NYT: Smithsonian to Screen a Movie That Makes a Case Against Evolution

[DeepModem Mom]

Smithsonian to Screen a Movie That Makes a Case Against Evolution
By JOHN SCHWARTZ
Published: May 28, 2005


Fossils at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History have been used to prove the theory of evolution. Next month the museum will play host to a film intended to undercut evolution.

The Discovery Institute, a group in Seattle that supports an alternative theory, "intelligent design," is announcing on its Web site that it and the director of the museum "are happy to announce the national premiere and private evening reception" on June 23 for the movie, "The Privileged Planet: The Search for Purpose in the Universe."

The film is a documentary based on a 2004 book by Guillermo Gonzalez, an assistant professor of astronomy at Iowa State University, and Jay W. Richards, a vice president of the Discovery Institute, that makes the case for the hand of a creator in the design of Earth and the universe.

News of the Discovery Institute's announcement appeared on a blog maintained by Denyse O'Leary, a proponent of the intelligent design theory, who called it "a stunning development." But a museum spokesman, Randall Kremer, said the event should not be taken as support for the views expressed in the film. "It is incorrect for anyone to infer that we are somehow endorsing the video or the content of the video," he said.

The museum, he said, offers its Baird Auditorium to many organizations and corporations in return for contributions - in the case of the Discovery Institute, $16,000....


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/28/national/28smithsonian.html

[wtmusic]

1. So it's not "Smithsonian to Screen a Movie..."

it's "Discovery Institute to rent Smithsonian name..." :eyes:

[paineinthearse]

7. "the museum will play host"

Can anyone with connections/membership deterime the actual relationship between the "discovery" people and the Smithsonian?

This information should be available to a member, ON DEMAND!

[beam me up scottie]

16. Not a member but

this clears it up:
#####
The president of the Discovery Institute, Bruce Chapman, said his organization approached the museum through its public relations company and the museum staff asked to see the film. "They said that they liked it very much - and not only would they have the event at the museum, but they said they would co-sponsor it," he recalled. "That was their suggestion. Of course we're delighted."

Mr. Kremer said he heard about the event only on Thursday. He added that staff members viewed the film before approving the event to make sure that it complied with the museum's policy, which states that "events of a religious or partisan political nature" are not permitted, along with personal events such as weddings, or fund-raisers, raffles and cash bars. It also states that "all events at the National Museum of Natural History are co-sponsored by the museum."
#####

[MADem]

28. It appears that the relationship is landlord-tenant, for a night n/t

[beam me up scottie]

2. Boy, the Times is really going out on a limb with this one.

"Evolution has become a major battleground in the culture wars, with bitter debates in legislatures and school boards, national parks and museums. Although Charles Darwin's theory is widely viewed as having been proved by fossil records and modern biological phenomena, it is challenged by those who say that it is flawed and that alternatives need to be taught."

F*cking paper won't take a stand, not even for science, lest they be labeled as "liberal" media.

[PSPS]

4. It is sick, isn't it?

This is like the "some say" nonsense the brain-dead "reporters" use.

It could just as easily be, "Although Nicolai Copernicus' theory that the planets revolve around the sun is widely viewed as having been proved by astronomical observations, it is challenged by those who say that it is flawed and that alternative promoted by Aristotle and Ptolemy that the sun revolves around the Earth needs to be taught."

[beam me up scottie]

8. Excellent analogy.

When I lived in Vermont, I used to walk down to the newsstand at 7am every Saturday and Sunday to grab a copy of the NYT before they were sold out.
Of course, that was before 9/11. They started selling out soon afterwards. It doesn't matter why, it just matters that they did.
It's sad, really.

[onager]

11. I gave up on the Paper Of Broken Record...

...long before 9/11.

They lost me when Jeff Gerth was running around Arkansas acting as a stenographer for every right-wing kook with a grudge against Bill Clinton.

[beam me up scottie]

12. I'm glad I missed that.

I was reading the Boston Globe during most of the Clinton years.
Boy, do I ever miss him.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[truth2power]

41. Summed up nicely, pokercat

No flame here. Clinton was not the saint he's made out to be, by any means. Also, you could add to your list that he hung Lani Guinier (sp?) out to dry. I read the article authored by her, "Tyranny of the Majority", which caused such a firestorm, and could find little to disagree with. But Clinton didn't have the balls to stand up for her. Sticks in my craw to this day.

Oh...and, "finding a piece of ass that was an actual adult woman instead of a school girl might be another good thing." IMHO, the pieces of ass that those in the WH are most interested in, would likely belong to young boys. I think most here understand where I'm coming from on that: Gannon/Guckert/Gosch; Franklin Coverup. Those who disagree can add THAT to their flame list.

Welcome to DU. :hi:

[beam me up scottie]

66. I don't believe in saints.

Who calls him a saint?
He was a man and just like all men he has faults.
Sorry if I refuse to help the reichwing crucify the guy for a blowjob.
But you guys go ahead, I'm sure you'll enjoy yourselves.

HEY! I just taught my Opera dictionary a new word!

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beam me up scottie]

83. Wow, thanks for showing your true colors!

I'll just let your words speak for themselves.
Others can judge who is lacking in intelligence! :evilgrin:

"It's not about the blowjob stupid."

" It's the health care we don't have.
It's the infrastructure crumbling around us.
It's the lack of a real effort to find clean and renewable sources of energy.
It's the public transportation systems that never got started.
It's the left's agenda that he abandoned.
It's giving the far right a free shot and the ability to push my fucking country toward a fascist dictatorship.
It's the WASTE of 16 fucking years the 8 he threw away and the 8 we lost in most part due to his actions.
That's what it's about stupid!"

:applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause:

[DuaneBidoux]

115. He was a man who, like most of the greatest, was tormented by testosterone.

It's the old fuck it or kill it syndrome. At least fucking by mutual consent doesn't leave a mourning family, unlike the families being left in the wake of this maniac in the WH. And Clinton is a Rhodes scholar, which at a minimum stamps his admission ticket to even attempt the act of running the country.

By the way, if you've never seen Primary Colors with John Travolta it is a movie to see. They portray a man so close to how Clinton comes across you can't believe it.

I believe that one of the fundamental differences between liberalism and conservatism is the ability to have these kinds of discussions. One thing that simultaneously makes us weaker at election times, and yet stronger as people, is that we don't make our leaders into saints. Try to find a Rethuglican critical of Reagan for any of his worst policies, even if those policies went against the core of what true Republicanism stands for.

I always remember Al Franken who said, the love of a liberal for his country is like the love of a spouse for another. It requires mature judgment, criticism, support, compromise. The love of the conservative for his country is like the love of a four year old for his mother: "mommy good, people who don't like mommy bad....mommy can do no wrong." I think the same difference applies to how we view our leaders as well.

[beam me up scottie]

117. Thanks for the heads up on the movie.

I actually never have seen it but will now.

