Geoffrey,
Thanks for the unoffical ICOM perspective. I believe you are right, in that
the issue at hand tends to draw fire from the hip, rather than truly
thoughtful consideration. I have personally been very pleased with the
conversation that has occurred on this and other lists surrounding the
debacle at the Smithsonian. Most of us at least have been very thoughtful
concerning the issue.
I am however not sure why this would be a serious ethical dilemma for our
profession. It should be a very easy decision to make, falling right in
line with censorship issues and other politically motivated challenges to
education. Where ID lies, in terms of the spectrum of human thought and
learning, is very clear, and it should not be difficult for us to determine
how and where the information can be presented without violating our
guiding principles. Since it is our duty, as you pointed out, to present
only well-founded, and accurate information, we should make every effort to
insure that that is so before we engage the public in the conversation.
The central problem with presenting the information in any form or in any
venue is going to become that ID is neither well-founded nor accurate. It
is not a popularity vote, and ID will not become science just because a
high percentage of people are fooled into believing it is so, nor will
placing something scientific sounding in conflict with science make it
scientific by association. There is no scientific support, doctoral or
otherwise, for the notion of ID in physics, biology, or astrometrics, where
it claims to have its home. Essentially, ID has already said everything it
is ever going to have to say, where science will continue to add new
perspectives and information continuously.
ID is not just politically motivated, it is completely politically
motivated. It is a fascinating perspective on Christian faith and the
dynamics of fundamentalist/dominionist beliefs, but it is none the less a
spiritually based political movement, not a new scientific theory. It is
meaningless to suggest we open a dialog between evolution and creationism
and discuss them on their merits, since there is no relationship between
the two. It would be deeply misguided, in addition to completely
counterproductive, to even try to broach the topic in a scientific setting,
much less an artistic one. I know of no curators of art who are going to
jump at this opportunity to make fools of themselves.
To answer your final question(I apologize if it was intended to be
rhetorical)...Absolutely yes, the methodology of science should remain
restricted to learning about the material world around us. That is part of
the definition of scientific methodology which ID seeks to undermine and
confuse. The immaterial world is the realm of philosophy, and science has
no place there, as well as vice versa. Why would there be any need to alter
scientific methodology to accomodate philosophical points of view? I
learned how flawed that line of thinking is in grade school, as did the
world community a few hundred years before. And no, we are not witnessing a
paradigm shift in science.
Thank you too Lois. Very nice article. Also very disturbing, if the cited
percentages of our population that is so incredibly poorly educated are
correct.
Mark Janzen
Registrar/Collections Manager
Edwin A. Ulrich Museum of Art
Martin H. Bush Outdoor Sculpture Collection
Wichita State University
(316)978-5850
Geoffrey Lewis
<GeoffreyLewis@WO
LVEY.FREESERVE.CO To
.UK> [log in to unmask]
Sent by: Museum cc
discussion list
<[log in to unmask] Subject
SE.LSOFT.COM> Museums and "Intelligent Design"
06/14/2005 12:11
PM
Please respond to
Museum discussion
list
<[log in to unmask]
SE.LSOFT.COM>
For an erstwhile chair of ICOM's Ethics Committee the debate on
"intelligent
design" has evoked much thought. The posts have had many of the hallmarks
of entrenched positions with at times much heat and little light justifying
these positions. This is a situation where a professional code of ethics
should have something to say. In responding briefly, I must emphasise that
I
write personally and have no connection now with the Ethics Committee.
There seem to be three key points: Is this just a North American
phenomenon? Is
the ID movement politically motivated? Is ID science?
It is certainly not just a North American issue. It is actively debated in
many parts of the world. One of the most recent cases has been the
statement
by the Dutch minister for Science and Education, who considers that ID
could
be a tool to promote dialogue between the religions, and has initiated a
Cabinet debate on the matter. The journal _Science_ (6 June) records that
this followed a "fascinating conversation" with Cees Dekker, a renowned
nanophysicist at Delft University of Technology who believes that the idea
of design in nature is "almost inescapable."
As public institutions, museums cannot escape the influences of political
ideology or remain insensitive to contemporary cultural philosophies.
Complexities arise, inevitably, when certain views of science are promoted
by organisations, such as the Discovery Institute, which also have public
policy objectives. This is not, however, reason to discard all that they
promote.
As far as "intelligent design" is concerned the issue for museum
professionals is whether each of the numerous contributions to this concept
is well-founded. That many arise from doctoral or post-doctoral work at
well established and respected universities should be sufficient not to
dismiss them out of hand. What is at stake, however, is whether the
methodology of science should be restricted only to interpreting the
material aspects of the world around us or should allow any immaterial
component as well. For the humanities this is not a difficulty. Are we
witnessing a paradigm shift in science?
The contemporary art curator would relish the opportunity that such a
situation presents for display and exhibition. Is this not valid in
science
also? In terms of the ICOM Code of Ethics (4.2) "Museums should ensure
that
the information they present in displays and exhibitions is well-founded,
accurate and gives appropriate consideration to represented groups or
beliefs." I would like to think that this is the spirit in which the
current issue will be treated.
Geoffrey Lewis
(past-Chair, ICOM Ethics Committee)
=========================================================
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).
=========================================================
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).
|
