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.
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.
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.