A Visit to the Creation Museum

[revtj]

http://crazytalk.typepad.com/bluegrassroots/2007/06/fun_at_the_crea.html

One responder called it child abuse.

Is intellectual abuse (brainwashing) recognized by the APA?

I wonder if Osama has a similar Koran exhibit for his devotees in training?

[tdogg]

That's not a museum (just another lie/deceit), it's a hall of propoganda.

$27 million???

Other than that, I'm just speechless right now. :confused::confused::confused:

[revtj]

Think how many starving & homeless people those christians could have helped with the money!:(

[Pablo Rafael]

I heard about the opening of this "museum" on NPR.

First off let me say that I believe people have the right to have a "museum" about what they wish. I also think I (and others) have the right to disagree and criticize.

Also just to state my position on evolution/creation: I believe that God created the universe and all the laws by which it operates. Whether it took 6 days or billions of years doesn't matter to me. I believe in the Biblical account, but I do not look at it as a scientific document. I think the creation account may be more figuative than literal; I don't think that being figurative lessens the meaning at all. I believe that God created a mature universe with evolution already in place and all fully formed. I see no conflict with a divine creation and a universe 15 billion years old. God can create anything at any age.

I'm taking a long time to get to my point. There are so many varied ideas as to how God created the world. There is the 4004 BC creation date that some people swear is the only scriptural option. Others say that each day of creation was millions or billions of years; they have Bible verses to prove it. Others say that all formations, extinctions etc. were caused by the flood. Everyone is sure they have the "correct" Biblical explanation.

So if we have a "Creation" museum, whose view of creation do we use for the museum? And what do we do with the scientific facts? What I find offensive is not that people have a museum, but that they select only facts that support an already predetermined idea. To be real science one has to deal with the facts as they are uncovered. This museum masquerades as science. It also emphasizes the divide between creation and evolution. I have heard from a lot of Christians who, like me, have no trouble in accepting both views and see no real conflict between the two.

Tu Amigo, Pablo

[alakazoom87]

Think how many starving & homeless people those christians could have helped with the money!:(

That is a very self-righteous thing to say. Put it into perspective of what the "christians" are trying to do when creating such a museum.

That's not a museum (just another lie/deceit), it's a hall of propoganda.

$27 million???

Other than that, I'm just speechless right now.

What kind of propoganda is it that every public school must teach evolution? To me, evolution is just another belief system and yet it somehow supercedes the notion of separation of church and state.

There was a news article I once read about a school up in Washington. This is basically what happened: little stickers were placed in Biology books at a public school. These stickers told the readers that they should read the contents of the book knowing that there are other views about the origin of the universe. An atheist complained about the stickers saying that they were unconstitutional. A judge had the stickers removed them saying because these stickers violated separation of church and state.

Tell me, how is it that it is ok for evolution to be taught in all public schools while it would be unconstitutional to have any other view be taught?

What did Hitler do? (Other than slaughter 6 million jews). He created the Hitler youth. Get them while they are young! What are public schools doing? Breeding tiny little atheists while they are young. That is propoganda.

[BrentRichards]

That is a very self-righteous thing to say. Put it into perspective of what the "christians" are trying to do when creating such a museum.

Plank ... Splinter

Hmm... which one of these is yours?

[lydiam]

my two cents...
God is revealed more each year, each day, each moment. Science is a part of our growing understanding. Ignoring science is ignoring the beautiful mystery being revealed and is... kind of rediculous! Kind of like taking stories and parables literally rather than gathering a greater understanding from them... like there's someting bigger than you, which is the meaning I find in the creation stories in Genesis. It's not seeing the forest for the trees. I have, since these Jesus fish/ Darwin fish wars began wanted to put one of each on my car and now they are making the ones where the Jesus fish and the Darwin fish are kissing! I'm on the lookout for one of those.:D

This museum makes me want to laugh because it seems silly:lol:, and makes me want to cry because it's a huge case of missing the point. I feel scared for how many people could come out so misinformed about the point of Christianity.:'(:pray:

[Emproph]

Science - ORIGIN Latin scientia, from scire 'know.'

Put it into perspective of what the "christians" are trying to do when creating such a museum. I think we have, theocracy. Intelligent design/creationism is a ploy to discredit not just evolution but the entire scientific method of knowing, as in methodological or methods-of-logic. It’s harder to legally define others as inferior if they can think for themselves and ask questions.

The propaganda isn't in teaching creationism, it's in teaching it as science.

What kind of propoganda is it that every public school must teach evolution? To me, evolution is just another belief system and yet it somehow supercedes the notion of separation of church and state.

Do you care to expound on that? Evolution is based on measurable evidence, and obviously you don't believe that ALL measurable evidence is simply a "belief system."

From the article (http://crazytalk.typepad.com/bluegrassroots/2007/06/fun_at_the_crea.html):
Early in the museum, the visitor is given advice on the proper mind frame to have for your visit: “Don’t think, just listen and believe”. As you can see in the picture (http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p125/cubswin39/Creation%20Museum/creationmuseum034.jpg) below, Human Reason is the enemy and God’s Word is the hero.

Who do you think created human reason and all the evidence for evolution?

There was a news article I once read about a school up in Washington. This is basically what happened: little stickers were placed in Biology books at a public school. These stickers told the readers that they should read the contents of the book knowing that there are other views about the origin of the universe. An atheist complained about the stickers saying that they were unconstitutional. A judge had the stickers removed them saying because these stickers violated separation of church and state.

Tell me, how is it that it is ok for evolution to be taught in all public schools while it would be unconstitutional to have any other view be taught?
They can teach those views, just not as science. Beliefs are not science.

Re, the story you mentioned (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6681-2005Jan13.html):

"Adopted by the school board, funded by the money of taxpayers, and inserted by school personnel, the sticker conveys an impermissible message of endorsement and tells some citizens that they are political outsiders while telling others they are political insiders," U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper said in his 44-page ruling.

Would you support an effort to have all Bibles come with a scientific disclaimer?

What did Hitler do? (Other than slaughter 6 million jews). He created the Hitler youth. Get them while they are young! What are public schools doing? Breeding tiny little atheists while they are young. That is propoganda.

That's exactly what the theocrats are doing by attempting to abolish critical thinking skills in children via propaganda.

And the claim that teaching evolution is the same as teaching atheism is scurrilous. That's like saying that describing HOW something works is teaching atheism. Many people, including myself, believe in a created evolution. You can complain all you like about how inaccurate you think my views are, but to say I don't believe in God because of it is a lie.

And as far as your propaganda/Hitler analogy goes:

Propaganda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda) is a type of message aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of people. Instead of impartially providing information, propaganda can present facts but do so selectively, produce deliberately misleading information, or load messages, whether essentially truthful or not, with emotional meaning in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the message that is being presented.

That's quintessential religious Reich tactics. When they can't win on scripture, skew the facts -- and then accuse the other side of lying.
___
Here's another place where we discussed this before:
http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=1231&highlight=science

PS lydiam, I liked your response. ;)

[dewdrop_world]

That's exactly what the theocrats are doing by attempting to abolish critical thinking skills in children via propaganda.

Yup, that's it in a nutshell.

Joseph Kramer once said something like, the Jesuits, by teaching you HOW to think, forever give up the ability to teach you WHAT to think. (inexact paraphrase but that's the gist)

James

[alakazoom87]

Quote:
"Adopted by the school board, funded by the money of taxpayers, and inserted by school personnel, the sticker conveys an impermissible message of endorsement and tells some citizens that they are political outsiders while telling others they are political insiders," U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper said in his 44-page ruling.

Would you support an effort to have all Bibles come with a scientific disclaimer?


No I don't. Why? Because, people aren't being forced to read the Bible. Students in Junior/Senior School have to read Biology books that teach evolution.

That's exactly what the theocrats are doing by attempting to abolish critical thinking skills in children via propaganda.

Are you telling me that the only reason evolution is in schools today is to help students with their critical thinking skills?

Many people, including myself, believe in a created evolution.

I'd like to here how you can explain that evolution is a God driven process.

[BrentRichards]

I'd like to here how you can explain that evolution is a God driven process.

No, you wouldn't. You've already proven conclusively that you aren't here to HEAR anything.

[revtj]

I'd like to here how you can explain that evolution is a God driven process.

No, I agree with Brent. You aren't here to learn. Google process theology and get back to me after you've read at least one book by Alfred North Whitehead and Albert Einstein, both of whom believed in God and evolution.

Originally Posted by revtj View Post
Think how many starving & homeless people those christians could have helped with the money!
That is a very self-righteous thing to say. Put it into perspective of what the "christians" are trying to do when creating such a museum.


Here's a challenge for you: Count the number of scripture verses that deal with the poor and how we treat them. Then count the number of scripture verses that refer to the Genesis creation. Then you do the math.

Last time I checked, salvation was not directly nor even indirectly related to a person's views on evolution.

PS NOTE TO MODERATOR: RETURN TO BOUNDARIES PLEASE!

[alakazoom87]

No, you wouldn't. You've already proven conclusively that you aren't here to HEAR anything.

Why? Because I disagree with 95% of what you guys agree with?

I would honestly like to hear how you can hold to a theistic evolution process.

Here's a challenge for you: Count the number of scripture verses that deal with the poor and how we treat them. Then count the number of scripture verses that refer to the Genesis creation. Then you do the math.

Last time I checked, salvation was not directly nor even indirectly related to a person's views on evolution.

PS NOTE TO MODERATOR: RETURN TO BOUNDARIES PLEASE!

I strongly believe that Theistic Evolution is an oxymoron. Evolution is a tool, used by atheists to rid themselves of the fact that God created this universe. And so, by filling public schools with evolution notions of origin, atheists are successfully capturing the minds of our youth in order to influence them into not believing in God.

Salvation is related to a person's view on whether or not God exists. Not to mention, the process of evolution restricts the power of our Creator. I believe in a God that created the heavens and the earth, I do not believe in a creator that relies on mistakes and death (natural selection).

[Emproph]

I'd like to here how you can explain that evolution is a God driven process.

It's your job to explain how creationism is a scientifically driven process.

[BrentRichards]

Why? Because I disagree with 95% of what you guys agree with?

I would honestly like to hear how you can hold to a creation-evolution process.

Again, no, you wouldn't. If you were interested in what I or others here have to say on that topic, you'd have noticed that we've already discussed it in some detail ON THREADS IN WHICH YOU HAVE PARTICIPATED. You don't listen, you don't respond to anyone's reasonable points or questions ... you beat your drum. So now, I'm gonna beat a drum. No, you don't want to hear, so no, I'm not going to explain myself again.

[keltic63]

PS NOTE TO MODERATOR: RETURN TO BOUNDARIES PLEASE!

disagreement, no matter how irritating, is not a violation of the guidelines.

however, when a guideline is violated, and I happen to miss it, don't hesitate to hit the "report" button. I got to use the ban button on the first day that Jamie was gone. I'd love to use it again! :D

[revtj]

Alakazoom, if a gay christian believes in creationism and rejects evolutionary theory, is that OK? Are you OK with gay christians who see the authority of the bible and interpret the christian faith the same way you do?

[Emproph]

I'd like to here how you can explain that evolution is a God driven process.

My watch is a God driven process. My dishwasher is a God driven process. My computer is a God driven process.

Somebody, God, had to “create” the millions of people that had anything to do with the human souls responsible for inventing, and designing, and testing, and promoting, and selling, and repairing...all those things, and everything else.

And it’s still happening. Creation is NOW. Science is just the description of it.

It’s like your first question as to whether we think the Bible or the Constitution is more important. That’s like asking whether freedom is more important than the effects of freedom.

My toothbrush is a God driven process. God is literally thinking everything into creation AS-IT-SURROUNDS-US.

Do you think God didn’t know we’d be arguing about this right now?

If you have an issue with science then you have an issue with God’s creation of it.

[dewdrop_world]

Evolution is a tool, used by atheists to rid themselves of the fact that God created this universe. And so, by filling public schools with evolution notions of origin, atheists are successfully capturing the minds of our youth in order to influence them into not believing in God.

Since Darwin was the original formulator of the theory of evolution (or the first to develop it systematically in a book-length work), let's go back to Darwin.

Did Darwin collect reams of observational evidence in favor of natural selection for the purpose of promoting atheism? Or was he studying the evidence and proposing a hypothesis that explained the facts?

Actually Darwin was a theist if I recall correctly.

I think your assertion here is pretty far removed from the history of the theory.
James

[tdogg]

James, I believe you are right with Darwin being a theist.

Zoom, I have a handful of questions for you, if you care/dare to answer:

1. What in your opinion is the DEFINITION of evolution?

2. What do you see as the problem with believing in God and also believing in the process of evolution?

3. If you feel that creationism, I'm assuming based on your view of the Bible and the creation story (sub question - which version??), should be taught in public schools, how do you feel about other religious beliefs also being taught in public schools (to you or anyone else you care about)?

4. Why do you feel that your belief is the only true belief?


$27 million is a heck of a lot of money to be wasted on a museum of propoganda. If Christians indeed opted to spend that money on this project, I would think the love they should have learned from Jesus might have prompted them to spend a lot less and use some of that $27 to YES feed the poor, provide medical supplies/services, education, assistance to the elderly in their congregations, just about anything else would have been a wiser choice.

This is a capitalist society and it is their perogative to spend their money however they wish. But truly, this seems to be a vast waste of it at the least. For those who may have donated funds to these people that were spent on this, they should be steaming mad. They could have done this on a website for MUCH LESS $$ and gotten the same message across. When I was told about this a few years ago, it was mentioned that the creation museum actually held EVIDENCE of creationism. Can anyone (perhaps Zoom?) expound on the actual EVIDENCE that might be held there? Or is this just another example of the lies and deceit that these people continue to spew forth?

[Vortex]

"we can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universe[s,] to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act"


"I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created parasitic wasps with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars"


"I am a strong advocate for free thought on all subjects, yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds, which follow[s] from the advance of science. It has, therefore, been always my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science. I may, however, have been unduly biassed by the pain which it would give some members of my family, if I aided in any way direct attacks on religion"


Charles Darwin

[suzer1013]

I am currently reading Al Gore's "The Assault on Reason." I highly recommend it, as it is highly pertinent to this conversation.

I would simply like to point out that, whatever one's views of how our world was created, our public schools are secular institutions. The Bible is a religious document. Evolution will be taught in the public schools because, agree with it or not, it is part of our scientific body of knowledge. If you don't want your kids learning about evolution, send them to a religious school.

Better yet, talk with your kids at home. If you disagree with public school teaching, supplement their learning at Sunday School and at home. There is no one stopping you from doing that. Our public schools are not the place to be teaching Biblical creation stories, unless perhaps you have a history of religions class, which is pretty rare in public schools.

I personally have no problem with seeing God as the Creator, and with God using evolution as part of the creation process. It is good to ask questions, to challenge our thinking, but silly allegations like "by filling public schools with evolution notions of origin, atheists are successfully capturing the minds of our youth in order to influence them into not believing in God" do not further the discussion. There is no atheist conspiracy. You have the responsibility to teach your children a religious belief system. That is not what our government or our public schools are for. If your faith, or that of any Christian, is so undermined by a scientific teaching you disagree with, I would have to question the strength of your religious convictions.

It is o.k. for you to believe one thing, and for others to believe differently. Is it possible to hold differing beliefs, but still go out in the world and help the poor and hungry, together? We live in a pluralistic society, and we must live peacefully with each other, don't you think?

Susan

[alakazoom87]

Since Darwin was the original formulator of the theory of evolution (or the first to develop it systematically in a book-length work), let's go back to Darwin.

Did Darwin collect reams of observational evidence in favor of natural selection for the purpose of promoting atheism? Or was he studying the evidence and proposing a hypothesis that explained the facts?

Actually Darwin was a theist if I recall correctly.

I think your assertion here is pretty far removed from the history of the theory.
James

Darwin did not die as a Christian. Even my Anthropology professor teaches that.

[keltic63]

Darwin did not die as a Christian. Even my Anthropology professor teaches that.

which professor is that? is it the one who was designated by Jesus to be the judge of who is or who is not, a real Christian? if so, could we have that professor's name so we can get on with this business of deciding once and for all, who is and who is not getting into heaven?

[alakazoom87]

James, I believe you are right with Darwin being a theist.

Zoom, I have a handful of questions for you, if you care/dare to answer:

1. What in your opinion is the DEFINITION of evolution?

2. What do you see as the problem with believing in God and also believing in the process of evolution?

3. If you feel that creationism, I'm assuming based on your view of the Bible and the creation story (sub question - which version??), should be taught in public schools, how do you feel about other religious beliefs also being taught in public schools (to you or anyone else you care about)?

4. Why do you feel that your belief is the only true belief?


1. What my biological anthropology book tells me.

2.

Evolution depends on the process of natural selection. Natural selection depends on the death of inferior species.

Adam and Eve were humans. (meaning: not the common ancestor animal that links us to chimps)

The garden was a perfect place with no death. Since Adam and Eve were humans living in the garden, they could not have been created by an evolutionary process. Why? There is no death in the garden and evolution depends on death.

Adam and Eve would have had to have been created fully as humans.

3. I believe that origin of species does not need to be taught in a biology class. Biology is the study of life. I don't think any theory or belief of the origin of the universe should be taught in a biology class. I want to see our youth stop wasting time with origin of species and actually learn biology. Biology is the study of life. Biology is not the study of where life came from.

4. I'm not a relativist. (This could be another thread)

[tpdncr4christ]

Darwin did not die as a Christian. Even my Anthropology professor teaches that.

In that you are right:

The "Lady Hope Story", published in 1915, claimed that Darwin had reverted back to Christianity on his sickbed. The claims were refuted by Darwin's children and have been dismissed as false by historians.[121] His daughter, Henrietta, who was at his deathbed, said that he did not convert to Christianity.[122] His last words were, in fact, directed at Emma: "Remember what a good wife you have been."[123]


My thoughts on the evolutionary theory, it is just that, A THEORY. So long as it is taught as a possibility rather than fact I'm ok with it. I don't think it is wise to teach creationism because then we would have the Christian interpratation, the Budist interpretation, the Native American interpratation, the Greco/Roman interpratation, and that just seems too much.

To be perfectly honest, it happend a kajillion years ago. Let's worry about today, not yesterday, and not 3200000 BC.

[alakazoom87]

which professor is that? is it the one who was designated by Jesus to be the judge of who is or who is not, a real Christian? if so, could we have that professor's name so we can get on with this business of deciding once and for all, who is and who is not getting into heaven?

No, he is actually a complete atheist who makes fun of Christians during his lectures.

Quote:
Originally Posted by alakazoom87
Darwin did not die as a Christian. Even my Anthropology professor teaches that.

In that you are right:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
The "Lady Hope Story", published in 1915, claimed that Darwin had reverted back to Christianity on his sickbed. The claims were refuted by Darwin's children and have been dismissed as false by historians.[121] His daughter, Henrietta, who was at his deathbed, said that he did not convert to Christianity.[122] His last words were, in fact, directed at Emma: "Remember what a good wife you have been."[123]

My thoughts on the evolutionary theory, it is just that, A THEORY. So long as it is taught as a possibility rather than fact I'm ok with it. I don't think it is wise to teach creationism because then we would have the Christian interpratation, the Budist interpretation, the Native American interpratation, the Greco/Roman interpratation, and that just seems too much.

To be perfectly honest, it happend a kajillion years ago. Let's worry about today, not yesterday, and not 3200000 BC.

I concur

[lydiam]

I would simply like to point out that, whatever one's views of how our world was created, our public schools are secular institutions. The Bible is a religious document. Evolution will be taught in the public schools because, agree with it or not, it is part of our scientific body of knowledge. If you don't want your kids learning about evolution, send them to a religious school.

Better yet, talk with your kids at home. If you disagree with public school teaching, supplement their learning at Sunday School and at home. There is no one stopping you from doing that. Our public schools are not the place to be teaching Biblical creation stories, unless perhaps you have a history of religions class, which is pretty rare in public schools.

Exactly. Well said.

[simpleman]

Surprisingly to many, I'm sure, I am not a creationist. But, I do have a few very serious issues with parts of the collected body of "knowledge" referred to as "evolution".

The current Theory of Evolution maintains that all life on Earth today developed from one single, solitary cell. Throughout time, this cell grew into two cells, and then three, slowly taking several paths that lead, with a few breakages along the way, to people. Now, I believe in micro-evolution, you know, Darwin's observation that certain finches have longer beaks because the ones with shorter beaks died before they could pass the gene, etc. Giraffes with shorter necks died before they could reproduce, so they couldn't pass on the gene for short neck, and thus it became less common. But, I do have a problem with "man evolved from apes" and "all life evolved from a single cell" because no one can find the "missing link" between the single-celled organism, and all of the various types of mammals, fish, etc. that we have today. Sure, evolution happens on an intraspecies level, but there is no proof that one species evolves into another. There is no way that a wolf evolved into a bulldog, or that a fish evolved into a snake. What about dolphins? How did a mammal, that breathes air, end up in the water? These are all questions that many scientists, even those who believe in evolution, can't get funding to answer, because the funding is either coming from conservatives, who want them to prove that the earth is only 6000 years old, or liberals that want them to prove that evolution is exactly how it happened, no if's, and's, or but's about it.

As for evolution being taught exclusively in schools: I don't believe the evolution should be taught as the "only" theory. Even though the Quantam theory has disproved parts of Newtonian theory, Newtonian theory is still taught in Physics classes because it works for a lot of things. Both theories are taught, and explained simply for what they are and how they work. But, any attempt, well-meaning or theocratic, to try to get other theories on the origin of life even mentioned in public school biology classes, is met with a lawsuit. Creationism, and the Young Earth business, should probably not be given any weight, but some theorists on Intelligent Design are also stonewalled because that might reference some kind of Higher Being, which would, no-doubt, be found illegal. This isn't entirely fair, because not all ID science is junk science. In fact, a lot of evolution science is just as easily refutable.

[Daniel]

:lol: Boy did I laugh.....



My thoughts on the evolutionary theory, it is just that, A THEORY. So long as it is taught as a possibility rather than fact I'm ok with it. I don't think it is wise to teach creationism because then we would have the Christian interpratation, the Budist interpretation, the Native American interpratation, the Greco/Roman interpratation, and that just seems too much.


The Buddhist angle on anything would have two D's and an H. ;) :love:

Ok....back to regular scheduled programming.

This is an interesting thread in light of the fact that Hubby and I went to the Natural History Museum yesterday to see the Hall of Man. The fossils are fascinating. And the various hominid's there- homo sapiens being the only extant one- are something to think about. The famous 'Lucy' is there as well as the "Turkana Boy."

Pretty nifty stuff when you see it up close.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/09/arts/design/09orig.html?ex=1328677200en=611487f4032a20c1ei=508 8partner=rssnytemc=rss

[revtj]

Darwin had a deep faith which is often called naturalism (http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/kurtz_18_2.html), in that he saw the whole of creation and nature reflected some portion of the awesomeness and wonder of a Creator. A person need not reject christianity to embrace naturalism, although some have done so. People who try to paint Darwin as a deceiver or satanic or something like that have never read a word he wrote. He speaks often about the inspiration and sense of humility his discoveries brought to him.

Capitalist society or not, I cannot approve of binding the conscience of young minds to be anti-science and teaching creation with an either/or approach to science and the bible. For me, that is a form of spiritual abuse, and while I respect their right to build the museum and operate peacefully under the law, I feel no differently about this than I do the Moonies: they are involved in a web of deceit that messes with people's minds, creates unnecessary guilt, distorts their ability to live in love and charity with other christians, and typically do not show a respect for nature and creation in terms of stewardship. (Many of them also believe a nuclear war is inevitable according to bible prophecy.)

So I choose to call it what it is: junk science and cult mentality.

[BrentRichards]

My thoughts on the evolutionary theory, it is just that, A THEORY. So long as it is taught as a possibility rather than fact I'm ok with it.

Be careful with this, Austin ... I hear this all the time, and it relies on a misunderstanding of the word theory as used in scientific discourse ... gravity is "just a theory" too, but I'm not going to be stepping off any buildings any time soon.

What I think people often mean when they say this (not putting words in your mouth specifically, Austin) is that they see evolutionary theory as "just a hypothesis" ... that is, somebody's guess at how it might be, backed up by little or no evidence. That's not how science uses the word theory. You'll never see science refer, for example, to the "fact of gravity" ... no matter how much evidence is piled up, science always considers itself open to change, and falsifiable by new evidence (unlike a lot of people I know!). Something is not referred to as a theory, however, just because it sounds good, or somebody thinks it is a clever construct ... it requires a LARGE BODY OF EVIDENCE.

It's fashionable to talk about evolution as if it had a scant amount of evidence backing it, but that's not a fair representation. Are there "problems" with the evidence in terms of gaps and unanswered questions? Of course! Are these gaps and unanswered questions big enough to justify throwing out the whole idea as so much bunk? Not at all.

Keep in mind also that most of us are judging the "evidence" at the level of high school and undergraduate intro to biology texts ... we should all be wary of making authoritative pronouncements on the extent and validity of the body of evidence.

I couldn't agree more, Austin, that this is an intramural debate, and should NOT distract us from the REAL work of faith and justice NOW. Alas, we are easily distracted, and too many Christians believe that if you don't see eye-to-eye with them on this topic (or another litmus-test issue, like, say, I don't know, homosexuality?) you can't play in their tree fort at all. Jesus, I'm sure, weeps.

