Friday, September 2, 2011

California Science Center to Not Pay $110,000 Settlement; Evolutionary Lies Continue

In the seventeenth century the Roman Catholic theologian Nicholas Malebranche proposed that nature’s evil and inefficiency were not created by god but by natural processes. Simply put, Malebranche said that god preferred to use simple though imprecise natural laws rather than a long sequence of complicated miracles that would be needed to achieve perfection. Malebranche was by no means the first thinker in history to argue for theological naturalism—the belief that god wouldn’t have intended for this world so it must have arisen naturalistically. In ancient Greece the Epicureans believed that randomly swerving atoms created the world. As Lucretius put it:

That in no wise the nature of all things
For us was fashioned by a power divine-
So great the faults it stands encumbered with.

Malebranche, however, marks the rise of theological naturalism in Christianity. Before Malebranche, Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon had both argued for naturalistic explanations, but their reasons were very different. Descartes argued that strictly naturalistic explanations were more useful, but with theological naturalism Malebranche argued they were true. That’s an important difference. Religious beliefs are the most powerful, and evolutionary thinking had its start in the modern science program.

In fact explaining evil and inefficiency was only one of the religious motivations behind evolutionary thought. After Malebranche several other theological itches were scratched. For instance, science was increasingly uncovering nature’s detailed minutia. But god would not, as botanist John Ray argued fifty years after Malebranche, “set his own hand as it were to every work, and immediately do all the meanest and trifling’st things himself drudgingly, without making use of any inferior or subordinate Minister.”

These arguments, from theodicy and infra dignitatem, are only two examples from the complex web of beliefs that underlie and mandate evolution. One way or another something other than divine miracles were needed to explain how the world arose. After Malebranche, Anglicans and Lutherans aggressively promoted evolutionary thinking in geology, cosmology and biology. This theological naturalism movement continues to this day, and helps to explain the otherwise curious actions of evolutionists.

When you believe your ideas are true, rather than merely useful, then the ends justify the means. Hence we see today’s evolutionists misrepresenting science, blackballing dissenters, destroying careers, suppressing debate, manipulating media, education and public policy, and violating laws. All of this because, after all, they’re right.

Consider the case of the California Science Center (CSC), a Smithsonian Institution affiliate. Two years ago a group booked the CSC’s IMAX theater, in downtown Los Angeles, for a screening of Darwin’s Dilemma to be followed by a panel discussing evolution and the scientific evidence.

But Darwin’s Dilemma, featuring interviews of Intelligent Design advocates and evolutionists, is a film that questions evolutionary theory. Since evolution is a religiously-motivated theory that contradicts the science, such scrutiny and uncontrolled discussion could not be allowed. Furious evolutionists quickly censored the showing and canceled the event.

After then being sued for such crude censorship the CSC next constructed a cover-up lie. The evolution lie was that there was no censorship, and that CSC merely cancelled the event because of a press release. This lie was in stark contrast to internal emails. One CSC Vice President wrote that the main problem was that the event was sponsored by “an anti-Darwin/creationist group.”

And the CSC Vice President of Communications explained the origin of the lie. The CSC Chief Executive Officer instructed his staff to find a false pretense:

Jeff just called and is wondering if they violated an agreement -- like was this supposed to be a private screening or did they say it was a public screening? If they misrepresented the event, then we can cancel them.

So first the evolutionists censored the event, and then they lied, in order to cover-up their censorship. Next the evolutionists lied about the press release, claiming it implied the CSC was a sponsor of the event. But of course the press release says no such thing. In fact it explicitly states that “The screening is sponsored and hosted by the American Freedom Alliance.”

Next the evolutionists constructed another lie to cover-up their cover-ups. This evolution lie was that the fact that the CSC originally was willing to book the event proves there was no censorship. Again, internal emails shine a light on the endless trail of lies. They reveal that in truth, the booking was accepted only because there was a lack of vigilance. As one CSC Vice President wrote:

This screening event was booked through the Events Dept., and they were unaware of the nature of the groups involved. It has come to Jeff’s attention and he is “working on it.”

Similarly, another evolutionist from the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County concluded:

Apparently the IMAX was booking events without CSC knowing about all of them, and when they found out they immediately cancelled the event.

The next evolution lie was about the court case. This was one case where the evolutionists could not fool the judge and lie their way through a trial, so they had to settle. So they lied about the settlement, saying they were right all along and that the sponsor and the Discovery Institute have not “learned their lesson.” Their claim to be right is like a chess player who resigns a game and then claims victory. When you pay the settlement costs, $110,000 in this case, it means you were wrong, not right.

