Posted on 10/16/2009 6:11:15 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
As the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin's landmark book on evolution approaches, a brouhaha has erupted in Los Angeles County over a planned series of events exploring the conflict between his theories and "intelligent design" advocates.
A group that favors "intelligent design" had planned to premier a new documentary film at the California Science Center in Los Angeles later this month, but the center later canceled the event.
The group claims the cancellation was an act of censorship, made after the center was pressured by the Smithsonian Institution, but the center chalked it up to a contract issue, without elaborating.
Coined "The Darwin Debates: A Forum for Dialogue," the nonprofit American Freedom Alliance had planned to premier a new Illustra Media documentary, "Darwin's Dilemma: The Mystery of the Cambrian Explosion," at the California Science Center on Oct. 25.
The Los Angeles-based alliance describes itself as a "nonpolitical, nonpartisan, movement of concerned Americans which identifies threats to western civilization." Those threats, according to the group include "the Islamic penetration of Europe" and "the growth of radical environmentalism."
California Science Center president Jeff Rudolph said Thursday the premiere was canceled "because of issues related to the contract." Rudolph declined to elaborate on those issues.
"We don't discuss contract issues in public," Rudolph said.
Alliance president Avi Davis said the cancellation had nothing to do with contract issues, but rather a press release touting the film issued a few days ago by the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based "intelligent design" think tank.
The institute's release announced that some of its fellows were featured in the film to be screened at a location they described as the "Smithsonian Institution's west coast affiliate."
John West, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, said he understands officials at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History pressured the CSC to cancel the film.
"I think this is an outrageous example of censorship and ideological discrimination," West said. "The thing about a contractual dispute is just a pretext and it's bogus. This really should be disturbing to anyone who believes in free speech."
But Smithsonian spokesman Randal Kremer denied that his organization pressured the CSC to cancel the film.
"It's nothing we would get involved in," Kremer said.
However, Kremer said he saw the press release a few days ago and was concerned by its reference to the Smithsonian. He pointed out the CSC is just one of more than 160 Smithsonian affiliates nationwide, adding the CSC is not a branch of the Smithsonian, but "they work with us occasionally on their programs."
"The only reason I spoke with anyone at the California Science Center is I was concerned by the inference (in the press release that) there was a showing of the film at a Smithsonian branch, which is how the California Science Center was portrayed in the news release," Kremer said. "Of course, that is not the case. They are independent and any decisions they make on this are on their own."
As a result of the dust-up, Davis said he's considering showing the film at another venue. But he said the rest of the events are scheduled to go forward as planned.
Those include a debate on Nov. 30 at the Saban Theatre in Beverly Hills between Discovery Institute official Stephen Meyer and Biologic Institute investigator Richard Sternberg and The Skeptics Society President Michael Shermer and paleontologist Don Prothero.
Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species," a foundation of the scientific theory of evolution, was first published in November 1859.
"Intelligent design" is a more modern, controversial theory that proposes to add a role for religion in evolution by attributing diversity in nature to divine causes.
Cancellation of anti-Darwin film creates uproar.
Those "issues" would be that the AFA violated their contract by issuing a press release mentioning the Center without the preapproval OF the Center.....as their contract clearly states they must do BEFORE issuing the press release.
It has nothing to do with "left" and "right"...
Astrology, like evolution, is believed by those who desperately want to believe it. Astronomy is scientific, as far as I know. Maybe there are some debates. Evolution is purely speculative, much like astology, in my view.
Before I believe any of the macro-evolutionary tale, I want someone to describe, step by step, how amoebas became human over “billions and billions” of years. Until then, I cast my lot with God and ID. Blessings, Bob
>>Astrology, like evolution, is believed by those who desperately want to believe it. Astronomy is scientific, as far as I know. Maybe there are some debates. Evolution is purely speculative, much like astology, in my view.<<
We need go no further. Your view is not based in science. And my point is that ID is the same as astrology and is NOT by any possible real definition an “alternative theory” since it meets exactly zero criteria for a Scientific Theory.
There is science in logic, but all us ID’ers must be daft, I suppose. I note that you don’t accept the challenge of transforming an amoeba into a human, by modification through descent, of course. Bob
>>There is science in logic, but all us ID’ers must be daft, I suppose. <<
No, just ignorant.
>>I note that you don’t accept the challenge of transforming an amoeba into a human, by modification through descent, of course. Bob<<
I also can’t create a copy of the Earth. Your very “challenge” illstrates your ignorance of the subject matter.
I can’t help you if you won’t help yourself.
>>There is science in logic, but all us ID’ers must be daft, I suppose. <<
No, just ignorant.
>>I note that you don’t accept the challenge of transforming an amoeba into a human, by modification through descent, of course. Bob<<
I also can’t create a copy of the Earth. Your very “challenge” illstrates your ignorance of the subject matter.
I can’t help you if you won’t help yourself.
You can help YOURself by engaging yourself in my suggested mental exercise by imagining the steps that it took to transform an amoeba into a human being, using BILLIONS of years of course. You MAY come to understand how preposterous naturalistic evolution is. Bob
>>You MAY come to understand how preposterous naturalistic evolution is. Bob<<
Your inability to understand well-explained stochastic processes is not my problem.
But willful ignorance is never pretty.
I have never heard of the word “stochastic”, admittedly, but clearly, “stochastic processes” have failed to transform an amoeba into a human in the lab. Frankly, evos use “lawyerese” to obfuscate common sense. I’d sooner comprehend the 2032 page “health care” bill than evolutionary *theory*. What I do know is that “health care” is about Obama accruing Maoist-style government power, and “naturalism” serves the purposes of people who want to destroy people’s concept of God. Blessings, Bob
>>What I do know is that “health care” is about Obama accruing Maoist-style government power, and “naturalism” serves the purposes of people who want to destroy people’s concept of God. Blessings, Bob<<
Thanks for serving yourself up as an example of willful ignorance.
May God bless you and have mercy on your soul.
Oh, and I have to assume you don’t think Geology is a real science since we have never created a planet.
And you still don’t understand my original post, I am sure.
I believe that BIOLOGY is a real science, even though we’ve never created a human! The theory of macro-evolution is an assumption, NOT based upon testability and repeatability. The idea that an eye, ear, liver, heart, muscle, bone, brain, etc. could have evolved is speculative and counter to common sense, I and many millions believe. I’m not from Mo., but I’m still a cynical guy who demands proof. Yours, Bob
>>I believe that BIOLOGY is a real science, even though we’ve never created a human! The theory of macro-evolution is an assumption, NOT based upon testability and repeatability.<<
So, like so many, you admit your ignorance, you assert your ignorance and then insist that science conform to your ignorance.
“I can’t understand it so my gut is the best gauge” is not the way to approach science.
And I said geology, not biology. If you were shooting for an analogy, you missed my point.
No, I didn’t miss your point. It was a silly point, and impossible to aptly analogize. No real science is borne of speculation. When evos speak, my BS meter flies off the charts. You sound as certain as a “global warming” acolyte. And we all now know what their “scientists’ e-mails have revealed! Cordially, Bob
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.