Darwin’s Dilemma: Evolutionary Elite Choose Censorship over Scientific Debate

CNS News ^ | October 14, 2009 | Casey Luskin

[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.

[metmom]

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.

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.

[metmom]

As good Christians should they not follow the terms of the contract that they signed?

Clearly then, those at the California Science Center couldn't be considered *good Christians*.

[Ira_Louvin]

It was the Freedom Alliance and the Discovery Institute who violated the rental contract.

Nice try at misdirection.

[Ira_Louvin]

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.

[Ira_Louvin]

What part of “all promotional materials mentioning the California Science Center produced for your event (including invitations, programs, press releases, etc.)” is not clear?

[Ira_Louvin]

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?

[OriginalIntent]

Liberals are the biggest hypocrites in the world. They have zero morals and attack Christians in the same manner whether working for the DNC or writing teleprompter speeches for Obama.

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.

[BlueDragon]

"...you still have failed to address any of my questions."

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?

[count-your-change]

Was The Discovery Institute a party to the contract? That seems to be a really difficult question for you to grasp.

[Ira_Louvin]

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.

[BlueDragon]

What part of "all" is not clear?

The part where the "all", by legal precedent, is understood to apply narrowly to the signatory parties --- not to those not party to such agreements.

Think about it for a while. Try putting it in a different context, and think on how that may apply as a neutral principle of law.

Are you responsible for what some other person does? Can you, yourself be made to be contractually responsible for the acts of others---which you may have no control of? How would THAT work??? Would it be right & proper?

[Ira_Louvin]

The contact states all promotional materials that mention the California Science Center are subject to approval, there is no out for a third party. The contract is specific to the event. The promoter of the event is the one responsible for seeing that all third parties involved abide by the contact.

They violated the rental contract, and because of that the event was cancelled

[Ira_Louvin]

The promoter of the event should have made sure that all promotional materials were approved as per the contract they signed.

[count-your-change]

“As good Christians should they not follow the terms of the contract that they signed?”

As good, poor, or indifferent Christians they should follow the terms of any contract signed and so should the Center.

The Center policy is that they wanted to examine news releases for “technical and factual accuracy”, did the Center alledge “technical and factual” inaccuracy? They aren’t saying. But the mere release of information by a third party is just that, de mininmis, a trifle.

[Ira_Louvin]

Argumentum ad Hominem :

The fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument. Often the argument is characterized simply as a personal attack.

1. The personal attack is also often termed an "ad personem argument": the statement or argument at issue is dropped from consideration or is ignored, and the locutor's character or circumstances are used to influence opinion.

2. The fallacy draws its appeal from the technique of "getting personal." The assumption is that what the locutor is saying is entirely or partially dictated by his character or special circumstances and so should be disregarded.

[BlueDragon]

If it were the Discovery Institute that had contracted to show the film, then your line of questioning would have some merit.

But as I said, that wouldn't be the whole story even if generally applicable, regardless.

I do find it interesting that your very questions themselves appear to have trammeled and ensnared you.

[Ira_Louvin]

The press release is deliberately misleading. It gives the false impression that the California Science Center is hosting this event.

When in fact the Freedom Alliance has rented this room just like anybody can for a wedding reception, or a private party, that is the very reason for that clause in the contract.

[OriginalIntent]

Do you feel that you are being attacked?

Surely you don't oppose attacking and exposing liberals who hide out on Free Republic, now do you.

[Ira_Louvin]

You have still failed to address my questions to you.

Your misdirection is not going to change the fact that it is the promoters responsibility to make sure that all the clauses in the contract that they signed are followed.

What do you have against personal responsibility?

[count-your-change]

“The promoter of the event is the one responsible for seeing that all third parties involved abide by the contact.”

And where exactly do you find that??? And now I’m going to make an announcement about a future event at the center without submitting it for approval to anyone so now the organizers are going to be in violation of their contract, and the contract should be canceled, Right?