• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

ID At the Smithsonian

I would like to think this came about because of the email I sent to the Simthsonian PR guy as suggested by Randi ....

Charlie (monkey's uncle) Monoxide
 
The best thing about this is containted in the last paragraph:
This week, after protests from within and outside the museum, the directors returned the $16,000 auditorium rental fee and issued a statement declaring that "the content of the film is not consistent with the mission of the Smithsonian Institution's scientific research." It's an embarrassing about-face, but not as embarrassing as the original decision.
Click to expand...
A public declaration that the Smithsonian does not consider ID to be science.
 
You know this will set off another flury of the "persecuted christians by the secular heathens" rants.

This is good news though, but dang, we have to be vigilant. These "logic challenged" godboys are getting more devious in ways of shoe-horning their worldviews into secular mainstream.

Charlie (Smithson can now rest peacefully) Monoxide
 
Diogenes said:
Why would you doubt it ?
Click to expand...

You know, right after I posed that I realized "you know, that just sounds wrong..."

I'm just wondering since this grew and died rather quickly if this was a response to Randi's efforts or not. For some reason, I got the impression that the 20k would only be given if it was a response to JREF. I had no logical reason to have that impression, and I'm not sure why I thought that way. My bad.
 
Charlie Monoxide said:
I would like to think this came about because of the email I sent to the Simthsonian PR guy as suggested by Randi ....

Charlie (monkey's uncle) Monoxide
Click to expand...

My e-mail to him asked him what the going rate is for letting me show a "pro-flat earth" film at their hallowed institution. I offered to rename it "Intelligent zero curvature theory" if they insisted.
 
Cleon said:
I wonder if Randi will follow through with the $20,000...
Click to expand...

My understanding is that he offered the $20,000 for them not to show the film. Although the SI is returning the donation and explicitly distancing themselves from the film's content (and, equivalently, refusing the implicit sponsorship that they usually claim in films they show), the film will nevertheless be shown as scheduled.

Randi is therefore under no obligation, legal or moral, to "follow through." I'd be rather surprised if he did, since he is well-known not to have much patience for (or support of) half measures.
 
If this is true...
Charlie Monoxide said:
These "logic challenged" godboys are getting more devious in ways of shoe-horning their worldviews into secular mainstream.
Click to expand...
...then this isn't:
Charlie (Smithson can now rest peacefully) Monoxide
Click to expand...

The issue won't be settled until a host of angels writes, "Darwin had it right. You can take My word for it. He was My divine messenger" in thousand-mile-high words of fire at high noon on Easter Sunday.

And maybe not even then.
 
BPSCG said:

The issue won't be settled until a host of angels writes, "Darwin had it right. You can take My word for it. He was My divine messenger" in thousand-mile-high words of fire at high noon on Easter Sunday.

And maybe not even then.
Click to expand...

They'd just claim it was part of some "evilutionist" conspiracy...
 
new drkitten said:
Although the SI is returning the donation and explicitly distancing themselves from the film's content (and, equivalently, refusing the implicit sponsorship that they usually claim in films they show), the film will nevertheless be shown as scheduled.
Click to expand...

Why would they do that?

Edited to add: It appears to be missing from their events calendar
 
It's overdue. Frankly, I would hope that Randi would NOT pay the money. The Smithsonian knew better than to allow this in the first place, and they tried to pull this off anyway. I call it a waste of good money on the Smithsonian's part.

Frankly, you have to wonder if the weird ideas of "inclusiveness" on both the right and the left have created this idea that we have to be open to stupid ideas.
 
Randi explained the purpose for offering the money in today's Commentary.

I appreciate JREF giving us a heads up and a chance to actually write in to the Smithsonian, it is gratifying to help make a difference in what really is a battle.
 
Diogenes said:
Why would you doubt it ?
Click to expand...

Because it would be a silly waste of money; unless the SI ASKED for it, which of course they will not do, but if they did it which case it would be a fantastic marketing investment.

A nice bit of spin though, and I bet Randi made the offer knowing full well they would never dare to ask for payment.
 
richardm said:
Why would they do that?

Edited to add: It appears to be missing from their events calendar
Click to expand...

It wouldn't necessarily appear on the calendar of events; it is and always has been a private, invitation-only event.

But if you check the various DI-based blogs, the showing itself will still go on. For example, from Evolution News

the editorial wholly ignores the fact that the Smithsonian still intends to screen the film at the National Museum of Natural History on June 23, which was all we ever did request.
Click to expand...

As to why the Smithsonian is still showing the film, there are several possible reasons. They may not want to risk a breach of contract suit, or alternatively another public backlash from the fundicrats. There may be a devout (and probably Bush-appointed) creationist fairly highly placed who is the reason this idiocy was approved in the first place. From some random blog or other :

A Discovery Institute spokesperson told me that Discovery had not made a donation but rather entered into a contract and paid for the right to hold an event at the Smithsonian. Co-sponsorship was the Smithsonian’s initiative.

What I think: This may be miscommunication between Randall and Discovery.

Randall assumes that Discovery made a donation but Discovery assumes they paid for the right to hold an event. Randall assumes that the Smithsonian co-hosts all events and Discovery doesn’t. I think Randall and Discovery need to talk.

Clearly, something is going to happen at the Smithsonian on June 23 that should delight ID advocates and enrage anti-ID folk. But the two organizations differ on how they want to define it.
Click to expand...

In this simple blog (Post-Darwinist), we can already see the creationist lies coming out....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom