And I mean all of you!
As you may know the creationist liar Ken Ham is opening a mortuary of science museum of creation in Kentucky. Needless to say, this museum will have all sorts of lies, twisted reason (twisted into a Klein bottle), and misrepresentation of reality.
A peaceful protest is planned, as I wrote about recently. But we need more than that. Eugenie Scott, who is the head of the National Center for Science Education, has organized a Statement of Concern, and it needs signatures. They’re looking for scientists, and specifically physical scientists, to sign the statement.
Are you a postdoc or faculty-level astronomer, chemist, physicist, engineer, or geologist in Ohio, Indiana, or Kentucky? Do you care that science is being horribly abused by the likes of Ham? Then sign the Statement!
May 22nd, 2007 at 2:30 am
It’s a shame this Statement of Concern is limited to three American states. As Horace said, “Nam tua res agitur, paries cum proximus ardet,” and this creeping lurg of Christian fundamentalism has already crossed The Pond.
We’d a lot rather it hadn’t! ::rolls eyes::
–
May 22nd, 2007 at 3:30 am
Petitions and statements are all well and good, but you need media attention. Stunts. Hazmat suits. Noise. Something to get on the telly.
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:10 am
When you’re a non-scientists in one of those states, it feels like a bigger shame that it’s limited only to scientists. I’m quite concerned about this museum, too, and I lack the cash to make the trip to the protest, and now I can’t even sign the Statement of Concern because I lack the proper credentials.
I understand why they’re limiting it so, it just irks a little bit.
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:13 am
Has anyone ever come up with pro-science versions of the dreaded yet hilarious Chickie tracts? I could just imagine them suddenly showing up all over the Museum, in every restroom, on every windowsill, in the lobby and the cafeteria. Ken Ham and company would probably want to sue somebody, which would probably get some media attention.
It would also be great if someone could get inexpensive copies of On the Origin of Species that could be substituted for all the Gideon Bibles in the hotel rooms around the Museum of Religious Fantasy.
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:34 am
Akusai, I share your frustration. I’m not qualified to sign the staement either. I wish there was a ‘Statement of Concern’ that ‘regular’ citizens could sign. This ‘museum’ perverts Science, and contributes to the dumbing down of our children, not to mention gives unearned legitimacy to woo-meisters.
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:35 am
Twisted reason? Okay. Misrepresentation of reality? Fine. But are they liars? They’ve always struck me as sincere when I’ve seen them in action. Sincerely wrong perhaps, but sincere nonetheless.
Go on, flame away
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:39 am
Why are we looking for publicity? I agree with Allan on the earlier topic that publicity will just benefit the museum. How much have you heard about the museum in other media than this website?
At least a signed statement is a more dignified than a demonstration. For a long time now I’ve felt that waving signs and shouting slogans is counterproductive. In this case, if it brings reporters and news cameras to the museum, it’s definitely counterproductive. Ham will point to the secular or even avowed-atheist organizers and say, “See, this is what we’re up against.”
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:58 am
I personally think that protesting the museum is wrong. Would it be right if creationists were to picket pro-science museums? There are whole civilizations which might qualify as “creationist museums.” Should those be picketed as well? For me the issue isn’t that someone, somewhere believes in creationism and publishes that view. There will always be some fraction of the population, large or small, which subscribes to such superstition. My problem is only when one school of thought campaigns to suppress another. The museum is private property and ought to be left alone.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:06 am
[…] KY. If I were a scientist I would not hesitance to show my disdain for this. Thanks to BA Phil Plait for that heads […]
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:41 am
“But are they liars?”
Yes. A long time ago, when I was very hungry, I worked for 4 years in religious broadcasting. I assure these people (the leaders, at least) are indeed the most shameless liars you will ever meet in your life. They have an agenda and will say or do anything to achieve it.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:54 am
My Dad is a Professor of Analytical Chemistry at Manchester University, he would sign this if he lived in Ohio, Indiana, or Kentucky.
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:24 am
I was excited that I might be able to actually do something, being an Ohio resident. But alas, I’m no scientist.
