ID Nonsense at the Smithsonian

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Just read Randi's urgent update to his commentary.

Readers, do something about this. Please send an e-mail to giving@si.edu addressed to Mr. Randall Kremer, Public Affairs. Tell him of your concern over this situation. And, you might add that the JREF is willing to donate $20,000 to the Smithsonian Institution if they agree to give back the "Discovery Institute" $16,000 and decline to sponsor the showing of the film. And the JREF will not require the Smithsonian to run any films or propaganda that favor our point of view...

Count me in for $100. If this goes through, the JREF can either donate $20,100, or $19,900 plus my $100.

Keep me posted.

[Steven Howard]

That's a good idea. My wife and I will pitch in $100 each, if they take Randi up on it.

[DanishDynamite]

Unbelievable.

I just sent an e-mail to Mr. Randall Kremer. I wasn't nice, but in a nice way. (Nanny software would let it slip right through).

[drkitten]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite

I just sent an e-mail to Mr. Randall Kremer. I wasn't nice, but in a nice way. (Nanny software would let it slip right through).

Include me in the list of people who wrote Kremer. Here's the opening paragraph:


I have just learned that the Smithsonian Institute has agreed to air the Discovery Institute's film on Intelligent Design in exchange for a donation of $16,000 US. This thus provides me with an empirical answer to the question : "How much money does it take for the Smithsonian to completely sell out and abandon all pretence of scientific validity, intellectual integrity and public trust?" May I also assume that for a similar sum, you would be willing to screen movies supporting Holocaust denial? I'm fairly confident that Mr. Irving and his colleagues at the Institute for Historical Review would be able and willing to come up with so pitifully small a sum in exchange for the support and imprimatur of one of the world's foremost institutions for public learning.


So I don't think that Net Nanny would have much to say about my lettter, either. But I'm afraid I let my "dark sarcasm in the classroom" have free rein.

[DanishDynamite]

Although not as eloquent as yourself, new drkitten, I shall likewise reveal my opening paragraph:

I've just been informed that the Smithsonian has sold its integrity for $16,000. I refer here to the Smithsonian's decision to support Intelligent Design. I am not just appalled at this blunder, but genuinely angry and scared. The Smithsonian is (was?) not just a nationally known bastion of science and straight facts, but an international one as well. This decision, if carried out, will forever mar this otherwise well deserved image and reduce this great institution to quasi-irrational status.
I get a bit meaner after that.

[CFLarsen]

Watch ID'ers make the most of this.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Watch ID'ers make the most of this.
Did you send a mail, Claus?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Did you send a mail, Claus?

Ayup.

I was at my most diplomatic. Acerbic diplomatic, of course.

[dann]

I just mailed Sidsel. I think she has some influence in the Danish Association of Biologists!

[Oregon_Skeptic]

I sent one as well. Here are my opening and closing paragraphs.

[QUOTE]Today on the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF) Website (http://www.randi.org/jr/052705a.html), I read that the Smithsonian Institution has taken a $16,000 donation from the Discovery Institute and will show their film The Privileged Planet: The Search for Purpose in the Universe. As I am sure you are aware, the Discovery Institute is a center for Intelligent Design (ID), more appropriately known as creationism. ID is not a valid scientific theory because there is no way it can be tested and is therefore non-falsifiable.

I seriously urge you to reconsider this relationship with the Discovery Institute, and ask that you return their money and not show their film. They are an organization promoting ignorance and scientific illiteracy while fighting against real scientific literacy and understanding, some of the very ideals that your institution claims to support.[/QUOTE

[crimresearch]

Mine went out earlier today.

And no, I didn't try to sugar coat it. Wrong is wrong, and should be called so.

"I am writing to express my grave concern and
disappointment at the decision by the Smithsonian to
become a mouthpiece for the superstitious advocates of
ignorance, by selling out to the Discovery Institute."

[woodguard]

Headline

“James Randi Education Foundation pays Smithsonian to cover up movie proving creationism�

It will look good on their web site and the news feeds. If it hits TV, everyone will want to see the it. :p

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I think Woodguard's got it, folks.

The Smithsonian should issue a statement that this is not an endorsement of ID and that should be it.

~~ Paul

[chance]

Before I mouth off to the Smithsonian, has anyone got a link where the Smithsonian advertise “The Privileged Planet�?

[Jeff Wagg]

I sent my letter, and if they actually DO take up the JREF on their offer, I'll be writing a check to the JREF.

With respect to Paul and woodguard, I see their point and it gives me pause.

The fact is that the damage is already done. What Randi has done is remove their excuse that the money will fund "scientific research" since his pledge would further that cause by an additional 25%.

In the end, I trust Randi's judgement on this matter.

[Jeff Wagg]

Originally posted by chance
Before I mouth off to the Smithsonian, has anyone got a link where the Smithsonian advertise “The Privileged Planet�?


I couldn't find it on the Smithsonian site, but there are a ton of news sites reporting it. (google it) If this turns out to be a hoax, I'll be embarassed.

Anyway, there is this:

Link to announcement (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=133&program=CSC&isEvent=true)

and for chuckles..

Read carefully... (http://www.re-discovery.org/)

[chance]

for what it's worth here is my email


The discovery Institute (a creationist anti science organisation) has reported that the Smithsonian institute will be showing the creationist propaganda movie “The Privileged Planet� (a thinly veiled anti science movie). http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=133&program=CSC&isEvent=true


Other sources have reported that the show time was purchased for 30 pieces of silver, i mean $16,000. !!

I hope these reports are a hoax, if not, all I can only say I am dismayed at the Smithsonian’s lax of scientific integrity.

Regards

[Flange Desire]

I have added my email to the clamour,
and I also CCd it to all the local newsdesks.

Yes, you can add me to the list of pledgees @ $US 100

And thanks Jeff for the chuckles found at http://www.re-discovery.org/

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by dann
I just mailed Sidsel. I think she has some influence in the Danish Association of Biologists!

Good idea!

If anyone know scientists, ask them to do the same.

[a_unique_person]

Unbelievable. That's one 'brand name' flushed down the toilet.

[Chimpy]

I'm very happy Randi has taken this up, he carries clout. I hope the Smithsonian give up on this nonsense.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Hmm. Google doesn't find "privileged planet" or "discovery institute" at the SI site. The Events page (http://www.si.edu/events/) doesn't list the event, even though the schedule goes beyond June 23. Neither does the comprehensive events page. (http://www.si.edu/events/all.asp)

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I wonder if the SI is legally required to rent Baird Auditorium?

~~ Paul

[Chimpy]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
I wonder if the SI is legally required to rent Baird Auditorium?

~~ Paul

I am interested in the legal aspects of this. The SI is a public institution and the courts have consistently said that it is illegal to teach Cre/ID in public institutions (as in schools). Is there a legal eagle around who could shed some light?:)

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Here is Andrew Harter's take on this issue. This is his personal opinion.

With all due respect, I'm confused by this. The Smithsonian, like
any other public museum, school or facility has rented the use of its
auditorium to these people to show their movie. Great, let them.
Although the film supports a deist philosophy, reviewers found that
it satisfied their requirements for use of the facility (like using a
hugh school auditorium to show Joseph and the Technicolor
Dreamcoat). Also, the Supreme Court decided this matter a while ago.

The ID people, as to be expected, have tried to distort his as an
endorsement. We should pressure the Smithsonian to make an express
statement that it's not and encourage them to take legal action if
the ID people continue.

Other than that, for us to be telling the Smithsonian not to *rent*
the theater to this group or another is hypocritical. By trying to
silence them we only add to their martyr complex. This feeds right
into their hands both publicity-wise and funding wise.

In a free society you don't fight a war of ideas by attempting to
silence your opponent.

The JREF shouldn't be spending money to silence people. That $20,000
could sponsor a nice pro-evolution event in the same auditorium on
another night.

Andrew

[ceo_esq]

Here's my initial view: what is the big deal? As Andrew Harter pointed out, this group has "rented" (in exchange for an unrestricted donation) the Smithsonian's facilities for a non-public event, on the same basis as other private entities may rent them. During my many years in Washington, D.C., I attended numerous private events and receptions at Smithsonian sites (including Baird). I can say without fear of contradiction that no sensible attendee imagined for a moment that the Smithsonian Institution was even tacitly endorsing the goings-on, any more than my local public elementary school endorsed the Sunday church service held on its premises.

Randi's shoot-from-the-hip response (the great man seems to lose circumspection, self-restraint and perspective whenever he catches a whiff of religion) is more likely to discredit the JREF than not.

From a legal perspective - and I haven't devoted much professional consideration to the matter - my preliminary view is that there is nothing actionable about any aspect of this dull story.

Furthermore, I would urge any JREF member considering actively campaigning against the screening of this movie not to do so unless the Discovery Institute pays him/her good money up front, for a valuable service rendered. The IDers couldn't even get me to acknowledge their wretched film in an e-mail for less than a few bucks.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
I can say without fear of contradiction that no sensible attendee imagined for a moment that the Smithsonian Institution was even tacitly endorsing the goings-on, any more than my local public elementary school endorsed the Sunday church service held on its premises.

Unfortunately, you're missing the primary issue, which is that creationists lie. This film screening will soon be advertised, right
next to Darwin's deathbed conversion and recantation, as official
support from the Smithsonian for independent design.

I don't for a moment believe that there will be a single "sensible attendee" at the screening. But there will probably be hundreds of nonsenical attendees who will immediately rush out and write op-ed pieces to school boards all over the country about how ID must be scientific because the Smithsonian supports it.

[H3LL]

I'll be doing nothing.

IMHO I already consider the Smithsonian sites to be vehicles of USA-centric propaganda anyway.

I visited the site some time ago with great anticipation and my main reason to travel to D.C. from Boston and a considerable diversion on my route to Denver. Expecting something along the lines of the fabulous museums in London, Birmingham or Manchester where examples, information and displays show science and technology from around the world and their rightful place in those achievements.

How wrong I was. It was all so USA centered that one would leave imagining that the rest of the world had little, if anything, to do with science or technology.

Even the Babbage Engine or even a mention of it was missing from a computer timeline, although a later USA copy was prominently displayed. Turin? Alan Turin? Who's that?

I was reminded of my trolley-bus trip around Boston, where the very amiable driver introduced the notable landmarks to ooh's and aah's of the passengers. I got to see "The world's first library" and the "The world's first Fire station" and "The world's first this...." and "The world's first that....".

The Smithsonian, for the casual tourist is little more than a big stone Boston trolley-bus. I left with a sick feeling that so much was missing. I would like to think that the information is tucked away somewhere for the academic, but to 'do the Smithsonian' in a day, as a tourist, it gave a very different impression.

As a tool for America to say "Look at meeee!!!" the Smithsonian does a fine job, and maybe that is what it is there for. As a facility to represent the achievements of science and technology to casual visitors, it's laughable. Maybe I misunderstood what to expect. Maybe it's changed in the last 8 years.

If they have already chosen to lie by omission, I see their promotion of ID no big step away from integrity.

After all, ID is very American.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by new drkitten
Unfortunately, you're missing the primary issue, which is that creationists lie. This film screening will soon be advertised, right
next to Darwin's deathbed conversion and recantation, as official
support from the Smithsonian for independent design.

I don't for a moment believe that there will be a single "sensible attendee" at the screening. But there will probably be hundreds of nonsenical attendees who will immediately rush out and write op-ed pieces to school boards all over the country about how ID must be scientific because the Smithsonian supports it. So what do you propose, a figurative pre-emptive strike on the Smithsonian?

Thousands of op-eds are published every day, and in my experience it's a rare one that doesn't contain a self-serving misstatement or misrepresentation. All we can do is educate people, and rebut such things when we come across them.

It would be great for you to use your energy and undeniable verbal talents to write a letter to the editor the next time you see a misleading pro-ID op-ed in the local newspaper. But how does your snide letter to Randall Kremer address what you've identified as the "primary issue" that "creationists lie"? After all, the Discovery Institute is entitled to hold the event, and the Smithsonian isn't responsible for patrolling the speech of the Discovery Institute's guests.

As an aside, if Mr. Kremer is implicated in this "primary issue", perhaps you ought clearly to mention said issue in the first paragraph of your letter to him. The way you've drafted it, there's a fair chance that he won't reach the second paragraph anyway.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by H3LL
I'll be doing nothing.

IMHO I already consider the Smithsonian sites to be vehicles of USA-centric propaganda anyway.

I visited the site some time ago with great anticipation and my main reason to travel to D.C. from Boston and a considerable diversion on my route to Denver. Expecting something along the lines of the fabulous museums in London, Birmingham or Manchester where examples, information and displays show science and technology from around the world and their rightful place in those achievements.

