Smithsonian Warming to ID?

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

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.

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

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."

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

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.

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 . . .

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.

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.

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

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

— Michael Roberts

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

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: nhevents@si.edu

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

Ms. O'Leary...

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

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.

"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.

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.

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

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.

...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

I suggest Lenny Flank immediately apologises for his offensive comment.

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.

— Michael Roberts

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.

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

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.

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.....

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.

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."

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.

his ownership of the Washington Post

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

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.

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/natthink.php

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=120703,00.html

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.

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 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

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:

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.

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'.

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?

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

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?

Flank writes "And his older brother, Jesus Christ?"

Wait a minute, I thought he was Jesus Christ

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.)

"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.

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."

— CaseyL

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

— Stuart Weinstein

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!

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!

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

HOW OUR PLACE IN THE COSMOS IS DESIGNED FOR DISCOVERY

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

Gee, I'm not sure what "Father Moon's" exact relationship with Christ is claimed to be. Let's ask Wells . . . . . .

— Rev. Dr. Lenny

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. ...

— Wells

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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=view&id=2101
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.

"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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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 . . .

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.

Uh, "it's partnership" should be "its". Doh!

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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."

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.

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

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."

re: Book Burning

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

... 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."

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.

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.

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?

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..."

"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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

— Rich

If there really are people who pretend to be science sympathisers on this site simply to destroy science then that is-

1- dishonest
2- sad
3- ( and this is the clicher for all ID supporters ) unchristian.

Timothy, I cannot tell if your comments are directed to me. In case they are let me assure you that I am not an ID supporter and am personally embarrassed by the DI. Their warfare views concerning religion and science serve neither science nor Christianity. My views are very similar to Keith Miller's in the Kansas controversy. Like him, I am more than willing to take the arrows from both sides to stop this insane bickering. This conflict is SO unnecessary.

I seem to recall that this is an old trick of the creationists from way back. Hire a hall from a university, stage a "debate" where the pro-evolutionists are not really allowed to get their point across, then sell edited videos of the "University X debate" in which they appear to demolish all opposition. Check out Plimer's "telling lies for god" for typical examples. The amazing thing is that the Smithsonian fell for it. It must really be run by administrators and bureaucrats rather than scientists if no-one involved could smell the fishy tinge in the air.

Rustopher.

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

— SEF

I'm wondering - now that the Discovery Institute has endorsed, to the tune of a $16K unrestricted gift, Darwinian evolution in all of the glories on display at the SI, what is to become of the many initiatives that thought they had the DI as an ally?

Connections was good ... and then it went downhill as he/they ran out of good ideas and tried to make more and more tenuous connections. Remind you of any former researchers who joined the ID bandwagon at all? Still much better than them though! So a semi-serious suggestion of something which ought to be repeated sometime/somewhere.

Connections was good . . . and then it went downhill as he/they ran out of good ideas and tried to make more and more tenuous connections.

— SEF

I seem to recall that this is an old trick of the creationists from way back. Hire a hall from a university, stage a "debate" where the pro-evolutionists are not really allowed to get their point across, then sell edited videos of the "University X debate" in which they appear to demolish all opposition.

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.

— heiro5ant

Considered as hypotheses about the nature of things, the belief systems of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and the rest have a negligiable probability of being true. Under the circumstances, getting people to assume that notions about Gods are even relevant to cosmological questions is quite an accomplishment. From an apologetic point of view, the great thing is to make folks assume that the concept of creation makes some sort of sense, that the debate ought to be whether or not the world was created rather than, say, whether or not it was empied out of a tin can and then heated up in a microwave oven or any one of an infinite number of absurd scenarios. The odds aren't 50-50 God, no God; but the way that the question is framed makes people think that we're in a coin flip situation.

It bears repeating that theism vs atheism is only an interesting debate from a cultural and political point of view. If you want to understand nature, the quarrel is irrelevant since recognizing that there is no God doesn't get you any further in figuring out how things work while, to judge by the privileged planet and ID movement, deciding that there is a God, doesn't explain anything either.

I'm wondering - now that the Discovery Institute has endorsed, to the tune of a $16K unrestricted gift, Darwinian evolution in all of the glories on display at the SI, what is to become of the many initiatives that thought they had the DI as an ally?

Air Bear,

I see your point. But I think the harder sell will be when the DI has to explain why they funded activities that promote (explicitly, I would assume) Darwinian evolution, in no uncertain terms. How can this be taken except as an endorsement of evolution? How do they explain this to their donors? What assurances will they have to make to ensure that they won't turn around and give another few hundred thousand dollars (or more) for similar purposes? If we assume that 'tis antievolutionists who give to the DI, then we can imagine that they won't like it that their donations are enabling pro-evolution research, pro-evolution public education.

If the SI is worried about being "tainted", the best thing they could do is explictly, specifically link the DI's cash with the most creationist-unfriendly project or program they have. "More evidence that humans and chimps share a common ancestry - funded by the Discovery Institute". What is the more convincing endorsement? Use of a lecture hall, or hard cash support of research and education? It's a no-brainer in my mind - the SI isn't endorsing anything, but the DI is most certainly endorsing Darwinian evolution.

Art -

Your integrity is showing.

I'm sure that you donate money to institutions because you want to support their work and further their missions. You wouldn't think of buying a membership in some respected organization (say, the National Geographic Society or the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association), then strut around claiming that the organization represents your views.

The ID movement has no such integrity. They no more support the general work of the Smithsonian than they support the general work of the Biological Society of Washington.

Anybody notice that the publisher of Gonzalez's book is Regnery Publishing, the people who brought you the best seller Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry

Nice company.

Regnery also published Icons of Evolution.

Remember James Randi?
The Amazing Randi?
The One Million Dollar Paranormal challenge?
Look it up: www.Randi.org:
Anyway, the JREF (James Randi Educational Foundation) is willing 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...

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.

Own goal Denyse, well done!!!

My question is, why is the Discovery Institute showing this film in the first place, and why did they choose the Smithsonian as the place to show it? The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that it was a shrewdly calculated move to buy credibility.

— Mr. Darwin

Another big question is, are they going to try to hawk either the movie or the book upon which it's based? If so, they are violating their contract with the Smithsonian, which prohibits display or promotion of commercial products.

As far as all the spin is concerned, words are cheap. The petty spinning of people like O'Leary doesn't mean much, especially since it morphs into something else every 12 hours or so. Money talks, and it is telling us that the DI is funding pro-Darwin, pro-evolution research and education. This is what the blogosphere and print press needs to publicize (I can see a nice plaque next to some new RNA World exhibit - "made possible by a gift from the Discovery Institute"). Potential donors to the DI deserve to know that their money will be spent promoting ideas like abiogenesis (undirected, materialistic, in all its glory), common ancestry of humans and apes, etc., etc.

The SI obviously does not endorse ID. The DI just as obviously has no qualms about promoting Darwinian, undirected, random, materialistic evolution. There are a lot of messages in these two undisputable statements of fact, and I think these messages deserve to "get out".

(from second hand memory)"Madam, would you consent to having sex with me for one million pounds?" "Why, my dear Mr. Shaw, that would be very compelling!" "Well then, how about two pence?" "Sir! What do you take me for?" "Madam, we established what you are- now we are negotiating price."

I seem to recall that this is an old trick of the creationists from way back. Hire a hall from a university, stage a "debate" where the pro-evolutionists are not really allowed to get their point across, then sell edited videos of the "University X debate" in which they appear to demolish all opposition. Check out Plimer's "telling lies for god" for typical examples. The amazing thing is that the Smithsonian fell for it. It must really be run by administrators and bureaucrats rather than scientists if no-one involved could smell the fishy tinge in the air.

— Rusty Catheter

Does it really surprise you that the Smithsonian would do that? This latest sell out by them isn't the first or the worst. Back in '97 (as some of you probably remember) it received 20 million from Kenneth E. Behring so that he could hunt endangered species for "scientific" study... Kara Tau argali sheep population dropped from 100 to 99. :S

http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/smithsonian/behring.html

http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/courses/geog100/USA-EndSp.htm

Well, it has turned out to be even more of a win-win situation for the Discovery Institute than I thought: they get loads of publicity, the Smithsonian Institution looks like the bad guy, and the Discovery Institute gets to screen their film for free.

And they can still crow about showing a film "at the Smithsonian Institution".

Good grief.

A win-win situation, I think not. A quote from Jesus comes to mind:

What good does it do to gain the whole world but lose your soul?

You anger the scientifically-minded people by crowing and offend the religiously-minded ones by being sleazy. My (probably vain) hope is the DI folk repudiate Denyse and don't do that. I guess time will tell.

It's a very public dissing of the ID crowd in the end. I think it's quite important that the SI not allow the DI to brag about "co-sponsorship" with the Smithsonian, particularly after the Sternberg fiasco. I hate to see the DI get a screening for free, but the money isn't all that important, not to Ahmanson, and not to the SI either when it comes down to it.

Apparently the film isn't the worst that the DI has to offer, and I believe it was Hiero5ant who pointed to the tension between cosmological ID and biological ID. Where Hiero5ant seems to go off track to some extent is that the tension has always existed, and has been papered over by the ID sorts (originally by scholastics and others, who tried valiantly to reconcile Plato, Aristotle, and Genesis. But at least they were trying to think things through at a time when science barely existed. The DI has no excuse).

In any case, there is a considerable connection between cosmological ID and biological ID in the present political situation. The same people promote it, and there is a genuine epistemological connection between the two in that intervention is posited in both. Tension between the two ideas exists because God supposedly flouts His own cosmic decrees when He creates life. Importantly, however, if God intervened 13.7 billion years ago (I'm not sure how far back Privileged Planet itself goes back, but the principle is the same regardless), who's to stop Him from doing so 4.5 billion years ago?

Epistemologically it's all the same, then. When we don't know something, do we say "The Great Intelligence did it", or do we plough on and consider the evidence scientifically? Indeed, we might even do both. They're not incompatible as such, but are only incompatible in the ID(C)ist minds which think that writing "Intelligence" means something outside of a context.

More to the point, though, do we actually require evidence and proper consideration of that evidence before we come to a conclusion about intelligences, designs, and evolution, or does lack of evidence count as evidence toward the great engineer in the sky? Ultimately that is the issue in ID, and both cosmological and biological ID(C) wish to insist upon the idea that lack of evidence is in fact evidence for God. It is this notion toward which the Smithsonian must especially show disrespect, and I'm glad that they finally did so even if they needed Denyse ("buy my book") to set off the chain of events leading to the dissing.

One more thought though: Might we in this case propose that Intelligent Design was involved, that maybe God is getting angry at the lies, deceptions, and depictions of Him as a mere designer, coming from those who once were given worthwhile brains that have since been squandered on stupidity? OK, I guess we can't, except perhaps when discussing the Great Engineer with the ID(C)ists.

One more thought though: Might we in this case propose that Intelligent Design was involved, that maybe God is getting angry at the lies, deceptions, and depictions of Him as a mere designer, coming from those who once were given worthwhile brains that have since been squandered on stupidity? OK, I guess we can't, except perhaps when discussing the Great Engineer with the ID(C)ists.

4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.

— Exodus 20:4-6

Yes, Rich, but if you take the Bible literally then Ex 20 vs teaches a flat earth. It is a pity YECs are not consistent to their hermeneutics and accept a falt as well as a young earth

Yes, Rich, but if you take the Bible literally then Ex 20 vs4 teaches a flat earth. It is a pity YECs are not consistent to their hermeneutics and accept a flat as well as a young earth

Hmm. If there is metaphor in the Second Commandment, maybe, just maybe, there is metaphor in the Fourth.

Intelligent Design and Sexual Assault

James Dobson advocates beating children. Dobson's advocacy of child beating is supported by his belief in "intelligent design," the proposition that humans and other living organisms were created by an intelligent designer. According to Dobson, that designer has explicitly endorsed beating children. For example, see The Holy Bible, Book of Proverbs, Chapter 23, verse 13.

Dobson advocates striking children's buttocks and thighs. Unfortunately, his belief in intelligent design prevents him from recognizing that he is advocating sexual assaults on children.

Modern humans are bipeds -- we have two feet. Our distant ancestors were quadrupeds -- they had four feet. During the quadrupedal phase of our evolution, protohuman males copulated protohuman females from behind. This kind of sexual union is formally known as dorso-ventral copulation. It is more commonly referred to as rear-entry sexual intercourse and it is colloquially known as "doggie style sex."

During the quadrupedal phase of our evolution, natural selection favored females whose buttocks and thighs were sensitive to stimulation during dorso-ventral copulation. This sensitivity was possible because of the special, encapsulated nerve endings in the buttocks and thighs of females.

The special nerve endings in a female's buttocks and thighs were connected by nerve fibers to her clitoris. The stimulation of those special nerve endings during dorso-ventral copulation generated nerve impulses that stimulated the female's clitoris. Those impulses provided some of the stimulation that triggered an orgasm. During an orgasm, rhythmic contractions of the female's vagina could pump semen into her uterus. The transfer of semen from her vagina to her uterus increased the probability that she would conceive and eventually give birth to offspring.

Modern females often copulate in a ventro-ventral position (face-to-face with the male sex partner). The special nerve endings in a modern female's buttocks and thighs are not directly stimulated during ventro-ventral copulation but those nerve endings are nevertheless still functional.

Playfully striking a woman's buttocks is known as an erotic spanking. An erotic spanking can trigger an orgasm. Violently striking a girl's buttocks is known as a punishment spanking. A punishment spanking can also trigger an orgasm. However, violently striking a girl's buttocks and thighs can teach her to associate painful assaults with sexual stimulation. That lesson can derail her psychosexual development and make it difficult or impossible for her to have normal sexual relations as an adult woman.

In summary, the special nerve endings in a girl's buttocks and thighs are part of her reproductive system. Violently striking those organs constitutes a kind of sexual assault. Girls should not be sexually assaulted in the name of an intelligent designer. Girls should not be sexually assaulted in the name of James Dobson. James Dobson should not advocate child beating.

Excuse me, I think I need a cold shower.

Comment #33267 Posted by Scott G. Beach on June 2, 2005 07:42 PM (e) (s) ... The special nerve endings in a female's buttocks and thighs were connected by nerve fibers to her clitoris. The stimulation of those special nerve endings during dorso-ventral copulation generated nerve impulses that stimulated the female's clitoris. Those impulses provided some of the stimulation that triggered an orgasm. During an orgasm, rhythmic contractions of the female's vagina could pump semen into her uterus. The transfer of semen from her vagina to her uterus increased the probability that she would conceive and eventually give birth to offspring. Modern females often copulate in a ventro-ventral position (face-to-face with the male sex partner). The special nerve endings in a modern female's buttocks and thighs are not directly stimulated during ventro-ventral copulation but those nerve endings are nevertheless still functional. Playfully striking a woman's buttocks is known as an erotic spanking. An erotic spanking can trigger an orgasm. Violently striking a girl's buttocks is known as a punishment spanking. ...

— Scott G. Beach

MrDarwin wrote: My question is, why is the Discovery Institute showing this film in the first place, and why did they choose the Smithsonian as the place to show it? The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that it was a shrewdly calculated move to buy credibility.

Nevertheless, just as I believe that the Book of Scripture illumines the pathway to God, so I believe that the Book of Nature, with its astonishing details-the blade of grass, the Conus geographus (with its lethal harpoon), or the resonance levels of the carbon atom-also suggests a God of purpose and a God of design. And I think my belief makes me no less a scientist. To conclude, I turn once again to Kepler, who wrote, "If I have been allured into brashness by the wonderful beauty of thy works, or if I have loved my own glory among men, while advancing in work destined for thy glory, gently and mercifully pardon me: and finally, deign graciously to cause that these demonstrations may lead to thy glory and to the salvation of souls, and nowhere be an obstacle to that. Amen." Dr. Owen Gingerich

To conclude, I turn once again to Kepler ...

