WingNutDaily: Intelligent Design film shut down by museum
Jason Spaceman
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A decision at a popular museum in Los Angeles to shut down debate over
Darwin's theory of evolution has prompted a lawsuit alleging officials
violated the First Amendment rights of supporters of a documentary
exploring Intelligent Design.
The lawsuit was filed by the American Freedom Alliance, which said the
California Science Center inappropriately canceled an event that was
to feature films exploring both evolutionary theory and Intelligent
Design.
Intelligent Design challenges the fundamental foundation of evolution,
arguing the incredible complexities of life bear evidence of a
designer.
The complaint alleges free speech rights violations occurred when the
science facility abruptly reversed a decision to allow the showing of
the films at the museum's IMAX Theater.
CSC officials did not respond to a WND e-mail request for comment.
Alliance officials said the program was balanced, since it included a
pro-evolution film, but museum officials were fearful of having
Intelligent Design discussed in any context.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=117203
J. Spaceman
All-seeing-I
wrote:
>
> J. Spaceman
Fear.
any questions?
Mark Evans
More likely embarassment. Ever looked at the ID movies out there?
Museums like to be class acts and the quality of the ID films are not
up to minimal standards, content aside.
Mark Evans
Mike Dworetsky
Since ID is legally* equivalent to creationism, showing the film would have
got the publicly owned museum into the preaching business, promoting one
specific religious viewpoint. Discussing ID and evolution isn't a
scientific debate, it's a religious "debate", about "science vs religion",
since there is *no* science in ID. If churches want to show these films,
let them go out and open their own IMAX theaters.
So maybe fear of a lawsuit from citizens rightly protecting their
constitutional rights, but not fear of ID content per se.
*see Kitzmiller vs Dover ASB decision.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
heekster
Wrong answer.
Intolerance of abject imbecility.
Any questions?
T Pagano
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
Exactly right-----FEAR.
Eugene Scott knew well that truth of Darwinism's failures, shortfalls
and contradictions would make little children skeptics. She argued
against teaching the truth.
The same is true here. The zealous atheists don't want the masses to
be told the truth. They are terrified what will happen the masses
will do it they discover they have been lied to.
Regards,
T Pagano
Ron O
It isn't fear to decide not to support a dishonest scam. Pags had the
bait and switch run on him and he just can't get why the guys that ran
the ID scam have a new scam that doesn't even mention that ID ever
existed. He won't even listen to the ringleaders when they admit that
they never had the science that they claimed to have. He is just an
incompetent IDiot. The only guys that still support the ID scam are
the ignorant, the incompetent and or the dishonest. Pags is an
example of all three. The poster child of the kind of people that
still support the intelligent design scam.
QUOTE:
I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design
at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the
Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully
worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s
comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific
people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are
quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No
product is ready for competition in the educational world.
END QUOTE:
http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles.php?issue=10&article=evolution
This is a quote from the guy (Philip Johnson) who the other ID perps
called the godfather of the ID scam for his efforts in getting the
scam rolling in the early 1990's. Johnson came clean, but only after
the ID defeat in Dover. Years of running the scam and no appology,
just pointing the finger at the ID "science" experts that never came
up with any ID science worth teaching. That is the kind of people
that were involved in the scam.
Pags still can't present any of the ID science that he claimed to have
to teach to school kids because it never existed. Years after the ID
perps began running the bait and switch scam on the rubes, Pags still
claimed to have the ID science, but he never was able to find any.
Prove me wrong, Pags. Put up the wonderful ID science that you would
have taught to school kids. Kind of sad that it never existed, and
that you were only a rube. Why support the guys that lied to you
about the ID scam? Why bend over and take the switch scam from the
same guys that lied to you about ID? What kind of pathetic person
would do that?
Ron Okimoto
Ye Old One
Yes. Provide evidence for any of the following:-
Science causes disease.
That 3.5% actually means 25%...
That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
some facet of some religion...
To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
rock...
That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
laugh]
And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
and his sons rebuilt mankind.
Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.
Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
Ok, please correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like the California
Science Center is a public funded "museum". As such it is forbidden to
promote any particular religion and, since courts have shown that ID
is religion in drag...
A film about evolution is of course perfectly acceptable because it is
non religious.
--
Bob.
If someone annoys you, remember that it takes 42 muscles to frown -
but it only takes 4 muscles to extend your arm and whack them in the
head.
John Harshman
When did this happen? Can you provide details?
> The same is true here. The zealous atheists don't want the masses to
> be told the truth. They are terrified what will happen the masses
> will do it they discover they have been lied to.
Who is doing the lying? (Pro forma: evolution != atheism.)
By the way, would you advocate presentation of pro-astrology films in
planetaria?
heekster
wrote:
Wrong answer.
See Kitzmiller vs Dover.
>Eugene Scott knew well that truth of Darwinism's failures, shortfalls
>and contradictions would make little children skeptics.
You're lying , Tony.
> She argued
>against teaching the truth.
>
You're lying again, Tony.
>The same is true here.
You're lying again, Tony.
