I have two additions to this interesting discussion. If you want to be agitated skip right to the second one.
Point one, every community is made of a wide variety of people with different thoughts, positions, experiences, etc etc etc. As many people here have stated before the ID/Creationist "side" is made up of many different types of people with beliefs all along a spectrum. I won't address all of these types of people, but I think it is appropriate to draw a distinction between two groups.
1. The group we seem most concerned about here are the vast majoirty of any group, the man/woman /child on the street, and the vast majority of our actual or potential visitors. For whatever reason, and where ever they may fall on the spectrum of belief<->disbelief of evolution or other well established tenets of science, they find something valuable and comforting in their belief and position. I would agree with Josh and many others that we need to be sensitive to these populations, and produce programs that reach out to them while laying out the case for evolution and, more importantly, good science, done well, as best we can with the resources we have. This is our mission.
However, being sensitive to their beliefs and positions, whatever they are, does not mean giving them "equal time," per se. Just because we recognize the socio-economic or psychological roots of much of white rascism, doesn't mean we screen white supremecist films in a Brown v. Board exhibition. We can be ears for positions we would never be the voices for.
Our mission is to provide the best, most constructive environment we can to explore history, science, art, etc with programs "founded on scholarship and marked by intellectual integrity." (From AAM code of Ethics. But then it later states that "programs promote the public good rather than individual financial gain." so whattya gonna do?)
2. The second group are those political and religious leaders who exploit the beliefs of others for political and/or economic gain, or just to get to see themselves on TV. These are the people who make repeated public appearances knowingly misrepresenting the scientific record and method to garner political support. (See Bill Frist MD on the topic of sex ed curriculum, a non-evolution topic, but an obvious example. No, Bill you cannot catch HIV from tears. You should know that, you are a doctor for goodness sake!) These are people who stage programs and "debates" with scientists not because they want true dialogue, but because they need another line on their resume to give themselves more legitimacy as "experts" when they confront a local school board or teacher. (or schedule screenings for movies in prestigious museums to gain legitimacy) These are politicians who espouse things they don't believe or understand simply to make points with voters. And these are people who make deliberatively deceptive movies or television shows that quote just enough of the right data to sound like they know what they are talking about, but not enough to truly educate. I have not seen the movie in question so cannot comment. For an example I'll use instead 2004's "What the Bleep Do We Know" which used just enough quantum physics and talking head scientists and mathematicians to make you think it had some grounding in physics when in fact it was a skillfully designed recruitment effort for JZ Knight a woman who channels the ancient spirit Ramtha and her followers. I'd say about half the reviewrs of this moderately financially successful documentary saw through the guise, but half did not.
I've used a lot of non-ID or creationist examples above, because as I see it, this is a problem that is not solely an evolution/creationism issue. There are a lot of people out there who use, misuse, and abuse science. history, and other scholarly endeavors as a means to gain political power, money and celebrity. As museums it is our role to help our visitors to be informed consumers of scholarly output and to competently analyze the claims of anyone when they are in our area of expertise, whether that be a Harvard Scientist, a Discovery Institute Philosopher, The Washington Post, or Fox News Channel.
As a museum educator I work hard to engage those people in group 1 above with sensitivity and understanding based upon sound scholarship. But that doesn't mean I have to cater to, or provide a voice for people or institutions in group 2.
My second point relates to that above. Below is a clip from the online website Worldnet. I provide it as an example of group 2 above. I have no deep knowledge of this group, but judging from the ads (links kept, alas no images) it is a fairly conservative group with a specific political agenda. I read these articles because it gives me information to engage people in group 1. However, I feel no compunction to engage the author or editor in direct debate for the sake of balance or dialogue.
Enjoy (?)
Matthew White
Smithsonian backs off
intelligent design film
Museum pulls sponsorship
after Darwinists pressure
Posted: June 4, 2005
5:15 p.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
A campaign to convince the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural
History to renege on its agreement to premier "The Privileged
Planet," a film produced by the Discovery Institute, a major
"intelligent design" think tank, may have backfired.
Last month, the Discovery Institute announced it would be premiering
its new film, "The Privileged Planet," with the Smithsonian's co-
sponsorship at the National Museum of Natural History's Baird
Auditorium. The film, based on a book by intelligent design scientist
Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez and Discovery Institute vice president Dr. Jay
W. Richards, "focuses on cosmology and astronomy and on Earth's place
in the universe."
Under pressure, the museum has now withdrawn its sponsorship, but the
film will still be shown on June 23 – and the Discovery Institute is
$16,000 richer for it.
Smithsonian rules for use of the auditorium require the museum to be
listed as a co-sponsor for such showings and a "donation" for use of
the facility. After submitting its film for review and receiving
approval from the museum, Discovery Institute donated $16,000 and
sent out invitations for the private showing per the Smithsonian's
instructions: "The Director of the National Museum of Natural History
and Discovery Institute are happy to announce the national premiere
and private evening reception for 'The Privileged Planet: The Search
for Purpose in the Universe.'"
That's when the Darwinists began complaining.
Ads by Goooooogle
Creation
Did God Create in 6 Days? Consider literal and non-literal views.
www.TolleLegePress.com
Proof of Creationism
Science authenticating Bible detail Live chat and discussion boards.
proofofcreationism.com
Evolution vs. Creation
Where Did the Universe Come From? New Angle on a Tired Old Debate
Evolution.CelestialMechanic.com
Creation in Genesis
Science and Genesis reconciled? Reading Genesis One has answers.
www.creationingenesis.com
Pro-evolution websites and bloggers urged readers to make protest
calls and send emails in an organized response to the film's showing.
The Washington Post chastised the Smithsonian, writing that the
museum should have been wary of the film simply because the Discovery
Institute finds Darwinism an unsatisfactory explanation for much of
the scientific evidence for origins.
"While 'The Privileged Planet' is an extremely sophisticated
religious film, it is a religious film nevertheless. It uses
scientific information – the apparently 'perfect' position of Earth
in its orbit and in its galaxy, the uniqueness of its atmosphere – to
answer, affirmatively, the philosophical question of whether life on
Earth was part of a grand design, and not just the result of chance
and chemistry. Neither God nor evolution is mentioned. Nevertheless,
the film is consistent with the Discovery Institute's general aim,
which is to drive a wedge into the scientific consensus about the
origins of life and the universe and to give a patina of scientific
credibility to the idea of an intelligent creator. ... The museum was
naive or negligent not to recognize this, and more naive not to
anticipate the backlash."
In the blogosphere, one of the chief antagonists to the Smithsonian
decision was James Randi – "the Amazing Randi" – magician and long-
time debunker of physic and paranormal claims.
In his May 27 weekly newsletter, Randi alerted his readers that the
Discovery Institute had been granted access and encouraged them to
lobby for the film to be dropped, even making his own financial
counter-offer:
"Readers, do something about this. Please send an e-mail to
[log in to unmask] addressed to Mr. Randall Kremer, Public Affairs. Tell
him of your concern over this situation. And, you might add that the
James Randi Educational Foundation(JREF) is willing to donate $20,000
to the Smithsonian Institution if they agree to give back the
'Discovery Institute' $16,000 and decline to sponsor the showing of
the film. And the JREF will not require the Smithsonian to run any
films or propaganda that favor our point of view ... We need to be
alarmed and militant about this situation."
Apparently the outpouring of complaints alarmed the Smithsonian as well.
Randi, in his June 3 newsletter told readers: "I must tell you that
the dedicated Director of the Smithsonian Institution, Dr. Christian
Semper, was quick to contact me and express his sincere concern on
this matter, and he immediately set about looking into all the facts
that were available."
Semper issued a statement last Wednesday announcing the Smithsonian's
withdrawal from the premiere after what Lucy Dorrick, Associate
Director for Development and Special Events, called "an internal
review." She wrote to the Discovery Institute:
"As you know, the National Museum of Natural History recently
approved your request to hold a private, invitation-only screening
and reception at the Museum on June 23 for the film, 'The Privileged
Planet.' Upon further review, the Museum has determined that the
content of the film is not consistent with the mission of the
Smithsonian Institution's scientific research. Due to this fact, we
will, of course, honor the commitment made to provide space for the
event to the Discovery Institute, but the museum will not participate
or accept a donation for the event.
"Obviously, our two organizations are very different
programmatically," Ms. Dorrick informed Discovery in a followup
telephone call.
"The major problem with the film is the wrap-up," Randall Kremer, a
museum spokesman told the New York Times. "It takes a philosophical
bent rather than a clear statement of the science, and that's where
we part ways with them."
Discovery Institute's Jonathan Witt countered the Smithsonian's
concern over the film's "philosophical bent" by noting that the
Smithsonian had sponsored "Cosmos Revisited: A Series Presented in
the Memory of Carl Sagan" in 1997.
"Sagan's 'Cosmos' series," notes Witt, "is famous for its opening
dictum, 'The Cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be.'