How wrong I was. It was all so USA centered that one would leave imagining that the rest of the world had little, if anything, to do with science or technology.

Even the Babbage Engine or even a mention of it was missing from a computer timeline, although a later USA copy was prominently displayed. Turin? Alan Turin? Who's that?

I was reminded of my trolley-bus trip around Boston, where the very amiable driver introduced the notable landmarks to ooh's and aah's of the passengers. I got to see "The world's first library" and the "The world's first Fire station" and "The world's first this...." and "The world's first that....".

The Smithsonian, for the casual tourist is little more than a big stone Boston trolley-bus. I left with a sick feeling that so much was missing. I would like to think that the information is tucked away somewhere for the academic, but to 'do the Smithsonian' in a day, as a tourist, it gave a very different impression.

As a tool for America to say "Look at meeee!!!" the Smithsonian does a fine job, and maybe that is what it is there for. As a facility to represent the achievements of science and technology to casual visitors, it's laughable. Maybe I misunderstood what to expect. Maybe it's changed in the last 8 years.

If they have already chosen to lie by omission, I see their promotion of ID no big step away from integrity.

After all, ID is very American.

How many weeks did you spend at the Smithsonian?

"Welcome to the Smithsonian Institution, the world's largest museum complex and research organization. Composed of 16 museums and the National Zoo in Washington, D.C., metropolitan area, and 2 museums in New York City, the Smithsonian's exhibitions offer visitors a glimpse into its vast collection numbering over 142 million objects."
http://www.si.edu/visit/

WASHINGTON, D.C.
African Art Museum

Air and Space Museum and Udvar-Hazy Center

American Art Museum

American History Museum

American Indian Museum on the Mall

Anacostia Museum (African American History and Culture)

Freer and Sackler Galleries (Asian art)

Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden (modern and contemporary art)

National Zoo

Natural History Museum

Portrait Gallery

Postal Museum

Renwick Gallery (American crafts)

Smithsonian Institution Building, the Castle (visitor information)

NEW YORK CITY

American Indian Museum, Heye Center

Cooper-Hewitt, National Design Museum

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Here's my initial view: what is the big deal? As Andrew Harter pointed out, this group has "rented" (in exchange for an unrestricted donation) the Smithsonian's facilities for a non-public event, on the same basis as other private entities may rent them. During my many years in Washington, D.C., I attended numerous private events and receptions at Smithsonian sites (including Baird). I can say without fear of contradiction that no sensible attendee imagined for a moment that the Smithsonian Institution was even tacitly endorsing the goings-on, any more than my local public elementary school endorsed the Sunday church service held on its premises.

Randi's shoot-from-the-hip response (the great man seems to lose circumspection, self-restraint and perspective whenever he catches a whiff of religion) is more likely to discredit the JREF than not.

From a legal perspective - and I haven't devoted much professional consideration to the matter - my preliminary view is that there is nothing actionable about any aspect of this dull story.

Furthermore, I would urge any JREF member considering actively campaigning against the screening of this movie not to do so unless the Discovery Institute pays him/her good money up front, for a valuable service rendered. The IDers couldn't even get me to acknowledge their wretched film in an e-mail for less than a few bucks.


The Smithsonian is not the gym of your local elementary school, to be rented out by any crackpot group that can pay the fee.
And this film is no private reception, it is intended for publicity.

These people and their film have been chosen (out of all the films out there that would love to have a screening at the SI), by the Smithsonian and are therefor perceived as part of its educational and research mission.

In making that selection , the SI has endorsed (even if tacitly), their views as being of the same caliber as the rest of the exhibits there.

If they turn down Randi's offer of 20K they should at the very least accept the same amount to put on a skeptical counterID event..but I'll not be surprised if they do not.

[alfaniner]

I would recommend snail mail. E-mails are so easily deleted and ignored.

[ceo_esq]

Here's the abbreviated "special events" policy of the Museum of Natural History:

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

The full version doesn't appear to be online, but I was able to find the complete rules of other Smithsonian entities and they're probably very similar.

The MNH does retain prior approval rights regarding use of the Smithsonian name and related marks on documentation connected with the event. Hopefully they will exercise those rights sensibly.

I now await some intrepid JREFer's argument that the policy is being violated because the Discovery Institute's event is religious in nature. I roll my eyes pre-emptively.

Crimresearch, I still disagree on the endorsement issue. I'd be interested to know how many big donor companies have screened corporate propaganda films during high-profile receptions at the Smithsonian. I'm sure it happens. I guess the public can reasonably perceive those as part of the Smithsonian's educational mission?

[crimresearch]

I respect your disagreement.

I'm of the opinion that putting the word Smithsonian in front of something carries a cachet that can't be seperated in the mind of the general public, and such name recognition carries with it a responsibility.

I'll bet that if a group used their name without the permission of SI, that they would be quick to claim that any association is seen as an endorsement.

[delphi_ote]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
After all, the Discovery Institute is entitled to hold the event, and the Smithsonian isn't responsible for patrolling the speech of the Discovery Institute's guests.

I think the holocaust denial angle addresses this point nicely. The Smithsonian is free to tell the IDers to crawl back into the hole they came from. It's their facility, and DI has already been quite dishonest.

Here is my letter:

Mr. Kremer,

I'm a PhD student currently working in genomics research for the Department of Energy. Science has recently made leaps and bounds illuminating the complexity of life. Though I read current scientific literature almost every day, the pace of discovery never ceases to amaze me. None of the advances in biology of the past 100 years make any sense but in light of evolution. At this point, it is more astounding to me that someone would deny the theory of evolution than that someone would deny the heliocentric theory. Yet some still persist in spreading this ignorance.

It startles and disheartens me that a dishonest intelligent design organization is now grandstanding on your institute's hard won reputation. The Discovery Institute has already proven they intend to be mendacious about the nature of their relationship with The Smithsonian. If it is within your power, please disassociate with this organization as quickly and publicly as possible. This is not an issue of free speech. They lied about your organization. They are trying to use your facilities and organization for political ends: to claim that you endorse their propaganda. They deserve to lose their privilege with your organization and public castigation for their unethical behavior.

Our astounding discoveries in biology have just scratched the surface. There is so much left to learn that will benefit humanity. Religious fundamentalists who find the truth uncomfortable are attacking it as a political majority. Please don't let monetary or political concerns keep you from standing for truth.

Thank you for your time,
Ryan Cunningham

[Oregon_Skeptic]

According to the link on the Discovery Institute’s homepage it is a private event, but right up front they link the Smithsonian to their film:

Privileged Planet premiere (http://http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=133&program=CSC&isEvent=true)

[H3LL]

Originally posted by crimresearch
How many weeks did you spend at the Smithsonian?

If you read the post the answer is written there.

You will also notice that it was as a tourist not an academic involved in their 142 million items.

Maybe they should drag a few more of those 142 million items out for the public and complete their displays to include more of the stories.

I did not have the time to spend months going through their archives, but neither did I have longer at the London museums.

It's my opinion and a comparison of similar facilities.

Have you been to the London, Birmingham and Manchester museums to compare the displays of science and technology?

If not, you are in no position to compare the experiences.

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by H3LL
Even the Babbage Engine or even a mention of it was missing from a computer timeline, although a later USA copy was prominently displayed. Turin? Alan Turin? Who's that?Good question, who is that? Are you not confusing Alan Turing with Shroaduv Turin?

[Iconoclast]

Is this a good time to bring up the fact that the Smithsonian refused to acknowledge -- for more than forty years -- that the Wright Brothers were the first to achieve controlled, heavier than air flight? For twenty-eight years they displayed a modified version of Langley's plane with a plaque that read "The first man-carrying aeroplane in the history of the world capable of sustained free-flight". I know this point is off topic, I just wanted to put the boot in, 'sall.

[H3LL]

Originally posted by Iconoclast
Good question, who is that? Are you not confusing Alan Turing with Shroaduv Turin?

Alan Turin, a key player in breaking the Enigma Code and a computer genius. You know? The Enigma machine. The one Hollywood seems to think was grabbed by Americans off a U-Boat.

The example that stuck so strongly in my memory was their choice to exclude Babbage and Turin (not even a small card mentioning them) from a story/display of the development of computer technology and include some obscure copy of the Babbage engine by an American doesn't seem like an acurate representation to me. Maybe it does to others.

As I said:

It was all so USA centered that one would leave imagining that the rest of the world had little, if anything, to do with science or technology.

That was the impression the Smithsonian gave to me and I felt I had wasted my journey to see what I anticipated was supposed to be one of the finest examples of museums in the world.

It wasn't.

Edit to add: The ramblings of a Boston Trolley-bus tourguide (although one would assume he got his script from somewhere) and the Smithsonian should have different standards to present the facts. It seems they do not.

[delphi_ote]

Alan Turing

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by H3LL
Alan Turin, a key player in breaking the Enigma Code and a computer genius. You know?Yeah, I know, he's a bit of a hero of mine. Turing.

[dann]

My impression too, H3LL. I only spent two hours at the Smithsonian, but I didn't feel like going to give it another chance.

[Thinking in CT]

Here is the text of my e-mail to the Smithsonian.


" I feel that I must ad my voice to those who are shocked and worried that the Smithsonian has agreed to accept a payment from a religious organization to promote non scientific dogma. As a person involved in the philanthropic field (I am a state charity fund-raising regulator) I hold to the core principal that charitable organizations exist and operate only to advance their charitable purposes. The purpose of the Smithsonian is to advance science, not to raise funds. The raising of money by your organization is a means not an end. Those persons responsible for development at the Smithsonian must make that principal the center piece of their affairs. I suggest that the Smithsonian cancel its arrangement with the "Discovery Institute" and seek funding from donors who share the Smithsonian's scientific mission rather than from those who seek to subvert it. "

Also; to ESQ- CEO, the SI, in its special events policy, specifically bans fund-raisers, political events, and religious events, it does not mention commercial presentations. If a creationist presentation is not a religious program, then I don't know what is. You may now roll your eyes.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by H3LL
If you read the post the answer is written there.

You will also notice that it was as a tourist not an academic involved in their 142 million items.

Maybe they should drag a few more of those 142 million items out for the public and complete their displays to include more of the stories.

I did not have the time to spend months going through their archives, but neither did I have longer at the London museums.

It's my opinion and a comparison of similar facilities.

Have you been to the London, Birmingham and Manchester museums to compare the displays of science and technology?

If not, you are in no position to compare the experiences.

Actually, I am..because I know that the Smithsonian is different from the major museums I've been to in London, Paris, Chicago, Munich, Richmond, and New York City.

It is supposed to be America/Euro-centric...so it should come as no surprise that it does a good job of that. It also opens a window to the rest of the world, with its displays of Asian art, African art, and so forth.

In a day, one could never got out of the lobby (so to speak) of the Smithsonian, and your assessment is comparable to spending 1 hour at the Louvre, and declaring it just a handful of old paintings by dead guys.

And I'm surprised that you didn't notice that the Smithsonian exhibit with its significant mention of Babbage, is named the Scheutz Difference Engine Exhibit , in honor of the 2 *Swedes* who built the one displayed there.
http://smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian/issues96/feb96/object.html

Or that the Enigma machine display lists Americans 3rd among those who deciphered German code...
"But in one of the best-kept secrets of the war, first the Poles, and later the British and Americans succeeded in deciphering messages. "
http://photo2.si.edu/infoage/infoage.html

It would be a mistake to make blanket assumptions that all members of any group know as little about the world as an individual may.

[jmercer]

Well said, crimresearch. I've been to many large museums, and I lived in Washington D.C. for 2 years... during which I spent many, many hours wandering the halls of the Smithsonian.

To say H3LL was doing the Smithsonian a disservice with his post is an understatement. It takes weeks to actually visit the Smithsonian complex enough to get more than a surface impression. One of the problems with the complex is the incredible amount of material presented. Unfortunately, that richness often blurs out a lot of the detail, leaving only the more stand-out exhibits in people's minds.

I spent hours in the gems collection, for example... and aside from the Star of India, the Hope Diamond and a few other notable gems, I cannot remember all of the amazing jewels on display at the museum. Ditto technology, flight, and any number of other exhibits.

[NiallM]

I've been to many of the great museums, and I wouldn't consider a visit without planning at least three days to visit - and at that I would still view a 3 day visit as no more than a recce. The Central Museum in Cairo occupies at least a fortnight; the Louvre is a place that I've visited at least 15 times, and I haven't yet seen half the items on my list there.

