Access Research Network's top ten media-related intelligent design stories for 2009 #6

6. California Science Center Sued over Cancellation of Darwin’s Dilemma Film Showing.

Amid allegations that they were pressured by colleagues at the Smithsonian Institution, the University of Southern California, the Huntington Library and elsewhere, California Science Center cancelled the October 25th IMAX showing of Darwin’s Dilemma, then refused to disclose public documents in the matter. In November 2009 the American Freedom Alliance, a non-profit group, filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles against a state science museum for cancelling the event exploring topics of evolution and intelligent design. The group says its free speech rights were violated when the CSC abruptly reversed its decision to allow the showing of the pro-intelligent design documentary, Darwin’s Dilemma: The Mystery of the Cambrian Fossil Record. The program was also scheduled to screen a pro-evolution film but, the lawsuit alleges, museum officials feared discussion of intelligent design in any context. A second lawsuit filed in December by the Discovery Institute claims the California Science Center unlawfully refused to disclose public documents regarding the decision that were sought under the California Public Records Act.

At issue is the fact that the California Science Center is a government agency, not a private organization. As a part of California state government, the Science Center is required to abide by the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech. “Unlike private groups or individuals, a government agency is obliged to treat all citizens equally regardless of their viewpoint,” says Casey Luskin, an attorney at Discovery Institute. “In this case, once the California Science Center decided to rent its auditorium to the public, it couldn’t discriminate against groups whose viewpoints it might not favor. The Science Center’s refusal to grant pro-ID groups equal access to its facilities is viewpoint discrimination, and a clear violation of the right to free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment” concluded Luskin.

For links, you must go here.

[Good luck getting that across at Arrogance Central, Luskin. You might as well try asking Marie Antoinette to serve cake to her "let them eat cake" public. That wasn't supposed to be the point of her wisecrack, right? I keep saying this - and will keep saying it until people get it - Darwinism is now a publicly funded cult, so the Darwinist flips the bird at you or me or anyone else forced to fund him. He has the support of legacy media, including legacy science media, science museum curators, curriculum writers, and all sorts of people best described as all huff and no curiosity, in my experience.]

Here's story #7.

Here are the previous three years' top ten stories:

2008 Darwin and design

2007 Darwin and design

2006 Darwin and design

ARN also offers "top ten" resources that are worth checking out if you follow the controversy.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy: