Smithsonian Distances Itself From Controversial (intelligent design) Film

[DeepModem Mom]

Washington Post:
Smithsonian Distances Itself From Controversial Film

By Tommy Nguyen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 2, 2005; Page C01


The controversy over the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History's decision to allow a documentary based on "intelligent design" -- the theory that life is so meticulously complex that a divine intelligence must have designed it -- to be played at one of its theaters ended in compromise yesterday: The film will be shown, but the screening fee required by the museum (in this case, $16,000) won't be accepted and the museum will withdraw its customary co-sponsorship.

"We have determined that the content of the film is not consistent with the mission of the Smithsonian Institution's scientific research," said a museum statement. The film, "The Privileged Planet: The Search for Purpose in the Universe," is based on a book by Iowa State University astronomy professor Guillermo Gonzalez. Opponents say it and other arguments for intelligent design are creationism in disguise....

***

In April, the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based organization dedicated to advocating intelligent design, asked the Smithsonian for permission to screen the hour-long documentary for a private viewing and reception. The museum often rents out its theaters -- as long as the content of the material screened is not religious or political.

Bruce Chapman, president of the Discovery Institute, says staffers at the Smithsonian's special events office told him they had screened the film for content on two occasions. An e-mail from Debbie Williams from the Office of Special Events at the Museum of Natural History, which he forwarded to The Post, states that the film was "reviewed by the Associate Director for Research and Collections of the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, and approval was granted for the film to be screened." (Williams did not return a message left on her office voice mail.)

Like any other event at the venue, it would be technically "co-sponsored" by the Smithsonian....


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

[Erika]

1. Maybe they took my membership cancelation seriously

But as long as they allow these type of religious political issues a venue, I'll keep the cancelation in effect.

[BlueIris]

7. Good for you, smart person.

That would be more articulate, except, it's nice to see DU regaining some of its senses WRT the evolution "debate" (read: scurge of the anti-intellectual, underinformed jackasses).

[DeepModem Mom]

9. It's obvious you, and others, had an effect here --

thanks for taking action.

[me b zola]

2. A small victory for logic & reason

[bpilgrim]

3. "so meticulously complex" - code for it's all bad

but they are showing it anyways :crazy:

you know that - as seen at the Smithsonian - will be ALL OVER their leave behinds and marketing collateral :puke:

peace

[Erika]

4. But they can't fiscally make it without memberships

Of which, I've withdrawn as many others have. They want to spout the right wing garbage, let the right wing pay for them. You'll see a membership decline straight down.

[DRoseDARs]

5. They can "distance themselves" by telling D.I.pshit to take a hike. n/t

:eyes:

[Pachamama]

6. Aah, yes, the same "Smithsonian" Institution that when I was in DC last yr

with my then 3 mos old infant for the March on Washington for "March for Women's Lives" and the day before the march, I met my dad at the Museum and was sitting on one of the benches inside the building nursing my infant when I was told by the Smithsonian Security that I "had to stop nursing my child inside the Smithsonian" or be removed. I sat there and continued to nurse while I firmly explained to them that it was my right to be there and since they didn't have a lactation room and it was unsanitary in the bathrooms, that I wasn't budging....They then brought the "head of security" over and while I still continued to nurse, I told them that I wasn't going anywhere. I reminded them of the laws and said that while I knew that John Asscroft might be trying to cover Lady Justice, they weren't going to stop me from nursing my child. I then pointed to the crowds of people outside on the Washington Mall and said "Go ahead...arrest me...you see all those people here for the March tommorrow? Every Woman attorney in the country is here and I can guarantee you, they will be happy, especially on this weekend to make this front page news - "Nursing Mom and Infant arrested at Smithsonian"...They let me continue nursing....I suggested that they start finding out what the laws really do allow for nursing moms and that they maybe make some lactation rooms available...

That Night, I was at a Planned Parenthood event and sure enough, I was talking to several lawyers, including SF DA Kamala Harris and they all agreed - the Smithsonian would have lost....and yes, every single one of them said they would have been happy to have handled that one for me....

[onager]

8. James Randi offered the Smithsonian $20,000...

...to refund the Dumbscovery Institute's $16,000 bribe, er, payment. And Randi offered it with no requirement to even mention his organization.

http://www.randi.org