The Smithsonian is on my list too, and I would expect that it will take some considerable time to absorb even a minute fraction of what it holds.

To get back to the topic, I'm not sure that a $20,000 offer does any good. It looks like censorship - and, worse than that - paid censorship. I agree entirely that showing this film is a reckless act, and that it could create some very dubious impressions. The fact is, it has been agreed. If it's withdrawn the IDers will make more capital out of the cancellation than they have already gained by having the film scheduled.

It's obnoxious, and it's a major faux pas by the Smithsonian, but it may be best to protest to the organisers and in the meantime to accept it as a fait accompli.

[delphi_ote]

Originally posted by NiallM
To get back to the topic, I'm not sure that a $20,000 offer does any good. It looks like censorship - and, worse than that - paid censorship. I agree entirely that showing this film is a reckless act, and that it could create some very dubious impressions. The fact is, it has been agreed. If it's withdrawn the IDers will make more capital out of the cancellation than they have already gained by having the film scheduled.

Depends how the Smithsonian plays it. If they say "This ID group has been dishonest. We now refuse to show their video" the "persecuted" majority wouldn't have much of a retort.

I think Randi's point is basically, "Smithsonian, if you're just going to whore yourself out for money, I'll pay you even more!" He wants to show his disgust with the Smithsonian groveling for political advantage and money instead of standing up for the truth. I doubt very much he expects them to take the money. He just wants to get their attention.

He's also calling them on their excuse that the money will fund research. If it's about funding research, take the money from Randi and send the IDers home to play with their toys.

[Bronze Dog]

Originally posted by delphi_ote
Depends how the Smithsonian plays it. If they say "This ID group has been dishonest. We now refuse to show their video" the "persecuted" majority wouldn't have much of a retort.

I think Randi's point is basically, "Smithsonian, if you're just going to whore yourself out for money, I'll pay you even more!" He wants to show his disgust with the Smithsonian groveling for political advantage and money instead of standing up for the truth. I doubt very much he expects them to take the money. He just wants to get their attention.

He's also calling them on their excuse that the money will fund research. If it's about funding research, take the money from Randi and send the IDers home to play with their toys.

Even better than I was thinking about saying it. Though I should probably add that suppressing demonstrable lies is a good thing. That's what slander, libel, and fraud lawsuits are all about.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Delphi said:
He's also calling them on their excuse that the money will fund research. If it's about funding research, take the money from Randi and send the IDers home to play with their toys.
Huh? In that case, they should accept my $20,000 to return the American Association for the Advancement of Science's $16,000 to show their movie. After all, I'm giving them $4,000 more for research.

~~ Paul

[Hutch]

Haven't made up my mind yet if I'm going to send something or not, but just for grins, here are the critical words from the Bequest from James Smithson's will:

...to the United States of America, to found at Washington, under the name of the Smithsonian Institution, an Establishment for the increase and diffusion of Knowledge among men.

So...does this ID film (which I heartily deplore, BTW), fit under the 'increase and diffusion of Knowledge among men?' I'm sure it's proponents will argue to the affirmative.

Just food for thought--if you're going to write, go back to the original goals that Englishman who never visited America in his life set for us....

[Timothy]

From the NMNH Special Events Use Policy:

"All events at the National Museum of Natural History are co-sponsored by the Museum..."

Discovery.org will tout this event for years to come. "Privileged Planet, a film documenting the overwhelming evidence for Intelligent Design was premiered at the Smithsonian in a gala event co-sponsored by the National Museum of Natural History ...."

- Timothy

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You're right, Timothy. I just don't want the next sentences to be:

"The James Randi Educational Foundation attempted to buy the condemnation of the film with an offer of $4,000 more than the rental fee, but failed. This demonstrates that the SI was not just taking money from the highest bidder."

I sent an email to Mr. Kremer. It will be fascinating to see how this plays out.

~~ Paul

[delphi_ote]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Huh? In that case, they should accept my $20,000 to return the American Association for the Advancement of Science's $16,000 to show their movie. After all, I'm giving them $4,000 more for research.

~~ Paul

As they say on Fark, "RTFA."

"We're happy to receive this contribution from the Discovery Institute to further our scientific research." -Mr. Kremer (PR for Smithsonian)

So if his excuse is "Well, even if it's a lie, we'll show it just so we can use the money to fund research. In the end it serves the greater good," Randi's retort is, "You can send them packing and have even more money. Hush about money. You're letting them take advantage of your reputation and you know it."

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

So your objection is that the Discovery Institute's movie isn't science. Agreed, I'm sure (I haven't seen it). That is the reason to tell the SI to cancel their engagement. I don't see what the money has to do with it, when the money is a rental fee.

People seem to think that the SI will see Randi's offer as a sort of "Ha ha, I can offer you money, too, you money-grubbing fools." But they might really see it as "Please take this money to cancel the Discovery Institute's event." That's certainly how the IDers will spin it, and in the long run, the IDers spin is the only one that matters.

~~ Paul

Edited to add: I agree that the cosponshorship of the SI is setting a bad precedent. They should withdraw their sponshorship.

[delphi_ote]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
I agree that the cosponshorship of the SI is setting a bad precedent. They should withdraw their sponshorship.

We all agree on that.

So let's try this one more time:

SI mission: promote science ("increase... Knowledge among men")

DI $-> SI $-> research -> science promoted

But Randi notes...

DI (video)-> SI (co-sponsorship)-> DI (lies) -> science hurt

SI may say about the DI offer...

amount science hurt < amount science promoted

Randi disagrees. He thinks...

amount science hurt > amount science promoted

Randi counters with another offer...

Randi $-> SI $-> research -> science promoted

DI (video)-> trash heap -> science promoted

Under the Randi offer:
* Research $ increase 25%
* Amount science hurt by DI pretending the Smithsonian supports their research decreases 100%
* Amount ID complain about persecution increases .00000...00001% (it would be nearly impossible for their complaining to increase by much more.)

If the Smithsonian steps up, we all win. If they don't, we all lose. Randi is making every effort to see that they step up. For that...

*Amount delphi_ote supports Randi -> 100%

[Bronze Dog]

It seems lots of people are reading my mind today. Wonder if I should apply for the million ;)

Good summary, delphi_ote.

[Steven Howard]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
I don't see what the money has to do with it, when the money is a rental fee.

That might be a good point, if it were true. The special events policy (http://www.nmnh.si.edu/specialevents/policy.html) (linked earlier by ceo_esq) explicitly states in the very first sentence that donors may "co-sponsor an event in celebration of their gift." How can you say that's the same thing as just renting out the auditorium?

Mr. Kremer, as quoted in the New York Times article linked from Randi's commentary, seems to think the museum can co-sponsor an event without endorsing it. I'm not sure I see the distinction.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Delphi said:
* Amount ID complain about persecution increases .00000...00001% (it would be nearly impossible for their complaining to increase by much more.)
I see it as a bigger problem. Every woo-woo on the planet will use this as further evidence that skeptics and big science try to squash disenting opinion.

Randi counters with another offer...
Doesn't seem to me to be an offer/counter-offer sort of affair.

Steven said:
That might be a good point, if it were true. The special events policy (linked earlier by ceo_esq) explicitly states in the very first sentence that donors may "co-sponsor an event in celebration of their gift." How can you say that's the same thing as just renting out the auditorium?
Standard practice with nonprofits and the like. If you want to rent the facilities, you make a donation. That makes the donation tax-deductable, so everyone wins.

You guys may be right about this, but I still think the bottom line may be:

amount skepticism hurt > amount science hurt

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You know, it's funny, I don't usually give a damn whether some gambit by skeptics might result in bad press for skeptics. I'm not sure why I'm bothered about it in this case.

~~ Paul

[H3LL]

Originally posted by delphi_ote
Alan Turing

Now that's wierd.
When questioned I thought I would check if it was Turin so googled. First I got lots of Turin shroud hits so changed my search to Turin "Bletchley Park". Several hits, and a quick check against Turin Test and got hits for that too, so posted Turin. Oh well. ;)



Regardless of how long the Smithsonian deserves to appreciate its contents, or any other great museum, it was the time I had. As it was with the other museums. Of course it is not enough, but I'm not the only one that has to quickly whizz round the displays and that was my impression. I was there from opening to closing which was longer than at other museums and I read every word on their computer exhibits and actually hunted for Babbage info.

I stated the impression that they gave me. That is what their displays achieved for this tourist visitor contrary to my expectations.


Originally posted by crimresearch
It is supposed to be America/Euro-centric...so it should come as no surprise that it does a good job of that.

So it is as I thought. Although the Euro-centric bit is a little off and only seemed to be there if they had no choice. I did say:

As a tool for America to say "Look at meeee!!!" the Smithsonian does a fine job, and maybe that is what it is there for.

So that is what it's there for. Now I know.

Another slip I seem to remember was the WWll Mustang. Rolls-Royce? Who? What? The Smithsonian seemed to forget this detail about one of the most important aircraft of WWll and a notable collaboration of the war. Their history of this aircrafts was not very "Euro-centric" and noticably incomplete in their exhibit.

I'm sure it's in their records but was not mentioned for the tourist visitor.

Maybe Americans are so convinced of their pre-eminence in world affairs and it's so deeply ingrained that it's done without thinking. A bit like the "World Series".

Anyway, it was 8 years ago and a visit to their displays, not their websites. It's all probably better now with more information available.

And my Boston Trolley-bus ride seeing "The world's first library" and "The world's first fire station" is an oft repeated anecdote.

Crimresearch: Nice link on the Enigma machine but I did say Hollywood and was being sarcastic. U-571 ring any bells?

[delphi_ote]

Originally posted by H3LL
Now that's wierd.
When questioned I thought I would check if it was Turin so googled. First I got lots of Turin shroud hits so changed my search to Turin "Bletchley Park". Several hits, and a quick check against Turin Test and got hits for that too, so posted Turin. Oh well. ;)

You made a common mistake. It's okay. We still love you.

[crimresearch]

Maybe Americans are so convinced of their pre-eminence in world affairs and it's so deeply ingrained that it's done without thinking. A bit like the "World Series".

Or maybe we just believe photos of the actual exhibits over claims that they weren't there.

[H3LL]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Or maybe we just believe photos of the actual exhibits over claims that they weren't there.

Yes, I would believe that too.

It's a pity you didn't link to any.

It was not there in an exhibit on the timeline of computer development.


Nice snap of the Emigma Machine though.

Please read my posts. Re: Hollywood and think sarcasm.

[crimresearch]

Ahhh..how sad...you've decided to join the 'Lie and say there are no links' Brigade.

I'm sure those who care will be able to scroll up and see the actual photos and quotes from the curator of the exhibit you claim doesn't exist.


ETA:

Speaking of P-51s,
Was it invisible like this?

http://www.wilcis.com/Members/roger/photos/2004/sept/mustang

[H3LL]

I looked at your links.

I also looked again, and I must admit some graphics are not loading, and their properties do not help with what they are.

As I cannot see all the graphics, if you say that there is a picture of a Babbage Engine within an exhibit showing the timeline of computer development I will have to take your word for it. Maybe let me know the properties of the graphic. (The Enigma page loads fine).

I saw no Babbage engine when I was there. I mentioned it as I was keen to see if it was there as I had not had the chance to see the exhibit in London.

There or not, my overall impression of all the museums I visited in DC is still the same.

[H3LL]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Speaking of P-51s,
Was it invisible like this?

http://www.wilcis.com/Members/roger/photos/2004/sept/mustang

No. Very visible. Nice pic.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Here is a supposed statement from the director of the National Museum of Natural History:

http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/

Still nothing at the SI site. Can anyone verify this?

~~ Paul

[crimresearch]

'Darwinbots'????

OK....I guess that would be along the lines of 'Reality Nazis'?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Well, darwinbots are a superset of randibots, so it's nice to know that lots of different people must have complained.

~~ Paul

[varwoche]

A previous thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52071&highlight=discovery) about ID also involved The Discovery Institute. Because I walk by their office with some frequency, and the topic of course, I did some clicking and was surprised to learn (bolding added):

They have a subsidiary named Cascadia (http://www.discovery.org/cascadia/about.php) The mission of the Cascadia Center is to support the development of a balanced, integrated, and expanded transportation system for people and goods in central Puget Sound and the greater Cascadia region of Washington, British Columbia, and Oregon.
...
The Cascadia Center receives funding from corporations, foundations and a variety of federal and state grants. In 2003, the Center received a major ten-year grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for its work on regional transportation. This leads me to wonder if the Gates Foundation is aware of the relationship with Discovery, and of Discovery's activities.

