Links on the Smithsonian Affair
by Krauze- Physicist David Heddle reviews William Jefferys' critical review of the book The Privileged Planet. I don't have time to add some clever commentary of my own, so I'll just post the same quote as everyone else mentioning this: "I have seen many rants against ID (Intelligent Design), but I cannot recall one as comprehensively bad and unthinking as William H Jefferys's review of The Privileged Planet by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards, posted on the misleadingly named National Center for Science Education (NCSE)."
- At Uncommon Descent, Dembski posted the full text of Nature's news report on the Smithsonian affair. This statement was especially interesting: "According to spokesman Randall Kremer, the museum regularly accepts donations for use of the auditorium, and staff were unaware of the [Discovery] institute's philosophy." If this is the case, then it explains why it was only after the Smithsonian had been bombarded with angry letters that they discovered that "the content of the film is not consistent with the mission of the Smithsonian Institution's scientific research." The problem wasn't the content of the film, but rather its source.
June 9th, 2005 at 5:00 pm
I think the real reason for the Smithsonian's cold feet was more the fear (justified or not) that they were being manipulated for propaganda purposes, Denyse O'Leary's speculations about how they were "warming" to ID theory being a key factor. ID has to earn Smithsonian-class prestige, it can't just buy it by renting a venue, as I'm sure you'll agree.
The biggest obstacle preventing the acceptance of ID by more mainstream scientists is the lack of an ID theory that amounts to more than just "dissin' Darwin." I've recently had some thoughts that might provide something in the way of a rudimentary constructive ID theory, based on "minimum explanatory distances" and I hope to work up a more formal explanation of it soon. I'm not quite sure what to do with it once I've got it though.
Comment by Mark Nutter — June 9, 2005 @ 5:00 pm
June 11th, 2005 at 10:29 am
Hi Mark,
"I think the real reason for the Smithsonian's cold feet was more the fear (justified or not) that they were being manipulated for propaganda purposes, Denyse O'Leary's speculations about how they were "warming" to ID theory being a key factor."
As I have no "inside knowledge" about the Smithsonian affair, I won't presume to speculate as to what "really" happened - hence my "If this is the case" qualifier.
"ID has to earn Smithsonian-class prestige, it can't just buy it by renting a venue, as I'm sure you'll agree."
Indeed I do, and in fact said so in my very first post about the subject. For me, it makes no difference, one way or the other, whether the film is shown. What I find interesting is how the reactions of the ID critics have brought out many of dynamics of the opposition to ID. The critics who tried to prevent the showing of the film have revealed that to them, this goes far beyond making sure school children learn about antiobitic resistance.
"The biggest obstacle preventing the acceptance of ID by more mainstream scientists is the lack of an ID theory that amounts to more than just "dissin' Darwin.""
Agreed.
Comment by Krauze — June 11, 2005 @ 10:29 am
June 11th, 2005 at 8:40 pm
I wonder, though–in the absence of an ID theory that is more than just "dissin' Darwin," is it fair to say that ID critics are really opposing ID per se? There are those (and I may be one of them) who feel that there is something scientifically and perhaps morally objectionable about criticizing evolution without having better answers to offer in its place. Anyone can take any branch of science and raise arbitrary standards that man's knowledge cannot yet reach in that domain. To fault evolution on the grounds that there remain questions yet unanswered is to accuse evolution of a sin all that science is necessarily guilty of. Cheap shot, say I!
So are "ID critics" really opposing ID, or are they opposing the tactics taken by some (I say some!) ID proponents in focussing their efforts on attacking evolution rather than developing a constructive ID theory? Why is ID funding focussing on lobbying policy makers in Congress and on school boards, and on mass media marketing, instead of on actual research into ID? If scientific fact is the heart of the question, shouldn't science, rather than PR, be the focus of the effort?
Oh well, I'm making some progress on my theory anyway, so we'll see what comes of that. I think mine at least will be one that has some practical application outside of the creation/evolution debate.
Comment by Mark Nutter — June 11, 2005 @ 8:40 pm