I remember the rest of the world was incredulous at how Clinton was vilified because of his infidelity. They couldn't understand why we could destroy a great man over such a trivial personal matter.
We allowed the reichwing and the msm to tear him apart like a pack of hyenas.
It was shameful.

[truth2power]

137. Hi Scotty...

I just got back here this AM. Now there's so many deleted posts that I can't figure out who said what. I'll try to parse this out, though...I guess it was Pokercat's post that was deleted, the one I replied to. I thought she made good points, but that's just me. Not worthy of deletion, IMO, but now I can't go back and say why I support what she said.

ANYWAY...I don't think I'm attempting to crucify Clinton by saying he didn't have the balls to stand up for Lani Guinier. I think that's a reasonable position to take in light of the events that occurred, but you are free to disagree. As you said, he has his faults.

Please don't include me in the "you guys" who you think are crucifying him for a BJ. Maybe I wsn't clear. That was never my concern. And I think it was a GOOD thing that, if he was going to have an affair,that he, as pokercat said, "found a piece of ass that was an adult woman", (behavior between consensual adults and all that). I would say that his judgement was flawed in that he didn't pick someone who could keep her frigging mouth shut.

I hope it was clear that the WH I was referring to was the CURRENT WH.

My use of the word "saint" was hyperbolic, agreed. :-)

[beam me up scottie]

139. Hey T2P,

Just checking in myself and saw your post.

Wow, all of Pokercat's posts were deleted and she was tombstoned.
I only thought a couple would be deleted but apparently there must have been more going on there than we knew. Weird, eh? I mean she did sound like Zell's twin sister in this thread (you have no idea what you missed, LOL!) but I didn't expect her to get ts'd.

I did understand your point about the WH, and it was a good one, IMO.
I shouldn't have directed that post to you and I apologize.
When someone attacks me like she did, I feel like I'm backed into a corner and I get too defensive. I was trying to stay sarcastic so that I wouldn't get my own posts deleted but I should have been more careful where my punches landed.
Again, sorry for snarking at you, you didn't deserve it.

All of that because I said I missed President Clinton, whooo-eee!

[Bandit]

47. 22 year olds are now school children?

Young I admit and absolutely wrong but school child....hardly. How about the greatest economic expansion in US history and budget surpluses. That is where good things come from. Having money to pay for them and Clinton was setting America up to have lots of excess funds to provide for health care and America's needs. I think if you would look at all you might find some difference between Clinton's Administration and what we have now.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DuaneBidoux]

58. The best thing Clinton "did" for the country was be a Democrat in

a time that will across the years be (rightly or wrongly) associated with great times economically, while the best thing Bush has "done" for Democrats is preside over a time when most people feel like things are in the crapper and only getting worse.

I always tell people "...after listening to the evening news today I long for the great days when 'unemployment was low, stocks went up, and Monica went down'."

I mean how bad can times be when the evening news spends 20 minutes on a blow job. Beats the hell out of troop casualty news.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beam me up scottie]

63. BWAHAHAHAHA!

Hey if the piece of ass thing is so important to you, who am I to tell you different? Since I don't give a shit about other people's sex lives, you'll have to pardon me if I don't join in.

And hey, I gotta hand it to you for originality-blaming Clinton for Frist is a new one for me!
Here ya go:
:applause:

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beam me up scottie]

84. Hero?

Quit putting words in my mouth and learn how to debate without resorting to cheap tricks.

Personal insults and name calling are not allowed and are also a good indication that the poster is unwilling or unable to legitimately make their case.

[DuaneBidoux]

108. Damn! Sometimes I regret deletions when I come back to read

retorts to my comment. I come back 4 hours later and see someone responded to me but it was deleted! Hey, I'm a liberal--I don't fear the word. I only get curioser and curioser.

[beam me up scottie]

119. I know the feeling!

nt

[digno dave]

79. Actually, Clinton came in with a definite liberal agenda

and lost the Congress as a result in '94. That's when he veered right.

[beam me up scottie]

87. Don't defend the man,

he was EVIL EVIL EVIL.
And I should know, I'm a decorated senior member of the E.A.C.
:rofl:

[beam me up scottie]

10. Welcome to DU by the way!

:hi:

[podnoi]

48. Having a degree in Biology, I have to say

Evolutional Theory is somewhat dogmatic. It does indeed have substantial unanswered questions. I am not arguing for creationism to be taught in schools, but I have always felt that teachers of the theory were a little "flat earth". I will get flamed for this, but it is as much a faith as a science, in it's current version.

Once again I am not arguing for creationism. But I do feel that minds are closed and there is not room made to allow for additional discovery and alternative ideas to be bantered about.

[alarimer]

50. Nonsense

There is substantial evidence backing up the "theory." There are disagreement among scientists about the pace of evolutionary change but there is NO DOUBT that natural selection is the mechanism for speciation.

[JNelson6563]

55. What a stinky pantload

but Creationists will stop at nothing. They are zealots.

Julie

[Guaranteed]

96. The theories of evolution and natural selection are different.

The fact that species evolve has been proved.

The mechanism by which they evolve is pretty speculative. It's more of a social science than biology. For you to say that the process of natural selection both is always responsible for speciation and always at work when it should, in theory, be working would be giving it too much credit. It's a vague concept that doesn't always apply.

[RebelOne]

64. If you have any kind of degree at all, then you

would know the correct usage of its. It's means it is, its is the possessive.

[digno dave]

81. is that the best you can do?

nt

[LiberallyInclined]

3. I have a question about intelligent design-

since it's usually pushed by religious groups, they obviously want you to discount the possibility of the design being done a super-advanced extra-terrestial alien race, and focus in on God Almighty-mighty as the design engineer on his project-

HOWEVER-
the same folks want you to believe in what the holy babble says, re: man being created in god's image...but if we were created in God's image, how could he have been the designer? he was just copying his own bad self- what we need to know then is- who designed god?

[lapfog_1]

5. This one has been easy for fundies, for you see...

God has always existed, the alpha and omega of creation so to speak.

That he happens to look like a mostly hairless bipedal great ape
is just a bonus (or not, depending on if you LIKE the human form).

[Trillo]

6. This fellow came here as an alien,

and now he wants to play the judge!

[revolve]

13. There is no way you will ever get to the beginning

On the big bang side of things, how did the stuff that was banged get there to be banged in the first place?

[jobycom]

37. That's a good point

When you get deeper into theology than these ID weirdos get, you start to question God a bit more. If God created everything we know, then he created time, so he exists outside of time, under a rule we cannot grasp. Thus, he may be imperfect in his own realm, he may have been created by something else, there may even be other gods. But in the context of this universe and time, he is perfect and all knowing because he created everything.

The big bang also has that whole "other realm" thing going. If all matter and energy was reduced to a single small mass, what was out there where the universe is now? One physicist pointed out to me that it's impossible to know, because the universe expands outward at the speed of light, and since nothing can move faster than the speed of light, we cannot see beyond that expanding edge.

