The Smithsonian gets tangled in an intelligent-design mess

Advocates of intelligent-design creationism are claiming a major breakthrough in their crusade against modern biology: the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History will, for the first time, show a movie that attacks evolution directly. But before the reality-based community gets too upset, keep in mind that it’s not quite as offensive as it sounds.

The Discovery Institute, a group in Seattle that supports an alternative theory, “intelligent design,” is announcing on its Web site that it and the director of the museum “are happy to announce the national premiere and private evening reception” on June 23 for the movie, “The Privileged Planet: The Search for Purpose in the Universe.”

The film is a documentary based on a 2004 book by Guillermo Gonzalez, an assistant professor of astronomy at Iowa State University, and Jay W. Richards, a vice president of the Discovery Institute, that makes the case for the hand of a creator in the design of Earth and the universe.

News of the Discovery Institute’s announcement appeared on a blog maintained by Denyse O’Leary, a proponent of the intelligent design theory, who called it “a stunning development.”

Not quite. The Baird Auditorium in the Smithsonian’s Natural History museum is open to organizations and corporations who pay for it. In this case, the anti-evolution Discovery Institute paid $16,000 for the privilege of showing its film. “It is incorrect for anyone to infer that we are somehow endorsing the video or the content of the video,” said Randall Kremer, a museum spokesman.

There is, however, a little more to this that suggests the Smithsonian should have shown better judgment and steered clear of the anti-biology propaganda.

Administrators at the National Museum of Natural History viewed the film before approving the event and no doubt saw that it was an attack on evolution. The problem is the museum has a policy that prohibits the use of its auditorium for religious and/or partisan political events. Just as importantly, the same policy states that “all events at the National Museum of Natural History are co-sponsored by the museum.”

And therein lies the problem. The Discovery Institute paid $16,000 and, in effect, bought the Smithsonian’s imprimatur for an unscientific film that uses junk science to promote a religious idea. That may not be the museum’s goal, but that is the effect.

It’s a long shot, but the Smithsonian could revisit the issue, take note of the fact that the film violates its policy on co-sponsoring religious messages, and return the $16,000 donation. After all, it is a fairly ridiculous for the National Museum of Natural History to document evolution’s fossil record on one floor and then co-sponsor a film attacking it on another.

Short of that, watch for intelligent-design creationists to reference the “support” they received from the Smithsonian as a talking point for the next several years.

James Randi has offered the Smithsonian $20,000 to simply return the Discovery Institute’s $16,000 and not show this blatant piece of anti-biology propoganda. Mr. Randi has an email address for the Smithsonian so you can send a friendly note.

  • More info on this story as it develops is available at The Panda’s Thumb.

    BTW, I think that it’s probably too late to cancel the showing without fueling the “Darwinian censorship” machine. The SI screwed up, bu they would better make amends by hosting (for real!) an anti-ID program, and by reaffirming their opposition to the DI and ID generally.

  • Seems to me a couple years ago the Smithsonian had an exhibit that some influential wingnut took offense to — it might have had to with Ronnie Raygun, but I’m not sure of the focus of the exhibit — and the Smithsonian shut it down early, and did so without telling the original sponsors of the exhibit!

    Seems like someone was asleep at switch with this film event, but I don’t expect the same knee-jerk reaction to the well-deserved criticism of this fiasco. Reasonable people ALWAYS give in to the extremists, if for no other reason that it is less hassle in the short run; such a course, as we all know, is a disaster in the long run, and these things are like the camel’s nose under the tent. Fools.

  • I think the “influential wingnut” referred to may be Ken Behring, former owner of the Seattle Seahawks. He was running around the world bribing local governments into letting him blast away at endangered species, then offering the stuffed remains (along with a hefty bribe … uh, gift) to the Smithsonian to display the unfortunate critters there. Though I do remember the Smithsonian salivating at the prospect of receiving his money, I never did hear how that was resolved. But then you seldom hear how anything gets resolved in the mainstream media.

  • Yes, by all means visit Randi’s site and use his link to send a note to the Smithsonian. And while you’re at it send this article to your email buddies. Let’s see if we can get some momentum behind this. Showing their film at the Smithsonian will give the IDers the publicity they so desperately want (since they have no foundation for their ideas besides baseless belief). On the other hand, having the Smithsonian approve, then later refuse, their showing would go a long way to demonstrating that they have no credence in reputable institutions.

  • 6/3/05
    The NY Times is reporting that the Smithsonian has returned the Discovery Institutes $16,000 and decided not to show their film. They said “the content of the film is not consistent with the mission of the Smithsonian Institution’s scientific research”

    Someone at Smithsonian was asleep at the wheel. I’m glad they woke up.

  • Comments are closed.