Posted by
Playful Walrus on Tuesday, December 29, 2009 4:09:18 PM
The California Science Center in Los Angeles is being sued after canceling an event that included the screening of a documentary film that points out that the Cambrian fossil record could be considered problematic for certain evolutionary timeline constructs. The American Freedom Alliance had organized a series of public events, including this one, around the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth and the 150th anniversary of his On the Origin of the Species. Mike Boehm has the story in the Los Angeles Times.
A lawsuit alleges that the state-owned center improperly bowed to pressure from the Smithsonian Institution, as well as e-mailed complaints from USC professors and others. It contends that the center violated both the 1st Amendment and a contract to rent the museum's Imax Theater when it canceled the screening of "Darwin's Dilemma: The Mystery of the Cambrian Fossil Record."
Why have a state-owned center in the first place? As long as we do, and as long as it enters into contracts, this is the kind of thing that can happen.
The AFA had planned an Oct. 25 screening of two films at the Exposition Park museum -- one a short Imax movie called "We are Born of Stars," which favors Darwin's theory; the other, "Darwin's Dilemma: The Mystery of the Cambrian Fossil Record," a feature-length documentary that criticizes Darwin and promotes intelligent design.
Look at that! They were willing to prevent more than one view.
Intelligent design is the theory that an intelligent being, rather than impersonal forces such as Darwinian natural selection, is responsible for shaping life on Earth.
Notice - this definition could be compatible with the idea that the God of the Bible created the universe and everything in it about 10,000 years ago; it is also compatible with the idea that everything has evolved (humans from earlier hominid, life from non-life, the universe from nothing or a multiverse) over billions of years. It is not compatible with the idea (which is a philosophical - not a testable, observable, scientific one) that no intelligent being was involved at any time – until human beings conducted breeding and genetic engineering, of course.
An overwhelming majority of scientists and science and natural history museums consider the theory of evolution to have been proved beyond a doubt by genetic and fossil evidence.
Intelligent design, as a broad category, doesn’t necessary dispute "the theory of evolution" - it disputes absolute philosophical naturalism.
The AFA's Davis said his group has no position on Darwinism and intelligent design but is concerned that debate is being stifled by the scientific establishment.
It sure is.
Science center President Jeffrey Rudolph said in a statement entered in the case file that the news release violated a standard contractual requirement: All promotional materials for outside users' events must be submitted to the museum before they can be made public.
Really? How do you stop someone else from issuing a press release calling attention to an event? If that really works, then will events I don't like be cancelled if I issue press releases about them ahead of time?
The AFA alleges that in failing to be honest and open about its reasons for negating the contract, the science center committed a contract fraud that should now expose it to punitive damages on top of the $75,000 or more that Davis says the AFA lost by hastily having to transfer the $20 per ticket screening to a smaller space at USC's Davidson Conference Center, where the pro-Darwin Imax film could not be shown properly.
How ironic.
The first ruling in the case came Oct. 14, when Superior Court Judge James C. Chalfant denied the AFA's initial request that he order the science center to permit the Oct. 25 screening. But the suit for damages is moving forward, with a pretrial hearing scheduled Jan. 26.
In a separate suit filed Dec. 1, the Discovery Institute alleges that the California Science Center improperly has held back documents and e-mails pertaining to the film's cancellation, which it had sought under the California Public Records Act.
No no no! Public records acts aren't supposed to help out our side! They are only supposed to be used to help out the other side – skeptical and Leftist journalists! How dare we use the same laws others use?
"We want to find out what really happened," said John West, the senior fellow in charge of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Government agencies that allow the public to rent their facilities can't "pick and choose only the viewpoints they like," he added.
Like I said - private property rights should solve a lot of these issues. Instead, we have public, taxpayer-supported venues that have to deal with equal access and freedom of speech issues.
There are comments on the paper’s website.
"JohnKoehler" wrote 12/28/2009, 8:44 PM:
Well if Intelligent Design (re-heated Creationism) was actually SCIENCE this might actually be appropriate. But it's not science and it doesn't belong in a science center until there are peer-reviewed papers and falsifiability included.
Yes, well, seeing has how those journals almost always (sometimes they slip) refuse to print anything that questions absolute philosophical naturalism (APN), then intelligent design articles won't be in them to be reviewed by such peers. It's a closed, self-perpetuating cycle, like refusing to grant scientific credentials/tenure/association membership to people who know scientific facts and theories inside and out because they have questioned APN. Then, people like you can say that virtually all scientists reject ID.
"mcassey" wrote 12/29/2009, 8:19 AM:
Every scientific theory, now matter how well-proven, must be available to criticism. Otherwise science becomes a dogmatic religion. A true scientist is open to honest questions that challenge current theory, and investigates those questions dispassionately. When scientists instead become incensed that anyone would dare to doubt accepted beliefs, and seek to censor those who would express alternate ideas, they behave like extreme religious fundamentalists.
Very well said.
Classic Playful Walrus:
Isn't Genetic Engineering a Form of Intelligent Design?
A Question for Naturalistic Evolutionists
Time For Education to Evolve