…and this is a 
The director of the Sam Noble Museum of Natural History (the one hosting a Discovery Institute event) has posted an open letter about the program. I presume there will be more coming, because while it's a beginning, I'm not too impressed yet.
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. Moreover, the museum is obligated to rent its public space to any organization that is engaged in lawful activities, free speech and open discourse. The museum does not discriminate against recognized campus organizations based on their religious beliefs, political philosophy, scientific literacy, or any other factors.
It's nice that they clearly dismiss the DI as unscientific, but they would have been better off leaving out the nonsense about respecting the religious beliefs of all people. They don't have to come out and say they disrespect some religious beliefs, as I would, but they shouldn't have pretended otherwise. No one should offer blanket respect to all religious foolishness — the kind offered by the DI, or any creationist group, is antithetical to the mission of a science museum. Do not offer them false comfort!
Their plan to address the bogosity that will be presented in their halls is currently a bit vague.
We invite everyone interested in an accurate description of how life developed over the last four billion years to visit our galleries. The well-organized and scientifically accurate exhibits illustrate - through real specimens and scientific methods - the fact of evolution by natural selection as first described by Charles Darwin and continually supported by all branches of science ever since that time. The museum also recommends that people interested in evolutionary science review the more than 1,000 publications by our curators and professional staff that are based in evolutionary biology.
The museum's many galleries will be open for free before and after the showing of the Discovery Institute's film "Darwin's Dilemma" on Sept. 29 so the public can see that there is no scientific controversy in evolutionary science's explanation of the development and history of Earth's biodiversity.
"Read our publications" and "free admission before and after the presentation" will not do the job. I hope that more will be added later — but they really need to directly address the lies that the creationists will be peddling. With this minimal plan, I know exactly what will happen: most of the creationists will arrive just for the DI's movie, and leave afterwards. They will tell their friends that they saw a movie about science in a science museum that proves that a god created all life on earth. Some might stay a little later and browse, but the DI will have their people there to provide a creationist spin to all the exhibits.
They need to address the dishonesty directly: stir up controversy of their own to get people to want to hear the rebuttals. Don't claim to respect every religious belief out there; point out that this religious belief is incredibly bad science and rotten theology, and have people lined up to criticize it without the lame excuses. They don't need to bring in a bunch of atheist hired guns to do that, either: they almost certainly have biologists on campus with religious views of all kinds who will happily agree that intelligent design creationism is garbage.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: The Science Pundit
|
September 16, 2009 8:15 PM
Not good enough.
Posted by: d | September 16, 2009 8:16 PM
I might have to make a road trip to point and laugh. And I'll take a few pics too.
Posted by: Travis | September 16, 2009 8:18 PM
I really do hope a lot of good people who know a lot of biology show up and depants the claims made in this.
Posted by: littlejohn | September 16, 2009 8:22 PM
At the risk of sounding like a dread accommodationist, isn't this about the best we could hope for? It would have been nice if they'd said "Of course this is all horseshit," but there's only so much we can expect.
Trigger attack on me for being too mushy in three, two...
Posted by: Jerome Haltom | September 16, 2009 8:27 PM
Somebody should print up a bunch of phamphlets which basically state the exact same thing, including a rebuttle to any points made by the DI folks, and hand these pamphlets out to people entering and existing the movie and Q&A.
I plan to do this at an event they have down here in Dallas in a few months. Any OK people want to volunteer?
Posted by: Gotchaye | September 16, 2009 8:30 PM
I also don't see what else they could really do here. I'm amazed that a public institution in Oklahoma can say that ID is an "unscientific [view] masquerading as science". "Accurate description of how life developed", "four billion years", and "fact of evolution" show up later.
The letter does directly address the lies, as do the exhibits themselves (I've been there). I think it's cutting it a bit close to say that a public institution ought to have people standing around outside of a presentation (given by a group that they're legally required to tolerate) saying, basically, that it's all bullshit. That could plausibly be construed as discrimination or harassment. There's no way they're allowed to communicate a 'hostile' message to people who are only there for the creationist gathering and not to see the museum unless those people approach them first.
Posted by: Insightful Ape | September 16, 2009 8:34 PM
Since the creationist mob are so much for "teaching the controversy", I suggest that they be required to view "Sexpelled" right after their propaganda film.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | September 16, 2009 8:35 PM
The museum does not discriminate against recognized campus organizations based on their religious beliefs, political philosophy, scientific literacy, or any other factors.
Wow.... They're leaving themselves open for a whole lotta fringe, there!!
Posted by: jbb | September 16, 2009 8:40 PM
For what it's worth, the museum has a rather large area explicitly devoted to explain and presenting the evidence for evolution, and there's no hedging of any sort. Really it's more than I've seen in any comparable museum. Frankly I was quite surprised and pleased to find such an explicit espousal of evolution in a museum visited (on school field trips, for instance) by many children whose parents are creationists. It always seemed to me that they were going out of their way to emphasize the point, precisely because they know their audience. I think they've been walking a fine line, given their constituency. But if they're on the news every night stirring up controversy, it will probably do more harm than good, and Norman could lose a truly excellent museum. While I agree that their press release could have been better, for a public statement in Norman, Oklahoma, directly stating that the DI masquerades as science is about as bold as you can get. It's a shame, but it's true. Believe me, Norman is the brightest scientific spot in all of Oklahoma (most residents were embarrassed by the whole Dawkins thing), and the museum is a big part of this.
