Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Kentucky Fried Creationism
The Cincinnati Enquirer reports on the whiz-bang opening of the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky. Long snippets:
The museum opened at 10 a.m. with about 500 people in line and with license plates from 31 states and two Canadian provinces in the parking lot of about 600 spaces....
"It's really impressive - and it really gives the impression that they're talking about science at some point," said critic Lawrence Krauss, professor of physics and astronomy and director of the Center for Education and Research in Cosmology and Astrophysics at Cleveland's Case Western Reserve University.
On a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being best, "I'd give it a 4 for technology, 5 for propaganda," Krauss said. As for content, "I'd give it a negative 5."...
The museum, with its roaring Utah raptor and impressive computer-generated images of what Noah's Ark might have looked like plying the waves of a Great Flood, has a polish and professionalism of exhibits that would make documentary-makers, many museums and theme parks drool.
"They've got a lot of beautiful animation to attract the kids," said Thomas More College mathematics and physics professor Robert M. Riehemann. "It's as believable as any fantasy science-fiction movie or museum that you'll see."
But the flash lacks the facts, argue Riehemann, Krauss and other critics - including more than 800 scientists from Kentucky, Ohio and Indiana who signed a "statement of concern" about the museum.
"We, the undersigned scientists at universities and colleges ... are concerned about scientifically inaccurate materials at the Answers in Genesis museum," the statement reads. "Students who accept this material as scientifically valid are unlikely to succeed in science courses at the college level."
"They're trying to make it look like it's your option - you can choose whichever version you want," Riehemann said. "But really, the scientific community is very strong, and very united, that the earth is more than 6,000 years old - that dinosaurs did not co-exist with human beings.
"But they want to present it as though there's really some kind of issue here among scientists," Riehemann said. "There's no real disagreement in the greater body of scientists."
"'What do you mean by mainstream science?' is what I would say," said Answers in Genesis president and co-founder Ken Ham. "By mainstream science, I would understand, 'Oh, you study cells, you study genetics, you study the physical laws.'
"What we're showing here is our scientists are mainstream scientists, and mainstream science confirms the Bible's history - that's what we're saying," Ham said. "I would say mainstream science is what this place is all about."...
Other exhibits showed dinosaurs aboard Noah's Ark, and asserted that no animals, including dinosaurs, were meat-eaters until after Adam committed the first sin in the Garden of Eden.
"Before man's fall," according to one exhibit, "animals were vegetarians. In a 'very good' creation, no animal would die, so there were no carnivores."
"There is no other place like this in the world - this is a world first," Ham said. "Hopefully, maybe it will be the start of many more around the world."
Among Kentucky dignitaries who celebrated the building's ribbon cutting on Saturday were Boone County Judge-executive Gary Moore; state Sens. Richard "Dick" Roeding and Jack Westwood; state Reps. Addia Wuchner and Tom Kerr; Kentucky Court of Appeals Judge Joy Moore; County Commissioner Charlie Kenner; state Commerce Secretary George Ward; and Paul Patton, the state's director of faith-based initiatives.
Creation Museum site online here.
Reason's Ron Bailey attended Creation Summer Camp, where some the museum's founders were, er, counselors, here.
More Reason stories on evolution here.
|5.29.07 @ 7:47AM|#
"It's really impressive - and it really gives the impression
that they're talking about science at some point," said critic
Lawrence Krauss...
Win.
stuartl|5.29.07 @ 8:10AM|#
Other exhibits showed dinosaurs aboard Noah's Ark, and
asserted that no animals, including dinosaurs, were meat-eaters
until after Adam committed the first sin in the Garden of
Eden.
I'm curious what prevented the Allosuarus(?) on their home page
from starving to death. Those teeth are not much good at chewing
plant matter. No doubt there is some good scientific
explanation.
|5.29.07 @ 8:12AM|#
This and other "creation science" efforts should make it easier to rebut the claims of creationists. They've accepted the paradigm of modern, experimental science as the standard for testing their claims. By that standard, their claims can easily be shown to fail. (As opposed to arguing that experimental science / Aristotelian logic represent only one set of "truth" rules, which cannot be shown to be better than any other set of truth rules.)
Bhh|5.29.07 @ 8:41AM|#
Allosaurus ate bananas. They're soft and he could peel them with his little claws.
