Progress Since the Sternberg Smithsonian Saga 20 Years Ago

Intelligent Design the Future

Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture

Science, Philosophy, Astronomy, Society & Culture, Life Sciences

4 • 993 Ratings

🗓️ 21 October 2024

⏱️ 24 minutes

🔗️ Recording | iTunes | RSS

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

In 2004, Smithsonian Institute scientist Dr. Richard Sternberg was cancelled for daring to publish a paper by Dr. Stephen Meyer supportive of intelligent design in a peer-reviewed journal. On this ID The Future, writer and teacher Daniel Witt joins us to reflect on the controversy. Witt explains the rhetorical strategies Darwinists have used to deride intelligent design. He also reports on an encouraging trend of scientists willing to stand up to the censors and bullies who get in the way of pursuing the evidence where it leads. Source

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0	I.
0:03.0	I D. The Future, a podcast about evolution and intelligent design.
0:12.0	Welcome to I. The Future. I'm your host Andrew McDermott. Today I'm welcoming back to the show
0:17.5	writer and teacher Daniel Witt to reflect on the 2004 controversy that erupted when Dr Richard Sternberg published a paper
0:26.1	supportive of intelligent design in a peer-reviewed journal. We'll talk about the strategies
0:31.5	that have been used by ID detractors in the last quarter century to mock the intelligent design research project and on the flip side the progress that has been made since that unfortunate incident now 20 years ago.
0:45.5	Daniel, welcome to ID the future.
0:48.0	Hi Andrew.
0:49.3	Thank you for being with me tonight.
0:52.2	Well you wrote an article at evolution
0:54.3	news.org recently that reflects on the Sternberg Smithsonian saga, but your
0:59.7	focus was actually the fallacies and rhetorical strategies used to intimidate, persecute, and cancel Dr.
1:06.8	Sternberg, as well as other ID scientists and scholars before and after him.
1:11.9	So let's start where your article starts by reviewing the claim
1:14.8	that ID isn't bona fide science because it isn't published in peer-reviewed journals.
1:20.5	And as an example you give us Wikipedia, whose own co-founder Larry Sanger has called it an
1:26.8	appallingly biased source.
1:29.4	If you pull up the entry for intelligent design, I'm not talking years ago. I'm talking right now if he
1:33.9	pulled the entry up in Wikipedia. Now only will you be greeted with
1:37.5	appallingly out-of-date images of ID theorists like William Demsky and
1:42.0	Michael Bihy. you'll find a host of
1:44.4	appallingly inaccurate information and claims about the theory. Here's one such
	...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Previous episode | Next episode

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.