Posted by: Kraes85 | September 16, 2009 8:43 PM
"Respecting religious belief" has become synonymous with looking the other way and pretending no to hear it when idiots make ridiculous statements. Respect and tolerance have become ugly words in the name of accommodation.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
September 16, 2009 8:48 PM
This is all about free speech. As government institutions, the university and the museum cannot discriminate against a legal organization showing a G rated movie.
Posted by: James Rieman DVM | September 16, 2009 8:48 PM
They need to have a detailed exhibit about the Cambrian period and what we mean when we say Cambrian "explosion" and what life was doing in the Precambrian. Some Ediacaran fossils would be a nice touch.
Posted by: Eidolon | September 16, 2009 8:52 PM
As in posts 4 & 6 I have to say that this is about as much as any public institution can do in these circumstances.
They state " Although the museum does not support unscientific views masquerading as science, such as those espoused by the Discovery Institute," which is a pretty direct statement about DI.
Further, "The museum does not discriminate against recognized campus organizations based on their ... scientific literacy ..."
This is followed by "We invite everyone interested in an accurate description of how life developed over the last four billion years to visit our galleries. The well-organized and scientifically accurate exhibits illustrate - through real specimens and scientific methods - the fact of evolution by natural selection as first described by Charles Darwin and continually supported by all branches of science ever since that time."
I am pleased that evolution is described as a fact and the word "theory" is not used, since creotards do not understand what a theory is.
Will the visitors visit the museum? Not good odds. Then again, you can lead a horse to water, but making him do the backstroke is a bit tougher. I would differ with PZ when he describes this as a minimal plan. Given the realities under which the museum must run, the statements and the free admission are a good counter.
Posted by: Thomas Lee Elifritz | September 16, 2009 9:02 PM
I don't respect their respect for delusional false religious dogma and beliefs and reverence for ancient texts and myths.
Is that nice enough?
Posted by: uknesvuinng | September 16, 2009 9:04 PM
Maybe you can get a bunch of people in Joe Wilson masks to stand up and shout "You Lie" at every lie?
Ok, yes, there's two problems with that plan. One: Perhaps a persona known for correctly identifying lies should be used instead of Joe Wilson. Two: Everyone would be in a constant state of shouting "You Lie" and probably end up losing their voices as a result.
It's a start, I suppose.
Posted by: Michael N. | September 16, 2009 9:09 PM
If anyone is taking pictures at the event, don't forget to take shots of the attendees' bumper stickers. Soooo creepy.
Posted by: raven | September 16, 2009 9:13 PM
I read this as a clever backhanded slap to the DI. The museum cannot and will not discriminate based on....religious beliefs. They are calling ID a religious belief held by christofascist, ignorant, morons without quite coming out and saying so.
They really can't say.
Not in Oklahoma anyway.Posted by: Mena | September 16, 2009 9:14 PM
That reminds me of the anti-abortion protesters today in intelligent and civil Wheaton, IL. There was a sign that warned everyone of graphic abortion photos ahead and, sure enough, a couple miles down the road there were. Most of them were held by young teens, but there were some senior citizens there too. What I found particularly interesting was that they were carrying US flags. What a weird mixture of messages. These crackpots were carrying dismembered fetus pictures and associating the flag with them, why? Because only real Americans get abortions? Only real Americans are sanctimonious enough to stand on the intersection of fairly busy roads (if anyone is interested, it was Naperville and Butterfield Rds.) with their kids and have them exposed to those photos? Maybe it's just that because they are waving the flag we have to be impressed with their patriotism and therefore not think that they are craaaazy. I just boggles my mind that they think that we have to stand in awe of them and honor them because of their religious beliefs or how patriotic they are. Definitely a "the stupid, it burns" mentality.
Posted by: Chas | September 16, 2009 9:22 PM
@ Jerome Halton,
I will talk to the other OK Atheists and see if they havn't already started planning a rebuttal to this airing. We have a resident print shop owner so it's pretty easy for us to get signs and pamphlets. Should be a fun time.
Posted by: ERV
|
September 16, 2009 9:25 PM
Oh for fucks sake, PZ.
Posted by: DuckPhup | September 16, 2009 9:27 PM
... the museum recognizes that it is the right of every person to profane his or her brain with gullibility, self-deception, self-delusion, irrationality, intellectual dishonesty, lies, hypocrisy, and toxic, drooling stupidity, to whatever idiotic and ridiculous extent he or she deems fit... even though it causes us to have to suppress the urge to throw up in our mouths, a little bit.
Fixed.
Posted by: kamaka | September 16, 2009 9:28 PM
They will tell their friends that they saw a movie about science in a science museum
This is the reason the IDiots chose this space for showing their film in the first place. The lying liars want to don a mask of science, so to hide the clown beneath.