Christ on a Cracker|5.29.07 @ 8:52AM|#
From Mr. Bailey's article:
"... If Adam is your ancestor then you were created specially
and have a purpose in life. If evolution is true, we are descended
from ape-like animals with no morality, no aesthetic sensibility
and no soul." If evolution were true, Bell tells the conferees,
then "you would have no purpose for your existence."
Actually, if this is true, then your life has no pre-ordained
purpose. It is up to you to come up with a purpose.
Athesism is not for the weak minded.
thoreau|5.29.07 @ 8:58AM|#
I'm almost tempted to go visit this place.
I'd probably get kicked out in about 5 minutes. But it would be fun
while it lasted.
Hit and Run roadtrip, anybody?
|5.29.07 @ 9:06AM|#
Can anyone who's studied Genesis tell me if the flood was supposed to destroy all life on earth, and if so, how did it kill all of the fish?
ktc2|5.29.07 @ 9:10AM|#
Yeah, let's make a roadtrip of it.
We'll all go and laugh until we pass out or they throw us out.
stephen the goldberger|5.29.07 @ 9:15AM|#
"Can anyone who's studied Genesis tell me if the flood was
supposed to destroy all life on earth, and if so, how did it kill
all of the fish?"
It combined fresh water bodies with salt water bodies and all the
fish couldn't handle the fragile shift to their ecosystem.
Sort of like how Global Warming will kill us all.
|5.29.07 @ 9:18AM|#
Why even bother with the "animals were vegetarians ... so there were no carnivores." nonsense, why not "animals didn't need food until the fall" full stop. This way the creationist have even one less thing to explain and one less thing to embarrass themselves with.
SugarFree|5.29.07 @ 9:21AM|#
Oh, Kentucky... every time I develop a little pride, you haul
off and kick me in the taint.
We're really all not idiots here, it's just that the idiots all
seem to have megaphones.
I could meet you up there, for the roadtrip. There are two awesome
and three middling disc golf course within a 20 minute drive, so
the whole trip wouldn't all have to be about laughing at
doofuses.
|5.29.07 @ 9:23AM|#
"...and Paul Patton, the state's director of faith-based
initiatives."
Ahhhhhhh...nothing like a little irony to start off the first day
after a long weekend.
That's just poetic.
robc|5.29.07 @ 9:37AM|#
Post museum, we could head into Newport and hit the HofbrauHaus for dinner. The beers may help us forget. As a Kyian and an evangelical christian, I would need a good bit to drink to get over the embarrassment of that place.
biologist|5.29.07 @ 9:39AM|#
Clearly, Ken Ham isn't worried about violating the Bible's
prohibition on "bearing false witness". He must know something we
don't know. Is it:
A: God told him the end justifies the means.
B: There is no God.
C: His stated interpretation of the Bible is false, and he's just
doing this schtick to get rich.
|5.29.07 @ 9:39AM|#
My understanding is that the is funded privately. My
understanding is that no one is being compelled to attend.
Check both of those boxes above, and I don't care if they're
teachin' everybody that the world is flat.
stuartl|5.29.07 @ 9:40AM|#
Why even bother with the "animals were vegetarians ... so
there were no carnivores." nonsense, why not "animals didn't need
food until the fall" full stop. This way the creationist have even
one less thing to explain and one less thing to embarrass
themselves with.
Someone might ask where the animals got the energy to move
around.
Don't you understand that this is REAL science? They have strong
evidence for all of their assertions.
|5.29.07 @ 9:44AM|#
Largely because they want to remain accurate to the text and
interpretations thereof. If they just wanted a nice, easily
swallowed story, they've got plenty of options (it's not like
anyone even reads the lineages anyway). I mean, if you're assuming
that a deity can create the entire freaking universe, a couple
plants that provide protein and can be consumed with teeth like
that on a carnivore isn't particularly difficult.
I don't like the scientist complaints against it, though. It's
religious speech, for starters, and probably political as well, and
as a result as well protected by the 1st amendment as it
gets.
It should be very easy to debunk anything this obviously false.
Trying to stop information from getting out suggests that you're
not capable of doing so.
And for most of us, this is something you can pick an option over.
Unless you're studying the history of the universe or evolutionary
biology, it doesn't matter much. Even stuff like particle physics
doesn't require you to know much about the creation of the universe
or the utility of flooding.