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:25 am
Why should we stop at protests with picket signs and signing petitions. What needs to happen is that we round up all these creationists and put them on trial for heresy against the one true religion, SCIENCE. And if they are found guilty, their punishment should be severe. We can’t just sit back and let these people think that they can get away with having their own ideas of how things are.
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:52 am
Take that, subspace!
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:03 am
What needs to happen is that we round up all these creationists and put them on trial for heresy against the one true religion, SCIENCE. And if they are found guilty, their punishment should be severe.
Not a bad idea. Take them to court, and let the court decide the truth on the balance of presented evidence.
The side that is found lacking can be treated as anyone else is treated who spreads lies and false news.
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:12 am
Canada has an interesting law:
Spreading false news
181. Every one who wilfully publishes a statement, tale or news that he knows is false and that causes or is likely to cause injury or mischief to a public interest is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 177.
Making such a museum here could possibly run afoul of that, I should think, if someone wanted to take them to task and it could be demonstrated that such a museum does harm to the public interest.
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:16 am
Markk wrote: “They’ve always struck me as sincere when I’ve seen them in action. Sincerely wrong perhaps, but sincere nonetheless.”
Occasionally commentators on TV and in newspapers seem to think that sincerity makes things, even wrong things, legitimate, justified or somehow proper. Sincerity is irrelevant. Hitler was sincerely trying to conquer the world, but sincerity in no way excuses his horrible crimes. The creationists aren’t as dangerous as Hitler, but they do embrace an anti-science, anti-intellectual worldview and a ulterior motive of deception.
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:35 am
Why does it have to be post-docs? I may only have a BS in Chem, but I’m still in the sciences (R&D).
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:56 am
I should point out that the protests are not protesting the fact that the museum exists. At least every time I have heard about the protests no one is trying to get it shut down. The protests are trying to bring attention to the fact that the information contained in the museum is nothing but a bunch of lies and intentional misrepresentations. They are protesting the content in the museum, not its right to exist.
And I have seen the museum mentioned many times in the news long before the protests were set up. Creationists are excellent at PR. In fact that is really all they are good at. Just staying silent on the matter only helps these sorts of people. Scientists staying silent on the matter is one of the things that let them get this far.
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:15 am
But do we even know what the content is yet? I spent a half hour browsing the museum’s web site and it appears to be much more a Bible museum than a science museum. In other words the people who will go there will be those who are predisposed to its message.
It bothers me that Evolving Squid doesn’t get Dutch’s sarcasm. We are sounding much too fanatical here. Screaming and name-calling will make the museum seem to have the moral high ground. The way to fight this is through dignified and rational discussion within the education industry. The “Statement of Concern” seems to be saying that learning the scientific method in school isn’t sufficient protection against dogmatic propaganda. This implies that AIG’s message is somehow very powerful. But all they are really saying is that the Bible trumps all other forms of knowledge.
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:34 am
But all they are really saying is that the Bible trumps all other forms of knowledge.
Indeed they are, and that is a very powerful, dangerous message. Since people in Kentucky and Pennsylvania (?) have already tried, via the court, to undermine science education, I’d say it’s a very dangerous message indeed. I’d also conclude that teaching the scientific method in school is NOT sufficient protection against dogmatic propaganda (although it certainly helps).
I’m not convinced we (the royal we) are sounding fanatical enough. We accept that religious folks go door to door to proseletyze, but should an atheist dare speak up, he’s being fanatical/intolerant/disrespectful of others/whatever. People shout down those who would deny the Holocaust because their denials fly in the face of reason, but shout down those who would deny the evidence science in favour of a magical sky-fairy and a mistranslated ancient text and it’s considered “fanatical” ?
I caught the sarcasm, but I think there’s some truth in it as well.
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:44 am
I don’t know what everyone will think about this idea, but here it goes. A few years ago I happened to come across a shirt that had “Great ideas in science” on one side of the shirt and “Great ideas in creation science” on the other side of the shirt. The science side of the shirt listed all sorts of scientific theories, laws, and other scientific ideas and on the creation science side it was blank because there have not been any great ideas in creation science. Why not take this idea, put it on a billboard and erect the billboard in the vicinity of this museum (maybe this billboard will get museum visitors to start asking some questions).
