Deinonychus antirrhopus

Sternberg is simply getting what he deserves. If I was the deacon of some church, or some paid staff member of the Southern Baptist Convention, or some other group, and I inserted an atheistic screed into the monthly magazine, I think that I'd have failed in upholding the standards of conduct that the church expected of me and have generally acted irresponsibly and I'd expect to be fired.

This is the same prinicple at work. Sternberg was required to publish scientific articles and not articles that had as a central thesis that life is created by magic. This isn't science and doesn't belong in a science journal. He brought disrepute to the journal and the sponsoring organization and as is clearly evident by how his colleagues are treating him, and onto himself as well, for he seems to have placed personal religious belief over his responsibilities and training as a scientist and editor.

Let him make scrambled eggs with the mess he's made. I have no sympathy for his plight and that no other scientists want to co-author research with him. I wouldn't want my name attached to research with someone of ill-repute.

T-man,

Quite right. If I were to go out and publicly take a position contrary to my employer and to adversely impact their profits and/or shareholder value I'd expect to be fired immediately. Sternberg basically did the samething and now he is paying the price of his actions. I have no sympathy for him and if his career is ruined the only person to blame is himself.

Months ago I warned about the possibility of people drawing appropriate comparisons between a witch hunt against Sternberg and the church's trial of Galileo in 1633. I had nothing to do with the Wall Street Journal drawing the same comparison--but it's an obvious one to draw. If the WSJ article is accurate, then it appears that Sternberg is being persecuted for religious reasons. Before you respond to this, it would be good ask yourself: if your institution started denying you access to research spaces and started asking people about your religious beliefs (or lack thereof), wouldn't you start asking your own questions about discrimination?

Where is the ACLU when you really need them?

I agree with Ted. If Sternberg's case is true then his supervisors at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History should take serious heat.

While I do think Richard should have received some reprimand for his peculiar judgment while acting as editor of the PBSW (which is nominally affiliated with his institution), employment-related inquiries that delve into the realm of religious belief are simply not tolerable. That is a completely inappropriate response and is far worse than the original infraction.

It's wonderful now that legal cases are to be filed, no one can back down and say "oops".

The Meyer paper was so obviously a bunch of garbage and Sternberg is a freaking baraminologist for cripessake. The guy has no credibility. Asking the guy whether his motivations are religious is merely trying to understand what his scientific problem is. i.e., "Are you religious? Or are you simply a flake?"

Richard is not a barminologist although he may share some common interests. He seems to favor process structuralism (http://www.rsternberg.net/Structuralism.htm), which unlike barminology, is neither an anti-evolutionary position nor an approach that invokes periodic divine intervention. Granted, many of advantages for structuralism that he cites seem a bit of a stretch and perhaps he perceives a polarized division between Darwinian and structuralist approaches when in fact they're just extremes of an overlapping continuum, but that doesn't make him a creationist.

Now, asking about an employee's religious belief to try to "understand where he is coming from" is not as simple as portrayed. It can be a violation of employment laws and, as we've seen, can expose your institution to pretty nasty discrimination lawsuits. I don't know whether the charges are valid, but if so, it was a dumbassed move for his supervisors to make any sort of comments or inquiries about his religious beliefs.

Timi

Is the following untrue? Is the following not relevant?

"Sternberg is associated with the “Baraminology Study Group,” and he is on the editorial board of their “Occasional Papers of the Baraminology Study Group.” "

http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/so_satan_must_be_in_the_citdex/

Since the whole point of the "ID movement" is that religion is science, then asking ID apologists about their religious beliefs is no different than asking them if they believe that the holocaust occurred.

This is just another example of how fundamentalist religious jerks milk the system to their benefit but whine and cry about being "persecuted" when things don't go their way.

Once again: if you claim that deity studies are part of science, then you can not hide under the shield that says that questions about deity beliefs are off limits.

It is true that he is associated with the "Barminology study group" and serves as an editor. What we don't know is whether he plays more a role as devil's advocate (a type of op-ed position) or whether he whole-heartedly endorses their agenda. There may be some hints, but it is by no means clear; at least what I've seen so far. I personally would not find it interesting (or even remotely prudent) to serve on a Baraminology board but I can't comment on how people get their "kicks" -- There is no accounting for taste.

So, no, I do not think his association is particularly relevant to his employment status. Employment status depends on performance. In Richard's case the question revolves around whether his work activities such as his scientific research meet expectations (Not to forget the issue of whether he has experienced religious discrimination at work). I certainly do not have sufficient information to make any determinations.