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
PO Box 23350
Seattle, WA 98102
Phone: (206) 709-3100
Email: info@gatesfoundation.org

[drkitten]

Originally posted by varwoche
A previous thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52071&highlight=discovery) about ID also involved The Discovery Institute. Because I walk by their office with some frequency, and the topic of course, I did some clicking and was surprised to learn (bolding added):

They have a subsidiary named Cascadia (http://www.discovery.org/cascadia/about.php) This leads me to wonder if the Gates Foundation is aware of the relationship with Discovery, and of Discovery's activities.


This strikes me as perilously close to the "Hitler liked chocolate chip cookies" fallacy. Just because the Discovery Institute is a bunch of deceptive, flat-headed, narrow-minded, anti-intellectual, intolerant, morally bankrupt lunatics does not mean that the transportation system in Washington state is not entirely messed up or that there isn't some good that can be done through Cascadia with the help of Gates' money.

I grew up in a small town where the best hospital in the region was a Catholic one that refused to do abortions (or abortion counselling, or even birth control). But I still wouldn't have gone anywhere else if my knee had needed surgery.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Thinking in CT
If a creationist presentation is not a religious program, then I don't know what is. I have several observations to make here.

I have no truck with proponents of creationism or intelligent design. Neither do I think it is necessarily useful, except possibly in a rhetorical or polemical sense, to conflate the two. But that's neither here nor there, I suppose.

If you don't know what a religious program is, at least in any legally relevant sense, try thinking of a liturgical service, a prayer meeting, theological instruction and so forth. The Discovery Institute does not appear to engage in any of these, and certainly isn't going to at its Smithsonian reception. I can practically guarantee that if the Discovery Institute had to hang its tax exemption on fulfilling a "religious purpose", it would not qualify.

The film was already reviewed by a panel in order to ensure that its content was not going to violate the special events policy, so whatever definition you have of "religious program" apparently isn't the one the Smithsonian had in mind when it drafted the policy.
Originally posted by delphi_ote
I think the holocaust denial angle addresses this point nicely. I disagree. There is already something of an established legislative policy (see various laws, congressional resolutions and findings connected to the Holocaust) that would arguably be contravened if the Smithsonian hosted a reception for Holocaust revisionists. The same is not true of the Discovery Institute.

[crimresearch]

In the absence of such legislative policy, it would be up to skeptics then, to point out to the SI that what they are tacitly endorsing is no more in keeping with their mission than Holocaust denial.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
There is already something of an established legislative policy (see various laws, congressional resolutions and findings connected to the Holocaust) that would arguably be contravened if the Smithsonian hosted a reception for Holocaust revisionists. The same is not true of the Discovery Institute.

So you are of the opinion that the Smithsonian should not think for itself about whether or not it is appropriate to host a reception sponsoring a particular viewpoint, but only to wait until the legislature has acted?

If Congress has not explicitly forbidden it, then it must be all right, irrespective of whether or not it transgresses the mission of the Smithsonian itself?

I can only characterize this viewpoint as "interesting."

[varwoche]

Originally posted by new drkitten
This strikes me as perilously close to the "Hitler liked chocolate chip cookies" fallacy. Just because the Discovery Institute is a bunch of deceptive, flat-headed, narrow-minded, anti-intellectual, intolerant, morally bankrupt lunatics does not mean that the transportation system in Washington state is not entirely messed up or that there isn't some good that can be done through Cascadia with the help of Gates' money.
Bogus. The Cascadia may be entirely legit and I posted nothing to the contrary.

If I were the Gates Foundation and I wanted to support local transporation issues, all things equal I would (strongly) favor organizations that do not advocate counter-science over organizations that do.

In the event the Gates foundation thinks the same way, and is unaware of Discovery's ID advocacy, I sent this message: Greetings and thank you for the outstanding work you do.

In the process of researching an organization called The Discovery Institute, I learned that that you provided a grant to a subsidiary of Discovery called The Cascadia Center (or so claims their web site). The purpose of this message is to alert you to the fact that Discovery is active in promoting the counter-scientific nonsense known as intelligent design.

Discovery’s name came to my attention in conjunction with this recent news story:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6884904/site/newsweek/

Surely there must be organizations capable of furthering your goals involving transportation issues that do not also promote counter-science.

Sincerely, And fwiw, I'm about as familiar with Microsoft as is possible for a non employee and I've never heard anything to suggest that Gates is counter-scientific.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by new drkitten
This strikes me as perilously close to the "Hitler liked chocolate chip cookies" fallacy. Just because the Discovery Institute is a bunch of deceptive, flat-headed, narrow-minded, anti-intellectual, intolerant, morally bankrupt lunatics does not mean that the transportation system in Washington state is not entirely messed up or that there isn't some good that can be done through Cascadia with the help of Gates' money. Further, chocolate exists apart and aside from Hitler whereas Cascadia is by all appearances part and parcel of Discovery. It's not even clear that it's a separate legal entity.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by varwoche
Bogus. The Cascadia may be entirely legit and I posted nothing to the contrary.

If I were the Gates Foundation and I wanted to support local transporation issues, all things equal I would (strongly) favor organizations that do not advocate counter-science over organizations that do.

Does Cascadia as an organization advocate counter-science?

Are all other things equal? Have you seen the grant proposal that Cascadia sent the Gates Foundation?

For a funding agency to say "this is an absolutely brilliant idea to further a very worthwhile cause, but we decline to fund it because of organization ties to an unrelated organization whose cause we dislike" is at best controversial, and at worst a violation of fiscal responsibility on the foundation's part.

[varwoche]

Drkitten, I acknowledge your question but would rather not pursue this with you further.

[delphi_ote]

Just thought I'd toss out some links to buzz about this around the web...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0530Smithsonian.asp
http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/2/2005/05/25/smithsonian_warming_to_intelligent_desig
http://www.evolutionnews.org/index.php?title=new_york_times_should_screen_privi leged&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

And an interesting article by the Discovery Institute from a few months ago:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=CSC%20-%20Views%20and%20News&id=2419

How odd.

[Eos of the Eons]

I'm confused. First I hear that the Smithsonian is getting money so the film can be shown there (and thus dress up as science). Then I hear the place is being "rented". Oh? What other films are shown by renting the space? Sponge Bob Square Pants? A movie made by holocaust deniers?

What is the real story here? How many other groups HAVE rented space to show a movie at the Smithsonian? Especially for such a large sum? Or is that even a large sum to pay as "rent"? What is the going rate to rent space at the Smithsonian?

Why don't the IDers rent some other space in the area in order to show their flm? Why the Smithsonian?

Shouldn't the people who run the Smithsonian have a policy to show only educational materials that are fact based? If not, why not?

I have totally lost respect for the Smithsonian. How much of their space is rented? Can I rent space there to put on antivaccination gallery of some sort? Can we then be sure anything residing in some space at the Smithsonian isn't "in rented space" and is simply nonsense?

What if someone were to set up a bogus handcrafted dragon specimen and show that as the world's first "real dragon fossil" in some "rented" Smithsonian space?

I would rename Smithsonian. We can call it "PT Barnum's Inspired Museum" (please post anything better inspired).

Thus...

Top Ten new names for the Smithsonian...please post your answers in this thread!

[varwoche]

The evidence indicates that Cascadia is not a separate legal entity and that it is simply one of Discovery's "projects":

The organization is not defined on their own about page (http://www.discovery.org/cascadia/about.php) other than as a "Center" and a "Project", neither of which are legal entities.

The url to Cascadia's about page is a subfolder beneath Discovery:
discovery.org/cascadia/about.php

On the bottom of the page is Discovery's logo and contact information, including the email address: tg@discovery.org.

I urge the The Gates Foundation -- and everyone else for that matter -- not to support Discovery in any way.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by new drkitten
So you are of the opinion that the Smithsonian should not think for itself about whether or not it is appropriate to host a reception sponsoring a particular viewpoint, but only to wait until the legislature has acted?

If Congress has not explicitly forbidden it, then it must be all right, irrespective of whether or not it transgresses the mission of the Smithsonian itself?

I can only characterize this viewpoint as "interesting." Nice try. I already pointed out that the Smithsonian did think for itself about the propriety of hosting this reception. My allusion to legislative policy served merely to invite attention to the fact that, contrary to your earlier suggestion, the respective cases of the Institute for Historical Review and the Discovery Institute cannot be viewed as perfectly interchangeable from the standpoint of a U.S. government instrumentality. Your analogy was and remains faulty, as is your extrapolation of my previous comment.

While we're on the subject, I reiterate that no one has yet come forth with any good reason to second-guess the Smithsonian's determination, or why the Discovery Institute's soiree should be singled out among the myriad private special events whose only arguable contribution to the advancement of the Smithsonian's activities consists in the attendant monetary donation. Such events don't need to fulfill the Smithsonian's public mission. If they did, we'd probably be asking Mr. Kremer why they were taking place in the form of a privately organized event instead of during the museum's visiting hours.

By the way, new drkitten, unless I am greatly mistaken you have not responded to the questions I posed to you earlier.

* * * * *

Even if the foregoing weren't the case, it occurs to me that there's a non-frivolous argument to be made (preferably by someone with more time and interest than I) that ID - if properly understood - is not even necessarily inconsistent with the Smithsonian's mission. In brief: as far as I can tell, ID is not science per se but philosophy, albeit of a kind that has always borne a relationship to science (modern science being an offshoot of natural philosophy, which includes some of the same types of investigation that the Discovery Institute apparently pursues). If you look at the great natural philosophers from Aristotle through Oresme to Newton and Leibniz, they're all engaged in a broadly similar line of inquiry.

The original articles and resolutions of the Smithsonian Institution make it clear that the Institution is dedicated to the increase and diffusion of knowledge, but that all branches of intellectual inquiry are entitled to a share of attention. Philosophy, including natural philosophy (as well as moral philosophy, interestingly) is specifically mentioned. That pretty much does away with the contention that the Institution exists exclusively or even primarily for the advancement of science. (It also gives some insight into which museums certain posters have visited and which ones they skipped). That precise assertion was made by several of those who wrote to the Smithsonian, and frankly it seems inexcusably ignorant in hindsight. I hope they spared us the embarrassment of mentioning the JREF in their letters.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

An article in today's Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/01/AR2005060101986.html

The Smithsonian will show the film, but not accept any money.

~~ Paul

[Jeff Wagg]

So the message here is ???

My initial "blink" reaction is that this is the worst possible outcome.

• IDers get to have their film shown.
• They also get to say that the Smithsonian was clearly swayed by the "liberal media" or some such because they removed their co-sponsorship.
• They get to keep their $16,000.

So, at first glance, it appears that this is a big win for them.

Comments?

[Darat]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
An article in today's Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/01/AR2005060101986.html

The Smithsonian will show the film, but not accept any money.

~~ Paul

I suspect many of the ID proponents aren't going to be too happy with the Washington Post's article:


based on "intelligent design" -- the theory that life is so meticulously complex that a divine intelligence must have designed it --



:)

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
I have totally lost respect for the Smithsonian. How much of their space is rented? Can I rent space there to put on antivaccination gallery of some sort? Can we then be sure anything residing in some space at the Smithsonian isn't "in rented space" and is simply nonsense?

What if someone were to set up a bogus handcrafted dragon specimen and show that as the world's first "real dragon fossil" in some "rented" Smithsonian space?Come on. Nothing about the Smithsonian Institution's policy on donor-organized events even remotely implies that gallery space can be leased for the purpose of presenting privately-curated exhibits to the general public. This sort of speculation only obscures the issue at hand and is, moreover, silly.

[back2basics]

Somebody said you don’t get anywhere by trying to sensor your opponent. Let’s take a little step back and have a reality check. In case you guys didn’t notice censoring science, using immoral and unjust tactics has worked very well for religion over the years. If it takes ruining somebody’s reputation, and therefore life then that’s been fine for religion over hundreds of years.

Now we are in the naughties, and some of us thought we had moved past that. We have not. We have Time reporting many teachers are shying away from the “controversial� theory (used in the context that it’s just an idea) of Evolution as they are fearful of their jobs. We have states trying to downgrade the word theory and ask for ID to be taught alongside evolution as a science! The people making these decisions have no scientific background and are not qualified. Often parent groups at school, riled up by a tiny amount of preachers and zealots, spreading their interpretation of an, at best, story with limited historical accuracy.

So please do not tell me the gloves are still on. It is a matter of the humans races progression, it is a matter of our children’s education, it’s about scientific funding, the misrepresentation of science. The gloves are off, there should be MORE outrage. I am dismayed that the scientists Kansas decided not to take part in the discussion. I understand a little, I too believe ID is not worth pissing on if it were on fire. But SILENCE and apathy are certainly not the way to go. Religion, its control, its corruption, its immorality are not something I can sit down and watch take more and more power.

