Randi Joins the Fun
by KrauzeAn update on the showing of The Privileged Planet at the Smithsonian. As I wrote in my previous post about this, I agree with Panda's Thumb writer Burt Humburg that this exchange of money and services isn't something to get excited about, and shouldn't be taken as evidence of the Smithsonian having joined forces with the Discovery Institute. James Randi, however, disagrees:
"Though we cannot imagine what political external or internal pressure was brought to bear on the Smithsonian to trigger this incredible blunder, we can count on the creationists now crowing about validation from one of the world's most trusted scientific authorities. If James Smithson [who left his money to found the Smithsonian] were alive today, judging from what he wrote in his diaries and letters, I believe he would want his money refunded upon hearing of this travesty…"
Randi thinks we should be "alarmed and militant about this situation", and is now making the Smithsonian an offer they can't refuse: Cancel the showing of The Privileged Planet, refund the 16,000 dollars, and he'll pay them 20,000 instead! He won't even demand they show something else!
PZ Myers (who tipped me off to this) seems enthusiastic, but I have my doubts. Is this ability to buy out others' arrangement limited to James Randi, or can others join the fun? If a group of young-earth creationists have a big enough bag of money, will they be able to cancel Smithsonian events that mention the ancient age of the Earth?
May 30th, 2005 at 4:52 pm
Randi should most definitely try to do so, it will prove Ruse right how Darwinists are their own worst enemy in the end. Besides, Randi is an expert in stifling debates.
Comment by Jean — May 30, 2005 @ 4:52 pm
May 30th, 2005 at 6:09 pm
Hi Jean,
What's really funny is how over-the-top Randi is being about this. For example, consider the passage where he "cannot imagine what political external or internal pressure was brought to bear on the Smithsonian to trigger this incredible blunder". External political pressure? Does Randy seriously consider it a live possibility that politicians were bullying the Smithsonian's into taking the DI's money?
Comment by Krauze — May 30, 2005 @ 6:09 pm
May 30th, 2005 at 6:20 pm
Hi Krauze,
Unfortunately, this is par for the course when it comes to Randi so from his perspective I doubt he thinks he is being "over-the-top". Either way, Randi has serious problems and suffers from selective bias. He himself refers often to his 'opponents' as being fools or frauds, so all this is in line with his usual self. Does he really believe that there was political pressure? I would not be surprised if he did, reading edarell's messages for one has convinced me paranoia runs rampant among the more hardcore darwinian crowd!
As for Randi's character and motivations, his involvement for instance in the SCICOP sTARBABY fiasco would make a great psychological case study.
Comment by Jean — May 30, 2005 @ 6:20 pm
May 30th, 2005 at 7:06 pm
Hey Krauze, Jean, and others,
I have really been puzzling over why the Smithsonian did this. I find it hard to believe that the Smithsonian is becoming ID friendly on it own. Surely it is not the money. They must have known a fire storm of letters and features in the press would ensue. Very puzzling. Any intuitions?
Comment by Steve Petermann — May 30, 2005 @ 7:06 pm
May 30th, 2005 at 9:13 pm
Check out these quotes from Randi:
The guy comes across as a wingnut, attacking the Smithsonian and actually threatening them. His offer of $20,000 is really just an insult. No one really believes the Smithsonian will be paid off not to show the movie. But in making the offer, Randi is effectively accusing the Smithsonian of being a prostitute.
In light of the rage and the threats, we have to ask one simple question "“ has Randi actually seen the movie???
Comment by MikeGene — May 30, 2005 @ 9:13 pm
May 31st, 2005 at 6:32 am
Hi Steve,
"I have really been puzzling over why the Smithsonian did this. I find it hard to believe that the Smithsonian is becoming ID friendly on it own. Surely it is not the money."
Why not? Even museums need to pay the rent.
I haven't seen it myself (or read the book it's based on), but from what I've heard, it's really well done, and is solid science-wise (Guillermo Gonzalez had his research on the galactic habitable zone featured on the cover of Scientific American). Also, the film deals with fine-tuning, which receives more sympathy than "biological ID", with physicists such as Paul Davies and Freeman Dyson. Also, the thesis that there's something special about our planet, with regards to the existence of complex life, has been proposed before, most notably in Ward and Brownlee's Rare Earth.