Actually, if this is true, then your life has no pre-ordained
purpose. It is up to you to come up with a purpose.
No, to be more precise, your purpose is to reproduce as quickly as
possible to prevent your genetic code from being annihilated, in a
hopeless attempt to slow the loss of genetic diversity in the human
race.
Timothy|5.29.07 @ 9:47AM|#
Hell yes, road trip!
Ken: I think they have a right to tell people whatever they want,
but it doesn't make them any less mock-worthy that they're well
within their rights. The spreading of falsehood also really
irritates me, because then the rest of us have to waste our time
trying to rebut emotionally appealing nonsense instead of working
on something productive.
Garth|5.29.07 @ 9:52AM|#
I can "get" why some people need to believe a deity created the universe and all the stuff in it... but sticking to the Noah's Ark story? C'mon, that's just being ridiculous.
SugarFree|5.29.07 @ 9:56AM|#
Garth,
When building a house of cards, you have to use all the cards for
the sake of stability.
D.A. Ridgely|5.29.07 @ 10:04AM|#
stuartl,
I understand DEATH (Dinosaurs for the EthicAl Treatment of Humans)
was very big in those days and the allosaurus, etc. struggled on a
diet of prehistoric tofu and airborne plankton. After being ousted
from Eden, early human use of fire emitted so much CO2 into the
atmosphere that the airborne plankton sank into the oceans and all
but two of the dinosaurs died out. Due to a clerical error, they
were on Noah's Transportation Security Authority watch list and
were thus barred from the Ark. This was all part of God's plan that
one day we would have enough gasoline to get to church on Sunday in
our SUVs, so we shouldn't feel too sorry for the dead dinosaurs,
except maybe for Fred and Wilma's loyal pet, Dino.
steveintheknow|5.29.07 @ 10:06AM|#
A road trip would be awesome!
Like the time I went to the actual Hell House for Halloween.
thats right kids, as seen on tv.
The truth may set you free, but lies, bull shit, and propaganda...
that's where the fun is.
SugarFree|5.29.07 @ 10:08AM|#
DAR,
That reminds me of my favorite creationism joke:
Creationists: People who watch The Flintstone and think
it's a documentary.
biologist|5.29.07 @ 10:12AM|#
gattsuru | May 29, 2007, 9:44am | #
...I don't like the scientist complaints against it, though. It's
religious speech, for starters, and probably political as well, and
as a result as well protected by the 1st amendment as it
gets.
so scientists' complaints about the museum aren't protected
speech?
It should be very easy to debunk anything this obviously false.
Trying to stop information from getting out suggests that you're
not capable of doing so.
I didn't see in the article where anyone was trying to stop
"information" from getting out, but in fact many books have been
written debunking exactly the claims of creationists (e.g.
Scientists Confront Creationism). There are many real
science museums as well. However, studying science and math to gain
the understanding in order to be able to discriminate among
plausible-sounding alternatives takes time and effort the average
person isn't willing to exert.
Ken Schultz:
those are the main libertarian talking points, and I agree, but I
have a general objection to people propagating false statements as
true.
Timothy:
exactly
biologist|5.29.07 @ 10:15AM|#
hmmm, apparently there's a newer edition of the book I
recommended updated to address intelligent design:
Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism
|5.29.07 @ 10:27AM|#
Where's Elmo to tell me I'm not allowed to doubt the veracity of the museum's claims without first visiting the museum and absorbing its message?
Bhh|5.29.07 @ 10:29AM|#
If you're on a roadtrip in the general area you might as well
stop by
Touchdown Jesus.
|5.29.07 @ 10:32AM|#
I mean, if you're assuming that a deity can create the
entire freaking universe, a couple plants that provide protein and
can be consumed with teeth like that on a carnivore isn't
particularly difficult.
It's too bad all the pork-chop trees vanished in the flood.
|5.29.07 @ 10:35AM|#
What annoys me about the whole "evolution vs creationism" thing is that people keep harping about science when the debate is about history.
Grotius|5.29.07 @ 10:40AM|#
Ken,
If they are going to put their wares into the marketplace of ideas
then they are fair game.
|5.29.07 @ 10:51AM|#
The museum's website is notable for its lack of photographs. I could only find this page with three photos of visibly uninspired workers. If they really want to make some money, they should charge by the yawn.
|5.29.07 @ 10:57AM|#
There are no legal or justice issues here, because it's all
voluntary. Regarding the accuracy, now that the museum puts
specific claims on the table, scientists can counter them. Overall,
students will benefit from seeing the debate. I'm optimistic that
the museum will become more Dawrinistic over time as it's
supporters develop a more scientific outlook.
