# Randi asks the Smithsonian: You want $16K or $20K? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 31, 2005, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-asks-the-smithsonian-you-want-16k-or-20k/306203 "2005-05-31T12:46:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2005, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-asks-the-smithsonian-you-want-16k-or-20k/306203/81 "2005-06-03T22:58:14Z")
> [@Pochacco](#): > > If the Smithsonian is approached by a group who will pay them $10,000 to run a movie claiming that the moon landing was faked, should they show it? How marginal does an idea have to be before the museum administration is justified in just rejecting it? Or should they feel compelled to show everything, no matter how crackpot? If NASA refuses to go to the trouble to create a competing movie presenting mounds of evidence that the moon landings really did happen, does that imply that they’re scared of a fair debate? Who are you (or I) to decide? Its the Smithsonian’s call IMO. Were they ‘compelled’ to show this movie? Afaik they were not…they CHOSE to show it for their own reasons. > [@Pochacco](#): > > ID isn’t science. It’s not worthy of serious consideration by public institutions of learning. The Smithsonian should have rejected the movie out of hand. I agree…it isn’t science. I disagree that an outside agency should come in after the Smithsonian has already made said decision to air the movie and attempt to bribe them not to show it. To me it smacks not only of elite-ism but of an attempt to stifle debate. Again…IMO the right course was to either do nothing or better still show a counter movie presenting evolutions side of the story and debunking the movie. Hell…thats what Randy is all about, isn’t it? Debunking junk science. Screw the Smithsonian movie…write up a one hour special and sell it to Discovery Channel or TLC. Anything else is just wrong IMO. As I said earlier…turn it around and try and see how it would look if your (our) side had something similar happen. I wouldn’t be too pleased. -XT ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2005, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-asks-the-smithsonian-you-want-16k-or-20k/306203/82 "2005-06-03T23:38:08Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Who are you (or I) to decide? Its the Smithsonian’s call IMO. Were they ‘compelled’ to show this movie? Afaik they were not…they CHOSE to show it for their own reasons. It is their choice. And they chose very badly. And as an American taxpayer, I care much more about what the Smithsonian does in my name than what some retired magician does in response. I don’t understand why you feel that its reasonable to criticize Randi for his actions, but not the Smithsonian for theirs. Surely a public agency should be held more accountable than a private citizen or foundation? The Smithsonian – America’s premier museum – should not be lending legitimacy to pseudo-scientific enterprises. > [@](#): > > As I said earlier…turn it around and try and see how it would look if your (our) side had something similar happen. I wouldn’t be too pleased. The mirror analogy doesn’t hold. The two sides are not equivalent. In fact, a LARGE PART of what the ID folks are doing here is trying to manufacture the illusion that the two sides are equivalent. Look, if we were talking about two different scientific theories duking it out head-to-head … great! Or if it was two different religions debating morals … that’s great too! But what we have here is a pseudo-scientific movement that exists for the sole purpose of providing a loophole for biblical fundamentalists to avoid confronting the implications of evolution. It’s a movement that is at its core built on a lie. Being open-minded does not mean putting the cops and the crooks on the same footing … . ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2005, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-asks-the-smithsonian-you-want-16k-or-20k/306203/83 "2005-06-04T00:37:00Z")
James Randi seems to have become aware of pretty much the same points we have been discussing in this thread. In his [latest weekly commentary,](http://randi.org/jr/060305be.html) he says: > [@](#): > > 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. Furthermore: > [@](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Dan\_Norder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4af34b/32.png) [@Dan\_Norder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dan_Norder)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2005, 10:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-asks-the-smithsonian-you-want-16k-or-20k/306203/84 "2005-06-04T10:12:15Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > If intelligent design is so self-evidently wrong, it would seem a simple matter to refute it. > > What is he scared of? It’s self-evidently wrong to anyone with a whit of common sense or logic. Unfortunately there are lots of boneheads out there. Randi is scared of idiots trying to sucker legitimate institutions into implicitly endorsing something idiotic so other idiots can point to it as rationalization that it’s not idiotic. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2005, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-asks-the-smithsonian-you-want-16k-or-20k/306203/85 "2005-06-04T11:33:55Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > 1. You are mistakenly counting some non-theistic religions as “believers in God” when you arrive at your 8%. > 2. Belief in God is not the same as a belief in ID. Of course it is, I did not count any non-theists. You would argue with a wall if you didn’t like its color. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2005, 11:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-asks-the-smithsonian-you-want-16k-or-20k/306203/86 "2005-06-04T11:40:11Z")
