Comment #32541

Posted by Ed Darrell on May 28, 2005 10:53 AM (e) (s)

Will Rev. Moon be there, with his robe and crown?

Comment #32542

Posted by SteveF on May 28, 2005 10:57 AM (e) (s)

Well if you can’t be arsed writing any ID papers and submitting them for peer review, at least you can get the government to ‘lean’ on museums in order to advance science.

I imagine this is how science might have been done under the Taliban.  Marvellous.

Comment #32543

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 28, 2005 11:21 AM (e) (s)

Will Rev. Moon be there, with his robe and crown?

And his older brother, Jesus Christ?

Comment #32544

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 28, 2005 11:23 AM (e) (s)

In other words, the fact that the DI are going to be showing an ID-friendly video at the Smithsonian is nothing more than the museum saying “Thanks for the cash.”

Ahmanson’s checkbook has already purchased a “controversy” for DI.

Now, Ahmanson’s checkbook is purchasing an attem pt at “scientific credibility”.

Maybe next, Ahmanson’s checkbook can purchase a few judges for DI.

Comment #32546

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on May 28, 2005 11:25 AM (e) (s)

An alternate title is “Smithsonian warming to Smith-Burns wedding?”

Comment #32547

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 28, 2005 11:36 AM (e) (s)

The Discovery Institute has made a donation of $16,000 to the National Museum of Natural History. In keeping with Smithsonian policy, they have the opportunity to co-sponsor an event at the Museum. The Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History does not endorse the content of the video that will be shown at the Discovery Institute’s June 23rd event.

If we pass the hat and raise $16,000 and donate it to Discovery Insitute, do you think they’d let us rent Chapman’s office for the day and have a Behe-book-burning, then tell the press that DI supported our efforts?

Comment #32548

Posted by Josh Rosenau on May 28, 2005 11:38 AM (e) (s)

Not to be petty, but I totally scooped you guys.

I like this juxtaposition:

Title of blog post: “Smithsonian warming to design theory?”

Quote from article:”They certainly didn’t say, ‘We’re really warming up to intelligent design, and therefore we’re going to sponsor this.’”“

So the answer to the question in the blog post would be …

Comment #32551

Posted by TonyB on May 28, 2005 12:08 PM (e) (s)

How big a donation is required to rent the Smithsonian’s Baird Auditorium? Did they gouge the Discovery Institute by charging $16000 for a one-time showing of their film? I’d like to go “Rev Dr” Lenny Flank one better and suggest asking the Smithsonian Institution if they’d rent Baird to a suitably scientific group for, say, $1 the day before the Discovery Institute’s screening. The group could present a talk or film defending “flat earth theory”, thus setting the stage for DI’s equally scientifically valid presentation of “intelligent” design. The media would find the juxtaposition irresistible and feel compelled to mention the two events together.

Comment #32554

Posted by Andrea Bottaro on May 28, 2005 12:32 PM (e) (s)

Note that Denyse O’Leary now says on her blog that Sternberg was not her mysterious “insider” at the Smithsonian.  Well, I guess the juxtaposition was just too juicy to resist speculating.  Regardless, O’Leary’s “mole” seems to be a tad out of the loop, since a brief tour of the NMNH web site would have easily found the following:

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.

In other words, any non-political, non-religious corporation or organization, from McDonald’s to the Beercap Collectors Association, can boast Smithsonian co-sponsorship, provided they shell the cash, don’t ask their guests to pay for the booze, and don’t sell raffle tickets. No need for political strong-arming: money talks.

But hey, if the DI and its groupies keep on making a big political/P.R. brouhaha out of this, insisting it represents some sort of official Smithsonian endorsement of I.D., maybe they’ll manage once again to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory, and force the Smithsonian to cancel the event after all.  I hope not, because it would be such a delicious irony to read, in the acknowledgements section of a future science paper about some interesting aspect of evolutionary biology:

“Work supported by the Smithsonian Institution, through a generous donation by the Discovery Institute, Seattle.”

Comment #32559

Posted by Michael Roberts on May 28, 2005 01:11 PM (e) (s)

I suggest Lenny Flank immediately apologises for his offensive comment.

I have attempted to put that O’Leary in her place on several occasions.

I wonder if Flank is not an ID stoolie attempted to get people onto ID’s side.

As I have written elsewhere ID is simply god of the gaps wrapped up in amino acids

Micahel Roberts

Comment #32560

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on May 28, 2005 01:28 PM (e) (s)

Michael Roberts wrote:

As I have written elsewhere ID is simply god of the gaps wrapped up in amino acids

Since Michael Behe says that biochemistry is the rock-bottom end of any attempts to further reduce biological phenomena, I’ve been pointing out for some years that “irreducible complexity” is a “god of the crevices” argument.

Comment #32561

Posted by Brian Spitzer on May 28, 2005 01:30 PM (e) (s)

Given that Smithsonian policy prohibits the use of the auditorium for “events of a religious or partisan political nature”, I’m not sure that this DI event is allowable. The DI may claim that they aren’t a religious organization, but a very strong case could be made to the contrary.

I think Burt’s right— the fact that the Smithsonian’s hosting this doesn’t *really* mean anything— but the DI and their supporters are going to insinuate that the Smithsonian supports ID, and lots of people will believe them. Remember the game they played with the conference language of the No Child Left Behind Act.

The Smithsonian should be urged to back out on this and return the contribution if at all possible. I’ve already written a letter urging them to do so. I’d definitely encourage others to do so as well.

—Brian

Comment #32564

Posted by Pat Hayes on May 28, 2005 01:39 PM (e) (s)

I suggest that we flood the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History with protest e-mails and calls.

Discovery and O’Leary misrepresent the nature of the Smithsonian’s “sponsorship” for political purposes — they’ve made the $16,000 donation to purchase legitimacy for their “teach the controversy” strategy. Smithsonian supports us, so the controversy must be real.

This violates museum policy which states that “events of a religious or partisan political nature” are not permitted.

Public Affairs can be contacted at Phone:
202-633-2950
Fax: 202-786-2982

Here are the numbers for Public Affairs staff:
Randall Kremer, 202-633-0817
Michele Urie 202-633-0820

The Special Events e-mail address is:

A quick response may cause the museum to rethink its sponsorship, and embarrass Discovery Institute for their crass effort to purchase scientific legitimacy.

Comment #32569

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 28, 2005 02:21 PM (e) (s)

Ms. O’Leary…

Didn’t she own a cow that burned down Chicago?