Posted by: RobertDW | September 16, 2009 9:28 PM
PZ, It's not about respecting the other person's belief - it's about respecting their right to that belief.
Heck, if we had to respect people's belief, that would be disrepecting my belief that other people's beliefs can be idiotic.
Mena, the abortion discussion is over on the "What kind of laws do you have over there in Australia?" post; let's not sidetrack this one. ;)
Posted by: Mena | September 16, 2009 9:33 PM
Sorry RobertDW, I hope that that doesn't happen but that post was more about how some people think that they are better than anyone else because they talk to invisible people and wave the flag around while shouting jingo a lot. It's hard to take them at all seriously but they themselves think that their beliefs make them the only arbiters of every law that gets passed or needs to be repealed.
Posted by: MattB | September 16, 2009 9:42 PM
Give it a rest for once. Obviously the museum doesn't agree with them. What's likely is that they will laughed out the building.
Posted by: Amit Joshi | September 16, 2009 9:56 PM
It's clear enough to me--they're a public institution, a legit organization comes along for a perfectly legit activity, and they have to rent out their space.
Although I'm with you on contempt for the DI, they're doing what the law requires them to do, so quit being pompous about it.
Posted by: kamaka | September 16, 2009 9:59 PM
they themselves think that their beliefs make them the only arbiters of every law that gets passed or needs to be repealed.
Yah, they are certain they are correct, when they don't actually know much.
I like this argument: Why is a 14 year-old who is picked up for prostitution charged with a crime? Every adult who has had sexual contact with this child is guilty of sexual assault. So this child is the victim, how do their actions constitute a crime? Why would society view this child as a criminal in the first place?
Then sit back and listen while they dig the hole.
Posted by: Yubal
|
September 16, 2009 10:00 PM
One brief question:
Why does PZ write DI? I though ID is abrv. for Intelligent Design or was he talking about something else?
Posted by: JD | September 16, 2009 10:01 PM
Exactly!
Again, exactly.
Posted by: jsoutofbiblepgs
|
September 16, 2009 10:01 PM
I'm inclined to agree with what most people are saying here. Isn't this as good as it gets, especially in Oklahoma?
However, I thank PZ for being the one to set a standard for which we can strive.
Posted by: kamaka | September 16, 2009 10:02 PM
DI = Discovery Institute
Posted by: Yubal
|
September 16, 2009 10:03 PM
Discovery Institute ??
Posted by: Yubal
|
September 16, 2009 10:05 PM
Damm it! You guys are fast!!
Posted by: The Science Pundit
|
September 16, 2009 10:06 PM
And pre-CRA southern institutions that enforced segregation were just doing what the law required them to do; how dare those civil rights activists be so pompous!
I could go on with even more hyperbolic examples, but I think that I've made my point. There's nothing wrong with screaming from the rooftops every time shit like this happens.
Posted by: kamaka | September 16, 2009 10:09 PM
Yubal
I would call the DI a pit of writhing, lying snakes, but that would be a grave insult to writhing pits of snakes.
Posted by: SteveL
|
September 16, 2009 10:18 PM
hmmm... there is such a thing as not-rotten theology?Posted by: flawedprefect | September 16, 2009 10:33 PM
Hmmm. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if the DI see this as a slander against them, no matter how accommodating this open letter is. Remember: they continue to claim it's "all based on science". To be called out openly as masqueraders is a fair slap in the face for them.
Banning them would simply give them more fuel to make a sequel to "Expelled". I think allowing them to have their talk is the best thing, but it should be "zerged" with rational minded folk who will openly challenge and question their science.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | September 16, 2009 10:33 PM
... the museum does respect the religious beliefs of all people.
There is no reason that "respect" in the above statement cannot be read as "acknowledge", as in "respect the laws of your nation". The connotation of admiration in the more common uses of this verb need not apply in all circumstances - and if this ain't those other circumstances, it's damn well close enough.
Posted by: Thomas Lee Elifritz | September 16, 2009 10:40 PM
It's not about respecting the other person's belief - it's about respecting their right to that belief.
But when their idiotic beliefs start to effect the solvency of my nation and the habitability of my planet, I am willing to exercise my right to my belief in the protections afforded to United States citizens within United States borders, by the United States constitution ... to the motherfucking limit.
I belong to a religious cult called - 'Freedom to Insult'.
I demand you respect my rights to my beliefs.
Posted by: Ian | September 16, 2009 10:42 PM
They rent space for birthday parties. They can't refuse to rent space to a student group just because the student group is pushing an anti-science agenda. That whole "religion clause" thing cuts both ways - can't establish a religion, can't discriminate against someone on the basis of religion.Posted by: vhutchison | September 16, 2009 10:45 PM
#15 As pointed out on the previous blog on this topic, SNOMNH has a quite new and excellent exhibit(quite beautiful) on the Cambrian and Paleozoic where the so-called Cambrian explosion is covered well. Indeed, it is the very first exhibit one comes to as they enter the exhibits from the auditorium where the DI film will be shown. Also, attendees to all the current museum lectures get a schedule of the many upcoming talks and events that are part of the Darwin Year on campus. Visitors to the showing might receive other material as they enter, as well.
