PDA

View Full Version : Smithsonian for rent to pseudoscience



harlequin
2005-May-29, 06:41 PM
ID Creationists get foot in the door at Smithsonian Institution (http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/001078.html)

Basically the Discovery Institute paid $16,000 so it could rent a hall and have Smithsonian co-sponsorship. It is part of the DI's continuing strategy of doing anything to appear with real scientists in order to make it appear that they themselves are real scientists.

A few years ago the DI invited a bunch of scientists to a conference in China, paid there way, etc. without telling them that they were antievolutionists. The plan was to have the DI pseudoscientists get published with the real scientists in a book of papers from the conference. When the scientists discovered what was going on they refused. The latest bit of news sounds like more of the same.

Wolverine
2005-May-29, 08:18 PM
:o Hoo boy.

From O'Leary's blog criticizing the NYT article (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/28/national/28smithsonian.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1117292797-9D18k+giYMJ0H2%2F+uquVzQ):


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

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

Amazing. :roll: Sometimes I have to remind myself that we live in the 21st century.

Wolverine
2005-May-29, 08:22 PM
More on Pharyngula (http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/the_discovery_institute_at_the_smithsonian/).

Cougar
2005-May-30, 12:04 AM
:o Hoo boy.

From O'Leary's blog criticizing the NYT article (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/28/national/28smithsonian.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1117292797-9D18k+giYMJ0H2%2F+uquVzQ):


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

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

Amazing. :roll: Sometimes I have to remind myself that we live in the 21st century.
O'Leary talks of "evidence of actual design in nature or the universe"? But apparently the Discovery Institute does not present that evidence in a scientific journal. No, they go straight to video.

Unfortunately, that probably makes it convincing to the scientific illiterates of this country, who unfortunately make up a majority.

junkyardfrog
2005-May-30, 03:09 PM
Unfortunately, that probably makes it convincing to the scientific illiterates of this country, who unfortunately make up a majority.

Unfortunately much of the alleged "scientific" community still refuses to face the fact of the highly Intelligent Design of life.

The Emperors of Evolution remind me of the story about another Emperor who proudly rode through the streets of his kingdom until a child pointed out the obvious: The emperor had no clothes at all.

papageno
2005-May-30, 03:23 PM
Unfortunately much of the alleged "scientific" community still refuses to face the fact of the highly Intelligent Design of life.
Intelligent as in water-dwelling animals that can drown?

Kristophe
2005-May-30, 06:57 PM
Unfortunately much of the alleged "scientific" community still refuses to face the fact of the highly Intelligent Design of life.

Oh, it's a fact now, huh? I must have missed when it was upgraded from conjecture without evidence. Alert the school boards: Their unconstitutional stickers should be updated to say "Evolution is a theory, and not a fact like Intelligent Design."

Gillianren
2005-May-30, 08:45 PM
Unfortunately much of the alleged "scientific" community still refuses to face the fact of the highly Intelligent Design of life.
Intelligent as in water-dwelling animals that can drown?

or having the breath tube and the food tube cross? or, as Anne McCaffrey so delicately put it, having the playground between the sewers? or having infants' heads too big for birth? I mean, I can keep going if you like, but in short--intelligent design isn't.

harlequin
2005-May-31, 02:05 AM
Unfortunately much of the alleged "scientific" community still refuses to face the fact of the highly Intelligent Design of life.


The scientific community is still waiting for the ID people to present this thing called evidence for their assertions.

harlequin
2005-May-31, 02:07 AM
James Randi is offering $20,000 (http://www.randi.org/jr/052705a.html#1a) to the Smithsonain to give back the DI's $16,000 and not co-sponsor a screening for their film.

Maksutov
2005-May-31, 04:46 AM
Unfortunately much of the alleged "scientific" community still refuses to face the fact of the highly Intelligent Design of life.
Intelligent as in water-dwelling animals that can drown?

or having the breath tube and the food tube cross? or, as Anne McCaffrey so delicately put it, having the playground between the sewers? or having infants' heads too big for birth? I mean, I can keep going if you like, but in short--intelligent design isn't.
Or the playground in the sewers?

http://www.cosgan.de/images/smilie/tiere/c010.gif

No intelligence. No design. Just something that happened to work, and that was that.

Maksutov
2005-May-31, 04:49 AM
James Randi is offering $20,000 (http://www.randi.org/jr/052705a.html#1a) to the Smithsonain to give back the DI's $16,000 and not co-sponsor a screening for their film.
=D> =D> =D> =D> The Amazing Randi! =D> =D> =D> =D>

captain swoop
2005-May-31, 08:39 AM
Unfortunately much of the alleged "scientific" community still refuses to face the fact of the highly Intelligent Design of life.
.

OK give me some of the evidence that points to this 'highly intelligent Design of life'

You must have some or are you just blowing?

Spacewriter
2005-May-31, 10:21 AM
Sigh.

ID is not a theory. It's an hypothesis so far unsupported by verifiable facts or research. I wish people would be intelligent enough to see the difference between theory and hypothesis.

