Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus


- AUB -

Recommended Posts

Are they getting enough money to runshop?


This may not be a joke.


I hope it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Infidels are covering it. http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=126486



This is the email I sent the Smithsonian. ( giving@si.edu )



Mr. Randall Kremer



Public Affairs


Having a nice backlash?


No doubt others have informed you of the depth of your error, one would think you would be the last people who would need to be informed of the difference between science and cynical lies. Are you naive, or tolerant to the point of suicidal? Know your enemy, if you cannot represent the interests of education and science, then other organisations will be glad to take up the burden for you. I know America is currently circling the drain, spear-heading the next dark-age, but I didn’t think it would happen so soon, you make me so very glad I’m an Englishmen.



To support (in any way) the most anti-scientific movement on the planet in the name of science represents a degree of schizophrenia that frightens me. Would you have egged on the Pope as he threatened Galileo? You have taken your reputation, lined it up against a wall and shot it in the face. I don't know who's running that circus you call the Smithsonian, but they should be replaced with someone who believes in empiricism and honesty, even then it may not be enough. You may think we are overreacting but they will take any victory and blow it up a thousand fold, we’ll be encountering this in their repertoire of fallacies and lies for decades to come, thanks a lot. It’ll add at least a minute or more of preparation to our debunking arguments, you may not have to deal with these sanctimonious morons, but we do. Their film may not mention evolution, but you cannot give these sumbags and inch, they’ll bite your arm off. The depth of deception and dishonestly displayed by the IDiots and their creationist organ grinders is a matter of public record, Darwin was a scientist, Behe is not. If you cannot tell the difference, your ignorance makes you undeserving of your soon to be embalmed reputation.


This is not about a religion vs science, nor am I just an anti-religious nut. They wish to undermine empiricism itself, and build a paradigm of lies as a new foundation of their myopic ideology. Jesus, wake up. No wonder teachers, parents, scientists and decent people are struggling to fight these bastards if the very centre of science is asleep at the wheel. You may not regard what you are doing as supporting ID, but you show a shocking indifference to your opponents. You ought to be fighting along side us, not turning a blind eye, or are you somehow above defending truth? You’ve personally made my job a lot harder.


I hope the JREF doesn't have to give any of the $20,000 it has promised you lot, because it deserves to be spent on a scientific organisation, your reputation as one is now damaged, and may never recover. If you're lucky this will simply become a rather embarrassing footnote in your history, as worst, it spells the end of it.


Yours Pissed off , AUB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The New York Times does not pull legs. This is ghastly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are obviously pulling everybody's leg  :lmao:   :lmao:


I highly doubt that James Randi would have something

like this up on his site if it were a joke. I don't even

think that he could find it within himself to joke about

something like this even if he were having a humorous

moment. :Hmm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am gonna post this at Infidel Guy. I see no thread on this yet over there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You already posted it at I.G. AUB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been asleep. I looked in politics forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anybody remember (maybe 10 years ago) the flap over the Enola Gay exhibit at The Smithsonian when certain of the military aided by certain Congresspersons were bent out of shape that the exhibit might be raising the question of the inhumanity of dropping that bomb? As I recall, the exhibit was removed.


Then, a few years ago, didn't the new leadership tout, under more benign verbiage, its new profit-making policy?


Anybody remember these things?


I don't think The Smithsonian should any longer be seen as ethically trustworthy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It get's around, I put it up on infidels as well, as encouragement. How about some here? I like to see other people’s reactions, so far only infidels has other contributions. If all freethought forums contribute it would make a nice joint project.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



I was to young 10 years ago to even have noticed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, now I'm fucking pissed!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anybody remember (maybe 10 years ago) the flap over the Enola Gay exhibit at The Smithsonian when certain of the military aided by certain Congresspersons were bent out of shape that the exhibit might be raising the question of the inhumanity of dropping that bomb?  As I recall, the exhibit was removed.


Then, a few years ago, didn't the new leadership tout, under more benign verbiage, its new profit-making policy?


Anybody remember these things?


I don't think The Smithsonian should any longer be seen as ethically trustworthy.

Yes, I remember, Pitchu. You are right on both counts. :vent:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Heavenly Deceit

What complete utter bullshit.

What kind of "scientific research" did they have in mind? Prove the sun orbits the earth??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, we kid about that a lot, but sometimes I think that if it wasn't for the existence of satellites and the space program (evidence which creationists can't deny), we might actually be battling assholes wanting to have an "alternate theory" of astronomy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was pissed enough to send a letter of my own.


