When Darwin’s Dilemma, a film that examines evolution in light of the scientific evidence, was booked at the California Science Center’s IMAX theater two years ago, evolutionists from around the country were furious. They made sure the booking was cancelled. So while the CSC censored the film, their censorship was by no means an independent action. The CSC was at the tip of the spear, but evolutionists near and far drove that spear home. And those evolutionists were by no means limited to life scientists. For evolutionary thought is about much more than merely the origin of species. Consider, for example, Hilary Schor, Professor of English, Comparative Literature, Gender Studies and Law at the University of Southern California.
Schor is co-director of the Center for Law, History, and Culture at USC, sponsored in part by the Gould School of Law. When not studying feminist theory and gender studies, Schor’s research interests include “law and literature.”
Schor’s view of the law, however, seems to be rather selective. Regarding the CSC case, as she explained, she was “less troubled by the freedom of speech issues than why my tax dollars which support the California ‘Science’ Center are being spent on hosting religious propaganda.”
Schor characterizes Darwin’s Dilemma as “religious propaganda.” And why would that be? The film, which is shot on location in southern China, the Canadian Rockies, and Great Britain, explores the Cambrian Explosion and how the rapid appearance of so many species compares with the theory of evolution. The film includes interviews of both evolutionists (Simon Conway Morris of Cambridge University and James Valentine of the University of California at Berkeley) and skeptics.
So where exactly is the “religious propaganda”? Of course there is none. There are no religious claims in the movie, those are in evolutionary thought. There are no metaphysical mandates or theological dictates. Again, those are in evolutionary thought. It is curious how evolutionists openly and consistently make religious claims and then blame it on the skeptics who are looking at the evidence. It is the height of hypocrisy.
The result is Schor is not too concerned about trampling on freedom of speech rights. As always, the law is only as good as the people behind it. When the elite single out particular groups as not deserving of protection under the law, then the law is not universal. It protects only the preferred groups.
So evolution misrepresents science, biases education, manipulates justice and tramples on constitutional rights. What’s next?
Religion drives science, and it matters.
I watched the documentary online and found it very scholarly and well presented. The narrator was very professional and I actually found the lack of creationism refreshing, because if in fact it was there, it would have been tough to mask. Most creationism films spend more time attacking Evolutionists than dealing with the science and of course most Evolutionist propaganda films do likewise.
ReplyDeleteI think the fact that it WAS well written and presented from the standpoint of asking logical skeptical scientific methodical questions instead of religiously accepting religious story telling is what actually infuriates the Darwin crowd. It's not a matter of allowing intelligent people to honestly ask for real world factual proofs[minus the massive amounts of story invention] as it is a matter of being skeptical and actually asking questions in the first place and not accepting through blind faith that the self-promoting geniuses have it right. As history has shown through the ages around the Earth, religious Eccesiastical Hierarchies hate being questioned. Darwinism is considered an infallible belief[as evidenced from the historical comments here] that simply evolves as it goes along. Any change to the storyline should be accepted by the faithful as the ever evolving materialistic gospel.
Darwin's Dilemma
Cornelius,
ReplyDeleteYou said: "So where exactly is the “religious propaganda”? Of course there is none. There are no religious claims in the movie, those are in evolutionary thought. There are no metaphysical mandates or theological dictates. Again, those are in evolutionary thought. It is curious how evolutionists openly and consistently make religious claims and then blame it on the skeptics who are looking at the evidence. It is the height of hypocrisy."
Not quite. Secularists understand implicitly the implications of evolution vs. Christian worldviews. If not evolution then God created. If God created then people will follow the teachings of the Church which originates in the Bible. The Bible teaches that women are subordinate to men as men are subordinate to Jesus. So it is quite understandable that Schor promotes evolution. The truth of evolution is secondary. What is more important is that women can have sex with, and marry other women. It is ironic that the Bible does not forbid lesbianism. However, no teaching of any Christian church is consistent with the Bible on this issue. Nevertheless, while the film may not make an explicit religious claim it has obvious religious implications with secularists easily grasp.
.
Cornelius, are you going overboard or what? Your fear and hatred of Darwin, evolution, and evolutionary theory are totally out of control.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand why you are so freaked out about whether a movie was shown at a particular place or not.
