Smithsonian tries to disown Privileged Planet, but will show it anyway

Predictably, the Smithsonian, assailed by Darwinbots, has decided, reversing an earlier decision that Privileged Planet “is not consistent with the mission of the Smithsonian Institution's scientific research”:

Statement by the Director, National Museum of Natural History

The Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History recently approved a request by the Discovery Institute to hold a private, invitation-only screening and reception at the Museum on June 23 for the film "The Privileged Planet." Upon further review we have determined that the content of the film is not consistent with the mission of the Smithsonian Institution's scientific research. Neither the Smithsonian Institution nor the National Museum of Natural History supports or endorses the Discovery Institute or the film "The Privileged Planet." However, since Smithsonian policy states that all events held at any museum be "co-sponsored" by the director and the outside organization, and we have signed an agreement with this organization, we will honor the commitment made to provide space for the event.

[Funny they never noticed that before they started hearing from Darwinbots. The above item was brown bagged to me, so I do not yet have a link for it. But will post one as soon as I do. - Denyse]

(Note: If you are looking for an introduction to the uproar over the Smithsonian screening The Privileged Planet, go here and here to start. I will update the story as I hear new items of interest. - Denyse)

I call the outraged Darwinists “Darwinbots” because I’ll bet that most of them have never seen The Privileged Planet or considered grappling with the questions it raises about design and purpose in the universe.Einstein and Heisenberg grappled with these questions, but the matters that torment great thinkers are beneath the notice of Darwinbots, whose program does not, so far as I can see, contain an independent thinking module.

Admittedly, The Privileged Planet does not address the origin or development of life forms, but almost everyone who writes shockmail to the Smithsonian is likely to be a Darwinist. Who else would care to try to stop the showing of a film that suggests there is meaning, purpose and design in the universe?

Here’s a sample of some of the comments:

From the: Daily Kos “Words fail me. Sold out for $16,000? Contact the Smithsonian and let them know what you think: info@si.edu”

From Denyse: “... what you think?” But why should you “think” anything if you haven’t seen the film? Oh, wait a minute ... you’re a Darwinbot, right? Well then, baby, just iterate your program, like always. It’s not like anyone’s asking YOU for an opinion. You’re just supposed to assail the Smithsonian when the programmers tell you to.

From Red State Rabble, “as the posts at Discovery Institute and Post-Darwinist already demonstrate -- this supposed ‘sponsorship’ will be used in the political battle to incorporate intelligent design into public school curriculums by falsely insisting there’s a genuine scientific controversy over evolution, it is RSR’s opinion that defenders of science education should contact museum officials to complain that the museum’s “sponsorship” is being misrepresented and constitutes a violation of museum policy.”

From Denyse: “...falsely insisting there’s a genuine scientific controversy over evolution?” There is indeed a genuine scientific controversy over evolution and, dear reader, if you are not a Darwinbot or are at least willing to consider the possibility that you may not be one, I recommend that you get and read Uncommon Dissent: Individuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing.

If you definitely know that you are a Darwinbot, you should not get or read anything at all except the newsletters and blogs of people who reassure you that a 19th century upper-class Brit proved that there is no real purpose or meaning in the universe or the design of life. That’s good enough for YOU, ‘bot!

The Day Shift asks, “Why Does the Smithsonian Hate Science?” and advises, “Kremer, you dumbass - the whole point of the donation is to undermine the validity of scientific research in the collective mind of the public.”

From Denyse: Please be assured, ‘bot, that no one is suggesting that YOU should see the film before you condemn the showing. I had to see it because I am not a ‘bot. But you probably wouldn’t understand. Don’t worry about a thing, don’t worry, don’t ....

These are just a few of the first of such comments. It goes on for pages and pages, and who has the time?

Keep watching this space. This controversy is only beginning.

If you like this blog, "buy my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?, and help keep me in business. If you don’t think you’ll read it, buy it for your kid or your kid’s teacher.

This is the invitation I received on May 25, 2005. I hope you don't find it too hard to read. 

UPDATED! New York Times learns about Smithsonian event (apparently from this blog)

(The main update is from screenwriter Jonathan Witt, on whether the film impacts Darwinian evolution. If you have been here before, scroll down to "screenwriter Witt".)

In “Smithsonian to Screen a Movie That Makes a Case Against Evolution”, New York Times reporter John Schwartz tries to cover—at very short notice—the growing uproar first blogged here about the Smithsonian letting an ID-friendly film be screened.

Schwartz gets a lot of stuff right. He notes, for example, that the Smithsonian is not available for “events of a religious or partisan political nature”, which means that when the staff viewed Privileged Planet, they did not interpret it that way. Nor did I.

You would only interpret it that way if you assumed that science is the publicly funded Church of Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins, and that therefore evidence of actual design in nature or the universe must be suppressed.

But Schwartz gets some key stuff wrong (not his fault; this is a complex issue):

1. He seems to think that the ID-friendly film Privileged Planet opposes evolution. It doesn’t, actually; it opposes Darwinism and naturalism—the idea that evolution could happen without any guidance at all. Most Americans do not in fact believe in Darwinism or naturalism, so it shouldn’t really be any surprise that some people produce films that do a pretty good job of making the opposite case from the science evidence.

[Jonathan Witt, who was one of the writers on the screenplay for Privileged Planet has now contacted me to explain what the film is about (always a risky business for a screenwriter). He insists:

The film doesn't touch on Darwinian evolution. It looks at the many factors that contribute to a habitable planet and to our ability to discover things about the world, from our position in the galaxy to the fine-tuning of the physical constants.

Some of the scholars interviewed make a case against materialism and for the design of things like the fine-tuning of the physical constants, but the film also gives the opposite view an airing, namely that it was just luck. But neither the film nor any of the scholars interviewed take a position on, or even mention, the issue of how life might have arisen or diversified once those conditions were in place.

From Denyse: Thanks to screenwriter Witt for the clarification! I hadn’t actually noticed anything in the film about the origin of life or Darwinian evolution, but—let’s face it—if Carl Sagan (whose views are addressed in the film) was wrong, so is Richard Dawkins. It simply cannot be the case that the universe shows abundant evidence of intelligent design but life forms do not.

So the reason that many people may assail Smithsonian publicist Randall Kremer this week about the Smithsonian co-hosting the film is simply this: Screening a film at the Smithsonian that contradicts Carl Sagan’s creed that the “The Cosmos
is all that is or ever was or ever will be.” suggests that American science is not, after all, the Church of Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins. That will be news to some people, who have always assumed that it was. Well, we will soon see whether it is or is not. Certainly, Sagan’s phrase echoes—and mocks—the traditional Gloria , for whatever that is worth. The key question is, can an American science institution tolerate a film that suggests that there is evidence for intelligent design of the universe or is evidence of intelligent design impossible in principle because American science is indeed the Church of Carl Sagan?]

(Note: In case anyone is wondering, the film does not maintain that the Earth was created in 144 hours or that it is only six thousand years old. The Times article says the film “makes the case for the hand of a creator in the design of Earth and the universe,” but that won’t stop some people from getting it wrong and posting widely.)

2. He identifies me as an “ID proponent”. As I said in By Design or by Chance?, I am a post-Darwinist. I think Darwin was wrong on key points but that does not make ID right.

In the article, we learn,

The president of the Discovery Institute, Bruce Chapman, said his organization approached the museum through its public relations company and the museum staff asked to see the film. “They said that they liked it very much—and not only would they have the event at the museum, but they said they would co-sponsor it,” he recalled. “That was their suggestion. Of course we're delighted.”

Mr. Kremer said he heard about the event only on Thursday. He added that staff members viewed the film before approving the event to make sure that it complied with the museum's policy, which states that "events of a religious or partisan political nature" are not permitted, along with personal events such as weddings, or fund-raisers, raffles and cash bars. It also states that "all events at the National Museum of Natural History are co-sponsored by the museum."

On the afternoon of May 28, I posted the invitation I received on May 25 and you should see it in the May 28 archives.]

If you want to know what the anti-ID people think of all this, go to Panda’s Thumb.

Incidentally, the Thumbsmen think that scientist Richard Sternberg was the insider who offered me a political take on the situation, but he wasn’t. He only told me he would attend the event. It’s interesting that not one of the Thumbsmen thought of writing me to ask. As if I would trust a scientist for a political take!

Interestingly, in the Times article, Discovery Institute president Bruce Chapman claims, regarding Smithsonian’s co-sponsorship of the event, “We are not implying in any sense that they endorsed the content, but they are co-sponsoring it, and we are delighted. We’re not claiming anything more than that. They certainly didn’t say, ‘We’re really warming up to intelligent design, and therefore we're going to sponsor this.’”

Well, no, Brucie baby, they didn’t say that, but they would not have taken your money if they were not going to co-sponsor an ID-friendly event. And that—in my experience covering this controversy—is a “stunning” change. Hey, buy yourself a drink. Better yet, buy that PR agency a drink.

By the way, those of you who like this blog, buy my book on the intelligent design controversy and keep me in business. Go to By Design or by Chance?

Further Update! National science institution warming to ID?

