Thoughts in a Haystack

The PR gold mine the DI struck when the California Science Center cancelled the DI's disingenuous little fauxumentary, Darwin's Dilemma, is continuing to be exploited. But this from John West is just jaw-droppingly clueless:

Of course, as the DI has made clear time and time again, "Darwinism" is its codeword for modern evolutionary theory and "Darwinists" include any scientist who sticks to science and doesn't end every paper with "And that's the way God did it."

In short, according to West, it is a perfectly praiseworthy and civil exercise to accuse scientists past and present with complicity in the Holocaust and to label them promoters of Nazi-esque ideology on highly suspect history but suggesting that ID advocates, who regularly deny the existence of scientific evidence (witness the witless Casey Luskin), are comparable to people who also deny massive amounts of evidence is appalling to West's delicate soul.

West's sensibilities are certainly dead to the sting of irony.
.

Here is more from the Ministry of Misinformation on the American Freedom Aliance's suit against the California Science Center because of its cancellation of the AFA's screening of the Dishonesty Institute's propaganda film, Darwin's Dilemma.

As I suspected, the CSC (at least allegedly) relied on the provision of their agreement that all promotional materials had to be submitted to CSC for review and approval prior to printing or broadcast as grounds for canceling the event. The particular press release supposedly involved, however, was clearly issued by the Discovery Institute, not the AFA.

If that is the sole basis for the cancellation, the CSC can be in some trouble and should probably settle. An argument could possibly be made that the DI is so thick with the AFA in this case that it is not credible that it was acting other than on the AFA's behalf, and vice versa, but I think that would be a hard row to hoe. On the other hand, I would not be at all surprised if the DI and AFA looked at the agreement and decided that the DI should handle the sleazy publicity ... something the DI has much practice at in any event.

But just to cap off the evidence of the utter disingenuousness of these people, remember how the AFA characterized the other film they were supposed to show, We Are Born of the Stars, as a "pro-evolution film" meant to "provide balance" against the pro-ID side? That's not exactly how it was described at the AFA's site:

We Are Born of Stars - Premiere!

This extraordinary IMAX film (3D re-mastered) provides a view of the true structure of DNA never before witnessed in a wide screen format. Once one views DNA in motion, with the full scope, intricacy and supercoiling magnificence of this essential building block of life, the issue of our origins takes on an even deeper mystery and wonder.

In other words, the AFA, and the DI drones in attendance, fully intended to use We Are Born of the Stars not as pro-evolution balance but, instead, as a pro-ID "argument" of the "gee, that's so complex I can't understand it, therefore Goddidit" variety.

Is there something about creationism that impels the believer to misrepresent everything?
.

You may remember the Undiscovery Institute's attempt to trade on the name of the Smithsonian Institute (once again) by screening its propaganda piece, Darwin's Dilemma, at the California Science Center, which has the nifty sounding position as a "Smithsonian Institution Affiliated Science Center" that is, in fact, less exalted than it sounds. Then the Science Center canceled. Now the group that sponsored the DI's dogma and pony show, the American Freedom Alliance, has announced (in no coincidence at all, at the Christian News Wire) that it is suing.

The lawsuit is believed to be the first since the 2005 case of Kitzmiller v. Dover to consider the public's right to learn about Intelligent Design. While that case focused on whether a public school violated the First Amendment "No Establishment Clause" by instructing students about the theory, AFA's lawsuit alleges that the museum violated its First Amendment rights by caving in to demands within the scientific and academic communities to deny Intelligent Design a public forum for discussion.

"The Center is a public institution and our event was planned as a debate with both sides of the controversy represented," said Avi Davis, AFA's president. "It is Orwellian when a public institution tries to suppress particular ideas it deems unsavory. It can be likened to a public library removing certain books from its shelves because the librarian disagrees with the viewpoints expressed in them."

According to the AFA's announcement:

The museum was selected for the event because one of the two films scheduled to be shown required a 3D IMAX projection system. The pro-evolution film, "We Are Born of the Stars," was meant to provide balance to a discussion about life's origin.

Strangely, there was no mention of this other film in the original PR release by the DI. Does anyone else smell a rat?

All I can find out about We Are Born of the Stars is that it is a 1985 Japanese animated film that is all of 11 minutes long. Darwin's Dilemma, on the other hand, is 71 minutes long. In addition, according to the Dishonesty Institute's press release, there was also to be a "post-film discussion featuring Darwin skeptic Dr. David Berlinski, author of The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions, and leading intelligent design scientist Dr. Jonathan Wells, biologist and author of Icons of Evolution." The only other "balance" mentioned is that real scientists, Simon Conway Morris and James Valentine, appear in Darwin's Dilemma but, unsurprisingly, under the same sort of cloud of suspicion that always accompanies appearances by scientists in creationist endeavors.

