It's fine to imagine that some intelligence spans the gaps in our scientific knowledge, and it's fine to wonder if life is the reason why the cosmos has a particular order, or vice-versa. It's fine to write books about such speculation, to lecture about it, and to form organizations around it.
But science is different than all that. Science is a methodology applied to understanding the natural physical world. A book or film the interprets scientific data as metaphysical speculation should not be confused with the actual practice of science.
It is the disingenuous attempt to elevate Intelligent Design to equivalence with the practice of science, to make it appear as if the issue is just one of open dialogue between equally credible scientific theories, that causes the science community's adverse reaction. Nobody who truly understands science is being fooled (unfortunately that's not necessarily the case with a majority who do not understand the nature of science). The Discovery Institute does not exist to free intellectual dialogue from bias, it exists solely to push an agenda. It wants for science to admit that its uneven tapestry of knowledge is likely stitched together by a god. That's not science, it's metaphysics.
There's been no "jump to conclusions" about either Intelligent Design or the Discovery Institute's desire to appropriate a share of the scientific credibility associated with the Smithsonian name. These discussions on musuem-l, however, have been a great way to reinforce with clarity the difference between true science and the modus-operandi of its imitators.
Stephen Nowlin
-----Original Message-----
From: Museum discussion list on behalf of Joshua Steffen
Sent: Sat 6/4/2005 12:08 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Cc:
Subject: Re: Smithsonian / ID Movie (I read the book)
Mr. Stoke,
Thank you for your considerate opinion and clearing the air. It is exactly true that this movie does not deal with Darwinian Biology at all. It is a concentrated discussion on areas of cosomology and astronomy. Too many on this list have reacted too quickly by jumping to conclusions without really investigating what the movie is about, but again is this not normal human behavior?
Too many are quick to slap a label of "fundamentalism", "conservatism", "irrationalism", etc. rather than realizing that the ID movement is a fledgling movement whose primary interest at this stage is to do exactly as you say "open the door" for other lines of inquiry. Its own explanatory power is still pretty small, but that is why it is fledgling. For a good and balanced rhetorical analysis of the ID movement and its history I would recommend the book by Thomas Woodard entitled, "Doubts About Darwin." If anything else it provides an account of the evolution of this movement.
Everyone wins when there is continued engagement of open and serious minded intellectual explorations. Frankly, I think, the easy classification afforded by the culture wars, keeps the discussions about "what does all this data mean," from taking place. Each side continues to improve its logic and grasp of the evidence, and society as a whole advances its understanding when civic engagement is encouraged. Label, shut-down, create exclusionary policies and everyone looses.
Museums are places of dialogue. If anyone disagrees they better talk to the AAM because that seems to be the direction of the profession. Dialogue is a TWO way conversation between the museum and its resources and the museum's community. Both can learn, both can grow from the interaction. How does the profession plan to work with homeschoolers who are coming to museums in increasing numbers and whose worldview is vastly different than the profession as a whole? Can we continue to talk down, talk at, and generally negatively engage this segment of the community? What about other segments of the population? If that is the rules of communication modeled in the instance of origins, are we doing this in other subject areas, with other population groups? Are we ultimately defeating our own purpose of spreading knowledge? People build understanding upon what they already know. A good educator is able to start from where their audience is, bridging the gap between the visitor's know!
ledge
base and the new concept. The gap is crossed through dialogue.
You can not expect to reach a visitor without building relationships to a particular community. Treating groups of people as ignorant, irrational, simpletons (as true as it may seem to you) that do not understand the sophisticated heights of science, does not help the building of the relationships necessary to impact society in the ways museum professionals desire. We need to understand our roles differently, we need to understand that the root of the problem lies in the very basic worldview assumptions that frame our day to day organizational operations.
In closing, I would like to put forth two quotes from the AAM publication "Mastering Civic Engagement," that really capture what I just stated:
“In these new relationships we will regard ourselves as reservoirs of information and expertise and will relinquish our traditional authoritarian roles in favor of new responsibilities as both resources and facilitators of dialogue about those things that matter most to people” [emphasis added].
n“Obstacles to change are often internal to our institutions. . . Sometimes these best practices are so embedded in the axioms of our work that it is nearly impossible to recognize them as obstacles” [emphasis added].
Food for though, Josh
=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:
The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).
If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).
|