Unfortunately this sort of misadventure is typical for evolutionists. Blackballing, censorship, manipulation, ruining academic and professional careers, lying to judges are all standard operating procedure. This happens all the time, only in this case they were caught. This is what your tax dollars are funding everyday.

To be fair to evolutionists, they believe that, ultimately, they are in the right. To an evolutionist, he believes he is in the right, because he knows evolution is true. If someone’s rights are occasionally trampled, or science sometimes is abused, it is a small price for safeguarding the truth.

This is what religion can do. There is no point to entering into a discussion with evolutionists—they know the truth already. I do not mean this as hyperbole. For I have tried many times to have meaningful discussions with evolutionists and, unfortunately, I have never found an exception. It would be like trying to talk sense into a religious fanatic because, in fact, evolutionists are religious fanatics.

Religion drives science, and it matters.

23 comments:

  1. What??? No Darwinian devotees have yet jumped at the chance to defend the honor (or is that dishonor) of their beloved theory from Dr. Hunter's insult of actually speaking the truth to the lies that encapsulate it???

    ReplyDelete
  2. Omfsm!! It's been more than three seconds since anyone said anything! That means you win!!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. You're on a roll, Cornelius. How many posts have you made the last few days? Is it an attempt to hide your embarrasing support for Ann Coulter?

    ReplyDelete
  4. CH: The evolution lie was that there was no censorship, and that CSC merely cancelled the event because of a press release.

    "Evolution lie"? And here I though I'd seen everything. In the very same sentence in which he claims the CSC lied, Cornelius just equivocated on the term 'evolution'.

    But wait, there's more!

    CH: Next the evolutionists constructed another lie to cover-up their cover-ups. This evolution lie was that the fact that the CSC originally was willing to book the event proves there was no censorship.

    Again, the phrase "evolution lie" is referring to alleged censorship, rather than facts about the theory of evolution itself.

    BornAgain77: No Darwinian devotees have yet jumped at the chance to defend the honor….?

    Was there a cover up? I don't know enough about it to say one way or the other.
    However, Darwin knows I certainly cannot go by Cornelius' post because he has a well documented history of blatantly misquoting, misrepresenting and generally presenting falsehoods on his blog. In fact, there were at least two in this post alone. As such I'll need to actually to some researching before posting more.

    Born, Exactly how much follow up research have you done?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hunter:

    When you pay the settlement costs, $110,000 in this case, it means you were wrong, not right.

    Not necessarily. From the Wiki article Settlement (litigation):

    "The majority of cases are decided by a settlement. Both sides (regardless of relative monetary resources) often have a strong incentive to settle to avoid the costs (such as legal fees, finding expert witnesses, etc.), the time and the stress associated with a trial, particularly where a trial by jury is available."

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'd also note that the AFA was under no obligation to accept the settlement. If they had such an open and shut case why didnt they take it to trial?

    Furthermore the settlement also ended the CSC's suit against the AFA, which was conspicuously absent from the post.

    But what I find particulary strange is that Cornelius seems to be using this case as an excuse not to answer questions posed to him in comments on this blog. Nor do I share this view. If I did, I wouldnt be here.

    ReplyDelete
  7. So to recap:

    1) Creationist organization manages to sneak a creation propaganda film into a legitimate science venue

    2) Film showing gets cancelled

    3) Creationists file what amounts to a nuisance lawsuit

    4) Science organization decides it's not worth the effort to legitimize the Creationist clowns, decides to settle out of court and let their insurance pay the relatively minor court fees.

    BIG VICTORY FOR ID!!!

    So CH, what are the IDiots going to do with their (snicker) new financial windfall? Quintuple the existing budget for ID research?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Cornelius, I'm curious as to why you don't capitalize the 'g' in God, especially when you appear to be referring not to some non-specific god but rather to the Christian "God" of the bible. What are your grammatical rules for the spelling of god?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dr Hunter said,

    "Malebranche was by no means the first thinker in history to argue for theological naturalism—the belief that god wouldn’t have intended for this world so it must have arisen naturalistically."

    Being unfamiliar with the term theological naturalism, I queried Google, and found mainly references to Dr Hunter's writings, with a few exceptions - one site said that the term "theological naturalism" is an oxymoron. A few other sites gave definitions of theological naturalism different from what Dr Hunter provided.

