#26606: — 05/30  at  11:25 AM
First, I'd have to know the Smithsonian policy about renting that hall.

If it's only used for legitimate scientific meetings (however that could be defined), that's one thing.

But if it's rented to anybody with $16K, that's another.

That DI will use this as part of their campaign to claim parity seems likely, but in a pluralist society you cannot pick and choose among which public groups get access to public buildings.

#26607: — 05/30  at  11:30 AM
I was so afraid that this would happen. I disagree with you that this is a good thing.

What sort of message will it send if the pro-science folks "buy out" the anti-science nuts? They will never let us hear the last of it: we are so afraid of the "truth" that we stooped to shelling out money to stop them from engaging in their freedom of speech to spread the real truth yada yada yada...

The bottom line from my perspective is that the Smithsonian should never have allowed this nonsense in the first place. They are an institution with a particular reputation and stature that they must protect. They must adhere to certain principles, no matter how much money is dangled in front of their noses. You simply do not dignify elements like anti-science nuts, holocaust deniers, neonazi idiots, terrorist sympathisers etc etc with any kind of platform - no matter how much money they offer.

Engaging in counter offers is almost as distasteful, and essentially places us on the same level as these clowns. I do not think this is the way to respond.

The Smithsonian needs to tighten up their by laws that cover the use of its premises and its sponsorship of events.

#26608: — 05/30  at  11:49 AM
I think this is a really bad idea. If you want the provide the ID guys with evidence that biologists are "dogmatic darwinists" then this is the way to go.

#26609: PZ Myers — 05/30  at  11:59 AM
I think it sends the message that the Baird Auditorium is for rent to the highest bidder, nothing more, and that undercuts the DI's claim that the Smithsonian has granted them some measure of legitimacy.

#26610: — 05/30  at  12:26 PM
PZ, I have to disagree too. While it sounds like a fun way to deal ID a blow, it would look very bad, and the ID PR-spinners would milk it for all it's worth (it's the one thing ID is good at, after all).

The highest bidder at a public auction is one thing. This proposal is different- it's actually bribery, and the message it would get across is that whoever has more money gets to squelch other points of view.

Better to a) encourage the Smithsonian to tighten up their standards, as doc suggests, and b) if ID tries to get legitimacy mileage out of being "sponsored" by the Smithsonian, make sure the Smithsonian responds appropriately.

#26611: — 05/30  at  12:43 PM
Much as I admire Randi, I have to agree with the naysayers. The truth is, IDers will find some way to attack anything we in the reality based community do. I'd suggest JR save himself $4,000 and rent the Smithsonian hall for an all-star pro-evolution rally.

#26614: — 05/30  at  12:49 PM
Hold a teach-in on the Mall during the DI circus, perhaps?

#26615: — 05/30  at  12:55 PM
I'm sure it's just a coincidence, but this is amusing:

www.discovery.org is the Discovery Institute.

www.discoveryinstitute.org seems to be a cult of some sort.

We certainly shouldn't read anything into a coincidence like this. Definitely not.

#26617: — 05/30  at  12:57 PM
Add me to the list of people who think this is a bad idea that will just be spun as Darwinists bribing the Smithsonian into censorship.

If you want to send the message that the Baird Auditorium is for rent to the highest bidder, a better way would be to pool $16,000 and rent the auditorium for a showing of some film about Raelians, bigfoot, or something similarly screwball. Then every time the DI boasts about having been at the Smithsonian, simply point out that that other wackiness was there under the same conditions. They will have a harder time spinning that (although they will of course still try very hard.)

#26618: Ken Cope — 05/30  at  01:02 PM
Disco Sucks Night at the Smithsonian! appearing in the SI events calendar on the same page as the ad from the ID goons.

While I like Randi's idea of four-walling emotionally, I do think the answer to bad speech is better speech. Suppose Randi appears and screens the creationist episode of Penn and Teller's Bull$hit at the Smithsonian, for an appetizer. We need our own preemptive road show.

So, teach the controversy! It would be more than appropriate for a review of the film to be published in Smithsonian Magazine, quite a good publication. It would be an opportunity for the institution to clear the air.

#26619: — 05/30  at  01:22 PM

Suppose Randi appears and screens the creationist episode of Penn and Teller's Bull$hit at the Smithsonian, for an appetizer. We need our own preemptive road show.

Which the DI will spin as Intelligent Design and Darwinism being on an equal academic footing (plus those Darwinists are always swearing and their chief proponents are magicians, unlike us professional Design theoreticians).

Remember, the real intended audience for the DI's film isn't the small number of people in the auditorium (who might later hear the arguments in the Penn and Teller episode if it were shown,) but the people who read about their film being shown there in creationist literature. It's easier to sway those people away from the DI spin if the very next film shown was Rael: The Racecar Driver Who Talks to Aliens.

#26620: — 05/30  at  01:26 PM
Two points that some posters do not seem to know already:

1) Smithsonian Special Events Policy:
http://www.nmnh.si.edu/specialevents/policy.html

Corporations and organizations making an unrestricted contribution to the National Museum of Natural History may co-sponsor an event in celebration of their gift. Your gift helps to support the scientific and educational work of the Museum. Personal events (i.e. weddings, etc.), fund raising events, and <stron>events of a religious or partisan political nature</strong> are not permitted. Cash bars, raffles and the display or promotion of commercial products are also prohibited.

I think a clear case could be made that the DI film is of a religious nature.

B) The Discovery Institute announcement of the event is already milking the Smithsonian approval angle.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=133&program=CSC&isEvent=true

The Director of the National Museum of Natural History and Discovery Institute are happy to announce the national premiere and private evening reception for The Privileged Planet: The Search for Purpose in the Universe, 6pm Thursday June 23, 2005.

The documentary showing will be in the Baird Auditorium of the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Insitution(sic), Washington D.C.

The reception following will be in the Smithsonian Institution's Hall of Geology, Gems and Minerals.

Emphasis added.

#26622: ajmilne — 05/30  at  01:43 PM
Well, I'm all for putting it on SI's blotter that folk aren't happy 'bout this. Wrote my letter. (it's here, for the record).

Seems to me the DI folk can spin that 'suppression' card all they like. They've been doing that for years. Don't think it's worth as much to them as having that film shown in the Baird. Randi knows what he's doing.

#26624: Ken Cope — 05/30  at  02:32 PM
Disco bought the Smithsonian seal of approval with cash. SI got played by Disco, and they've got some 'splainin' to do. That's a big embarrassment for the Smithsonian. While it looks to us like a clear violation of their policies, the Smithsonian is going to need some high-profile help. We need to make it clear to all and sundry where the serial numbers were filed off Disco's religious claims, and we need to learn why SI was either so ill-informed, or sufficiently cash-strapped, to either not see it, or look the other way.

Randi's offer might be the kindest way out of this mess for the Smithsonian, since science friendly lawsuits may be in order. SI having taken this step was a huge blunder on their part, while Disco is poised to spin everything in their favor no matter what SI does (but then they always do).

You've got to hand it to Disco. They're a white Persian cat and shark tank away from super villain status, and they got their gloating nefarious plans filed years back on the web in the Wedge Document so they don't have to waste time on reciting it to their victims. They just methodically implement their plan, doing exactly what we've been warned they'd do.

#26627: — 05/30  at  02:57 PM
Is there any possibility of there being a creationist mole inside the Smithsonian with the ability/authority to sign off on things like this, eg an appointments secretary and not necessarily a director?

#26630: — 05/30  at  04:00 PM
The NYT article that PZ linked yesterday explains the situation very well. In it, the SI's policy that "events of a religious or partisan political nature" are not permitted is mentioned. I suspect that the SI authorities who approved this know full well what the DI is, but their hands were tied because the film itself may not be of an overtly religious nature. It's supposed to be a "documentary" based on a book by an alleged astronomer from Iowa State. We know how crafty these clowns are: it is possible the film does not contain a single reference to a god or creator or anything divine.

The way this has turned out, I think the best thing to do might be to

1. Focus on making it very clear that the SI does not in any way shape or form endorse anything the DI has to say. The SI director has himself already said so in the Times.

2. Focus on making it clear that the DI bought its way into this venue; their case is so poor, so enormously removed from every kind of scientific avenue, whether it be on the pages of real journals or as a field of serious study in our universities etc etc, that they had to resort to using filthy lucre to book a hall and use the automatic "co-sponsorship" in hopes of some of that scientific prestige rubbing off.

Right now we have the moral high ground. As it stands, the moment any nut tries to say this is in any way an endorsement from a scientific establishment, they can be thrashed by the science side because any such claim is an outright lie. But if our side engaged in some sort of freakish bid war to prevent them from speaking, there's immediately the "stain" that we have to counter - that we tried to suppress their freedom of speech etc - that will detract from the real point, which is that these guys are a very disingenuous bunch of fanatics trying to mislead the public.

