Attack on science-Smithsonian Institution shows film on Intelligent Design

[undeterred]

By Walter Gilberti and Joseph Kay WSWS
20 June 2005

On June 23, the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C., is scheduled to show a documentary, “The Privileged Planet,” put out by the Discovery Institute. The Seattle-based Discovery Institute is the country’s most prominent advocacy group for the “theory” of Intelligent Design, a quasi-religious teaching that seeks to undermine the science of evolution. The Smithsonian is a government-funded institution and one of the most prestigious museum systems in the country. Its decision to show the film has the effect of lending the anti-scientific views of the Discovery Institute a legitimacy of which they are completely undeserving. The film’s showing is part of an ongoing attack on scientific thought in the United States, an attack that has been spearheaded by Christian fundamentalist groups closely allied with the Bush administration.

The basic argument of the Intelligent Design advocates is that the structure of the universe, the position of the earth the solar system, the intricate workings of life—all of this is just too “perfect” to be the result of anything but an intelligent creator. This extremely old argument for the existence of God has been dressed up in modern garb to make it appear scientific. In essence, it is simply a rehash of views that are completely antithetical to the scientific outlook, which insists that everything is explicable in terms of the natural laws of material development. The National Museum of Natural History is noted for showcasing its substantial collection of fossil organisms, as well as its displays elaborating the workings of the process of Darwinian evolution. But according to Discovery Institute president Bruce Chapman, the Smithsonian is “warming up” to the theory of intelligent design.

After it came under some criticism for deciding to show the film, the Smithsonian eventually gave back the $16,000 fee charged to the Discovery Institute. However, it did not cancel the event, even though the museum’s stated policy is to prohibit the showing of any material of a religious or political nature. The Discovery Institute was so delighted by the Smithsonian’s sudden and unexpected pliability on this matter that it is claiming that the museum is co-sponsoring the event, something the Smithsonian vigorously denies. Why would the Smithsonian Institution in any way associate itself with an organization that declares anathema against any explanations of social or natural phenomena except those that resort, ultimately, to God’s will? There can be no doubt that the institution’s managers were aware of the views of the Discovery Institute, which is one of the most prominent opponents of Darwinian evolution.

There were certainly many ideological forces affecting the decision by the museum’s management, but it is also important to point out that the Smithsonian is a government institution with close ties to corporate establishment. It includes on its Board of Regents, among others, Vice President Dick Cheney, Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist. While it is unlikely that any of these figures played a direct role in the decision to show the film, the dependence of the museum on the government subjects it directly to the pressures of the administration and the political establishment as a whole.


http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/jun2005/smit-j20.shtml

[sui generis]

1. Well the Smithsonian Institution can cancel my membership

and subscription until it clarifies its position.

If I wanted to subscribe to Bible Times, there are much better choices to spend my money on than the Smithsonian. Since I want to subscribe to science and anthropological studies, it now appears that there are better choices than Smithsonian.

[undeterred]

2. Just be sure you tell them why...

Maybe they don't realize that they can't have it both ways.

[beam me up scottie]

3. There is much more to this story.

The article in the op is biased and alarmist in nature.

I've been following the controversy at Panda's Thumb.
Personally, I'd prefer to hear from actual scientists instead of shrieking bloggers.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/001098.html

[sui generis]

4. beautiful - thanks

Thanks for the link - I am quite relieved to find that the Smithsonian does indeed have some principles.

as to "shrieking bloggers" -- hey, there may also be timing issues that leave a blogger looking "alarmist" before corrections have been made. I'll cut them some slack on this one.

The point of blogging is the dissemination of a lot of information that would normally slide under the radar; it's hard to graze at this buffet without occasionally getting a stale nugget.

[beam me up scottie]

7. I knew you'd appreciate

their insight.
I am irritated at the bloggers because of statements like this:

"The National Museum of Natural History is noted for showcasing its substantial collection of fossil organisms, as well as its displays elaborating the workings of the process of Darwinian evolution. But according to Discovery Institute president Bruce Chapman, the Smithsonian is “warming up” to the theory of intelligent design."