    Theological naturalism looks like an oxymoron to me. It's like saying "religious atheism." And I thought that Malebranche was a theist. So what is this all about?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Cornelius
    Please clarify if they DID or DID not pay the $110,000 settlement. The title says not, the text appears to say they did:
    "When you pay the settlement costs, $110,000 in this case, it means you were wrong, not right."

    ReplyDelete
  11. I think Cornelius is attempting to contrast Natural Theology and Theological Naturalism.

    Theological Naturalism starts from an expanded set of traditional, dogmatic positions and attempts to reconcile what we observe in accordance with them. Natural Theology claims that one can conclude there is truth to a minimal set of traditional religious positions by starting from neutral position, independent of any particular religious belief, along with a minimal number of philosophical arguments about God's nature, God's existence, and reason.

    A classic example is William Paley's teleological argument for God, which he presented in his book "Natural Theology". As I mentioned in an earlier comment, Paley is credited with formulating the problem (the watch was well adapted, while the rock was not), despite the fact that his proposed solution (creationism) failed to solve it.

    Apparently, Cornelius views ID (and himself as a professing Christian) as falling into the Natural Theology camp. However, to Cornelius' chagrin, it turns out that Darwin was quite impressed with Paley's adaption as found in "Natural Theology" while studying at Christ's College, having read the book despite it falling outside requirements for undergraduates. To quote Darwin…

    In order to pass the B.A. examination, it was, also, necessary to get up Paley's Evidences of Christianity, and his Moral Philosophy. . . The logic of this book and as I may add of his Natural Theology gave me as much delight as did Euclid. The careful study of these works, without attempting to learn any part by rote, was the only part of the Academical Course which, as I then felt and as I still believe, was of the least use to me in the education of my mind. I did not at that time trouble myself about Paley's premises; and taking these on trust I was charmed and convinced of the long line of argumentation.

    Again, good designs, such as watches, are hard to vary, while maintaining their their ability to accurately keep time. They are well adapted.

    This seems to contradict Cornelius' claim that evolution is founded on Theological Naturalism rather than Natural Theology.

    ReplyDelete
  12. David L.:

    Please clarify if they DID or DID not pay the $110,000 settlement. The title says not, the text appears to say they did:
    "When you pay the settlement costs, $110,000 in this case, it means you were wrong, not right."


    The settlement cost was $110k. The actual payment was mostly covered by their insurance. Here is the oblique wording they used:

    The Foundation is satisfied with the terms of the settlement, which includes a cost of defense payment from the Foundation’s insurer, to avoid the expense of further litigation.

    Of course that was yet another lie. They didn't settle to avoid further expenses. They settled because they were found out. In this case they knew they couldn't lie their way out of it.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Cornelius Hunter said...

    Of course that was yet another lie. They didn't settle to avoid further expenses. They settled because they were found out. In this case they knew they couldn't lie their way out of it.


    Do you have any corroborating evidence that is the case, or are you and the DI just lying yourselves? Seems to me a logical conclusion they settled a frivolous, without merit lawsuit because it was easier and cheaper in the long run. Plus it didn't give the lying Creationists another public forum to preach their garbage.

    Making empty blustering assertions is too easy for you CH. Backing them up is something else entirely.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Cornelius Hunter:

    "Of course that was yet another lie. They didn't settle to avoid further expenses. They settled because they were found out. In this case they knew they couldn't lie their way out of it."
    ====

    Everyone here reading this story knows how and why this game is played. Big Business Corporations do this all the time. Celebrities and Politicians do this all the time and everyone knows it's about supposedly saving face and avoiding FURTHER PUBLIC embarassment. It NEVER has anything to do with saving money on Court costsand attornies fees. That's simply another shell game. It's all about admitting to no wrong doing. Any normal person or group would stand up and defend their precious reputation. Yeah, I know I know, 'What's your definition of the term normal?'

    Wasn't this settled though about a year ago ??? I can only guess this whole event just continues to burn a hole in their gut, hence the need to put up a defensive spin on the whole mess in their favour, even if it's in the faithful's eyes only. The biggest shell game if I remember was the controversial who worked for who[Center or Foundation] and what in the way of emails & memos would or wouldn't be turned over as to personal records.

    California Science Center Plays Shell Game to Avoid Disclosing Public Records


    Then there is the actual suit and reasons for court action. The memos, notes, letters and emails are presented in the file below.

    Superior Court of California (Dec 01 2009) Lawsuit file

    There is alot of entertainment value within those emails, notes, letters and memos spinning what esentially you have said all along of the great Scientific Religious Mandate as seen from a line from a Museum Director's open letter.