Kepler, eh. Wasn't he the guy who claimed craters on the moon had to have been intelligently designed because they displayed, what the IDers would call today even though he obviously didn't use that terminology then, specified complexity?

That can happen when you fail to consider the right natural hypotheses.

Burt wrote: God help us if these guys ever get in a position to call the shots on scientific research.

The facts of the matter are as follows: The Discovery Institute has made a donation of $16,000 to the National Museum of Natural History.

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.

Sal, the difference is Owen Gingerich knows when he is talking science and when he is talking extra-scientific (meaning something beyond the science) metaphysics, ID does not.

But apparently, one of their scientists does privately.

But apparently, one of their scientists does privately.

Except the entire event is now worthless to you lot as a propaganda tool, because the direct statements from the SI have said they do not endorse the video or its contents. All you're getting is a little party but the attempt to 'buy' scientific credibility has blew up in your poor little faces, and that's where you really lost out on this one. Now the SI is on record stating there was nothing scientific about the movie, mole or no mole.

What a shame.

Sal, the difference is Owen Gingerich knows when he is talking science and when he is talking extra-scientific (meaning something beyond the science) metaphysics, ID does not.

Responding to my claim a smithsonian scientist privately supports the contents of Privileged Planet: Jon Fleming wrote: Got any evidence? Sheesh

There is, I believe, no contradiction between holding a staunch belief in supernatural design and being a creative scientist, the universe is easier to comprehend if we assume that it has both purpose and design... a common-sense and satisfying interpretation of our world suggests the designing hand of a superintelligence.

This thoughtful and delightfully contrarian book will rile up those who believe the 'Copernican Principle' is an essential philosophical component of modern science. Is our universe designedly congenial to intelligen observing life? Passionate advocates of the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) will find much to ponder in this carefully documented analysis

Passionate advocates of the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) will find much to ponder in this carefully documented analysis

Dr. Owen Gingerich, Senior Astronomer emeritus at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory

But thanks to ye Darwinists, the Discovery Institute is getting their money back to finance yet another public relations event.

Discovery Institute is pleased to join the Director of the National Museum of Natural History in announcing the national premiere and private evening reception for The Privileged Planet: The Search for Purpose in the Universe at 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 23, 2005. The documentary will be shown in the Baird Auditorium of the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Insitution in Washington D.C., and will be followed by an evening reception in the museum's Janet Annenberg Hooker Hall of Geology, Gems and Minerals.

June 23, 2005 Smithsonian Institution Premiere of The Privileged Planet Discovery Institute is pleased to join the Director of the National Museum of Natural History in announcing the national premiere and private evening reception for The Privileged Planet: The Search for Purpose in the Universe at 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 23, 2005. The documentary will be shown in the Baird Auditorium of the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Insitution in Washington D.C., and will be followed by an evening reception in the museum's Janet Annenberg Hooker Hall of Geology, Gems and Minerals. Attendance is by mailed invitation only.

Posted by Salvador T. Cordova

Unclear on the concept - Lawrence M. Small, the chief executive of the Smithsonian Institution, was convicted in 2004 for his collection of South American artifacts that include the feathers of 219 birds protected by the Endangered Species Act, and was sentenced to 100 hours of community service. Hearst Newspapers reported that Small had not yet begun his sentence, in that he is still negotiating for the right to serve it by spending 100 hours lobbying Congress to change the Endangered Species Act.

2. "FOLLOW THE MONEY": THE ADVICE OF "DEEP THROAT" TO WOODWARD. "The Privileged Planet" was produced by Illustra Media. When we asked who paid for it they said we would have to write their lawyers. We were able to identify the Crowell Trust, established by the founder of Quaker Oats, which promotes "the doctrines of Evangelical Christianity." The film was based on a book by Guillermo Gonsalez and Jay Richards. It was published by Regnery, whose authors are at the extreme right of the spectrum. Richards is vice president of Discovery Institute, a non-profit educational foundation with deep-pocket contributors. Gonzalez is an assistant research professor at Iowa State. In the book, he acknowledges financial support from the Templeton Foundation.

Kudos to Lenny for staying on Salvador's ass.

Salvador,
With you back here the entertainment resumes. I did some quick lookups on the web about Gingerich. His talk migh dwell on the heavier questions that cosmologists investigate these days but he is no expert on any of them - at least his recent publications aren't necessarily in that area. He has been teaching a popular course that has to do with the history of science at Harvard. He has among other things catalogued over 400 copies of Copernicus's works and has been commended by the Polish government for that. He does speak about his points of view but nothing earth shattering. Considering all the access and credibility he enjoys there seems to be a good reason why he does not go beyond voicing his opinions. He probably understands the ground rules of science and knows that to establish his opinions as scientific theses will take an extra-ordinary amount of work which he probably does not feel up to.

Check out these links on Gingerich before the associated factotums of get going
http://www.space.com/colleges/college_gingerich_profile_000921.html
http://www.seds.org/messier/xtra/Bios/gingerich.html
http://www.aip.org/history/historymatters/gingerich.htm

There's plenty of quote mining to do.

And then how about answering Lenny's questions?

Hi Lenny,

I can understand your frustration with Sal and the other ID proponents. They can't seem to answer the simplest questions regarding the scientific theory of ID. But, you know, scientific research takes time, effort, talent, money and most importantly it needs to conform with what we find in nature (possibly a major problem don't you think?). As Sal points out, the DI's funding priorities are to support a public relations campaign. After these significant expenditures there really isn't anything left to actually do any scientific research. I'm sure you understand and will cut Sal and the DI some slack.

The DI is just following the esteemed footsteps of Albert Einstein. Years before he got a working theory of relativity, he formed the Relativity Institute, which set about getting criticisms of Newtonian physics into high school textbooks, he made movies about a possible relativistic nature of the universe, he published Newton's Black Box for laymen, got senators to try to write pro-relativity legislation, disclaimers on mechanics textbooks, complained about hostile journal editors, etc. Standard operating procedure for real science.

Newton's Black Box...really too funny for words.

Hi Lenny, I can understand your frustration with Sal and the other ID proponents. They can't seem to answer the simplest questions regarding the scientific theory of ID.

But, you know, scientific research takes time, effort, talent, money and most importantly it needs to conform with what we find in nature (possibly a major problem don't you think?). As Sal points out, the DI's funding priorities are to support a public relations campaign. After these significant expenditures there really isn't anything left to actually do any scientific research. I'm sure you understand and will cut Sal and the DI some slack.

Kudos to Lenny for staying on Salvador's ass.

I've had some time to reflect on all this and some ironies have emerged:

1. Denyse originally touted this as a sign of the Smithsonian softening to ID. What Denyse has missed is that a number of religious and scientific people have already buried the hatchet. Only time will tell whether Denyse has reversed some of the progress we have achieved because of revival of the warfare model on both sides. On my part, I've tried to do as much damage control as possible. However, I am too close to myself to properly appraise whether my efforts were successful or not.

2. Denyse chided the ASA as a "dozy" organization. If I was going to do a US News and World Report winners and losers, DI and the post Darwinist blog get down arrows and the ASA and PT get up arrows.

3. I suggest we call Denyse Queen Gertrude O'Leary because she protesteth too much. Up until late last week the DI insisted they were only trying to rent a hall. The final deal allowed them to get this hall for less money than they anticipated. The only stipulation was that they didn't get the Smithsonian's blessing which they originally claimed they didn't seek. DI gets everything they want but only loses what they were not seeking. Then, why oh why are they complaining so much?!??!

Kudos to Lenny for staying on Salvador's ass.