People seem to have a skewed image of organized religion in America (oh yeah and the Middle East, Africa and anywhere else there is no peace in the World). It is certainly no coincidence the majority of wars have been (and continue to be) religious. ID is ONLY an attempt to confuse the masses. Well formed, but the intelligent design is in the way ID is formed, it is all about placing doubt on evolution, not about answering questions its self. Look at it, read it, see that all the time so far put in, is to confuse the principals of evolution. Why? Why take the time to disprove and not to make valid observations that stand on their own two feet? Because it’s entirely consistent with the Churches anti-science stance over hundreds of years.

Where is the outrage?

It’s nice to see a few scientists writing. But you people, understand, public funding has been slashed in America for science. Science is under attack, on two fronts, by politicians and the religious right. How long will the apathy continue? When will we take the gloves of ourselves and fight back in an organized and galvanized way? Stop talking about the intellectual methods, or the morality, just stop god dam talking, and watching the credibility of the method be eroded. I know there are just some pissing match intellectuals on here, but presumably you came here because of Randi and not just to affirm some form of debating ability. He has spent his life trying to show people the reality of life, given his life to this cause. Some people here must respect that. What’s being holding him back? A deep seated need to believe in something, some people have. The same processes are being used to sensor science.

Let’s talk about the ethics of confusing of children with pseudo-science, let’s talk about the ethics of undermining the most objective methodology the human race has found so far. Lets talk about the ethics of a group of people who believe they are so elite they have all the answers, and you must follow. We need to counter their voice, which is being heard loud and clear at a grass routes level.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Jeff Wagg
So the message here is ???

My initial "blink" reaction is that this is the worst possible outcome.

• IDers get to have their film shown.
• They also get to say that the Smithsonian was clearly swayed by the "liberal media" or some such because they removed their co-sponsorship.
• They get to keep their $16,000.

So, at first glance, it appears that this is a big win for them.

Comments? I'm inclined to agree with you. While I would defer to the Smithsonian's latest determination that the film is not appropriate for "co-sponsorship" (just as I was prepared to defer to their earlier determination that it was appropriate, although I can't satisfactorily account for the discrepancy), it doesn't seem right for the Institution not even to collect the donation. The museum could have emphasized that it wasn't endorsing the film's content without forgoing the 16 grand.

I read that the U.S. Office of Special Counsel is investigating a discrimination complaint filed against the Smithsonian Institution earlier this year by a pro-ID Smithsonian research scientist. I wonder if that dispute influenced in any way the Smithsonian's original decision with respect to the Discovery Institute's reception.

[delphi_ote]

Originally posted by back2basics
We need to counter their voice, which is being heard loud and clear at a grass routes level.

We just did! Congrats, folks! It's a nuanced political retraction, but a retraction of support none the less.

And this:
"We're disappointed," Chapman said. "We met all their conditions -- screening the film for them, agreeing [to list the Smithsonian] director's name on the invitation and so forth -- and then some mention of this in the media, and now they want to backtrack to some degree, and we don't get it."

Makes the ID people look all the worse. They get to show their film for free now. If their intentions were honest, I don't understand why recent events would be disappointing...

[delphi_ote]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
I read that the U.S. Office of Special Counsel is investigating a discrimination complaint filed against the Smithsonian Institution earlier this year by a pro-ID Smithsonian research scientist. I wonder if that dispute influenced in any way the Smithsonian's original decision with respect to the Discovery Institute's reception.

I posted it earlier, but this is a link to the Discovery Institute's take on that:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=CSC%20-%20Views%20and%20News&id=2419
http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110006220

[back2basics]

Originally posted by delphi_ote

If their intentions were honest, I don't understand why recent events would be disappointing...

Thats a very good point. As a previous poster said, it does look like a good deal for them. Why are they not happy about it?

[delphi_ote]

Originally posted by back2basics
Why are they not happy about it?

Because they wanted to be able to dishonestly imply the Smithsonian endorsed the content of the video, through that their organization, and through that intelligent design.

Smithsonian co-sponsors event -> Smithsonian endorsed video -> Smithsonian endorsed the content of the video -> Smithsonian endorsed the Discovery Institute's research in the video -> Smithsonian endorsed the Discovery Institute's research -> Smithsonian supports intelligent design -> intelligent design is accepted by the scientific community

We stopped their lies at step one. Their political agenda to sneak in to scientific validity via the back door was halted, so they are disappointed.

[back2basics]

;)

:)

So what your saying is, all this intelectual rangling about what is right and wrong. Taking action, did some good, and Randi was once again correct to ask for action? I could not agree more :)

The fight continues, lets hope more people stop talking and start doing.

BTW here was my letter..

Sir,



This morning I am outraged at the news the Smithsonian will air a film on intelligent design. I understand that you do not believe this is an endorsement of ID, and I am sure that in all good will you do not believe it is. You are incorrect and you are being used, willingly, to further the attack on science in 2005. Far from giving air to these clearly unscientific views, the Smithsonian should be helping educate on scientific process so brain washing and control systems like this cannot take hold in society. We are being attacked with every fiber by the zealots, and we are doing nothing to fight back. All for $16,000?


ID is not a theory; it is an idea, what are the motives behind the idea? To try and undermine hundreds of years of scientific research, in a game of smoke and mirrors aimed at confusion. The Smithsonian will play a part in that confusion. I can see the reports, people claiming the credit of the Smithsonian airing for their next round of ID nonsense.



Our scientific establishment should be taking on these issues, not submitting to them. Far from taking money from advocacy groups you should be taking the high ground, showing the film for free and education as to why we know this to be wrong. But because you are getting $16,000, you cannot do that, can you? Your hands are tied by the people who are giving you the money, because money is involved. Science is not about being bought, the Smithsonian’s good name, should not be bought.



I understand James Randi and the JREF foundation are offering $20,000 for you not to show the film. I too offer $100 not to show this film as it seems your only motivation in this matter is money. Show the film and I will cancel my subscription to your magazine, and you will loose my support. How could one have confidence in the objective nature of your work if you motivation is money? Your time and name can be bought for the sum of $16,000. Maybe this is a failing of your fundraising. Maybe I am wrong and you do believe showing a film, with no scientific process involved, that directly contradicts much of your own work, is somehow a good thing. But forgive me sir, because it seems to be all about the money.



And please as a further note, fight back, we cannot wait until the word theory gets skewed. Until Evolution is not taught in many of our schools so we don’t upset the vocal few. We cannot let the hugh amounts of work done by so many be tarnished, due to nothing more than a few well formed and worded failings of our current knowledge. At this time we need establishments like the Smithsonian to stand up for the scientific World, not to throw egg in its face.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by delphi_ote
We stopped their lies at step one. I agree with your analysis of the likely outcome if the Smithsonian hadn't backpedalled. On the other hand, something about your formulation sounds mildly ominous. Stopping people's lies before they tell them is not necessarily a principle that makes for good public policy.

[back2basics]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
I agree with your analysis of the likely outcome if the Smithsonian hadn't backpedalled. On the other hand, something about your formulation sounds mildly ominous. Stopping people's lies before they tell them is not necessarily a principle that makes for good public policy.

Nobody was trying to sensor them, or "stop their lies". This is about not allowing them to use the Smithsonian’s name for credibility. Dam they can show this film in every church in the land and I really would not care.

You are correct though, pre-emption is not a good public policy. But consider the ethics of a political machine who believe in pre-emptive attack, not with words and ideas, but with bombs and bullets. We have already seen how pre-emptive attack is flawed.

[delphi_ote]

Yes... The point here was not censorship. Maybe I didn't make that clear. The Discovery Institute is still showing their video. The event is still happening with all the fanfare the Discovery Institute had planned. The Smithsonian has simply removed their co-sponsorship, because it was being used as a political device. That was the lie we "stopped." We stopped it by discrediting it, not censoring it.

The idea was to discredit their false insinuation, because they were clearly taking advantage of the Smithsonian's name. They were trying to take the fast track to appearing to have scientific validity. Before the event even happened, they'd already move to roughly step 3.5 of the plan I outlined above.

My formulation only sounds ominous because their intentions were ominous.

[Bronze Dog]

... I hope someone ends up MST3King that video.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

MST3King?

~~ Paul

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
MST3King?

~~ Paul I think he means doing a version of the film that contains a commentary track with wisecracks and heckling, as on the show Mystery Science Theater 3000. The Discovery Institute film will be shown on PBS, so I suppose anyone would be able to tape and parodize it.

[Chimpy]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
I'm confused. First I hear that the Smithsonian is getting money so the film can be shown there (and thus dress up as science). Then I hear the place is being "rented". Oh? What other films are shown by renting the space? Sponge Bob Square Pants? A movie made by holocaust deniers?

In a recent press release they acknowledged the ******** up but basically admitted they are too cowardly to withdraw everything.

[delphi_ote]

The more I read, the more I see that these people are filthy, filthy snakes. DI's Blog about this:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/index.php?title=wonders_of_the_smithsonian&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#trackbacks
"A June, 2004 review in Nature, “Bright Blue Dot,� by Douglas A. Vakoch of the SETI Institute, is a sober, sensible critique that cautions that the authors cannot know much about habitability in other planets until such planets, and universes, are explored, and yet takes very seriously the Gonzalez-Richards scholarship and insights."

http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v429/n6994/full/429808b_fs.html&filetype=pdf

"Ultimately, however, the authors are in a
poor position to argue that Earth is optimally
located for both habitability and measurability.
They try to establish habitability
requirements by comparing Earth with
other locations in the galaxy.Unfortunately,
we lack the data required for a well-reasoned
comparison. If we had many examples of
planets that do and do not bear life, and an
explanation for why the conditions on some
planets led to life while those on others did
not,we might be able to establish an accurate
metric of habitability. Until then, we are
forced to extrapolate measures of habitability
from a sample of one inhabited planet.
Regrettably,any judgements of optimality
may be biased by the local conditions and
historical contingencies through which our
life and our science have evolved, rather than
accurately reflecting the range of possible
preconditions for habitability and measurability.
Potential readers of The Privileged
Planet would do well first to familiarize
themselves with the biases that can result
from this kind of selective sampling. A good
primer is Nick Bostrom’s Anthropic Bias
(Routledge, 2002).
Caution seems especially in order given
that the authors have intentionally limited
themselves to our knowledge of the Universe
gained through selected observational sciences,
such as comparative planetary geology,
solar physics and astronomy, rather than
including more laboratory-based sciences.
Similarly, although the authors attempted to
avoid cherry picking instances of measurability
that support their position by focusing
on important observations in these
fields, the vagueness of such a criterion
makes their selection rather subjective."

[Ririon]

I just got this reply from the Smithsonian:


Your correspondence of May 30, 2005, regarding the screening of "Privileged Planet" has been received in the Smithsonian's Public Inquiry Mail Service for response.

The Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History recently approved a request by the Discovery Institute to hold a private, invitation only screening and reception at the Museum on June 23 for the film "The Privileged Planet." Upon further review we have determined that the content of the film is not consistent with the mission of the Smithsonian Institution's scientific research. Neither the Smithsonian Institution nor the National Museum of Natural History supports or endorses the views of the Discovery Institute or the film "The Privileged Planet." Given that the Discovery Institute has already issued invitations, we will honor the commitment made to provide space for the event, but will not participate or accept a donation for it.

We appreciate your interest in the Smithsonian Institution.


I guess a few of you got the same thing.

BUT: Why on earth was this initially approved?

Ririon

[DrMatt]

There are at least two likely reasons why it was initially approved.


A) Insiders at SI.

B) Inattention.

Of the two, I prefer hypothesis B. Never underestimate the power of error.

PS, I just received the same mailing within the past ten minutes.

[DrMatt]

Originally posted by Jeff Wagg
So the message here is ???

My initial "blink" reaction is that this is the worst possible outcome.

• IDers get to have their film shown.
• They also get to say that the Smithsonian was clearly swayed by the "liberal media" or some such because they removed their co-sponsorship.
• They get to keep their $16,000.

So, at first glance, it appears that this is a big win for them.

Comments?

I'm pretty sure income from magazine subscriptions brings SI a lot more than 16k/year, and subscribers of all relgious stripes (c.f. Eugenie Scott's observations about the Catholic church) are overwhelmingly opposed to ID nonsense. Making it a "big win for them" is a wild spin on the truth. SI came out openly declaring the program of ID " not consistent with the mission of the Smithsonian Institution's scientific research." Hello!

[Timothy]

I just heard a publicity blurb that indicated the Smithsonian / Privileged Planet debacle will receive some air time tomorrow (Friday 6/3/05) on NPR's "Talk of the Nation: Science Friday" a two-hour interview/live-radio call-in show hosted by Ira Flatow. The show occurs from 2-4 p.m. EDT (I listen to it live 12-2 p.m. MDT.) You can check www.npr.org to see if you can receive "Talk of the Nation" where you live.

If you can't receive it on the air, you can retrieve it from the NPR web site approximately 2 hours after the show ends.

(They will also have spots on how memory is retrieved, and the latest developments in "space elevators". Those spots are the ones being most frequently touted, so I doubt the ID bit will receive more than 10-15 minutes.)

- Timothy

[Jeff Wagg]

Originally posted by DrMatt
Making it a "big win for them" is a wild spin on the truth. SI came out openly declaring the program of ID " not consistent with the mission of the Smithsonian Institution's scientific research." Hello!

As I said, this was a first glance. "Wild spins" take time to develop.

I'm thinking now that this compromise is actually that..each side gained and lost something. DI can still add the tagline "As seen at the Smithsonian Institute" to the movie and the scientific community got the co-sponsorship revoked.

But when I add it all up, the DI comes out on top, and now they're using taxpayer money to show their film. That bothers me.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Jeff Wagg


But when I add it all up, the DI comes out on top, and now they're using taxpayer money to show their film. That bothers me.

What would you consider to be a better outcome? As far as I can tell, the primary damage was done when SI accepted the engagement, and the best that can be hoped for at this point is some kind of damage minimization or mitigation.

Showing the film at taxpayer expense will cost the SI an effective maximum of $16,000, but will also not allow the Discovery Institute to claim that they are being "censored" or to turn around and claim that "this is the film that the closed-minded evolutionists are afraid to let be shown." I don't know which would be worse -- giving the creationists a movie theater for an evening, or giving them ammunition to make that kind of statement about "conspiracy."

I won't say that I'm happy with the outcome, but I believe it's much, much better than the SI sponsoring it as the situation would have been, absent our collective protest.

Oh, and ceo?


I reiterate that no one has yet come forth with any good reason to second-guess the Smithsonian's determination.


As I stated earlier, there is a very good reason to second-guess the Smithsonian's determination. It was incorrect. As the Smithsonian itself admitted : "we have determined that the content of the film is not consistent with the mission of the Smithsonian Institution's scientific research."

When a decision is clearly in error, it's appropriate to second-guess both the decision itself and the process that lead to it.

Your attempts to twist and squirm in an effort to justify the efforts of the Discovery Institute to mislead both the Smithsonian and the scientific public have been noted. Are you yourself affiliated with the Discovery Institute, or are you an independent lying creationist pondscum?

[chance]

Originally posted by Jeff Wagg
So the message here is ???

My initial "blink" reaction is that this is the worst possible outcome.

• IDers get to have their film shown.
• They also get to say that the Smithsonian was clearly swayed by the "liberal media" or some such because they removed their co-sponsorship.
• They get to keep their $16,000.

So, at first glance, it appears that this is a big win for them.

Comments?

IMO it’s the best solution to a bad situation, the loss of $16000 is far outweighed by keeping that the Smithsonian’s reputation (now slighly tainted). It’s like handing back blood money.

[Jeff Wagg]

I have to say that I agree with the point that the damage had already been done. Looked at from that perspective, the compromise does seem to be the best possible damage control.

My previous comments were made from an incomplete context.

I'm still having a hard time being happy about it, though.

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Come on. Nothing about the Smithsonian Institution's policy on donor-organized events even remotely implies that gallery space can be leased for the purpose of presenting privately-curated exhibits to the general public. This sort of speculation only obscures the issue at hand and is, moreover, silly.

Not really. An "intelligent designer" is no more realistic than some dragon.

If they are going to give time to "ID" then what's to stop them from allowing equally nonsensical stuff to be portrayed?

private special events

This is to be a "private" "special" event???
"we have determined that the content of the film is not consistent with the mission of the Smithsonian Institution's scientific research."

Phew. And I thought they wouldn't get it. In a recent press release they acknowledged the ******** up but basically admitted they are too cowardly to withdraw everything. :D

Nobody was trying to sensor them, or "stop their lies". This is about not allowing them to use the Smithsonian’s name for credibility.

Exactly.

Okay, now they just need to address this with a film on evolution to go alongside that will show how shortsighted the ID film is.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Jeff Wagg
I have to say that I agree with the point that the damage had already been done. Looked at from that perspective, the compromise does seem to be the best possible damage control.

My previous comments were made from an incomplete context.

I'm still having a hard time being happy about it, though. I think it was Douglas Adams (but might well be wrong) who said "the real trick is not snatching victory from the jaws of defeat, but snatching compromise from the jaws of total disaster." I think they managed.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by new drkitten
As I stated earlier, there is a very good reason to second-guess the Smithsonian's determination. It was incorrect. As the Smithsonian itself admitted : "we have determined that the content of the film is not consistent with the mission of the Smithsonian Institution's scientific research."

When a decision is clearly in error, it's appropriate to second-guess both the decision itself and the process that lead to it.

Your attempts to twist and squirm in an effort to justify the efforts of the Discovery Institute to mislead both the Smithsonian and the scientific public have been noted. Are you yourself affiliated with the Discovery Institute, or are you an independent lying creationist pondscum? Repeating that it was incorrect is not the same as offering a reason, new drkitten. Neither is pointing to the Smithsonian's reversal - which, although I already said I was happy to defer to it in this case, does not offer any insight into their decisionmaking at either the initial or subsequent stages. Indeed, the fact of the reversal itself (especially in the absence of a detailed explanation) merely suggests that it was a close call and ultimately detracts, unfortunately, from the persuasiveness of either decision.

I, for one, am willing to give the Smithsonian Institution the benefit of the doubt. You, on the other hand, aren't. The irony of your accusation that I didn't want the Smithsonian "to think for itself" on this issue was, I daresay, apparent to every reader of this thread: namely, I was satisfied to let them think for themselves, whereas you expressed an unwillingness to rest until your thinking was substituted for the Institution's. I encourage you to reflect on this.

At this point, you needn't bother responding to the queries I have previously put to you. Your most distinguished contributions to the thread have been an ad hominem attack and a close brush with Godwin's Law, and I'm afraid it goes downhill from there. I'm disappointed, as you've been known to post thoughtfully in the past.

As for your parting shots: no, I am not affiliated with the Discovery Institute (although I am a member of the Smithsonian Institution). As for "lying", I'm not sure what you mean. I am certainly not a creationist, nor indeed religious in the least. And as far as "pondscum" is concerned, your use of the epithet really says more about your regard for other people than it does about those who might dare to disagree with you. I urge you not to continue in this vein. I realize you haven't been among us for very long, but you should know by now that resorting to such invective lowers the level of discourse here for everyone, and no one appreciates it.
Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
Not really. An "intelligent designer" is no more realistic than some dragon. I share your basic sentiment. Nevertheless, my point to you had nothing to do with how unrealistic the film's thesis might be, it had to do with the practical differences between the ID film soiree and your hypothetical faked dragon exhibit. See below.
Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
This is to be a "private" "special" event???Yes! It is a private, invitation-only evening use of the museum's auditorium and film projector, followed by a cocktail party or some such thing. There is no fixed exhibit, no installation of anything in the museum's exhibition galleries, nothing like that - just a few speeches, the film, and hopefully for the unfortunate invitees an open bar. It's all outside of visiting hours, and the next's days visitors will not see any trace of it, just as they were blissfully unaware of the last umpteen private receptions thrown by Smithsonian donors (more than one of which I've attended there).

No one is obliged to be happy about this, and indeed some aren't, but it's grossly unrealistic to think we're on the slippery slope to unicorn petting zoos or what have you. If there were any likelihood of that, doubtless we would already have seen exhibits not only funded but curated by Exxon about how global warming is a crock and caribou adore oil pipelines. Donors can fund exhibits, but they don't have any authority regarding what goes on public display. Hopefully this allays your anxiety over the prospect of dragon fossil exhibits.

[DrMatt]

I doubt the actual rental on the hall was more than $400 for that time period (I've rented huge concert halls to record music). Meanwhile, within minutes of receiving SI's retraction, I subscribed to their magazine. The taxpayer involvement is a negligible stick; voluntary public support for SI can add up to a whopping carrot.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Mercutio
I think it was Douglas Adams (but might well be wrong) who said "the real trick is not snatching victory from the jaws of defeat, but snatching compromise from the jaws of total disaster." I think they managed.

Sadly, I tend to agree. You know these ID weasels will from this day forth be referring to this film as having been "screened at the illustrious Smithsonian Institute."

Their intent is to claim validity by fabricating an association with the Smithsonian.

[fishbob]

Originally posted by KelvinG
Sadly, I tend to agree. You know these ID weasels will from this day forth be referring to this film as having been "screened at the illustrious Smithsonian Institute."

Their intent is to claim validity by fabricating an association with the Smithsonian.

I volunteer to help keep an eye on the situation and sound the alarm in this forum when the weasels next attack.

Hey - that might be a good name for a documentary - "When Weasels Attack".

[bignickel]

Well, from what I can tell, hour 1 of sciencefriday was going to be Bill Clinton, so I ate breakfast and watched a Ghost in the Shell episode. Tuning in again for hour 2: no mention of anything involving the Smithsonian. We'll see if they mention it.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Good column about it in the WSJ yesterday (6/3). Can't seem to get the link to work.

Go to WSJ and search on Intelligent Design.

[LotusMegami]

I received a reply to my email to the Smithsonian.

They are still showing the movie, but are not endorsing it or receiving money for it.

At least they won't do something like this again in the future, since they know the backlash will prevent it from being profitable.

[ceo_esq]

Out of curiosity, has anyone here read the book on which the film Privileged Planet is based? Or reviews of that book?

[Dr. Imago]

It's clear that the Discovery Institute is still spinning this as a de facto endorsement.

The Smithsonian's co-sponsorship of the film does not mean the museum endorses the ideas expressed in the film, according to the Web site. An event held at the Smithsonian cannot be a personal event, fund-raising event or an event of a religious or partisan political nature, according to the Smithsonian's special events policy.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=Privileged%20Planet%20-%20Only&id=2616

I'm glad to see SI's position change, but I tend to agree with Paul. It'd be a bit like shutting the barn door after the horse is out at this point to continue to make a big stink about this. We have the Smithsonian on record saying they don't agree with the content of the film, but are graciously agreeing to show it anyway. Who looks like the "bigger person" in the battle for public opinion? I know what I think.

Maybe one last shove, if any is required, would be to formally ask that Discovery retract any hint of SI co-sponsorship from their website. Of course, that would have to probably fall within the realm of the lawyers at this point.

Bottom line: this matter will prove to be nothing more than a fart in a windstorm. We should let this one go satisfied that it is, at the very least, a Pyrrhic victory in that, through the efforts of you guys sending emails and this foundation, we got SI at least to remove their implicit "endorsement" of the film's content.

-TT

[kedo1981]

Here is a link (I hope) that takes it all apart at the seams

ScienceDaily review of (http://www.sciencedaily.com/cgi-bin/apf4/amazon_products_feed.cgi?Operation=ItemLookup&myOperation=CustomerReviews&ItemId=0895260654&ReviewPage=2)

[ShowMe]

Originally posted by kedo1981
Here is a link (I hope) that takes it all apart at the seams

ScienceDaily review of (http://www.sciencedaily.com/cgi-bin/apf4/amazon_products_feed.cgi?Operation=ItemLookup&myOperation=CustomerReviews&ItemId=0895260654&ReviewPage=2)

A bunch of five star reviews from folks who don't understand science, and several one star reviews from those that do.

Doesn't take anything apart at the seams, I fear.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by ThirdTwin
It's clear that the Discovery Institute is still spinning this as a de facto endorsement.Hi TT. Does the quotation you gave amount to anything more than a reasonably accurate gloss on the museum's private events policy?
Originally posted by ThirdTwin
Maybe one last shove, if any is required, would be to formally ask that Discovery retract any hint of SI co-sponsorship from their website. Of course, that would have to probably fall within the realm of the lawyers at this point.If you can point to any statement of this type on the Discovery Institute website, I'll be happy to offer one lawyer's opinion thereon. Bear in mind that the word "co-sponsorship" is the Smithsonian's own term of art, and in the context of the Institution's events policy it has a particular meaning that quite clearly and specifically excludes content endorsement.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Denyse O'Leary's latest take on the hoopla:

http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/

There's a bit on it in this week's Science, too.

~~ Paul

[Jeff Wagg]

Man, that was a depressing read.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I love "Church of St. Carl."

~~ Paul

[Jas]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
I love "Church of St. Carl."


I'd canonize him:p

[Vitriolis]

It would be hard to overestimate how emotionally attached the Church of St. Carl’s members are to fully naturalistic evolution, even though the tide of evidence is running against it — or perhaps precisely because the tide of evidence is running against it.

I guess I can consider myself enlightened now..or unenlightened.

What Jeff said. :(

[Ashles]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Hi TT. Does the quotation you gave amount to anything more than a reasonably accurate gloss on the museum's private events policy?
If you can point to any statement of this type on the Discovery Institute website, I'll be happy to offer one lawyer's opinion thereon. Bear in mind that the word "co-sponsorship" is the Smithsonian's own term of art, and in the context of the Institution's events policy it has a particular meaning that quite clearly and specifically excludes content endorsement.
The work of an Iowa State University assistant professor has made its way into the Smithsonian Institute.

A 60-minute documentary titled "The Privileged Planet: The Search for Purpose in the Universe" will premiere at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History on June 23. The film is based on a book co-authored by Guillermo Gonzalez, an ISU assistant professor of astronomy and physics.

"I am very pleased that it is going to be shown at such an important locale," Gonzalez said.
How could anyone reading that introduction take away any other impression than that the Smithsonian was perfectly happy about showing the film.
Indeed it sounds like an exciting event for the Smithsonian. A film premiere!
The Smithsonian's co-sponsorship of the film does not mean the museum endorses the ideas expressed in the film, according to the Web site.
It specifically says "The Smithsonian's co-sponsorship"
An event held at the Smithsonian cannot be a personal event, fund-raising event or an event of a religious or partisan political nature, according to the Smithsonian's special events policy.
Here they are emphasising the Smithsonian's policies in a way designed to show that as this is not a personal or private event, it must be Smithsonian endorsed.
They neglect to mention the unique situation extant.
I actually think that sentence shows more than anything else how deliberately sneaky they are being. What possible reason would they have to mention the screening policy except to falsely imply support?
Following the premiere, the documentary is planned to run on Public Broadcasting Stations across the country.
Here they make it sound like it was actually a specially arranged high publicity event - again the implication that the Smithsonian is fully supportive is clear.

So, no CEO, this article does absolutely not give a fair representation of the Smithsonian's events policy. It implies that either the Smithsonian approves of the content of this film, or the Smithsonian is happy to screen films the content of which it does not endorse.
Both are incorrect.

And it specifically mentions "co-sponsorship" which is a blatant untruth.

And if you still claim you feel this article is a fair resresentation of the situation then I will have to express my own suspicion about what point you are attempting to make on the matter. I really don't see how anyone could claim that article was a genuine attempt to reflect the truth of the situation.

[The GM]

Did anyone else get this letter from the Smithsonian?

eta: nevermind!

[Ashles]

Yes, but I only got it 2 days ago - previous posters got it 3 weeks earlier.

Maybe they are doing overseas complaints after the US ones.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Ashles
So, no CEO, this article does absolutely not give a fair representation of the Smithsonian's events policy. It implies that either the Smithsonian approves of the content of this film, or the Smithsonian is happy to screen films the content of which it does not endorse.
Both are incorrect.

And it specifically mentions "co-sponsorship" which is a blatant untruth.

And if you still claim you feel this article is a fair resresentation of the situation then I will have to express my own suspicion about what point you are attempting to make on the matter. I really don't see how anyone could claim that article was a genuine attempt to reflect the truth of the situation. I'm confused. That article is clearly identified as having been written by a staff writer for an independent newspaper in Prof. Gonzalez' home state. Assuming it was used on the Discovery Institute's website with permission, there's no reason why they can't reprint it. If you're unhappy with the reporting, consider writing a letter to the editors of "The Tribune, Mid-Iowa's Pulitzer Prize Winning Newspaper" (according to the paper's website).

I suspect you were so busy falling over yourself trying to impute bad motives to the Discovery Institute that you overlooked the byline, which renders most of your comments moot (or at least misdirected).

Granted, if the article had been researched and published by the newspaper only a couple of days later (following the Smithsonian's about-face), it would have been drafted differently.

Do you still have a point to make?

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by The GM
Did anyone else get this letter from the Smithsonian?

eta: nevermind!

I got a response a couple of days ago, although I sent my comments much earlier.

[Eos of the Eons]

What letter?

[chance]

I suspect one like this:

Your correspondence of May 30, 2005, regarding the screening of "Privileged
Planet" has been forwarded to the Smithsonian's Public Inquiry Mail
Service for response.

The Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History recently approved a
request by the Discovery Institute to hold a private, invitation only
screening and reception at the Museum on June 23 for the film "The
Privileged Planet." Upon further review we have determined that the content
of the film is not consistent with the mission of the Smithsonian
Institution's scientific research. Neither the Smithsonian Institution nor
the National Museum of Natural History supports or endorses the views of the
Discovery Institute or the film "The Privileged Planet." Given that the
Discovery Institute has already issued invitations, we will honor the
commitment made to provide space for the event, but will not participate or
accept a donation for it.

We appreciate your interest in the Smithsonian Institution and support of
its programs.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
I'm confused.
Clearly.

That article is clearly identified as having been written by a staff writer for an independent newspaper in Prof. Gonzalez' home state. Assuming it was used on the Discovery Institute's website with permission, there's no reason why they can't reprint it.
At what point were we discussing who wrote the article? What relevance does that have to the points I made (which you have ignored)?
It is reprinted on the Discovery website and supports their position (or are you now going to pretend it doesn't?)

If you're unhappy with the reporting, consider writing a letter to the editors of "The Tribune, Mid-Iowa's Pulitzer Prize Winning Newspaper" (according to the paper's website).
You really are actively trying to change the subject now.

You said that this article was a fair representation of the Smithsonian's events policy. It clealy isn't as I detailed above.

I suspect you were so busy falling over yourself trying to impute bad motives to the Discovery Institute that you overlooked the byline, which renders most of your comments moot (or at least misdirected).
I suspect you were so busy redirecting attention to the original article that you have forgotten that it was your own claim that this article (regardless of who wrote it) represented Smithsonian policy fairly that was being discussed.

Also this article has been published on the Discovery website and makes the claim that there was co-sponsorship.

Therefore my comments directly address your post. I notice you haven't actually responded to my comments, merely attempt some misdirection by talking about who originally wrote the article.

Granted, if the article had been researched and published by the newspaper only a couple of days later (following the Smithsonian's about-face), it would have been drafted differently.
Maybe, maybe not. Still the fact that it is being touted on the discovery website after the change in Smithsonian's position is really the most telling aspect.
It clearly demonstrates what they would like us to take away from the exchange and shows their opinion on the subject, otherwise it would have been removed.

Do you still have a point to make?
Just made it thanks (for the second time).

And your point? You remember, the one you made about fair representation of the Smithsonian's policies and then forgot about.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Ashles
At what point were we discussing who wrote the article? What relevance does that have to the points I made (which you have ignored)?Previously we were not discussing who wrote the article, which is precisely the problem I am pointing out to you.

ThirdTwin quoted the independent article, saying "It's clear that the Discovery Institute is still spinning this as a de facto endorsement." The "spin" he refers to consists in the language he quotes from the article, and his post strongly implies that he attributes the drafting of the article to the Discovery Institute. Indeed, were we to ask him I expect he would confirm that he'd assumed they had drafted it, because otherwise his accusation of "spinning" falls more than a bit flat. I hope the relevance of the authorship to these remarks is clear.

You said that "They neglect to mention the unique situation extant. I actually think that sentence shows more than anything else how deliberately sneaky they are being. What possible reason would they have to mention the screening policy except to falsely imply support?" (boldface mine). You were clearly critiquing the choice of language in the article, so unless you're now going to tell me that by they you meant the Ames, Iowa Tribune instead of the Discovery Institute, you are laying the primary blame at the feet of the wrong party. And your evocation of maliciously misleading writing seems doubly foolish - but hey, if you still cling tenaciously to this point as well, take it up with the journalist or his editors. They are obviously the only persons who could answer your questions such as "What possible reason was there for the article to mention the screening policy?"

There is absolutely no reason why the Discovery Institute's website should not (with permission) reprint independent press articles that mention the organization. Countless organizations do exactly the same thing, either online or in the form of a paper pressbook of selected clippings. Unless you have a compelling argument to make in favor of a separate standard here, your complaint is not going to arouse the slightest interest in any sensible party.
Originally posted by Ashles
It is reprinted on the Discovery website and supports their position (or are you now going to pretend it doesn't?). Regardless of whatever "position" you're talking about - so what if it did? The party responsible for the content of the article is the party who wrote it. It's part of the press record now, and as long as permission is received from the copyright holder, and the article is properly dated and attributed, who really cares? Next you'll be telling me that the newspaper should delete it from their online news archives so that the Discovery Institute can't link to it, either.
Originally posted by Ashles
You said that this article was a fair representation of the Smithsonian's events policy. It clealy isn't as I detailed above.

...

I suspect you were so busy redirecting attention to the original article that you have forgotten that it was your own claim that this article (regardless of who wrote it) represented Smithsonian policy fairly that was being discussed.No. Please pay attention. What I suggested (in the form of a question) was that the language cited by ThirdTwin constituted a "reasonably accurate gloss on the museum's private events policy". Without commenting on the rest of the article, I invited him to cite other language from the website (it being hopefully understood that I meant statements made by the Discovery Institute on its own behalf) that ThirdTwin thought might cause concern for the Smithsonian Institution's lawyers, and I would offer him my informal views.

So I'll revisit those two modest sentences to which I alluded and over which you now seem to be obsessing:
The Smithsonian's co-sponsorship of the film...Yes, the journalist was correct that there was a "co-sponsorship" arrangement (in Smithsonian-speak) at the time the newspaper article was written.
... does not mean the museum endorses the ideas expressed in the film, according to the Web site.It's not fully clear which website (DI or SI) is referenced, but I think they both make this point, and since the assertion (that "co-sponsorship" does not imply content endorsement) is factually true, I don't see any problem here.
An event held at the Smithsonian cannot be a personal event, fund-raising event or an event of a religious or partisan political nature, according to the Smithsonian's special events policy.It is undeniably true that the special events policy (which we must assume the journalist consulted) does say this. The journalist is very nearly quoting from the policy here, in fact.

And that's it. I claimed simply that the two quoted sentences constituted "a reasonably accurate gloss" on the Smithsonian's private events policy, and I stand by that remark, so far as it goes.
Originally posted by Ashles
I suspect you were so busy redirecting attention to the original article that you have forgotten that it was your own claim that this article (regardless of who wrote it) represented Smithsonian policy fairly that was being discussed.

Therefore my comments directly address your post. I notice you haven't actually responded to my comments, merely attempt some misdirection by talking about who originally wrote the article.I did not address your specific points about the article because your criticisms of it cannot fairly be imputed to the Discovery Institute. This fact rendered your observations about the article largely irrelevant and I did not want to waste anyone's time by drawing attention to them for a second time.
Originally posted by Ashles
Maybe, maybe not. Still the fact that it is being touted on the discovery website after the change in Smithsonian's position is really the most telling aspect.
It clearly demonstrates what they would like us to take away from the exchange and shows their opinion on the subject, otherwise it would have been removed.The article is dated June 1. The Smithsonian's switcheroo was only reported by the NYT on June 3. I think it's fair to say that the article (at least the parts of it to which my earlier comments specifically related) was, in terms of accuracy, a journalistically acceptable reflection of the situation at the time it was written and published.

The universally acknowledged problem with news is that it gets old fast. If you are arguing that the Discovery Institute's website (and presumably the newspaper's, as well) has wrongfully and unfairly violated some hitherto-unknown "press clipping retention policy" by saving the Iowa newspaper article even though some of its news value has been superseded by subsequent events, well ... that sound you hear is the other lawyers on the forum snickering along with me.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by ceo_esq

ThirdTwin quoted the independent article, saying "It's clear that the Discovery Institute is still spinning this as a de facto endorsement." The "spin" he refers to consists in the language he quotes from the article, and his post strongly implies that he attributes the drafting of the article to the Discovery Institute. Indeed, were we to ask him I expect he would confirm that he'd assumed they had drafted it, because otherwise his accusation of "spinning" falls more than a bit flat. I hope the relevance of the authorship to these remarks is clear.


Not at all; in fact, a standard technique in much modern "spin doctoring" is selective and in many cases out-of-context quotation. For example, if I want to "spin" an utterly piece-of-trash movie as being one worth seeing, I will go out of my way to find (or have a clipping service find) every review written of the movie and extensively advertise any positive review I can find, without bothering to mention it came from the Weekly Fertilizer-Gazette from Binding-on-the-Crotch, Hants.

Although the Discovery Institute is not responsible for writing that misleading piece, they are responsible for selecting it for wider publication.

And as far as I can tell, they are selecting it for wider publication, in deliberate violation of facts of which the Discovery Institute is well aware, with deliberate intention to mislead.

Which qualifies as "spinning" in my book.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by new drkitten
Not at all; in fact, a standard technique in much modern "spin doctoring" is selective and in many cases out-of-context quotation. For example, if I want to "spin" an utterly piece-of-trash movie as being one worth seeing, I will go out of my way to find (or have a clipping service find) every review written of the movie and extensively advertise any positive review I can find, without bothering to mention it came from the Weekly Fertilizer-Gazette from Binding-on-the-Crotch, Hants.

Although the Discovery Institute is not responsible for writing that misleading piece, they are responsible for selecting it for wider publication.

And as far as I can tell, they are selecting it for wider publication, in deliberate violation of facts of which the Discovery Institute is well aware, with deliberate intention to mislead.

Which qualifies as "spinning" in my book. But surely we're not dealing with either selective or out-of-context quotation here (unless you want to restrict the context necessarily to the original publication, in which case any quotation would be out-of-context). The article was not quoted but reprinted in its entirety; it conserved the same attribution and byline as the original; and was hyperlinked to the identical text on the newspaper's website as the source of the original. Perhaps that's spinning - although if you're right, we've certainly lowered the bar for that - but if so there's nothing unethical about that kind of spinning. You have no more evidence of "deliberate intention to mislead" than could be found in any organization's pressbook. Plus, there was nothing untoward about the original article, which is dated. It has a historical context: June 1, midstate Iowa. That's what you find in a pressbook.

This is a total non-starter.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Previously we were not discussing who wrote the article, which is precisely the problem I am pointing out to you. ...

There is sadly little point in continuing this discussion with you.

It is clear that the Discovery website is using this article to imply co-sponsorship.

It is clear that it does not represent Smithsonian policy accurately and fairly.

If you wish to redefine 'spin' somehow then of course that is your right, and apparently your job.

We'll accept your opinion that it probably couldn't be argued in court.

But at least do not be disingenuous to the extent of pretending that you do not understand the actual intention and deliberate impression conveyed by publishing this article without any qualifying remarks explaining the change in circumstances surrounding the situation.

We're not in a court of law now, you're allowed to have an actual opinion.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Ashles
There is sadly little point in continuing this discussion with you.Suit yourself. I am sorry to hear it, though. I urge you to reach the end of this post before deciding whether to cut off the discussion.
Originally posted by Ashles
It is clear that the Discovery website is using this article to imply co-sponsorship.I'm not denying that possibility, but I remind you that nothing you've said establishes it. And there is undeniably some evidence to the contrary (read on).
Originally posted by Ashles
It is clear that it does not represent Smithsonian policy accurately and fairly.I thought I'd parsed the article's references to such policy reasonably thoroughly, word for word. If there's a materially false statement contained in those references, I couldn't find it. And I'd like to find one, if it exists.
Originally posted by Ashles
If you wish to redefine 'spin' somehow then of course that is your right, and apparently your job.I'm not interested in redefining "spin"; the standard usage seems adequate to me.
Originally posted by Ashles
We'll accept your opinion that it probably couldn't be argued in court.This is not one of those things that couldn't be argued in court simply because of some legal technicality. Rather, it's one of those things that couldn't be argued in court because of the conspicuous absence of any good argument in its favor. I know the difference.
Originally posted by Ashles
But at least do not be disingenuous to the extent of pretending that you do not understand the actual intention and deliberate impression conveyed by publishing this article without any qualifying remarks explaining the change in circumstances surrounding the situation.Honestly, Ashles, what would you consider to be acceptable "qualifying remarks explaining the change in circumstances"? The Discovery Institute reprinted this article (for all we know, immediately after it was published and before the change) in its entirety. Would you have them rewrite it?

How about this: would you consider it evidence of good faith if, for example, the DI's website also included an online press clipping of a subsequent independent newspaper article that explained, in a fair way, the aforementioned "change in circumstances"? What if the article in question duly quoted the Smithsonian's press release and solicited outside comments primarily from critics of the ID film?

You would? Mirabile dictu (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=News&id=2636).

Or perhaps you wouldn't, in which case it is manifest that some irremediable bias against the Discovery Institute has rendered you incapable of assessing this issue in an even-handed manner.

Now, I realize that near the beginning of this thread I expressed disdain for the Discovery Institute, and called their film "wretched" (although it's true that I haven't seen it). It would therefore be pointless for me to deny harboring some low-level background bias against the group. But there's a difference between that and being invincibly persuaded that anything one's ideological opponents have any hand in is necessarily duplicitous, self-serving mischief - even in the face of exculpatory evidence.

I think you ought to ask yourself which of these is true of you.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
I thought I'd parsed the article's references to such policy reasonably thoroughly, word for word. If there's a materially false statement contained in those references, I couldn't find it. And I'd like to find one, if it exists.
This comment seems to completely ignore my last post in its entirety. I'm not sure of its purpose - I have already said that it the article is technically correct, but misleading in light of the actual situation.

I'm not interested in redefining "spin"; the standard usage seems adequate to me.
This is not one of those things that couldn't be argued in court simply because of some legal technicality. Rather, it's one of those things that couldn't be argued in court because of the conspicuous absence of any good argument in its favor. I know the difference.
Go to the front page of that website.
Go to reviews.
The very first article is the one we are talking about. It is also the most recently dated.
I cannot find anyway that from that page you can get to a link explaining the current situation.

Honestly, Ashles, what would you consider to be acceptable "qualifying remarks explaining the change in circumstances"? The Discovery Institute reprinted this article (for all we know, immediately after it was published and before the change) in its entirety. Would you have them rewrite it?

How about this: would you consider it evidence of good faith if, for example, the DI's website also included an online press clipping of a subsequent independent newspaper article that explained, in a fair way, the aforementioned "change in circumstances"? What if the article in question duly quoted the Smithsonian's press release and solicited outside comments primarily from critics of the ID film?

You would? Mirabile dictu (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=News&id=2636).

As explained above I couldn't get from one page to the other.
And again you are arguing against a position noboody holds. Nobody said the Discovery Institute has not referred to the situation elsewhere.
Obviously this page as it stands is not reflective of the current situation, which is what I have been saying all along.

If they were honest in their intentions then a disclaimer or link to the page you have found would be present.

Or perhaps you wouldn't, in which case it is manifest that some irremediable bias against the Discovery Institute has rendered you incapable of assessing this issue in an even-handed manner.
Well that's an assumption that is entirely yours to make, correctly or incorrectly.

Now, I realize that near the beginning of this thread I expressed disdain for the Discovery Institute, and called their film "wretched" (although it's true that I haven't seen it). It would therefore be pointless for me to deny harboring some low-level background bias against the group. But there's a difference between that and being invincibly persuaded that anything one's ideological opponents have any hand in is necessarily duplicitous, self-serving mischief - even in the face of exculpatory evidence.

I think you ought to ask yourself which of these is true of you.
Was it really necessary to resort to arrogance and snide implications?
Did your argument not have enough weight by itself?
Disappointing CEO, puerile and rather counter-productive.

I have read through your post as requested and answered the points as I felt appropriate. But it hasn't changed my opinion that this conversation isn't really going anywhere.

[ceo_esq]

Some of what you've said above doesn't make much sense to me, but I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on the major points.

After rereading my last post, I apologize unreservedly if my speculation about your impartiality on this issue sounded snide. As I read your previous responses, the question sprang unbidden to my mind - and out it came, expressed tactlessly. I did not mean it maliciously, nor to belittle you personally. I withdraw my ill-phrased remark and thank you for rightly pointing out how contentious it came across.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Some of what you've said above doesn't make much sense to me, but I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on the major points.

After rereading my last post, I apologize unreservedly if my speculation about your impartiality on this issue sounded snide. As I read your previous responses, the question sprang unbidden to my mind - and out it came, expressed tactlessly. I did not mean it maliciously, nor to belittle you personally. I withdraw my ill-phrased remark and thank you for rightly pointing out how contentious it came across.
Well I respect that. Thank you.

And I do understand your point of view, I just hope that you understand mine.

Maybe I didn't make myself entirely clear above (I was typing quickly at work).

Would it be fair to say that you believe that nothing stated in that article is technically incorrect as at the time of writing, and anyone who wishes to could find out the truth of the situation with very little efort.
Whilst simultaneously my position is that, as it stands, and merely read as presented without any context it would appear from reading that article that there was co-sponsorship, and there is no indication anywhere on the page that the situation has changed since that article was written.

If we leave aside the issue of deliberate intent either way, then would it be fair to say that those two statements were broadly correct?

If so then I don't see why there need be any disagreement on the whole.

The intent behind any of it, I agree, there is no way of knowing.

And I will admit to a certain degree of annoyance regarding the whole issue.
A great deal of real science and facts are concealed and misrepresented by proponents of ID - so I can't deny a degree of resentment towards them as a group.
It is hard enough getting people interested in science in the first place these days - but when we have groups and societies actively pushing for theories that are not supported by scientific facts then I feel they are damaging people's education.

So if I have come across strongly on this matter then I apologise. It is because I hate seeing people massage scientific truth or current knowledge in order to push their own agenda and personal beliefs.
By all means anyone should have the right to believe anything they like, but when they have to deceive to convince others of their beliefs then we get into unpleasant territory. That's, roughly speaking, why I feel we should keep a very close eye on organisations like the Discovery Institute.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
But surely we're not dealing with either selective or out-of-context quotation here (unless you want to restrict the context necessarily to the original publication, in which case any quotation would be out-of-context).

On the contrary, we're dealing exactly with selective quotation.

The piece, as a whole, was selected for (re)publication precisely because it fit into the chosen spin of the Discovery Institute. In this regard, it's no different than any other advertising firm commissioning twenty toothpaste surveys, then publishing ("quoting") only the five that show results favoring the client brand.

This particular method of lying (and I use the word deliberately) is well-documented, among other places, in the extremely well-written book How to Lie With Statistics, to which I refer you.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by new drkitten
On the contrary, we're dealing exactly with selective quotation.

The piece, as a whole, was selected for (re)publication precisely because it fit into the chosen spin of the Discovery Institute. In this regard, it's no different than any other advertising firm commissioning twenty toothpaste surveys, then publishing ("quoting") only the five that show results favoring the client brand.

This particular method of lying (and I use the word deliberately) is well-documented, among other places, in the extremely well-written book How to Lie With Statistics, to which I refer you. OK, I see what you meant now.

However, in that case, the Discovery Institute also intentionally selected for (re)publication material that "disfavored the client brand" - and by that I mean, loosely, material that reports on the Smithsonian's change in position or which is critical of the ID film.

Why was that other material selected?

The "News" section of www.discovery.org has a database of articles, presented chronologically (though searchable). Under "News" I see precisely one outside article reporting on the Smithsonian film screening prior to the museum's reversal - that's the article everyone here seems to be complaining about.

I also see one outside newspaper article discussing the screening after the museum's reversal - the one I linked earlier.

The only other pieces that postdate June 3 and which mention the Smithsonian screening, are an open letter from Prof. Gonzalez to his scientific colleagues, plus a modestly amusing open letter from somebody at DI addressed to James Randi.

And incidentally, my subjective view is that the later, "unfavorable" newspaper article does more to cast the screening in a negative light than the original (and technically accurate) article did to cast the screening in a positive light.

One newspaper article of the type you're complaining about. A second, arguably more damaging article that accurately updates the first. If you don't see that this situation is at all different from "lying" by publishing only (commissioned) market surveys that favor the client, and concealing the existence of divergent surveys, then I refer you back to Messrs. Huff & Geis for some re-reading.

The only real reproach I would have - and it is a minor one - is that the earlier news article benefits from a second hyperlink from the film's "review" page. I'm fairly sure this was set up prior to the Smithsonian's retreat, when the article was still accurate. Frankly, the Tribune article shouldn't be linked under both film reviews and "News"; it is news rather than a review, and the DI has plenty of favorable reviews available to fill the space.

That said, it might be an oversight (we don't know), and even if it was not, I think any charges of lying and fraud are way, way overblown. DI handled the Smithsonian debacle on their website in a far more neutral way than they might have done.