> The zealous atheists don't want the masses to
>be told the truth.
You are incapable of recognizing the truth, Tony.
Your intellectually dishonest lies prove that.
>They are terrified what will happen the masses
>will do it they discover they have been lied to.
>
Functionally illiterate drivel notwithstanding, only cretinists
subscribe to fear and being terrified.
>Regards,
>T Pagano
I ask you again; who gave you dispensation from the prohibition
against bearing false witness?
VoiceOfReason
wrote:
Why in the world would a science center have considered showing
religion-based pseudoscience in the first place?
Dave Oldridge
news:05835152-d59c-448f...@1g2000vbm.googlegroups.com:
>From the article:
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>A decision at a popular museum in Los Angeles to shut down debate over
>Darwin's theory of evolution has prompted a lawsuit alleging officials
>violated the First Amendment rights of supporters of a documentary
>exploring Intelligent Design.
>
>The lawsuit was filed by the American Freedom Alliance, which said the
>California Science Center inappropriately canceled an event that was
>to feature films exploring both evolutionary theory and Intelligent
>Design.
>
>Intelligent Design challenges the fundamental foundation of evolution,
>arguing the incredible complexities of life bear evidence of a
>designer.
>
>The complaint alleges free speech rights violations occurred when the
>science facility abruptly reversed a decision to allow the showing of
>the films at the museum's IMAX Theater.
>
>CSC officials did not respond to a WND e-mail request for comment.
>
>Alliance officials said the program was balanced, since it included a
>pro-evolution film, but museum officials were fearful of having
>Intelligent Design discussed in any context.
Since ID is a fraud, there isn't much to discuss except the fraudulence.
The IDnuts are perfectly welcome to show their film of lies in any hall
they want to rent. No actual freedom of speech issue is involved unless
they are forcibly prevented from doing so.
--
Dave Oldridge+
Eric Root
You can not cite any instance of her advocating against teaching the
truth.
> The same is true here. The zealous atheists don't want the masses to
> be told the truth.
Maybe we, but we normal people think they should be told the truth:
that there is no evidence or science behind creationism, creationist
complaints against evolution have already been answered to the
satisfaction of mentally healthy people, and to pretend otherwise is a
lie.
> They are terrified what will happen the masses
> will do it they discover they have been lied to.
>
it doesn't have anything to do with zealous atheists, and you are a
crank for thinking so.
> Regards,
> T Pagano
Eric Root
Desertphile
> Alliance officials said the program was balanced, since it included a
> pro-evolution film, but museum officials were fearful of having
> Intelligent Design discussed in any context.
Ah, so the cult somehow "knows" what the museum staff felt and
thought, no doubt via some magic mind-reading mechanism that mere
non-occult-befuddled-retards are unaware of.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
wrote:
> On Nov 26, 11:41 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> > Exactly right-----FEAR.
> >
> > Eugene Scott knew well that truth of Darwinism's failures, shortfalls
> > and contradictions would make little children skeptics. She argued
> > against teaching the truth.
> >
> > The same is true here. The zealous atheists don't want the masses to
> > be told the truth. They are terrified what will happen the masses
> > will do it they discover they have been lied to.
Yes, and I hear the same bullshit from "free energy" retards that
Pagano here just spewed: Scientists FEAR free energy; the oil
companies fear free energy; it's a huge global conspiracy based on
greed, fear, and domination. Pagano is exactly like the flying
sauer nuts who claim the same thing--- the governments of the
world are hiding the fact of space alien visitation out of fear
and the fear of fear.
> Ron Okimoto
Desertphile
<not....@address.net> wrote:
> Exactly right-----FEAR.
>
> Eugene Scott knew well that truth of Darwinism's failures, shortfalls
> and contradictions would make little children skeptics.
Ms. Scott has nothing at all to do with Darwinism: she rejects
Darwinism completely. It's you cult retards who believe in and
dewfend Darwinism.
Desertphile
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> T Pagano wrote:
> > Eugene Scott knew well that truth of Darwinism's failures, shortfalls
> > and contradictions would make little children skeptics. She argued
> > against teaching the truth.
> When did this happen? Can you provide details?
It hasn't happened yet, but Pagano is hoping some day it will.
Desertphile
<papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 10:59 am, Jason Spaceman <jspace...@linuxquestions.net>
> wrote:
> > Read it at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=117203
> Why in the world would a science center have considered showing
> religion-based pseudoscience in the first place?
More to the point, doing so in that venue was and is against the
law.
Boikat
What "failures"?
> shortfalls
What "shortfalls"?
> and contradictions
What "contradictions"?
> would make little children skeptics. She argued
> against teaching the truth.
What "truth". Would it be the same "Truth" that you would advocate if
you had been born in India?
>
> The same is true here. The zealous atheists don't want the masses to
> be told the truth.
That also depends on what "truth" you presume to tell. And is your
"truth" really the "truth", or bogus idiocy called "truth"?
> They are terrified what will happen the masses
> will do it they discover they have been lied to.
Again, what "lies" would those be?
I see a lot of accusations, but nothing of substance.
Boikat
Burkhard
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 13:40:05 -0800 (PST), VoiceOfReason
> <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>
>> On Nov 26, 10:59 am, Jason Spaceman <jspace...@linuxquestions.net>
>> wrote:
>
>>> Read it at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=117203
>
>> Why in the world would a science center have considered showing
>> religion-based pseudoscience in the first place?
>
> More to the point, doing so in that venue was and is against the
> law.
>
>
Science Center Foundation a private body, showing a film merely to
illustrate an ongoing social 9though not scientific) dispute is not an
endorsement of the content of the film, thus passing the endorsement
test of Lynch v. Donnelly, it also has a secular purpose and does not
amount to excessive entanglement and the Lemon test. By the same token
cancelling the film is not a violation of first amendment rights, that
woudl assuem a right to get my films shown wherever I want.
bpuharic
wrote:
>
>Eugene Scott knew well that truth of Darwinism's failures, shortfalls
>and contradictions would make little children skeptics. She argued
>against teaching the truth.
your 'truth'. religoius fanatics have all kinds of 'truth'. the men
who flew planes into buildings had 'truth'.
>
>The same is true here. The zealous atheists don't want the masses to
>be told the truth. They are terrified what will happen the masses
>will do it they discover they have been lied to.
>
i like tony's attitude. he's such a genius he's going to lead the
great unwashed masses into truth
with such arrogance, how can creationism fail?
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> J. Spaceman
>
>
>Fear.
>
>any questions?
so if they teach voodoo in medical school, that's fear, too?
VoiceOfReason
wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 13:40:05 -0800 (PST), VoiceOfReason
>
> > On Nov 26, 10:59 am, Jason Spaceman <jspace...@linuxquestions.net>
> > wrote:
> > Why in the world would a science center have considered showing
> > religion-based pseudoscience in the first place?
>
> More to the point, doing so in that venue was and is against the
> law.
Hmmm, I don't know about that. Is the California Science Center a
government-run entity? If not, then that wouldn't apply. Of course,
that still doesn't excuse a science center from showing religion-based
pseudoscience anyway.
richardal...@googlemail.com
But Tony! You think that the head of your own church is a liar -
presumably that's why you have no compunction about lying on this
forum. As a matter of idle curiosity, do you go to confession
regularly, confess your lies, get absolution, and then go out and lie
again?
>
> The same is true here. The zealous atheists don't want the masses to
> be told the truth.
Tony, you wouldn't know the truth if it poked you in the eye with a
sharp stick.
> They are terrified what will happen the masses
> will do it they discover they have been lied to.
Actually, the people who are terrified of being exposed as liars are
creationists.
Your example on this forum is good evidence for the fundamental
dishonesty of creationism.
RF
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yeah. Content issues aside, some of them leave much to be desired.
Mike Dworetsky
> Desertphile wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 13:40:05 -0800 (PST), VoiceOfReason
>> <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 26, 10:59 am, Jason Spaceman <jspace...@linuxquestions.net>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Read it at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=117203
>>
>>> Why in the world would a science center have considered showing
>>> religion-based pseudoscience in the first place?
>>
>> More to the point, doing so in that venue was and is against the
>> law.
>>
>>
> I rather doubt that. Not only is as far as I know the California
> Science Center Foundation a private body, showing a film merely to
The Science Center is supported and operated by the State of California,
with support from a private foundation that assists it in its activities and
exhibitions. So technically it is a public body. The Foundation is private
but is not the owner of CSC.
"The California Science Center is a public-private partnership. As a
department of the State of California, the California Science Center is
administered by a nine-member board of directors appointed by the Governor.
The not-for-profit California Science Center Foundation provides support for
Science Center exhibits and programs."
Whether or not this would affect a court decision about religion/state
entanglement, the film being shown was poor science, and that may be the
main reason it was pulled.
> illustrate an ongoing social 9though not scientific) dispute is not an
> endorsement of the content of the film, thus passing the endorsement
> test of Lynch v. Donnelly, it also has a secular purpose and does
> not amount to excessive entanglement and the Lemon test. By the same
> token cancelling the film is not a violation of first amendment
> rights, that woudl assuem a right to get my films shown wherever I
> want.
--
Sapient Fridge
Pagano <not....@address.net> writes
>>>
>>> Read it athttp://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=117203
>>>
>>> J. Spaceman
>>
>>
>>Fear.
>>
>>any questions?
>
>Exactly right-----FEAR.
>
>Eugene Scott knew well that truth of Darwinism's failures, shortfalls
>and contradictions would make little children skeptics. She argued
>against teaching the truth.
>
>The same is true here. The zealous atheists don't want the masses to
>be told the truth. They are terrified what will happen the masses
>will do it they discover they have been lied to.
It's odd that you keep on declaring that there is evidence against
evolution but whenever you are asked to produce it then you (and your
colleagues) vanish from the thread.
It's almost as if you were bluffing and don't actually have *any*
evidence against evolution. Surely not?
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://mail-abuse.com http://au.sorbs.net http://spamhaus.org