Christianity Today article on Privileged Planet uproar

My Christianity Today article on the showing of Privileged Planet at the Smithsonian is now posted.

Excerpt:
"Jewish mathematician David Berlinski, a well-known critic of Darwinism, told Christianity Today, "I thought the uproar was indecent. I am in general appalled but not surprised by the willingness of academics to give up every principle of free speech and honest debate whenever they think they can do so without paying a price."

Note: Privileged Planet was favourably received by the journalists who saw it at the University of Toronto on the same night.

Blog service: If you came here to find out about ...

- the Privileged Planet film shown at the Smithsonian, go here for an extended review. Please do not raise cain about an "anti-evolution" film without seeing it. If your doctor forbids that, at least read my detailed log of the actual subjects of the film. If you were one of the people who raised cain, ask yourself why you should continue to believe the people who so misled you about the film's actual content ...

- the actual showing of Privileged Planet at the Smithsonian, go here and here to start, and then this one and this one will bring you up to date.

(The only big news is that, just before the event, the Smithsonian announced that it intended on keeping $5000 of the $16 000 that it claimed in public that it would return to Discovery Institute. So if you are a journalist like me, be among the first to get the numbers right, m'kay?)

- the California Academy of Sciences agreeing to correct potentially libellous statements about attorney Larry Caldwell, who thinks that students should know about weaknesses as well as strengths of Darwinian evolution theory, click on the posted link and check the current daily post for any updates.

- Bill Dembski threatening to sue the Thomas More Law Center in the Dover, Pennsylvania ID case, click on the posted link and check the current daily post for updates. (Note: In breaking news, this has apparently been settled. See the story for details. )

If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

For Privileged Planet, Smithsonian withholds $5000 for “expenses”

Well, I went to the Smithsonian, saw the Privileged Planet film (again), had a great time in the Hall of Gems and Minerals (which is absolutely fabulous), greeted the New York Times reporter — and learned an interesting tidbit.

According to a Discovery employee, the Smithsonian - having magisterially announced that it was returning Discovery Institute’s US$16 000 donation - has further very recently announced that it is actually keeping US$5 000 for “expenses.” That is, of course, the $5000 that DI put down as a deposit. So, by my math, the Smithsonian really only returned $11 000. I hope the future record on this money point reflects that.

Privileged Planet to be shown in Canada at the University of Toronto June 23

The controversial film, Privileged Planet, will be shown at the University of Toronto on June 23, 6:30 to 9:30 p.m.

Privileged Planet will also be shown at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington at 6:00 p.m. that same night but, due to the uproar, is no longer co-sponsored by the Institution.

News of the film first surfaced on this blog, the Post-Darwinist, and was then picked up by the New York Times and the Washington Post.

Service note: If you are looking for my extended review of Privileged Planet, go here. If you are looking for information on the showing of Privileged Planet at the Smithsonian, go here and here to start, and then this one will bring you up to date.

The film argues - using generally accepted science evidence only - that Carl Sagan was wrong.

Far from being a "pale blue dot", as Sagan believed, Earth occupies a highly favourable position in the galaxy, not only for life but for scientific discovery.

The proposed US showing attracted outrage because people who heard a rumour that the film opposes evolution (it doesn't address the topic) launched a barrage of complaints.

As a result, the Smithsonian withdrew its cosponsorship - but the showing will proceed at the Institution as planned, as will the Toronto showing.

O’Leary is the author of By Design or by Chance? (Augsburg Fortress, 2004), an overview of the growing intelligent design controversy. She will be at the Smithsonian showing in Washington.

Media may contact Dr. Michael Pare (michaelpare@rogers.com) for more information.

If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

Summary of my reaction to Privileged Planet: To the stake with them all!

It is high time someone perpetrated a heresy like this, but of course they will have to go to the stake!

