Posted on 10/16/2009 12:51:51 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
When a conservative group, the American Freedom Alliance (AFA), recently contracted to premiere a new documentary titled “Darwin’s Dilemma” at the Smithsonian-affiliated California Science Center, they couldn’t imagine the brouhaha that would ensue.
As soon as word of the screening went public, the Darwinian thought police started complaining about a government-supported science center renting its facilities to a group showing a film that challenges Darwinian evolution.
Why the outrage? Isn’t there academic freedom to express scientific viewpoints that dissent from the evolutionary “consensus”?
To give some background on the controversy, the fossil record shows that about 530 million years ago, nearly all major animal groups (called “phyla”) abruptly appeared on earth. Dubbed the “Cambrian explosion,” this dramatic burst of biodiversity without clear evolutionary precursors has created headaches for evolutionists ever since Darwin’s time.
There are two ways that modern evolutionists approach the Cambrian explosion, or what has been called “Darwin’s dilemma”:
A. Some freely acknowledge that the Cambrian fossil evidence essentially shows the opposite of what was expected under neo-Darwinian evolution.
B. Others deal with the Cambrian explosion by sweeping its problems under the rug and trying to change the subject.
Succumbing to pressure from Darwinian elites, the California Science Center chose option B.
The AFA had contracted with the Science Center, a department of the California state government, to show “Darwin’s Dilemma” on Sept. 25th at the center’s IMAX Theatre. The film explores the eponymous problem of how the Cambrian explosion challenges Darwinian theory and features scientists arguing that the best explanation is intelligent design (ID).
Apparently this was too much for the California Science Center, which abruptly cancelled the AFA’s contract just a couple weeks before the screening. The center claims it cancelled the event “because of issues related to the contract” but refuses to identify the issues.
Contract “issues” always make a nice pretext for censorship, but a little digging into history uncovers what likely took place.
The California Science Center is affiliated with the Smithsonian Institution, which has a long history of opposing academic freedom for ID.
In 2004, a pro-ID peer-reviewed scientific article authored by Stephen Meyer was published in a Smithsonian-affiliated biology journal. Once the Biological Society of Washington (BSW) realized it had published a pro-ID paper, it repudiated Meyer’s article, alleging the paper “does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings.”
Of course the BSW cited no factual errors in the paper; they just didn’t like Meyer’s conclusions.
Then in 2005, a critical New York Times story inspired anti-ID censors to pressure the Smithsonian to cancel the screening of a pro-ID film, “The Privileged Planet.”
To its credit, the Smithsonian honored its contract to show the film but publicly disclaimed the event, stating “the content of the film is not consistent with the mission of the Smithsonian Institution.” Smithsonian spokesman Randall Kremer said the institution objected to the documentary’s “philosophical conclusion.”
(Of course, when the Smithsonian featured Carl Sagan’s “Cosmos” documentary in 1997, it volunteered no objections to the film’s bold opening statement that “The Cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be.”)
The story picks up in 2006, when a congressional staff investigation found that "Smithsonian's top officials permit[ted] the demotion and harassment of [a] scientist skeptical of Darwinian evolution.”
The persecuted scientist was Smithsonian research biologist Richard Sternberg, who experienced retaliation for overseeing the publication of Meyer’s paper.
The Smithsonian Institution seems willing to go to great lengths to oppose ID and send the message that scientists who sympathize with ID will face consequences, but how does this relate to the current debacle with the California Science Center?
For one, Drs. Sternberg and Meyer are featured in the “Darwin’s Dilemma” documentary advocating ID. And second, Smithsonian spokesman Randal Kremer has reappeared, stating that he “spoke” with the California Science Center after becoming “concerned by the inference … there was a showing of the film at a Smithsonian branch.”
Though Kremer officially denies it, all appearances indicate pressure was applied from on high at the Smithsonian, and the California Science Center caved in and cancelled the event. Once we move past the customary pretexts, this is an open and shut case of censorship and the banning of free speech that dissents from evolution.
Darwin’s dilemma isn’t just about a lack of transitional fossils in ancient rocks. It’s about how the guards of evolutionary orthodoxy will treat contrary scientific viewpoints.
Will they silence minority views, or will they grant dissenting scientists freedom of speech and scientific inquiry to make their case?
That is the real question posed by Darwin’s dilemma. Let’s hope the California Science Center reverses its decision to cancel the contracted screening of “Darwin’s Dilemma” and chooses freedom of speech over evolutionary dogmatism.
Ping!
Watched the ARDI thing on DSC Channel.
Seems Humans didn’t evolve from MONKEYS (who knew)
I found it interesting that they have found even older remains.
I guess when they finally get far enough back, God will say..Oh ye of little faith.
GGG, if you had done just a little research you would have seen that the cancellation of Darwin’s Dilemma was due to the fact that the Discovery Institute violated the rental agreement by issuing this press release http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS135002+05-Oct-2009+PRN20091005 without obtaining the necessary approval from the California Science Center.
PROMOTIONAL MATERIALS:
It is required that the Event Services Office approve, for technical and factual accuracy, all promotional materials mentioning the California Science Center produced for your event (including invitations, programs, press releases, etc.) prior to printing or broadcast. Please allow sufficient time for this approval.