They purposely left out facts which have been reported by other media sources.

I'm a big fan of blogs but this one article reminds me a little too much
of drudge's tactics.

[Puzzler]

5. Yes...

... there is much more to the story. I've been following it too. The article is not acurate.

-P

[beam me up scottie]

8. Thanks.

I still support the Smithsonian and I hope they can beat off the influence of the neocon fundies until this country returns to sanity.

[punpirate]

6. I believe it was James Randi...

... {the "Amazing Randi") who offered to pay more than the Discovery Institute not to show the film. Apparently, that didn't convince the Smithsonian quite so much as did the conservative politicos seeking even more linkage with the religious right.

They've sold out to corporations, and now it's time to help cross-brand government institutions with Republicans and the religious wackos of the country.

It's going to be a very rocky ride in the next few years....

[Puzzler]

9. Actually...

... if you go to Randi's website at:

www.randi.org

You can read about this controversy in detail (you may have to search back a week or two to get the whole story). The end result is that Randi thinks that the Smithsonian did the right thing under the circumstances. As I said, there is more to the story that meets the eye, and I advise critics of the Smithsonian to check into Randi's comments in detail before jumping to any conclusions.

-P

[punpirate]

10. Did he?

This is from June 17th, in response to an article by Carl Sagan's son:

Folks, as I remind you often, I'm not a scientist — but when I see obviously stupid statements from those who profess scientific acumen, I often can come up with what I believe can be a proper analysis. As an example, I offer you this quotation, also taken from Dorion's article, from the literature issued by the "Institute for Creation Research":

Evolutionists are embarrassed by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The obvious tendency of nature from disorder to order and organization is, of course, only an assumption of evolutionists.

What nonsense. Just think: when nature — through almost endless opportunities, permutations, and combinations, and almost endless time — puts together a simple viable system that can reproduce itself and begin the process of benefiting from subsequent changes of that nature, that system tends to survive and to continue its struggle to perpetuate itself. It is no longer an accidental coming-together of elementals, but an entity that strives to go on; it has arisen from disorder and has become an organized system. Of course, literally billions upon billions of such serendipitous combinations occur, begin the survival and perpetuation process, and may go on with that for thousands of years — only to run into a circumstance, simple or calamitous, that terminates its efforts. The fossil record has any number of examples of that sort of minor tragedy having occurred. And as humans, though we are superbly equipped to resist negative influences and can evolve to survive long-term threatening changes, we can at any time join that parade of extinction.

An errant asteroid, a deadly new virus, or a philosophical failing such as ID that takes us back into medieval ways of living and thinking, may do us in. And that's nature. How or whether we resist extinction, is sometimes — happily — a matter of choice.

That choice is now offered us.

On June 10th, he simply thought the matter resolved in half-hearted fashion when the curator of that part of the museum returned the money to the Discovery Institute, but still allowed the museum to show the program on a limited basis. Randi is simply being charitable here--not acquiescent--nor is he in complete agreement. There's been no effort on the part of the museum to offer a challenging view, nor has there been any actual open admission on the part of the curator, Cristián Samper, that political influence was involved (although Samper implies such in his statement). What Randi did say, actually, was that Samper "promptly and correctly resolved the situation as well as could have been expected." {Emphasis mine.}

That's not saying the Smithsonian did the right thing. It's saying the Smithsonian acted as best it could under the circumstances. Those undefined circumstances are that of political pressure from the Bush administration.

Cheers.

[beam me up scottie]

11. The Smithsonian rents out the Baird Auditorium for

corporate sponsored events.
The Discovery Institute is not a religious institution nor is the film promoted as a creation film.
There was no way the Smithsonian could back out of the contract without facing litigation not to mention the fact that reichwing would scream bloody murder about it and use it to prove their claims of discrimination by the scientific community.