June 02, 2005 Amazing Outcome: Smithsonian Support Of 'Intelligent Design' Disappears The Smithsonian Institution has dropped its plan to cosponsor the showing of a film promoting "intelligent design." In a statement issued yesterday, Smithsonian officials dropped plans to cosponsor the "The Privileged Planet: The Search for Purpose in the Universe," which is based on a book promoting intelligent design by Iowa State University astronomy professor Guillermo Gonzalez. The Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based group that promotes the neo-creationist intelligent design, had entered into a partnership with the Smithsonian's Museum of Natural History to show the film June 23 by offering a screening fee of $16,000. Under the terms of the compromise, the film will still be shown at the museum, but the money won't be accepted and the museum will withdraw its cosponsorship. (For more background, see yesterday's blog item "Bad Design: Anti-Evolution Shenanigans At The Smithsonian Spark Alarm.") "We have determined that the content of the film is not consistent with the mission of the Smithsonian Institution's scientific research," observed a museum statement, as reported in The Washington Post. The Discovery Institute's attempt to link its religiously grounded concepts with the prestige of the Smithsonian did not sit well with many scientists and opponents of intelligent design. One ID foe, Florida-based magician James "the Amazing" Randi, a frequent debunker of pseudo-scientific claims, wrote to the Smithsonian and offered $20,000 to pull the film. "Though we cannot imagine what political external or internal pressure was brought to bear on the Smithsonian to trigger this incredible blunder, we can count on the creationists now crowing about validation from one of the world's most trusted scientific authorities," Randi wrote on the website of his James Randi Educational Foundation (www.randi.org). "If James Smithson were alive today, judging from what he wrote in his diaries and letters, I believe he would want his money refunded upon hearing of this travesty." Randi told The Post that he believes the Smithsonian was not aware the film promoted creationist ideas and added if the Smithsonian took on the film merely to make money, "then I'm ready to surpass that." Bruce Chapman, president of the Discovery Institute, was not pleased by the developments. "We're disappointed," Chapman said. "We met all their conditions -- screening the film for them, agreeing [to list the Smithsonian] director's name on the invitation and so forth - and then some mention of this in the media, and now they want to backtrack to some degree, and we don't get it." Perhaps a little clarification would be helpful for Mr. Chapman: The Smithsonian is one of the world's premier scientific organizations. Intelligent design, meanwhile, is a tool increasingly used by evangelical Christians to cast doubt on Darwinism and win converts. Not surprisingly, the Smithsonian can't promote that. Phillip Johnson, a former law professor who serves as the godfather of the ID movement, laid out his goals when addressing a 1999 conference sponsored by TV preacher D. James Kennedy. Johnson said his goal is to place doubts about the validity of evolution in people's minds. From there, they are introduced to "the truth" of the Bible, "the question of sin" and then "introduced to Jesus." You can call that lots of things, but it sure isn't science.

How much ever Dembski and his factotums try to bluster and swagger IDoC is no longer a question of science - it is pure politics. The scientific debates have come and gone leaving the Icons of IDoC looking like cheap trinkets. The press has started to use the description of IDoC that were popularised on this blog - Creationism in a cheap tuxedo - so much so that the Discovery big-wigs now actually complain about it! The scientists themselves aren't bothering themselves with countering IDoC nonsense it is the several part-time folks at places like these who wallop the full-tosses (OK that's cricket) that ignoramuses from IDoC keep lobbing at science. In case of the Smithsonian fiasco it looks like the smartest people of IDoC turned out to be too clever by half. While some leading lights of Seattle were half-hearted about the Dover and Cobb capers opining that IDoC was being escalated too quickly; they seem to have done exactly that at the Smithsonian. These guys don't seem to learn that when you find yourself in hole stop digging. The pseudoscientific terms IC, CSI, AP and L&O (I made up the last one) all stand discredited with the press not willing to give these cranks any quarter. It is best these puffed up charlatans relegate themselves to the amusement industry as their predecessors - the Creationists have done. But after having acted hoity-toity with CRS, AiG and ICR (appropriating their arguments and posing as non-religious sorts) Demb may have burnt his bridges and may find it difficult to scurry back to safety. IDoC will of course continue to be a political nuisance and even threaten the conduct of science. Maybe the first golden decades for science are coming to a close. The budding scientists of today will need to prepare themselves to do battle with silliness, impostors, tricksters and fraudsters.

The budding scientists of today will need to prepare themselves to do battle with silliness, impostors, tricksters and fraudsters.

If only the budding scientists of today were only interested in science rather than religion and politics, their problems would be solved.

Jan, I may have misread your post but you seem to imply that the reality of nature is subjective. It isn't.

Science seeks only to quantify and understand nature, on nature's terms. Religion demands that nature conform itself to the terms of religion.

Rather than dictate to your creator how he created, why not observe and "listen"?

If only the budding scientists of today were only interested in science rather than religion and politics, their problems would be solved. It would be so simple to present your findings and allow others to decide for themselves about their relationship with and to the Creator. It seems that a great fear has overtaken the scientist of today. Many seem to fear that ID sympathizers will destroy science. Others fear the Smithsonian will harm science or scientist in some way by presenting the knowledge of Intelligence. Perhaps you need to present your 'scientific data' and allow others to seek truth as they see fit. Ideas are not a threat to scientific findings. The FACT that I believe the following should not threaten you in any way: O God, You are very great: Who stretch out the heavens like a curtain . . . You send forth Your Spirit, they are created; and You renew the face of the earth. Psalm 104:1,2,30 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. Colossians 1:16 (long before powerful microscopes, the writer knew of the invisible world that God created)

he published Newton's Black Box for laymen

Jan,

Let's keep religion out of this for your own sake. And then what is "intelligence" please? Among the many tricks Bill D and company have perfected in their decade long quest to fool specialist and laypeople alike is the use of shields such as "intelligence", "complexity", "design" entirely out of context. It is a clever and dishonest practice to use words in their generally accepted sense to frame scietific statements. As Jeff Shallit showed in his reviews of Bill D uses the term complexity in a way that is entirely undefined. It is one thing to talk of an intelligent person or "intelligence" as in "Intelligence Oversight Committee". When the term is used as the IDCs do they are confounding the lay public. This is what leads to numberless letters by ill-informed laypeople every now and then expressing incredulity at how "intelligence" could have evolved. Bill D is the latest in a long line of pseudoscientists. Only this time deliberate. The YECs can be criticised for many things but at least have not attempted to play with words (although now Sarfati refers to intelligence and information more often). Bill D may have one more thing to worry about very soon. The YECs seeing how easy it is to become popular and written about might just start talking as the IDCs do - the same sham sophistication, quivocation, wordsmithy, swagger, bluster, bakwas rhetoric etc. Bill D may have an unpleasant surprise. While scientists fisk him as a rule unless it is the strident ones like Dawkins and Dennett they tend to be courteous.

It's believed by some, PaulP, that Newton, in that comment, was mocking Hooke's small stature.

And then what is "intelligence" please?

If only the budding scientists of today were only interested in science rather than religion and politics, their problems would be solved. It would be so simple to present your findings and allow others to decide for themselves about their relationship with and to the Creator. It seems that a great fear has overtaken the scientist of today. Many seem to fear that ID  sympathizers will destroy science. Others fear the Smithsonian will harm science or scientist in some way by presenting  the knowledge of Intelligence. Perhaps you need to present your 'scientific data' and allow others to seek truth as they see fit.

Ideas are not a threat to scientific findings. The FACT that I believe the following should not threaten you in any way: O God, You are very great: Who stretch out the heavens like a curtain . . . You send forth Your Spirit, they are created; and You renew the face of the earth. Psalm 104:1,2,30

What happens to Christians who lie . . . .?

It appears to me a rather strange commentary that is found here. On the one hand, the contributors of this blog would all join with Arden Chatfield in asking, "Why should science care in the slightest that you believe this?", yet on the other hand much time and effort goes into fighting a profit making organization like the IMAX theatre for choosing to present what people like myself believe. Would it not seem obvious to most "intelligent" people that IF there is an Intelligence behind the 'creation' of the universes that all the scientist in the world will not be able to hide this fact from children and if there is NOT, no creationist is going to be able to convince a classroom of children who are presented with scientific evidence that proves otherwise? It could be considered comical, and it really is, but it is also sad. Pretending that intelligence does not exist, when it does, is much harder than pretending it does when it clearly, 'ain't' there.