So there was to be hours of creationist bafflegab, including live presentations, with the other side of the "controversy" represented solely by an 11 minute, 20⁺ year old, animated film. That's what passes for a balanced "debate" in the opinion of creationists.

But to see how this lawsuit is going to go, there is this:

"Certain museum officials and their cronies in academia and throughout the scientific community are part of a subtle but effective movement to marginalize a scientific theory that challenges their world view," said AFA's attorney, William J. Becker, Jr. ...

Whew! That's a beauty! An accusation of "cronyism" and the elevation of ID to the status of a scientific theory, while simultaneously ID opponents are reduced to "world view" peddlers, all in one sentence!

It's utter bollocks ... but as a fellow lawyer, I have to admire the technique displayed.
.

And it gets funnier!

Robert Crowther is at the Discovery Institute's Ministry of Misinformation further kvetching about the cancellation by the California Science Center of a screening of the Darwin's Dilemma: The Mystery of the Cambrian Explosion. It's the usual PR spin not worth much attention.

However, Crowther ends his rant with this:

Rather than debate the science, Darwinists try to suppress it. They simply can't stand to let people know the truth about the shoddy case for Darwinian evolution.

Now back when they did get to show Darwin's Dilemma at the Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History, the museum's response was to issue a statement that read, in part:

Although the museum does not support unscientific views masquerading as science, such as those espoused by the Discovery Institute, the museum does respect the religious beliefs of all people. ... The museum does not discriminate against recognized campus organizations based on their religious beliefs, political philosophy, scientific literacy, or any other factors.

It also scheduled a lecture addressing the actual science about the Cambrian Explosion and kept the museum open for free before and after the showing of the Discovery Institute's film.

When discussing the museum's reaction to the screening at Sam Noble, Jonathan Wells of the DI quoted with approval Oklahoma Daily columnist Jelani Sims to the effect:

Rather than hijacking the night of the documentary presentation with an opposing seminar and free extra hours of operation, it should have let the event stand on its own. And, rather than releasing a statement of vehement opposition, thinly veiled in tolerance, it should have said nothing.

In short, the DI wants the right to rent scientific institutions, and assume the seeming legitimacy that comes with the location, but, if those institutions want to counter the pseudoscience being peddled by the DI in the best way possible (instead of holding phony "debates"), by presenting detailed explanations and showing the public the very evidence that the DI is claiming isn't there, that's somehow unfair. They are demanding access to these institutions in order to call the very scientific work done by them "shoddy" and the institutions should say nothing in response!

And then people like Rhology wonder why we call them dishonest!
.

Heh! I reported before that the IMAX theater at the California Science Center in Los Angeles had been rented to show the Discovery Institute's pet piece of propaganda Darwin's Dilemma: The Mystery of the Cambrian Explosion.

Not so fast!

It seems that the Center has cancelled the screening and accompanying prayer tent meeting, entitled "The Darwin Debates: A Forum for Dialogue." The Center cites unspecified "issues related to the contract."

Naturally, the DI is claiming pressure from "Darwinist censors" and from "the Smithsonian Institution, which clearly was upset by publicity promoting the screening that mentioned the true fact that the Science Center is an official 'Smithsonian Affiliate.'”

The last charge is notably and expectedly unaccompanied by any evidence on that point but, on the other hand, as I noted previously, the Institute was burned by the DI once before (not to mention its complete misrepresentation of the Richard Sternberg affair) and the Institute could hardly have been pleased by the second attempted hijacking of its reputation by a pseudoscience.

But most interesting of all is the DI's claim that the Center's action was "viewpoint discrimination."

Funny, I thought ID was science, not a "viewpoint."

_______________________________________

Update: Abbie at ERV has a line on what those unspecified "issues related to the contract" might be.
.

Now the Discovery Institute and the producers of Darwin's Dilemma: The Mystery of the Cambrian Fossil Record have gotten the American Freedom Alliance to rent the IMAX theater at the California Science Center to show their dishonest little film. (Does bullcrap look better when it's seven-stories high?)

The showing will be accompanied by some of the usual suspects from the DI: David Berlinski and Jonathan Wells.

It is not clear from its site that the California Science Center has any significant exhibits on evolution or staff that can put on the kind of "set the record straight" presentation that the Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History was able to muster.

Of course, the Discoveryoids play up the link between the California Science Center and the Smithsonian Institute, which is not exactly an exclusive "honor." In fact, any prestige that comes with having Smithsonian affiliation flows in one direction, in that it primarily grants easier access to any traveling exhibits from the Institute. But that kind of PR spin has never been a stranger to certain parts of Seattle. They even highlight the fact that another propaganda film promoted by the DI, The Privileged Planet was "premiered" at the Smithsonian itself ... no doubt hoping that everyone will forget that the Institute was so embarrassed by the fact that it gave back the $16,000 fee for the use of the facility and withdrew its customary co-sponsorship.

The DI has never let little things like the truth get in its way.
.