Re: Smithsonian backs away from "Privileged Planet" but will show it anyway

From: Pim van Meurs <>
Date: Wed Jun 01 2005 - 12:13:45 EDT

This may seem somewhat ironic as it was Denyse's blog
which suggested that the SI was 'warming up' to ID
based upon incomplete research as to the nature of the
showing of Privileged Planet.

Her posting raised the stakes, so to speak and the DI
had to distantiate itself from suggesting that the
SI's sponsorship of the showing implied support for
Predictably, Denyse considers DarwinBots to be
responsible for SI's 'change of heart'.

In her blog Denyse still suggests that there is a
genuine scientific controversy over evolution

"falsely insisting there’s a genuine scientific
controversy over evolution?” There is indeed a genuine
scientific controversy over evolution and,

Denyse may be unfamiliar with Richard Colling


    Prof. Richard Colling wrote:

    In his new book, “Random Designer,” he writes: “It
pains me to suggest that my religious brothers are
telling falsehoods” when they say evolutionary theory
is “in crisis” and claim that there is widespread
skepticism about it among scientists. “Such statements
are blatantly untrue,” he argues; “evolution has stood
the test of time and considerable scrutiny. [1]”

    (Sharon Begley in Tough Assignment: Teaching
Evolution To Fundamentalists, Wall Street Journal,
December 3, 2004; Page A15 )

One may wonder who is the real 'bot' I wonder? There
are some controversies within evolutionary theory as
to the details, as with any good science. That the ID
movement is abusing these controversies to create gaps
for their God to hide in, is further evidence that it
is not only scientifically vacuous but theologically
risky. ID's mantra has become "teach the controversy".
But it seems the controversy in evolution, like the
controversy with the Smithsonian, might be one of
their own creation.

My thanks to Denyse for creating this controversy and
giving the Smithsonian Institute to adequately respond
before the showing.

Denyse may hold 'darwinbots' responsible but
ironically it may have been her own blog postings
which triggered this 'controversy'. Denyse's own
comments suggested that the SI was 'warming up to ID'.
When concerned scientists and reporters contacted the
Smithsonian for clarifications, the rest of the story
was quickly revealed. Now somehow, Darwinbots are
responsible for creating a controversy and 'assailing'
the Smithsonian?...

Really Denyse...

--- Denyse O'Leary <> wrote:

> O'Leary assails Darwinbots.
> Read more at O'Leary's Web log.
Received on Wed Jun 1 12:15:19 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jun 01 2005 - 12:15:19 EDT