Now on a different note...There may be one free thinker who needs the following: For those of you who may have never read the first amendment, but you have been told that this amendment to the constitution prohibits children from being told that there is a chance that the universe was created, I would like for you to read the amendment for yourself and think about what it actually says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Forget everything that you have been told and think about it. What do you think the founding fathers meant? Do you think that our planet clearly displays evidence of an Intelligent Design?

Jan, your ignorance is baffling. The Imax issue I think you're referring to, was the removal of a movie based on the assumption it would offend people of religious nature. This annoyed people who wanted to see it, and they complained. This had nothing to do with not showing some sort of religious movie as you seem to be implying.

The only time the first ammendment gets any mention is when people like yourself try an end around to put religious material into science class. There is no scientific basis to creationism. If there was, there would be no issue adding it to the curriculum. This has been pointed out ad nauseum in almost every thread here.

Jan,

Lokks like it is your turn today to get fisked. Never worry. Fisking cures IDoC. As Sal and a host of other IDoC apologists have done before you so will you. From sweet reasonableness is followed by fake serious "scientific" concern; and that changes to a slight annoying condescension; thereon to bluster (I don't care) to swagger and triumph, until the facade crubmles.

One of these is the endpoint. Gibberish - as in the case of the former professor of green mountain and gubernatorial candidate - or Dave Scot; bristling barely concealed anger at being left defenceless - like Sal (and scurrying back to great/dear leader for advice) - or all out hot loony abuse. I am waiting to see what endpoint you adopt as you evolve or as we say in Tamizh - saayam veLukka veLukka - as the dye fades. Of course you can do what Bill D and his factotums have done - construct your blog and slime and misrepresent to your heart's content declaring victory every week.

OK get ready.

"Would it not seem obvious to most "intelligent" people that IF there is an Intelligence behind the 'creation' of the universes ......Pretending that intelligence does not exist, when it does, is much harder than pretending it does when it clearly, 'ain't' there."

What data or findings are you discussing? And then once again please define intelligence in terms of what you talking of. What do you mean by "intelligent" people? Are there degrees of 'intelligent' people? What are your methods for measuring intelligence in the processes you talk about?

For your comfort and consolation; if you do manage to answer these questions you will have managed to surpass the Icons of IDoC themselves for they have no clue what these terms mean apart from the colloquial sense. Once you are done let's et on to pretending and imagining the obvious.

Marsha! Marsha! Marsha!

It appears to me a rather strange commentary that is found here. On the one hand, the contributors of this blog would all join with Arden Chatfield in asking, "Why should science care in the slightest that you believe this?", yet on the other hand much time and effort goes into fighting a profit making organization like the IMAX theatre for choosing to present what people like myself believe.

Would it not seem obvious to most "intelligent" people

that IF there is an Intelligence behind the 'creation' of the universes that all the scientist in the world will not be able to hide this fact from children and if there is NOT, no creationist is going to be able to convince a classroom of children who are presented with scientific evidence that proves otherwise? It could be considered comical, and it really is, but it is also sad. Pretending that intelligence does not exist, when it does, is much harder than pretending it does when it clearly, 'ain't' there.

Now on a different note . . . There may be one free thinker who needs the following: For those of you who may have never read the first amendment, but you have been told that this amendment to the constitution prohibits children from being told that there is a chance that the universe was created, I would like for you to read the amendment for yourself and think about what it actually says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Forget everything that you have been told and think about it. What do you think the founding fathers meant?

Do you think that our planet clearly displays evidence of an Intelligent Design?

I would like for you to read the amendment for yourself and think about what it actually says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Forget everything that you have been told and think about it. What do you think the founding fathers meant?

Lenny, How do you know who my heroes are? You make a lot of assumptions and I must tell you that some of them are completely wrong. Actually, I do not even keep up with the political 'goings on'. I know enough about you guys and politicians not to take anyones word for what is happening. I would have to see the court report! You probably need to do the same before you spout off too much.

As for undermining my own side, again you are assuming that I am fighting a battle. My only purpose is to try and build a bridge. I would like for you to be more open minded. If you were able to realize the truth and know that there is an Intelligence and that there is a design and a Designer, you would enjoy your scientific findings even more. Quite honestly, I am not worried about what the courts decide. I believe that the One who created us in is control and that I do not have to fight the battle. He is able to do that and will do just that. Perhaps those who are fighting are doing what they should do, and I hope that I am not undermining them. I really do not believe that I have that much power. I would like to aid them by decreasing the number of foes they are fighting. The best way to defeat an enemy is to make him your friend.

The best way to defeat an enemy is to make him your friend.

My only purpose is to try and build a bridge.

I would like for you to be more open minded.

I would have to see the court report!

Lenny, I continue to think about our discussion. Your anger, insults, and outrage do tend to give me the idea that there is an enemy out there. I certainly do not consider you an enemy. If I did, I would not respond and wait for more of your insults. I consider you someone who fails to understand anything that I say. It seems to be impossible to have a discussion without you resorting to insults, anger and rage.

Here is one more attempt to answer what you asked of me? You wish to know why I am "undermining" my "heroes". The fact is that I am not depending on courts to make this right. Do you remember what happened in the former Soviet Union, when the church was forced underground? It was at this point, the true church began to grow and flourish. You wonder why I am not trying to help those you think are my heroes. Let me explain it this way. Many times, when knowledge is suppressed, the ban will serve to bring a focus to the thinking of those involved. While you will not openly admit that you wish to silence those who disagree with you, your wrath indicates that you are extremely intolerant and prefer to live in a nation that publicly makes zero mention of God, Creation, or the Bible. Our nation's history is the opposite of this. We have traditionally been a nation who acknowledges God. In the last few decades, those who wish to see this changed have made great strides. If this movement continues to be successful, if we as a nation fail to tolerate even the idea of intelligence behind the design of our planet, it will serve to focus the thoughts of our nation more directly toward these questions. Why are we here? From whence came we? Could all the laws of nature, physics, etc. be random or chance occurrences or do they indicate an Intelligence or Designer? While we may go through a period of darkness, I know that eventually, the truth will prevail.

For those who keep asking, what is intelligence:
Intelligence - 1 a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : reason ; also : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests) b : Christian Science : the basic eternal quality of divine Mind c : mental acuteness : SHREWDNESS
2 a : an intelligent entity; especially : b : intelligent minds or mind
Keep this in mind:
The very evidence used to gain wide spread acceptance of evolution in the public eye was fraudulent. The strong bias of many evolutionists in seeking a link between apes and man is shown by the near-universal acceptance of two "missing links" that were later proved to be a fraud in the case of Piltdown Man (Eoanthropus) and a pig's tooth in the case of Nebraska Man (Hesperopithecus). While this was admitted, it was not publicized and the theory had become so widely accepted that the broad leaps today that are being made are accepted, without the scrutiny that should be applied. Politics have become entrenched and are playing a huge part in this acceptance. In other words, it is politically correct, to "believe" and to teach evolution. Other teachings and findings are currently being ridiculed and kept out of the classroom by using the first amendment. The amendment that was intended to do just the opposite. Now take a deep breath and think before you answer....

The very evidence used to gain wide spread acceptance of evolution in the public eye was fraudulent. The strong bias of many evolutionists in seeking a link between apes and man is shown by the near-universal acceptance of two "missing links" that were later proved to be a fraud in the case of Piltdown Man (Eoanthropus) and a pig's tooth in the case of Nebraska Man (Hesperopithecus). While this was admitted, it was not publicized and the theory had become so widely accepted that the broad leaps today that are being made are accepted, without the scrutiny that should be applied.

— Jan

The very evidence used to gain wide spread acceptance of evolution in the public eye was fraudulent. The strong bias of many evolutionists in seeking a link between apes and man is shown by the near-universal acceptance of two "missing links" that were later proved to be a fraud...

While you will not openly admit that you wish to silence those who disagree with you, your wrath indicates that you are extremely intolerant and prefer to live in a nation that publicly makes zero mention of God, Creation, or the Bible.

"While this was admitted, it was not publicized and the theory had become so widely accepted that the broad leaps today that are being made are accepted, without the scrutiny that should be applied."