The Smithsonian Institution and the Discovery Institute are providing slightly different stories about what is going to happen on June 23.

(Note: If you don’t know what this is all about, you will be best off to read the previous post first. I apologize for the inconvenience, but it really is the simplest and best approach.)

Right now I am going to post the two sides’ stories, tell you what I think, and stay on top of it all in the next few weeks.

The public affairs officer in charge of special events at the Smithsonian, Randall Kremer, told me (Denyse O’Leary) the following this afternoon:

DO: I am just trying to clarify that there is going to be a showing of Privileged Planet at the Smithsonian on June 23.

RK: Yes, the Discovery Institute made a donation to the Smithsonian and in return have the privilege of hosting an event here and I understand that that’s the film they are going to be showing.

DO: One of my issues is that I have to book a flight and get down there so I just want to make sure that it is not going to be cancelled or anything ...

RK: Not that I’m aware of, no.

DO: So the way it works is, the Discovery Institute made a donation, and so they’re going to rent the facilities and show the film ...

RK: They’re not renting the facilities; by making a donation, they have an opportunity to host an event here, yeah. It’s just semantics, really. they’re holding an event here. We have events here all the time. ... It’s a normal opportunity that they would be hosting an event here and so they would be showing that film. If anything else comes up, you have my direct number.

DO: Normally when such an event is shown, the Smithsonian co-hosts the event with the ...

RK: Yes, that’s just the pro forma

Okay, that’s the Smithsonian’s version.

A Discovery Institute spokesperson told me that Discovery had not made a donation but rather entered into a contract and paid for the right to hold an event at the Smithsonian. Co-sponsorship was the Smithsonian’s initiative. (Note: This paragraph has been edited from an earlier version because I had posted a communication that the sender now maintains was private. I won't contest his views regarding the nature of the communication, but I don't think it's material either. I certainly stand by the facts posted in this paragraph, which are identical to the facts posted in the previous one. - Denyse)

What I think: This may be miscommunication between Randall and Discovery.

Randall assumes that Discovery made a donation but Discovery assumes they paid for the right to hold an event. Randall assumes that the Smithsonian co-hosts all events and Discovery doesn’t. I think Randall and Discovery need to talk.

Clearly, something is going to happen at the Smithsonian on June 23 that should delight ID advocates and enrage anti-ID folk. But the two organizations differ on how they want to define it.

I was going to post the invitation I received, but several things went wrong: 1) My Internet service provider took the evening off 2) I couldn’t make Picasa upload work 3) Now I think I hadn’t better post the invitation anyway, for several reasons, including the fact that some persons—not the genteel regular readers of this blog, of course, but a scruffier sort—could print it out and try to get in for free drinks and a show. If you want to know more about the invitation, you can contact someone at the Discovery Institute.

Also, I gather that films (obviously) have to be screened and I have to assume that Privileged Planet (which is excellent, by the way) passed the screen test.

So, friends, thanks for your patience. Something ID-friendly is definitely happening at the Smithsonian and I hope the wine is as good as the movie. I will keep you abreast of uproars as they ensue.

Tomorrow I will blog about a bunch of other neat ID-related stuff. I don’t suppose any of those Institution/Institute people work weekends, so I can talk about something else for a change. Whew!

To find out more about my book on the intelligent design controversy, go to By Design or by Chance?

Prominent science institution calls off the war against intelligent design?

(Note 1: This post gives the gist of the May 26 updated post on the ID film to be shown at the Smithsonian, and adds the fact that scientist Rick Sternberg will attend the premiere.)

In a stunning development, the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History in Washington will co-host the “national premiere and evening reception” for an ID-friendly film, The Privileged Planet: The Search for Purpose in the Universe—with the ID-promoting Discovery Institute in late June.

Intelligent design theory argues that the universe and life forms show detectible evidence of having been intelligently designed. In other words, it is not just a matter of religious faith. ID theory does not prove that what Christians say about God is true. But it does make Christian and other theistic faiths seem reasonable. That is the chief reason it is highly controversial among those science professionals who are emotionally committed to agnosticism, skepticism, or atheism, and they have attacked it in many high profile popular and science publications over the last few years. (Note: Intelligent design is not creationism. Creationism, regardless of the stance it adopts on the age of the earth, attempts to accord the evidence of science with Scripture, but intelligent design looks only at the science evidence for design.)

So why is the Smithsonian considering premiering a film that suggests that the universe shows evidence of intelligent design? Well, the Smithsonian depends for over 80 percent of its funding on the American federal government (approximately 67 percent from direct appropriations and over 13 percent from grants from federal agencies) and its new projects require the approval of Congress. An insider suggests that the US government is leaning on the venerable science institution to behave better toward people who want to talk about intelligent design?

Whether ID is correct or not, it certainly deserves a hearing. Unless, that is, science is nothing more than the Church of Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins, who are best known for advocating that there is no design and we are alone in a meaningless universe. They have been given plenty of public time and space to promote their philosophical assumptions, but there is nothing especially scientific about their assumptions, and if they are false, it is high time they were exposed.

And what better way to do it than giving a hearing to some of the colleagues of Richard Sternberg? He’s the guy who had to appeal to the Office of Special Counsel on account of job harassment at the Smithsonian because—even though he is not even an advocate of intelligent design—because he had published a peer-reviewed ID-friendly paper in a Smithsonian-sponsored journal. He has told me privately that he intends to attend the premiere of that film. It will be nice for him to see the Smithsonian confirm by actions, not mere words, that it is willing to listen to all sides of an issue.

It is just conceivable that scientists who cannot bear the thought of considering these issues will put pressure on the Smithsonian to cancel the event, but that would only establish that what their critics say is true, they are indeed a Church of Darwin (or Sagan and Dawkins, depending on your denomination). In that case, the American government will have to disestablish them.

(Note 2: I am in the process of confirming/disconfirming that Discovery is renting the premises and that, nonetheless, the Smithsonian is co-sponsoring the event, which is certainly what the invitation I have received suggests. Watch this space for details.)

To find out more about my book on the intelligent design controversy, go to By Design or by Chance?

Prominent science institution calls off the war against intelligent design?

(Note 1: This post gives the gist of the May 26 updated post on the ID film to be shown at the Smithsonian, and adds the fact that scientist Rick Sternberg will attend the premiere.)

In a stunning development, the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History in Washington will co-host the “national premiere and evening reception” for an ID-friendly film, The Privileged Planet: The Search for Purpose in the Universe http://www.privilegedplanet.com—with the ID-promoting Discovery Institute www.discovery.org in late June.

http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php argues that the universe and life forms show detectible evidence of having been intelligently designed. In other words, it is not just a matter of religious faith. ID theory does not prove that what Christians say about God is true. But it does make Christian and other theistic faiths seem reasonable. That is the chief reason it is highly controversial among those science professionals who are emotionally committed to agnosticism, skepticism, or atheism, and they have attacked it in many high profile popular and science publications over the last few years. (Note: Intelligent design is not creationism. Creationism, regardless of the stance it adopts on the age of the earth, attempts to accord the evidence of science with Scripture, but intelligent design looks only at the science evidence for design.)

So why is the Smithsonian considering premiering a film that suggests that the universe shows evidence of intelligent design? Well, the Smithsonian depends for over 80 percent of its funding on the American federal government (approximately 67 percent from direct appropriations and over 13 percent from grants from federal agencies) and its new projects require the approval of Congress. An insider suggests that the US government is leaning on the venerable science institution to behave better toward people who want to talk about intelligent design?

Whether ID is correct or not, it certainly deserves a hearing. Unless, that is, science is nothing more than the Church of Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins, who are best known for advocating that there is no design and we are alone in a meaningless universe. They have been given plenty of public time and space to promote their philosophical assumptions, but there is nothing especially scientific about their assumptions, and if they are false, it is high time they were exposed.

And what better way to do it than giving a hearing to some of the colleagues of Richard Sternberg? He’s the guy who had to appeal to the Office of Special Counsel on account ofjob harassment at the Smithsonian because—even though he is not even an advocate of intelligent design—because he had published a peer-reviewed ID-friendly paper in a Smithsonian-sponsored journal. He has told me privately that he intends to attend the premiere of that film. It will be nice for him to see the Smithsonian confirm by actions, not mere words, that it is willing to listen to all sides of an issue.

It is just conceivable that scientists who cannot bear the thought of considering these issues will put pressure on the Smithsonian to cancel the event, but that would only establish that what their critics say is true, they are indeed a Church of Darwin (or Sagan and Dawkins, depending on your denomination). In that case, the American government will have to disestablish them.

(Note 2: I am in the process of confirming/disconfirming that Discovery is renting the premises and that, nonetheless, the Smithsonian is co-sponsoring the event. Watch this space for details.)

UPDATED News alert! Smithsonian Museum warming to intelligent design theory

Updated!

(See below this original post for updates regarding the Smithsonian.)


In the middle of the burgeoning controversy over whether the universe and life forms show detectible evidence of intelligent design, the Director of the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History is co-hosting — with the Discovery Institute — the “national premiere and evening reception” for The Privileged Planet: The Search for Purpose in the Universe

The Privileged Planet: The Search for Purpose in the Universe is a documentary by Illustra Media featuring philosopher Jay Richards and astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez, arguing for the intelligent design of the universe. Both Richards and Gonzalez are associated with the intelligent design community, and have coauthored a book, also called The Privileged Planet.

I have just received an invitation to attend this event, which will be held on Thursday, June 23, 2005 at 6:00 p.m. at the Smithsonian, at Constitution and Tenth Avenues in Washington, D.C.

The documentary will be shown at 6:00 p.m. in the Baird Auditorium, with a reception to follow in the Hall of Geology, Gems, and Minerals.

Key question: Will Richard Sternberg, the Smithsonian scientist who was practically driven from his post because he permitted an ID-friendly paper to be published be invited? I hope so, and if he isn’t, I’ll give him my ticket and cover the event from the ceiling fan.


What is the Smithsonian Institution?:

James Smithson, a British scientist who died in 1826, left over $500,000 to go “to the United States of America, to found at Washington, under the name of the Smithsonian Institution , an establishment for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men.” Founded by an Act of Congress in 1846, the Institution was set up as a trust to be administered by a board of regents and a secretary, who serves as the chief executive officer.

What is the relationship between the Smithsonian and the United States’ government?

According to the Web site, the Smithsonian depends for over 80 percent of its funding on the federal government (approximately 67 percent from direct appropriations and over 13 percent from grants from federal agencies). New projects require the approval of Congress.

Who oversees the Smithsonian?

It is under the congressional committee on Appropriations, led by C.W.Bill Young.

The Inspector General of the Smithsonian, an office created to improve management and efficiency and cut back on fraud, submits semiannual reports to Congress that are separate from the normal budget requests, and focus more on ways to improve the overall structures of the institution, like physical infrastructure, financial performance, strategic management and human capital.

Who runs the Smithsonian?

Congress has given the responsibility of administration of the institution to the board of regents, made up of various lawmakers, scientists and corporation leaders.

Board of Regents must always include 17 members, meets 4 times a year, and includes

- the Chief Justice of the United States
- the Vice President of the United States
The President pro tempore chooses 3 members of the senate (board members for the length of elected term)
The Speaker of the House chooses 3 members of congress (the length of their elected term)
Nine citizen members nominated by the board and approved by congress. (6 year terms)

Congress vests responsibility for administering the Institution in the Board of Regents.

Current office holders are:

William H. Rehnquist, Chief Justice of the United States, ex officio, Chancellor
Richard B. Cheney, Vice-President of the United States, ex officio
Thad Cochran, Senator from Mississippi
Bill Frist, Senator from Tennessee
Patrick J. Leahy, Senator from Vermont
Sam Johnson, Representative from Texas
Xavier Becerra, Representative from California
Ralph Regula, Representative from Ohio
Shirley Ann Jackson, President of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Anne d'Harnoncourt, the George D. Widener Director of the Philadelphia Museum of Art and a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences; a resident of Pennsylvania
Manuel L. Ibáñez, President Emeritus and Professor Emeritus (Biochemistry), Texas A&M University in Kingsville; a resident of Texas
Walter E. Massey, Physicist and President of Morehouse College in Atlanta
Roger W. Sant, chairman emeritus and cofounder of the AES Corporation and chairman of the board of The Summit Foundation in Washington D.C.
Alan G. Spoon, managing general partner in Polaris Venture Partners, former President of The Washington Post Company; a resident of Massachusetts
Patricia Q. Stonesifer, co-chair and president of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; resident of Washington State
Robert P. Kogod, Washington philanthropist
Eli Broad, chairman of AIG SunAmerica, Inc., founder-chairman of KB Home (formerly Kaufman and Broad Home Corporation)

Who are the staff?

The current Secretary is Lawrence M. Small, elected in 2000. The secretary is not a voting member of the board of regents There are 13 Museum directors that are in charge of the different venues and specific works of the Smithsonian institute.
There are also 10 Research center directors that have focuses in areas such as Environmental Research, Center for Folklife and Cultural Heritage, and Asian Pacific American Program.


(Note to those who believe that science cannot consider the possibility that the universe shows evidence of intelligent design or that Earth is a unique planet: You can get hold of these people’s e-mail addresses and pelt them with abuse, but bear in mind that they probably have staff who read the mail, so it is not the same thing as hounding an individual scientist alone in his lab. And for your own sake, don’t make threats. - Cheers, Denyse)


To find out more about my book on the intelligent design controversy, go to By Design or by Chance?