It looks like the Smithsonian will be co-hosting, together with the Discovery Institute, a reception, during which the movie The Privileged Planet will be shown.

At The Panda's Thumb, Burt Humburg assures his readers that this is merely the result of the DI having made a donation to the Smithsonian, and that the people at the Smithsonian aren't "warming to intelligent design". Apparently, the DI didn't act horrendously enough, as Humburg had to go to Post-Darwinist, a blog run by a single journalist named Denyse O'Leary, to find some errors to correct.

Humburg concludes that the event doesn't really have much significance, which I agree with him about. As we've been telling ID critics for years, whether ideas appear at the right receptions, or in the right journals, doesn't matter as much as whether the ideas themselves are correct. And the exchange of money and services between the DI and the Smithsonian isn't evidence of some sinister conspiracy between the two organizations. However, there is one thing that should worry the critics at Panda's Thumb:

"Mr. Kremer [a spokesman for the Smithsonian] said he heard about the event only on Thursday. He added that staff members viewed the film before approving the event to make sure that it complied with the museum's policy, which states that "events of a religious or partisan political nature" are not permitted, along with personal events such as weddings, or fund-raisers, raffles and cash bars."
John Schwartz, "Smithsonian to Screen a Movie That Makes a Case Against Evolution", NY Times May 28, 2005, my emphasis. The whole article is available to subscribers here.

Humburg linked to this article, so I assume he's read it. Kremer's account is corroborated by the Smithsonian's special events policy, which confirms that, indeed, events of a religious nature are not permitted. As anyone who has spent much time at The Panda's Thumb knows, their policy is that "ID = creationism" and that "creationism = religion". From the point of view of Humburg and his fellows, the Smithsonian don't just have an opportunity to deny the reception, but even an obligation to do so. So why are the thumbers not asking their readers to bombard the Smithsonian with angry letters, demanding them to stop the reception, accusing them of hypocrisy for not following their own policy? After all, had it been a school teacher trying to show this video to his class, I'm sure PT would've had plenty of good reasons why The Privileged Planet should be considered a religious film.

So why the silence? Perhaps the PT crew is just a bit lazy, with the summer vacation underway and all. Or perhaps they're thinking like politicians, worrying that attacking a scientific organization is going to result in some ill-will from scientists, the support of whom they're counting on. Better then, to save the indignation for those nasty IDers.

PS. Other posts about this episode includes those of Josh Rosenau and Paul Myers, as well as Denyse O'Leary, who's responding to the NY Times article. Also, Jonathan Witt (who co-wrote the screenplay of The Privileged Planet) explains that the title of the article, "Smithsonian to Screen a Movie That Makes a Case Against Evolution", is incorrect, as "the film doesn't even bear on the subject" of evolution.

This entry was posted on Sunday, May 29th, 2005 at 6:43 am and is filed under Intelligent Design, The Debate. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. The trackback link is: http://telicthoughts.com/103/trackback/