1. Privileged Planet is an excellent film and should be widely shown. It is a shame that the Smithsonian was scared into withdrawing its original support by a pack of yahoos who are a disgrace to a free society. The Smithsonian public affairs department should have begun every response to a complaint with “Have you seen the film? Can you describe what you are complaining about?” That would blow the Darwinbots off promptly. If the Smithsonian is indeed planning new policies, as reported, that should definitely be one.

Service note: If you are looking for the rest of my extended review of Privileged Planet, go here. If you are looking for information on the showing of Privileged Planet at the Smithsonian, go here and here to start, and then this one will bring you up to date. My extended review aims at determining exactly why the Washington Post thinks it is a “religious” film, or anyway, more so or in some different way than Carl Sagan's Cosmos.

2. The film is religious throughout in exactly the same sense as Carl Sagan’s Cosmos is religious. It makes and defends a statement about the nature of the universe. But the Church of St. Carl, whose doctrine is metaphysical naturalism (nature is without meaning or purpose) is the established religion of the educated elite in the United States. The Washington Post so totally accepts the Church of St. Carl’s teachings as a norm that they don’t even see them as religion. Those teachings are “just the way things are.” The Posties think that Privileged Planet is religion because it addresses the actual science evidence and comes to an opposite conclusion.

3. Science evidence doesn’t matter much to the Church of St. Carl. I suspect that that is because the evidence is mostly on Richards and Gonzalez’s side. But as long as the Church of St. Carl remains the United States’s established church, evidence will not be entertained.

4. While the film does not discuss evolution, it implies that evolution may not be fully naturalistic, purposeless, and accidental. It would be hard to overestimate how emotionally attached the Church of St. Carl’s members are to fully naturalistic evolution, even though the tide of evidence is running against it — or perhaps precisely because the tide of evidence is running against it.

I’m looking forward to the East Coast premiere at the Smithsonian on June 23, whether or not the Smithsonian likes it.

I personally believe that the Church of St. Carl should be disestablished for its own good. Science institutions should not be in the business of supporting only films that deny meaning and purpose and attempting to suppress films that document it.

If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

Finally! Privileged Planet's smoking hypothesis! Or ...

Finally we get to the big hypothesis of Privileged Planet!

Following the discussion of the uniqueness of earth for science discoveries, Jay Richards says, “What if those things that make a planet habitable also make that planet the best place for making scientific discoveries? That is, what if those rare locations in the universe that are compatible with observers like ourselves are also the best places overall for making observations?”

Well, here again we have a falsifiable assertion. Does anyone know of better realistic places for making observations than Earth?

The narrator announces that after three years of research and testing, Richards and Gonzalez published their hypothesis in The Privileged Planet (2004).

(Service note:

The extended review of Privileged Planet will now be posted in a slightly different way. This post is only my account of the latest section of the film that I have re-viewed in detail. Recall that my primary purpose is to try to figure out why the Washington Post thinks Privileged Planet is a religious film.

So if you came here for the latest update, stay right here. If you are new to this extended review, go here first. I will add each day’s post to that document.

When I finish, I will post a single complete document to the archives for your convenience.

IF you are looking for a basic introduction to the uproar over the screening of The Privileged Planet at the Smithsonian, you can start anywhere in the archives from May 25, when I broke the story, on. For best convenience, I suggest you go here and here to start, and then this one will bring you up to date. Note that the blogs on the right-hand panel also update the story at various times, so try them too. - Denyse)

Then the key hypothesis — presumably the theme of Privileged Planet — appears on the screen:

The same narrow circumstances that allow us to exist also provide us with the best overall setting for making scientific discoveries.

Of course, my first reaction was to assume that these guys are on the NASA payroll. I mean who should be the happiest people on the planet, if their hypothesis is true?

Richards then explains that in the book Privileged Planet , he and Gonzalez detail more than a dozen examples of key correlations between life and discovery. (I have not read the book, but will try to post non-tendentious reviews.)

We then cut to a discussion of one of these factors, the atmosphere of the Earth. Interestingly, that thin band that keeps us all alive is currently the subject of one of the other BIG debates, global warming.

