California Science Center Sued For Refusing To Screen Anti-Darwin Film

• The problem is that people who currently enjoy majority opinion on evolution shout anyone disagreeing with them claiming they don't use critical thinking skills. This is akin to someone saying, "People who drop out of school to sell drugs are making a bad choice." And the response that person gets is, "You are a racist therefore your assertion is wrong." The person who doesn't like the statement about school/drugs want to shut down all debate so they play the "R" card. If a scientist doesn't agree with global warming theories or Darwin he is labeled a right wing theological nut even tho he in fact may be an atheist or agnostic.

• The most convincing evidence against Intelligent Design is it's promoters

• I wonder how many of these religious organizations would let real science in their churches to espouse its "alternate opinions" to their followers? Would they tolerate being asked to promote films on secular humanism? Would they agree to schedule movies like "Religulous", "The Root of all Evil", or �The God Who Wasn�t There� in their churches? It's very unlikely. What's more is that they shouldn't have to. All the science center is asking for is the same common courtesy. Additionally, science requires empirical evidence and cold hard facts, peer review and falsification as opposed to medieval guesses that lack verisimilitude and are demonstrably incorrect. Virtually everything we know about our own biology is derived in some way from Darwin's theory. That modern medicine works so well to heal what was once a death sentence should be a cold slap in the face to evolution deniers. Would anyone really want to turn the clock back on modern medicine over a hundred years? How many evolution deniers, after having realized their doctors rely on information we've gleaned from evolution every time they see a patient in a hospital, would boycott their local emergency rooms and go back to prayer and sacrifices as their source of healing? If their god is so great, and if prayer really works as described in the bible, why do most of them voluntarily carry health insurance? Deep down they <i>know the truth</i>, but they still want the rest of us to support their false doctrine. And now the Discovery Institute is willing to sue a science center to prove it. It�s time the rest of us called them out for it.

• What we are seeing here is standard operating procedure for the DI. 1) Arrange for public showing (or publication) of anti-evolution content in a science-y venue. 2) If we pull it off, we gain credibility with mainsteam audiences. (Issue press release) 3) If we can't pull it off, sue somebody claiming view point discrimination (Issue press release) Since the DI is all about generating publicity (and nothing about science), this tactic is a win-win for them. And we can expect to see it repeated in the future.

• Also trying to poke holes in evolution is not proof for creationism. They always try that. You end up defending evolution and never get back to the fact that there is no evidence for creations/ID. �God did it� is not science. Hey Skippy, with all due respect,, I am saying that the folks at the DI are indeed far right religious extremists and lire�s. There is no hole deep, muddy or slimy enough that they won�t slither into, to continue their lies.

• and robert, we don't accuse those who "criticize darwin's evolution" as liars and extremists, we criticize them as unscientific, without critical thought, and totally without proof to sustain their arguments. none of those things are bad, per se, but they don't get you a seat at the scientific, critical thinking proof-backed argument table. you keep refusing to participate in the scientific method, and then cry "discrimination" when we ergo dismiss your participation. stop bringing poetry and myths to the scientific debate. bring facts. bring critical thinking. we'd love to see your proof for intelligent design. hint: our lack of arguments that convince you that there is no basis for intelligent design IS NOT proof that there is such a thing ad id. it might satisfy your church pews, but it don't satisfy the scientific method.

• robert, the press release is far from "very clear" that the film was sponsored by the afa, and does not claim that the csc was endorsing the film. the press release lede is as follows: "The debate over Darwin will come to California on October 25th, when the Smithsonian Institution's west coast affiliate premieres Darwin's Dilemma: The Mystery of the Cambrian Fossil Record, a new intelligent design film which challenges Darwinian evolution. To view a trailer and clips from the film, please visit www.darwinsdilemma.org." the wording sounds like the smithsonian's affiliate is premiering the film, ie, sponsoring it, as opposed to the film premiering (or showing) at the center. it's not till the last sentence in the second paragraph of the press release that the afa and it's sponsorship is mentioned. the press release implies, tho does not outright claim, that the csc is sponsoring the film. and mr. romero, claiming that the discovery institute is a third party, separate from the american freedom alliance, is like saying general electric is a third party from nbc-tv.

• The second sentence in your lede is wrong. The California Science Center boasts on their own website about their affiliation with the Smithsonian Institution. This was referenced in the press release, and it is not false. Further, the press release was very clear that the film was sponsored by the American Freedom Alliance, and it does not claim that the CSC was endorsing the film. As for the state of freedom of speech and academic freedom of civil discourse over important issues .... well the intolerance displayed by the commenters right on this blog is unfortunately typical of how the debate over Darwin is handled. Anyone who criticizes Darwinian evolution is accused of being liar and labeled as an extremist. Even Judge Jones didn't endorse censoring proponents of intelligent design or the supression of the debate. Clearlly the science center isn't alone in wanting to choose which views the public should be allowed to hear about and which should be banned from public discussion.

• Even a GW Bush appointed, conservative, federal juge, (self proclaimed born again Christian, boyscott leader), Ruled in the Dover Pa trail that ID is nothing more than creationism and is not science. He also said the DI people were fundamentally dishonest. Judge Jones said... "The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents. [...] The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy. With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom." The DI and ID people are all going to he11 because they continue to knowingly lie, breaking one of God�s 10 commandments. They also keep offering the false choice of God or Science, when in fact there are more Christians who except evolution than there are atheists. DI and ID are far right extremist who prey on the ignorance of science, by the American public. We should always point that out and speak out whenever they lie/speak.

TotalComments: 9