So both "theories" hint at something beyond our ability to comprehend, beyond God or the rules of physics, even.

Almost like Wittgenstein's box--we can't study what's beyond what we can know. Bring that up at a drinking party one day and watch people's drunken eyes as they try to wrap their minds around it!

[pissed_American]

22. Exactly !!! Who were God`s parents ??

[paineinthearse]

9. "The Privileged Planet:....."

That's one hell of an arrogant title!

[beam me up scottie]

15. Yes,

we're "special".

[Warren Stupidity]

34. ID is total bullshit

when it comes to explaining the diversity of life over the history of our planet. However earth does appear to be a bit unique, in that it has intelligent life, and has evolved a technological civilization, while the rest of our corner of the universe appears to perhaps not have intelligent life. There are a lot of people on the SETI side of things who are quite puzzled by the fact that after 20-30 years of searching we basically have found no evidence of any 'radio-signal-making life forms'. Doesn't mean we won't find one tomorrow, it just means that civilization is pretty damn rare.

[megatherium]

38. This is called the Fermi Paradox.

Enrico Fermi made this observation some 50 years ago: if there are other civilizations, where are they, why haven't they visited us? Aficionados of UFOs suggest that actually, they have visited us, but the evidence for this was slim in Fermi's day and is slim in ours.

Proponents of SETI have always operated on the assumption, expressed using the famous Drake Equation, that the galaxy is teeming with life. Some biologists instead point out how delicate are the conditions for supporting life, and suggest that we may be the only life in the galaxy. For example, the Earth has a very large moon -- the Earth/Moon system is really a double planet -- which stabilizes the axis of rotation of the Earth. Without this, the planet would have polar regions that would wander around the entire planet on the scale of millions of years, which would prevent the formation of stable ecological systems in which higher life (vertebrates, etc) could evolve. This is argued in the book Rare Earth by P. Ward and D. Brownlee.

[chascarrillo]

70. Rare Earth = Intelligent Design

A main contributor to the book "Rare Earth" was the same Guillermo Gonzalez mentioned in the article above. Nice try.

[megatherium]

104. The authors of the book are careful to hide their agenda.

Had me fooled at any rate.

[Psephos]

133. You are dead wrong

I produce and write documentaries for a living. I developed a show based on Rare Earth for NOVA about four years ago (it ultimately was not made), and got to know Peter and Don (the authors) very well.

Don is a consummate hardworking, low-key brilliant scientist, rigorous, no-nonsense, and utterly agenda-free.

Peter is a wild man, missing a few apparently nonessential rivets here and there, but is nonetheless a minor genius, and is about as far from your cliched caricature of a secret agenda fundie as it is possible to be. He is the last man I know who would ever buy into ID.

Nice try yourself.

[Erika]

14. I've been a long time subscriber to the Smithsonian

I'll cancel my subscription.

[davidinalameda]

18. if you give them $16K they'll have a party for you too

or however much it is to rent the place

[Erika]

17. I just canceled my subscription to the Smithsonian

based on their endorsement of a political intelligent design rather than science based concepts.

[beam me up scottie]

19. They didn't endorse it.

nt

[Erika]

20. They are showing the movie and that alone is an endorsement

I don't wish my $ spent for that cause. So, I'm withdrawing my monies and support. That's called consumerism.

[beam me up scottie]

23. They are NOT endorsing anything.

They are renting the place, like Dwickham said.

Here is the ad:
###
Baird Auditorium

Baird Auditorium is the perfect setting for speaking programs, meetings and performances held in conjunction with special events. The auditorium seats 565 guests and is equipped to support 35mm slide projection, 16mm and 35mm film projection, and video/data projection. Smithsonian audio-visual support is required, and additional charges do apply
###

and their policy:

###
SPECIAL EVENTS POLICY

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.

Caterers working within the Museum must have the required $1 million liability insurance certificate on file at the Smithsonian. Although co-sponsors may work with the caterer of their choice, the Museum reserves the right to review and approve the choice of caterer in order to assure that they are capable of working safely within the Museum and are aware of the catering limitations within the building. The Museum's special events staff can also provide a list of caterers and other vendors who have successfully handled events in the Museum.

Once an event is approved, co-sponsoring organizations will receive a confirmation letter and an agreement form outlining the basic parameters of the event and the fees. Required fees include the tax-deductible contribution and direct costs (for overtime services which are provided by the Museum). The event will be confirmed when the signed agreement form and full payment are received by the Museum's Special Events Office. Payment is required prior to the event. During periods of high demand, a non-refundable deposit may be required. In these instances, the deposit will be considered an advance payment on the required contribution.

For a complete copy of the Museum's special events policy, please contact us by phone or email.
###

http://www.nmnh.si.edu/specialevents/bairdauditorium.html


Congratulations, you just gave credence to the wingnut's version of the facts.
But hey, just think, your reaction will thrill the Discovery Institute
They wanted people to believe that the museum endorsed the film and you did just that.
Even better it's taking money away from actual scientific research!

That's called a knee-jerk reaction.

[Erika]

25. Wow, a scathing remark

Do you feel better for the attack? I will repeat that I have no intention on feeding a group who chooses to endorse "intelligent design" as a theory. If the design was so "intelligent" why do diseases occur, and war, and IQ discrepancy? Believe as you may, but don't expect me to financially support the nonsense.

[beam me up scottie]

67. HOW are they "endorsing" intelligent design?

"group who chooses to endorse "intelligent design" as a theory"

WHERE do you see that?

Are we reading the same article? Because the spokesman specifically said that they are NOT endorsing the video.

Here, read it again:

###
But a museum spokesman, Randall Kremer, said the event should not be taken as support for the views expressed in the film. "It is incorrect for anyone to infer that we are somehow endorsing the video or the content of the video," he said.
###

"Scathing remark" ?
"Attack" ?"

Since when is a dissenting opinion an attack?
And where have I heard that before...?

[Psephos]

136. As Ralph would say...

Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Seems a few of your detractors have the two confused. :-)

I like your intellectual honesty, and your instinct to dig a bit deeper before passing judgment. Such a habit would serve us all well.

Peace.

[beam me up scottie]

141. Thanks for the great quote.

I'm keeping it in my file as an appropriate reminder for this DU member. ;)

[truth2power]

42. Excuse me, Scotty...

Honest question, here...it's the words "co-sponsored" that apparently mean something different to me that they do to you. In my mind, if you co-sponsor something, you endorse it. Word connotation and all that. What are your thoughts on that?

[wtmusic]

46. agree...and the film would certainly qualify as an

"event of a religious or partisan political nature" which the Smith says are not permitted. :wtf:

and from the DI website:

"The point of view Discovery brings to its work includes a belief in God-given reason and the permanency of human nature".

http://www.discovery.org/aboutFunctions.php

I guess if you fork over $16G the rules go out the window.

Smithsonian email:

[e-mail]

[MADem]

59. I don't think it falls under that sentence, but the one before it

...that talks about the partnering and the donations. They are looking at this as a corporate gig, not a personal event...