Here's what I think happened: The Smithsonian reviewed the film, and decided that although its position wasn't one they themselves advocated, it wasn't the "creationist attack on science" they knew would get them in trouble.
They hadn't counted on the professional ID critics, for whom the contents of an idea doesn't matter as much as whether it comes from the Discovery Institute. The true witchhunters aren't afraid to look for heretics in their own ranks (to use an anachronistic analogy).
I've heard critics saying that the Smithsonian is considering hosting a counter-event, having speakers debunk the arguments presented in The Privileged Planet. If so, the critics would be taking the battle a step further, as they would now be attacking not only mainstream physicists, but also a lot of Christians who, although having no problem with Darwin, are sympathetic to the argument from fine-tuning. I wonder if Kenneth Miller, who advocated fine-tuning in his Finding Darwin's God will be attending?
Many people not disposed to ID could easily see this as the Smithsonian using its scientific prestige to attack religion, and beging wondering if there might be something to what Johnson has been saying for years.
Comment by Krauze — May 31, 2005 @ 6:32 am
May 31st, 2005 at 6:47 am
Hi Mike,
"But in making the offer, Randi is effectively accusing the Smithsonian of being a prostitute."
The Smithsonian made a deal with the enemy, so Randi has no problem throwing them to the wolves. In the comments at both Panda's Thumb and Pharyngula, critics are suggesting renting the Smithsonian and show movies advocating raelianism, a flat earth, the existence of Bigfoot, etc. They're perfectly willing to destroy the Smithsonian's reputation, just so the DI won't benefit from it. The ID critics are devouring themselves from within.
Comment by Krauze — May 31, 2005 @ 6:47 am
May 31st, 2005 at 7:37 am
Hi Krauze,
I haven't bothered to read those comments at PT yet, but they would certainly seem to indicate some have lost all sense of perspective.
Comment by Jean — May 31, 2005 @ 7:37 am
May 31st, 2005 at 3:30 pm
1. Hey, Krauze, considering the politicization of the Smithsonian over the past decade, yes, it's reasonable to assume politicians put pressure on the board. It would not be the first time — but then, since when do you guys pay any attention at all to history?
2. You have a choice to make: Either ID is science, and so shutting down a showing is a science issue; or it's religion, in which case Christians may be offended, but that offense should be registered in a deposition for the court case in Dover, Pennsylvania, where ID proponents argue that Christians can't take offense because there's no religion there.
You just outed yourself and ID, Krause. Mind if we send a copy of the blog up to the court in Dover?
(Do I get to testify? I would testify that Christianity is offended at the crass tactics of ID advocates, and that judging the tree and root by the fruit, Christians should distance themselves from any form of creationism including ID.)
3. Flat Earth, Bigfoot - the difference between those and intelligent design is the evidence. If intelligent design had any evidence, it could stand on a par with Bigfoot and flat Earth ideas.
Comment by edarrell — May 31, 2005 @ 3:30 pm
May 31st, 2005 at 3:31 pm
There are generally two lines of ID, cosmological and biological. Not all supporters of cosmological ID would suppor biological ID. Owen Gingerich is a good example. He is enthusiastic about cosmological ID, gives talks on it (last Fall, 2004 at EMU in Virginia near JMU), yet is negative on biological ID.
Gingerich happens to sit on the board of the Smithsonian, and thus the IDist may have an insider! (anyone please check my facts on this about Gingerich being on the board, I heard it from Mark Ryland over lunch last week. This should be public information about Gingerich if that is the case.)
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — May 31, 2005 @ 3:31 pm
May 31st, 2005 at 7:36 pm
Sal,
Check the endorsements for the book here. Also, notice that Simon Conway Morris has endorsed the book.
Comment by MikeGene — May 31, 2005 @ 7:36 pm
June 1st, 2005 at 8:43 am
Sal, your comment is music to my ears. There are two indeed lines of ID. The illuminati at PT do not want to acknowledge this, and see no reason to fret over the fact that the New York Times erroneously labeled The Privileged Planet as anti-evolution. They will even argue against the appearance of fine-tuning, dismissing with silly comments, in spite of the fact that even non-ID cosmologists acknowledge that the current theories "suffer" from fine-tuning.