In related new, the American Museum of Natural History has updated
their exhibit on human evolution. They also finished revamping
their anthropology exhibits over the past few years so they are
less about diaramas and more about the flow of cultural traits.
I'll be thrilled if AMNH opens a Hall of European Peoples.
|5.29.07 @ 11:03AM|#
What annoys me about the whole "evolution vs creationism"
thing is that people keep harping about science when the debate is
about history.
Good history scholorship involves science.
thoreau|5.29.07 @ 11:04AM|#
I'm optimistic that the museum will become more Dawrinistic
over time as it's supporters develop a more scientific
outlook.
If this was about a bunch of people who started their exhibits
under certain misunderstandings but are willing to correct their
misunderstandings, then you would be right. Through a process of
feedback the exhibits would "evolve" over time and eventually
reflect good science.
But that's not what this is about. The museum is about dogma, and
the people espousing it are not interested in revision.
They have a right to make a museum reflecting their views, of
course, and the rest of us have a right to mock them
mercilessly.
GILMORE|5.29.07 @ 11:09AM|#
Do creationists have an explanation for why men have
nipples?
Science has failed to provide an explanation that will satisfy me.
Why did jesus give me boobies?
Mike Laursen|5.29.07 @ 11:11AM|#
What annoys me about the whole "evolution vs creationism"
thing is that people keep harping about science when the debate is
about history.
Once again I wish we could post our comments in the form of Venn
diagrams. Dan T., in your Venn diagram, do the History and Science
circles not overlap?
biologist|5.29.07 @ 11:31AM|#
jtuf | May 29, 2007, 10:57am | #
There are no legal or justice issues here, because it's all
voluntary.
agreed
Regarding the accuracy, now that the museum puts specific
claims on the table, scientists can counter them.
their claims have been countered and disproven over and over and
over and over...
Overall, students will benefit from seeing the
debate.
when empirical questions are involved, there is no real debate, if
enough information is available. That students benefit from
examining the sides' competing claims is true, but doesn't require
a visit to a dishonest museum, they should be getting this
information in class. I suspect if high school instructors taught
evolution coupled with presentations debunking the specific claims
of young-earth creationists they'd get in trouble for offending
religious beliefs.
I'm optimistic that the museum will become more Dawrinistic
[sic] over time as it's [sic] supporters develop a more scientific
outlook.
Like the beliefs of the creationists running the museum, your
optimistic supposition lacks empirical support.
Gilmore:
what explanation have you heard that you didn't find
satisfactory?
thoreau|5.29.07 @ 11:36AM|#
Why did jesus give me boobies?
Jesus only gave you the nipples. Beer and ice cream give you the
rest.
Grotius|5.29.07 @ 11:42AM|#
Gilmore,
Do creationists have an explanation for why men have
nipples?
Male nipples are "The
Theists [sic] Nightmare."
biologist|5.29.07 @ 11:50AM|#
Grotius:
from the video you linked:
Did the first man have nipples?
Before I accepted the evidence of evolution I often wondered if
Adam and Eve had navels.
(great video, btw)
Grotius|5.29.07 @ 11:52AM|#
biologist,
I wondered that question myself. In fact if I recall correctly I
asked a minister that question when I was a kid. I can't really
remember the answer but I do remember feeling somewhat
unsatisfied.
|5.29.07 @ 12:27PM|#
"If they are going to put their wares into the marketplace
of ideas then they are fair game."
I agree. ...and I hope someone points out to them that because they
can put their wares into the marketplace, because they
can prepare their kids for the heresies they'll have to
endure in public schools, there's no reason to crowbar their ideas
into the public school curriculum.
This is the libertarian solution. We should applaud it.
MattXIV|5.29.07 @ 12:27PM|#
My understanding is that the is funded privately. My understanding is that no one is being compelled to attend.
Check both of those boxes above, and I don't care if they're teachin' everybody that the world is flat.
While this is a defense against any legal sanction for the museum,
it does nothing to support abstaining from criticising it, even
quite harshly. Indeed, the success of free speech as a practical
policy requires that people do so, since it relies on incorrect
positions be scorned sufficiently that people cease to hold
them.
thoreau|5.29.07 @ 12:31PM|#
This is the libertarian solution. We should applaud
it.