[wtmusic]

74. Huh?

Prohibition of religious events is in addition to personal events:

"Personal events (i.e. weddings, etc.), fund raising events, and events of a religious or partisan political nature are not permitted."

[MADem]

102. I meant the sentence PRECEDING that one

The sentence that dealt with CORPORATE and ORGANIZATIONAL events (cash for use of the room, in essence), that read as follows:
SPECIAL EVENTS POLICY

Corporations and organizations making an unrestricted contribution to the National Museum of Natural History may co-sponsor an event in celebration of their gift.

They gave a no-strings donation to the museum, and in return they allowed them to throw a shindig.

And this is one step removed from a religious event--it is a documentary about a religious perspective. Hair-splitting, certainly, but they've shown films about cultures that have specific worship practices...it does not necessarily signify an endorsement of those practices.

[wtmusic]

118. Why is this so difficult

Immediately after that sentence it explains that events of a religious nature are not permitted. There is nothing that limits that rule to personal events.

This is a scientific institution lending their name to non-science for hard cash. What is it you don't understand about that? :crazy:

[beam me up scottie]

126. Please read my post #105.

I believe either the Discovery Institution found a loophole and is using it to their advantage or that the reichwing is putting pressure on the Smithsonian to allow proponents of ID to use their facilities.

All I was trying to say is please don't hurt the Smithsonian until we are sure they are at fault. Wouldn't it be better to protest publicly first? Wouldn't that help the Smithsonian if their hands are indeed tied?

There are so few institutions left unpolluted by the toxic touch of this administration and I don't want to see this one punished without justification.

The DI wants everyone to believe the Smithsonian endorses ID and I feel we may be playing into their hands.
I also question the integrity and motivation of the NYT reporter.

I am sorry if I offended anyone on this post (except for the troll, of course). I was on the defensive thanks to the now absent cave-dweller.

And in case some don't know, I am an atheist and as such, I am furious at the attempt of the reichwing to use "Intelligent Design" to camouflage creationism.

[MADem]

128. You are right that they paid for the room

...and in return, they got to show their documentary to their private audience in exchange for a corporate or organizational donation of 16K. They are not holding religious services open to the public, and they can spend the money any way they want.

If it gives you heartburn, complain. The religious bit, as I take it, refers to PRIVATE entities, not organizations or corporations.

Clearly, it fits within their bylaws, else they would not do it.
This is as quoted in the article a "PRIVATE EVENING RECEPTION" held by a corporate/organizational donor, and it is not open to the public. As you can see, here http://www.mnh.si.edu/cal_events.html it is also not on the SMITHSONIAN calendar of events, and the only way you could get into it would be if you were invited by the corporate donors.

They're renting the room.

[beam me up scottie]

69. Honest question:

Do you REALLY believe that The Smithsonian endorses intelligent design?

Because if you do, I won't continue this conversation.

If not try reading the whole article, particularly this part:

###
News of the Discovery Institute's announcement appeared on a blog maintained by Denyse O'Leary, a proponent of the intelligent design theory, who called it "a stunning development." But a museum spokesman, Randall Kremer, said the event should not be taken as support for the views expressed in the film. "It is incorrect for anyone to infer that we are somehow endorsing the video or the content of the video," he said.
###

[wtmusic]

76. The point is that it's inappropriate

for the SI to lend their name to anything that's so obviously nonsensical. This is an obvious ploy by the Discovery Institute to manufacture some credibility, and I'm sure for many people, it will work.

[beam me up scottie]

85. Hmm, maybe that's why

he said he was looking into it since he only heard about it on Thursday?
It's also quite possible that the film does not violate their policy.
This is the description:

###
The film is a documentary based on a 2004 book by Guillermo Gonzalez, an assistant professor of astronomy at Iowa State University, and Jay W. Richards, a vice president of the Discovery Institute, that makes the case for the hand of a creator in the design of Earth and the universe.
###

And if that is the case, perhaps they will change the policy in the future.
I refuse to believe the ridiculous and hysterical claim that this institution is endorsing intelligent design.
That was MY point.

[Zhade]

91. BMUS, I have to disagree with you. This violates their own policy.

The film is by a group that is explicit in its goal to force a creationism worldview on Americans.

The film is both religious and political. It's not a documentary, because documentaries are based on provable facts, not unprovable (or utterly disproven) religious myths.

While I'm uncertain if this is an endorsement, it does appear to be a violation of the rules set by the Smithsonian.

[beam me up scottie]

92. Sorry, I reserve judgement until I hear both sides of the story.

Call me crazy but running around hysterically because of a claim made by a creationist website and an unreliable source smacks of freeper activity and is exactly why those comments were posted on that website.

But since some posters have already tried and convicted this respected institution, I'll leave you to it.

[Zhade]

93. Two simple questions...

Did the Smithsonian rent the place out for the screening?

Don't the Smithsonian's own rules say "no religious stuff"?

If yes and yes, it's a violation of the Smithsonian's own rules. It's cut-and-dried. As to it being an endorsement, that's another issue. My point is that if the Smithsonian has indeed rented the place for a religious film to be shown, it is a violation of its own written policy.

Now, maybe I'm reading that wrong. If so, fill me in, because I'm not seeing how this isn't a case of the Smithsonian violating its own rules.

[beam me up scottie]

97. Point me to where they explained why they decided

it was not a violation of the policy.

Until I hear their side of it I will withhold my condemnation.
I feel the same way about murder trials, but hey-that's just me.

And as I stated in a previous post, they rent out the Baird center to corporations and organizations.

Is it too much to ask that DU'ers read my posts?

I said I missed President Clinton and suddenly he's my "hero".

I advocate obtaining all of the facts before condemning a respected institution and suddenly I'm regarded as an apologist and spokesperson for the Smithsonian?

Thanks for proving my point.

[Zhade]

100. As far as I can tell, they haven't explained when given the opportunity.

The NYT talked to the Smithsonian, and the Smithsonian didn't explain why a mythumentary about creationism - which is a religious teaching - doesn't violate their policy of "no events of a religious nature". I don't think we can know why the Smithsonian decided this wasn't a violation of its own rules, but it was given the chance and said nothing (or, possibly, the NYT left it out).

I find this quote odd, though: He added, "We're happy to receive this contribution from the Discovery Institute to further our scientific research."

I guess the Smithsonian considers the stupidity of biblical literalism to be worthy of scientific research - otherwise, I have no idea what the quote means, since creationism is NOT science.

"Until I hear their side of it I will withhold my condemnation.
I feel the same way about murder trials, but hey-that's just me."

Fair enough, but the Smithsonian had a chance to clarify and didn't. Perhaps they felt no need to clarify (has the Smithsonian gone theocon under b*s* too?) or the NYT left that bit out. I agree that some more investigation is needed.

"And as I stated in a previous post, they rent out the Baird center to corporations and organizations."

Have they done so to religious groups before?

"Is it too much to ask that DU'ers read my posts?"

I think it's too much to assume we haven't.

"I said I missed President Clinton and suddenly he's my "hero"."

I wasn't involved in that conversation, so i'm uncertain why you're bringing it up in this reply, except as part of the larger "they don't read my posts" complaint (which I think is not completely accurate - certainly one person assumed a lot, but not everyone does).

"I advocate obtaining all of the facts before condemning a respected institution and suddenly I'm regarded as an apologist and spokesperson for the Smithsonian?"

Well, I never said either of these, and as I stated already, the Smithsonian had a chance to share their side of the story. Are you suggesting that maybe the full story isn't being told? I could see the NYT being shoddy - they always are. We'll have to see if the Smithsonian objects to the NYT leaving stuff out, or decides to clarify why it rented to a religious group seemingly against its own rules.

"Thanks for proving my point."

What's your point, exactly? That some DUers don't read as carefully as they could? Okay, but I'm not one of them, so I don't prove that point.

That we should find out if there's more to this? I agree, and thus don't prove that point, either.

[beam me up scottie]

105. If you're done assuming facts that are not in evidence, I'll continue.

"The NYT talked to the Smithsonian, and the Smithsonian didn't explain why a mythumentary about creationism - which is a religious teaching - doesn't violate their policy of "no events of a religious nature". I don't think we can know why the Smithsonian decided this wasn't a violation of its own rules, but it was given the chance and said nothing (or, possibly, the NYT left it out)"

The book which the documentary is based on does use scientific facts to dispute Darwinism. It does not advocate the biblical version of creation, so I'm wondering why you assume that it is a religious "mythumentary".

"I guess the Smithsonian considers the stupidity of biblical literalism to be worthy of scientific research - otherwise, I have no idea what the quote means, since creationism is NOT science."

Kremers comment "We're happy to receive this contribution from the Discovery Institute to further our scientific research." simply states that the donation will be used to fund SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH which is what all donations are apparently used for. How did you jump to the conclusion that he considers creationism science?

"Fair enough, but the Smithsonian had a chance to clarify and didn't."

How much time did he have to clarify anything if he just found out about this on Thursday?
It was reviewed by staff for religious content. Did you read the review of the video?
If not, how can you claim that it is a "mythumentary about creationism - which is a religious teaching" ?

"Have they done so to religious groups before?"

The Discovery Institute is a 501(c)(3) and is not considered to be a "religious group". This is their mission

Policy/Priority Issues: Science and culture ; Environment ; Defense; Technology ; Future of law ; Regionalism

http://www.illinoispolicyinstitute.org/blog/resources/natthink.php

This very probably does not qualify as an event "of a religious or partisan political nature" which would explain "why it rented to a religious group seemingly against its own rules."


The ONLY point I have been making is that it's ridiculous to read a few blurbs and then use them as the basis for condemning an institution.
But I can see it missed its mark.
To satisfy my own need to know if this is indeed how they managed to find a loophole, I will continue to research this issue from more reliable sources on the internet.

I'm done with this thread.

[Zhade]

110. Check your PM.

NT!

I'm done replying to you on this in public.

[MADem]

129. It really is no different than if they showed a documentary

...made by a group of Native Americans, Catholics, Mormons or Muslims that dealt with their belief systems in "documentary" fashion, in exchange for a hefty donation.

The event is not open to the public, not on the Smithsonian calendar of events, and the museum has specifically stated that they do not ENDORSE the views---it's just a little whoring to keep the coffers full. With the budget the way it is, they have to find ways to make ends meet.

I'm sure if a group wanted to get together and match or double the contributions from any Fundie bunch, they'd refuse the tainted money and leave it at that. They gotta pay the bills...

[beam me up scottie]

132. That's how I understand it as well but

it's nearly impossible to launch oneself into a dramatic fit of righteous indignation if you pay attention to the facts.
Personally, if I was concerned about how the donations I make to charities were being spent, I would certainly make the effort to learn the truth before I withheld my support. But I'm funny that way.

Most universities allow religious groups to speak on campus.
Should we refuse to donate to them?
What about high schools that allow religious clubs to use their facilities, should parents refuse to raise money to support the school?

One film with secular content screened before a private audience in a building rented for such purposes can erase over 150 years of dedication to the pursuit of knowledge through scientific research?
Nice.

Here's a page from history:

###
Joseph Henry
First Smithsonian Secretary, 1846-1878

"A new impulse will thus be given to investigation in every department of science; and learned men will know that through you they will be able to make their discoveries available to their brethren throughout the civilized world."
###

http://www.sil.si.edu/Exhibitions/Smithson-to-Smithsonian/institution_01.html

[MADem]

29. They aren't spending your money, they made money on the room rental nt

[wtmusic]

51. And threw their rules out the window with it

The Smithsonian is a public institution funded largely by the federal government.

I don't care how much they got--they shouldn't be presenting this nonsense.

[sellitman]

68. I dropped my Smithsonian subcription today

yes...they used MY money. I won't support them again.

[wtmusic]

77. I hope you let them know why

:yourock:

[sellitman]

127. You betcha!

They got a nice letter letting them know why.

[beam me up scottie]

90. Yes, and I hope they shut down the whole place !

BOYCOTT THE SMITHSONIAN !!!

After all, they ENDORSE INTELLIGENT DESIGN!!!

Them dirty rotten creationists, pretending to be scientific researchers...

[Zhade]

94. Well, that last sentence is certainly true!

The operative word is "pretending".

:evilgrin:

[Selteri]

21. My opinion

I believe that there is some argument for intelligence design because nature likes to repeat numbers like the Natural Log Ratio in almost everything organic

I also beleive in Evolution because even today we can see some things evolve... even if it's through selective breeding, evolution is just the sloppy version of it.

For example, I can choce to breed certain fish with attributes I want together and their children will more liely have those attributes I want... over enough successive generations with a sufficiently broad pool I can create a new breed of fish.

That is what evolution does, only itr does it by random selection through nature, bringing out things that survive better, it also can take longer normally.

Yet, these fish will still follow the same naturally occuring repetition that seems to so happily occur in nature including the golden ratio.

[bling bling]

24. If it makes a convincing case for it using evidence, why not?

As long as it uses reasonable methods to support the hypothesis like the scientific method does for evolution, I'm open to hearing about it.

[valis]

31. But it does not...

It just uses some lingo to confuse the simpleminded folks. There is NOT a bit of empirical evidence. `Intelligent design` is not a theory. All it says is: if we could make an intelligent design detector then we`d know whether there is intelligent design. Like saying: if we make a unicorn detector, then wed know if there are unicorns.

[megatherium]

36. I think the ID people are completely sincere.

It's not just an attempt to gull the simple-minded.