Posted by: Notagod | September 16, 2009 10:47 PM
PZ is correct that one-half sentence isn't required, and opens a cave for the spooky christian ghost to hide in.
I'm glad that they at least made an attempt though.
Posted by: Frank Lovell | September 16, 2009 10:52 PM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the
sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his
wife is beautiful and his children smart.
--------------------------------------------------------- H.L. Mencken ------
Posted by: R. Schauer | September 16, 2009 11:18 PM
I agree, PZ. I'd call what the U of Oklahoma has as the ultimate teachable moment. Let the creotards blow their shit out their asses then the U hammer the sheep with the beauty and elegance of evolution. If the U's museum faculty is worth their salt they will see this opportunity and pull no punches. There simply is no room in our collective minds for this BS any longer...hear that Okies? The Sooners the better!
Posted by: SmartLX | September 16, 2009 11:21 PM
Speaking of Darwin, Tom Estes just claimed on his blog that Darwin converted on his deathbed, and linked to a CARM article about the Lady Hope story. The CARM article draws no firm conclusion either way (and this is CARM, which draws any conclusion it thinks it can get away with) and yet Estes uses the word "absolutely".
Is he even reading his own side's material?
Posted by: Kevin | September 16, 2009 11:28 PM
PZ There's no such word as 'bogosity' I think you meant 'bogustitude'. I's similar to 'disgustitude'
Glad to help.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | September 16, 2009 11:35 PM
It's probably time to point out Simon Blackburn's paper (PDF) on the subject again.
There is no reason that "respect" in the above statement cannot be read as "acknowledge", as in "respect the laws of your nation".
Trouble is, there's also no reason why it has to be construed in such reasonable ways, instead of "....but on the whole we think religion is good, as long as it isn't being silly about certain subjects". "Respect" is such a marvelous word; you can read it whatever way you like -- which is why it tends to turn up in Official Pronouncements like this one, where you're trying to offend as few people as possible.
Ideally, they should have left out that clause and gone straight on into the legalities of hall rental (in which I think they are right both in law and on the principle). But in the real world, someone would take this as an assault on religion, and the Museum doesn't really need the PR headache, so they have put in at least a token disclaimer.
Posted by: R. Schauer | September 16, 2009 11:45 PM
I respect your point, however, what about the law regarding the insult on our intelligence?
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 16, 2009 11:48 PM
soon to be sent to the entire university of morris...pz
MABUS!
still waiting for you to use your pyrokinetic powers on me.
Buffybot is pissed she had to eat her marshmallows cold last night.
...Still not on fire...
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | September 16, 2009 11:52 PM
#40 Ian
And how very clever of the DI to use a student group as a "wedge" to gain access to a museum that has a reputation for supporting evolution to premiere their crappola. Clever bastards. Is it really is the place of science to critique a religion's theology? (After all, while we point to YEC'ers as being particularly nutty, isn't ANY theology that is based on the authority of invisible sky fairies just as "rotten"?) To rephrase that - do scientists want to be in the position of saying that the Baptists or WWCofG have rotten theology, but the Catholics or CofE theology is "better", "right" or "OK"?Pointing out that the science is incredibly bad, without mercy or apologies, would be the wiser course of action.
Posted by: Notagod | September 16, 2009 11:57 PM
Yeah, I don't think that's what a nation means with respect to its laws.
Posted by: llewelly | September 17, 2009 12:13 AM
littlejohn | September 16, 2009 8:22 PM:
All the more reason to loudly explain, in no uncertain terms, why it insufficient. It is not possible to improve the behavior of any organization or person solely by figuring out what they will do of their own accord, and comfortingly tell them that is good enough. They must be told that more is necessary.
Posted by: Kagato | September 17, 2009 12:21 AM
LH: God be praised you've decided to renounce Darwinism on your deathbed.
CD: How'd you get in here? I've no need of absolution!
LH: [writes] "What a fool I've been, to believe in evolution"
CD: Wh- That wasn't my reply!
LH: "The whole science is a lie"
CD: I won't stand for this behavior!
LH: "And Jesus Christ is my savior"
CD: Good grief! [dies]
Posted by: Kagato | September 17, 2009 12:57 AM
Uh, Mabus/Dennis, you are aware that issuing online death threats is a criminal act in Canada, punishable by imprisonment, right?
Posted by: Amit Joshi | September 17, 2009 1:18 AM
Re #34, "The Science Pundit":
The pundit says: "And pre-CRA southern institutions that enforced segregation were just doing what the law required them to do;..."
That's not just hyperbolic, it's moronic. Segregation laws were bad laws, and were repealed/ruled unconstitutional. Public institution's duty to not discriminate over religious beliefs derives from the First Amendment! What, should we repeal that as a bad law, then?? That's the one which keeps the religious nutjobs in checks, in case you haven't realized it yet!
