Irony...

If Darwinists want to keep generating controversy about "taboo" philosophy, that's probably for the best. Darwinists' failure to engage their critics and their moves toward censoring empirical criticisms of Darwinism by defining "science" as an agreement with their philosophical assumptions seems to cause more interest in Intelligent Design.

Example:
(Smithsonian Inst. Explains to The New York Times
What it Doesn't Like About The Privileged Planet
By Jonathan Witt)

All that this move by Darwinists resulted in was some free newsprint for ID in the Old Press, some publicity on blogs and more of a chance that more people will have their interest in The Privileged Planet piqued. Stoopid....but I guess that's just what mommy Nature selected for the Darwinists at the time.

In contrast, let's say that the Smithsonian displayed the movie. There might have been some statements within the ID community about, "This film was shown in the Smithsonian as a science film. That means it is scientific." Yeah, wow...but for the average believer in scientism that is all that matters, the word "science." In the end the Smithsonian said, "That's not science!" apparently to prevent anyone from using that most precious of terms. To do so they said that the film gets too philosophical in the end. And perhaps it is philosophical. And? And philosophers had nothing to do with science and science has nothing to do with philosophy? Sheesh...the dogma of Naturalists with respect to their precious word "science" is ridiculous. They are very close to arguing, "Our narratives about origins are obviously not true and go against the empirical evidence...but at least they are scientific. And well, what is scientific is just about true by now because we have microwaves or something. If you use a microwave, you should thank science for it. So in conclusion, that means that all life has a common ancestor in a puddle of mud."

As Jonathan Witt notes in his article on it, the Smithsonian showed Carl Sagan's film that opens with the philosophical statement, "The Cosmos is all that is, was, or ever will be." without wetting their pants about it. I would note that the Privileged Planet ends with some open minded philosophizing drawn from empirical data while Sagan as a Naturalist begins with his self-refuting philosophical dogma and then tells a story about the evidence that fits his ideas.