I not exactly sure how much this would cost (an internet search revealed anywhere from $700 to $2,500 a month) but if we got enough people involved, it shouldn’t be that expensive for any one person. I’ll throw in the first $50.
May 22nd, 2007 at 10:35 am
But Squid, we’re not all atheists. You speaking out so shrilly allows the creationists to “demonize the opposition”, something we can agree they love to do.
Tom, that’s a good idea, the kind of quiet and rational response that would be more effective. Another format might be:
Advancements through science:
- Germ theory
- Radio
- Smallpox vaccination
- Refrigeration
- etc. etc. etc.
Advancements through fundamentalism:
- Crusades
- Feudalism
- Divine right
- Inquisition
May 22nd, 2007 at 10:42 am
Phil,
It would be great if you could post (or link to) some evidence backing your opinions in this posting. I have never heard of Ken Ham, and it looks like little more than a personal vendetta when you call him a liar with no support. Also, I have no idea what this museum of creation is, let alone what sort of evidence it’s purporting in the defense of its arguments. Thanks for the blog; looks like you have lots of neat stuff here.
Cheers.
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:28 am
Disclaimer: I’m agnostic, and have little love for organized religion, but I like playing Devil’s advocate better
:
Top ten things religion helped give us:
10. Charities
9. Clocks
8. Basic archetypes of morality
7. The modern university
6. Hospitals
5. Beer & wine
4. Libraries
3. Architecture
2. Language preservation
1. Christmas
Bottom ten things science/technology helped give us:
10. Nuclear weapons/modern warfare
9. Pollution
8. Snacks with the words “anal leakage” on the warning label
7. Cigarettes
6. Cell phones
5. Ubiquitous advertising
4. Windows
3. Cult of the celebrity
2. Reality TV
1. Big government
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:45 am
In my previous comment, it was supposed to be “I’m not exactly sure” not “I not exactly sure”. Trying to get my brain and hands to be insync with each other is kind of tough some times.
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:48 am
Quiet Desperation, That was too funny. Good Job!
May 22nd, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Isn’t this one
5. Beer & wine
backwards? That is, beer&wine gave us religion, not the other way around?
May 22nd, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Quiet Desparation, don’t forget that astronomy evolved from astrology (oh, how it pains me to say that).
May 22nd, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Mapnut, Evolving Squid’s comments weren’t “shrill.” The comment was along the lines of speaking out against this kind of lying, superstitious, dangerously wrong-headed, uncritical, dogmatic, unprovable, numb-nutzed, lame, fantasy-world crap. THAT’S shrill. The second point is that for far too long these folks have gotten away with a fairly measured and respectful response from the rest of us simply because they wrap their fanciful idiocy in a cloak of religion. Enough, already. Time to take the gloves off. We might even develop our own Ann Coulters, Jerry Falwells, bible-thumping ministers of going to Hell damnation and apocalyptic doom to counter the loonies on the right; but substitute rants involving science and the latest evolutionary discoveries and the newest explanations of some of the mysteries of the universe as revealed by astronomers, for example. Except I know we won’t do that; it is simply not within our natures to stoop the levels of fanaticism that the opposition so readily can exhibit whenever one or more of their pet notions is questioned or about to be blown out of the water by reason.
May 22nd, 2007 at 2:47 pm
This is my one issue with changing my career path: I’m no longer going to be considered a scientist. I have a B.S. in physics and a Masters in astronomy. I’d rather teach than do research, though, so I got a job at a community college (in KY) instead of finishing a Ph.D. After five years of being a Ph.D. candidate, I’m now just a teacher. I understand the reasons for limiting this to Ph.D.s, but I am still miffed at being left out as a college-level educator. [/rant]
I would sign this if I could, but since I don’t have a doctorate and I’m not in KY yet (I’m in IL, so close but so far), I can’t. I really hope everyone who can sign this statement will, though.
May 22nd, 2007 at 3:03 pm
But Squid, we’re not all atheists. You speaking out so shrilly allows the creationists to “demonize the oppositionâ€, something we can agree they love to do.