Selling of Scientific Integrity for $16,000


ATTN: Mr. Randall Kremer, Public Affairs


I have read recently in the New York Times that the Smithsonian Institution will be screening a film on so-called "Intelligent Design".  The reasoning behind showing this film is rather sad to me - that your institute has sold its proverbial soul for a mere $16,000 is nothing short of appalling.


The "Intelligent Design" movement is nothing more than religious apologetics, dressed up in pseudo-scientific clothing.  That you would so blatantly give them your support, then lie directly to the people by saying that you do not support them despite giving them a soapbox from which to crow about their perceived victory, is a serious blow not only to science, but to the people.  Giving them any form of support will be, to them, a total victory over all science.  Court battles have been fought to keep their pseudo-science out of classrooms, and if it is all lost because of your kowtowing, the scientific community will no doubt stage a backlash of epic proportions.


You are probably aware by this point that the James Randi Educational Foundation has offered to give you $20,000 if you will refuse both the money and the film given you by the ID proponents.  Whether you do or not is your decision, but know this: to refuse a greater sum by not standing up for science is a grievous error, which will no doubt cast you in a shameful light in the eyes of the scientific community.


May the light of scientific logic see you through this situation.


Ever Your Otherwise Ardent Supporter,

(real name deleted)

Vulgaris Prime

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the words of Darth Vader:




Just because Behe scored a few hits with Darwins Black Box - WTF!!

This will give the ID nutbags more credibility, not less which is what they deserve.







Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ^o^CORVUS^o^

We aren't done yet folks...


Smithsonian Distances Itself From Controversial Film


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.


"They are trying to borrow from the scientific community by using words like 'quantum' and looking at the age of the Earth," writes James Randi. He's founder of the James Randi Educational Foundation, which financially supports research or efforts that dispel paranormal or supernatural claims. "They are trying to get scientific validity by doing faux scientific research."


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.


Last week, Denyse O'Leary, a Canadian author sympathetic to the intelligent design movement, posted on her blog that the Smithsonian, in a "stunning development," was going to screen the documentary. The New York Times picked up the story Saturday.


The news spread across science blogs -- especially those dedicated to the evolution debate.


When Randi heard the story, he says he called the Smithsonian offering the institution $20,000 not to show the film.


"They are renting the place for this creationist film, but apparently [the Smithsonian] didn't know it was creationist film," Randi said from his Fort Lauderdale headquarters. If it was a "matter of money, which I doubt," he said, "then I'm ready to surpass that."


In its statement yesterday, the Smithsonian said it will honor the agreement to screen the film June 23, but that it does not endorse the film and will not accept the agreed-upon fee offered for the auditorium.


"We're disappointed," Chapman said. "We met all their conditions -- screening the film for them, agreeing [to list the Smithsonian] director's name on the invitation and so forth -- and then some mention of this in the media, and now they want to backtrack to some degree, and we don't get it."


When asked if the Smithsonian had made a mistake in initially agreeing to host the event, spokesman Randall Kremer says: "We don't look at it in terms of whether we made a mistake or not. Our statement speaks for itself."




I.D Redux


If you had any doubt of the importance of the Smithsonian/creationism matter I featured last week, go to any of these: http://redstaterabble.blogspot.com/, http://pharyngula.org/, http://evolutionblog.blogspot.com/, or www.pandasthumb.org/ and be convinced. The volume of mail I've received on this situation has been staggering. Quite a few people commented — wisely — that by trying to have the Smithsonian reverse their decision to show the creationist film, we appeared to be interfering with freedom of speech. Since the S.I. is a public agency, it would appear that they cannot refuse to allow the "Intelligent Design" advocates the use of their facility — except that they are also dedicated to promoting science and to not supporting religious claims. I note that the rules of the Smithsonian state that they "co-sponsor" any event that uses their facilities. That, I believe, is a rule that needs re-writing.


Let me clear up an important point here: my offer of $20,000 to the Smithsonian if they would return the creationists' $16,000 was not intended as a "counter-bribe," as some have suggested. However, I admit that it possibly looked like an attempt to suppress free expression of an opinion, which would never be our intention. My stance was that if the Smithsonian could come up with, say, an alternative presentation that would demonstrate their dedication to the support of legitimate science and thus of evolution, and if they were prepared to make a very strong statement to their audiences that they do not endorse or support the creationist notions and do robustly endorse the evolutionary approach, I'd not have had such qualms about the showing of ""The Privileged Planet: The Search for Purpose in the Universe" at the Institution. And, the JREF stands willing to contribute to any counter-presentation that the Smithsonian may care to present.