Does this mean I have to stop telling jokes about Blue Man
Candidate because he's a libertarian who dyed his skin blue at his
own expense?
Jim Murphy|5.29.07 @ 12:40PM|#
I'm curious what prevented the Allosuarus(?) on their home
page from starving to death. Those teeth are not much good at
chewing plant matter. No doubt there is some good scientific
explanation.
God said it, I believe it, that settles it. Allosaurus ate
hummus.
Jim Murphy|5.29.07 @ 12:41PM|#
I could meet you up there, for the roadtrip. There are two
awesome and three middling disc golf course within a 20 minute
drive, so the whole trip wouldn't all have to be about laughing at
doofuses.
I'd rather see where they make the bourbon and race the horses ;
)
|5.29.07 @ 12:57PM|#
"While this is a defense against any legal sanction for the
museum, it does nothing to support abstaining from criticising it,
even quite harshly. Indeed, the success of free speech as a
practical policy requires that people do so, since it relies on
incorrect positions be scorned sufficiently that people cease to
hold them."
Did someone suggest otherwise?
|5.29.07 @ 1:02PM|#
biologist,
Scientists took over a century of debate to weed out racist views
from evolutionary presentations. They also had to rechallenge a few
reincarnations of those ideas. Taking that as a template for
opposing false ideas, I think we're up to the challenge to
convincing creationists that the data supports Darwin. Anyway, it's
good we have this comparitively light hearted news in today's
blog.
thoreau|5.29.07 @ 1:09PM|#
Tangentially relevant:
Kentucky DMV Introduces Game Of Chicken To Driver's Test
|5.29.07 @ 1:18PM|#
It would be great if Mencken were still with us...what a hoot his column on this would be.
lunchstealer|5.29.07 @ 1:31PM|#
Christ on a Cracker | May 29, 2007, 8:52am | #
Wait, we've got another ontological dilemma here. If the cracker
that Christ is on is a communion cracker, and if that cracker has
undergone transubstantiation and is now the body of Christ, then
that would be Christ on Himself?
|5.29.07 @ 1:45PM|#
Dan T., in your Venn diagram, do the History and Science
circles not overlap?
Only very marginally. Take it from a history and philosophy double
major - science is only incidentally implicated in
historiography.
biologist|5.29.07 @ 1:59PM|#
lunchstealer, that sounds like Christ is involved in some sort of autoerotic activity
|5.29.07 @ 2:04PM|#
I believe Ken Ham claims that Tyrannosaurs used their teeth to
crack open coconuts. Read it on a blog linked to from
Pharyngula.com
This, of course, raises the question of why other animals, like
tigers, which cannot crack open coconuts, have such teeth. From
Mark Twain's "Diaries of Adam and Eve": "She engages herself in
many foolish things; among others; to study out why the animals
called lions and tigers live on grass and flowers, when, as she
says, the sort of teeth they wear would indicate that they were
intended to eat each other. This is foolish, because to do that
would be to kill each other, and that would introduce what, as I
understand, is called "death"; and death, as I have been told, has
not yet entered the Park. Which is a pity, on some accounts."
There is also the question of why animals that were designed to
subsist on vegetation would go to the bother of chasing down and
killing meat, since this takes a lot more energy and is harder to
do than browsing.
Wish Mark Twain was alive to unleash on these idiots.
Franklin Harris|5.29.07 @ 3:33PM|#
Let me get this straight. Animals were all vegetarians until
after the Fall, at which point, some of them suddenly became meat
eaters, which is what their teeth are good for but what God didn't
want them to do, proving God is an unintelligent designer. Later,
the Flood came along, and Noah put all of these animals, including
dinosaurs and meat eaters of all stripes, on a big boat. So, am I
to take it that the reason Noah didn't have a breeding pair of
unicorns is because a T-Rex decided to have a midnight snack? Then,
after the Fall and the Food, God decides his creation isn't perfect
anymore, anyway, so he lets all of the dinosaurs die off. And he
puts the dinos' bones in different fossil levels even though they
must have all kicked off at about the same time. But, of course,
this is the same God who created light in mid-travel from millions
of light years away so that people might actually be fooled into
thinking the universe is old enough for light to travel vast
distances on its own. Clearly, His ways are not our ways.
