Skip to comments.Exhibit on Darwin creates Bush bash at museum gala
Posted on 11/18/2005 8:56:01 AM PST by slowhand520
Exhibit on Darwin creates Bush bash at museum gala
It was supposed to be a fund-raiser for the American Museum of Natural History. But a new exhibit on Charles Darwin caused the Wednesday evening gala to evolve into something of a rally against President Bush's preferred theory of intelligent design. "This is a time when those of us who care about science and Darwin have to take a stand," museum patron Tom Brokaw told the black-tied and bejeweled species, including Caroline Kennedy, Princess Firyal of Jordan, Viacom big shot Tom Freston, Michael Eisner, Eva Longoria, Jimmy Buffett, Jonathan Demme, Nora Ephron, Brian Williams, Lorne Michaels and most of the "Saturday Night Live" cast.
Clearly aware that Bush favors teaching creationism alongside evolution in science classes, the museum's patrons erupted in applause.
Brokaw reminded us later that the exhibit, which opens tomorrow, is "about Darwin's life and how he came to these conclusions. We aren't looking to pick a fight."
But, he added, the exhibit "doesn't attempt to argue the theory of evolution because there is no argument."
"Daily Show" anchor Jon Stewart marveled at the museum's collection of specimens demonstrating Darwin's discoveries.
"It just makes you wonder," deadpanned Stewart. "Why is Jesus trying to trick us?
"I do wish George Bush would start paying attention to issues that are important for the country," Stewart went on. "Gay marriage, for instance. I don't understand why the religious right fears homosexuality. They say it's an abomination. The Bible says that shellfish are also an abomination. They who oppose sodomy must also oppose scallops."
Stewart introduced Neil Young. Along with singing his hits, the venerable rocker sat down at an antique organ and performed "When God Made Me," his challenge to fundamentalism.
Young agreed that the Darwin show "couldn't come at a better time, with what's going on with the neocons."
He allowed that Bush might truly believe in Genesis and not be pandering to the evangelicals. "I've never met him," he told us. "I've seen some of the things he does, but I'm not sure."
The intellectual tidepool from whence these enlightened folks arose from is scant millimeters deep at best.
It probably explains their unique ability to fall for any theory readily and swallow it without question.
Has the President ever even said a word about ID?
Is that the case actually? I thought he favored ID being taught in schools, I didn't know it was his preferred theory.
"Gay marriage, for instance. I don't understand why the religious right fears homosexuality."
Why do homosexual perverts fear the religious right?
We are all sinners. Doesn't justify our sins.
Sodomy gets its name from the tale of Sodom and Gommorah.
What act is named for eating shellfish?
Jon Stewart is soooo not as smart as he thinks he is. In the New Testament, in Acts 10, dietary restrictions are explicitly lifted. There is, nowhere in the Bible, a similar lifting of restrictions against homosexuality.
I understand that Stewart is attempting humor, but his schtick is that he's a funny guy with a serious point to make. In fact, he's neither funny, nor does he have anything serious to say.
Isn't Jon Stewart Jewish?
Then again I doubt he is faithful to the old testament either, judging from his remarks.
WHAT liberal media??? < /sarcasm >
"Why is Jesus trying to trick us?
suggests that he is using the term "religious right" as a code word for Christians.
Worth pointing out that many, perhaps most, observant Jews are as unenthused about homosexuality as the average Southern Baptist.
What a bunch of crybabies.
Mr Bush isnt paying attention to any important issue, like, let's say, terrorists trying to murder us!! (Sarcasm)
No surprise any celebrity filled event like this turns into a left wing political event. Speaking of museum exhibits also, I would like to know why the Smithsonian's American History Museum is prominently featuring the book of Bushisms, or whatever it's called, in its gift shops. Since when is the Smithsonian supposed to be selling partisan "satire" like that?!
Why don't the Hollywood elite ever mock the space fantasy beliefs of the Scientologists?
Only reason they don't push to "teach" the origins of man in schools is that L Ron Hubbard's cult gets $10,000 to sell you the sci-fi tale on the installment plan. In short, aliens brought these negative traits to earth and we are reincarnated.
But no, the leftists mock Jesus and Christians because it is "safe". Just alert me when they propose a new tv reality show throwing Christians to the lions.
Because they would be "soooo sued."
Shellfishness. *rim shot*
The Smithsonian has been way left for a long, long time. For a look at the tip of the iceberg, go to
Sounds like a real elitist snobapalooza.
The best argument against the theory of evolution is its supporters.
Jon, bubbeleh, both those things are not kosher!
The very pillars of the scientific community ... LOL !!!
The Bible also says that murder is an abomination. So do those that think scallops and sodomy are ok also think murders ok?
'Jon Stewart' another liberal Peter Pan: 43 year old teenager
I suppose I should have complained to the gift shop staff but it must be beyond their responsibility. Really angered me though to see this book (or maybe it was a calendar, I don't quite remember) had a refernce to the British newspaper asking "how can 59 million Americans be so dumb?" It added that these quotes from GWB shed some light on that question. In other words the elitist Bush bashers are so much smarter than the 62 million of us poor unwashed masses. I was really annoyed.
1. How could evolution and natural selection produce homosexuals who cannot propagate the species?
2. Isn't natural selection among humans perverted by 50 million abortions?
This isn't the Smithsonian, it's the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. I am a member and this month's magazine is filled with liberal tripe about Darwin.
