On 6/1/05 4:42 AM, Rebecca Fitzgerald's electrons arrived as:


> If science truly has a question for everything, then
> perhaps the Smithsonian is correct, why not show the ID movie and promote
> open discussion. After all, it is valid science to consider a theory until
> it can be disproved. To my knowledge evolution is just such a
> theory...widely held, but never proven. Hmmm...

To the degree that science can prove anything, Evolution is a fact -- even
while Evolution's specific mechanisms are debated within the scientific
community.  A scientific theory must be supported by evidence first, and
then subjected to falsification -- ID is not a scientific theory.  Lastly,
open discussion exists in our pluralistic society, as it should.  But it is
wrong for any scientific organization to imply, by its congeniality on the
subject of free discourse, that Evolution and Intelligent Design are  equal
and competing scientific theories representing "two sides" of origins
research.  
 
I am pleased that the NMNH has issued a statement of non-endorsement of
Discovery Institute and the content of its film.  If anyone thinks this
organization's purpose is anything but an attempt to surreptitiously insert
religion into the thoughtful discourse of naturalism and make
supernaturalism a partner in how science perceives the world, they are
sorely mistaken.  If you want to understand the Discovery Institute's
agenda, read an account of the Scopes Trial from eighty years ago -- it is
the same  anti-science anti-intellectual rhetoric that now fuels, among
other things, the Kansas school textbook initiatives and the obstruction of
stem-cell research -- not to mention an alarmingly broad political
appeasement of a certain bloc of American voters with theocratic yearnings.

This little Smithsonian tempest is not an incidental or disposable issue at
large -- it is culturally significant and worthy of the attention it
receives.

> By the way, it is unfortunate that your elevated response sank into
> vulgarity.  

My apologies, Becky.  I guess you are referring to my descriptive use of the
term "orgasm," which I meant only to represent the level of glee the
Discovery Institute's PR people would feel regarding an endorsement for ID
by the Museum of Natural History.  It doesn't seem a vulgar word to me, but
I can also imagine less strenuous terms I might have used.

=========================================================
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).