A Visit to the Creation Museum

[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]

Originally Posted by dewdrop_world

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]

Originally Posted by alakazoom87

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by alakazoom87

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

In that you are right:

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.

[alakazoom87]

Originally Posted by keltic63

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]

Originally Posted by suzer1013

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]

Boy did I laugh.....

Originally Posted by tpdncr4christ

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.

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/ar...=rssnytemc=rss

[revtj]

Darwin had a deep faith which is often called naturalism, 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]

Originally Posted by tpdncr4christ

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]

Originally Posted by revtj

Darwin had a deep faith which is often called naturalism, 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 wearing only smile!

It's time to create the Nudist interpretation

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

[BrentRichards]

Originally Posted by scott snedeker

Most pagans are nudists also wearing only smile!

It's time to create the Nudist interpretation

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

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]

Originally Posted by scott snedeker

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?

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by Daniel

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!

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.

I rest my case!

(And it wasn't me this time.)