But Map, they already demonize the opposition. If you’re not one of them, you’re going straight to Hell, do not pass go, do not collect mana from Heaven.
You have people like Jerry “If you’re not a born-again Christian, you’re a failure as a human being” Falwell gaining serious political power and shaping the very fabric of society. Frankly, I think it’s long past time atheists fought back. Religion should be treated like a fart in an elevator… something that happens, but is universally embarrassing to be participating in.
As far as we’ve come, you’d think that religion would be the red-headed stepchild of philosophical thought by now.
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:01 pm
Lies in a book supported by liars. What gives them the right to pass on lies? They are accountable for what comes out of their mouths. They are lying.
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:05 pm
Map also reminded all of us that not everyone is religious or atheist… there are agnostics, of course.
Agnosticism is a weak position. The agnostic says “I don’t buy into the whole religion thing, but I’m not convinced by the evidence of science.” As a starting position, that’s fair enough.
But a starting position it is… to choose to remain agnostic is to choose ignorance. If the evidence on both sides of the God issue comes up lacking, is it adequate to sit in the middle and say “well, I choose neither”? I’m not sure it is. And i say that as a person who once took the agnostic position. With the passage of time, I found that position unreasonable, and indeed, untenable.
Agnostics remind me of Aesop’s fable of the bat, the birds and the beasts.
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Evolving squid, I am sooo with you:
“You have people like Jerry “If you’re not a born-again Christian, you’re a failure as a human being†Falwell gaining serious political power and shaping the very fabric of society. Frankly, I think it’s long past time atheists fought back. Religion should be treated like a fart in an elevator… something that happens, but is universally embarrassing to be participating in.”
The religious fanatics have gotten free passage to rant whatever hate-horror they please all my life. At the same time, nobody has been permitted to question “the Church”…ever. It’s way past time for the gloves to come off. The radical, religious-fanatic-Right are nothing but a pack of insane freaks trying to force their madness down the throats of all Americans…and eventually all people around the globe.
As human beings and people who can think, it is our duty to fight the religious fanatics on all fronts. Religion is, without question, the greatest danger humanity faces. We can fight and conquer all other problems but religion will destroy us if we let it.
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:37 pm
Thanks, Phil, for helping to get the word out. As of my writing this, we have over 700 scientists signing from those three states.
I can understand the frustration of some of your posters. For you folks outside of Indiana, Ohio, and Kentucky, consider that the purpose of the statement is to generate publicity, and especially publicity in the local area, which will be hardest hit by the museum’s predicted popularity. Having local scientists is more of a “hook” for reporters than having random people from around the country.
For you folks who are not scientists, consider the simple point the statement makes: students who accept the science at this creation science museum will be handicapped for study at the college level. Only college scientists can say this with authority — even if many of us understand the truth of this claim. The statement is at http://www.sciohost.org/states/ if you want to refresh your memory.
If you want to do something, I encourage you to watch whether your local paper prints a story about the AIG museum, and if it does, write a letter to the editor. Suggestions for writing a more effective letter and newspaper contacts (at least for the three states — if you are out of state, you can find your papers online) are in a link on the web site “how to write a letter to the editor”. Other resources are there (look on the right) as well. Of course, if your local media doesn’t cover the story, so much the better. But from a journalistic point of view, this story is juicy, and we already know there will be many media there on opening day and the few days previous to it.
For you Ohioans (Ohio-ites? OK — Buckeyes!) you should know about the Ohio Citizens for Science and join them. Web site http://www.ohioscience.org/ They played a critical role in helping to reverse the “bad” science education standards in Ohio a year or so back, and work hard monitoring antievolutionism in the state. Their web site has some very interesting news stories right now.
So thanks, all, for the interest. And remember, no one should try to curtail Ken Ham’s religious freedom — but when he is claiming scientific support for such ideas as a 6,000 year old Earth, Grand Canyon being cut by Noah’s flood, and human and dinosaurs coexisting — we have the right and responsibility to point out that there is no scientific evidence for these (and other) claims, and much evidence against them.
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:43 pm
Yes, you read that right: Genie Scott wrote a comment on my blog.
I so rock.