So since they violated the contract that they signed the event was cancelled. No censorship here, just the usual distortion, and misdirection.
But why lets the fact’s get in the way of a good story? Doesn’t the 9th commandment say something about bearing false witness?
"The Cambrian explosion, so called, is a failure of the geological record rather than of the Darwinian machine. Its radical new groups reflect not a set of exceptional events, but something more banal: the first appearance of animals with parts capable of preservation. Before then, there were soft creatures that decayed as soon as they died. Why shells appeared all of a sudden is not certain. Perhaps the first predators evolved and drove their prey to don expensive armor, or perhaps a surge of oxygen enabled animals to grow large enough to need a skeleton. Whatever the reason, the Cambrian marks the origin of a fossil record, rather than of modern life."
Jones goes on to write:
"A few discoveries from an unknown land prove that biology's supposed preface, the Cambrian, is in fact well into its plot. So deficient was the evidence of earlier times that nobody guessed it was there. Single celled creatures stretch back even further. The balance of isotopes in carbon trapped in Greenland rocks three-thousand eight hundred million years old resembles that of the modern bacteria that live on methane. They evolved when Earth was in its infancy and show that it took several times longer to develop a cell with a nucleus than it did for life to appear."
You should study the 9th Commandment a little more carefully, and then look in the mirror. It was not the Discovery Institute that was putting the even on, it was the American Freedom Alliance.
“Why the outrage? Isn’t there academic freedom to express scientific viewpoints that dissent from the evolutionary “consensus”? “
of course not, you have to ask?
THEY are evolved and have all wisdom and knowledge now.
You are not allowed to have public dissent in their
sanctuaries.
ampu
You really should pay attention, I have already advised you that the misdirection, avoidance, and ridicule will not work.
:::shrug::: I just don't care enough to research that, so I guess we'll never know.
Ira, you really ought to follow your own advice. Otherwise, people might think you’re a hypocrite or something.
What violation was that, Ira?
Beep!
I guess you did not fully read my first post. So I will go over it again for you.
This press release was issued: http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS135002+05-Oct-2009+PRN20091005 Without approval thus violating this clause of the rental contract:
PROMOTIONAL MATERIALS:
It is required that the Event Services Office approve, for technical and factual accuracy, all promotional materials mentioning the California Science Center produced for your event (including invitations, programs, press releases, etc.) prior to printing or broadcast. Please allow sufficient time for this approval.
http://www.californiasciencecenter.org/GenInfo/EventServices/PoliciesAndProcedures/PoliciesAndProcedures.php
The press release states “Intelligent Design Documentary to Premiere at Smithsonian Affiliated California Science Center” and the contract states that all promotional materials mentioning the California Science Center must be approved prior to printing or broadcast. This press release was not approved.
Is that clear enough for you? See no censorship just a violation of a signed rental contract.
Here we see the the ID'ers admitting they're guessing as to underlying motive. Personally, I think they have a point, regardless of the technicality.
If you are arguing that the contract technicality itself, is the full and complete story, I'd guess you might do well selling used cars, or in a government job, or in politics??? Aim High! --- like the saying goes...you show promise! /s
Did the D.I. issue the press release?
Was the press release approved?
Does the rental contract not state that all promotional materials require approval prior to printing or broadcast?
Do the id/creationists/cdesign proponentsist have a separate set of rules from everybody else wishing to rent this space?
It looks very much like the press release was from the Discovery Institute not The Freedom Alliance. so who contracted for the showing?
Can’t have any of that intelligence stuff allowed, now, can we?
LMAO... what a crock of horse shi-.
Evos sure would know that when they see it, wouldn’t they?
So how can a press release from a third party violate a contract between the California Science Center and The Freedom Alliance?
lol! yep
PROMOTIONAL MATERIALS:
It is required that the Event Services Office approve, for technical and factual accuracy, all promotional materials mentioning the California Science Center produced for your event (including invitations, programs, press releases, etc.) prior to printing or broadcast. Please allow sufficient time for this approval.
So it is irrelevant as to who did the press release, it is still a violation of the rental contract. I guess you could say that passage was to be taken literally, and not as an allegory
As good Christians should they not follow the terms of the contract that they signed?
Sorry, not buying it.
That's not the whole story, as you are attempting to suggest.
That does not mean that the contract cannot be invoked or applied.
It is the REASON behind why it was applied, that is the thrust of the article.
As I pointed out in my post to you, the ID'ers were admittedly guessing to motive.
If you don't want to address that, fine. But at the same time, the contract clause does appear to be masking the motive. What you have to say about it here, is not the whole story. Why is that so difficult for you to admit?
Is it because of your own anti-ID biases?
It sure looks like that from the sidelines...
That is unless you think The Freedom alliance can put a gag order on a news agency and The Discovery Institute too.
Since it appears the press release was apparently accurate it would be what the law calls, “de minimis”, a trifle.
Nice try at misdirection however you failed to address any of my questions.
WHO signed the contract? They? Freedom Alliance or Discovery Institute? And why would it not make any difference?