And people actually believe this?
I'd have an easier time believing Rudy Giuliani is a
libertarian.
Mike Laursen|5.29.07 @ 3:51PM|#
This is the libertarian solution. We should applaud
it.
Gotta disagree. Although I think Creationists are bozos, they're
paying taxes to support public schools, so they are justified in
wanting their nonsense to be taught there.
|5.29.07 @ 4:19PM|#
Dan T, RC Dean,
This is about history not science, you say? Is biology not a
science? What about geology? Astronomy? Cosmology? What the
fuck?
|5.29.07 @ 4:22PM|#
"Although I think Creationists are bozos, they're paying
taxes to support public schools, so they are justified in wanting
their nonsense to be taught there."
I agree that they're justified in wanting their nonsense taught to
their own children, and I agree that they're justified in not
wanting to have to pay taxes to propagate that which contradicts
their religious convictions.
...but they're not justified in trying to teach religious things to
non religious people or people of other religions. I guess I'm just
not real wild about the way you used the word "justified"
there.
|5.29.07 @ 4:31PM|#
Franklin Harris,
Now, now, the creationists don't claim God created light in
mid-travel. They claim that the speed of light has slowed down over
the years. Google it and see for yourself.
|5.29.07 @ 4:38PM|#
They claim that the speed of light has slowed down over the
years. Google it and see for yourself.
that's been around for a while. when Kansas banned evolution, they
also banned the big-bang theory.
lunchstealer|5.29.07 @ 4:52PM|#
I have seen a textbook used by homeschoolers that makes some
tragicomic claims regarding the speed of light, radiogenic decay,
and any of a number of other rather well established physical
laws.
Everything is rational if rational is solely defined as justifying
the bible.
|5.29.07 @ 4:57PM|#
The creationist/ID'ers focus on undoing Darwin, but in the end
they have to reject all modern science past the 1800's. They don't
see it that way, but then they have to resort to non-constant speed
of light and other crap to "prove" a young earth.
Anytime I meet someone that wants to argue about evolution, I just
ask them to explain red-shift. This usually results in completely
blank expressions.
|5.29.07 @ 4:57PM|#
Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days
scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 2Pe 3:4 And saying, Where
is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep,
all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the
creation.
2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word
of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the
water and in the water: 2Pe 3:6 Whereby the world that then was,
being overflowed with water, perished:
|5.29.07 @ 4:59PM|#
"Now, now, the creationists don't claim God created light in
mid-travel. They claim that the speed of light has slowed down over
the years."
Actually, both have been claimed. The latter is slightly more
plausible, and the speed of light may have indeed varied somewhat
under some theories, though not anywhere near the order of
magnitude that the creationists would need, and if so, there would
be all sorts of other effects of that that are all missing.
|5.29.07 @ 5:02PM|#
jer 2:27 "Saying to a stock, Thou [art] my father; and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth: for they have turned [their] back unto me, and not [their] face: but in the time of their trouble they will say, Arise, and save us." Before you say that you don't believe that you came from a stone answer this question, where did the soup come from?
thoreau|5.29.07 @ 5:09PM|#
There are certainly some mainstream cosmologists who propose
that the speed of light has changed over time. But none of the
hypothesized effects come anywhere close to providing cover for
claims of a literal 7 day creation.
The only way to be a literal 7 day creationist without discarding
most of modern physics is to believe that light was put there in
mid-travel. Of course, once you go there, you could just as easily
hypothesize that we were created 5 minutes ago with all of these
memories implanted in our brains.
I have been told that in the 1990's, when newsgroups were the place
to go for internet arguments, there was a guy on evolution/creation
threads who described himself as the High Priest of the Church of
Last Thursday. He argued (facetiously, one presumes) that the world
had been created last Thursday by his cat, who was actually a
deity. When people pointed to his posts from before last Thursday,
he would say that those records and memories were fabricated during
the creation.
|5.29.07 @ 5:12PM|#
Isa 45:12 "I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, [even] my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded."
|5.29.07 @ 5:24PM|#
Isaac Newton "Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system. I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance."
|5.29.07 @ 5:30PM|#
"Boone County Judge-executive Gary Moore; state Sens. Richard
"Dick" Roeding and Jack Westwood; state Reps. Addia Wuchner and Tom
Kerr; Kentucky Court of Appeals Judge Joy Moore; County
Commissioner Charlie Kenner; state Commerce Secretary George Ward;
and Paul Patton, the state's director of faith-based
initiatives."
