[Nagtnews] NAGTNews - Vol. 4, No. 5 October 2005

Keith McKain GeoSci64 at comcast.net
> <i>Sat Oct 8 17:27:39 CDT 2005<i>

[...]

4.) From the President - Re: Intelligent Design Article
> July 28, 2005<br>
> Fellow NAGT members,<br>
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Many of you have likely read the article in the May 2005 issue of <br> JGE entitled "Who Believes What?  Clearing up Confusion over Intelligent
> Design and Young-Earth Creationism [Ross, JGE, v. 53, p. 319-323].&quot;&nbsp; <br> Several members of the Executive Committee and Council have received
> inquiries and questions about this article.&nbsp; Some object to the content; <br> others question the appropriateness of the subject.  There are also
> questions as to how the article was reviewed and selected for <br> publication as well as anxieties expressed that publication of this
> article in some way legitimizes creationist or intelligent design (ID) <br> theories of evolution.  A few even suggested that the article be
> retracted.&nbsp; In addition, concerns were raised by some on the basis of <br> the fact that the author is listed as a fellow of the Center for Science
> and Culture (CSC), a program of the Discovery Institute dedicated to <br> challenging Darwinian evolution and to promoting ID.  These are
> important questions and the Executive Committee and Editor of JGE have <br> agreed that it might be helpful for me to respond in the interests of
> keeping our members fully informed of our publication policies and <br> practices and to keep the conversation in the open.
> <br>     First of all, the Executive Committee has emphatically recommended
> against any consideration of retraction of the article in question.&nbsp; <br> Second, we want publicly to support the Editor's decision to publish
> this article and, furthermore, to indicate that he has our full <br> confidence.  I explain these decisions at some length below.
> <br>     Why have we reached these conclusions?  NAGT is committed to
> academic freedom and open intellectual inquiry within the normative <br> paradigm of science.  These goals are in our strategic plan of 2003 (see
> <a href="http:/nagt.org/files/nagt/NAGTStratPlan.pdf">http://nagt.org/files/nagt/NAGTStratPlan.pdf).  This means, in my own
> words, that we are obligated in all that NAGT does as either sponsor or <br> partner to critical analysis of ideas and equal access to our programs
> and publications for authors whose work meets the rigorous standards of <br> the traditions of science.  What does that mean?   Each of us might have
> our own different definitions, but I think it is safe to say that a <br> broad consensus of NAGT members would characterize these traditions as a
> commitment to:<br>
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; *&nbsp; the scientific method<br>     *  unfettered critical thinking
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; *&nbsp; openness to new and challenging ideas<br>     *  evidence- and observation-based testing of all ideas
> <br>    
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; In addition, NAGT stands firmly with other earth science societies <br> in opposing unscientific doctrines like creationism and ID, especially
> when they posit that organic evolution is not a scientifically proven <br> theory.  Mike Gibson, NAGT Councilor-at-Large, is working on an NAGT
> Statement on Evolution that will be similar to that of the <br> Paleontological Society (http://www.paleosoc.org/evolutioncomplete.htm)
> and of GSA (<a href="http:/www.geosociety.org/aboutus/position.htm">http://www.geosociety.org/aboutus/position.htm) for
> discussion and possible approval at the October Council meeting.<br>    
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Does the article in question meet our standards?&nbsp; We think so.&nbsp; The <br> author uses a cladistic analysis to classify belief systems as they
> relate to evolution.&nbsp; He makes no effort to establish the primacy of any <br> single system.  JGE has published papers with comparable goals in the
> past (see Wise, D.U., 2001, Creationism's propaganda assault on deep <br> time and evolution," v. 49, p. 30-35 or Dutch, S.I., 2002, Religion as
> belief vs. religion as fact, v. 50, p. 137-144).&nbsp; The Ross article takes <br> a stand that is implicitly agnostic with respect to creationism and ID. 
> This may bother some; they might interpret this to imply that <br> unscientific systems are equivalent in some ways to Darwinian
> evolution.&nbsp; This concern would be fair enough were an analysis of the <br> validity of competing belief systems the purpose of the article.  It is
> not.&nbsp; The article is a classification schema for helping teachers better <br> understand where their students may be "coming from" as they, the
> students, study evolution in science classes<br>
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Is the article appropriate for JGE?&nbsp; Some may see the content as too <br> philosophical, perhaps even too close to the culture wars for comfort. 
> However, our Instructions to Contributors are explicit <br> (http://www.nagt.org/nagt/jge/instructions.html):
> <br> [t]he Journal of Geoscience Education publishes papers related to
> pedagogical, educational, historical, philosophical, and cultural, <br> aspects of all the geosciences, including such related fields as
> geophysics, geochemistry, oceanography, astronomy, meteorology, soil <br> science, and environmental sciences. Broadly speaking, it is the
> objective of the Journal to improve geoscience instruction at all levels <br> and in all settings. Although material published in the Journal should
> somehow be related to instruction, review papers on topics that are <br> experiencing significant change will be considered.
> <br> Others may feel that there is a "political" agenda behind the article,
> particularly in light of the author's public affiliation with the CSC.&nbsp; <br> However, this agenda is neither explicit nor implicit in the article
> and, again, we have published similar articles before.&nbsp; Furthermore, we <br> feel that it is inappropriate for us to reject articles that otherwise
> meet our standards based solely on the author's affiliations.&nbsp; This is <br> too close to censorship to meet our standards for fair and open
> discourse.&nbsp; Thus, the Executive Committee feels that the Editor and his <br> appointed reviewers, including a well-known paleontologist, correctly
> applied our criteria in accepting this article for publication.&nbsp; <br>
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Do we all agree with everything said in the article?&nbsp; Probably not.&nbsp; <br> But, that is the give-and-take of science.  Which brings us to the next
> question.&nbsp; Should we be encouraging comments, rebuttals, discussions, <br> angry letters to the editor?  Normally, and by "normal" I mean the realm
> of normal scientific discourse, we might say we should and would; but <br> there is an aspect to this particular circumstance that argues caution. 
> Some proponents of non-scientific theories like creationism and ID have <br> a public strategy to use our mode of scientific discourse as an entering
> wedge for the promulgation of their own, nonscientific ideas .&nbsp; They <br> have made their intentions clear to use the medium of scientific
> publication to further their own political agenda.&nbsp; Hence, rebuttals in <br> scientific journals to articles such as the one that concerns us here
> will be characterized by them as prima facie evidence that there is an <br> active debate among scientists as to the validity of Darwinian evolution
> .&nbsp; We could, then, play into their hand even when we engage in the <br> normative practice of correcting wrong science.  A scientist rebuts an
> incorrect statement with respect to ID or creationism; the author rebuts <br> the rebuttal; and the proponents of ID tout this as proof of an on-going
> debate within the scientific community over the substance of Darwinian <br> evolution.
> <br>     Hence we have not encouraged such a response.  We do, of course,
> encourage additional articles that may address and challenge incorrect <br> or simplistic ideas in this, as in any article, published in JGE.
> <br>     Geoff Feiss, President
> NAGT<p>