The only other way out of this is if the SI comes out and says the permit is revoked, because they have noted that the DI is abusing the "co-sponsorship" title to mislead the public on the real stance of the SI.

#26633: Buridan — 05/30  at  04:25 PM
The best response from a PR standpoint is to IGNORE IT. Drawing further attention to this farce can only benefit the Discovery Institute. Having the Smithsonian deny them access is exactly what they're looking for. They gain much more mileage from creating controversy as they always have. If there’s one thing we’ve learned from these folks is their duplicity, so let's not fall into another one of their traps. The best we can hope for is that the Smithsonian put out a press release stating that it's policies could not prevent them from renting the auditorium.

#26639: Orac — 05/30  at  05:18 PM
As much as I like Randi, I have to agree that this is a bad idea. It plays right into the ID crowd's hands.

#26642: No More Mr. Nice Guy! — 05/30  at  06:23 PM
We're damned if we do and damned if we don't. Disco gets to trumpet itself either as having received the seal of approval from the Smithsonian, or as being a persecuted victim of censorship. Although the censorship claim is pretty laughable to any thinking person, given that the forces of ignorance can spew their crap from any pulpit in the land, and science educators have so woefully few outlets in comparison. I have to side with Randi - letting this circus go ahead will make a mockery of the Smithsonian and do incalculable damage to the state of science education in this country, damage which a measly 16 grand won't even begin to cover.

#26645: — 05/30  at  06:55 PM
How about this for a publicity idea-
Someone could make up a poster, screensaver, billboard or
outdoor mural with classic artwork (Michaelangelo, etc) depicting the serpent
tempting Eve. This would be accompanied with a catchy, memorable
caption like-

"Teach the controversy? Some teachers are more honest than others."
or " Teach the controversy? Some people never learn, do they?"
or " You need to let me teach you about the controversssssssssyyy,
Eve..."

or a scene from the Salem witch trials or other witchburning
scene, with a caption "Evidence? WHO NEEDS EVIDENCE?"

Maybe a shot of the last scene from "The Wicker Man" could
be worked in there( you know the one I'm talking about......)

and then follow it up with "Find out why an objective scientific education is so
important..."

Maybe this could even be turned into a TV or cable commericial.

You could then point them to talk.origins archive online website,
The National Center for Science Education
or some other well-regarded pro-evolution website.

I'm not very good with artwork, so if anybody thinks this
is a good idea spread it to someone who can get it moving.
Thanks!

#26650: Virge — 05/30  at  07:59 PM
It would help if the SI would post a statement (perhaps in their human origins FAQ) to explain why Intelligent Design doesn't represent a credible hypothesis. It's one thing to deny that their co-sponsorship doesn't support ID; it's another to make their scientific position on ID unambiguous and accessible to all.

#26655: Ron Zeno — 05/30  at  08:28 PM
Glad I'm not the only one that thinks Randi's idea is a bad one. It plays too well into the intelligent design creationists' paranoia and propaganda. Better to have the SI to make a position statement on intelligent design creationism AND take the DIs money AND let them hold a party in accordance with the SI's rules.

If Randi and others want to donate money as well, have a similar party and get the SI's backing to use it to promote the SI's viewpoint.

#26667: — 05/30  at  11:50 PM
No, it cant be done. Should the Smithsonian back off from the Discovery deal for a mere 4,000 dollar margin, it would appear as more of a bordello than it appears now. No, the Smithsonian has a very professional PR team and will never do it. And for the same reason - their professionalism - I suspect they did not do it for the peanuts. Maybe it was subtle political pressure, maybe it was the gut feeling that it was what the public wants. Anyway, amigos, we are not winning.

#26673: — 05/31  at  01:58 AM

Maybe a shot of the last scene from "The Wicker Man" could be worked in there( you know the one I'm talking about......)

No, I haven't got a clue. Please enlighten me.

#26674: outeast — 05/31  at  02:03 AM
I've written my letter.

While I see the objections to the Randi money, I would point out the SI is unlikely to accept it. However, it does mean that the SI can't hide behind the excuse of 'the money will further scientific research'; this is important at there is no question but that this looks like an endorsement of ID as a valid scientific position, even if not as 'truth'.

OK, the SI has guidelines for what may be shown, and maybe this film does not explicitly breach those guidelines. However, the guidelines are there to protect the Smithsonian from disrepute; I see no reason why the possibility that material does not explicitly contravene a guideline implies an obligation to accept it.

The SI should take responsibility for what it shows - if the DI wants their SF movie shown they should take it to the Odeon; it would sit quite happily alongside Chronicles of Riddick.