Could you provide some evidence to back up this rather brazen statement. Its just that I happen to be aquainted with (and have been taught by) one of the foremost experts on human evolution in the world, and this statement doesn't ring true. In addition you might want to check out the following blog:

ww.johnhawks.net

John is a proponent of the multiregional view of human evolution. I think you'll find him to be rather critical (a bit over sceptical in my opinion) of a lot of research into human evolution, as he holds a position contrary to the Out of Africa view. Read his blog and see if you think scrutiny isn't being applied.

While you will not openly admit that you wish to silence those who disagree with you, your wrath indicates that you are extremely intolerant and prefer to live in a nation that publicly makes zero mention of God, Creation, or the Bible. Our nation's history is the opposite of this. We have traditionally been a nation who acknowledges God. In the last few decades, those who wish to see this changed have made great strides.

— jan

The very evidence used to gain wide spread acceptance of evolution in the public eye was fraudulent. The strong bias of many evolutionists in seeking a link between apes and man is shown by the near-universal acceptance of two "missing links" that were later proved to be a fraud in the case of Piltdown Man (Eoanthropus) and a pig's tooth in the case of Nebraska Man (Hesperopithecus). While this was admitted, it was not publicized and the theory had become so widely accepted that the broad leaps today that are being made are accepted, without the scrutiny that should be applied.

So i just read this disturbing Wedge Document, specifically their Five and Twenty year goals. So how is the Discovery Institute doing at meeting these goals, in your opinions?

I, of course, hope that the answer is "not very well," but let me hear your thoughts.

Many times, when knowledge is suppressed, the ban will serve to bring a focus to the thinking of those involved. While you will not openly admit that you wish to silence those who disagree with you, your wrath indicates that you are extremely intolerant and prefer to live in a nation that publicly makes zero mention of God, Creation, or the Bible. Our nation's history is the opposite of this. We have traditionally been a nation who acknowledges God. In the last few decades, those who wish to see this changed have made great strides. If this movement continues to be successful, if we as a nation fail to tolerate even the idea of intelligence behind the design of our planet, it will serve to focus the thoughts of our nation more directly toward these questions. Why are we here? From whence came we? Could all the laws of nature, physics, etc. be random or chance occurrences or do they indicate an Intelligence or Designer? While we may go through a period of darkness, I know that eventually, the truth will prevail.

Politics have become entrenched and are playing a huge part in this acceptance. In other words, it is politically correct, to "believe" and to teach evolution. Other teachings and findings are currently being ridiculed and kept out of the classroom by using the first amendment. The amendment that was intended to do just the opposite. Now take a deep breath and think before you answer . . . .

Drat these machines!

Last post shoulda ended: Clearly the Intelligent Designer (whoever that may be, ::winkwink::) favored Mayr's work. We would be remiss not to study it. Please do.

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?

To refer to a post by my fellow rev Lenny, so YECs became such because of their wives, eg Gary Parker and Monty White of AIG. Exactly how I do not know but I did wonder if it had any similarities to Aristophanes' Lysistrata!

Come on, Jan, Lenny is that awkward, he is only too aware of the fallacies of YEC and ID.

Lenny, I continue to think about our discussion. Your anger, insults, and outrage do tend to give me the idea that there is an enemy out there. I certainly do not consider you an enemy. If I did, I would not respond and wait for more of your insults. I consider you someone who fails to understand anything that I say. It seems to be impossible to have a discussion without you resorting to insults, anger and rage.

The strong bias of many evolutionists in seeking a link between apes and man is shown by the near-universal acceptance of two "missing links" that were later proved to be a fraud in the case of Piltdown Man (Eoanthropus) and a pig's tooth in the case of Nebraska Man (Hesperopithecus).

The Piltdown fraud was discovered using the sequence of the fossil record and dating techniques, BOTH of which were (and still are) rejected by creationists.  As noted, most biologists (while not suspecting a hoax) asserted that the skull and the jaw did not belong together, because they did not fit into the evolutionary sequence that was known from other fossils.  Indeed, one of the reasons that Piltdown was flourine-tested in the first place was to see if the skull and jaw were really the same age (if it could be shown that they were different ages, then they did not belong together, as many scientists were assuming).  The flourine testing revealed the fraud, and later radiodating confirmed it ------ the very same radiodating techniques, take note, that CREATIONISTS keep telling us are so wildly inaccurate and untrustworthy.  The odd thing is that if one rejects the dating processes and the fossil sequence (as creationists do), then there is NO REASON to conclude that Piltdown IS a fraud.  So not only did creationists NOT discover the fraud, but they COULD NOT have. They "did not believe in" the very methods that were used to uncover the hoax.

While you will not openly admit that you wish to silence those who disagree with you, your wrath indicates that you are extremely intolerant and prefer to live in a nation that publicly makes zero mention of God, Creation, or the Bible.

If this is the same Jan the I've run into other blogs then don't expect any response. Like many creationist she's been corrected on these exact discrepancies before and like almost all creationists that have been corrected promptly ignores the corrections and often just goes away and hides for awhile only to show up somewhere else spouting off the same rubbish to another crowd.

Remember creationists can't be wrong, they have Jesus on their side. Accurate recounts of history is not their strong suit.

If this is the same Jan the I've run into other blogs then don't expect any response.

Like many creationist she's been corrected on these exact discrepancies before and like almost all creationists that have been corrected promptly ignores the corrections and often just goes away and hides for awhile only to show up somewhere else spouting off the same rubbish to another crowd.

Remember creationists can't be wrong, they have Jesus on their side. Accurate recounts of history is not their strong suit.

It is tempting to refuse to answer those who have nothing to contribute but rude remarks, insults, and attempts to accuse others of things never said. I will answer some of your questions and ask a few myself. First, however, let me make something clear once more. I am speaking for myself and myself alone. Call me a liar if you please, however, you should be polite enough to at least give me the time, place and date of this lie that I have told. As for ID being or not being religion, I have never been asked that question. I will address it now. It is my opinionthat the concept of religion and the concept of ID are separate issues. In my opinionreligion involves the service and worship of God or the supernatural anda commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance. When religion is taught in public schools, the courts have ruled that this is against the first amendment of our constitution. I agree with this ruling unless the school is a not supported with tax dollars. Intelligent Design, on the other hand, is the concept that there are evidences that point to the possiblity that the world, universe, matter etc. did not come into existence by chance or random selection. The order and laws of the universe along with other factors that can easily be found outlined on websites and in manuels on the subject suggest this very real possiblity. Teaching this to a student in no way constitutes establishing or teaching a religion. I will address other questions on my next post as this could take some time.

Mr. Lenny, You have me mixed up with someone else. I have never referred to you as an atheist. There are many people who do not consider themselves atheist who want all mention of God removed from all public airways, and any government properties.

Now concerning the question of separation of church and state. Would one of you who have a much higher education than I please give me the place where this is written in our constitution? I have already explained to you that I disagree with the courts interpretation of our first amendment in the broad sweep that has been made.

I am going to be polite and tell you briefly why I feel that we were established as a Christian nation. It would take hours for me to do a great job with this, but I will be brief and you will tear this to shreds because there is not adequate time to answer. Anyway, here goes:

The Mayflower Compact: clearly stating that it was for "the glory of God and the advancement of the Christian faith."

Benjamin Rush, a signer of our constitution wrote:
But the religion I mean to recommend in this place is that of the New Testament.

It is foreign to my purpose to hint at the arguments which establish the truth of the Christian revelation. My only business is to declare, that all its doctrines and precepts are calculated to promote the happiness of society, and the safety and well being of civil government. There are dozens of other quotes and perhaps I will place them on this post at another time.

This next paragraph is copied, but I believe my source is reliable: "Congress. The largest congregation in America at one time was meeting in, of all places, the House of Representatives! Weekly worship services once boasted an attendance of 2,000! These services took place the very week that Congress passed the 14th Amendment"

Read the inscriptions in the halls of Washington DC and on our coins.

