The science establishment has banned and blacklisted a
respected scientist merely because he allowed an article
about Intelligent Design to be printed in a journal that he
edited, and even though the article was peer-reviewed.
Dr. Richard Sternberg, a research associate at the
Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History in
Washington, was until recently the managing editor of a
nominally independent journal that is published at the
museum, Proceedings of the Biological Society of
Washington. The August issue included an article
entitled, "The Origin of Biological Information and the
Higher Taxonomic Categories," which is now the first peer-
reviewed article to appear in a technical biology journal
laying out the scientific case for Intelligent Design
(ID).
ID has been trying to set itself up to be taught as a
scientifically respectable alternative to evolution. ID
theory stresses that certain features of living
organisms— such as the eye which seems to require a
large number of interlocking systems in order to be useful
and cannot easily be seen as possible to build up in any
series of incremental steps—are much better explained,
even in scientific discourse, by a designing intelligence
than by an undirected process like random mutation and
natural selection.
One of the first popular works that advocated ID was
Darwin on Trial by Phillip Johnson, a Berkeley law
professor who is an evangelical Christian. One of the main
criticisms is of what Johnson calls "methodological
naturalism."
Stephen Meyer, director of the Discovery Institute's Center
for Science and Culture, explains, "Is it the obligation of
the scientist to come up with a materialist explanation of
phenomena, choosing among an artificially limited set of
options, or to come up with just the best explanation?"
ID argues that the simplest and best explanation of several
important phenomena is that the world reflects the design of
a conscious, rational intelligence. But ID has nothing to say
about the identity of the designer and how he does his work.
Meyer's view is simply: "We don't know."
Writing recently in the New York Times, Michael J.
Behe, a professor of biological sciences at Lehigh
University, a senior fellow with the Discovery Institute and
one of the first to write a book arguing for ID, wrote,
"Intelligent design proponents do question whether random
mutation and natural selection completely explain the deep
structure of life. But they do not doubt that evolution
occurred. And intelligent design itself says nothing about
the religious concept of a creator.
"The contemporary argument for intelligent design is based on
physical evidence and a straightforward application of logic.
The argument for it consists of four linked claims. The first
claim is uncontroversial: we can often recognize the effects
of design in nature. For example, unintelligent physical
forces like plate tectonics and erosion seem quite sufficient
to account for the origin of the Rocky Mountains. Yet they
are not enough to explain Mount Rushmore.
". . . the second claim of the intelligent design argument:
the physical marks of design are visible in aspects of
biology. This is uncontroversial, too. The 18th-century
clergyman William Paley likened living things to a watch,
arguing that the workings of both point to intelligent
design. Modern Darwinists disagree with Paley that the
perceived design is real, but they do agree that life
overwhelms us with the appearance of design.
"The next claim in the argument for design is that we have no
good explanation for the foundation of life that doesn't
involve intelligence. Here is where thoughtful people part
company. Darwinists assert that their theory can explain the
appearance of design in life as the result of random mutation
and natural selection . . . Some scientists, however, think
the Darwinists' confidence is unjustified. They note that
although natural selection can explain some aspects of
biology, there are no research studies indicating that
Darwinian processes can make molecular machines of the
complexity we find in the cell.
"The fourth claim in the design argument is also
controversial: in the absence of any convincing non-design
explanation, we are justified in thinking that real
intelligent design was involved in life. To evaluate this
claim, it's important to keep in mind that it is the profound
appearance of design in life that everyone is laboring to
explain, not the appearance of natural selection or the
appearance of self-organization.
"The strong appearance of design allows a disarmingly simple
argument: if it looks, walks and quacks like a duck, then,
absent compelling evidence to the contrary, we have warrant
to conclude it's a duck. Design should not be overlooked
simply because it's so obvious."
The Discovery Institute has published a statement entitled
"Scientific Dissent From Darwinism," but so far only about
350 scientists have signed on. The reason may be at least in
part the experience of Dr. Sternberg.
Dr. Sternberg's future as a researcher is in doubt because of
what was published under his watch, even though the article
passed peer review and even though he is not a proponent of
ID. According to a recent article by David Klinghoffer in the
Wall Street Journal, Dr. Sternberg has been penalized
by the museum's Department of Zoology, and his religious and
political beliefs questioned.
The offending essay was written by the same Stephen Meyer
quoted above, who holds a Cambridge University doctorate in
the philosophy of biology. Meyer cites biologists and
paleontologists critical of certain aspects of Darwinism
— mainstream scientists at places like the University
of Chicago, Yale, Cambridge and Oxford.
According to standard evolutionary theory, at a certain time
and in a very short period, between 19 and 34 animal phyla
(body structures) sprang into existence. Meyer argues that
the Darwinian mechanism does not have enough time for it to
generate the necessary genetic "information" in the time
frame in which this was supposed to have happened. ID, he
believes, offers a better explanation.
The article was submitted for the normal peer review, and it
passed. So Dr. Sternberg put it in.
Soon after the article appeared, Hans Sues—the museum's
number two senior scientist—denounced it to colleagues
and then sent a widely forwarded email calling it
"unscientific garbage."
Other groups, including the publisher, disassociated
themselves from the article, saying that it should not have
appeared.
ID has struggled to achieve respectability. Critics of ID
have long argued that the theory was unscientific because it
had not been put forward in a peer-reviewed scientific
journal. Now that it has, they argue that it shouldn't have
been put in because it's unscientific.
The chairman of the Zoology Department at the Museum,
Jonathan Coddington, called Dr. Sternberg's supervisor soon
after the article appeared. According to a complaint that Dr.
Sternberg filed with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel
(OSC): "First, he asked [the supervisor] 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?' " The supervisor
later told Dr. Sternberg about the conversation.
In October, Dr. Coddington told Dr. Sternberg to give up his
office and turn in his keys to the entire area, thus denying
him access to materials he needs for his research. Dr.
Sternberg was also assigned to the close oversight of a
curator with whom he had professional disagreements unrelated
to evolution. "I'm going to be straightforward with you,"
said Dr. Coddington, according to the complaint. "Yes, you
are being singled out."
Klinghoffer tried to contact Dr. Coddington and Dr. Sues, but
they did not return his repeated calls for comment.
Dr. Sternberg begged a friendly curator for alternative
research space and he still works at the museum. But many
colleagues now ignore him when he greets them in the hall,
and his old office sits empty. Old colleagues at other
institutions now refuse to work with him on publication
projects.
According to the OSC complaint, one museum specialist chided
Dr. Sternberg, saying: "I think you are a religiously
motivated person and you have dragged down the Proceedings
because of your religiously motivated agenda." Definitely
not, Dr. Sternberg told Klinghoffer. He is a Catholic who
attends Mass but notes: "I would call myself a believer with
a lot of questions, about everything. I'm in the postmodern
predicament."
Dr. Sternberg now rests his hope for vindication on a
complaint he filed with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel
(OSC) of discrimination on the basis of perceived religious
beliefs. A museum spokesman confirmed that the OSC is
investigating.