Other planets such as Mars and Uranus are shown, and the narrator points out that among the approximately 70 known planets and moons (that are not just a lop-sided rock), Earth is the only one whose atmosphere can sustain complex life and the only one whose atmosphere is transparent.

Now again, here’s a great chance to prove Richards and Gonzalez wrong. Can someone falsify this observation?

Gonzalez explains that, unlike some other planetary atmospheres, Earth’s atmosphere is clear. That is because it is made up of mostly nitrogen and oxygen but very little carbon dioxide and other carbon compounds. The transparent atmosphere is well suited to astronomy.

Of the other bodies in the solar system that have thick, hazy atmospheres, the narrator says, “None of these alien worlds view the stars, or even offers a clear view of the sun.”

I guess doing astronomy without a clear atmosphere would be like trying to figure out how much snow fell last night while staring at the basement wall ...

Jay Richards then asks why it is that the only planet that is habitable is also the best one for science?

Yeah, how is that. And don’t tell me I am an idiot for wondering.

Of course, this is all heresy in the Church of St. Carl (Sagan), because we are supposed to know somehow that it is all a big accident.

So the big hypothesis has been announced, ... and my local letter carrier has come and gone.

Where ARE those hellfire tracts I thought I was going to get, anyway? I can’t start banging on doors up and down the street, bugging my neighbours with my Big Message from God, until I hear something that isn’t just about how great astronomy is and (more subtly) why devout astronomers are not mad.

(The undevout astronomer is mad. - Edward Young)

(to be continued)

UPDATED! Smithsonian to screen ID-friendly film - for FREE! ... but doesn't like ending

The latest official news about the screening of The Privileged Planet at the Smithsonian in Washington on June 23, 2005, can be found in the Washington Post or New York Times, but if you want to know how crazy things have gotten, go to the Discovery Institute’s “Wonders of the Smithsonian”, where you can read the documents from the Smithsonian for yourself. Yes!

According to the Times story,

"The major problem with the film is the wrap-up," said Randall Kremer, a museum spokesman.

"It takes a philosophical bent rather than a clear statement of the science, and that's where we part ways with them."

What I want the Discovery Institute - which is showing the controversial Privileged Planet film at the Smithsonian - to do is screen philosophical-type excerpts from Carl Sagan's Cosmos interleaved with excerpts from Discovery's fave Privileged Planet.

Would it be okay to show Cosmos at the Smithsonian but not Privileged Planet? Now why might that be?

Here is an excerpt from a previous blog in which I make quite clear that Sagan had an agenda to promote:

So the reason that many people may assail Smithsonian publicist Randall Kremer this week about the Smithsonian co-hosting the film is simply this: Screening a film at the Smithsonian that contradicts Carl Sagan’s creed that the “The Cosmos
is all that is or ever was or ever will be.” suggests that American science is not, after all, the Church of Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins. That will be news to some people, who have always assumed that it was. Well, we will soon see whether it is or is not. Certainly, Sagan’s phrase echoes—and mocks—the traditional Gloria , for whatever that is worth. The key question is, can an American science institution tolerate a film that suggests that there is evidence for intelligent design of the universe or is evidence of intelligent design impossible in principle because American science is indeed the Church of Carl Sagan?] (blog 5 28 2005, archives below)

Why is Sagan's agenda supposed to be "science" and Privileged Planet screenwriter Witt's agenda supposed to be "a major problem"? Is science at the Smithsonian really the Church of Carl Sagan?


Huh? Has Christmas come early? This Washington Post editorial is a gift to me because it illustrates precisely what I am trying to say. The editorialist notes,

While "The Privileged Planet" is an extremely sophisticated religious film, it is a religious film nevertheless. It uses scientific information -- the apparently "perfect" position of Earth in its orbit and in its galaxy, the uniqueness of its atmosphere -- to answer, affirmatively, the philosophical question of whether life on Earth was part of a grand design, and not just the result of chance and chemistry. Neither God nor evolution is mentioned. Nevertheless, the film is consistent with the Discovery Institute's general aim, which is to drive a wedge into the scientific consensus about the origins of life and the universe and to give a patina of scientific credibility to the idea of an intelligent creator.

Okay, so let me get this straight: Even though “scientific information” suggests that “life on Earth was part of a grand design, and not just the result of chance and chemistry,” there is a “scientific consensus” otherwise? And why is that?

Because science has become the church of Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins, and evidence actually doesn't matter. The point of science, as understood by the Washington Post is to uphold a consensus for which there is less and less actual evidence. My compliments to the editorialist for making this clear. There may still be time for him to get himself a ticket for the showing of Privileged Planet, but I bet they are going fast. At least it will be a chance to see a bunch of journalists in suits and ties. Get photos.


(Note: If you don’t know what I am talking about and are looking for an introduction to the uproar over the Smithsonian screening of The Privileged Planet, go here and here to start. I will update the story as I hear new items of interest. - Denyse)

Apparently, the Smithsonian is not going to accept the US$16 000 that Discovery paid them (yo, American taxpayers) but it will still screen the film, presumably for free.

Special thanks to Tommy Nguyen of the Washington Post, above, for getting right that—while I am “sympathetic” to the ID guys, who get horsed around daily, no kidding—I am not, strictly speaking, an ID advocate.

Did anyone besides young Tommy notice that this blog is called “The Post-Darwinist,” not “The ID Advocate”? In my view, ID may or may not be right, but Darwinism is certainly wrong.

(Note to anyone who cares/wonders: I WILL BE at the screening of Privileged Planet at the Smithsonian on June 23. A slow child was wondering out loud in the comments box below whether Discovery Institute was charging people to attend. "So is the DI charging anything for its screening party?" No, sweetie-hoo, one does not charge one's guests to attend a party. And if some of the comments do not get any smarter, I will soon start borfing them the way Bill Dembski does at Uncommon Descent. - cheers, Denyse)

As far as I am concerned, American Darwinists are as dumb as a bag of hammers. Or, as we say here in Toronto, Canada, “smart like streetcars.” By assailing the Smithsonian in droves over the showing of an inspiring film, which the vast majority of them have NEVER SEEN,which suggests that there is meaning and purpose in the universe (well, hello!), they have managed to create a situation where the Smithsonian must now screen the film for free.

Keep in mind that these droves of Darwinists not only have never seen the film, but they probably make a merit out of that fact, as in “I would never lower myself to see such a film!”. So they are unlikely to receive one of the coveted 200 invitations for the official screening at the Smithsonian, of which I showed a sample in the archive for May 28, 2005.

So why are the American Darwinists doing this? I don’t know, but here’s a thought: They’re their own best argument against that important Darwinian doctrine, “survival of the fittest”, as the most scientifically correct explanation for the course of human life over the eons. They live, and I am glad for their sakes that they live because I never sought to do them any harm, but they certainly aren’t “the fittest” by any standard that I can imagine.

[Note from Denyse to posters of comments: To the person who wrote, "Denyse, thanks for showing some integrity by not deleting comments that aren't kissing your [hearse]. Your credibility is thus higher than Dembski's." Well, you are surely not surprised that I have borfed your post. Handy rule: I am a Canadian grandmother and a loyal subject of Queen Elizabeth II. Language that you would not use if you were given an opportunity to state your case at Windsor Palace is not welcome here either. Also, I do not have time to run a Hall of Justice for unfairly borfed posts. If you disagree with my judgements, get your own blog. With all its defects, the Internet is the last free country in the world. - cheers, Denyse ]

If you like this blog, buy my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?, and help keep me in business. If you don’t think you’ll have time to read it, buy it for your kid or your kid’s teacher.