Excellent question. Don't look now, Ira, but it your fig leaf just went up in smoke, You naked now, boy...
oh, wait, let me guess...now the argument of "affiliation" while be trying to grab up another leaf to hide behind...
Are you advocating an exception to the rules of a special interest group?
If Ira suspects that you are a Creationist or an IDer, he would accuse you of misdirection even if you told him that he is supposed to stop for red lights, and go on green.
I provided a link to the unapproved press release that plainly mentions the California Science Center in direct violation of the signed rental agreement.
Seeing that you are an expert on literal translations what part of “all promotional materials mentioning the California Science Center produced for your event (including invitations, programs, press releases, etc.)” is not clear?
The contract does not provide an out for a third party. It states “It is required that the Event Services Office approve, for technical and factual accuracy, all promotional materials mentioning the California Science Center produced for your event (including invitations, programs, press releases, etc.) prior to printing or broadcast”
It is really not that difficult to understand.
Nice try at misdirection however you still have failed to address any of my questions.
When the facts are not on your side misdirection is all that you have.
No, when you fail to answer a direct question by changing the subject then that is when I call you out on your attempt at misdirection.
Isn’t breech of contract violating the commandment against bearing false witness?
Using a literal translation then yes it would.
“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.”
Daily News LA
Kremer himself said in the same interview that the Center was an “affiliate” of the Smithsonian.
So either a different press release was what he was talking about or he, perhaps, said much more than he reports.
Of course they should, if they signed the contract.
But your attempts to blackmail Christians into behaving the way you think they should behave as a means to control their behavior is as transparent as they come.
At least Christians have a moral base from which to operate.
Evos have none so they don't have to worry about things like integrity in business dealings, for example. That way they don't have to answer for anything or worry about someone challenging them about lying.
What basis would someone use to say, *As good evos should they not follow the contract that they signed*?
It's funny how evos are such experts on how everyone else should behave.
I’ll be sure to keep my mortgage paid up so Sears won’t cancel my neighbor’s service contract makes as much sense.
But no, it not too difficult to understand. Phony “concerns” are expressed and the contract is cancelled.
Apparently this was too much for the California Science Center, which abruptly cancelled the AFA’s contract just a couple weeks before the screening. The center claims it cancelled the event “because of issues related to the contract” but refuses to identify the issues.
The California Science Center was the one that backed out of the contract.
You lose, Ira.
No matter how you twist it, THEY canceled. So much for trying to smear Christians. Obviously, the center has no moral compunction about contract violations since they have no moral base from which to operate.
Clearly then, those at the California Science Center couldn't be considered *good Christians*.
It was the Freedom Alliance and the Discovery Institute who violated the rental contract.
Nice try at misdirection.
Nice try at misdirection. The unapproved press release was a clear violation of the rental contract.
But let not let facts get in the way.
What part of “all promotional materials mentioning the California Science Center produced for your event (including invitations, programs, press releases, etc.)” is not clear?
Yes they did cancel the rental agreement because of the contract violations I have pointed out.
There is no censorship here they are just applying the same rules that everybody else has to follow if they wish to rent that space. Are you saying that you believe that special interest groups do not have to fallow the same rules as everybody else?
It is the new leftist tool. They claim to have morals but are quick to remind you they have a much lower, very much lower standard of morals than the Bible and Christianity calls for.
The hypocritcal leftist clones who hide out on Free Republic are known for their identical attacks, targets and focus that you would find on the most far left of web sites.
They are fixated on mocking the Bible and Christianity.
The exception is that they (including the closet-leftists on Free Republic) agree with the very liberal brand of Christianity which is favored and championed by all leftists to give a false foundational excuse for their theft, sex perversion, evolution mythology and decades of vulgar language and hypocritical fingerpointing.
Contrary to your claim, I did not "fail" to address "any" of your questions.
I did earlier point out that the contract stipulation (that was a mention!), though arguably enforceable, was not the entire story.
Which is quite different than total failure to address the narrow argument you are attempting to have this entire matter defined under.
It is your own replies to me sir, which utterly fail to address *any* of the points made in my direct communications to you.
The misdirection accusation, though perhaps music to you when directed towards others, is here, narrowly between you and I, much more applicable to you than I in regards to our communications towards one another.
Besides,speaking of unanswered questions, there is still the question of the third party, isn't there? Do you wish to duck THAT one?
How does a party not a signatory to a contract, become bound by the same contract? How do the actions of a party not a signatory rightfully apply an actual signatory?
Until that is answered, the remainder of your entire argument is superfluous, isn't it?
Was The Discovery Institute a party to the contract? That seems to be a really difficult question for you to grasp.
What part of “all promotional materials mentioning the California Science Center produced for your event (including invitations, programs, press releases, etc.)” is not clear?
So where did you address these questions:
Did the D.I. issue the press release?
Was the press release approved?
Does the rental contract not state that all promotional materials require approval prior to printing or broadcast?
Do the id/creationists/cdesign proponentsist have a separate set of rules from everybody else wishing to rent this space?
Again nice try, but your misdirection will not work.
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.