Because of the way it panders to religious charlatans in efforts to appear neutral, your article today on how the Smithsonian has prostituted itself to the creationist Discovery Institute is almost as shameful as the Smithsonian’s act itself. (John Schwartz, “Smithsonian to Screen a Movie That Makes a Case Against Evolution,” May 28, 2005). (I have appended the full article for lists I am cc’ing on this.)
Despite its own policy stating that "events of a religious or partisan political nature" are not permitted, the Museum took $16,000 for a blatantly pro-religious event. No-one informed of the facts in this controversy could reasonably claim “intelligent [sic] design” is anything other than a religious theory. Apparently your reporter did not bother to ask the Museum spokesperson why they were violating their own policy. But perhaps this is because of confusion on the reporter’s part, as he seems to have succumbed sufficiently to the claims of intelligent design to buy into some of their claims. For instance, he describes the Discovery Institute as “a group in Seattle that supports an alternative theory, ‘intelligent design’...” Intelligent design is not “an alternative theory” to evolution. The former is a religion-inspired attempt to deny the fact of the latter. Evolution is a fact, the only scientifically-proven means for explaining the change over time, and the diversity in form and function, of species. Intelligent design is not an “alternative” to it, but a religious mythology designed to undercut evolution and the scientific method underlying it. Worse yet, your reporter states: “Although Charles Darwin's theory is widely viewed as having been proved by fossil records and modern biological phenomena, it is challenged by those who say that it is flawed and that alternatives need to be taught.” “Widely viewed” by whom? By the entire credible scientific community – and any well-informed citizen. Challenged by whom? Only by those so ignorant of the facts and/or willing to ignore those facts because of their religious mythology, that they are willing to discard a fact as proven as that the earth circles the sun. In his clause “it is challenged by those who say that it is flawed and that alternatives need to be taught,” your reporter again doesn’t identify who “those who say” are, or what the “alternatives” needing to be taught are. This gem of journalistic objectivity and neutrality gives equal weight to antiscience religious charlatans and the entire scientific community. (For some useful quotes on evolution as fact, see: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html, with quotes from Gould, Dobzhansky, Lewontin and others, or an article by Dawkins at http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/A rticles/alabama/1996-04-01alabama.shtml). Andrew Pollack Brooklyn, New York (full article at www.nytimes.com/2005/05/28/national/28smithsonian.html?) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------ NY Times May 28, 2005 Smithsonian to Screen a Movie That Makes a Case Against Evolution By JOHN SCHWARTZ Fossils at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History have been used to prove the theory of evolution. Next month the museum will play host to a film intended to undercut evolution. The Discovery Institute, a group in Seattle that supports an alternative theory, "intelligent design," is announcing on its Web site that it and the director of the museum "are happy to announce the national premiere and private evening reception" on June 23 for the movie, "The Privileged Planet: The Search for Purpose in the Universe." The film is a documentary based on a 2004 book by Guillermo Gonzalez, an assistant professor of astronomy at Iowa State University, and Jay W. Richards, a vice president of the Discovery Institute, that makes the case for the hand of a creator in the design of Earth and the universe. News of the Discovery Institute's announcement appeared on a blog maintained by Denyse O'Leary, a proponent of the intelligent design theory, who called it "a stunning development." But a museum spokesman, Randall Kremer, said the event should not be taken as support for the views expressed in the film. "It is incorrect for anyone to infer that we are somehow endorsing the video or the content of the video," he said. The museum, he said, offers its Baird Auditorium to many organizations and corporations in return for contributions - in the case of the Discovery Institute, $16,000. When the language of the Discovery Institute's Web site was read to him, with its suggestion of support, Mr. Kremer said, "We'll have to look into that." He added, "We're happy to receive this contribution from the Discovery Institute to further our scientific research." The president of the Discovery Institute, Bruce Chapman, said his organization approached the museum through its public relations company and the museum staff asked to see the film. "They said that they liked it very much - and not only would they have the event at the museum, but they said they would co-sponsor it," he recalled. "That was their suggestion. Of course we're delighted." Mr. Kremer said he heard about the event only on Thursday. He added that staff members viewed the film before approving the event to make sure that it complied with the museum's policy, which states that "events of a religious or partisan political nature" are not permitted, along with personal events such as weddings, or fund-raisers, raffles and cash bars. It also states that "all events at the National Museum of Natural History are co-sponsored by the museum." Evolution has become a major battleground in the culture wars, with bitter debates in legislatures and school boards, national parks and museums. Although Charles Darwin's theory is widely viewed as having been proved by fossil records and modern biological phenomena, it is challenged by those who say that it is flawed and that alternatives need to be taught. When asked whether the announcement on the Discovery Institute's Web site meant to imply that the museum supports the film and the event, Mr. Chapman replied: "We are not implying in any sense that they endorsed the content, but they are co-sponsoring it, and we are delighted. We're not claiming anything more than that. They certainly didn't say, 'We're really warming up to intelligent design, and therefore we're going to sponsor this.' _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