Smithsonian tries to disown Privileged Planet, but will show it anyway

Predictably, the Smithsonian, assailed by Darwinbots, has decided, reversing an earlier decision that Privileged Planet “is not consistent with the mission of the Smithsonian Institution's scientific research”:

Statement by the Director, National Museum of Natural History

The Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History recently approved a request by the Discovery Institute to hold a private, invitation-only screening and reception at the Museum on June 23 for the film "The Privileged Planet." Upon further review we have determined that the content of the film is not consistent with the mission of the Smithsonian Institution's scientific research. Neither the Smithsonian Institution nor the National Museum of Natural History supports or endorses the Discovery Institute or the film "The Privileged Planet." However, since Smithsonian policy states that all events held at any museum be "co-sponsored" by the director and the outside organization, and we have signed an agreement with this organization, we will honor the commitment made to provide space for the event.

[Funny they never noticed that before they started hearing from Darwinbots. The above item was brown bagged to me, so I do not yet have a link for it. But will post one as soon as I do. - Denyse]

(Note: If you are looking for an introduction to the uproar over the Smithsonian screening The Privileged Planet, go here and here to start. I will update the story as I hear new items of interest. - Denyse)

I call the outraged Darwinists “Darwinbots” because I’ll bet that most of them have never seen The Privileged Planet or considered grappling with the questions it raises about design and purpose in the universe.Einstein and Heisenberg grappled with these questions, but the matters that torment great thinkers are beneath the notice of Darwinbots, whose program does not, so far as I can see, contain an independent thinking module.

Admittedly, The Privileged Planet does not address the origin or development of life forms, but almost everyone who writes shockmail to the Smithsonian is likely to be a Darwinist. Who else would care to try to stop the showing of a film that suggests there is meaning, purpose and design in the universe?

Here’s a sample of some of the comments:

From the: Daily Kos “Words fail me. Sold out for $16,000? Contact the Smithsonian and let them know what you think: info@si.edu”

From Denyse: “... what you think?” But why should you “think” anything if you haven’t seen the film? Oh, wait a minute ... you’re a Darwinbot, right? Well then, baby, just iterate your program, like always. It’s not like anyone’s asking YOU for an opinion. You’re just supposed to assail the Smithsonian when the programmers tell you to.

From Red State Rabble, “as the posts at Discovery Institute and Post-Darwinist already demonstrate -- this supposed ‘sponsorship’ will be used in the political battle to incorporate intelligent design into public school curriculums by falsely insisting there’s a genuine scientific controversy over evolution, it is RSR’s opinion that defenders of science education should contact museum officials to complain that the museum’s “sponsorship” is being misrepresented and constitutes a violation of museum policy.”

From Denyse: “...falsely insisting there’s a genuine scientific controversy over evolution?” There is indeed a genuine scientific controversy over evolution and, dear reader, if you are not a Darwinbot or are at least willing to consider the possibility that you may not be one, I recommend that you get and read Uncommon Dissent: Individuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing.

If you definitely know that you are a Darwinbot, you should not get or read anything at all except the newsletters and blogs of people who reassure you that a 19th century upper-class Brit proved that there is no real purpose or meaning in the universe or the design of life. That’s good enough for YOU, ‘bot!

The Day Shift asks, “Why Does the Smithsonian Hate Science?” and advises, “Kremer, you dumbass - the whole point of the donation is to undermine the validity of scientific research in the collective mind of the public.”

From Denyse: Please be assured, ‘bot, that no one is suggesting that YOU should see the film before you condemn the showing. I had to see it because I am not a ‘bot. But you probably wouldn’t understand. Don’t worry about a thing, don’t worry, don’t ....

These are just a few of the first of such comments. It goes on for pages and pages, and who has the time?

Keep watching this space. This controversy is only beginning.

If you like this blog, "buy my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?, and help keep me in business. If you don’t think you’ll read it, buy it for your kid or your kid’s teacher.

This is the invitation I received on May 25, 2005. I hope you don't find it too hard to read.