[punpirate]

12. The Discovery Institute is...

... religiously oriented. Its chartered task is to promote an alternate view of evolution--and that alternate view is creationism in a different skin. C'mon--stop splitting hairs--the Discovery Institute was an outgrowth of R.J. Rushdooney's Chalcedon Institute. The DI is funded almost exclusively by Howard F. Ahmanson, Jr., who's been quoted as saying he would devote his entire fortune to the task of making a Christian theocracy of the United States.

It's blatantly anti-scientific and religious, in a public scientific institution operated with taxpayer support. That makes it illegal.

Even the notion of corporate sponsorship of a public institution is odious in this context--and using corporate sponsorship of programs as an excuse for a disguised religious program in even a partially taxpayer-supported public institution is overwhelmingly contrary to public law.

Cheers.

[beam me up scottie]

13. When it comes to the LAW it's all about splitting hairs.

And don't think that the DI doesn't know that.

It is NOT illegal because it is NOT a religious institution.

I can't believe you didn't even bother to look this up yet you try to tell me I'm wrong?

Do some research next time before you start talking out of your orifice.

[punpirate]

14. It doesn't say it's a religious institution...

... but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a religious purpose, and is backed as such. Do the homework, just as you have suggested that I do:

http://www.dangerouscitizen.com/Articles/1090.aspx

http://psychcentral.com/psypsych/Center_for_Science_and_Culture

http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5582&abbr=cs_

http://www.theocracywatch.org/ahmanson.htm

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/1479.htm

I think there's enough in the above to establish the religious intent of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, of which Ahmanson is the principal contributor and president.

Cheers.

[beam me up scottie]

15. I did my homework weeks ago.

I researched and learned the FACTS.
All you have are a few articles and opinions.
How does that prove that they are a religious institution?
Because you THINK they are?
Yeah, well so do I.
Big whoop.

One of your sources even shows their mission statement:

current mission statement for the Discovery Institute <2> (http://www.discovery.org/about.php) reads:

"Discovery Institute's mission is to make a positive vision of the future practical. The Institute discovers and promotes ideas in the common sense tradition of representative government, the free market and individual liberty. Our mission is promoted through books, reports, legislative testimony, articles, public conferences and debates, plus media coverage and the Institute's own publications and Internet website" ( http://www.discovery.org )

Here are the facts that I dug up when I first heard about this:
(bear in mind that this is what the Smithsonian had to go by when they considered the contractual agreement)

The film is a documentary based on a 2004 book by Guillermo Gonzalez, an assistant professor of astronomy at Iowa State University, and Jay W. Richards, a vice president of the Discovery Institute, that makes the case for the hand of a creator in the design of Earth and the universe.

***************************

http://www.nmnh.si.edu/specialevents/bairdauditorium.html

Here is the ad for the Baird Auditorium:

Baird Auditorium is the perfect setting for speaking programs, meetings and performances held in conjunction with special events. The auditorium seats 565 guests and is equipped to support 35mm slide projection, 16mm and 35mm film projection, and video/data projection. Smithsonian audio-visual support is required, and additional charges do apply.

and their policy:

SPECIAL EVENTS POLICY

Corporations and organizations making an unrestricted contribution to the National Museum of Natural History may co-sponsor an event in celebration of their gift. Your gift helps to support the scientific and educational work of the Museum. Personal events (i.e. weddings, etc.), fund raising events, and events of a religious or partisan political nature are not permitted. Cash bars, raffles and the display or promotion of commercial products are also prohibited.

All events at the National Museum of Natural History are co-sponsored by the Museum and must be planned in conjunction with one of the Museum's Special Events Coordinators. The Special Events Coordinator will be required to approve all event plans, including invitation text, speaking program, the use of logos, and vendors. The name of the Museum and the Smithsonian Institution may not be used on any document without prior approval by the Museum.

Caterers working within the Museum must have the required $1 million liability insurance certificate on file at the Smithsonian. Although co-sponsors may work with the caterer of their choice, the Museum reserves the right to review and approve the choice of caterer in order to assure that they are capable of working safely within the Museum and are aware of the catering limitations within the building. The Museum's special events staff can also provide a list of caterers and other vendors who have successfully handled events in the Museum.

Once an event is approved, co-sponsoring organizations will receive a confirmation letter and an agreement form outlining the basic parameters of the event and the fees. Required fees include the tax-deductible contribution and direct costs (for overtime services which are provided by the Museum). The event will be confirmed when the signed agreement form and full payment are received by the Museum's Special Events Office. Payment is required prior to the event. During periods of high demand, a non-refundable deposit may be required. In these instances, the deposit will be considered an advance payment on the required contribution.

For a complete copy of the Museum's special events policy, please contact us by phone or email.
###

**********************************************

http://www.illinoispolicyinstitute.org/blog/resources/natthink.php


The Discovery Institute is a 501(c)(3) and is not considered to be a "religious group". This is their classification:

Policy/Priority Issues: Science and culture ; Environment ; Defense; Technology ; Future of law ; Regionalism

***********************************************
I guarantee you the scientists at the Smithsonian would have given anything to be able to tell the DI where to stick their film.
They couldn't.
I hate it more than you do, believe me.
But, like it or not, they've got their bases covered.
It is to be a private screening of a documentary by invitation only.
It is NOT an endorsement of ID no matter WHAT the Discovery Institute says.
If you still prefer to believe their version, go right ahead.
After all, the reichwing believes it and would like nothing better than to have us parroting them.
Oh, wait! I can think of something they would like even better: having all of SI's members stop donating.
That way, the Institution would be even MORE dependent on federal funding and the reichwing would have that much more control over them.

[punpirate]

16. Fine... okay, they're a...

... non-profit educational institution. They truly are not, regardless of what they say--and if it were to come to court (which it won't), it could be quickly established that their intent is markedly different from their charter--that it is fundamentally religious in nature. Intent does count in such instances--but, I don't think anyone has yet challenged that 501(c)3 status (and, yup, someone probably should--it would have been wonderful if the Smithsonian had).

But, in my differences with you, I describe to you what I know them to be, while you describe to me what they say they are--which has not been challenged, as far as I know.

As for believing their version, at least of what they describe themselves to be, and their intentions, I most certainly don't. I just would have liked the Smithsonian to be free of all such tugs and influences--including corporate interposition in what is the nation's science museum--that pisses me off more than I can say. We've always had the money to support that museum without outside interference--until the conservatives took charge--and this brouhaha with DI is the result of that corruption of the museum--and, I think it's intentional.

What's next? Prudential sponsors the Lincoln Memorial? See Monticello(TM), a Better Homes and Gardens subsidiary?

Cheers.

Edit for syntax.

[beam me up scottie]

17. Oh, I agree with you completely.

Don't misunderstand my intention.
I know that they are being pressured to do this.
They should have never had to be in this position. It's despicable.
I spoke in their defense because I am in awe of the Smithsonian Institute and I do not want everyone to abandon it.
So much history. Such dedication to learning.
They should be funded with no strings attached.
But so should Planned Parenthood.
And public schools.
It's horrible to see the corporate whores buying up this country's national treasures while the reichwing replaces dedicated staff with religious zealots.
I can't stand the thought of it.
I am just hoping that the scientists and staff at the Smithsonian can hold on to the integrity of the museum until this country wakes the hell up.

[northzax]

18. I've actually seen a preview version of this film

it is boring, really. and I'm an envrionmental scientist, I eat breathe and sleep this stuff, and it was still boring. I fell asleep.

[beam me up scottie]

19. I'm glad to hear it.

Hopefully this will be over soon without too much more free publicity for the ID meatheads.