Frankly, Jon Stewart's supposed humor escapes me. Anyway, if he is of the mind that homosexuality is nothing to be concerned about then I guess he would have no problem with a NAMBLA member "recruiting" his son (if he has one). If the problem is just age then I guess he would have no problem with some run-of-the-mill fag hitting on his 18 year old son.
Nothing but a mutual admiration society conducting a liberlists circle-jerk.
If I had a dollar for every IQ point of these people, I'd have like, 500 bucks.
ID is not in conflict with the theory of evolution.
""This is a time when those of us who care about science and Darwin have to take a stand," museum patron Tom Brokaw told the black-tied and bejeweled species"
This is a time where those of us who care about honesty and integrity need to take a stand against liars who constantly try to spin the facts.
Ping to: Unfortunate Associations.
However, they are making the Republican Party out to be nothing more than a bunch of uneducated theocratic bent morons. I am afraid they are succeeding. :-(
Museums Train Docents to Deal with Evolution Skeptics 09/22/2005
Being a museum docent wasnt supposed to be this hard. Many have always led peaceful groups of compliant tourists through the halls of science, telling their near-memorized lines without incident: Sixty million years ago, the dinosaurs were wiped out by a meteor, but their descendants are still with us today. Anyone know who those might be? Yes Johnny? Birds! Thats correct. Very good! Now, according to the New York Times, growing numbers of museum visitors are challenging the evolutionary explanations and asking questions that indicate theyre not buying the story. This has led to a new cottage industry, according to Eugenie Scott of the NCSE, of training guides for guides, teaching them how to deal with such situations.
The training emphasizes non-confrontational yet firm emphasis on the difference between science and faith: to be polite but firm. Docents are warned against challenging visitors religious beliefs directly. Instead, they are told to say things like, The landscape tells a story based on geological events, based on science, or this is a science museum, and we deal with matters of science. They are warned against antagonizing Bible-believing Christians who argue that the world is only a few thousand years old; after all, they paid the admission fee and have just as much right to visit the museum as anyone else. Dr. Scott in her sessions teaches docents not to avoid the word evolution or be defensive, but simultaneously not to slam the door in the face of believers. Your job is to help them, to explain your point of view, but respect theirs. The manuals encourage them to practice with memorized responses.
Tom Magnuson at Access Research Network found one such docent guide online on the front page of the Paleontological Research Institution, entitled Evolution and Creationism: A Guide for Museum Docents. It explains how to respond to a complaints about natural selection or other evolutionary mechanisms:
The question of whether evolution occurs is separate and different from the question of how evolution occurs. The evidence is overwhelming that evolution has occurred that it is a satisfactory explanation for the observations we make about the history, order, and diversity of life....Later in the document, one of the answers seems more firm than polite. The question is, Is it true there is lots of evidence against evolution?
Questions or debates about evolutionary mechanism have nothing to do with our confidence in whether evolution occurred. (Italics in original, bold added.)
No. Essentially all available data and observations from the natural world support the hypothesis of evolution. No serious biologist or geologist today doubts whether evolution occurred; debate continues, however, among scientists about the mechanisms by which evolution occurred.The response to the question on intelligent design is also instructive. Doesnt the complexity/design of nature imply an intelligent designer?
Science deals only with material causes of material phenomena. Nothing we can observe in nature requires a supernatural designer; we therefore defer to material processes to explain what we see in nature.The document denounces the idea that evolution is a religion. At the bottom, it refers to the National Center for Science Education, indicating that the NCSE probably provided content or advice for the publication.
There is more commentary from the editor of Creation Safaris in the link; look for the green text.
>>The Bible says that shellfish are also an abomination.
They who oppose sodomy must also oppose scallops."<<
Exhibit A that the person making this claim has ZERO knowledge of Biblical precepts.
There was a difference between Hebrew dietary & civil laws, and the moral laws of God. Christ's sacrifice fulfilled the old laws requirements with regard to civil & ceremonial aspects. However, the moral law stands, and always will.
I am sick unto death of idiot leftists continuing to make this ridiculous shellfish "argument" about Biblical law.
He said something about it, in passing, within the past couple of months. I don't recall the exact details.
Be that as it may, what's interesting to me is how things like this tend to show how very thin the line is between scientific questions and completely non-scientific leftist political and religious (or atheist) agendas.
One begins to wonder when our esteemed FReeper evolutionists will admit that they're scratching at leftist fleas.
(FWIW, I find many of the religious folks on the other side of the debate to be uncomfortably itchy as well....)
The UK paper in question was the Daily Mirror.
Well, they do think murder is OK if the person being killed doesn't have a birth certificate yet, or has undergone serious brain damage so there's no "quality of life" left.
Liberals insist on stating and restating that the issue is a "fear" of homosexuality. Since they approach the issue with such an elemental misunderstanding, it should not be surprising that they so completely misjudge it.
Looking at the guest list, I'm pretty sure they would have bashed Bush no matter what the topic was ...
What act is named for eating shellfish?
That would be, of course, the much lesser known "Gommorahy".
How so? They would just have to change a few words to state how their research backs up or refutes ID, instead of TOE, and continue on with the research ...
How come evolution and natural selection produces grandparents, who are well beyond their breeding years, but are hanging around sucking up resources their grandchildren could use?
2. Isn't natural selection among humans perverted by 50 million abortions?
Yes...it is "perverted" by favoring the existence of wanted offspring of intact, two-parent homes where new babies do not represent a significant added economic burden. Sounds pretty awful, doesn't it?