Lol, loco!!!
Thank you King of the Pretzel Logic people, for referring to Columbusdude and myself as “pieces” of propaganda. What would you like me to do with that?
I DON’T expect you to believe anything I say, which is why I wouldn’t waste my time trying to influence you in any way. You never really respond to anything Columbusdude presents to you in any meaningful way, so why would you do so with me. If you remember my first post, I said that I wouldn’t lend support to an organization that is extremist or believes the end justifies crappy means. Apparently you do. So, go with God. I said that too. We all have to answer to our own conscience. That was my point.
That 2005 NYT article pretty much reiterates what I’ve posted for you in terms of what the DI’s real intentions and underlying agenda are, and who they are comprised of. Right down to the theocrat. So what are you on about there loco? Religious people make up the board of directors and their real focus is on getting creationism... um, scuze me... intelligent design, taught in schools. Science is a beard. In my opinion that’s disingenuous. (Please see DI’s original mission statement, or the article I linked for you, for further details, if you feel like it.)
There is the Henry P. and Susan C. Crowell Trust of Colorado Springs, whose Web site describes iits mission as "the teaching and active extension of the doctrines of evangelical Christianity." There is also the AMDG Foundation in Virginia, run by Mark Ryland, a Microsoft executive turned Discovery vice president: the initials stand for Ad Majorem Dei Glorium, Latin for "To the greater glory of God," which Pope John Paul II etched in the corner of all his papers.
And the Stewardship Foundation, based in Tacoma, Wash., whose Web site says it was created "to contribute to the propagation of the Christian Gospel by evangelical and missionary work," gave the group more than $1 million between 1999 and 2003.
By far the biggest backers of the intelligent design efforts are the Ahmansons, who have provided 35 percent of the science center's $9.3 million since its inception and now underwrite a quarter of its $1.3 million annual operations. Mr. Ahmanson also sits on Discovery's board.
The Ahmansons' founding gift was joined by $450,000 from the MacLellan Foundation, based in Chattanooga, Tenn.
"We give for religious purposes," said Thomas H. McCallie III, its executive director. "This is not about science, and Darwin wasn't about science. Darwin was about a metaphysical view of the world."
The institute also has support from secular groups like the Verizon Foundation and the Gates Foundation, which gave $1 million in 2000 and pledged $9.35 million over 10 years in 2003. Greg Shaw, a grant maker at the Gates Foundation, said the money was "exclusive to the Cascadia project" on regional transportation. <--- Gates is tied to the institute through a former employee, but made it clear their contribution goes for non-creationism activities.
But the evolution controversy has cost it the support of the Bullitt Foundation, based here, which gave $10,000 in 2001 for transportation, as well as the John Templeton Foundation in Pennsylvania, whose Web site defines it as devoted to pursuing "new insights between theology and science."
Denis Hayes, director of the Bullitt Foundation, described Discovery in an e-mail message as "the institutional love child of Ayn Rand and Jerry Falwell," saying, "I can think of no circumstances in which the Bullitt Foundation would fund anything at Discovery today."
Charles L. Harper Jr., the senior vice president of the Templeton Foundation, said he had rejected the institute's entreaties since providing $75,000 in 1999 for a conference in which intelligent design proponents confronted critics. "They're political - that for us is problematic," Mr. Harper said. While Discovery has "always claimed to be focused on the science," he added, "what I see is much more focused on public policy, on public persuasion, on educational advocacy and so forth." <---
.
There’s more in that article to support my so-called “claims.” I don’t find what I posted to be bogus at all, and Columbusdude has already posted much the same, which you summarily discount. If these “bogus” articles are in fact fraudulent, why don’t you edify my dumb self and refute it all. Should take about 3 minutes if it’s all untrue.
I was wrong about the DI funding the movie, possibly. It was a wealthy Canadian Christian evengelical who provided the cheques. He and the other producers worked with DI for two years, using their fellows as subjects for their propaganda flick. So you’re right... DI didn’t provide cash, just a whole lot of support. I hope this is a good enough link to back that up.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/08/hollywood_gets_the_message_abo.htmlAnd here is the unbiased review of that flick by the NYT, which has already been posted for you and ignored.
Resentment Over Darwin Evolves Into a Documentary
By JEANNETTE CATSOULIS
One of the sleaziest documentaries to arrive in a very long time, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" is a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry.
Positing the theory of intelligent design as a valid scientific hypothesis, the film frames the refusal of "big science" to agree as nothing less than an assault on free speech. Interviewees, including the scientist Richard Sternberg, claim that questioning Darwinism led to their expulsion from the scientific fold (the film relies extensively on the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy — after this, therefore because of this), while our genial audience surrogate, the actor and multihyphenate Ben Stein, nods sympathetically. (Mr. Stein is also a freelance columnist who writes Everybody's Business for The New York Times.)
Prominent evolutionary biologists, like the author and Oxford professor Richard Dawkins — accurately identified on screen as an "atheist" — are provided solely to construct, in cleverly edited slices, an inevitable connection between Darwinism and godlessness. Blithely ignoring the vital distinction between social and scientific Darwinism, the film links evolution theory to fascism (as well as abortion, euthanasia and eugenics), shamelessly invoking the Holocaust with black-and-white film of Nazi gas chambers and mass graves.
Every few minutes familiar — and ideologically unrelated — images interrupt the talking heads: a fist-shaking Nikita S. Khrushchev; Charlton Heston being subdued by a water hose in "Planet of the Apes." This is not argument, it's circus, a distraction from the film's contempt for precision and intellectual rigor. This goes further than a willful misunderstanding of the scientific method. The film suggests, for example, that Dr. Sternberg lost his job at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History because of intellectual discrimination but neglects to inform us that he was actually not an employee but rather an unpaid research associate who had completed his three-year term.
Mixing physical apples and metaphysical oranges at every turn "Expelled" is an unprincipled propaganda piece that insults believers and nonbelievers alike. In its fudging, eliding and refusal to define terms, the movie proves that the only expulsion here is of reason itself.And that’s just one review, similar to those of many other unbiased reviewers. Many of them are appalled at the association of Hitler to the theory of evolution. As well they should be. It’s disgusting. But that’s DI for you! So my original post stands. I would feel embarrassed to support an institution like that, but you’re okay with it.
Since you continue to support this flick and its contents wholeheartedly, perhaps the NYT is only unbiased when you believe what they write is to your benefit but not when you don’t approve. It would seem to be so. So how can anyone give anything you post any credibility?