[alakazoom87]

Darwin had a deep faith which is often called naturalism (http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/kurtz_18_2.html), in that he saw the whole of creation and nature reflected some portion of the awesomeness and wonder of a Creator. A person need not reject christianity to embrace naturalism, although some have done so. People who try to paint Darwin as a deceiver or satanic or something like that have never read a word he wrote. He speaks often about the inspiration and sense of humility his discoveries brought to him.

Capitalist society or not, I cannot approve of binding the conscience of young minds to be anti-science and teaching creation with an either/or approach to science and the bible. For me, that is a form of spiritual abuse, and while I respect their right to build the museum and operate peacefully under the law, I feel no differently about this than I do the Moonies: they are involved in a web of deceit that messes with people's minds, creates unnecessary guilt, distorts their ability to live in love and charity with other christians, and typically do not show a respect for nature and creation in terms of stewardship. (Many of them also believe a nuclear war is inevitable according to bible prophecy.)

So I choose to call it what it is: junk science and cult mentality.

When I talked about atheists using propoganda on the youth, it wasn't directed towards Darwin. More like, Carl Sagan and present day Atheistic Philosophers who use evolution as a large portion of their arguments.

[scott snedeker]

Most pagans are nudists also:D:D:D wearing only smile!

It's time to create the Nudist interpretation :eek:

First man was nude......Then came the undergear catalogue...oooooohh!

Then man was made aware of his nakedness and lack of bubble butt

And undergear provided the Hubba Hubba Hiney brief and it was good---but not as good as the picture in the catalogue

So he searched and found the contour line---and it was good but uncomfortable.

So he found the extreme line----But sadly could not fill out the gament and was made to feel inadequate

So he then realized that he was create nude and was to stay nude.
And he was grateful for that rash from chafing was murder:lol:

[BrentRichards]

Most pagans are nudists also:D:D:D wearing only smile!

It's time to create the Nudist interpretation :eek:

First man was nude......Then came the undergear catalogue...oooooohh!

Then man was made aware of his nakedness and lack of bubble butt

And undergear provided the Hubba Hubba Hiney brief and it was good---but not as good as the picture in the catalogue

So he searched and found the contour line---and it was good but uncomfortable.

So he found the extreme line----But sadly could not fill out the gament and was made to feel inadequate

So he then realized that he was create nude and was to stay nude.
And he was grateful for that rash from chafing was murder:lol:

HAHAHA! Yes, indeed, the creation design argument ... Christians can't be gay because it wasn't part of the original design ... you know, the nudist vegitarian design that the church observes to this very day ... umm... oops.

[Daniel]

So he found the extreme line----But sadly could not fill out the gament and was made to feel inadequate


I may catch heat for including this link, but it seems they've got the filled out angle covered (pun intended).

http://www.aussiebum.com/en/new/?modelid=482

Me? Give me a sunny day at Black's Beach in San Diego. The sun and sand and nothing else. ;)

~

I laughed my head off Scotty!

[Dash]

oooo Aussiebum...

...but then, it's never really about the bum is it? :D:rolleyes::lol:

[Zerbie]

I may catch heat for including this link, but it seems they've got the filled out angle covered (pun intended).

http://www.aussiebum.com/en/new/?modelid=482

Me? Give me a sunny day at Black's Beach in San Diego. The sun and sand and nothing else. ;)

~

I laughed my head off Scotty!

:eek:

Oh, why did I click on that link??

[alakazoom87]

..........

[Pablo Rafael]

Don't I always say that it is the middle-aged guys who are the worst behaved. :mad:

I rest my case!

(And it wasn't me this time.)

[Daniel]

Don't I always say that it is the middle-aged guys who are the worst behaved. :mad:

I rest my case!

(And it wasn't me this time.)

Golly! I thought the plan was we were supposed to take turns! Right?

ummmmm...

Who's next?

[tpdncr4christ]

Be careful with this, Austin ... I hear this all the time, and it relies on a misunderstanding of the word theory as used in scientific discourse ... gravity is "just a theory" too, but I'm not going to be stepping off any buildings any time soon.

Actually, it's the Law of Gravity, F=(gm1m2)/r^2 where F is the force between two bodies, g is the gravitational constant, m1 and m2 are the complete mass of the two bodies all over and divided by the radius of both masses squared. This equation can be used to prove that two bodies of significant mass will be attracted to each other and move toward each other in the pure vaccum of space.

There is no equation for evolution. My only beef with Evolution being taught in schools is that it should be taught as a Theory, one that has numerous scientific fact backing it (as well as numerous "missing links"), not as the Evolutionary Law. Just as there is the Conspiracy Theory behind the attacks on 9/11, backed by plenty scientific facts as well as numerous missing links. Don't teach it as fact, teach it as theory based in fact.

See what I'm saying?

[BrentRichards]

Yes, I do, but I don't agree entirely. I do agree that it has become sacred dogma for some scientists, which is not acceptable.

I have to take issue with the Evolutionary Theory/Conspiracy Theory comparison ... again, the word theory is used differently in scientific and non-scientific contexts.

Naturally, there is no equation for evolution ... it's not physics. But if we need an equation to call something science, we'll have to chuck biology altogether, which would make me sad. I'm a bio geek.

At the end of the day, I'm more than happy to agree to disagree on this one ... you're still fine with me, Austin. Ditto?

[tpdncr4christ]

At the end of the day, I'm more than happy to agree to disagree on this one ... you're still fine with me, Austin. Ditto?

Agree to disagree? What is that!?! I can't do that, I'm to stubborn. I'll just :poke: til you see things my way, capisce?

O... wait... Ok.:love: Agreeing to disagree.

[BrentRichards]

I'll wait. You'll evolve to my way of thinking. [grin]

[scott snedeker]

I may catch heat for including this link, but it seems they've got the filled out angle covered (pun intended).

http://www.aussiebum.com/en/new/?modelid=482

Me? Give me a sunny day at Black's Beach in San Diego. The sun and sand and nothing else. ;)

~

I laughed my head off Scotty!


Love the aussie Bum! But did you notice that it didn't shrink when it got wet?

[Vortex]

Actually, it's the Law of Gravity, F=(gm1m2)/r^2 where F is the force between two bodies, g is the gravitational constant, m1 and m2 are the complete mass of the two bodies all over and divided by the radius of both masses squared. This equation can be used to prove that two bodies of significant mass will be attracted to each other and move toward each other in the pure vaccum of space.

There is no equation for evolution. My only beef with Evolution being taught in schools is that it should be taught as a Theory, one that has numerous scientific fact backing it (as well as numerous "missing links"), not as the Evolutionary Law. Just as there is the Conspiracy Theory behind the attacks on 9/11, backed by plenty scientific facts as well as numerous missing links. Don't teach it as fact, teach it as theory based in fact.

See what I'm saying?

One correction first off. “r” represents the distance between the two objects not their radius. Can you provide for me the equation that explains why grass is green? I can give you a scientific explanation for why grass is green, but there’s no equation. What about Cell Theory. No equation there either, but I defy you to find a living organism that is without a cell. So I’m not quite sure what your point here is. Besides gravity between two objects is simple, there are only 2 variables you have to consider. But life?
I like how you presented this argument though, because you probably unintentionally so are making a scientific argument, just as an evolutionist would. Just replace gravity with evolution. You even presented evidence to support you claim for gravity, just as any scientist would. So what if I come along and say, “no this gravity thing is all a bunch of dark magic, what is really going on is that God is responsible for the phenomenon you call gravity. Well you would respond, politely. Okay sir that’s interesting, what’s your evidence? :eek:

I hear so many like yourself saying that you want all these additional “theories” taught to our children. Fine, teach them in church, in philosophy class, in religious studies, but if your theory lacks evidence it has no place in a Science classroom.


Vortex

[Emproph]

Capitalist society or not, I cannot approve of binding the conscience of young minds to be anti-science and teaching creation with an either/or approach to science and the bible. For me, that is a form of spiritual abuse, and while I respect their right to build the museum and operate peacefully under the law, I feel no differently about this than I do the Moonies: they are involved in a web of deceit that messes with people's minds, creates unnecessary guilt, distorts their ability to live in love and charity with other christians, and typically do not show a respect for nature and creation in terms of stewardship. (Many of them also believe a nuclear war is inevitable according to bible prophecy.)

So I choose to call it what it is: junk science and cult mentality.
From sourcewatch (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Sun_Myung_Moon):
http://www.sourcewatch.org/images/thumb/2/20/Moon_Senate.jpg/180px-Moon_Senate.jpg (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Image:Moon_Senate.jpg)

One of the pictures in the creation museum article (http://crazytalk.typepad.com/bluegrassroots/2007/06/fun_at_the_crea.html) you link to is of Rev Sun Myung Moon and his wife. Rev. Sun Myung Moon is the head of the Unification Church (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Unification_Church) and the founder of the Washington Times (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Washington_Times).

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p125/cubswin39/Creation%20Museum/creationmuseum076.jpg
The caption for that photo reads:
Religious prophets, some even claiming to be messiah, have claimed to hear new messages from God that add to the Bible. But none of their views have won the hearts of the majority of the church.

I find it interesting that they are either unaware of, or intentionally do not mention his media, financial and political ties, and support of everything that the "majority of the [conservative] church" wholeheartedly does adhere to.

[revtj]

I still don't get why being nude wouldn't be a return to biblical creation...it says they made the clothes, not God, and God never said "Keep wearing them or you'll be sinning."

PS Regarding that photo in the display which says "after the flood other nations developed alternative creation myths..." That is just plain ignorant. The oldest creation myth is the story of Tiamat, and there are thousands of religious stories older than the Hebrew Bible. How stupid.

[tdogg]

:eek:

Oh, why did I click on that link??

I had no intention of checking out the link until I read your post Z. Thanks!

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::r ofl:

Yeah, sorta how I feel about the creation museum!

[Zerbie]

I had no intention of checking out the link until I read your post Z. Thanks!

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::r ofl:

!

Sorry! :lol:

Now. 'Scuse me while I go question my sexual orientation again.

:confused: :lol:

[progressive4christ]

I heard about the opening of this "museum" on NPR.

First off let me say that I believe people have the right to have a "museum" about what they wish. I also think I (and others) have the right to disagree and criticize.