> [@Dan Norder](#): > > It’s self-evidently wrong to anyone with a whit of common sense or logic. Unfortunately there are lots of boneheads out there. Randi is scared of idiots trying to sucker legitimate institutions into implicitly endorsing something idiotic so other idiots can point to it as rationalization that it’s not idiotic. So, your argument is “everyone, except those like me, are too idiotic to think for themselves”. Gee, now I know where dictators come from. Sorry this is a free country. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2005, 11:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-asks-the-smithsonian-you-want-16k-or-20k/306203/87 "2005-06-04T11:45:30Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > Of course it is, I did not count any non-theists. You obviosuly seem to think any belief in higher power equates to belief in ID. That is simply not so. Observe the posts by **Liberal** who has referred to it as ‘pseudoscience’. It would seem he wants no part of it. Now, tell me Liberal is not a theist. There are many who feel that way. ---
**Author:** ![Thin\_Ice](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/aeb1de/32.png) [@Thin\_Ice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thin_Ice)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2005, 11:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-asks-the-smithsonian-you-want-16k-or-20k/306203/88 "2005-06-04T11:59:38Z")
That film should be shown in churches or other private institutions where the rest of that type of propaganda is disseminated. If they want to use a public facility, then it should be a civic center or arena. The Smithsonian should require the DI to sign a contract that forbids them from using the Smithsonian name in any way in their advertising or fundraising before letting them show the film. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2005, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-asks-the-smithsonian-you-want-16k-or-20k/306203/89 "2005-06-04T16:57:20Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Look…freedom of speech means just that (yeah, I realize it wasn’t the government shutting the movie down). The Smithsonian had agreed to air this movie, so it was on them…their decision. An outside agency clearly bribed them to NOT show the movie, thus stifling the debate. It seems as if you have overlooked my posts, and a number of other ones as well. It’s pretty obvious to me that this was initially a lower-level screw-up on the part of people in charge of determining the use of the Baird Auditorium. It was not Smithsonian _POLICY_ to allow the showing of this movie - if everyone had been on their toes it would have been rejected outright. But perhaps someone missed that fact that it would be so controversial; or perhaps because it was a private, non-public screening they felt it would be OK. But once having made an agreement with the Discovery Institute, they are probably stuck with having to go ahead with it. But the fact that they are now not accepting money from the Discovery Institute in order to avoid endorsing or co-sponsoring the movie makes it pretty obvious that they now realize the initial acceptance of the movie was a mistake. No outside agency has bribed them not to show the movie, because (1) they are going ahead with showing it; (2) they are not accepting money from either Randi or the Discovery Institute. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2005, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-asks-the-smithsonian-you-want-16k-or-20k/306203/90 "2005-06-04T23:13:56Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > Surprised you need one. Why? > [@Lekatt](#): > > [http://www.adherents.com/Religions\_By\_Adherents.html](http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html) > According to this only 8% of the people are non-believers in God. Well **Diogenes** has made my point for me but you chose not to respond politely, so I will make it again and hope for better manners from you. Please take me down the path that leads from “belief in God” “to belief in intelligent design.” ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2005, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-asks-the-smithsonian-you-want-16k-or-20k/306203/91 "2005-06-05T00:00:45Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Or dedicated to the one I love, or whatever. It’s not a religion. Ok, not _a_ religion, but rather religion. Sorry for including the article. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2005, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-asks-the-smithsonian-you-want-16k-or-20k/306203/92 "2005-06-05T00:16:13Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > It seems as if you have overlooked my posts, and a number of other ones as well. It’s pretty obvious to me that this was initially a lower-level screw-up on the part of people in charge of determining the use of the Baird Auditorium. It was not Smithsonian POLICY to allow the showing of this movie - if everyone had been on their toes it would have been rejected outright. But perhaps someone missed that fact that it would be so controversial; or perhaps because it was a private, non-public screening they felt it would be OK. But once having made an agreement with the Discovery Institute, they are probably stuck with having to go ahead with it. But the fact that they are now not accepting money from the Discovery Institute in order to avoid endorsing or co-sponsoring the movie makes it pretty obvious that they now realize the initial acceptance of the movie was a mistake. I didn’t overlook your (or the others) posts Colibri. I was making a different point. Even if I assume you are 100% correct and the Smithsonian made a mistake by agreeing to show the movie, once they had made that decision I think it was a huge mistake to attempt to bribe them NOT to show it. Smells like fear and weakness to me. Perhaps it was a mistake for them to agree at all (ok, I think it was a mistake…but then I’m not exactly unbiased on this subject and appearently neither are you). Then again, maybe the best way to shoot down ID is to allow its proponents the chance to present their side…then shoot it so full of holes that we don’t need to have this discussion again. After all…the flat earthers haven’t exactly poked their heads up much lately. > [@Colibri](#): > > No outside agency has bribed them not to show the movie, because (1) they are going ahead with showing it; (2) they are not accepting money from either Randi or the Discovery Institute. Semantics, but ok…I’m wrong here. And outside agency ATTEMPTED to bribe the Smithsonian to not show the movie. Wisely the Smithsonian is neither taking the bribe nor the initial money to show the movie. Thats good damage control IMO. It was still wrong for Randy to attempt to do what he did, and I’m astounded that folks can’t see that here. -XT ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2005, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-asks-the-smithsonian-you-want-16k-or-20k/306203/93 "2005-06-05T00:32:31Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > Why? > > Well **Diogenes** has made my point for me but you chose not to respond politely, so I will make it again and hope for better manners from you. Please take me down the path that leads from “belief in God” “to belief in intelligent design.” It is so obvious I thought you would get it. God is the giver of all things in all religions, the creator of the heavens and the earth. Why would you believe in a God that didn’t create the world. If you did you would still be left with the problem of where the earth and man came from. I know of no society, modern or ancient, that doesn’t believe in God. It is natural for man to believe, it explains their existence and world’s existence. Get it now. One must be taught atheistism, but belief in God comes naturally. Going further spiritualism is learned through experience with God. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2005, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-asks-the-smithsonian-you-want-16k-or-20k/306203/94 "2005-06-05T02:05:23Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > It is so obvious I thought you would get it. > > God is the giver of all things in all religions, the creator of the heavens and the earth. Why would you believe in a God that didn’t create the world. If you did you would still be left with the problem of where the earth and man came from. > > I know of no society, modern or ancient, that doesn’t believe in God. It is natural for man to believe, it explains their existence and world’s existence. Get it now. > > One must be taught atheistism, but belief in God comes naturally. > > Going further spiritualism is learned through experience with God. It is entirely possible to believe in God, and not believe [this claptrap.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design) All your cites about the various religious beliefs of the world are useless unless you connect belief in God with ID. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2005, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-asks-the-smithsonian-you-want-16k-or-20k/306203/95 "2005-06-05T07:45:09Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > It is entirely possible to believe in God, and not believe [this claptrap.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design) All your cites about the various religious beliefs of the world are useless unless you connect belief in God with ID. OK, I will give it one more try. God is Intelligence, God created the world and everything in it, therefore God is Intelligent Design. I can’t think of anyone who wouldn’t get that. The facts are people who believe in God believe God created the world also. God is the reason we are here and the world is here. Over 90% of the world population believe in God, therefore those that don’t believe in God are less than 10%. In America it’s the vote that counts. I think you understand it, just maybe you don’t want to believe it. Hey, God is good, He loves you and cares about you, He will never harm you, no matter what the religionists say. There is a great deal of peace and comfort in believing. No one is going to stop believing because you want them too. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2005, 8:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-asks-the-smithsonian-you-want-16k-or-20k/306203/96 "2005-06-05T08:41:09Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > OK, I will give it one more try. God is Intelligence, God created the world and everything in it, therefore God is Intelligent Design. I can’t think of anyone who wouldn’t get that. Several people in this board and elsewere, since there is a logical fallacy in what you just typed here. > [@](#): > > The facts are people who believe in God believe God created the world also. For thousands of years, people believed one god did create the world but other gods were/are more important. > [@](#): > > God is the reason we are here and the world is here. As older faiths would ask: wich god? > [@](#): > > Over 90% of the world population believe in God, therefore those that don’t believe in God are less than 10%. In America it’s the vote that counts. Appeal to Popularity (argumentum ad populum), more logical fallacies. > [@](#): > > I think you understand it, just maybe you don’t want to believe it. Oh I did and I believe, but I don’t see the classic bible god there. > [@](#): > > Hey, God is good, He loves you and cares about you, He will never harm you, no matter what the religionists say. Many unbelievers already realize that. > [@](#): > > There is a great deal of peace and comfort in believing. No one is going to stop believing because you want them too. As to keep this on topic regarding intelligent design, genetecists are finding a mess in the design regarding our dna, realizing god is not an intelligent designer should not affect faith anymore than realizing that a modern Job can virtually answer all the questions God makes to him in the book of Job. IOW, faith should not depend in making him something that is not. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2005, 12:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-asks-the-smithsonian-you-want-16k-or-20k/306203/97 "2005-06-05T12:09:07Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > OK, I will give it one more try. God is Intelligence, God created the world and everything in it, therefore God is Intelligent Design. You really should make your terms more clear from the beginning, as well as give a more careful reading to OP’s before you post. The definition of Intelligent Design in this thread is not “God”. ---
**Author:** ![Avumede](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/avumede/32/7235_2.png) [@Avumede](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avumede)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2005, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-asks-the-smithsonian-you-want-16k-or-20k/306203/98 "2005-06-05T13:38:01Z")
Shodan, you seem to be making an error when you assume that the side with the truth will win any public debate. I don’t know of any reason to believe that would be so. The side with the truth should have an advantage, but that is all. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2005, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-asks-the-smithsonian-you-want-16k-or-20k/306203/99 "2005-06-05T13:39:57Z")
While I have been a major objector of some of the methods Randi & JREF often use to confront the world, sometimes that in-your-face attitude is a good thing. Too many scientists act as if, if they ignore the nonsense, it will fade away of its own accord. In contrast, Randi challenges the stupids to put up or shut up, not only with “The Challenge” but such offers as this one. It gets attention; he puts his money where his mouth is, and that’s refreshing for a change. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2005, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-asks-the-smithsonian-you-want-16k-or-20k/306203/100 "2005-06-05T21:35:38Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > OK, I will give it one more try. God is Intelligence, God created the world and everything in it, therefore God is Intelligent Design. Do you have even the slightest idea of how ID is _actually_ defined? I’ll give you a hint, it ain’t ‘believing in God’. > [@lekatt](#): > > The facts are people who believe in God believe God created the world also. Perhaps, but that’s not what ID is. There are many, many theists on the boards (and IRL), and I seriously doubt more than a few of them believe in ID. > [@lekatt](#): > > God is the reason we are here and the world is here. If you believe, yes, but what does that have to do with anything? > [@lekatt](#): > > Over 90% of the world population believe in God, therefore those that don’t believe in God are less than 10%. In America it’s the vote that counts. America != science: truth is not defined by the majority vote. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-asks-the-smithsonian-you-want-16k-or-20k/306203.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-asks-the-smithsonian-you-want-16k-or-20k/306203.md?page=6)