I must tell you that the dedicated Director of the Smithsonian Institution, Dr. Christian Semper, was quick to contact me and express his sincere concern on this matter, and he immediately set about looking into all the facts that were available. In fact, he issued this official statement on Wednesday:


The Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History recently approved a request by the Discovery Institute to hold a private, invitation-only screening and reception at the Museum on June 23 for the film "The Privileged Planet." Upon further review we have determined that the content of the film is not consistent with the mission of the Smithsonian Institution's scientific research. Neither the Smithsonian Institution nor the National Museum of Natural History supports or endorses the Discovery Institute or the film "The Privileged Planet." However, since Smithsonian policy states that all events held at any museum be "co-sponsored" by the director and the outside organization, and we have signed an agreement with this organization, we will honor the commitment made to provide space for the event.


Well done, Dr. Semper. Your concern for the Smithsonian and for science is well demonstrated and put into action. Though the I.D. pushers will try to put spin on their maneuver here, it will be much more difficult for them to claim support from the S.I. as a result of your statement. In addition, we are told that the Institution is waiving the $16,000 fee, and withdrawing the customary "co-sponsorship" of the event that is implied in their involvement.


This situation reflects a very critical situation in the present status of the ongoing war between reason and superstition. It has become increasingly obvious that the creationists are flailing about trying to borrow or steal validation from science for a distinctly unscientific notion, by any means they can invent. And they have been successful in that goal when their tricks have worked. They borrow scientific terms, superficially apply legitimate scientific findings to their ideas in inappropriate ways, and try to appear to be using reason while actually abusing it. English philosopher John Locke (1632-1704) observed this fact:


Every sect as far as reason will help them, gladly use it; when it fails them, they cry out it is a matter of faith, and beyond reason.


We should be fighting back by using every means at hand short of making the I.D. people into martyrs, which suppressing this film just might have done. I bow to the more sober opinions of persons in whom I place great trust and confidence, in that I agree that showing the film — which will take place June 23rd at the Baird Auditorium, by special invitation only — is a proper and wise decision by the Smithsonian Institution and will satisfy the regulations in place while disarming the creationists of any advantage they may have sought in obtaining this venue.


Let us move ahead by enlisting agencies like the Smithsonian to join us in even more vigorously promoting scientific literacy and education — particularly re evolution — and defeating attempts by those who would have us depend only on the Bible and mythology rather than on Darwin and rationality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And there's yet more. See point #3, below. [bolding mine]


WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 3 Jun 05 Washington, DC



The museum will not sponsor the

film and will return the money -- but space for the event is

still being provided. Is this the Supernatural History Museum?

Yesterday, the WN team viewed the film. It went beyond the

"intelligent design" of humans. It seems the busy Designer-In-

The-Sky also designed a planet for us. Not just a place to live,

but a room with a view, perfectly situated to let us discover the

rest of the universe. It's the old anthropic argument that the

laws of Nature are fine tuned to make life possible, but with a

discovery requirement tossed in. So what does the Smithsonian

do? It lets them in free. That means taxpayers are subsidizing

the Discovery Institute. Which brings up the next question: this

is an expensive production where does the money come from?



"The Privileged Planet" was produced by Illustra Media. When we

asked who paid for it they said we would have to write their

lawyers. We were able to identify the Crowell Trust, established

by the founder of Quaker Oats, which promotes "the doctrines of

Evangelical Christianity." The film was based on a book by

Guillermo Gonsalez and Jay Richards. It was published by

Regnery, whose authors are at the extreme right of the spectrum.

Richards is vice president of Discovery Institute, a non-profit

educational foundation with deep-pocket contributors. Gonzalez

is an assistant research professor at Iowa State. In the book,

he acknowledges financial support from the Templeton Foundation.



Back in January, the PBS television station in Albuquerque had

scheduled a documentary on evolution, "Unlocking the Mystery of

Life." The film, which came from the Discovery Institute had

been offered as a free feed by the National Educational

Television Association. The Crowell Trust also helped on this

one. When the station realized it was funded by evangelical

Christian groups it pulled the film, saying there was a

scheduling conflict. We viewed this one too. Like "Privileged

Planet," production values were high. It's easy to see how it

could pass as serious science to non-scientists unfamiliar with

the issues. Watson and Crick might be surprised to learn that

the discovery of the structure of DNA proved there was an

intelligent designer. The important point is that we can now

expect them to attempt to get Privileged Planet on PBS stations.



Opinions are the author's and not necessarily shared by the

University of Maryland, but they should be.


Archives of What's New can be found at http://www.bobpark.org

To subscribe, send a blank e-mail to: <join-whatsnew@lists.apsmsgs.org>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Play it, get the money. Thats all its about. Once they get the money its gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Play it, get the money. Thats all its about. Once they get the money its gone.


Unfortunately, money seems to win over ethics almost always.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.