Any Kentuckians out there? I was curious as to how many of these
pols were Dems and how many were GOP. I'm pretty sure which it
would be, but would be nice to know.
|5.29.07 @ 5:31PM|#
And would Judge Joy Moore be the spawn of uber-idiot Roy Moore? That would explain a lot...
biologist|5.29.07 @ 5:42PM|#
flood:
if other planets aren't at the right distance to receive just the
right amount of heat and light, then life couldn't have formed
there by natural phenomena, and would have required outside
intervention (i.e. supernatural phenomena, such as God). A more
convincing argument for creationism would be if we found our sort
of life thriving either on Mercury or Pluto.
Franklin Harris|5.29.07 @ 6:04PM|#
Isaac Newton "Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the
solar system. I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to
receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen
by chance."
Newton believed this because, genius that he was, he couldn't
account for the stability of planetary orbits. A century later,
Pierre-Simon Laplace came along a did it. When Napoleon asked
Laplace where God was in his account of planetary motion, Laplace
supposedly said, "I have no need of that hypothesis."
And of course Earth seems perfect for human life. On all of the
billions and billions of planets in the universe that are not
perfect for humanoid life (or intelligent life of any sort), no one
is sitting around thinking about how perfect their planet it.
However rare planets that support intelligent life are, if you're
thinking about it, you must be on one of those rare planets.
NP|5.29.07 @ 7:09PM|#
solune,
Not to defend them or anything, but I think most evangelists would
tell you that it's a-okay to visit a place other than a church on
the holy day as long as you're following the Lord's ways.
Brian|5.29.07 @ 7:33PM|#
Did the people that are against this because it's in a museum and they don't believe in it think that wax statues were real people at some point in the lives?
ktc2|5.29.07 @ 7:54PM|#
How did nonsense like this ever come to be considered
"conservative ideals"?
I read a lot about media/academic prejudice against "conservative
ideals". As long as creationism, antigay bigotry and xenophobia are
representative of "conservative ideals" who can blame them?
|5.29.07 @ 8:46PM|#
Franklin Harris " And of course Earth seems perfect for human
life. On all of the billions and billions of planets in the
universe that are not perfect for humanoid life (or intelligent
life of any sort), no one is sitting around thinking about how
perfect their planet it. However rare planets that support
intelligent life are, if you're thinking about it, you must be on
one of those rare planets.'
Gen 1:14 'And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the
heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs,
and for seasons, and for days, and years:'
|5.29.07 @ 9:15PM|#
Franklin Harris. 'When Napoleon asked Laplace where God was in
his account of planetary motion, Laplace supposedly said, "I have
no need of that hypothesis."
Leplace "I had no need of that hypothesis" note that he was a
Catholic as well. It is funny how one word can change the meaning
of a statement. (had, have)
Franklin Harris|5.29.07 @ 9:53PM|#
flood, if you're just going to keep quoting the Bible at people, I'm going to start quoting The Epic of Gilgamesh. It has all the same creation myths and had the first.
|5.29.07 @ 10:35PM|#
Franklin Harris
If you would like to quote those writings maybe you could quote
some of the ones about a world wide flood.
biologist|5.29.07 @ 11:06PM|#
Gilgamesh flood
myth
There's a summary, for all the good it will do you, since both the
Gilgamesh flood myth and Noachian flood myth are irrelevant, since
there's no objective evidence of a planet-wide flood near the time
the accounts take place.
biologist|5.29.07 @ 11:12PM|#
flood: the Hebrew word "yom" used in Genesis 1 can be translated as "day", or it can mean an indeterminate period of time. As someone once wrote, "It is funny how one word can change the meaning of a statement." One could also note that it is also funny that one word can have more than one meaning.
biologist|5.29.07 @ 11:37PM|#
jtuf wrote "I think we're up to the challenge to convincing
creationists that the data supports Darwin."
jtuf, I'd agree if I thought creationists would be open to
considering their "data" (Bible) might be incorrect, or that their
interpretation of the data (Bible, again) might be incorrect.
jtuf, meet flood. flood, jtuf.
|5.30.07 @ 12:40AM|#
I would never give up the peace I have found in Jesus Christ for anything. If you think about it creation science is making the science community better lets suppose that evolution were true, you have to admit it has a whole lot of holes in it, creation science is exposing some of these holes, you all talk about free thinking and so forth, but when it comes to evolution you stop thinking freely. Creationist are asking good questions about evolution, it seems that atheist best answers to these questions are to insult christians. Don't believe me read the majority of the comments on this page. When it comes down to it if I'm wrong I lived a life of hope and peace, and learned a little science along the way, and nothing happens to me I just die. But if I'm right your theories of evolution will sound pretty silly when you stand before God trying to prove to him there was no flood.
|5.30.07 @ 12:51AM|#
As for the comment about why men have nipples, if evolution were true and nipples are useless, why did they not evolve away. How many millions of years does it take a nipple to evolve away. Why wouldn't we be Asexual that would seem to be the most efficient way to breed.
ktc2|5.30.07 @ 1:20AM|#
Who discovered asexual reproduction?
Uh . . . your wife?
Damn, what movie was that?
Anyway, Flood, the problem isn't that fundies are "asking good
questions" about evolutionary theory. The problem is they are
simply redressing and restating the same tired old thoroughly
debunked nonsense over and over and sadly those of lesser intellect
(like our imbecile in chief President Bush) fall for it.
|5.30.07 @ 1:49AM|#
"you have to admit it has a whole lot of holes in it"
Would you care to give a couple examples? Because I'm a practicing
evolutionary biologist, and while there are most definitely open
questions in evolution, they're about _how _ exactly natural
biological evolution happens, not _if_ it happens; and I can't
think of any positive developments resulting from
"creationist...asking good questions about evolution."
"But if I'm right your theories of evolution will sound pretty
silly when you stand before God trying to prove to him there was no
flood."
It's worth pointing out again that natural evolution is not
incompatible with most people's understanding of their Christian
faith; in fact, there are a significant number of practicing
evolutionary biologists who are devoutly religious (although
admittedly fewer than among the population at large). It's just
incompatible with a literal reading of the Biblical creation story
- a reading which is discounted and disproved in so many ways by so
many different scientific disciplines and methods that no one with
the slightest respect for the modern practice of science can
honestly and seriously entertain it.
|5.30.07 @ 1:59AM|#
"If you think about it creation science is making the science
community better..."
As thoreau, biologist, and several others here have pointed out,
this statement would be true if creation science were operating by
the rules of science, and more generally by the rules of
intellectually honest and rigorous argument. Instead, it operates
by willful misrepresentation, deliberate distortion of the views of
actual scientists, and rehashing long-ago debunked, completely
non-scientific "theories."
In other words, there's no such thing as "creation science."
There's only creation pseudoscience and its latest incarnation,
intelligent design. The most significant thing "creation science"
has done is drive an unnecessary and intellectually dishonest wedge
between fair-minded scientists and fair-minded theologists. That's
not an accomplishment to brag about.
|5.30.07 @ 6:29AM|#
Memes and Genes are information containers, data if you will,
flowing through time. Nature provides a selective process for the
genes, if these genes travel with other adaptive "beneficial"
genes, then the organism that they construct and guide may survive,
thrive and reproduce those genes. If not, the organism becomes
extinct and that information, that DNA data line ends. This is the
essence of natural selection, the driving force of evolution. All
DNA / Gene controlled organisms have changed through time.
The process of science is the "natural selection" of memes, it
provides a time filter, a searching, probing, critical peer review
which allows those memes which explain with evidence to move forth
through time. Memes that do not explain with evidence, that are
based on "belief" only... memes like the idea of the flat earth
will eventually be thought silly and die out, providing historians
with a chuckle or two. Some memes may hang on for generation after
generation and provide a nice living for religious fanatics like
Ham and the other goof balls who built this "museum". The bodies in
which these memes find themselves will not become extinct but will
become terminally silly! They will spend their life's energy, time
and money building arks with dinosaurs in them. They will profess
that the earth is 6000 years old... they have lost the ability to
pass on information to critically thinking brains, their memes are
aimed at brains with the shortest dendrites, the least experience,
the brains with the least information, the young children and the
religious non-thinkers. Noah's Ark with a smattering of dinosaur
species, 6000 year old earth... terminally silly memes...
eventually bound for extinction.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245