Why didn't the Smithsonian have a problem promoting this little
philosophical flourish? ... The Smithsonian has been given over,
lock, stock, and barrel, to Sagan's metaphysical vision for decades.
The one difference now is that they're explicitly stating that not
only do they privilege Sagan's materialist metaphysic, they will
block any scientific argument that suggests a contrary conclusion.
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Janzen <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Jun 6, 2005 12:32 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [MUSEUM-L] Smithsonian / ID Movie (I read the book)
Joshua,
Thanks for pointing that out. ID and the Discovery Institute do not seek to
merely undermine scientific understanding and supplant it with theology in
the realm of biology and evolution. They also seek to philosophically
revamp our understanding of physics and the cosmos to better fit their
Biblical interpretations. I will accept your judgement, without having seen
it, that the movie in question does not relate directly to Darwinian
biology. Anti-science is none the less still anti-science.
I agree with you entirely; open discussion is always a good thing. The
topic is evidently a hot one, judging by the activity on this listserve
alone. That should certainly be a big part of what we do in museums and
educational institutions of all types. The point however is not that ID
should not be considered or discussed, but that it should not be considered
scientific. The gap between the two can not be crossed effectively with any
degree of dialogue, unless you choose to use intentionally evasive and
convoluted language in that discussion. ID and science are incompatible.
Discussing ID in relation to science of any sort is not going to be
valuable or progressive as an exhibition theme. We do not have to
negatively engage the segment of society that has been drawn into this
concept. We should not engage the discussion at all. That is the core of
the controversy at the Smithsonian. It is not about fighting ID, which
would be both fruitless and wasteful. Nor is it about finding some sort of
mutually agreeable middle ground. It is about making sure that people
understand the distinction between science and faith, as well as the
difference between what the DI says and what it means.
Under no circumstances should science or our professional standards be
brought down to the level of ID, just because we fear some segment of the
population can not grasp it, or worse refuses to understand/accept it based
on their faith. That kind of concession undermines both our educational
integrity and the validity of the information being presented. Our efforts
should be in seeing to it that our visitors are provided with accurate and
informative experiences, not gratifying their philosophical leanings. If
home schooled children are not able or willing to grasp the science that
runs the world around them, then we have little choice but to accept that
they did not learn what we hoped from our material and move on. That should
not be the impetus for our educational departments to try and find a way to
support their point of view by trying to mix faith and science. It should
however be disappointing enough for us to seek some way to fix that flaw in
our educational system.
Mark Janzen
Registrar/Collections Manager
Edwin A. Ulrich Museum of Art
Martin H. Bush Outdoor Sculpture Collection
Wichita State University
(316)978-5850
Joshua Steffen
<raincaller7@YAHO
O.COM> To
Sent by: Museum [log in to unmask]
discussion list cc
<[log in to unmask]
SE.LSOFT.COM> Subject
Re: Smithsonian / ID Movie (I read
the book)
06/04/2005 02:08
PM
Please respond to
Museum discussion
list
<[log in to unmask]
SE.LSOFT.COM>
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 knowledge 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
John Stoke <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
I tried to post these comments on Thursday, and again on
Friday, but I think we were having server problems. Perhaps
this one will take...
**************************
Dear Colleagues,
My institution, which is the science and operations center
for the Hubble Space Telescope, appropriately requires that
the communication of personal opinion be identified as such,
and as not representative of views held or endorsed by the
institution or its governors or sponsors. I hereby so
declare, and suspect that this message will testify to the
wisdom of that regulation!
A good number of months ago while in a bookstore I spotted a
book in the astronomy section entitled "The Privileged
Planet." (This is the book upon which the movie under
discussion is based.) One of the first things I do
when a book intrigues me is to see whether its dust jacket
contains an endorsement from anyone I know. I found these
two:
"This thoughtful, delightfully contrarian book will rile up
those who believe the 'Copernican principle' is an essential
philosophical component of modern science. Is our universe
designedly congenial to intelligent, observable life?
Passionate advocates for the search for Extraterrestrial
Intelligence (SETI) will find much to ponder in this
carefully documented analysis." - Owen Gingrich, Harvard-
Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
and
"Impressively researched and lucidly written, The Privileged
Planet will surely rattle if not dislodge a pet assumption
held by many interpreters of modern science: the so-called
Copernican Principle (which isn't actually very
Copernican!). But Gonzalez and Richards' argument, though
controversial, is so carefully and moderately presented that
any reasonable critique of it must itself ad dress the
astonishing evidence which has for so long somehow escaped
our notice. I therefore expect this book to renew - and
to raise to a new level - the whole scientific and
philosophical debate about earth's cosmic significance. It
is a high class piece of work that deserves the widest
possible audience" - Dennis Danielson, Professor of English,
University of British Columbia.
