Joined: Mar. 2008
|Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 26 2008,13:22)|
|That's why I'm not worried about the whole "any publicity is good for Expelled" argument. Their publicity has peaked, and peaked too soon.|
As for the film itself, it's so bad because it's vacuous. It's almost not there. Also, did you know this about Sternberg?
|In a November, 2005 National Public Radio report on the affair Sternberg stated "I'm not an evangelical, I'm not a fundamentalist, I'm not a young earth creationist, I'm not a theistic evolutionist". Sternberg said McVay "related to me, 'the Smithsonian Institution's reaction to your publishing the Meyer article was far worse than you imagined'." Barbara Bradley Hagerty, NPR's religion reporter, said Sternberg himself believes intelligent design is "fatally flawed."|
Of all the notorious Intelligent Design "martyrs", the only one I have a bit of sympathy for is Sternberg. I think that there was a conflict of interest, but that he was truthful about having the paper reviewed by other scientists. A lot of bad papers make it through the peer review process - Meyer's paper was an example of that. Not simply because it mentioned his design hypothesis without any positive evidence, but primarily because he tried to bite off more than he could chew.
I think Sternberg was simply had the erroneous opinion that the paper would foster healthy debate and therefore science could gain something by it. The problem of course is that the "design hypothesis" is a science-stopper as Neil DeGrasse Tyson says. If the Cambrian explosion is considered to be due to Go...an "Intelligent Agent's" intervention then there would be no reason to investigate further. I suspect Sternberg doesn't realize just how fatally flawed the idea is.