I try to avoid blogging about political issues, but this one has my blood boiling for a couple of reasons. The New York Times reports that the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History is screening a film by the Discovery Institute that tries to make a case against evolution. First of all, the Discovery Institute is one of those slimy "think tanks" whose mission is to promote right wing conservative ideology. They employ a hardball rhetorical approach that is, in my eyes, a worse offense than outright lies. The announcement of the screening of the movie at the Smithsonian is a typical example of this method:
The president of the Discovery Institute, Bruce Chapman, said his organization approached the museum through its public relations company and the museum staff asked to see the film. "They said that they liked it very much - and not only would they have the event at the museum, but they said they would co-sponsor it," he recalled. "That was their suggestion. Of course we're delighted."The truth is that the Smithsonian officially "co-sponsors" any film that is screened at the museum. The rhetoric implies that their film received special treatment because it was so intriguing. And I thought honesty & integrity were "conservative" values. How naive of me.
Now, the obvious point that should have everyone concerned is that the National Museum of Natural History is screening a film at all that tries to discredit evolution. The anti-evolution camp has done a great PR job in convincing a lot of people that having their voices heard is all about fairness and balance. This of course appeals to everyone's democratic sensibilities. The New York Times article even falls prey to this fallacy, reporting blandly:
Although Charles Darwin's theory is widely viewed as having been proved by fossil records and modern biological phenomena, it is challenged by those who say that it is flawed and that alternatives need to be taught.
To show how silly this statement is, substitute the idea of a heliocentric model of the solar system for "Charles Darwin's Theory:"
Although the heliocentric model of the solar system is widely viewed as having been proved by astronomical observations, it is challenged by those who say that it is flawed and that alternatives need to be taught.
See how stupid that sounds? Would you want your tax dollars supporting the screening of a film that supported the discredited notion that the earth is the center of the universe? The Times refuses to state the fact that "those who say that it is flawed" are almost universally political and religious hacks and NOT biologists. That seems to put the showing of the film squarely at odds with the museum's policy not to sponsor "events of a religious or partisan political nature."
The fact is that there is no scientific debate about the validity of evolution. It is purely political and the Smithsonian should be ashamed.
UPDATE
For more commentary, see the following blogs, which place a lot of emphasis on a point I left out, which is that the deal is essentially payola - the Discovery institute is paying the Smithsonian $16,000 to show the film to a private (and trust me, sympathetic) audience. I also implied above that tax dollars are being spent showing the film, when in fact the museum seeks to make money from the deal:
Panda's Thumb: Smithsonian Warming to ID?
Pharyngula: The Discovery Institute at the Smithsonian?
UPDATE(6/3/05)
Washington Post: Smithsonian Distances Itself from Controversial Film
Panda's Thumb: Fumble in the Endzone
The Smithsonian has withdrawn their status as "co-sponsor" of the Discovery Institute film, "Privileged Planet." Apparently outraged at the way the Discovery Institute was implying that the Smithsonian endorsed the film, they also are returning the $16,000 initially paid by DI to show the film. They will still show the film as per the original contract.
No comments:
Post a Comment