May 22nd, 2007 at 10:18 pm
I actually live less than ten miles away from that museum. I’ve watched them build it over the past few years, mostly through donations, and I get leaflets and pamphlets probably weekly about how I should absolutely visit and see how great it is; how it is founded in the one and only God’s glory.
Now, I don’t like to bash religion, since I believe it’s every individuals basic right to believe and do as they please provided it is not causing harm to another individuals basic rights, but the fact of the matter is that this group is touting that this is absolutely, without a doubt the way things happened — with little or no scientific reason. Furthermore, from the way I understand it, they completely discourage even investigating other possible theories, and offer “evidence” that their theory has to be correct. Of course, this could be local churches pushing to get others to see it their way, since I have yet to run into anyone of authority who runs or works at this “museum”.
Ah, the endeavors of a hippy, liberal, pro-science twenty-something living in the 1830’s that is northern Kentucky…
May 23rd, 2007 at 7:20 am
The funny thing is, by most measures, I’m actually quite conservative in my views. In general, I think that we’re progressing as a society faster than we can accomodate.
But, and it’s a capital-B but… part of the reason we have difficulty accomodating the change is because so much of the world is lost in the sea of fuzzy, supernatural thinking that is religion.
Something that I left of my Agnostic post… Most religions that believe in some kind of Hell, believe that Agnostics go there too because they are not believers. So being an agnostic doesn’t buy you much on the supernatural stock market if you believe there’s an iota of truth in (any) religious beliefs about supernatural beings.
May 23rd, 2007 at 7:27 am
Evolving Squid:
I don’t know about J.Christ, but the Moslem account of Mohommed was that he was an agnostic mystic who, by virtue of his meditations and annecdotal experiences, became convinced of the existance of a higher intelligence. Moslems will tell you that the Suras presented by Mo. are the most exceptional poetry ever written and therefore a living example of the word of God but they are only understandable if you are fluent in Arabic.
The agnostic admits to ignorance. Is there a god? I don’t know but if evidence should appear that supports that hypothesis I will attend to it.
The admission of ignorance is often stated to be the first step on the path of wisdom.
As my atheist aunt, Kate used to say, ” I don’t say there IS no God. I say I don’t BELIEVE there is a god.” Very precise, given the available evidence.
GAry 7
May 23rd, 2007 at 7:32 am
>>> That is, beer&wine gave us religion, not the other way around?
Early monks did a lot of work with beer and wine.
Dom Pérignon was a monk, and credited with inventing champagne.
Wine has been a highly ceremonial drink for all of recorded history.
>>> don’t forget that astronomy evolved from astrology
>>> (oh, how it pains me to say that).
Oh, everyone has an embarrassing ancestor or two.
May 23rd, 2007 at 7:35 am
>>> Most religions that believe in some kind of Hell, believe
>>> that Agnostics go there too because they are not believers.
Oh well. Look me up when you get there.
“Heaven for the weather, Hell for the company.”
Mark Twain, I think.
May 23rd, 2007 at 8:22 am
In spite of the discussions of religion here, I’d point out that not all religious people are opposed to science. (Phil occasionally mentions this, I think.) I’m Catholic, but so far as I’m aware the Church isn’t opposed to evolutionary sciences. I have no problem believing in science and in a God who made it possible (and doesn’t mind us exploring the history and mysteries of the universe).
The “museum” has the problem of trying to use the Bible, a philosophical book, as a science reference.
Anyway, I was interested to see that the “museum” can’t claim it’s just the heathen atheists or something. There are over 75 faculty (including one priest) listed that I’ve noticed so far, from 16 religious-affiliated schools in 5 Christian denominations.
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:18 am
Oh well. Look me up when you get there.
heh
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:53 am
I’m in TN, right next door, and wish I could sign something. And I’m even a self-outed Christian:
However, I have to admit I don’t like this sentence:
Students who accept this material as scientifically valid are unlikely to succeed in science courses at the college level.
This predicts too much. I like the idea that students have the ability to open their minds later, and that we have the opportunities to change their minds later. Yes, feeding kids this crap will set them at a disadvantage when they go to college, but I really don’t like the idea of saying that people who come in with a disadvantage are unlikely to succeed.
