The Smithsonian withdraws sponsorship of intelligent design film

NY Times ^ | 6/3/05

[Crackingham]

The Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History has withdrawn its co-sponsorship of a showing later this month of a film that supports the theory of "intelligent design."

The museum said it would not cancel the screening of the film, "The Privileged Planet," but would return the $16,000 that the Discovery Institute, an organization that promotes a skeptical view of the Darwinian theory of evolution, had paid it.

Proposals for events at the National Museum of Natural History are reviewed by members of the staff, and it shares sponsorship of all events. After the news of the showing caused controversy, however, officials of the museum screened "Privileged Planet" for themselves.

"The major problem with the film is the wrap-up," said Randall Kremer, a museum spokesman.

"It takes a philosophical bent rather than a clear statement of the science, and that's where we part ways with them."

[PatrickHenry]

Since you are a woman ...

Elsie isn't a woman. At least he wasn't when he last explained his baffling screen name.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Elsie isn't a woman"

I knew :) That's why I said that :)

[Luna]

I subscribe to the magazine. It has very interesting articles.

[bannie]

It's a great magazine...I used to subscribe. My problems with them center around their arrogant assumption that they own all things "history."

[Luna]

All your history are belong to us!

[Elsie]

Veiw the Source, Luke......

[Elsie]

As far as discrete names are concerned, language is discrete; how else should taxonomy describe species?

SPECIES???

Up in #210 Moderman says there AIN'T no species, just inability to breed.

[Elsie]

I did not say what they evolved from. I said who they were BORN from.

There's a DIFFERENCE???

---

Since you are a woman...

No I ain't!

(Now you can be more macho with me....)

---

Too bad, I wasn't interested in your questions.

DUH!

(Evo's sure bitch if we don't answer THEIR questions!)

[Elsie]

Baffling??

[Fester Chugabrew]

The NSF doesn't have a track record of burning people it has disagreements with at the stake.

Hehe. They just don't want to get their hands dirty.

[dread78645]

ShadesofGray place mark

[CarolinaGuitarman]

I did not say what they evolved from. I said who they were BORN from.

---

"There's a DIFFERENCE???"

Look, you told me my statement was false, when it is clearly not. You did so because you thought you could be really clever, which you just made yourself look even more foolish. I said everybody who is alive was born from another human being. That is not a controversial statement. I was not talking about the speciation of Homo Sapiens from earlier hominids. That happened thousands of years ago. I was talking about the here and now. If I had said *Everybody who ever lived was born from another human being* that would imply something else. I didn't. It was not what I was talking about (my original comment was to a different poster; you just jumped in with your *clever* retort. I was never interested in your opinion).



"Since you are a woman...

---

No I ain't! "

I have known for a while you weren't a woman. You just use a woman's name so you can be treated a little better when you make asinine statements.

[Fester Chugabrew]

What is the theory?
That the universe as experienced by mankind is the product of intelligent design.

What does it predict?
That an orderly universe will be found to operate according to intelligent laws, such as the Law of Gravity.

How can it be tested?
By dropping a bowling ball from shoulder to toes numerous times and observing whether the Law of Gravity behaves consistently, much as an intelligent agent does.

What hypothetical observation(s) would falsify it?
Said bowling ball, instead of proceeding at typical speeds governed by the Law of Gravity, ascends slowly, then drops precipitously upon head of observer.

[curiosity]

But I wouldn't doubt it if a few folks given appointments by "W" also happen to be creationists, and feel free to push their views because they figure "W" wouldn't mind.

One of the poeple on W's bioethics advisory council did write an article that displayed some skepticism toward evolution. On the other hand, all the people he appointed to the NIH, that I know of, accept evolution. I mean, they have to, cause they're real scientists.

Perhaps the Smithsonian is a warehouse for loyal supporters of the current administration.

You've got to be kidding. The Smithsonian is about as leftist an institution there is. My Mother gets their magazine, and it's so full of left-wing propaganda, it's not even funny.

[Dimensio]

I normally don't respond to your posts, but I have to in this case lest some smart-arse ID nut claim that my questions have been answered.

That an orderly universe will be found to operate according to intelligent laws, such as the Law of Gravity.

This presumes that the law of gravity is "intelligent". You are assuming your conclusion. This is a logical fallacy.

By dropping a bowling ball from shoulder to toes numerous times and observing whether the Law of Gravity behaves consistently, much as an intelligent agent does.

Again, assuming the conclusion.

Said bowling ball, instead of proceeding at typical speeds governed by the Law of Gravity, ascends slowly, then drops precipitously upon head of observer.

And no explanation as to why "ID theory" requires that observations such as gravity be consistent; just an assertion that they are.

Why would fluctuations in gravity prove that ID is false. Be specific, explain why ID theory requires that gravity behave in a consistent fashion.

[Fester Chugabrew]

This presumes that the law of gravity is "intelligent".

No. It presumes the Law of Gravity operates in an orderly fashion, just like intelligent beings; just like your predictable rant against notions of intelligent design where the universe is concerned.

Why would fluctuations in gravity prove that ID is false?

Actually they wouldn't. An intelligent designer would suspend the Law of Gravity on occasion to support an overall purpose. There are historical records to show this has happened in the past.

The most convincing argument to falsify intelligent design would be for the universe to disintegrate altogether, along with yourself, so that there would no longer be any science, or intelligent observers to proclaim how much they know about natural selection and random mutations as an explanation for the diversity of species.

You are assuming your conclusion.

I am assuming an intelligent designer because the universe demonstrates attributes of intelligence, among them the Law of Gravity which behaves consistently and has communicated as much to me on a regular basis.

But what say the Law of Gravity be reversed world-wide for 60 seconds out of your imagined billions of years? Do you think you would live to tell the tale? Why not step outside the bounds of your imagination for a moment and thank God for the Law of Gravity? It has a large hand in giving you birth and keeping you alive. All human intelligence combined could not come up with, and execute, the Law of Gravity with as much purpose and precision as God has.

[b_sharp]

"Up in #210 Moderman says there AIN'T no species, just inability to breed."

I suggest you reread his post, this time for comprehension.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I suggest you reread his post, this time for comprehension."

You can be really cruel :)
I like it :)

[Dimensio]

No. It presumes the Law of Gravity operates in an orderly fashion, just like intelligent beings;

Why do you presume that all things that operate in an "orderly" fashion are intelligently designed?

Why do you assume that intelligence gives rise to order when many "intelligent" things are quite disorderly?

Actually they wouldn't.

So you admit that you were lying when you claimed to have a falsification criteria?

[Fester Chugabrew]

Why do you presume that all things that operate in an "orderly" fashion are intelligently designed?

Can you give me a thoroughly scientific theory, or reason, as to why I should presume otherwise?

So you admit that you were lying when you claimed to have a falsification criteria?

No. I admit that my falsification criteria was lacking. As I later clarified, to falsify intelligent design the universe as we know it must disintegrate, thereby disallowing for any intelligence or design. BTW, why should you or anyone else care about "lying" when we're nothing but an assemblage of randomly guided molecules subject to the whims of natural selection and random mutations?

You're free to give an answer, but please do not expect science to address its veracity.