Posted by: JoshS, Official SpokesGay | September 17, 2009 1:29 AM
Jesus, mabus, give it a rest. Oh, and eat me raw.
Posted by: druidbros | September 17, 2009 1:58 AM
A druid curse upon you Daab.
Posted by: Good Dr. Laura
|
September 17, 2009 2:19 AM
This is how I read it as well. I thought it was nicely done.
Posted by: Meat Robot | September 17, 2009 3:29 AM
Even if the worst-case scenario comes true, all that means is a bunch of close-minded creationists show up, watch the movie, and take home the pseudo-authenticity of having watched the latest recitation of their creed in An Actual Science Building (tm).
The actual outcome might be the above, plus a few scientifically inclined souls deciding to take up the axe and aim it at the root of creationism. *Those* people are the ones I'm hoping this showing will reach, because they can go on and affect the scientifically confused but genuinely curious and open minded many.
Posted by: Alice Shortcake | September 17, 2009 3:44 AM
Has anyone from the museum commented on the fact that the only REAL scientists featured in the film were interviewed under false pretences?
Posted by: sasqwatch | September 17, 2009 3:56 AM
Latest ID claim I've heard...
The SW Greenland microfossils are undeniably photosynthetic, and since they were a record of what went down around 3.9Gya, that leaves only about 600my for proto-life to have developed into amazingly complex photosynthetic organisms (witness the complexity of such organisms as they exist today). So apparently this is causing such a huge rift in the existing paradigm, that Evilutionists are actively suppressing the latest discoveries to make sure they get to keep their sacred cow.
Exhibit A:
We have a combination of false equivalence of ancient photosynthesis with the modern (not in the video, but brought up in online arguments elsewhere, informed by legitimate research on primitive life forms that were probably somewhat photosynthetic), as well as arguments from ignorance leading to a designer seeding the planet with proto-stuff, cause 600my wouldn't have been enough time.
It hurts, I know. Esp note the Youtube poster's wording on "materialists". It's like, like... dude. The struggle continues.
Posted by: FlameDuck | September 17, 2009 3:58 AM
So what's next? Is the Simon Wiesenthal Center going to be promoting a conference for holocaust deniers?
I seriously doubt that Richard Dawkins's promotion tour for "The greatest show on earth" is very welcome at the New Life Church for instance.
First of all, blasphemy is only punishable by death in Islamic countries under Sharia law.Secondly, anyone stupid enough to post links to threads on a forum, that requires you to sign up and log in, in order to read it, is quite likely also too stupid to figure out how to kill people. Unless you intend to bore us to death, I don't think anyone's life is in any real danger.
Posted by: Tom Farrell | September 17, 2009 4:05 AM
While I don't especially like the "we respect all religious beliefs" BS either, I don't agree that it would be helpful for them to make statements to the contrary.
On the other hand, I think they could probably do well to put up a nice neat sign outside the space being rented by the "Discovery" Institute people that says that the message of the "Discovery" Institute and its film do not represent the views or beliefs of the museum management and are contrary to accepted scientific knowledge.
Posted by: Arachobia | September 17, 2009 4:21 AM
"... the museum does respect the religious beliefs of all people"
This does not, however, imply that the museum has to allow the DI to use their facilities to propagate these beliefs. I seriously doubt that they would let a group of atheists use one of their venues (if they had one) to do the same.
This right to freedom of belief is always problematic, mainly because pretty much all beliefs contradict each other because they can be the only true belief, which already falls into disrespecting others. I doubt this would ever happen, but what would the response be to someone going on a mass murdering spree and, when arrested, claim that he was a Norseman and he was trying to get killed in battle to go to Valhalla? Nobody would accept this, but there is no difference between the Norseman belief and any other religion,save that the Norsemen are dead.
We wouldn't allow Norse expression of achieving a way into heaven as it violates several other human rights, and people like the DI are themselves in violation of several rights because they certainly do not respect any belief that differs from their own and they are blatantly giving people false information.
By allowing them the use of their facilities, the museum is (inadvertently perhaps, but nonetheless) allowing this.
Posted by: Mitsurugi | September 17, 2009 4:36 AM
*Delurks*
Mabus, I curse you to forever be a retarded, repetitive troll good only for minor annoyance value and giving a laugh to anybody with an IQ in triple figures.
*Relurks*
Posted by: Mitsurugi | September 17, 2009 5:33 AM
See, it worked. This cursing thing is easy.
Posted by: Marc Abian | September 17, 2009 5:50 AM
But, aren't you on this forum?
Posted by: Marc Abian | September 17, 2009 6:03 AM
Ok, I did it. I'm not proud of it. But who here among us today can say they've never feed a troll on the internet?
By way of apology, please enjoy this fantastic satirical site I just came across.
http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/
Posted by: XD | September 17, 2009 6:06 AM
Kamaka #22
Exactly. They probably could have got a religious venue for free, but they paid extra for the museum because they assume it will benefit their agenda.Posted by: XD | September 17, 2009 6:50 AM
@ #74
No thanks, David Mabus.
