Asimov is not, and his agenda can be cited as grounds for dismissing him. Clayton Cramer has not offered a convincing case.

Sorry.