My point might be made by reminding you that as early as the 1600's the schools, beginning with was was called "The Old Deluder Act" referring to Satan attempted to equip children with Christian values. The early readers were filled with Christian virtues. I have copies of these in my possession. They belonged to my father. You are probably younger than I and have not seen these, but they do exist. The later books dropped these, but it was generally agreed in the American Colonies that the main purpose of reading was to enable the student to read the Bible.

I will end with this, but I could write pages. It is late and I will add more if you feel that I have not answered sufficiently. Remember, this is a country where we are allowed to disagree. I know that my words will anger you, but please do not shoot the messenger. Research this before you attack.

What happens to Christians who lie, Jan? When you support Christians who lie, what does that say about YOU, Jan

I came here, as I said, to attempt to help you to understand why I think ID should be included in a student textbook.

Ideas are not a threat to scientific findings

Jan:

Thank you for not answering any of my questions.

I'll ask again:

What article of the Constitution mentions God or establishes the US as a Christian antion?

What is the scientific theory of ID, and how can we test it using the scientific method? Or sare IDers just lying to us when they claim to have a sicentific theory of ID?

Why should anyone pay any more attention to your religious opinions than they should to mine, my next door neighbor's, my car mechanic's, my veterinarian's, or the kid who delivers my pizzas? What makes your religious opinions any more infallible, divine or holy than anyone else's?

My belief is that lying of any kind dispeases God.

Jan, a lot of people spent a long time writing absurdly long comments that you seem to have skipped over. A lot of valid points were raised, and questions asked that you didn't answer. Instead, you decide to take the poor persecuted christian route and claim that even though people are being rude, you'll answer the questions anyway...and then don't answer those questions.

Jan, if ID is science, and not religious, why even bring up the First Amendment and then the whole Christian nation argument?

"Separation of Church and State" does not appear in the Constitution. It was written in a letter by Thomas Jefferson (one of the framers of the Constitution.) James Madison (the main architect of the document) also felt very strongly that church and state should be separate. It is disingenuous at best to suggest that the framers of the Constitution did not want church and state to be separate.

The claim that the US is a "Christian nation" seems to be standard fare for some Christians, who can produce a great deal of genuine history showing that a great many historical personalities in US history were themselves Christian, made reference to Christian beliefs in their statements, and attributed various events to the Christian God which their geographic precedessors had attributed to the Great Spirit.

In the opposite corner, we have those who point out that the idea of a "Christian nation" is entirely separate from the notion of a nation primarily created by and populated by Christians. Instead, the US Constitution was derived from the writings primarily of Locke. Jefferson, Franklin and other primary authors of the Constitution wrote fairly extensively of the importance of creating a government neutral to religion, forbidding the government either to endorse or discourage any given faith. In this, there was wide agreement based on immediate experience with the British experience with the Anglican Church.

Faced with the direct evidence of the near-unanimity of the founders, some religious people (to-daa!) move the goalposts!. They say, well, some of the early colonies were religious colonies. True, but irrelevant. They point to "In God We Trust" on our currency, but don't mention that for most of US history, our money said "E Pluribus Unum" and was change in the early 1950s in political response to the "red scare" from the "godless Communists."

There seems little hope of persuading such a religious person that there really IS a distinction between a nation full of Christians, and a nation designed and intended to support and defend one specific religion (namely theirs). Saying "I disagree with over 200 years of Constitutional interpretation by all the courts, those words mean what I WANT them to mean" is a profoundly religious statement. From every indication, religious truths are based on what people WISH to be true, and evidence to the contrary is simply "disagreed with" (i.e. dismissed).

Anyway, as far as I can tell, Jan wishes religious doctrine to be presented in science class because her reading of history finds historical figures who were Christians, because unrelated errors of fact have been made (and corrected), because she wishes her faith to be the Official State Religion, and because it's just not fair that what she KNOWS to be true should be excluded while what she KNOWS to be false is presented on the basis of nothing but mere evidence!

The claim that the US is a "Christian nation" seems to be standard fare for some Christians, who can produce a great deal of genuine history showing that a great many historical personalities in US history were themselves Christian, made reference to Christian beliefs in their statements, and attributed various events to the Christian God which their geographic precedessors had attributed to the Great Spirit.

— Flint

I wrote a perfectly polite reply to Jan and was ignored. For the record, here is my post again:

"While this was admitted, it was not publicized and the theory had become so widely accepted that the broad leaps today that are being made are accepted, without the scrutiny that should be applied."

Could you provide some evidence to back up this rather brazen statement. Its just that I happen to be aquainted with (and have been taught by) one of the foremost experts on human evolution in the world, and this statement doesn't ring true. In addition you might want to check out the following blog:

ww.johnhawks.net

John is a proponent of the multiregional view of human evolution. I think you'll find him to be rather critical (a bit over sceptical in my opinion) of a lot of research into human evolution, as he holds a position contrary to the Out of Africa view. Read his blog and see if you think scrutiny isn't being applied.

Jan, if ID is science, and not religious, why even bring up the First Amendment and then the whole Christian nation argument?

"Separation of Church and State" does not appear in the Constitution. It was written in a letter by Thomas Jefferson (one of the framers of the Constitution.) James Madison (the main architect of the document) also felt very strongly that church and state should be separate. It is disingenuous at best to suggest that the framers of the Constitution did not want church and state to be separate.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Jan, your ignorance makes baby Jesus cry. I can't believe you could read so much of this site and still post the garbage that you just did. I'm glad that there are other people out there that have the time and patience to try and point out, again and again, why you are completly wrong.

Many on this blog actually admitted that Evolutionist who call themselves Evolutionary Scientist have no idea where matter originated. Why then are they so dead set against this discussion, if it is a class that would lend itself to origins?

— Jan asks

The idea that the origin of matter could best be explained, considering the complex laws and the patterns found that have led to life as we know it, by an intelligent designer certainly does not in any way teach a child that he must worship or commit to a life of devotion to God or religion.

— Jan

Many on this blog actually admitted that Evolutionist who call themselves Evolutionary Scientist have no idea where matter originated.

— Jan

Why then are they so dead set against this discussion, if it is a class that would lend itself to origins? Why should intelligent design be taboo?

— Jan

ID does not represent the teaching of religion.

— Jan

It is my opinion that the concept of religion and the concept of ID are separate issues.

— Jan

Why should intelligent design be taboo? ID does not represent the teaching of religion.

Many on this blog actually admitted that Evolutionist who call themselves Evolutionary Scientist have no idea where matter originated.

Why then are they so dead set against this discussion, if it is a class that would lend itself to origins?

ID does not represent the teaching of religion.

I tried to express my ideas concerning this clearly as follows: It is my opinion that the concept of religion and the concept of ID are separate issues.

In my opinion religion involves the service and worship of God or the supernatural and a commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance. The idea that the origin of matter could best be explained, considering the complex laws and the patterns found that have led to life as we know it, by an intelligent designer certainly does not in any way teach a child that he must worship or commit to a life of devotion to God or religion.

That is the one and only point that I seek to make. Everything else has been brought in by those who went 'bananas' over this idea.

Jan, since you addressed yourself to me, I will also answer you.

The point I was trying to make was that it was YOU who brought in the Christian nation argument. Why did you feel that was necessary if ID is not religious? Science should stay out of the house of religion, would you agree with that statement? If you do agree, and you also think ID is science, then it should have nothing to say on the questions of religion, is that not so? So, why do you defend it in such a way?

Please go to the DI website and look up the Wedge document. In it, they explicitly state their claims to bring all science in accordance with Christianity. Dembski has said himself something to the effect that no science is complete without Jesus. Albion mentioned their finanacing, which comes from a guy named Ahmanson (I'm not sure about the spelling) who advocates destroying the Constitution in favor of Biblical Law. Why is he advancing what you seem to think is a purely non-religious idea like ID?

Hmmm, is ID religion? Its probably a good time to remind Jan that the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture was originally called the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. Even taking the 'renewal' part out, the very fact that culture is mentioned should make one cynical about the motives of the Discovery Institute.