The Privileged Planet is provocative and interesting. The Smithsonian needs money. The audience will probably be, for the most part, self-selected. No-harm, no foul. But the PT types, who are fundamentalists to the core, will not concede that the rest of the country (bumpkins that we are) has any discernment.
Comment by heddle — June 1, 2005 @ 8:43 am
June 1st, 2005 at 9:36 am
Ed:
I, like others, am still waiting for a single claim on your part that rises above the level of pure insinuation and conspiracy theory. If anybody is supposed to take you seriously, you need something more than your own political credulity to ground these kinds of accusations. I'm pointing this out for your own good. Conspiracy theorists who make wild accusations without backing them up tend to get taken for lunatics, and we wouldn't want people thinking you were a lunatic, would we?
Question: considering the recent uproar and ensuing witchhunt at the Smithsonian over a single ID article, where are the infuriated whistleblowers you would expect to be there if Rick Santorum had arm-twisted them into showing an ID presentation? Did Rick Santorum threaten their families too, in order to silence them?
…considering the politicization of the Smithsonian over the past decade, yes, it's reasonable to assume politicians put pressure on the board. It would not be the first time"”but then, since when do you guys pay any attention at all to history?
Excellent, here's your chance fill us in then, since you have a superior grasp on Smithsonian history. Recount a few instances over the past decade where politicians have pressured the Smithsonian into appeasing IDists. And once again for your own good (we don't want you looking crazy after all): It's best if you use actual examples instead of insinuations about what could have happened. Backing up insinuations with more insinuations gets us nowhere, of course.
Comment by Deuce — June 1, 2005 @ 9:36 am
June 1st, 2005 at 1:22 pm
I just went over a few weblogs and PZ Meyers' little 'idea' seems to have resulted in a flood of emails to the Smithsonian.
It's patently absurd having to witness all the vitriol, with people suggesting the film promotes creationism, is garbage, etc. even though none of them probably have seen it!
Comment by Jean — June 1, 2005 @ 1:22 pm
June 1st, 2005 at 1:28 pm
Also, note how Myers on pharyngula himself warps the statement that the movie is supposedly "not consistent with the mission of the Smithsonian Institution's scientific research", into "not consistent with scientific research".
Have these people no shame?
Comment by Jean — June 1, 2005 @ 1:28 pm
June 1st, 2005 at 2:52 pm
You know, I'm often amazed at many of the critics' lack of pragmatic sense as well. When they whip themselves into a frenzy, they seemingly become unaware of how extreme they can make themselves appear. Their rhetoric has essentially locked the Smithsonian into a position where they *must* show the film, or come off looking like they cater to a bunch of fanatics, obsessively purging any mention of any hypothesis in any field that might have implications that the most touchy of atheists might find philosophically uncomfortable.
I mean, imagine what would happen to the Smithsonian's public image if they cancelled the showing of a film because of the complaints of some guy (and his followers) who comes out and announces on the Internet that they should be "alarmed and militant" about it, and who actually tries to buy them off. Would you want to be publicly seen as beholden to a group of self-professed alarmed militants who resort to bribery? Perhaps this sort of behavior is therapeutic, but it surely isn't very sensible.
Comment by Deuce — June 1, 2005 @ 2:52 pm
June 1st, 2005 at 2:56 pm
For me the thing that's kind of sad about all this is that years ago I used to have a lot of respect for Randi and enjoyed his work at routing out psuedo science, debunking phony faith healers, and exposing psychics and astology scams.
If he already wasn't one before, he seems to have evolved into a just-plain-mean anti-Christian, dogmatic materialist. "Skeptic" indeed…
Comment by Stuart Harris — June 1, 2005 @ 2:56 pm
June 1st, 2005 at 11:07 pm
That so many critics have chosen to fight this battle is illuminating. I have not read the book or seen the movie. But from what I can tell, it's essentially the fine-tuning argument. The movie has Paul Davies in it and the book has been endorsed by Simon Conway Morris. In other words, it seems clear just from these considerations that the movie is not "anti-evolution" (someone can correct me if I am wrong).
This tells us that, for the critics, the debate is not about evolution.
