Tag: California Science Center
Darwingate: What You Get When the Los Angeles Times “Covers” a Cover-Up
This isn’t the first time that a bunch of government actors have colluded to cover their own wrongdoing.
Evidence Revealed in California Science Center Lawsuit Shows Intolerance and Efforts to Suppress Intelligent Design
Readers who could use a bit of background to the unfolding media war about evidence of censorship by the CSC may find the following to be helpful.
Not Really about Censorship of Intelligent Design? E-Mails Expose California Science Center’s Sham Pretext
When members of the Darwin lobby get caught in the act of discriminating against intelligent design (ID), their usual reflexive response is simply to deny the evidence of their intolerance.
Actions Speak Louder: Exposing Kirk Fitzhugh’s Denial of Suppressing Freedom of Thought on Intelligent Design
In the previous post in this series, we saw that Natural History Museum of LA County (NHMLAC) scientist Kirk Fitzhugh denied that academic freedom for intelligent design (ID) is “being suppressed.” After reviewing the severe misconceptions that Dr. Fitzhugh has about ID, we come to the California Science Center and its decision to cancel the screening of Darwin’s Dilemma last year. In that decision, Kirk Fitzhugh played no direct role but he did participate in the correspondence surrounding it. On October 15, under the subject heading “DI spin,” NHMLAC scientist John Long e-mailed Fitzhugh about attending the rescheduled American Freedom Alliance (AFA) event on October 25. He wrote: “I enjoy reading your commentary on the ID issues. Will catch you Read More ›
Does LA County Natural History Museum Scientist Kirk Fitzhugh Oppose “Freedom of Thought” for Intelligent Design?
In my prior post, I explained that Kirk Fitzhugh, a scientist at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (NHMLAC), wrongly claims that intelligent design (ID) is not testable. Fitzhugh’s error that ID is “immune to testing” is important. While he should have the academic freedom to believe and contend that ID is “immune to testing” and not scientific, he uses his claim that ID is not testable to justify suppressing ID. He anticipates this deficiency in his position, and thus writes: First, there’s the claim that science precludes expression of thought. In the context of ID, such a claim of overt suppression is inaccurate. Science is a process of acquiring ever-increasing causal understanding, and such a process has Read More ›