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.
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.
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.
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 … .
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, he says:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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. 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.
Several people in this board and elsewere, since there is a logical fallacy in what you just typed here.
For thousands of years, people believed one god did create the world but other gods were/are more important.
As older faiths would ask: wich god?
Appeal to Popularity (argumentum ad populum), more logical fallacies.
Oh I did and I believe, but I don’t see the classic bible god there.
Many unbelievers already realize that.
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.
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”.
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.
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.