Comment #32570

Posted by Andrea Bottaro on May 28, 2005 02:21 PM (e) (s)

Brian Spitzer:
I think Burt’s right— the fact that the Smithsonian’s hosting this doesn’t *really* mean anything— but the DI and their supporters are going to insinuate that the Smithsonian supports ID, and lots of people will believe them.

Pat Hayes:
Discovery and O’Leary misrepresent the nature of the Smithsonian’s “sponsorship” for political purposes — they’ve made the $16,000 donation to purchase legitimacy for their “teach the controversy” strategy. Smithsonian supports us, so the controversy must be real.

Hold your horses, folks.  The DI itself has done nothing of the sort - they have a very restrained note on their web site, and that’s that.

That some of their more gullible groupies misinterpreted Smithsonian policies on “co-sponsoring” as a scientific endorsement is really not their problem (though I am sure the DI is glad it happens, as when people pass Campus Crusade for Christ talks and similar events by DI Fellows as “seminars at major universities”). 

I think the Smithsonian director was very clear that a) the movie was screened by Smithsonian event organizers (which I am sure are just administrative staff) strictly to determine that it wasn’t sectarian in nature, b) there is no endorsement from the Smithsonian regarding its scientific content.

So, since this P.R. move has already blown up in the DI’s face, they would probably just love it if the event was now cancelled, and they could whine some more to the media about “darwinist censorship”.  They love that crap, let’s not give them another chance to revel in it. 

Which reminds me: I agree with Michael Roberts that Lenny’s comment above about burning Behe’s book in Chapman’s office, even if in jest, is inappropriate (as well as in violation of Seattle Fire Department safety codes, most likely).  I am sure I am talking for all PT contributors when I say that, while we can’t tell you how to light your Memorial Day barbecue, organized book burnings are not something that should be advocated, or condoned.

Comment #32571

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 28, 2005 02:27 PM (e) (s)

“Maybe next, Ahmanson’s checkbook can purchase a few judges for DI.”

whaddya mean, maybe?

have you actually taken a look at the beliefs of the judges that were rejected by the dems during GW’s adminstration so far?  How bout the one that just made it in after 4 years of blockage?

this strategy is already well under way.

Comment #32572

Posted by Del on May 28, 2005 02:31 PM (e) (s)

Republicans control the Whitehouse, the Senate, and the House - could that have something to do with it?

The Smithsonian is a government institution, so if you control the government, you get to have say in how its run.

This is happening at PBS as well.

Comment #32573

Posted by micahel roberts on May 28, 2005 02:33 PM (e) (s)

Read what I said. I was not refering to burning Behe’s book, even though I wrote a very negative review on it in 1997 for Science and Christian Belief, which got lots of complaints!

I was referring to Flank’s reference to Jesus Christ as Moon’s elder brother. Comments like that turn many Christians away and will make them more sympathetic to ID and YEC.

I have enough of a problem of trying to persuade fellow Christians and fellow clergy that both ID and YEC are total nonsense, without bigotted comments like that. On another listserve I have been very critical of dear Denyse O’Leary.

I am afraid bigotry is not confined to the friends of AIG

Michael

Comment #32576

Posted by Andrea Bottaro on May 28, 2005 02:51 PM (e) (s)

Michael, I see I misunderstood what you were referring to.  However, isn’t the claim that Rev. Moon is the brother of Jesus (I guess, half-brother would be more appropriate) one of the tenets of the Unification Church?  I guess the vast majority of Christians would certainly consider that blasphemous, but I don’t see why one should not even be allowed to mention the fact.

Comment #32578

Posted by Russell on May 28, 2005 03:00 PM (e) (s)

…reference to Jesus Christ as Moon’s elder brother. Comments like that turn many Christians away and will make them more sympathetic to ID and YEC.

I have enough of a problem of trying to persuade fellow Christians and fellow clergy that both ID and YEC are total nonsense, without bigotted comments like that. …
I am afraid bigotry is not confined to the friends of AIG 
Michael

Offensive, inappropriate, unhelpful, probably. But “bigotted”? I’m not sure I get that.

Comment #32581

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 28, 2005 03:22 PM (e) (s)

I suggest Lenny Flank immediately apologises for his offensive comment.

Um, what “offensive comment”.  Moon thinks, and has said in print, that he is a Messiah and the younger son of God, which makes Jesus Christ his older brother.

If that offends you, I suggest you take it up with Moon, and his cult follower Jonathan Wells.  <shrug>

Comment #32582

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on May 28, 2005 03:23 PM (e) (s)

Michael Roberts wrote:

I was referring to Flank’s reference to Jesus Christ as Moon’s elder brother. Comments like that turn many Christians away and will make them more sympathetic to ID and YEC.

Uh, that’s part of the content of Sun Myung Moon’s “theology”. I join Andrea in being puzzled as to why making reference to the well-known theological content of the Unification Church should be considered offensive. It isn’t Lenny that Michael needs to take that up with, but rather Moon and the Unification Church. Good luck on that.

Comment #32584

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 28, 2005 03:25 PM (e) (s)

I was referring to Flank’s reference to Jesus Christ as Moon’s elder brother. Comments like that turn many Christians away and will make them more sympathetic to ID and YEC.

It is offocial Unification church doctrine that Moon is a Son of God and Brother of Jesus.

That SHOULD turn amny Christians away ———- from Moon;’s cult, Weels’ association with it, and the ID movemement that Moon supportsin his Moonie-owned newspaper The Washington Times.

I think you are pissed at the wrong person.  Turn your anger to the Moonies, where it will do some good.

Comment #32586

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 28, 2005 03:27 PM (e) (s)

The DI may claim that they aren’t a religious organization, but a very strong case could be made to the contrary.

Something I’ve never heard anythign about —— does DI claim tax exempt status as a “public policy research institute”, or as a “religious institution”.  Anyone know offhand?

Comment #32588

Posted by jeff-perado on May 28, 2005 03:31 PM (e) (s)

Slightly OT:

So whatever happened to the Sternberg debacle?  I have not read or heard anything else about it since the story first broke.  I haven’t even heard any more references to it from the IDiots.

Comment #32590

Posted by jeff-perado on May 28, 2005 03:34 PM (e) (s)

Oh, and I agree with you Lenny, it has been public knowledge the link Moon claims to Jesus, so pointing that link out is in no way offensive to christians.  All they need to know is who Rev Moon is, and the statement speaks for itself.  It is Moon who is offensive to Christians, not anyone else who points that out.

P.S. How about a book shredding instead of a book burning?  Wait, I have it!  Replace all copies of Behe’s book at the DI with copies of all the rebuttals of it…..

Comment #32591

Posted by Glen Davidson on May 28, 2005 03:37 PM (e) (s)

Lenny was making fun of Moon, and even more so of one of the “leading lights” of ID, the egregious Jonathan Wells.  At least that’s how I read it.  He was making fun of the “Jesus is Moon’s older brother” view that Wells espoused at least at some point.

Had Flank been writing a newspaper column I’d be against this appropriate abuse of someone whose tactics sink as low as Wells’ tactics are.  Why?  Because many would not understand it.  I think that here most should understand, and if not, they should begin to understand it once it is pointed out to them.

Comment #32592

Posted by Albion on May 28, 2005 03:40 PM (e) (s)

In other words, the fact that the DI are going to be showing an ID-friendly video at the Smithsonian is nothing more than the museum saying “Thanks for the cash.”

That, of course, is not how it’ll be portrayed by the ID folk, any more than the Sternberg-Meyer paper is being portrayed as an inside job by a creationist editor.

Denyse O’Leary is claiming she’s been told that the US government is putting pressure on scientific institutions to behave better toward people who want to talk about intelligent design? What does this mean? Quotas in Science and PNAS? NIH research funds earmarked for ID people to pretend to do research that’s then reported in Science and PNAS under the quota system? Mandatory ID stuff in museums? And of course in high schools? Given the way the Sternberg-Meyer paper was reported by the ID folk, pressure by the US government will no doubt be hailed as a major scientific breakthrough.

Comment #32594

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 28, 2005 03:53 PM (e) (s)

Lenny was making fun of Moon, and even more so of one of the “leading lights” of ID, the egregious Jonathan Wells.  At least that’s how I read it.  He was making fun of the “Jesus is Moon’s older brother” view that Wells espoused at least at some point.

But there is also a serious point behind it.  Let’s let all the IDers *know* who is in that Big Tent with them.  Let’s point out, in as much detail as they can stand, exactly who they are rubbing shoulders with.  Let’s lay it all right out in the open —— Moon’s nutty idea that he’s the Son of God, his “arranged mass marriages”, his silly claim that his is the True First Family (seriously, I’m not making any of this up), his ownership of the Washington Post and that, uh, “newspaper’s” slavish parroting of Moon’s looniness (including editorial support for ID).  And Wells, of course, swallows it all and regurgitates it.  After all, Wells writes, it was “Father Moon” who paid for his college degrees so he could then go out fully armored to fight the Darwinist Dragon.

How big IS this Tent, after all?  Let’s find out.  IDers may find out that they really don’t want that big a tent, after all.

Next, we point out all the Raelians inside the Tent  … .

Followed by Ahmanson’s nutty Reconstructionist pals … .

Should Christians be offended by all this?  You’re damn right they should be.  And they should express that displeasure to the ID movement —- loudly and insistently.  If being associated with the Moonies or the Raelians or the Reconstructionists is offensive for Christians, then  . .  well …  maybe they should NOT associate themselves with such nut cases.  <shrug>

Let’s drive a few wedges of our own.

Comment #32595

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 28, 2005 03:55 PM (e) (s)

his ownership of the Washington Post

Sorry for the mis-type —- that should be The Washington Times.

Comment #32596

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 28, 2005 03:59 PM (e) (s)

nd 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

Will Ahmanson be there?  Will Moon be there?  How openly *are* the IDers willing to acknowledge their dependence on these two nutters?

Comment #32598

Posted by PvM on May 28, 2005 04:05 PM (e) (s)

Seems Denyse was a bit quick to jump to conclusions and it took what she so often refers to as ‘legacy’ media, to get the correct story published. I have found that Denyse’s ‘reporting’ suffers often from leaps of faith or plain errors that could be easily avoided.

Comment #32601

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 28, 2005 04:18 PM (e) (s)

lenny:

DI is registered as a 501c3.  As such, they don’t actually have to state publically why they are, and even after a thorough search, I find they in fact do not (I even tried calling them, but no answer).  This is not surprising, considering that if they did, they wouldn’t be able to weasel around the limitations on a 501c3 for political promotion.  The best statement i can find as to how they classify themselves implies the “pulic policy research” classification:

http://www.illinoispolicyinstitute.org/blog/resources/natthi…

this is a good link to use to check on the non-profit status of a variety of “think tanks” btw.

However, that said, they DO have to state the reasons for tax exempt status on their application to the IRS.

just as a brief overview of what a 501c3 is (for those who aren’t aware)…
http://www.irs.gov/charities/index.html…

IIRC, a letter to the IRS should be able to produce a copy of the document filed for tax exempt status.

Lenny’s question brought an interesting point to mind…

501c3 are not supposed to engage in political lobbying, tho the rules are a bit vague on just how much they can/can’t.  Political campaigning is right out.  I wonder if anybody has bothered to examine the Discovery Institute with regards to this issue?

here are the rules from the IRS site:

http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=120703…

I used to date a woman who had the job of playing IRS detective on issues just like this.  She brought down several large “churches” because of the political campaign issues.

Comment #32613

Posted by Ed Darrell on May 28, 2005 05:35 PM (e) (s)

Michael Roberts said:

I was referring to Flank’s reference to Jesus Christ as Moon’s elder brother. Comments like that turn many Christians away and will make them more sympathetic to ID and YEC.

Is that more offensive than Moon claiming to be the Savior?  Is it more offensive that Moon’s use of the Hart Senate Building to have himself crowned King of Earth?

Do you know who Moon is?

Comment #32615

Posted by Duvenoy on May 28, 2005 05:51 PM (e) (s)

I am appalled that the Smithsonian would do this at any price. As has been mentioned earlier, their rules prohibit religious programs, and ID is no more than creationist religion wrapped in a thin, secular illusion.

I think that if they actually go through with it, we will be hearing all about their new-found, “national scientific support” for a long time.

doov

Comment #32616

Posted by PZ Myers on May 28, 2005 06:03 PM (e) (s)

I think there’s a fair case to make that the DI has been misrepresenting the Smithsonian’s involvement. Take a look at the invitation:

[img]http://pharyngula.org/images/DI_invitation.jpg…[/img]

That sure as heck looks to me like the Director of the National Museum of Natural History himself is inviting people to this event. Smithsonian at the top, the director next, and then DI looks like a secondary participant. I’d like to know if the Smithsonian had any involvement in the invitation at all — it alone is propaganda for the DI.

Comment #32627

Posted by Andrea Bottaro on May 28, 2005 06:51 PM (e) (s)

The rules say that a Smithsonian “Special Events coordinator” has to approve everything, so I am sure this was too.  Really, it’s just a foul-up, I bet that PP looks like your run-of-the-mill science documentary cum metaphysical blatherings to the uninitiated eye (“Unlocking the Mystery of Life”, with its obvious creationist undertones, would have risen suspicions, but this is astronomy), and the Discovery Institute, well duh, it sounds like an institute for discovery of stuff - what’s wrong with that?

So, some Smithsonian P.R./administration guy who takes care of special events watches the videos over lunch, sees nothing obviously wrong with it (not overtly religious, not political), and gives his/her preliminary OK.  Next person up the food chain has no time to actually do all the background work again, signs the papers, et voila`.

Comment #32628

Posted by steve on May 28, 2005 06:56 PM (e) (s)

I don’t have a problem with burning books per se. For instance, if I owned a warehouse, and a company which was storing 10,000 copies of William Dembski’s The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Being an IDiot there, went out of business, and I couldn’t get rid of them profitably, I would just as soon burn them as pay the landfill. What’s the harm?

Comment #32634

Posted by Scott Wing on May 28, 2005 07:42 PM (e) (s)

In spite of renting the Baird Auditorium for the showing of the “The Privileged Planet: The Search for Purpose in the Universe,” I know that the staff and the administration of the Smithsonian’s Museum of Natural History endorse the statement of the American Association for the Advancement of Science on intelligent design, specifically:

“Whereas, ID proponents claim that contemporary evolutionary theory is incapable of explaining the origin of the diversity of living organisms;
Whereas, to date, the ID movement has failed to offer credible scientific evidence to support their claim that ID undermines the current scientifically accepted theory of evolution;
Whereas, the ID movement has not proposed a scientific means of testing its claims;
Therefore Be It Resolved, that the lack of scientific warrant for so-called “intelligent design theory” makes it improper to include as a part of science education.”

I don’t know how the Smithsonian ended up renting the auditorium to the Discovery Institute, and neither do the other Smithsonian staff I have consulted in the last few hours.  The rental certainly does not reflect any endorsement by the staff or the administration of intelligent design.

Scott Wing
Chairman, Dept. of Paleobiology
National Museum of Natural History

Comment #32658

Posted by CaseyL on May 28, 2005 11:40 PM (e) (s)

So why don’t real science groups, or science advocacy groups, make a movie  which debunks creationism/ID point by point?  One with cool production values and a narrative written by someone who knows how to talk to the public about science. 

Why haven’t they done so already, and shown it in every venue around the country they can?  Hell, make a flat-out terrific movie and submit it to the Academy Awards for Best Documentary. 

This pisses me off.  Where are the deep-pocket donors who are in favor of science?  They’ve got to be out there!

As fashionable as it is to sneer at mention of his name, Carl Sagan was a fantastic speaker for science to the general public.  So was Stephen J Gould, who also got sneered at for “popularizing science.”  Even Stephen Hawking catches flack for “entertaining the masses.”

Christ on a carousel, I wish the real science community would get off the unicorn, and stop mocking scientists who can and do educate the public by making science interesting and accessible.  We need more Sagans, Goulds and Hawkings.  Where can we find them?

Comment #32674

Posted by Stuart Weinstein on May 29, 2005 03:47 AM (e) (s)

Flank writes “And his older brother, Jesus Christ?”

Wait a minute, I thought he was Jesus Christ

Comment #32679

Posted by Arun Gupta on May 29, 2005 08:12 AM (e) (s)

ID can and should be freely debated as long as anyone in the public remains interested, in as many public forums as possible/necessary.  The main thing is to keep it out of the public schools in the guise of science.  ID should not be allowed to pose as the true religion, which the false religion of atheistic evolution seeks to squelch by persecuting the “heretics”.  (I believe that if the Romans did not persecute the Christians, Christianity would exist only in the history books.)

Comment #32683

Posted by GT(N)T on May 29, 2005 09:47 AM (e) (s)

“I don’t know how the Smithsonian ended up renting the auditorium to the Discovery Institute, and neither do the other Smithsonian staff I have consulted in the last few hours.  The rental certainly does not reflect any endorsement by the staff or the administration of intelligent design.”

I wonder if there isn’t a creationist sympathizer on the staff of the Smithsonian?  I’m sure it would be illegal for a government entity to not hire someone because of their religious beliefs.  However, once known, they would surely bear watching.  They can believe what they want, but if they use their position to further a religious agenda they are breaking the law.

Comment #32687

Posted by Steven Laskoske on May 29, 2005 10:27 AM (e) (s)

CaseyL wrote:

As fashionable as it is to sneer at mention of his name, Carl Sagan was a fantastic speaker for science to the general public.  So was Stephen J Gould, who also got sneered at for “popularizing science.”  Even Stephen Hawking catches flack for “entertaining the masses.”

Personally, I think that these science popularizations are a big help to science as a whole.  After all, these scientists/science writers bring the basic principles to the layman.  Admittedly, in doing so, they must strip some of the more advanced concepts away (or simplify them so much that they might misrepresent the original concept).  However, even with this problem, this writing takes away the feeling of arcane witchcraft that comes with most technical or scientific fields.

How this applies to the current problem with evolution/creation is obvious.  One of the largest creationist claims is “It takes as much (if not more) faith to agree with evolution as it does with creationism.”  Like many effective lies, this has a kernel of truth to it.  For the layman, without understanding the technical details of science (including evolutionary biology and the other fields that support it), it DOES require faith in the research since the understanding of the research is beyond them.  A writer who is able to “bring it down” to the layman’s level is effectively able to destroy that claim by showing that, instead of being based on faith, evolution is supported by solid facts.

In that respect, the science writers such as Gould, Sagan, Hawkings and Issac Asimov are a gold mine for basic understanding of scientific research.  Of course, there is the problem that, no matter how well written these science popularizations are, it doesn’t help if no one reads them.  Still, even the few that follow their interests into the science popularization make a difference.

Comment #32694

Posted by Russell on May 29, 2005 11:27 AM (e) (s)

Stuart Weinstein wrote:

Flank writes “And [Rev. Moon’s] older brother, Jesus Christ?”
tter than
Wait a minute, I thought he was Jesus Christ

Oh, it gets better than that. I believe the official Moonotheology is that where Jesus failed in his mission, Moon (yes, also son of God, and therefore Jesus’s little brother) has finally succeeded!

