And I'm not the only one to have done so; I have been told that several
dozen people over the past quarter century have declined that "honor" as
well; some because they thought they weren't good enough, some because they
didn't want to become involved with what they perceived as a
quasi-government adency (the NAS was set up in part to advise the federal
government), and some because they declined to participate in an elitist
organization, to name a few reasons.
>
>I just came across this quote in Behe's recent book, Darwin's Black Box
>(Free Press, 1996, pp165-66),
>
>"Established in 1971, [the Journal of Molecular Evolution] JME...is run by
>prominent figures in the field. Among the more than fifty people who make
>up the editorial staff and board, are about a dozen member of the National
>Academy of Sciences."
>
>Clearly, Mike believes that NAS members represent a subset of prominent
>scientists. Nevertheless, I expect Kevin won't be swayed that virtually
>all professional scientists disagree with his contention.
>
I never said that the NAS does not contain prominent scientists, even those
that would be considered "leading" scientists; some members clearly are. I
only said that Steve's characterization of membership in the NAS as being
the scientific equivolent of divine ascension to some super-elite group was
incorrect. This would be a little hard to sustain, considering that the NAS
nominates hundreds of people a year, though only a dozen or so are elected.
Is Steve trying to suggest that there are hundreds of "leading" scientists
in America, but that the NAS deliberately only selects a tiny proportion for
inscrutible reasons of its own?
Also, Steve is indulging in a hasty generalization fallacy here. Michael
Behe does not constitute "virtually all professional scientists", and
considering that the NAS members I have spoken with hold the same opinion
about the NAS that I do, Steve obviously cannot conclude that "professional
scientists disagree with [my] contention".
Kevin L. O'Brien