    "The well organized and scientifically accurate exhibits illustrate - through real specimans and scientific methods - THE FACT OF EVOLUTION BY NATURAL SELECTION AS FIRST DESCRIBED BY CHARLES DARWIN AND CONTINUALLY SUPPORTED BY ALL BRANCHES OF SCIENCE EVER SINCE THAT TIME."

    How dare anyone question those precious mandated FACTOIDS. This is nothing more than religious heresy and blasphemy against the bearded Buddha.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Scott,

    Thanks for your comment. When you say,

    Theological Naturalism starts from an expanded set of traditional, dogmatic positions and attempts to reconcile what we observe in accordance with them.

    that looks like theodicy, an attempt to explain how a perfect god could have created an imperfect world.

    I agree that Dr Hunter's definition of the term

    theological naturalism—the belief that god wouldn’t have intended for this world so it must have arisen naturalistically

    has an element of theodicy in its historical motivation (Malebranche et al.). Where Hunter goes off the rails is equating a theological argument for naturalism with the methodological argument for naturalism. He then leverages this into the false claim that scientific naturalism is a religious position.

    ReplyDelete
  16. CH
    Of course that was yet another lie. They didn't settle to avoid further expenses. They settled because they were found out. In this case they knew they couldn't lie their way out of it.

    Of course they settled to avoid further costs, their insurance covered up to a certain amount. This is standard stuff, likewise if the plaintiff actually cared to take the matter to court they would have been free to. They took the cash. So maybe you should throttle back a bit. CSC screwed up by booking the movie,they paid the price. We are talking about a movie right?

    ReplyDelete
  17. CH: Here is the oblique wording they used:

    Yet, I'd again mention that your own post used oblique wording as it completely failed to mention the settlement also dismissed the AFA of any alleged wrong doing in the the countersuit filed against the AFA by CSC.

    Now, you might think the CSC's action was a nuisance suit against the AFA, but details of the complaint suggest otherwise. From the complaint….

    "Even Joe Peterson of AFA - who was apparently out of the loop regarding AFA's coordinating publicity with the Discovery Institute - recognized the press release were misleading, noting:

    "Whomever at [sic] wrote the copy on the Discovery Institute press releases should have his head examined….. I thought the problem was buried in the text of the documents…. NOT THE HEADLINES. Talk about waving a red flag in front of a bull. It seems like we're deliberately trying to screw this up!!!"

    None of these press releases were ever submitted to the foundation or the Foundation's Event Services Office, in direct violation of the Event Services' Polices and Procedures - which was part of the contract the AFA signed. In fact, had they been submitted their press release to the CSC, they would have caught the error identifying the CSC as the west coast affiliate of the Smithsonian, which was in fact false.

    Again from the complaint…

    In another email, West tells Bylsma that "[t]he national media might get interested because the Californian Science Center is the west coast affiliate of the Smithsonian. However, it seems like their plan to drum up controversy backfired.

    Furthermore, emails indicate the DI and AFA appeared to have knowledge that their publicity efforts may impact it's contractual relationship with the Foundation. THe details of which are outlined in the complaint.

    Conspicuously, details regarding these alleged actions by the AFA, which also were dismissed by this very same settlement, were absent from your post. So, for the sake of argument, even if they were being oblique, why the double standard?

    Do you think you're somehow entitled to be oblique if they were?

    ReplyDelete
  18. I wrote: In fact, had they been submitted their press release to the CSC, they would have caught the error identifying the CSC as the west coast affiliate of the Smithsonian, which was in fact false.

    Lest I am accused of being oblique out of famaliarity….

    The CSC is one of many affiliates of the Smithsonian. However, having directly worked with a Smithsonian affiliate before on an hybrid on-site / online multimedia project in the past, there is no west, east or any other specific affiliates designated as a representing the Smithsonian in any capacity. In fact, the specific and limited nature of the relationship between the Smithsonian and an affiliate was carefully outlined as part of the requirements of the project.

    The suggestion that the CSC was the "west coast affiliate" of the Smithsonian would have clearly been a misrepresentation of that relationship. Furthermore, it would clearly represent grounds for termination of the event, as such a misrepresentation would jeopardize the CSC's status as an affiliate.

    In other words, I know from first hand experience this is NOT an ad-hoc complaint.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Velikovshys:

    "Of course they settled to avoid further costs, their insurance covered up to a certain amount."
    ===

    WRONG, this is the same excuse given by ALL entities with plenty of reputation to loose and they simply went into saving face damage control mode. Michael Jackson did this by paying million$$$ off those angry parents. Bill Clinton did this by trying to pay off Paula Jones[of course the rest is history]. And so do most giant bohemoth Corporations who've without question secretly soiled their underwear and have chosen to not have the Public view them pulling their trousers down exposing the truth of the matter in question.