Comment #32699

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 29, 2005 12:07 PM (e) (s)

Flank writes “And [Rev. Moon’s] older brother, Jesus Christ?”
tter than

Stuart Weinstein wrote:

  Wait a minute, I thought he was Jesus Christ

Posted by Russell

Oh, it gets better than that. I believe the official Moonotheology is that where Jesus failed in his mission, Moon (yes, also son of God, and therefore Jesus’s little brother) has finally succeeded!

Gee, I’m not sure what “Father Moon’s” exact relationship with Christ is claimed to be. 

Let’s ask Wells … …

Comment #32706

Posted by primate on May 29, 2005 01:14 PM (e) (s)

Discovery Institute fantasy transcript from Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District inspired by the Christmas classic Miracle on 34th Street:

Attorney: Isn’t intelligent design inherently religious in nature?

WAD (expert in theology): No, The Smithsonian Institute, a trust whose Chancellor is the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, William Rehnquist, screened the movie The Privileged Planet: The Search for Purpose in the Universe, a film that makes a case against evolution thereby making a case for intelligent design, and determined that it was not religious in nature.

Attorney: If such a venerable institution like the Smithsonsonian has determined the film The Privileged Planet: The Search for Purpose in the Universe and the theory it espouses isn’t religious in nature, do you believe that such a film and theory is suitable for high school students?

WAD: Yes.
.
.
.
.
.

You see kids, there really is a Designer!

Comment #32713

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on May 29, 2005 01:56 PM (e) (s)

Now appearing at ID The Future

Correction for The New York Times: Documentary at Smithsonian Isn’t About Biological Evolution
Jonathan Witt

The New York Times has a story reporting on the June 23rd screening of The Privileged Planet at The Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History. A factual error in the story’s headline and lead sentence suggests that the science documentary makes a case against biological evolution. In fact, the film doesn’t even touch on the subject.

The Privileged Planet focuses on cosmology and astronomy, and on Earth’s place in the universe. One could be a strict Darwinist and still agree with the argument in The Privileged Planet. In fact, that accurately describes at least two of the prominent scientists who endorsed the book.

Posted by Jonathan Witt at 02:35:27 pm

Privileged Planet
by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards

HOW OUR PLACE IN THE COSMOS IS DESIGNED FOR DISCOVERY

(all caps in the original)

Comment #32715

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on May 29, 2005 02:04 PM (e) (s)

Apparently PP was discussed at Panda’s Thumb in 2004.
Privileged Planet: The fallout starts

Comment #32716

Posted by Russell on May 29, 2005 02:09 PM (e) (s)

Rev. Dr. Lenny wrote:

Gee, I’m not sure what “Father Moon’s” exact relationship with Christ is claimed to be. 

Let’s ask Wells … …

What an excellent idea!

Wells wrote:

Second coming

… we are now living in the days of the second coming. The book interprets eschatological passages in the Bible to mean that the second coming of the savior will be similar to the first: like Jesus, he will be born fully human, have to grow to perfection, and run the risk of being rejected. He will not, however, be Jesus of Nazareth, but will come with a new name, to complete that which was left unfinished by Jesus’ premature death on the cross.

Divine Principle also uses a variety of arguments to persuade the reader that the savior will be born in Korea during the first half of this century. Although the book does not explicitly identify anyone as the second coming of Christ, its introduction contains the following statement: “With the fullness of time, God has sent His messenger to resolve the fundamental questions of life and the universe. his name is Sun Myung Moon.” …

… Sun Myung Moon had a vision at the age of sixteen in which Jesus appeared and commissioned him to complete the work of salvation left unfinished two thousand years earlier. …

(By the way, be sure to look up the original to make sure I’m not quote-mining to make “bigotted” anti-religious slurs.)

Wells again:
Although there may be members of the Unification Church who do not believe Reverend Moon to be the second coming of Christ, I think it is fair to say that such people must be a small minority; indeed, it is difficult to imagine anyone persevering in the rigorous life of a Unificationist without believing that Sun Myung Moon is to our generation what Jesus was to his.

If Adam and Eve had not fallen, they would have been the True Parents; if Jesus had married instead of being crucified, he and his bride would have been the True Parents; now, according to Unification theology, Reverend and Mrs. Moon fulfill that role.

Hope that helps!

Comment #32717

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 29, 2005 02:21 PM (e) (s)

another comment on the 501c3 status of DI:

DI models itself as a parent organization for the Center for Science and Culture. However, CSC is primarily promoting religion (easy to argue).  Therefore, I wonder if by promoting CSC, DI is in violation of the premise of its 501c3?

btw, CSC does not appear to have its own 501c3.

just a thought.

Comment #32720

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 29, 2005 04:00 PM (e) (s)

A factual error in the story’s headline and lead sentence suggests that the science documentary makes a case against biological evolution. In fact, the film doesn’t even touch on the subject.

The Privileged Planet focuses on cosmology and astronomy, and on Earth’s place in the universe. One could be a strict Darwinist and still agree with the argument in The Privileged Planet.

So, in addition to biology and, uh, meteorology, ID also has its sights set on cosmology and astronomy.

Can physics and chemistry be far behind?

The economics, law, etc etc etc … ?

Ohhhhhh, that’s right —- the Ayatollah-wanna-be’s DO want to “renew our culture” with a “theistic science” … …

Comment #32722

Posted by steve on May 29, 2005 04:19 PM (e) (s)

Somebody should get Phil Johnson saying on record that ID supports HIV Denial.

Comment #32723

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 29, 2005 04:39 PM (e) (s)

btw, CSC does not appear to have its own 501c3.

just a thought.

The Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture is a “project” of Discovery Institute.  It is not its own separate organization.

BTW, Bill Gates gives lots of money to Discovery Institute’s “research” into the future of transportation and such:

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/AboutUs/SpecialProjects/Grant…

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=vi…

Gates makes lots of noise about his forward-looking and progressive approach to science and technology, and he is also quite sensitive about his public image.  With a bit of pressure, he might be persuaded to stop funding the DI — at least until they drop their efforts at theocracy.

Comment #32728

Posted by John Niles on May 29, 2005 06:56 PM (e) (s)

I’ve worked on telecommunications and tranportation issues at the Discovery Institute for over a decade, I know Bruce Chapman pretty well, and I have had discussions with the staff in the “intelligent design” section of the Institute (aka, specifically, the Center for Science and Culture).