Comment by MikeGene — June 1, 2005 @ 11:07 pm
June 2nd, 2005 at 8:19 am
Here's a funny one from Charlie D over at PT:
"I looked at the trailer, I sure hope the documentary is more sophisticated in its argument, because that looks downright silly."
Besides the obvious implications that he hasn't seen it, contrast his characterization with the following excerpt of a review of the book in Astronomy:
"This ambitious, multi-disciplinary approach paints an inspiring portrait of the delicate balance needed to sustain life. At the very least, the book's poetic praise of Earth's pristine measurability will leave readers much to ponder."
Which one of these is the reasonable perspective? These 'critics' don't care about level-headed debate, their trademark is insults and abusive demeanor; a stampede of wild boars with the only intent to do as much damage, to what they perceive as a serious threat, as possible.
Comment by Jean — June 2, 2005 @ 8:19 am
June 2nd, 2005 at 2:20 pm
As far as the movie itself, IDEA UVa showed it at Paul Gross's school (University of Virginia) this spring. There were 2 astronomy professors who watched the documentary with us. Though they are not IDists, they were very impressed, and felt the science was very good and accurate. After seeing the documentary, professor Charlie Tolbert (fairly anti-ID leaning) was so impressed he wanted to show clips of it to his class because the graphical visualizations were very accurate.
There is no scientific question about the fact that if features of the solar system and universe did not have a certain degree of fine tuning, we wouldn't be here. Probably only 6 minutes of the movie dealt with philosophical issues, and there were featured eminent physicists and scholars like Robert Jastrow and Paul Davies commenting on fine tuning.
Even the most ardent anti-IDist who showed up that day at UVa, professor Mark Whittle, confessed that fine tuning poses a challenge. Fine tuning is an inescapable fact, and from a purely theoretical standpoint, it is fair to say we live in on a Privileged Planet. What one makes of that philosophically is one's choice, but the facts are there….
But would the smithsonian get flak for showing Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" where he is heard proclaiming "the cosmos is all there is". Such a statement by Sagan is at variance with many people's religious beliefs. Such books are sold at the Smithsonian's Space Museum. Is not the promotion of such direct atheism at a taxpayer funded institution inappropriate? If so, there is a double standard being practiced.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 2, 2005 @ 2:20 pm
June 2nd, 2005 at 4:02 pm
Mike:
That so many critics have chosen to fight this battle is illuminating. I have not read the book or seen the movie. But from what I can tell, it's essentially the fine-tuning argument.
It's the fine-tuning argument, with an added twist that takes it a bit further: Gonzales and Richards argue that the laws of the universe are set up such that those areas that are most ideal for habitability (however many there are) also happen to be the ones most ideal for scientific investigation. That is to say, even if it were possible for us to survive someplace like, say, Europa, we couldn't learn as much about the history and the workings of the universe from there. I haven't read it either, but it's apparently very example-heavy.
The book has gotten good reviews and endorsements from a lot of big-name scientists, and of course the anthropic argument and its surrounding issues is hardly on the fringe in modern cosmology. It has generally been regarded as well-researched and well-argued by those who have read it, even when they don't agree with the conclusion. As Krauze pointed out, Gonzales's work has been featured in Scientific American. And like you said, it doesn't talk about biological evolution, much less natural selection.
So, like you, I was rather surprised that many (most?) critics decided to make such a huge deal of this. It seems to cut through a lot of their own previous rationales to reveal nothing more than a basic philosophical discomfort with the possibility of even considering teleology at any level.
Comment by Deuce — June 2, 2005 @ 4:02 pm
June 3rd, 2005 at 9:23 am
Yeppers, in addition to Sternberg, IDists have yet an operative inside the Smithsonian.
Here
"Dr. Owen Gingerich is Senior Astronomer at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory…."
Gingerich writes:
"Nevertheless, just as I believe that the Book of Scripture illumines the pathway to God, so I believe that the Book of Nature, with its astonishing details-the blade of grass, the Conus geographus (with its lethal harpoon), or the resonance levels of the carbon atom-also suggests a God of purpose and a God of design. And I think my belief makes me no less a scientist."
Yep, seems a Wedgie sleeper (an operative who remains hidden) has been at work in the Smithsonian.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 3, 2005 @ 9:23 am