The Smithsonian Caves In (Well, Figuratively Speaking)
by KrauzeThe Smithsonian has put a stop to the controversy over whether it, together with the Discovery Institute, should be showing the ID-friendly film The Privileged Planet. According to this article from the Washington Post, "[t]he film will be shown, but the screening fee required by the museum (in this case, $16,000) won't be accepted and the museum will withdraw its customary co-sponsorship." Although the film was initially reviewed and approved by the Associate Director for Research and Collections Hans Sues (as confirmed by this e-mail), but after experiencing a barrage of letters from ID critics and an attempt from James Randi to make them look like prostitutes, the Smithsonian has suddenly discovered that "the content of the film is not consistent with the mission of the Smithsonian Institution's scientific research."
There's lots of funny quotes in the article, which I suspect will be discussed in the comments, but I'd just like to highlight this:
When asked if the Smithsonian had made a mistake in initially agreeing to host the event, spokesman Randall Kremer says: "We don't look at it in terms of whether we made a mistake or not. Our statement speaks for itself."
"We don't look at it in terms of whether we made a mistake or not. Our statement speaks for itself" Kremer seems to have missed a glorious career as political speech writer.
As Mike also noted, it's funny that the critics chose to fight this battle. As others have pointed out, the film isn't about evolution, but about fine-tuning of the cosmological constants and the settings of the solar system (distance of Earth from the Sun, size of the Moon, etc.). Physicists like Paul Davies have for years pointed to cosmological fine-tuning, and that there's something special about our solar system has also been argued before, most notably in Ward and Brownlee's Rare Earth and in chapter 5 of Simon Conway Morris' Life's Solution. These authors can't be considered ID proponents by a long stretch – are their views also "not consistent with the mission of the Smithsonian Institution's scientific research"
In attacking this film, the ID critics have shown that for them, it's about more than preserving evolution in the classroom or attracting biotech jobs. Many theistic evolutionists see the hand of God in the fine-tuning of the cosmological constants, including ID critic Kenneth Miller. Is this group of people next in line for the "Threat to Science" badge?
PS. Check out this post at the Discovery Institute's blog, Evolution News & Views, which contain link to some interesting documents relevant to the discussion.
June 2nd, 2005 at 5:38 pm
ID critics have chosen to fight this fight because the Discovery Institute is involved. The Discovery Institute is the enemy and anything they do must be opposed. It's just that simple.
But, in the process they are indirectly stepping on Davies, Morris, and many other scientists not in support of ID. It will be interesting to see what happens if that side effect gets repeated over and over again.
What if the Discovery Institute were to sponser some events that just discuss such subjects as the Cambrian explosion or convergent evolution outside the context of ID? Would ID critics choose to get into a fight over that? I bet they would.
In addition to ID, perhaps fine tuning, the Anthropic Principle, the Cambrian explosion and convergent evolution may all become taboo subjects for the Skeptics, NCSE, et al.
Comment by Stuart Harris — June 2, 2005 @ 5:38 pm
June 4th, 2005 at 1:34 am
It looks like Randi realized the impression his attempt to out-bid the DI must have given, and is now trying to backtrack:
So, Randi promises the Smithsonian that if they refuse to show the film and return the DI's money, he will give them an additional $4,000 – yet it wasn't intended as a "counter-bribe". Well, what exactly was it then?
And his "stance" was (check out the past tense) that if the Smithsonian showed something pro-evolutionary and publically distanced itself from ID, he would have had no qualms about showing the film at the institution. Whoa, what happened to the old Randi? The one who was "alarmed and militant" about creationists abusing the reputation of the institute and who claimed that "The disclaimer that [the institute issued] will do nothing to nullify the damage done by the Smithsonian."
Comment by Krauze — June 4, 2005 @ 1:34 am
June 7th, 2005 at 4:17 pm
The entire flap was caused when ID advocates made unwarranted and unjustified — and false, as it turns out — claims that the Smithsonian was endorsing "intelligent design."
If you endorse telling whopping lies, why not just say so?
If you don't endorse the telling of whopping lies, then shouldn't you take some satisfaction in the revelation of the facts in this matter — and the fact that the Discovery Institute paid no penalty for the whopper just demonstrates, once again, the moral superiority of real scientists, especially when it comes to forgiving gross etiquette errors.
Is that what bothers you?
Comment by edarrell — June 7, 2005 @ 4:17 pm
June 7th, 2005 at 4:47 pm
Once more with feeling: Ed, cough up the evidence for your claims, please. I've noticed that you typically happen to take a leave of absence shortly after people ask you to do this, and I was hoping maybe you could show us the examples you had in mind before going this time. Show me where someone at the DI claimed that the Smithsonian was "endorsing" ID. I don't want someone who isn't at the DI, since that's not relevant, and I don't want someone saying that the Smithsonian is "becoming less hostile" or "warming up" to ID, since that's a far cry from an endorsement.
So, come on, out with it. Tell me where someone at the DI said the Smithsonian was "endorsing" ID. Surely a stickler for honesty such as yourself had actual examples in mind.
Comment by Deuce — June 7, 2005 @ 4:47 pm
June 7th, 2005 at 9:06 pm
Let me be the first to say that I will vigorously and wholeheartedly condemn the whopping lies to which Ed refers as soon as he produces them. If anybody involved in the showing in any way knowingly misrepresented the views of the Smithsonian regarding the matter, I think everyone should join in condeming that. Of course, if it were to turn out that edarrell made such a charge without any basis, that reckless accusation, too, would be worthy of serious condemnation.
Regards,
Carnap
Comment by Carnap — June 7, 2005 @ 9:06 pm
June 8th, 2005 at 7:18 am
Hi Ed,
"If you don't endorse the telling of whopping lies, then shouldn't you take some satisfaction in the revelation of the facts in this matter – and the fact that the Discovery Institute paid no penalty for the whopper just demonstrates, once again, the moral superiority of real scientists, especially when it comes to forgiving gross etiquette errors."
By "the facts in this matter", I assume you mean the fact that the Smithsonian didn't support ID. But I already said so in my very first post on the subject.
"Is that what bothers you?"
I'm not bothered by this at all. To the contrary, I'm amused by the way the critics have chosen to handle this, from Randi trying to make the Smithsonian look like prostitutes and afterwards trying to spin it differently, to The Panda's Thumb attacking theistic evolutionists on their own side.
Comment by Krauze — June 8, 2005 @ 7:18 am
June 8th, 2005 at 8:38 pm
I really hope Ed doesn't just sort of drift off to the next discussion topic without closing the loop on this. I would be very interested in seeing the lies to which he refers. or to admit it forthrightly if he cannot produce any.
RC
Comment by Carnap — June 8, 2005 @ 8:38 pm