I can tell you categorically that DI/CSC as an organization does not now nor has it ever promoted “theocracy.”  The organization is on record about “theocracy” in the “Wedge Response” document posted at http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=vi…
Word scan that document for “theocracy” and read what it says. What it says is consistent with my on-the-ground experience in the Discovery Institute since the early 1990s.

The Discovery Institute is much more diverse in its interests than is generally realized outside of Seattle.

By the way, a preview clip of the 60 minute video, “The Privileged Planet: The Search for Purpose in the Universe” scheduled to be shown at the Smithsonian in DC on June 23rd is on the web at http://www.illustramedia.com/tpppreview.htm…

The recent New York Times headline “Smithsonian to Screen a Movie That Makes a Case Against Evolution” does not correspond to what the on-line trailer shows about this video. See the trailer for yourself.

Yes, “The Privileged Planet” is “ID Friendly.”  But it’s not a “Case Against Evolution.”

As a long-time Dawkins fan familiar with ID but not by any means persuaded, I fully support the Smithsonian permitting the showing of this video under the terms described. 

Any attempt by anybody to make like the June 23 event is some sort of Smithsonian Institution endorsement of the video’s content will backfire.

Comment #32729

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 29, 2005 07:27 PM (e) (s)

“Any attempt by anybody to make like the June 23 event is some sort of Smithsonian Institution endorsement of the video’s content will backfire.”

gee, that sounds a bit like a threat.

are you just hit and run, niles, or would you like to stick around and discuss the reality of the situation?

We all have lots of questions here, and I for one would like to see some answers for a change, especially from someone who worked with this organization for 10 years.

are you game?

Comment #32730

Posted by Paul Christopher on May 29, 2005 07:43 PM (e) (s)

Wow, that ‘Wedge Response’ document is a bit creepy. The doublethink employed by the author is almost beyond belief - he basically states that the DI wishes to attack the scientific method, and then claims that they aren’t trying to attack the scientific method.

Still, I suppose I shouldn’t expect too much from the Derisory Instute, or I’ll be destined for a life of disappointment.

Comment #32731

Posted by Andrea Bottaro on May 29, 2005 07:59 PM (e) (s)

Any attempt by anybody to make like the June 23 event is some sort of Smithsonian Institution endorsement of the video’s content will backfire.

Before people jump on him just because of his association with the DI, I think perhaps Niles is trying to say that, although he supports the Smithsonian showing the documentary “under the terms described” (i.e. as a pay-per-show event like many), if ID advocates try to make this look like a Smithsonian endorsement, it will backfire on them.

I looked at the trailer, I sure hope the documentary is more sophisticated in its argument, because that looks downright silly.

I also fully believe the documentary makes no mention of evolution.  Unfortunately, ID is trying to sell itself as one big package, which contains everything from moderate anti-darwinians, to outright creationists, from honest scientists with dissenting opinions to outright frauds and cranks.  As we have already seen, even the assumption that the Smithsonian may have screened and approved this particular video is being sold to the ID troops as “warming up to ID” (in toto).  So, I am sorry for Gonzalez, but if he doesn’t want his documentary to be associated with anti-evolution propaganda, he has to clearly distance himself from his ID fellow travelers on the topic, and not allow his work to be used as anti-evolution propaganda.  It’s quite simple, really.

Comment #32732

Posted by Andrea Bottaro on May 29, 2005 08:04 PM (e) (s)

Any attempt by anybody to make like the June 23 event is some sort of Smithsonian Institution endorsement of the video’s content will backfire.

Before people jump on him just because of his association with the DI, I think perhaps Niles is trying to say that, although he supports the Smithsonian showing the documentary “under the terms described” (i.e. as a pay-per-show event like many), if ID advocates try to make this look like a Smithsonian endorsement, it will backfire on them.

I looked at the trailer, I sure hope the documentary is more sophisticated in its argument, because that looks downright silly.

I also fully believe the documentary makes no mention of evolution.  Unfortunately, ID is trying to sell itself as one big package, which contains everything from moderate anti-darwinians, to outright creationists, from honest scientists with dissenting opinions to outright frauds and cranks.  As we have already seen, even the assumption that the Smithsonian may have screened and approved this particular video is being sold to the ID troops as “warming up to ID” (in toto).  So, I am sorry for Gonzalez, but if he doesn’t want his documentary to be associated with anti-evolution propaganda, he has to clearly distance himself from his ID fellow travelers on the topic, and not allow his work to be used as anti-evolution propaganda.  It’s quite simple, really.

Comment #32733

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 29, 2005 08:17 PM (e) (s)

personally, i could care far less about Mr. nile’s interpretation of DI’s intent on this specific issue, and far more about Mr. Nile’s thoughts on DI overall.

I would like to see his answers to several repeating questions that have gone unanswered for as long as I have participated in PT, and probably far longer.

I’m not jumping down his throat, more than i am inviting him to participate, which nobody from DI ever seems to want to do.  Especially since he claims himself an independent with regards to DI’s mission goals.

Comment #32734

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 29, 2005 08:25 PM (e) (s)

I’ve worked on telecommunications and tranportation issues at the Discovery Institute for over a decade, I know Bruce Chapman pretty well, and I have had discussions with the staff in the “intelligent design” section of the Institute (aka, specifically, the Center for Science and Culture).

I’m curious what you think of the extremist views held by the primary funder of the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, Howard Ahmanson.

Comment #32735

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 29, 2005 08:30 PM (e) (s)

I can tell you categorically that DI/CSC as an organization does not now nor has it ever promoted “theocracy.”

I suggest that everyone read the Discovery Institute’s overall strategy, in its own words, and then decide for themselves what DI is after.  The Wedge Document can be found at:

http://www.geocities.com/lflank/wedge.html…

and my reply to the DI’s “So What” BS is at:

http://www.geocities.com/lflank/diagenda.html…

Comment #32736

Posted by KC on May 29, 2005 08:54 PM (e) (s)

How big IS this Tent, after all?  Let’s find out.  IDers may find out that they really don’t want that big a tent, after all.

Next, we point out all the Raelians inside the Tent  … .

Followed by Ahmanson’s nutty Reconstructionist pals …

I’m sure swords are already being sharpened in preparation for the internal bloodletting that will occur once the victory over the common  enemy—naturalism—is achieved. Wells and Behe (as a Catholic, which we all know isn’t Christian) are probably the first victims on the list.

Comment #32740

Posted by primate on May 29, 2005 10:58 PM (e) (s)

Andrea Bottaro wrote

So, I am sorry for Gonzalez, but if he doesn’t want his documentary to be associated with anti-evolution propaganda, he has to clearly distance himself from his ID fellow travelers on the topic, and not allow his work to be used as anti-evolution propaganda.  It’s quite simple, really.

Guillermo Gonzalez is a DI/CRSC senior fellow, ISCID fellow and a contributer to ID the Future. His ARN Authors Page profile features essays on why aliens are not likely, in his opinion, to exist (goodbye panspermia, Raelians). I don’t think he cares if his work is used as anti-evolution propaganda. In fact, he contributes to the ‘Doubt Is What It’s About’ club that includes Illustra Media and it’s partnership and ties with Focus on the Family (see Christian ultra-fundamentalism). Illustra also produced the antievolution “documentary” “Unlocking the Mysteries of Life”.

Comment #32741

Posted by primate on May 29, 2005 11:01 PM (e) (s)

Uh, “it’s partnership” should be “its”. Doh!

Comment #32746

Posted by Albion on May 30, 2005 12:24 AM (e) (s)

So, in addition to biology and, uh, meteorology, ID also has its sights set on cosmology and astronomy.

Indeed. And it can claim therefore not to be just an argument against evolution, since it’s arguing against other mainstream sciences apart from biology.

This does tend to cut down the available candidates for the position of Designer, though. First we have the claim that cells are too complicated to have arisen naturally, hence pretty well ruling out a cellular lifeform as the Designer. Now we’re getting into planet building as well as biochemistry, so we need an acellular Designer with incredible depths of knowledge of physics and earth science as well as biology. Once they start in on criticisms of cosmology, there won’t be many candidates at all - just God and the IPU, really. I wonder when they’ll be forced to drop the “the identity of the Designer - um, designer - is irrelevant” line once they’ve started claiming that said Designer is a Designer of universes.

Comment #32755

Posted by SEF on May 30, 2005 03:06 AM (e) (s)

The argument that life is too complicated and must have been designed was never a good one anyway. Particularly when they couple it with analogies to human design. If they are going to argue from analogy, then human’s design things which are less complicated than themselves. Hence their designer would have to be more complicated than life and thus even more impossible. It’s irreducibly complex turtles all the way up.

However, if they still want their designer to be simpler regardless of the stupidity of their argument from analogy, then they ought to be agreeing with the rest of us that the underlying chemicals did it! They are indisputably less complex than the combination of them is and they continually demonstrate the potential to do it. Then when you look for the “designer” of chemicals you get to basic chemistry and physics and its all very clear how it works.

Comment #32757

Posted by Andrea Bottaro on May 30, 2005 04:37 AM (e) (s)

Primate:
that’s exactly my point. It is disingenuous for Gonzalez and the DI to complain that the New York Times misqualifies the PP video as “against evolution”, when they are using it themselves as part of a larger anti-evolution propaganda campaign.

Comment #32760

Posted by James on May 30, 2005 06:50 AM (e) (s)

The “terms” of showing this video at the Smithsonian are effectively moot by virtue of the press that this has gotten. While showing the video may not mean the Smithsonian is supporting anything to do with its content, that’s a distinction that’s not going to be appreciated by the vast majority of people who don’t follow discussions such as one encounters here. Rather, those people will see an ID-friendly video presented in the nation’s premier institution for presenting science to the general public, and that for them will say it all.

The ID-friendly/Creationist crowd have managed to cause IMAX theater managers to back away from showing James Cameron’s “Aliens of the Deep” because of its references to the age of the Earth and evolution. Now we have the DI snaking its way into the Smithsonian via its checkbook, a modus operandi that will not be appreciated by most.

I’ve sent emails to the Smithsonian complaining about the movie, and to my senators and congressional representative. Mark my words, letting this thing in the door and not fighting it will open the floodgates.

Comment #32766

Posted by SEF on May 30, 2005 08:36 AM (e) (s)

It’s a situation disturbingly parallel to those editorials in newspapers etc about which people are complaining because they are insufficiently critical of ID/creationist idiocies and even favourable to them. If the Smithsonian wants to be seen as a respectable institution with decent standards then it really ought to be excercising its editorial control over its contents properly. If it genuinely doesn’t have standards or the will or ability to enforce them, ie money talks whoever’s money it is, then the Smithsonian should no longer be allowed to pretend it has good standards and instead be seen as the money launderer it has become.

I don’t suppose it is just the DI which has been allowed to offer an effective bribe though. Many industries get good PR from donations to various places whose ideals don’t exactly match the actual behaviour of those industries.

Comment #32768

Posted by Randy on May 30, 2005 08:54 AM (e) (s)

I would like to raise $16,000 and rent the Baird Auditorium for a Marathon Screening of the best Science of the 1970s, Chariots of the Gods and the television series In Search Of (with Leonard Nimoy as narrator).  Now that was science.

Comment #32771

Posted by SEF on May 30, 2005 09:59 AM (e) (s)

Or Connections: http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0078588/…

Comment #32776

Posted by Pat Hayes on May 30, 2005 10:20 AM (e) (s)

Don’t fall for the “it’s not about evolution” red herring. The film is designed to extend intelligent design antiscience into new and greener pastures: physics and cosmology. Here’s an excerpt from The Privileged Planet:

“Is it possible that this immense, symphonic system of atoms, fields, forces, stars, galaxies, and people is the result of a choice, a purpose or intention, rather than simply some inscrutable outworking of blind necessity or an inexplicable accident? If so, then it’s surely possible that there could be evidence to suggest such a possibility…

“Perhaps we have also been staring past … a signal revealing a universe so skillfully crafted for life and discovery that it seems to whisper of an extra-terrestrial intelligence immeasurably more vast, more ancient, and more magnificent than anything we’ve been willing to expect or imagine.”

Comment #32778

Posted by Unstable Isotope on May 30, 2005 10:23 AM (e) (s)

The Smithsonian should refund DI’s money and not show that film.  They could argue it violates their policy against events of a religious or political nature (it’s both).  It may be dishonest for DI to claim that the Smithsonian is putting their seal of approval on the film, but it is being shown at the Smithsonian.

As to Moon, only the theocons could argue that posting on a religion’s own beliefs constitutes religious persecution.  If pointing out what Moon believes makes people angry, it’s because they can’t believe that is really what he’s saying.

Comment #32795

Posted by Kevin on May 30, 2005 12:13 PM (e) (s)

The invisible guy in the sky created the universe…that is well known…

Comment #32800

Posted by Albion on May 30, 2005 01:00 PM (e) (s)

Don’t fall for the “it’s not about evolution” red herring. The film is designed to extend intelligent design antiscience into new and greener pastures: physics and cosmology. Here’s an excerpt from The Privileged Planet:

“Is it possible that this immense, symphonic system of atoms, fields, forces, stars, galaxies, and people is the result of a choice, a purpose or intention, rather than simply some inscrutable outworking of blind necessity or an inexplicable accident? If so, then it’s surely possible that there could be evidence to suggest such a possibility…

“Perhaps we have also been staring past … a signal revealing a universe so skillfully crafted for life and discovery that it seems to whisper of an extra-terrestrial intelligence immeasurably more vast, more ancient, and more magnificent than anything we’ve been willing to expect or imagine.”

And, as I said before, how many candidates are there for that particular position? I mean, on the one hand they’re talking about crafting a universe and on the other they’re talking about the crafter being simply extra-terrestrial??? Once we get into the realms of a creator of the universe, we’re solidly in the realms of Goddidit. I assume they’re saying that the creator of the flagellum is the same as the creator of the universe, unless we’re into RBH-type multiple designers. Hence the creator of the flagellum is also God. If they had a shred of integrity, they’d say so.

Comment #32805

Posted by bill on May 30, 2005 02:03 PM (e) (s)

re:  Book Burning

I believe that Behe’s book would spontaneously combust - by design - except for the fact that it’s all wet.

Comment #32809

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on May 30, 2005 02:43 PM (e) (s)

Check this out:

reDiscovery Institute

…
Our goals are to Teach the Controversies, all of them, each and every one.
…
The reDiscovery Institute urges adherence to John Phillipson’s “Ice Pick Gambit”, which states that “until we gain total contol, we do not mention the Book of Genesis in the design debate because that frightens normal people.”

Comment #32810

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 30, 2005 02:54 PM (e) (s)

ya know, i hate to say it, but i think the reDiscovery site has fooled more of us than even intelligent design timmy.

there’s that broken irony meter again.

Comment #32811

Posted by Stuart Weinstein on May 30, 2005 02:56 PM (e) (s)

Brian writes: The Smithsonian should be urged to back out on this and return the contribution if at all possible. I’ve already written a letter urging them to do so. I’d definitely encourage others to do so as well.

I’ve already told them I’ll rescind my membership if this crap airs in the auditorium.

I don’t support them to purvey crap.

Comment #32814

Posted by hiero5ant on May 30, 2005 03:24 PM (e) (s)

Methinks all parties involved are missing a crucial opportunity amidst the bruhaha.

I have long argued (alas, unsuccessfully) that cosmological ID and biological ID are radically, fundamentally contradictory and at odds with one another. The former camp adamantly asserts that the laws of the physical universe are structured in such a way as to make life on earth inevitable; the latter camp adamantly asserts that the laws of the universe are structured in such a way that life on earth is impossible without a series of violations of natural law.

If ID bore even the most remote resemblance to a scientific enterprise, cosmological IDers and biological IDers would be at each other’s throats in every possible forum. But this is clearly not the case.

So allow me to suggest a resolution to the current Smithsonian pecadillo:  cosmological IDers will be given the benefit of the doubt that they are not simply one more strain in the antievolutionary Ahmonsonite brigades if and only if they will come forward publicly and declare that cosmological ID stands in direct contradiction to the biological ID of Dembski and Behe.

Fair enough?

Comment #32816

Posted by Glenn Branch on May 30, 2005 03:39 PM (e) (s)

The James Randi Educational Foundation is offering “to donate $20,000 to the Smithsonian Institution if they agree to give back the ‘Discovery Institute’ $16,000 and decline to sponsor the showing of the film. And the JREF will not require the Smithsonian to run any films or propaganda that favor our point of view…”

Comment #32817

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 30, 2005 03:48 PM (e) (s)

“If ID bore even the most remote resemblance to a scientific enterprise”

well, there you have it.  It was never really meant to resemble scientific enterprise, except at the most superficial levels.

this is all just a power grab, nothing more.  Ask Bill Frist.

Comment #32824

Posted by Rich on May 30, 2005 05:09 PM (e) (s)

PT’s Pym van Meur already knows this because I’ve already stated this on the ASA e-list but something has been missed in this controversy:

The Discovery Institute apparently made an UNRESTRICTED $16,000 donation to the Smithsonian.

It was right under our noses. See the quoted policy in the comments above. See http://www.blinne.org/blog/2005/05/discovery_insti.html for more details.

Comment #32825

Posted by Rich on May 30, 2005 05:34 PM (e) (s)

It has been generally missed that the donation by the Discovery Insitute is unrestricted. Look at the policy. It was right under our noses. See here for more details.

Comment #32834

Posted by Dark Matter on May 30, 2005 08:18 PM (e) (s)

I posted this to another website, and I am sending it to you
as a response to the Smithsonian Institute mess I’m sure you
are aware of by now.

How about this for a publicity idea-
Someone could make up a poster, screen saver, billboard or
outdoor mural with classic artwork (Michaelangelo, etc) depicting the serpent
tempting Eve.  This would be accompanied with a catchy, memorable
caption like-

“Teach the controversy?  Some teachers are more honest than others.”
or ” Teach the controversy?  Some people never learn, do they?”
or ” You need to let me teach you about the controversssssssssyyy,
Eve…”

or a scene from the Salem witch trials or other witch burning
scene, with a caption “Evidence?  WHO NEEDS EVIDENCE?”

Maybe a shot of the last scene from “The Wicker Man” could
be worked in there( you know the one I’m talking about……)

and then follow it up with “Find out why an objective scientific education is so
important…”

Maybe this could even be turned into a TV or cable commercial.

You could then point them to talk.origins archive on line website,
The National Center for Science Education
or some other well-regarded pro-evolution website.

In any case the evolutionists definitely need to get started
on a  better PR campaign. (radio, TV, newspapers, etc)

I’m not very good with artwork, so if you think this
is a good idea spread it to someone who can get it moving.
Thanks!

Comment #32835

Posted by PvM on May 30, 2005 08:31 PM (e) (s)

Rich wrote:

It has been generally missed that the donation by the Discovery Insitute is unrestricted. Look at the policy. It was right under our noses. See here for more details.

Indeed, would it not be ironic to have them sponsor a Darwinian exhibit.

Comment #32839

Posted by