Smithsonian Reversal Over ID Noticed by Big Science

Quotes and comments;

1. 'Both 'Nature' and 'Science' (06/09/2005) noticed the Smithsonian’s flip-flop over co-sponsoring The Privileged Planet at their Natural History Museum this month (see 06/01/2005 entry). Both noted the quandary that the Smithsonian found itself in. They could not back out because of a contract, but under pressure from evolutionists, did not want to appear to endorse intelligent design. This led them to return the $16,000 fee so that they would not appear to be cooperating with the Discovery Institute, and to remove their co-sponsorship while allowing the event to go forward.'
- In honor of Superbowl Sunday let's all sing; ''The laaand of the freeee... and the hooome of the braaave."

2. 'Their basis for claiming the film violated their scientific research policy was explained by anthropologist Richard Potts, chair of the museum’s human origins program:
"But it was very clear that the film was trying to situate science within the wider realm of belief. The idea that human beings have been placed on Earth to discover the principles of the universe is not a position that stems from science; it is a metaphysical and religiously based conclusion.''
- Does Potts imagine he doesn't have any beliefs? Could he really be that naive? Does he really imagine that materialism and evolutionism aren't beliefs? Does he imagine he holds absolute truth? (If he does that itself is a religious belief.)
- once again we are presented with some clown who's going to tell us what science is. (As if it were some physical object we could measure, and not an ever changing process governed by societal beliefs.) The idea an anthropologist (of all people) telling us what science is and isn't is more than a little comical.
- I've got news for Potts; all ideas are metaphysically based. This man needs to take a course in philosophy. (And the news is even worse Richard; materialist evolution is also a religion.)
-The word religion is obsolete, and needs to be replaced with a substitute; either belief system or worldview.
- 'in philosophy it's considered a fallacy to impugn someone's motives for saying things...' i.e. you deal with What they said, not Why they said it.
- one way philosophers determine whether a statement is 'religious' is to ask 'is it falsifiable?' So we can ask; 'is Potts' belief in materialism and evolution falsifiable?' It doesn't sound like it is, does it? (At the heart of every wview is a web of presuppositions, which are accepted without being proven, without being provable. Potts has his; William Dembski has his, and I have mine. The idea evolutionary materialism is rooted in provable scientific fact is simply fallacious.)

Notes;
1. I came across this 'article' at Creation/Evolution headlines.
2. Listening to a CD of pop music oldies I came across the song, 'Land of the Brave' by a Jody Miller. (1965) I doubt if such a song would be popular in our day.