But apparently some are not.

Kristophe
2005-May-31, 03:09 PM
Unfortunately much of the alleged "scientific" community still refuses to face the fact of the highly Intelligent Design of life.
.

OK give me some of the evidence that points to this 'highly intelligent Design of life'

You must have some or are you just blowing?

Evidence? EVIDENCE!? Pfft. JYF clearly stated that ID is fact. Facts are their own "evidence", aren't they? You don't need to go substantiate your beliefs when you use words like "fact". :-?

harlequin
2005-Jun-02, 05:13 AM
Sigh.

ID is not a theory. It's an hypothesis so far unsupported by verifiable facts or research. I wish people would be intelligent enough to see the difference between theory and hypothesis.

But apparently some are not.

Frankly, ID does not even make it as a hypothesis either. A hypothesis would actually predict something.

harlequin
2005-Jun-02, 05:17 AM
Smithsonian Institution Statement (http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/001098.html)

Wolverine
2005-Jun-02, 05:26 AM
Yeah, saw that earlier. A little late now, though... :x

ToSeek
2005-Jun-02, 02:00 PM
Smithsonian Distances Itself From Controversial Film (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/01/AR2005060101986.html)


The controversy over the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History's decision to allow a documentary based on "intelligent design" -- the theory that life is so meticulously complex that a divine intelligence must have designed it -- to be played at one of its theaters ended in compromise yesterday: The film will be shown, but the screening fee required by the museum (in this case, $16,000) won't be accepted and the museum will withdraw its customary co-sponsorship.

Melusine
2005-Jun-02, 03:00 PM
The news spread across science blogs -- especially those dedicated to the evolution debate.

When Randi heard the story, he says he called the Smithsonian offering the institution $20,000 not to show the film.

"They are renting the place for this creationist film, but apparently [the Smithsonian] didn't know it was creationist film," Randi said from his Fort Lauderdale headquarters. If it was a "matter of money, which I doubt," he said, "then I'm ready to surpass that."
You gotta hand it to Randi. Thanks for that update, ToSeek, but I can't believe the Smithsonian didn't realize it was a "creationist" film. I think science museums are letting their guards down for money too easily these days, as noted with IMAX films and such. Go blogs!

R.A.F.
2005-Jun-02, 03:32 PM
From the ISU site (http://www.amestrib.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=2035&dept_id=333477&newsid=14622840&P AG=461&rfi=9)...


Following the premiere, the documentary is planned to run on Public Broadcasting Stations across the country.

Unbelievable. :roll:

PatKelley
2005-Jun-02, 06:34 PM
From the ISU site (http://www.amestrib.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=2035&dept_id=333477&newsid=14622840&P AG=461&rfi=9)...


Following the premiere, the documentary is planned to run on Public Broadcasting Stations across the country.

Unbelievable. :roll:
Well, the good thing is that most of their appropriate target audience doesn't or won't watch PBS. And those regular watchers that do see it will probably be incensed.

Just sad that the original screeners of Cosmos (PBS) should come to this. And if I watch this mockumentary and see a "Sponsored by a No Child Left Behind grant" I will explode. That sound you hear will be me.

Zachary
2005-Jun-02, 06:41 PM
Resistance is futile, just emigrate while you can :P

mannisue
2005-Jun-02, 07:03 PM
From the ISU site (http://www.amestrib.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=2035&dept_id=333477&newsid=14622840&P AG=461&rfi=9)...


Following the premiere, the documentary is planned to run on Public Broadcasting Stations across the country.

Unbelievable. :roll:

You scared the !@$%#^$^ out of me. My entire life, I have seen the Smithsonian as nothing if not the premiere museum for anything solidly grounded in fact, then you go and say see the ISU site. I about died: I go to college at ISU [ Idaho State University (and I 'm acting like that's any better.)] :wink: For a split second, I was going to call my advisor and transfer. :o

R.A.F.
2005-Jun-02, 07:34 PM
You scared the !@$%#^$^ out of me.

Sorry about that. :)

Halcyon Dayz
2005-Jun-02, 08:31 PM
Resistance is futile, just emigrate while you can :P

But where to go, where to go?

Zachary
2005-Jun-02, 09:06 PM
Resistance is futile, just emigrate while you can :P

But where to go, where to go?

Europe! :D

Donnie B.
2005-Jun-02, 10:16 PM
Resistance is futile, just emigrate while you can :P

But where to go, where to go?

Europe! :D
Ya, but there's a bunch of furriners over there, and they talk funny... :wink:

Halcyon Dayz
2005-Jun-02, 11:35 PM
furriners ??? :o

David Carroll
2005-Jun-02, 11:50 PM
furriners ???

Fur-bearers from a different country.

Van Rijn
2005-Jun-02, 11:52 PM
Eyup. furriners. Them thar folks that be livin' N' furrin parts 'O de world, don' cha know.


(And I apologize for my horrible fake pseudo Southern accent. )

Kristophe
2005-Jun-03, 01:11 AM
Don'cha know's very north-central, isn't it? I know it's sorta associated with Manitoba and Saskyatchywan in Canada. Or in Atlantic Canada, anyway. Dens again, wots we be knowin' aboat peoples funny talkin', eh?

captain swoop
2005-Jun-03, 07:47 AM
Don'cha know's very north-central, isn't it? I know it's sorta associated with Manitoba and Saskyatchywan in Canada. Or in Atlantic Canada, anyway. Dens again, wots we be knowin' aboat peoples funny talkin', eh?

In the 20s and 30s a lot of Ironstone miners (iron and coal) emigrated from North Yorkshire and County Durham to Manitoba. Maybe they took some of their dialect with them, 'cos I recognise a 'Don'cha know'

Wolverine
2005-Jun-03, 08:51 AM
I was going to say, that looks rather Northern to me.

The mighty Dialectizer gave the following (in "Redneck"):

Fo'eigners. Them thar folks thet be livin' in fo'eign parts of th' wo'ld, cuss it all t' tarnation. :D

Van Rijn
2005-Jun-03, 09:44 AM
Heh. I knew it was bad, hence my micro disclaimer. I'm terrible with accents - if you think that was bad, you should HEAR me trying to fake an accent. Though I've been told listening to my attempts cause physical pain.

Maksutov
2005-Jun-03, 09:47 AM
They be all speakin' Yooper, doncha know. :D

Meanwhile, the Sithsonian strategy isn't preventing public boasting by the IDers.


A 60-minute documentary titled "The Privileged Planet: The Search for Purpose in the Universe" will premiere at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History on June 23. The film is based on a book co-authored by Guillermo Gonzalez, an ISU assistant professor of astronomy and physics.
"I am very pleased that it is going to be shown at such an important locale," Gonzalez said.
[edit]
The book also discusses how our place in the cosmos is designed for discovery, Gonzalez said, noting the way perfect eclipses can be seen from earth.
"It's not just a coincidence that there is life on earth and that we can observe eclipses," Gonzalez says. "Those two are actually intimately linked."
What's a gonzo like this doing teaching astronomy and physics at an accredited public university?

Looks like the protest emails to the Sithsonian will needs be forwarded to the Public Broadsiding Service. :evil:

Van Rijn
2005-Jun-03, 10:04 AM
"It's not just a coincidence that there is life on earth and that we can observe eclipses," Gonzalez says. "Those two are actually intimately linked."


Can't argue with him there. If we didn't exist, we would have great difficulty observing eclipses, so I certainly agree our existence and our ability to observe eclipses are intimately linked, and not coincidence. That's sometimes called the weak anthropic principle, otherwise known as "Well, DUH!"

Maksutov
2005-Jun-03, 10:22 AM
This may come as a shock, but the vice president of the Discovery Institute is less than honest.

Per the Ames Tribune article:


The book was co-authored by Jay Richards, the vice president and a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute, a public policy think tank in Seattle. Within the institute, Richards works for the Center for Science and Culture, a research fellowship program that supports and promotes research regarding evidence of design and purpose in the universe.
While the theory does argue for intelligent design, it is not an argument for or against Darwin's theory of evolution.
"It has absolutely nothing to do with biological evolution," Richards said. "We are talking about the things that you need to produce a habitable planet, which is a prerequisite for life. It doesn't tell you anything about how life got here."
Now here's a list of articles written by DI fellows, from the DI website,

Doctors Doubt Darwinism (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2621&program=CSC&calling Page=discoMainPage)

The Final Evolution (an adulatory review of a book called From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics and Racism in Germany (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2620&program=News&callin gPage=discoMainPage)

Nearly Two-Thirds of Doctors Skeptical of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2611&program=News&callin gPage=discoMainPage)

and on it goes.


"It has absolutely nothing to do with biological evolution," Richards said.
The facts show the man is somewhere between a hypocrite and a liar. Or maybe, in an Orwellian sense, a believer in his own doublethink. :evil:

Wolverine
2005-Jun-03, 12:10 PM
Looks like the protest emails to the Sithsonian will needs be forwarded to the Public Broadsiding Service. :evil:

Indeed. I was just browsing on Panda's Thumb and came across this (http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/001102.html):


As noted in comments, creationists are hoping to have PBS play The Privileged Planet after the SI showing. PT has done some investigating and can report the following, straight from the PBS administration: PBS affiliates have been offered the opportunity to broadcast Privileged Planet starting 1 June 2005 and lasting for three years..

Edited to add: Yeesh, I was unaware that some PBS stations in the recent past had aired this (http://www.shoppbs.org/sm-pbs-unlocking-the-mystery-of-life--pi-1407638.html). More from NCSE here (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/6786_unlocking_the_mystery_of_illus_7_1_2003.asp).

Kristophe
2005-Jun-03, 01:37 PM
Wow. Are these guys just getting better at tricking the modern day, public "hallmarks" of science and research, or are these institutions just starting to turn a blind eye to some of this stuff? The Smithsonian should know better. You'd think they would have at least viewed the video before agreeing to show it.