New York Times on the Smithsonian Affair
After the news of the showing caused controversy, however, officials of the museum screened “Privileged Planet” for themselves.
“The major problem with the film is the wrap-up,” said Randall Kremer, a museum spokesman.
“It takes a philosophical bent rather than a clear statement of the science, and that’s where we part ways with them.”
The DI seems to be hurting by the loss of co-sponsorship,
The editorial also knowingly hides the fact that the Smithsonian did “co-sponsor” the Discovery film event. The writer had seen a copy of the letter from the Smithsonian declaring its co-sponsorship and she knew from several sources that the co-sponsorship was not sought by Discovery, but actually was required by the Smithsonian. That the Museum withdrew a gift that was never requested fails to draw her interest at all
The co-sponsorship of an approved event is automatic when an organization makes an unrestrictricted donation to the Smithsonian. I would venture to guess that 16K is the minimum… The website is clear that such donation would automatically come with a co-sponsorship. Does this mean that the DI did not seek co-sponsorship?
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 events of a religious or partisan political nature are not permitted.
What must be hurting is that the SI withdrew not only the co-sponsorship but also commented that the content of the Privileged Planet was not consistent with the mission of the Smithsonian Institution’s scientific research.
The Washington Post and the New York Times articles show that the media, despite efforts by the Discovery Institute, is starting to appreciate the relevance of the Wedge.