It looks like the creationists are pursuing a policy of making this ID stuff so prevalent
that it becomes a part of the culture, that once a subculture reaches a "critical mass",
so to speak, that humans have a tendancy to view the prevalence of a group's beliefs
as evidence in itself. Does anybody think that pro-evolution groups should be looking
more into how mass-marketing techniques are used to "sell" ideas and how they can
be countered (Robert Cialdini's stuff etc.) I ran across a interesting website,
ChangingMinds.org. Seems to be a huge repository of marketing and influence techniques:

http://changingminds.org/

Interesting page on Informational Social Influence (the social proof phenemonon)-
sounds like a ID campaign!

http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/informational_social_influence.htm

I've twice recommended to Creationists who claim ID is not religious, to go to this site, download the document and read it. Both Creationists said they saw no reason to bother. After all, that document only contains facts, rendering it worthless and a waste of time for Creationist purposes. Maybe Jan (despite the performance demonstrated to this point) can learn something by trying it herself?

Jan, if ID is science, and not religious, why even bring up the First Amendment and then the whole Christian nation argument?

Exactly! Eureka! Someone finally gets it. Why? There should never have been a question about it in the first place.

It is my opinion that the concept of religion and the concept of ID are separate issues. In my opinion religion involves the service and worship of God or the supernatural and a commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance. The idea that the origin of matter could best be explained, considering the complex laws and the patterns found that have led to life as we know it, by an intelligent designer certainly does not in any way teach a child that he must worship or commit to a life of devotion to God or religion. That is the one and only point that I seek to make.

"There is nothing inherently religious about the terms 'creator' or 'creation', as used in the context of Act 590. Act 590 is concerned with a non-religious conception of 'creation' and 'creator', not the religious concepts dealt with in the Bible or religious writings. . . All that creation- science requires is that the entity which caused creation have power, intelligence and a sense of design." (Defendant's Trial Brief, McLean v Arkansas, 1981)

The argument advanced by defendants' witness, Dr. Norman Geisler, that teaching the existence of God is not religious unless the teaching seeks a commitment, is contrary to common understanding and contradicts settled case law. Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980), Abbington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 222 (1963).

Still many Americans have adopted the separation of church and state doctrine. This doctrine is debatable and if one supports it or not is a personal matter.

Oh, but that's muslim! they'll say. That's not christian. a christian country would be great. Okay, well, move to Ireland. No separation of church and state there, IIRC. They don't even permit divorce. Let no man separate what god has joined together etc etc.

Oh, but that's muslim! they'll say. That's not christian. a christian country would be great. Okay, well, move to Ireland. No separation of church and state there, IIRC. They don't even permit divorce. Let no man separate what god has joined together etc etc.

It looks like the creationists are pursuing a policy of making this ID stuff so prevalent that it becomes a part of the culture, that once a subculture reaches a "critical mass", so to speak, that humans have a tendancy to view the prevalence of a group's beliefs as evidence in itself.

Does anybody think that pro-evolution groups should be looking more into how mass-marketing techniques are used to "sell" ideas and how they can be countered (Robert Cialdini's stuff etc.)

Okay, well, move to Ireland. No separation of church and state there, IIRC. They don't even permit divorce.

Sheesh ! This is a tough crowd ! Here's my $.02

Jan,
Let's suppose you are sincere in your interest in being fair and honest. Then, can you propose any materials that could be used to present ID to students in an "honest" manner ?

Since you don't appear to be someone who is educated in science, you should be aware that scientists have moral standards about lying and deception that are enforced rather strictly. If a scientist knowingly presents data that is skewed or falsified or otherwise chooses to misrepresent the facts in order to force a conclusion (or for any reason at all), then that person is regarded as a liar and is shunned from the scientific community.

So as an extremely simple hurdle to cross, lets suppose that ID could be considered a science if its proponents were simply able (or willing, rather) to present their ideas to their peers without lying or deception. I'm not an expert on ID, so I might need to ask for some help here : Are there any ID proponents who present their ideas without resorting to lies and distortion ? It's a tough question to answer, because it has to be approached on a case-by-case basis. In every case that I'm aware of, proponents of ID resort to the use lies and deception.

Of course, anyone can make an honest mistake, but you can't make the same "honest" mistake over and over again and refuse to acknowledge it. That is simply a lie.

So there's your homework. Come up with a list of ID proponents who aren't liars. To make you task much easier, you can read reviews of works by Dembski, Behe, Wells, etc. by any competent scientist and quickly learn how they operate. Then, if you regard fair and honest discussion as something to present to students, you'll see why real scientists (many of whom are christian) despise what the ID movement is up to.

Oh, and Jan ...

Since you support "fair and balanced" treatment of ideas, I should ask : When you refer to us as "free thinkers", is that a complement ?

Are there any ID proponents who present their ideas without resorting to lies and distortion ?

Here you go.

There is divorce in Ireland? My bad.

Now concerning the question of separation of church and state. Would one of you who have a much higher education than I please give me the place where this is written in our constitution? I have already explained to you that I disagree with the courts interpretation of our first amendment in the broad sweep that has been made.

I am going to be polite and tell you briefly why I feel that we were established as a Christian nation. It would take hours for me to do a great job with this, but I will be brief and you will tear this to shreds because there is not adequate time to answer. Anyway, here goes: The Mayflower Compact: clearly stating that it was for "the glory of God and the advancement of the Christian faith."

Benjamin Rush, a signer of our constitution wrote: But the religion I mean to recommend in this place is that of the New Testament.

It is foreign to my purpose to hint at the arguments which establish the truth of the Christian revelation. My only business is to declare, that all its doctrines and precepts are calculated to promote the happiness of society, and the safety and well being of civil government. There are dozens of other quotes and perhaps I will place them on this post at another time. This next paragraph is copied, but I believe my source is reliable: "Congress. The largest congregation in America at one time was meeting in, of all places, the House of Representatives! Weekly worship services once boasted an attendance of 2,000! These services took place the very week that Congress passed the 14th Amendment"

Read the inscriptions in the halls of Washington DC and on our coins.

My point might be made by reminding you that as early as the 1600's the schools, beginning with was was called "The Old Deluder Act" referring to Satan attempted to equip children with Christian values.

The early readers were filled with Christian virtues. I have copies of these in my possession. They belonged to my father. You are probably younger than I and have not seen these, but they do exist. The later books dropped these, but it was generally agreed in the American Colonies that the main purpose of reading was to enable the student to read the Bible.

I will end with this, but I could write pages. It is late and I will add more if you feel that I have not answered sufficiently. Remember, this is a country where we are allowed to disagree. I know that my words will anger you, but please do not shoot the messenger. Research this before you attack.

Those places are where a marriage of church and state would have to be spelled out, and there is no such marriage.

I took the suggestion above to contact the Smithsonian....;

Dear Smithsonian Institution, and to whom it may concern;
I have visited the Smithsonian many times during my life, and have always been excited, enlightened and enthralled by the leading edge scientific knowledge displayed within this museums distinguished halls. I now live on the west coast, but have planned to visit the east coast again soon to visit family. One of my main planned stops is to be the Smithsonian.
Recent news articles have reported the Smithsonian is actually co-sponsoring the supposed "Intelligent Design" movie, Privileged Planet: The Search for Purpose in the Universe, a Discovery Institute religious film masquerading as science. I am greatly surprised and saddened that the Smithsonian would lend it's venerable name to such a distorted view of science. I believe to my fullest extent that this "endorsement", perceived or otherwise, will greatly diminish the stature of your institution, if not actually make your institution a laughingstock. Additionally, science, real science, will be damaged in the publics eyes far into the future by the Smithsonian's involvement.
I will not presume to waste your time with arguments of what actually constitutes science, as I fully believe this whole ID debate is politically motivated. However, great institutions like the Smithsonian should continue to be the shining lights of wisdom, and lead our nation with current scientific knowledge, and not be associated with intellectually defunct "junk science" like Intelligent Design, Astrology, Creationism, UFO's, crystal healing, etc. The Dark Ages are a time past, hopefully not to be revisited.
I hope and request that your great institution re-evaluate your position on this matter. Again, the Smithsonian represents the greatest aspects of science and knowledge, this loss would be immeasurable.