Owen Gingrich is a respected historian of astronomy (and
please note his affiliation with a scholarly component of
the Smithsonian Institution) and has given invited talks to
our science staff as part of our academic colloquia series.
Dennis Danielson is the editor of an acclaimed anthology of
cosmological writings entitled "The Book of the Cosmos." He
was an invited lunchtime speaker at an American Astronomical
Society a few years ago, and subsequently was an invited
colloquium speaker here for a talk entitled "The Great
Copernican Cliché," a presentation that generated a more
spirited discussion afterwards than most that I have
experienced here.
When (still in the bookstore) I flipped through the book I
found hundreds of citations from the scientific literature,
respected journals such as the Astronomical Journal, the
Astrophysical Journal, and so on.
Since this promised to be the kind of science-related book
that I enjoy the most, one that endeavors to synthesize data
and advance an interesting point of view supported by that
data (in this instance, the point of view that there really
is something special about the earth), and since one of the
co-authors is a bona-fide university research astronomer (I
didn't know much about the Discovery Institute and its co-
author), I bought it and read it.
I read a lot of astronomy books and I found this one to be
more thought-provoking than many. The attributions by
Gingrich and Danielson were, on the whole, accurate; the
book is written in a humble tone and gives the reader a lot
to ponder. It's a rather gentle presentation of ideas and I
found the modesty and near-tentativeness of the authors'
tone ingratiating. I didn't detect anything that struck me
as particularly sinister or anti-science (there were no
appeals to the Bible, no appeals to god-of-the-gaps
miracles), although the book does promote a view that is
certainly not in line with fashionable philosophical
worldviews within academia. I did not find the arguments
overwhelmingly convincing -- it's more of a door-opener to
some new ideas -- but they certainly did cause me to
consider the difference between well-entrenched assumptions
in cosmology and conclusions supported by data. There were
literally dozens of moments in which I found myself
reacting "Hmm. hadn't thought of that before." (Example:
Could the fact that spiral galaxies have observed rad ial
metalicity gradients across their disks mean that there are
galactic 'habitable zones' (places where the proportion of
heavier elements enables the development of life) akin to
the 'habitable zones' thought to exist around stars (places
where the temperature and thermal stability are conducive to
life)? Interesting idea.)
The book does not deal (at least not to my recollection)
with the biological "Intelligent Design" dispute, but is
more an advancement of a point of view with respect to
the 'anthropic principle' in cosmology, and it could be
considered an extension and expansion of arguments put forth
by Ward and Brownlee in their book "Rare Earth." Perhaps one
could think of the book's subject as being a 'cousin' to ID
in that, like ID, it argues for the notion that intention or
purpose could be inferred from characteristics of nature.
Overall I'd say that the book deals with the kind of
questions that resonate greatly with the public: "OK, you've
collected lots of data, now tell me: What does it all mean?"
Perhaps it could be said to straddle the line between
physics and metaphysics. I enjoy books like that, even if I
don't necessarily settle into agreement with an author's
position. I would like to think that science museums could
be venues for interesting discussions about 'what the data
mean, or might mean.' So long as a discussion is clearly
identified as such, and properly distinguished from the data
itself, it could provide an invigorating reminder of one of
the reasons science is done.
I have not seen the video, and don't have any plans to, but
I do have a hard time imagining how the elaborated arguments
in the book could be reduced to that format. The book's
force depends on the gradual accumulation of a lot of
individually small ideas and observations and I don't see a
short video doing that nearly as well . (But of course I
could be wrong, having not seen it.)
Sincerely,
John Stoke
John M. Stoke
Manager, Informal Science Education
E/PO Lead, The James Webb Space Telescope
Office of Public Outreach
Space Telescope Science Institute
3700 San Martin Drive
Baltimore MD 21218
USA
Tel +1 410 338 4394
Fax +1 410 338 4579
[log in to unmask]
http://hubblesource.stsci.edu
http://jwstsite.stsci.edu/
=========================================================
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 "Signo
ff Museum-L" (without the quotes).
Josh Steffen
Longwood Graduate Program
126 Townsend Hall
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716-2106
Tel: 302.831.2517
Fax: 302.831.3651
Discover Yahoo!
Stay in touch with email, IM, photo sharing & more. Check it out!
========================================================= 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).
|