Also just to state my position on evolution/creation: I believe that God created the universe and all the laws by which it operates. Whether it took 6 days or billions of years doesn't matter to me. I believe in the Biblical account, but I do not look at it as a scientific document. I think the creation account may be more figuative than literal; I don't think that being figurative lessens the meaning at all. I believe that God created a mature universe with evolution already in place and all fully formed. I see no conflict with a divine creation and a universe 15 billion years old. God can create anything at any age.

I'm taking a long time to get to my point. There are so many varied ideas as to how God created the world. There is the 4004 BC creation date that some people swear is the only scriptural option. Others say that each day of creation was millions or billions of years; they have Bible verses to prove it. Others say that all formations, extinctions etc. were caused by the flood. Everyone is sure they have the "correct" Biblical explanation.

So if we have a "Creation" museum, whose view of creation do we use for the museum? And what do we do with the scientific facts? What I find offensive is not that people have a museum, but that they select only facts that support an already predetermined idea. To be real science one has to deal with the facts as they are uncovered. This museum masquerades as science. It also emphasizes the divide between creation and evolution. I have heard from a lot of Christians who, like me, have no trouble in accepting both views and see no real conflict between the two.

Tu Amigo, Pablo

Great comment and well thought out.

[sjbouza]

I just have one statement to make, and for those of you that have read some of my other posts you will understand how hard this is for me.

Incest was alright, but I cant marry the man I love? Go figure:eek:

Ok, I lied...I have another question. Didnt the Bible say that Cains wife was from a different land? So how were they related???

Someone please...I am sooooo confused.

What about the "pre-Adamite" earth? The first earth in Genesis 1:1? The one that was created and destroyed by God. Read Genesis 1:1-2 carefully...I mean CAREFULLY!!! If you can get hold of a "Dakes Annotated Bible" you will see what I am talking about.

[dewdrop_world]

Related to this topic is Jerry Coyne's review, I mean, utter decimation in The New Republic (June 18 '07) of Michael Behe's latest apologia for intelligent design, a new book called The Edge of Evolution. Choice quotes are too numerous to reproduce, but here's just one:

So Behe is back now, with a new book and a brand new theory that puts the intelligent designer back into biology. What has Behe now found to resurrect his campaign for ID? It's rather pathetic, really. Basically, he now admits that almost the entire edifice of evolutionary theory is true: evolution, natural selection, common ancestry. His one novel claim that is that the genetic variation that fuels natural selection -- mutation -- is produced not by random changes in DNA, as evolutionists maintain, but by an intelligent designer. That is, he sees God as the Great Mutator.

... whereupon he proceeds to explain exactly how Behe misunderstands (or misrepresents) what is meant in scientific literature by "random mutation." (Behe suggests, incorrectly, that it's a purely random process that could never result, on its own, in complex organisms, where in reality, biology has understood for many decades that mutations happen without regard for whether or not they support complexity, or even environmental adaptation. The mutations are neutral; it's natural selection that enforces the purpose of survival in a given environment.)

Of course, proponents of ID comfort themselves with the thought that hatchet jobs like this one represent nothing more than the insecurity of an academic orthodoxy afraid to consider competing theories. Nonsense -- science always welcomes theories that have explanatory power, even if the theories overturn much of what we thought we knew (as quantum mechanics did). Evolution, like quantum mechanics, has survived in the scientific world because it made testable predictions that have been verified. Where are the comparable hypotheses from ID?

It's intellectual natural selection at work -- lots of new ideas all the time; the strong ones gain support from observation, while the weak ones die for lack of it.

James

[RedneckDyke]

I saw a couple pictures of the dinosaurs at the creation museum. They are helping the people out, Flintstones style. Or Dinotopia. I perfer my dinos mixing with humans in a more dramatic way. Like the raptors at Jurrassic park. Or the T Rex in Land of the Lost. Remember that show? With those lizard people in that crystal cave? Talk about creepy! BRRRRRRRR
:eek::eek::eek:

Seriously though. That museum is a joke. Why don't they build a museum saying that the pyramids were built by aliens from Mars. Or that Queen Elizabeth I was really a guy in drag. It would be about as accurate as the stuff at the creation museum.

[Emproph]

I saw a couple pictures of the dinosaurs at the creation museum. They are helping the people out, Flintstones style. Or Dinotopia. I perfer my dinos mixing with humans in a more dramatic way.

Exactly, they're trying to indoctrinate children into believing that dinosaurs lived with humans. But where's the blood and guts?

It's the perfect opportunity, yet it's perfectly lost on them! http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x269/Emproph/rollEyes.gif

[tdogg]

Oooooohhhhh! Jurassic Park! Nothing like wandering around in the woods, knowing velociraptors are watching you...... :eek: LOVE IT!

Yeah, hmmmm, dinosaurs and humans and other mammals and no blood or guts..... A few fossils and some made up statues and pictures don't mean it's real folks (speaking to anyone involved in the creation museum). Any more than the movie Jurassic Park made the T Rex real in the movie...

[BrentRichards]

Yeah, c'mon, we all know dinosaurs were like this:

LNWklL-2Skg

[paul]

I may catch heat for including this link, but it seems they've got the filled out angle covered (pun intended).

http://www.aussiebum.com/en/new/?modelid=482

Me? Give me a sunny day at Black's Beach in San Diego. The sun and sand and nothing else. ;)



Daniel!!!
omg, I'm supposed to be being good. I guess the water in Australia is really warm. sigh.