Here is the evidence the ID people talk about: "irreducible complexity" at the molecular level in the cell (molecular machines that couldn't have come together by chance or through any process of natural selection); and evidence of "fine tuning" in the laws of physics. If any of the laws of physics were slightly different, they universe would be drastically different and incapable of supporting life (e.g., a universe filled with nothing but black holes, or nothing but neutrinos; or a universe where all elements higher than hydrogen would all be radioactive). The irreducible complexity business does not impress biologists -- read Kenneth Miller's book Finding Darwin's God -- but the fine tuning question has been a matter of serious discussion in the mainstream physics community for several decades (under the heading of "the cosmic anthropic principle").

Some of the ID people make a stab at arguing that this or that species or organic system could not have evolved under Darwinist natural selection. But most of the ID people acknowledge that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and that life did develop from a common ancestor.

The detector of intelligence design is a mathematical and philosophical construct, largely fashioned by William Dembski, who holds PhDs in both philosophy and mathematics. As best as I can tell, it's a gussied-up version of the argument to design that appeals to the inherent improbability of complex structures observed in nature.

[Warren Stupidity]

40. irreducible complexity is bullshit

they take a complex cellular mechanism and point out that all of its essential components are essential. No Duh. They then proceed to argue that as all the components are essential this mechanism cannot have evolved as you cannot remove any of its pieces. The idea being that the evolution process requires that to get to a component consisting of ABCDE you must start with ABCD and then add E. Their argument is that ABCD doesn't work on its own so evolution cannot explain the ABCDE component. That, my friend is deliberate and intentional baloney on the part of the ID folks.

I think Scientific American recently had a very good analogy of how idiotic this argument is. GPS units are becoming widely available in cars, but cars do not depend on them. In the near future, GPS may become standard, and we will start to see other car components that depend on GPS. Over time GPS may become essential to car operation: take away the GPS and the car no longer works. Guess what? The car still evolved from a device that didn't have GPS and functioned just fine to one that requires GPS.

Irreducible complexity just ignores the fact that independent functions can be combined into new functions and that these new functions can evolve into a state where they are essential functions. This ignorance is deliberate and it is intended to deceive. This sort of nonsense is why ID does not have any credibility in the scientific community, and why ID is a philosophical conjecture and not a scientific theory. ID does not stand up to peer review.

[megatherium]

49. The deception is not deliberate, but it is probably an example of

something that good scientists dread: self-deception. You want to believe in something, something compelling, and you don't test the hypothesis because you're caught up in it. As it happens, I am a scientist (a mathematician) and I know this from my own experience: you can arrive at what seems to be a good idea, you can pursue it for some time, then finally when you try to test it it crumbles. A good scientist must be skeptical, but most skeptical of his or her own ideas. In the case of ID it is clear that most of its proponents are religious. Clearly, religion is often not conducive to critical thinking; if you are religious, you are going to be reluctant to test your faith. If ID has become an underpinning of your faith, you aren't going to reality-test it very strenuously.

The whole ID thing reminds me of the cold fusion debacle. When Pons and Fleischmann made their announcement of cold fusion, they were asked if they'd run control experiments with ordinary water (cold fusion is said to happen with deuterium in palladium, so the experiment uses heavy water). They hadn't. For me, when I heard that, that was the "whoops" moment, when I knew cold fusion was bunk. (Of course, there are still scientists running around saying there's something to it, but I'm not holding my breath.)

As far as design in life goes, I am willing to consider the fine-tuning arguments from physics. But in terms of biology, I think the discovery of Lynn Margulis that the mitochondria in our cells were orignally cyanobacteria (that eukaryotic cells originated as symbiotic relationships of bacteria) pretty much nailed it for me. There might be design in life for all I know, but there sure as hell is a lot of contingency: just random events.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

60. ID explains the ancient astronauts

we were created by moon-people



astronaut-moon people. Come, join me at the Smithsonian Institute.



we will explore our humble, ancient alien astronaut origins.

Yours truly,

Erich Von Daniken

[Psephos]

134. Your posts are uniformly good here, megatherium

Not at all the product of intellectual sloth. :-)

I'll be looking for more of them in the future.

Peace.

[pie]

54. I will copy your clear concise post for my files

I have never seen that explained as well

[Warren Stupidity]

56. thank you, but credit goes to Scientific American

for going after the ID bullshit point by point using clearly understood language and examples. I merely parrot the work they have done. Too bad hardly anybody reads their excellent magazine.

[megatherium]

62. Two good book-length treatments of ID:

Kenneth Miller, Finding Darwin's God. Miller is a prominent biologist and textbook author who is also a Roman Catholic. He explains why ID is poor science and poor theology. He absolutely picks Michael Behe apart.

Matt Young, Taner Edis, Why Intelligent Design Fails goes into more detail on some of the biology. Some of the essays in this book are excellent.

[Warren Stupidity]

138. Gack err the New Yorker

I hate when I have a brain fart.

Here is the link to the new yorker's excellent article on ID:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050530fa_fact

That is where my 'case against irreducible complexity' came from.

SA is great too.

[Zhade]

98. Maybe they are, but they're also simple-minded.

The fact is that creationism has ZERO scientific, credible, independent evidence to back up its proponents' claims.

As it's been said, ID is creationism in a cheap tuxedo. They may be as sincere as the day is long, but they still don't approach the level of theory, let alone science.

Could there be a creator? Maybe. Heck, there might even be unicorns and leprechauns - but until there is actual evidence, it's premature to describe any of these as anything other than myth.

[megatherium]

111. Not simple minded, necessarily, but certainly wrong! nt

[Zhade]

113. IMHO, it's simple-minded to assert that "if B follows A, A caused B".

But yes, also utterly and completely wrong.

[Psephos]

131. Good point - stripped down, ID depends on human awe

Awe is, well, awesome. But ID rather arrogantly says that if we can't figure out how something happened, then it couldn't have happened. Or, in simplest terms, if we aren't intelligent enough to have designed, or at least explained, some of these irreducibly complex mechanisms, someone smarter than us did.

In answer, I recall what Lord Dunsany said. "Man is a small thing, and the night is very large, and full of wonders."

Peace.

[KittyWampus]

143. No, It Really Doesn't. For The 1000th Time ID Does NOT Posit A Designer

any more than random selection posits a 'selector'.

Do SOME ID theorists go too far and jump to the position there is a Designer/Individual Being doing the Designing?

Yes; but it is NOT the central or even periperhal point to Intelligent Design Theory.

[Psephos]

146. 1000th time for you, but first time for me

I'd be interested in a recommendation for a book or article that you think sums up your point best.

Thanks.

[ladjf]

26. Evolution doesn't need to have it's case "made".

The evolutionary process is evident everywhere you look. There are no existing entities that aren't evolutionary events. Darwin's discourses on the Evolution of the Species is a sub-set of the larger picture.

[pacifictiger]

27. too bad someone doesn't

ask the "intelligent design" supporters,
"Who or what designed the designer?"

[KittyWampus]

144. Intelligent Design Doesn't Necessarily Posit A Designer

but then the fact noone else in this thread realises what ID is and is not just proves how biased and uniformed DU'ers can be.