I’m horrified by the creation museum and all that it represents– I just don’t really like this sentence in the statement.
-Rob
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:31 pm
What’s most bothersome about the tone of this debate is that there are a few places in the Bible that have surprisingly good science. Genesis and Leviticus recognized that “the life of a creature is in the blood” long before the scientific community learned it. Dietary laws forbid the eating of scavengers, which it turns out protected the Hebrews from a large number of parasites and diseases. To be sure, there’s also some really loopy stuff in Leviticus, but it bugs me when folks are so dismissive of religious texts as possible sources of scientific accuracy.
May 24th, 2007 at 7:09 am
but I really don’t like the idea of saying that people who come in with a disadvantage are unlikely to succeed.
Yes, it is poor wording. It should say “Students who accept this material as scientifically valid are less likely to succeed in science courses at the college level.”
May 25th, 2007 at 7:31 am
Creation Science Museum
Creation Science Get a Home With Unique Theosophy for Killing our own Species
(( from/with Blognonymous.com))
With majority approval certain states kill criminal offenders every year.
Our military at present is in the business of killing people most days.
If humans are held to be a scientifically evolved animal, then the rule not to kill would not be solely a God and Bible based edict. (He made us and He made the Rule; animals would not create the ‘Do not kill’ fiat on their own you see.)
So you make a museum that shows that dinosaurs (scientifically known to predate humans by millions of years) and humans were created co-terminously by the spiritual force that you base your entire existence on.
So. And ergo too. If carbon dating is valid God does not therefor exist.
Hence the moral edict to not kill is man made, (with exceptions for electrocutions, protecting oil supplies and blowing up abortion clinics) and has no valid authority.
Wait. This makes no sense.
You can ignorantly but morally kill people if the dinosaurs came first……but not if God made us and the dinosaurs at the same time ……but..with exceptions….you can kill some of the people …..some of the time….or…I am confused.
May 25th, 2007 at 10:26 am
The anti-God bias of modern day science floors me. It is so obvious that the Universe was designed. I thought science was the search for truth. If a scientist
happens to be a Christian, he might as well be a Jew in Nazi Germany. Non-Christian scientist are the ones with closed minds. You claim to search for evidence but if the evidence leads to God then you say, “no thanks”.
May 26th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
“You claim to search for evidence but if the evidence leads to God then you say, ‘no thanks’.”
See, I believe that argument is fallicious. I’ve met plenty of Christian scientists who believe that the universe was designed, and that design was evolution, the big bang, etc. Furthermore, if the Christian religion is meant to be based on faith, then we can never find any evidence that proves, or even suggests, that a god has to exist simply because to do so would completely undermine faith and the entire basis for the religion would be corrupted. Religion, specifically Christianity, is a single-blind experiment, and allowing the test subjects to know that they’re being tested ruins the results.
And compairing a Christian scientist to a Jew in Nazi Germany was really in bad taste. No offense, but there is no correlation between being ignored in your field to having your entire race systematically eleminated. There is no reason to trivialize such an event. It doesn’t seem to phase Kent Hovind at all…
May 29th, 2007 at 10:54 am
Eugenie C. Scott Says: “Thanks, Phil, for helping to get the word out. As of my writing this, we have over 700 scientists signing from those three states.”
Would that make them the “700 club”?
May 31st, 2007 at 6:48 am
David Marinegold said:
> It is so obvious that the Universe was designed.
It is so obvious that the Universe was not designed. See, it’s easy to make a blanket statement of opinion without any evidence. Who can argue that, it’s just opinions? Beat each other up all day long, at the end of the day nobody has changed their minds.
> I thought science was the search for truth. If a scientist
happens to be a Christian, he might as well be a Jew in Nazi Germany.
We officially have a comparison to NAZI’s. This thread is officially dead.
Seriously, that comparison is faulty and insulting. No one is killing scientists for being christians. We just want science to be, you know, science.
> Non-Christian scientist are the ones with closed minds. You claim to search for evidence but if the evidence leads to God then you say, “no thanksâ€.
There appear to be some serious disagreements over the constitution and interpretation of “evidence”.