Answer me this: If I wanted to show a XXX porn movie at a church that rents out a room for showing movies, should the church allow it? If they don't allow it, should I sue?
IF you ID pushers are so concerned about alleged censorship, why aren't you concerned about it within your own ranks? I've never seen any of you bitching about censorship in churches or websites that support religion and ID. Why is that? Is it only 'censorship' if or when your opponents do it?
Ya know, if you have any actual evidence of your ID claims to show the world you can easily do it right here on the web, or in books, etc. Nobody is stopping you but you. You godbots constantly whine about being "expelled" but you do more 'expelling' by far, and the real problem is that you're trying to INVADE and DISTORT science to fit your insane religious beliefs. You have plenty of options to get your ridiculous message out there without messing with science.
How would you like it if someone tried to INVADE and DISTORT your churches to fit what you think is an incompatible, insane agenda? And how would you like to be sued every time you don't allow something that you disagree with?
If a church knowingly agreed to show a XXX film, then backed out, then it would become an issue of breach of contract.
ReplyDeleteCH:
ReplyDeleteDo you know what a "dog whistle" is ?
natschuster said...
ReplyDeleteIf a church knowingly agreed to show a XXX film, then backed out, then it would become an issue of breach of contract.
So you agree with the scientific community this was not a case about violating freedom of speech rights, it was a simple case of did the lessee violate the terms of the contract.
If someone at your church mistakenly scheduled a local pornographer showing Debbie Does Dallas thinking it was a travel documentary, then realized the mistake, would cancelling be a violation of the pornographer's First Amendment rights to free speech?
Nat,
ReplyDeleteYou are correct. But contracts have obligations for both parties. When both parties are accused of breech usually a settlement occurs. This allows both sides to save face and more importantly money. No legal finding of fault is rendered.
Apparently overlooked by Dr Hunter the NCSE advised against the cancellation, it looks all the feminist theory, gender studies evolutionists can't get on the same page.
velikovskys said...
ReplyDeleteApparently overlooked by Dr Hunter the NCSE advised against the cancellation, it looks all the feminist theory, gender studies evolutionists can't get on the same page.
We really can't blame Cornelius for that. The Discovery Institute is paying him good money to bleat their propaganda on his blog, so his four straight posts with the same dishonest misrepresentation and unsupported allegations is perfectly understandable. A failed wanna-be scientist has to put food on the table too.
On the bright side, this mindless droning of the DI's talking points has pushed CH's gag-inducing fawning over Ann the Man Coulter to the bottom of the page.
CH: So where exactly is the “religious propaganda”? Of course there is none. There are no religious claims in the movie, those are in evolutionary thought.
ReplyDeleteThe establishment cause was specifically worded to include that which is the equivalent of promoting religion, not just explicit religious claims. This is what was upheld in the 2005 Dover case.
Thorton:
ReplyDeleteThis is the way I undertand things.
If the CSC is a government institution, then not showing the film does become a constitutional freedom of speech issue.
If the CSC is a private enterpise, then they have a right to censor, but that is still censorship.
RE:
ReplyDeleteA church showing a pornogaphic movie: If the was any sort of deception on the part of the pornographers, then that would render the contract void. If the church knowingly entered the contract, or made a mistake because they didn't excercise due diligence, then it would create a problem of breech of contract for the church.
natschuster said...
ReplyDeleteThorton:
This is the way I undertand things.
If the CSC is a government institution, then not showing the film does become a constitutional freedom of speech issue.
It depends of why the film wasn't shown. The AFA claims first amendment discrimination, the CSC claims AFA violated the terms of the leasing contract.
The CSC agreed to settle to avoid the expenses of a frivolous lawsuit. The AFA obviously knew they didn't have a case, or else they would have pursued the lawsuit and demanded big money.
Bottom line - CSC screwed up by unknowingly leasing a science building for unscientific propaganda. AFA screwed up by dishonestly promoting the film and violating the contract. Both sides settled because it was a lose-lose proposition to continue.
Why the IDiots think this a huge victory for ID, or how it somehow casts doubt on the actual theory of evolution is beyond me.
Natchuster:
ReplyDelete"A church showing a pornogaphic movie: If the was any sort of deception on the part of the pornographers, then that would render the contract void. If the church knowingly entered the contract, or made a mistake because they didn't excercise due diligence, then it would create a problem of breech of contract for the church."
====
Well the subject has effectively been derailed on this comments section and the damning information has never been addressed or answered. From the perverted deflection your addressing which was razed by one of the local degenerates, all observers apparently should walk away with the understanding that the California Science Center's IMAX Theater would have no problem allowing the public viewing of pornography.
But again, this subject is NOT about any Church showing anything. It's about a very well thought out and presented documentary which actually has nothing to do with Creationism or any religious of it's adherents. It simply provides skepticism by those not so religiously inclined to believe in the Evolutionism propaganda and constant faith statements published as facts without proofs and made under the disguise and cloak of so-called real science. I believe that the very FACT that such LACK of conventional creationst material presented in the film documentary is what infuriates the these faithful the most.
The suit was about the actual fraudulant lying and conspiring on the part of the Museum's directors who were influenced by the behind the scenes prominent Evolutionists outraged by the CSC's descision to allow the showing in the first place without consulting the more well known Eccesiastical Hierarchies who pimp this dogma from their blogs and other infamous religious websites. The action taken by the CSC was considered heresy and blasphemy. In order to save face and continue to receive funding, the leadership at CSC had to weasel out of the deal by lying then covering it up with more fraud and lies and that is what this lawsuit was about.
---
The Whole Truth:
"Why the IDiots think this a huge victory for ID, or how it somehow casts doubt on the actual theory of evolution is beyond me."
===
Correct, it's actually a tremendous blow to Darwinian dogma indoctrination and the dishonest religious cleric cheats behind the lying jihadist movement.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThank you Eocene
ReplyDelete>>>>
But again, this subject is NOT about any Church showing anything. It's about a very well thought out and presented documentary which actually has nothing to do with Creationism or any religious of it's adherents.
<<<<
One of Dr. Hunter's points over time has been the Darwinists' confusion of fact and imagination. They IMAGINE themselves objective when in fact they are religious. Then they IMAGINE a religious message where in fact there is none.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"From the perverted deflection your addressing which was razed by one of the local degenerates, all observers apparently should walk away with the understanding that the California Science Center's IMAX Theater would have no problem allowing the public viewing of pornography.
ReplyDeleteNo, that's not the correct "understanding".
So, you think that what I brought up as an example is "perverted". And, you think that I'm a "degenerate". Well then, you apparently think that XXX porn wouldn't be appropriate for showing in a rented room at a church.
And what if I added to the problem by renting the church room under false pretenses? That would make it even more egregious, wouldn't it?
If all that were to happen, should the church be blamed? Should the church be sued if they don't accept the false pretenses and the showing of something that to them is a violation of their purpose/mission?
"But again, this subject is NOT about any Church showing anything. It's about a very well thought out and presented documentary which actually has nothing to do with Creationism or any religious of it's adherents."
The porn movie in a church is a relevant example and you know it, or should know it. What if the porn movie was a "well thought out and presented documentary" about porn? Would that make any difference to you? Should it make any difference to the church?
Since you don't like the porn example, how about a showing of a well thought out and presented documentary about the 14 billion year evolution of the universe, the 4 and a 1/2 billion year evolution of the Earth, and the several million year evolution of humans from our ape ancestors in a YEC church?
By the way, do you know what "razed" actually means?
4
ReplyDeleteRalphDavidWestfall
September 6, 2011 at 1:48 am
The Discovery Institute press release said (a web search on the following quoted sentence finds multiple pages with it): “The debate over Darwin will come to California on October 25th, when the Smithsonian Institution’s west coast affiliate premieres Darwin’s Dilemma.” It appears that whoever wrote that statement was deliberately trying to give the very misleading impression that the Smithsonian was endorsing the event. I can see why they were upset. I’m an ID supporter, but I am very opposed to this kind of tactics.
From here:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-csc-case-and-evolution-more-than-just-bad-science/comment-page-1/#comment-398524