[valis]

30. LOL, arent these the folks arguing for an `intelligent design` detector?

Stupidest thing I`ve ever heard. The SETI comparison makes no sense. With SETI, we look for structure in the signals that would be unlikely to be due to natural sources of noise because that is the ONLY thing we can look for, we cannot do anything else since the entities of interest are far away. In biology we can explore and touch things. We have records of things that were in the past. We can reconstruct the causal path.

[blindpig]

32. why is it that these dingbats are never real biologists?

I rest my case.

[Robb]

45. As a big "d" Dingbat, I agree. n/t

[megatherium]

61. Michael Behe ("Darwin's Black Box") is a biochemist.

Dean Kenyon (San Francisco State) is a biologist who did research on the biochemical origins of life, coauthoring an important monograph on the subject -- before becoming a creationist. (His colleagues don't let him teach intro courses anymore. His intro level textbook "Pandas and People" is popular among the creationist set.) And there's Jonathan Wells, who holds a PhD in biology, is a member of the Unification Church, and whose book Icons of Evolution advances the claim that familiar textbook examples of evolution are misleading or fraudulent.

Of course, I cannot vouch for the soundness of their science. :grin:

[bpilgrim]

35. If it PAYS, it PLAYS

the profit sickness is spreading to our most prestigious public institutions and everyone wonders why we're a nation of loud know-nothings

peace

[lynne]

39. Good Grief -

- what an overblown article. Much ado about nothing.

This is a private affair by written invitation only according to the Discovery Institute website. It is not listed on the Smithsonian site and is not open to the public. The auditorium was merely rented by the Discovery Institute.

Discovery Institute has a synopsis of the book and reviews of the film on their site. Based on the article linked below, it actually sounds rather interesting.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=Privileged%20Planet%20-%20Only&id=1947

[beam me up scottie]

86. Thank you for noticing

the "chicken little" nature of the article.
Kind of surprising that the tactic worked on some DU'ers.

[lynne]

95. I always like to independently investigate -

- what I read in the MSM. I never take them at face value! All one needed to do was look at the Smithsonian site and then the Discovery site to see that the article was really inflammatory.

I think the problem is that a lot of people don't bother to even read the initial article but just blast off a response based on what little is written in the initial post. A bit of independent research would resolve a lot of these unnecessary and inaccurate "knee-jerk" reactions.

[bpilgrim]

99. Crisis at the Smithsonian: Corporate Sponsorship dictate content or brand

May 7, 2001

* The Board of Regents approves the creation of a blue-ribbon commission to advise on strategic exhibition planning at the National Museum of American History.


Meanwhile, members of congress tell Small not to act without the commission's approval.

The year-long blue-ribbon study on how to reorganize the American History Museum, chides Small for allowing corporate and private donors to dictate content or brand the exhibits. "There are lines beyond which gifts said to be charitable in their motivation look more...like promotion and advertising," it says, urging the Smithsonian to resist the tendency, not just to preserve its credibility, but also to "increase the prestige value of sponsors' discrete association with the museum."

The report also reminds staff that "the museum does not have a monopoly on good ideas." It calls for more diversity in content and presentation, more coherence in its overall organization and an overhaul of the building's design.")

more...
http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/smithsonian/index.html

it's a HUGE problem in corporate america today.

peace

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bpilgrim]

103. yeah, DU's so low brow & reactionary

it's all in their HEADS

peace

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bpilgrim]

121. huh?

"Just pull up any thread about a person accused of molesting a child sometime and have a gander at our tolerance and sense of justice."

:shrug:

FYI: dismissing the concerns in this thread, out-of-hand, and snarky put downs might be seen by some as low brow as well. :hi:

peace

[beam me up scottie]

125. When did I dismiss anyone's concerns?

I didn't because I share them. I decided I wasn't willing to believe the blogger or the NYT and advocated learning the facts before condemning a great institution. It is possible and maybe even probable that the reichwing may be forcing the Smithsonian to screen this ID film but I wasn't willing to believe that without proof.
And instead of doubting the msm, a couple of posters backed me into a corner by casting me as an advocate for the Smithsonian's position, WHICH WE STILL DON'T KNOW by the way.

Why is it that when the sheeple believe the msm they are stupid kool-aid drinkers and yet we are so willing to do the same when it comes to this particular issue? I am suspicious of all msm, not just the articles that cater to the right. This reporter seems eager to stir up a shitstorm and I'd like to find out if it's justified.

Perhaps snarkiness is counterproductive but then again I was put on the defensive as soon as I said "They are not endorsing it".

What harm can come from investigating the accusations?


edited to add: Okay I lied about being done with this thread, this is worth discussing and I will be on my best behaviour if anyone would like to respond to my posts.

[Zhade]

106. it's a good discussion, and it comes close to answering the question...

...of whether the Smithsonian has broken its "no religious events" rule.

Someone pointed out that other films of people's beliefs have been aired there. Of course, African tribal faiths (for example) are not the predominant one pushing to be the law of the land the way some are pushing theocracy here.

Good link.

[bpilgrim]

120. did the other challenge science

while the right-wing wackos were trying to impose religion ON the public?

i doubt it... but the Smithsonian, imo, tarnished it's image when it started making deals with sponsors allowing them to have INFLUENCE on what is presented as documented in the link posted above.

that is the crux of the issue and this is simply another symptom of the disease.

peace

[Zhade]

122. It seems the screening is private?

If so, it's sad the Smithsonian is whoring, but at least this won't be presented to the public and they suckered the Infinite Dumbasses out of 16k to further real, legitimate science.

[bpilgrim]

123. this time, maybe... but the record is sad

and just having this being hosted there lowers their 'BRAND' in my opinion and you can bet your bottom dollar that this org will have Smithsonian Event on the front of every brochure and ad.


http://images.globalfreepress.com

:hi:

peace

[Zhade]

124. Oh, these mental midgets will run with it, no question.

I'd be interested to see how far the Smithsonian lets these fools go before stepping up and publically announcing, "Uh, guys? We don't endorse your view, sorry. We like actual science, thanks."

[symbolman]

43. Personally I worship the Blue Doorknob

Can you PROVE that the Universe and everything in it was NOT created by The Blue Doorknob?

No. I thought not. Especially since I refuse to believe you, because you have no faith - if you had faith you would believe in The Blue Doorknob, and then I could believe you, and that would be all the proof we needed.. :)

Don't these people understand that if the universe created all of this through trial and error over a few billion years that THAT is the Biggest Miracle of them ALL?

Who needs God when you have infinity and dna?

And of course, The Blue Doorknob.

[Jacobin]

71. The Doorknob of course is Green

Those who believe the Blue Doorknow created the universe are blasphemers, adulterers, idolators and worse. Most also practice bestiality. And, they hate our freedoms. Blue is a 'devil color' (never forget the hymn: "Devil with the Blue Dress")

I hope you learn the truth, that it is absolute and not subject to debate, or you will be condemned to eternal hell.