Posted by: csrster | September 17, 2009 7:18 AM
"museum does respect the religious beliefs of all people."
... including those whose beliefs don't respect each other? "I respect your belief that Islam is the work of the Devil. I also respect Islam. And scientology." ???
But I disagree with PZ. The museum isn't morally obligated to arrange a special program to counter the views of every nutcase who hires their facilities. They would end up being denial-of-serviced.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | September 17, 2009 9:16 AM
Given that the DI has been repeatedly caught in plagiarism, theft, fraud, and libel, how do they qualify here?
Posted by: JessieColt | September 17, 2009 9:23 AM
The Museum doesn't "respect the religious beliefs of all people", they respect the dollars that are spent to rent their space.
Morally, Science Museum's should not be willing to cater to, nor cow down to, anyone who advocates lies as truth.
Posted by: vhutchison | September 17, 2009 10:08 AM
Jessie Colt (#73): It would be nice if what you say about the Museum's rental of space were true, but it is not. Have you not read here and perhaps on other blogs that the Museum is absolutely rsstricted by university policy and, perhaps, by State Law, that they can not refuse use of the facilities just because they might disagree with the views of a group? This policy is usual at almost all public universities. It is not a matter of funds that might be received. I think that the statement of the SNOMNH Director makes clear what the Museum thinks of the Discovery Institute and their views.
Unfortunately, even non-public owned museums have rented space for creationist films (e.g., American Museum of Natural History). We must counter the lies from the DI and similar groups the best we can and within the law.
Posted by: The Pint | September 17, 2009 10:13 AM
@ Mena #18 - "Civil Wheaton" - yep, I supposed that's an accurate description, although I would have used "well-heeled" - there are some rather impressive McMansions out there these days. I'm not surprised by the protest though, considering the town is home to the Billy Graham Center at Wheaton College. It was bizarre going out there from Chicago to visit my friend during election season - the sheer volume of Palin/McCain signs on well-manicured lawns was disturbing enough. I should ask her if she saw the protest yesterday since she lives right by that intersection.
Posted by: Sara | September 17, 2009 10:33 AM
So why are they calling themselves a museum, if they don't discriminate on the basis of scientific literacy?
If some creepy racist guys would approach them with a project about eugenics, would they be treated the same way creationists are? Would the museum be spewing bullshit about freedom of speech?
Of course not; which is because religious ideas, no matter what kind of ridiculous bogosity they are, are accorded undue privilege in the public discourse.
*SNAAAAAAAAAARL*
Posted by: FastLane | September 17, 2009 10:36 AM
I'm a couple hours away from OK city, so I don't think I'll be driving down for the speech. I'm trying to figure out a way to word this question to make it breif and to the point enough for some one to ask:
I'd like to ask them why they chose the specific site for the speech, and why not pick a generl auditorium or maybe one of the many large churches that might have more seating and cheaper rental (it would be great if you had figures proving that.).
I suspect their answer will be along the lines of saying 'because it's about science, not religion' claptrap they usually spit out. Then point out that every exhibit in the museum specifically disagrees with their assertions, and the exhibits themselves are evidence against it.
Then point out that they are only using the museum to give their lecture a veneer of sciencey-ness and authority. Ironically, an air of authority they would not get if they had their lecture in a church.
Posted by: BeamStalk | September 17, 2009 10:43 AM
Since I got into the thread last time late, I don't know how many saw my pictures from the actual SNOMNH. Also considering a Twoofer took over the thread too.
http://justin342.fotopic.net/c1680140.html
That should give a good idea of what can be found there and the displays.
I think ERV has nailed this one.
James Rieman DVM have you ever been there? They have a very nice display of all stages of life on Earth. I have to say the new exhibit at the Field Museum in Chicago is better but they have more room, people and money.
Posted by: a lurker | September 17, 2009 10:55 AM
"Morally, Science Museum's should not be willing to cater to, nor cow down to, anyone who advocates lies as truth."
Don't be silly. They are not catering to the anti-evolutionists at all.
Running a large research institution costs money. Running large exhibit spaces costs money. Having museum sponsored pro-science programs and speakers costs money. One way to bring in a large amount of money to pay for all of these is to rent space after hours. They would be stupid not to do so.
If they are to get the money that renting space then they are bound by Federal laws and regulations, state laws and regulations, and the rules set up by the university itself. I don't see how they could deny the request without severe violations of all of these. In addition whatever rules the museum published prior to creationist applying must also be obeyed to the letter. You can't set up and post rules and suddenly change them because you don't like the customer.
And just for a second ignore all that and say they were free to deny the creationists the rental. What would be the result? I dare say the Discovery Institute would be delighted. They will have no problem finding some other venue to show their crappy movie in and they will now have a new sob story of how they are being discriminated against and they will get a huge amount of publicity. This would result in more donations to the Discovery Institute. Meanwhile the state legislature might take actions harmful to the museum.