DennyMo said:
> What’s most bothersome about the tone of this debate is that there are a few places in the Bible that have surprisingly good science. Genesis and Leviticus recognized that “the life of a creature is in the blood†long before the scientific community learned it. Dietary laws forbid the eating of scavengers, which it turns out protected the Hebrews from a large number of parasites and diseases. To be sure, there’s also some really loopy stuff in Leviticus, but it bugs me when folks are so dismissive of religious texts as possible sources of scientific accuracy.
What’s the adage, even a broken clock is right twice a day? (That’s from the old analog days, when a broken clock still had hands on the face. A digital clock probably isn’t quite as fitting.) There may inadvertently be some scientifically accurate material buried in the Bible, but the Bible is not a science book and shouldn’t be read as one. It’s not a difficult observation that excessive bleeding leads to death. I don’t believe science ever doubted that. “The life is in the blood” is a bit different of interpretation. Yes, there are some dietary restrictions that we find have some health benefits, or could have had some health benefits at the time. However, it is debatable about the source of those dietary restrictions and their intent.
June 1st, 2007 at 12:39 am
Religion and Science: Deity meets Data will be the topic of the next episode of the SETI Are We Alone radio program http://radio.seti.org/next-show.php
There is an interesting article on the Creationist Museum on http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/05/31/creation_museum/
June 1st, 2007 at 10:12 am
i
Ive got a better idea Iam calling on all christans who beleave in evelotion like me to boycot this musem and to convince others to do so as well . It people like thes fundamentlist that make me sick . frist of all the creation story in the bible is not a sciencetific theory nor should it be read as one . second what the fundamentlist dont whant you to know is that chapters 1and 2 of genises are in fact two diferent acount of the creation (read them and you will see ) futher to say that the earth cant be 4.5 billon years old is to ingnore the fact that God is enternal . I wish also to say that it is offencife this attuide that fundamentlists have that ther interpation of the Bible is the only one and all others are worng . You know Jesus use to yell at the fundamentlists of his own day the phariseses for thinking the same way. so boycot this musem if it dose not make money it will close.
June 10th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
(Now, I don’t like to bash religion, since I believe it’s every individuals basic right to believe and do as they please provided it is not causing harm to another individuals basic rights, but the fact of the matter is that this group is touting that this is absolutely, without a doubt the way things happened — with little or no scientific reason. Furthermore, from the way I understand it, they completely discourage even investigating other possible theories, and offer “evidence†that their theory has to be correct. Of course, this could be local churches pushing to get others to see it their way, since I have yet to run into anyone of authority who runs or works at this “museumâ€.)
Well I was born in Kentucky and have lived here most of my life other than the time I was in the Army.
I do not push creationism and I also do not push Darwin’s theory.
Both are just Theory and there is very little evidence to back up either.
But the fact is this. We have what is called Religious Freedom. The Museum is on private property and it is privately funded. If you people up north or anywhere else have a problem with creationism and want to stop it then keep it in your state. Leave my state alone.
For the person who made the statement that I quoted.
This is a two way street. Some people want Darwin’s Theories to be the only thing taught and some want creationism to be the only thing taught.
What they do not get is that forcing their personal opinion on everyone is breaking down our freedom.
They will so sell out their own freedom of Choice in order of force what they believe on everyone else.
The creationist and the Darwin Theory people both do it. They are both just as guilty.
They are both just as screwed up and just as radical and they are both a threat to the very freedom that myself and so many others have fought for. They are a threat to Democracy. We are supposed to have freedom of choice.
If you do not like God don’t go to church. If you do not like Darwin don’t go to a liberal college.
If you do not like what is on the TV or the radio change the channel.
But for goodness sake stop trying to force your way of thinking on everyone else in the country.
You know it is not like this is a radical religion that teaches children to be suicide bombers and teaches the murder of women and children if they do not follow the Radical Muslim way of thinking. Or any other religion which teaches harm to others. This is America where we have freedom to be who we want and to live the way we want as long as it doesn’t bring physical harm to others. You people who are so guilt ridden that you have to protest everything that is against your beliefs are going to be what kills freedom for everyone.
I see you all as nothing but a bunch of Communist jerks who think that the government can legislate happiness for you because you are too touchy. You think you can go through life without ever being offended or disappointed and you want government legislation on it. I say…Wake the hell up and get a freaking life and stop trying to force your hippy beliefs on all of the people in the country who are not doing anything to hurt you other than disagreeing with your opinion.
June 10th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Disclaimer: I’m agnostic, and have little love for organized religion, but I like playing Devil’s advocate better :
Top ten things religion helped give us:
10. Charities
9. Clocks
8. Basic archetypes of morality
7. The modern university
6. Hospitals
5. Beer & wine
4. Libraries
3. Architecture
2. Language preservation
1. Christmas
Bottom ten things science/technology helped give us:
10. Nuclear weapons/modern warfare
9. Pollution
8. Snacks with the words “anal leakage†on the warning label
7. Cigarettes
6. Cell phones
5. Ubiquitous advertising
4. Windows
3. Cult of the celebrity
2. Reality TV
1. Big government
AMEN TO THAT !!!!!!
June 11th, 2007 at 3:50 am
Tav, I’m afraid I have to address some flaws in your post. First, creationism is not a theory, it is a literal interpretation of the creation story in the Bible. It has nothing to do with science. Science and religion are two totally seperate subjects. Also, whether you are interested in it or not, evolution has plenty of evidence. Yes it is a theory, but so is the theory of gravity, the germ theory of disease, theory of electricity, etc…
While you are correct that everyone has religious freedom, people are also free to point out flaws in anti-scientific notions such as creationism. A belief in creationism is fine, but it should NOT be taught as a science, which is what creationists want to do. I say again, science and religion are totally two seperate subjects. I’d also like to point out that evolution does NOT preclude the existence of God. NOTHING can, hence, why it is not scientific. There is nothing wrong with believing in God AND accepting evolution. By the way, I’m also agnostic.
Also, science is not a threat to democracy. Science is simply the observation of what happens in nature. It is true that science can be used to do bad things, (like nuclear weapons, for example) but that has no bearing on whether or not science is correct or not. It is PEOPLE who use science badly to do bad things, not the science itself.
Your mentioning of radical Muslims is another flawed point. There are also moderate Muslims out there who think that suicide bombers are nuts, just the same as we do. There have also been radical christians who have used their religion as an excuse to kill, or force their opinions onto others. That does not mean, however, that ALL christians are like that.
As for your comment accusing everyone who disagrees with you “Communists”, I find that pathetic and quite hypocritical, considering you were arguing for ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom of opinion’ just a short while before.
Oh, and your “top ten” lists are again, childish (and plain wrong). Try a proper argument next time, rather than just a poor attempt to paint anyone you disagree with as “bad guys”.
July 6th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
[…] What’s really neat about the story too, is apparently the alien scraps were hauled off to Fort Knox. Now Fort Knox is also mentioned prominently at Al’s buddy Phil’s blog as well. It’s just a hop, skip, and a jump from ( drum roll please ), Kentucky’s latest landmark, the Creationist Museum. […]
October 5th, 2007 at 9:48 am
“It is so obvious that the Universe was not designed. See, it’s easy to make a blanket statement of opinion without any evidence” The
evidence is the universe before us. Google Hugh Ross or reasons.org
to read articles on intelligent design. The earth’s just right orbit, the location of the moon, location of the planets in the solar system, the
lies about fossil evidence. I could go on and on with the evidence.
Get the DVD called “The Privilaged Planet”.
Someone above said that my comparing Jews with Christian scientist
was in bad taste. If there is no God, all bets are off. Killing isn’t wrong.
It’s just one bag of atoms destroying another bag of atoms. Morality
comes from God and that is another proof for God. Evolution is a lie.
There are hundreds of articles and books disproving evolution.
Evolution is just the politically correct view of the “scientific” community.
Naturalism is a dogmatic and unchanging worldview that doesn’t follow where the evidence leads. The evidence leads to a creator. I think it is
so silly when atheist try to feign contemp for someone. Atheist have
to borrow what is called captial from the Christian worldview. They
have no foundation for morality. It is only the theistic worldview that
can provide a foundation for any type of morality.