Yours in Green,

BlueDoorKnobConvertersMission.com

[symbolman]

89. I have flushed the Book of the Green Doorknob

"The Illustrated Manual for Installation of the Green Doorknob" down a toilet (Time Magazine will be covering this story as Newsweek has been proven to have no credibility) to prove that only the followers of The Blue Doorknob have chosen the Great Twisting Path and redemption which leads to the 13 Doors of the Pushing to achieve enlightenment and Room acquisition where all Blue Doorknobs are brought together in the Great House of Illumination.

It is true that the Cult of Windows in the Great House of Illumination Sect were blasphemers, adulterers, idolators but they have been rooted out - excommunicated, or lovingly placed in Dog cages for their own protection, so your non-scientific rantings only show you and your kind to be "unhinged" also proving that your views are cultish and one might even begin to wonder if you are some kind of "doorstop", sent to disrupt the lives of beautiful, ordinary patriotic citizens who only want to practice their beliefs without being subjected to the nonsense spewed by animals that walk on two legs lusting for Weather Stripping, Locks, and cheap, tawdry DoorKnockers stamped from cheap metals - not the Golden Door Knockers promised by The Blue Doorknob, the One, TRUE Blue Doorknob of which you cannot even begin to comprehend.

While we feel for your ignorance it will not impede our progress. We will wipe our feet upon you, break down your doors without using the knob at all or illiciting the glorious Chimes of the Holy Doorbell.

We will remove your doors so that you cannot force others to CHOOSE your precious Green Doorknob over the one true Knob.

There will also be great gnashing of the teeth in your cult as we subscribe all your members to CD clubs, sign them up to porn sites and demand that congress send your children into battle first as they seem to feel invulnerable, not realizing that they are mere flesh and blood, but faithless.

Once we seize all of your Green Knobs they will be sold to the lowest bidder at Garage Sales and spread to the furthest corners of the world.

Please, for the Love of The Blue Doorknob poor man (or woman as the case may be), get down on your knees and invoke the prayer that could save your life some day.

"Our Doorknob who art in Heaven, Thou art shiny and BLUE - and when I make my final Twist and Push I will enter into your Kingdom with the Peals of the Holy Doorbell ringing in my sanctified ears, and I will wonder of the glory of there being a Blue Doorknob not only on one side of the Door of Redemption, but that even tho it is now beyond my comprehension I will find that there are Blue Knobs on BOTH sides of the door - joined together to make one functioning Precious Unit allowing me Passage and that my sins will be left on the Doorstep forever as I close the door behind me."

"Ajar."

Let us at least try to meet on common ground and start by agreeing at the very least that there are DOORS enough for everyone and leave it at that until the proper Knob (and no man knows when that will be) opens your hands so that you may "Grasp" with us as Brothers.

Oh, and please let your children attend the harmless picnic our Church has arranged for all school members - there will be plenty of fun and fresh air for the kids, tho they may refuse to return to your home once they have drank the Koolaid we provide and we inform the police of your en masse prediliction for strangling kittens before their eyes in the bowels of your heathen homes.

It is too bad that you do not have uniforms and borders to penetrate or we would have rooted you all out years ago, thank the Blue Doorknob that the Media is doing it's proper job and you are being outed and your pathetic reputation exposed.

Be gone with you, flee! And don't let the door hit you in the ass on the Way Out.

Heathen.

Charletan.

Doorlatch.

I will not dirty myself with further communication, but you must realise that the time is Nie, or Neigh.. something that means Now but I forget how you spell it - and cast off the chains that bind you, and chafe you. Do not deny your destiny. The Blue Doorknob, while forgiving is also punctual and doesn't like to be kept waiting, like leaving the door open for the cable guy, only to not have him show up the whole day.

Repent, don't Resent.

May The Blue Doorknob work it's wonders and Pull you into it's loving keyhole.

AJAR

:)

[htuttle]

44. Next week at the Smithsonian: Cydonia -- Proof of Ancient Martians?

:eyes:

[pie]

52. There you go. Will Smithsonian co-sponsor that as well?

They just should have said NO!

[wtmusic]

53. or worse: "Scientology - Misunderstood Cult or New Direction for Mankind?"

:eyes: :eyes:

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

57. So, if we raise $16,000 DUers can show any anti-Bush movie @ Smithsonian?

This may be a test we might want to try? If the christofascist anti-science idiots can show their bullshit movie, why can't we show something like Fahrenheit 9/11?

JB

[Endangered Specie]

65. So if the flat earth people gave them 16 grand...

theyd air a movie for them too? How about the Holocaust deniers? :grr:

[Jacobin]

73. Tom Friedman says the earth is getting flatter

so it must be true.

[wtmusic]

80. That sorta hits the nail on the head

:thumbsup:

[Zhade]

88. On my birthday, even. Thanks, assholes.

Biblical literalists are idiots.

[megatherium]

109. These ID guys aren't biblical literalists.

Or at least, the game they're playing is pretending they're otherwise. They're not claiming that Genesis is literally true (e.g. the Earth is only 6000 years old). The ID people, at least some of them, acknowledge deep geological time and common descent. That doesn't make their "science" any more convincing of course. It's still nonsense.

[Zhade]

114. A chance for me to also mention that biblical literalism is idiotic...

...is a chance I will take every time.

But you are correct - not all IDers believe in biblical literalism. They practice a different form of idiocy.

[megatherium]

116. A seductive form of idiocy for someone with a superficial exposure

to biology, alas. (I'm referring to myself.) Biology was a big hole in my own education; reading ID crap and refutations of same ended up helping me fill in that hole, a few years ago. Actually, I went on a big biology reading binge in general starting maybe 8 years ago, astonished and amazed at what I learned (and tremendously impressed that scientists have discovered all of this).

[lovuian]

112. Its official we are in the DARK AGES!!!

Horrible!!!

[Singular73]

130. No democrat in their right mind would let their children be taught ...

this garbage...

Which gives our children a leg up.

While Republican kids are off in the land of stuffed animals and unicorns, mine will be learning Science.

[Rex]

135. If they believe the Universe is god

then I have no problem with intelligent design. If they believe it is an old white man in flowing robes then they can kiss my ass. That was a nice chunk of change.

[nolabels]

140. Yea, I believe fairy tales too. Can some get Dick Chaney to wave his wand.

and magically make some more oil reserves appear :woohoo:

[The Flaming Red Head]

142. Intelligent Design is nothing but a money making scam

Go to their web sites. All they want to do (really) is sell their crap (tapes, books, what have you)to the naive and misinformed Christian home schooling community. It's absolute nonsense.

[drhilarius]

145. I say do away with Darwinism...

and, while we're at it, Pasteurism and this ridiculous "Germ Theory" of disease. Let's face it, the morality of the world went down substantially after people started attributing plagues to little, invisible "germs" rather than seeing them as blights from God meant to punish sinners. Don't even get me started on "Copernicunism". :sarcasm: