Intelligent Design Documentary

LOS ANGELES, Oct. 5 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — 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.

Darwin’s Dilemma will be screened at 7 p.m. on Sunday, October 25th in the IMAX theater at the California Science Center, with 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 screening is sponsored and hosted by the American Freedom Alliance.

More

Comments

  1. #1 NewEnglandBob
    October 6, 2009

    SOURCE Discovery Institute

    That says it all. Lies and obfuscations will abound.

    How did the Smithsonian Institute get involved in the sham?

  2. #2 Clifford M Dubery
    October 6, 2009

    When did Wells become a Biologist? It is hard to believe that anyone who wrote or Edited “Icons of Evolution”, is a Biologist? Smithsonian Institution has also done this before, hasn’t it. A political reason, not an Educational one.

  3. #3 Joe
    October 6, 2009

    “How did the Smithsonian Institute get involved with the sham?”

    The simple answer is they didn’t. There are dozens of Smithsonian Affiliates across the country. The affiliation lets smaller museums share resources with the Smithsonian. The DI is deceptively using that affiliation to make it seem like the California Science Center is is the west coast outpost of the main museum in DC.

  4. #4 Virgil Samms
    October 6, 2009

    How did the Smithsonian Institute get involved in the sham?

    The Smithsonian is only indirectly involved, apparently the California Science Center has some link with them. I assume that the CSC rents out its facilities in the same manner as the Smithsonian did several years ago when an ID film got show at its DC facility, and same manner as the Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History last month. I.e. they are renting space for cash, and do not sponsor or approve the content.

  5. #5 James F
    October 6, 2009

    leading intelligent design scientist Dr. Jonathan Wells

    BWAAAAAAA HA HA HA HA HA HA! *gasp* AAAAAH HA HA HA HA!!!!!

  6. #6 Robert
    October 6, 2009

    The Smithsonian is not sponsoring the event, but the Cal Science Center is its designated affiliate – and there aren’t hundreds of those.

    The film is Darwin’s Dilemma and I trust that people will see it before they make unsubstantiated claims about it, or the people in it. There are clips, and an FAQ and other information at http://www.darwinsdilemma.org.

  7. #7 Spiv
    October 7, 2009

    Darwin’s Dilemma: The Mystery of the Cambrian Fossil Record

    Unless the title is not representative of the film, I think we’re done here. The ‘representatives’ they have sent along spell it out pretty well too.

  8. #8 Alan Kelley
    October 15, 2009

    As far a the claim of wrongful censorship goes, even if it could be shown that the reason the film screening was canceled had to do with the government and private partnership of the CSC finding something objectionable in the film, the courts have said that contemporary community standards can be used to determine the value of a work thereby leaving the option of censorship open. Meaning, I think that if the prevailing community standards find a work to be without serious scientific value, it can be censored. This means that in this case, they will have a lot of proving to do to get this claim through the courts. They would have to prove not only that it was indeed censorship and wrongful censorship at that, but that ID has scientific value, that its science has widespread community support. They would in other words need to show that ID has a redeeming social value. That’s a tough one to take to court, to say the least. Right now, prevailing scientific and social communities still see ID as having “utterly” no value.

    Not that you can’t find scientists and some kind of community who support ID, it’s just that the prevailing attitudes toward ID aren’t all that positive.

    Claiming wrongful censorship is a slippery slope, somehow I don’t think the claim in this case will have legs in the courts. Maybe a claim of attempted censorship would work, still I don’t know that there’s a legal precedent for something like that. Anyone know?

    Also, “The California Science Center is a public-private partnership between the State of California and the not-for-profit California Science Center Foundation” (quote from the CSC website), so there is no Smithsonian component to the partnership.

    Here’s a pretty good legal definition of censorship:

    “Censorship: the cyclical suppression, banning, expurgation, or editing by an individual, institution, group or government that enforce or influence its decision against members of the public — of any written or pictorial materials which that individual, institution, group or government deems obscene and “utterly” without redeeming social value,” as determined by “contemporary community standards.”
    –Chuck Stone, Professor of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of North Carolina

  9. #9 Alan Kelley
    October 15, 2009

    Actually my comments reflect a Supreme Court ruling on obscenity, so maybe my attempt to apply more general meanings are misguided, still I imagine the same arguments could apply to other forms of censorship. If such a case were taken up by the supreme court, I think they would be looking at censorship as it was ruled here:

    In miller v. california, 413 U.S. 15, 93 S. Ct. 2607, 37 L. Ed. 2d 419 (1973), the Supreme Court concluded that a work is obscene and can be regulated if it appeals to a viewer’s prurient interest; portrays sexual conduct in a patently offensive way; and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. The Court further ruled that interpretations of this definition may vary across the United States and that communities may apply their own local standards to determine obscenity.