Finally, this museum has been one of the most publicly outspoken museums in the country on the issue of evolution. Indeed I am sure that life for them would have been much easier for them if they just done the token mentions of evolution many institutions give. The new Paleozoic exhibits are unabashedly and explicitly evolution-centered. They are one of the museums with the "Explore Evolution" exhibit. They are soon going to have a temporary exhibit on Darwin himself. They had (or will soon have) many pro-science speakers: Eugenie Scott, Barbara Forest, Kevin Padian, John Lynch, Janet Browne, Robert Trivers, Michael Ruse, John van Wyhe, Bert Hölldobler, etc. They are doing a series of evolution seminars with OU faculty as well. All of this should be fairly easy to confirm. Google is your friend.
Posted by: a lurker | September 17, 2009 11:20 AM
"Morally, Science Museum's should not be willing to cater to, nor cow down to, anyone who advocates lies as truth."
In other words @#$& the law. We have no need to obey it.
@#$& university policies. We have need need to obey them.
The course of action you want them to do, even if they could do it, would result in the creationists getting a huge amount of publicity. They would then rent some other venue probably to a much bigger crowd meanwhile collecting far more donations, selling more books and DVDs, and getting much more sympathy while pro-science people will look like jerks afraid of the "Truth."
Posted by: Karl Withakay | September 17, 2009 1:23 PM
Something I tell to everyone who says I have to respect their religious beliefs:
Nobody in this country has to respect anybody else's beliefs, religious or otherwise. You must respect someone's right to have a belief, but not the belief itself. You have the freedom to not respect and even criticize other people's beliefs in this country, at least you did the last time I checked.
Posted by: lazlow | September 17, 2009 2:58 PM
"Running a large research institution costs money. Running large exhibit spaces costs money. Having museum sponsored pro-science programs and speakers costs money. One way to bring in a large amount of money to pay for all of these is to rent space after hours. They would be stupid not to do so."
I think the main problem with renting out museum space to these people is that they are undermining science by lying and deceiving people to help their cause. This is about integrity and a museum should never cater to people who are in the business of un-education.
This is like AA meetings sponsored by Jack Daniels and Jim Beam, there's a little conflict here.
Not that I have anything against Jack and Jim.
Posted by: The Eater of Christian Babies | September 17, 2009 3:11 PM
"Moreover, the museum is obligated to rent its public space to any organization that is engaged in lawful activities, free speech and open discourse."
Well... DI flagged down videos about Casey Luskin on the YouTubes... so much for free speech. Eject them from the venue with NO REFUND.
Posted by: Prometheus | September 17, 2009 3:19 PM
At the time Michael Mares took over the Stovall Museum directorship 95% the priceless collection accumulated over 90 years was heaped on metal shelves in a series of un air-conditioned leaky clapboard tar roofed turn of the century buildings that had been abandoned since their use as stables by ROTC cavalry training.
He was tireless in his efforts to preserve the collections until 1989 when the state decided to put on a fireworks show for Ronald Reagan. They put the barrage right against the collection buildings and with students and firemen Michael Mares who had been told to stick it by our University President spent an entire night putting out fires.
It was the next day he decided, that no matter what happened, the collections would have a safe spacious facility where they could be fully cataloged and properly exhibited for the people of the state. He didn’t care whose toes he stomped on and within 8 years he raised over 30 million bucks and was building what presently stands as the state of the art in facilities of its kind.
As one of the kids carrying buckets on that night, I assure you the author of that statement is one of the good guys and anybody who says otherwise is a douche who has neither met him or read his vitae.
When Meyers not only has three species named after him that he personally discovered but is put in the hospital by one of them, then he can talk.
Posted by: Adam Simpson | September 17, 2009 4:01 PM
Why in the world would anyone want to respect religious beliefs ? I refuse to respect lunacy ! That's the whole root of the problem. If the first cave-man that came up with the stupid god idea had been laughed at we might not be in this mess now.
Posted by: Qwerty | September 17, 2009 4:11 PM
Renting a science hall is about as close to doing actual science as the Disco Institute is going to get.
I hope OK scientists and/or atheists/rationalists challenge their obtuse thinking at this event.
I agree with Hypatia's Daughter that they've used a student group as "a wedge" to get into this place.
Posted by: Richard Broughton | September 17, 2009 8:48 PM
Thanks for all your support.
Note this is the same night and Westrop's talk is scheduled before the DI dog and pony show.
MUSEUM TO OFFER AN EVENING OF FREE ADMISSION, LECTURE ON HISTORY OF LIFE ON EARTH IN HONOR OF CHARLES DARWIN
09-17-2009
CONTACT: Linda Coldwell (405) 325-0598, lcoldwell@ou.edu
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
NORMAN – As part of a University of Oklahoma campus-wide celebration of the 150th anniversary of the publishing of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, the Sam Noble Museum in Norman will be offering an evening of free museum admission from 6 to 11 p.m. Tuesday, Sept. 29. The museum also will feature a free public lecture by the museum’s curator of invertebrate paleontology, Stephen Westrop, titled “The Cambrian Explosion and the Burgess Shale: No Dilemma for Darwin.”
The Cambrian Explosion was one of the most important episodes in the history of life. Over some 20 to 25 million years, beginning about 543 million years ago, life in the oceans diversified. Today, we find abundant fossils of hard-shelled animals of this age in many parts of the world. The famous Burgess Shale of western Canada formed after the Cambrian Explosion but its unusually preserved fossils give paleontologists a glimpse of a nearly complete Cambrian community. These extraordinary fossils also show the wide range of animals that must have evolved earlier in the Cambrian Period. In this presentation, Westrop takes a look at recent research that gives us a new understanding of this evolutionary "explosion" of ocean life.
The museum’s Paleozoic Gallery showcases the science behind this amazing diversity of life from Earth’s Cambrian Period. Highlights include fossils, models of many of the bizarre animals of the Burgess Shale, and animated features showing how these animals may have moved and hunted.
“We invite everyone interested in an accurate description of how life developed over the last four billion years to come hear Dr. Westrop’s lecture and visit our galleries,” said museum Director Michael A. Mares. “These well-organized and scientifically accurate exhibits illustrate – through real specimens and scientific methods – the fact of evolution by natural selection as first described by Charles Darwin and continually supported by all branches of science ever since that time. Dr. Westrop is recognized internationally as an expert on the Cambrian Period, and his presentation will provide insight into the latest scientific research regarding the impact of this time period on the evolution of life on Earth. ”
Steve Westrop has been the curator of invertebrate paleontology at the museum since 1998. His research focuses on the Cambrian System and its fossils, particularly trilobites. He was a member of an international team of geologists and paleontologists who established the current radiometric dating of the Cambrian Period, including the record of the Cambrian explosion. Westrop has published more than 50 papers in scientific journals on various aspects of the Cambrian, and serves as editor of the Journal of Paleontology, published by the Paleontological Society.
Since the beginning of 2009, the museum, in partnership with OU departments of Zoology, Botany and Microbiology, Anthropology, History of Science and the History of Science Collections of the OU Library, has presented more than 15 public education programs related to evolution. Many of these are currently available to download as podcasts through iTunes. Additional information about museum podcasts and newsfeeds is available online at www.snomnh.ou.edu/rss.
Many more Darwin programs are scheduled for the months ahead, including a seminar series called “In Discussion with Darwin,” a lecture series, a family day featuring children’s book authors Carolyn Meyer and Anne Weaver, and “Darwin Remembers,” a one-man theatre performance. Mares encourages the public to take part in these programs, many of which are free, to educate themselves about the true nature of the science of evolutionary biology.
On October 10 the museum will open “Darwin at the Museum,” a special exhibition featuring a complete set of the first editions of Darwin’s books, provided by the OU Libraries History of Science Collections. This exhibition, which will include specimens from museum collections, will be on view through Jan. 18, 2010.
Additional information about programming at the museum is available online at www.snomnh.ou.edu/publicprograms. The museum is located on the OU Norman campus at Timberdell Road and Chautauqua Avenue. For more information, call (405) 325-4712.
Posted by: vhutchison | September 17, 2009 11:28 PM
#87. The lecture by Dr. Westrop will be 5:00 to 5:45 P.M. on 28 September at SNOMNH, the day after the DI film premiers in the same auditorium. Those who can attend will hear the REAL science we know about the Cambrian from a REAL invertebrate paleontologist who had a hand in designing the Paleozoic exhibit in the Museum. The two speakers from the creationist Discovery Institute have no real expertise in the subject. The lies and misrepresentations in the DI film will be exposed.
Posted by: Hitch | September 18, 2009 1:16 PM
As always, this smog blog is full of self-righteous censor-shipers with no clue as to what science is or isn't including the maniacal fanatical PZ who still saliently thinks his own religious motives for believing Darwhinerism are somehow exempt from scrutiny.
So many materialist rampallian scomms fill the web these days and most of the obsequious, fustilarian grovelers to 'holy' St. CharleyD are found on smog blogs like this. What a surprise!
This site is a wonderful example of a bad example.
Posted by: vhutchison | September 18, 2009 7:39 PM
Correction #88: Dr. Stephen Westrop's lecture on the Cambrian (one of his specialties) will be BEFORE the DI film that poses as science. Westrop will speak at 5:00 P.M. on 28 September. The DI film is at 7:00 P.M., also at the SNOMNH.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 18, 2009 8:04 PM
Darwhinerism
ah, what a clever little boy you think you are.
Posted by: JoeG | September 19, 2009 8:50 AM
Geez I figured this would be a good thing for you.
Ya see all you gotta do now is get the mob togther- grab those baseball bats and brass knuckles, put on those steel-toed boots and go to OK and kick some ass!
THAT will show them who is boss!
Just think how many you can wipe out in one night!
Or are you too scared because you are very much the minority on this planet and the repercusions will most likely rid the world of all of you?
Posted by: John Morales | September 19, 2009 8:56 PM
JoeG, such sarcasm towards the poor Creos! :)
Yes, they're a minority. Yes, they wish to impose.
But, in the end, they're merely pitiful.
(Heh.)