|Evolution in the News - November 2005|
|by Do-While Jones|
Creationists have long known that there is a conspiracy against creationists. Now, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel has found the proof.
In past newsletters 1 we documented the retaliation against editor Richard Sternberg for allowing a peer-reviewed Intelligent Design article to appear in a secular science journal associated with the Smithsonian Institution.
Eventually, Sternberg filed a complaint with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, which protects federal employees from reprisals. The office launched an investigation. Ultimately it could not take action because Sternberg is not an employee of the Smithsonian. 2
They could not help him because of an employment technicality, but they found his complaint was valid. The letter from the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) said:
Our investigation also shows that there is a strong religious and political component to the actions taken after the publication of the Meyer article. Much of the e-mail traffic after the publication of the Meyer article documented a personal investigation of you and tabbed you as a "creationist." … After the publication when many in the SI [Smithsonian Institute] were investigating your background one of the e-mails raised concerns that you had "extensive training as an orthodox priest." 3
Of great import is the fact that these same SI and NMNH [National Museum of Natural History] employees immediately aligned themselves with the National Center for Science Education (NCSE). Our investigation shows that NCSE is a political advocacy organization dedicated to defeating any introduction of ID, creationism or religion into the American education system. In fact, members of NCSE worked closely with SI and NMNH members in outlining a strategy to have you investigated and discredited within the SI. Members of NCSE, furthermore, e-mailed detailed statements of repudiation of the Meyer article to high level NMNH officials. In turn they sent them to the Society. There are e-mails that are several pages in length that map out their strategy. NCSE recommendations were circulated within the SI and eventually became part of the official public response of the SI to the Meyer article. OSC is not making a statement on whether the SI or NMNH was wrong or right in aligning with the NCSE, although OSC questions the use of appropriated funds to work with an outside advocacy group for this purpose. This is only discussed to show that the actions taken on the part of SI employees clearly had a political and religious component. Therefore, it may lend credence to your allegations that your religious and political affiliations were investigated and made a part of the actions taken against you. 4
Our preliminary investigation indicates that retaliation came in many forms. It came in the form of attempts to change your working conditions and even proposals to change how the SI retains and deals with future RAs [research assistants]. During the process you were personally investigated and your professional competence was attacked. Misinformation was disseminated throughout the SI and to outside sources. The allegations against you were later determined to be false. It is also clear that a hostile work environment was created with the ultimate goal of forcing you out of the SI. 5
Why do evolutionists insist on dragging religion into this, and making personal attacks, instead of conducting an open debate on the scientific merits of the theory of evolution? It is simply because science is against evolution.
|Quick links to|
|Science Against Evolution
|Back issues of
of the Month
October 2004 and February 2005
2 Hagerty, National Public Radio, 15 November, 2005, “Intelligent Design and Academic Freedom”