    If such people/entities were indeed innocent, then surely as any nornal person would, they'd want their day in court to wipe out the smearing accusations to their supposedly pure as the driven snow clean reputation. It would also behoove them to file a counter suit for SLANDER. Why wasn't this done ??? Because evidently the other side WAS telling the truth after all.
    ---

    Velikovshys:

    "This is standard stuff, likewise if the plaintiff actually cared to take the matter to court they would have been free to. They took the cash."
    ===

    They didn't have to go to court. The dirty little secret was exposed anyway. Yes, taking the money hit's them where it hurts. People who do something illegal or ethically perverted to other people deserve to be punished for their actions.

    ---

    Velikovskys:

    "So maybe you should throttle back a bit. CSC screwed up by booking the movie,they paid the price. We are talking about a movie right?"
    ===

    WRONG, we are not talking about the movie. We are talking about the lies and the cover up of those lies. Hence you want Cornelius to water down the message. This sounds like the parable of the "Rich Man and Lazarus". The Jewish religious leaders to whom the Parable was directed wanted Jesus to water down the Judgement messages against them and their corrupt conduct. Clearly the message was a burning torment that stabbed at their hearts and caused much public shame and embarassment. From that moment on the only alternative as they saw it was murder.

    Hmmm, Sounds familiar.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "People who do something illegal or ethically perverted to other people deserve to be punished for their actions."

    Does that apply to the catholic church, and all other religious groups or individuals who rape, rob, deceive, and kill children and adults, destroy cultures, oppose freedom, discriminate against women and others, block and ban dissenting opinions, and wage wars in the name of their god?

    Does it apply to gods who torture, kill, and destroy on a massive scale simply because they're jealous and arrogant?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Thorton's other Sock:

    "Does that apply to the catholic church, and all other religious groups or individuals who rape, rob, deceive, and kill children and adults, destroy cultures, oppose freedom, discriminate against women and others, block and ban dissenting opinions, and wage wars in the name of their god?"
    ===

    But of course! But this also includes your Church.
    ---

    Thorton's other Sock:

    "Does it apply to gods who torture, kill, and destroy on a massive scale simply because they're jealous and arrogant?"
    ===

    Let's see now, does this also including your gods and holy men like Stalin, Chairman Mao, Pol Pot and others who have murdered for personal gain ???

    Now let's stop the cowardly deflection and get back to the topic at hand, like the lying, cheating and cowardly cover up by your side's Eccesiastical Hierarchies with regards the cancellation of the Darwin's Dilemma documentary.

    Why is such lying and cheating acceptable for your side ???
    Is it because in your Amoral worldview no such morality exists in the first place and such lying is merely an evolutionary survival strategy ???
    Or is it because doing it for the Darwinian Movement is merely "Survival of the Filthiest" ???

    ReplyDelete
  22. I don't belong to or support any "church". And why did you capitalize the word church?

    I don't have, adhere to, or worship any "holy men", and the guys you mentioned were despicable.

    My amoral worldview?? That's hilarious coming from a godbot like you. You religious zombies have no morals, and you worship "holy men" who have done and still do all of the horrible things that you blame non-religious people of, like lying, murdering, cheating, and covering up, just to name a few, for personal gain.

    The so-called morals of religious people have been amply demonstrated throughout the history of man, and we are reminded of those 'morals' every day when we see yet another story in the news of rapes, cons, discriminatory acts, censorship, abuse, lies, murders, and cover ups by religious individuals or organizations (churches), and even wars waged in the name of a god.

    What do you think of the child rape and other atrocities in the catholic church? What do you think of the cover ups perpetrated by the catholic church? What do you think of ted haggard, jimmy swaggart, jim and tammy baker, jim jones, harold camping, religious terrorists, and all the rest of the religious liars and monsters throughout history? Have you spoken out publicly against what they've done, with the same fervor as you speak out against evolution, evolutionary theory, and the CSC case?

    And why do you religious zealots always ignore or try to justify all the horrible acts perpetrated by your chosen god and his agents/followers, as depicted in the bible or other 'holy book'?

    If you have 'morals', how can you worship and promote such a murderous, tortuous, jealous, petty, shallow, destructive, arrogant, selfish, despicable monster?

    Are you are a sadomasochist?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Correction: tortuous should be torturous.

    ReplyDelete