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
Virtual Visit to the Creation Museum
Much, much more fun here. I particularly like the Garden of Eden exhibit featuring Adam and Eve, a penguin, and a velociraptor.
|11.19.07 @ 9:45AM|#
It's a fucking shame that what looks like hundreds of fossils
are being wasted on this monument to unspeakable ignorance.
Just think how much we could be learning from some of those
exhibits if they fell into the hands of, god forbid,
scientists!
|11.19.07 @ 9:49AM|#
I retract my previous post. Upon futher examination, it appears
the fossils are fake, much like God himself.
At least they're consistent...
|11.19.07 @ 9:52AM|#
Just because American flags weren't buried with dinosaurs doesn't mean that they didn't pledge allegiance everyday.
|11.19.07 @ 10:05AM|#
I can imagine that many creationists who visit this place end up at least reconsidering their beliefs in intelligent design because some of the displays are downright silly.
dhex|11.19.07 @ 10:06AM|#
i appreciate that eve is feeding a squirrel a Popsicle.
http://web.mit.edu/gjordan/www/creation/slides/_DSC2327.html
|11.19.07 @ 10:11AM|#
"Hundreds of Bible Prophecies have been fulfilled, and none has
failed."
I guess Christians don't believe in Grammar either...
|11.19.07 @ 10:14AM|#
I retract my previous post. Upon futher examination, it
appears the fossils are fake, much like God himself.
To be fair, this country is dotted with little local natural
history museums whose big dinos are mostly casts of the real
fossils held by the major institutions like the Field Museum, the
American Museum of Natural History, etc. It's not an uncommon
practice, and the kids enjoy it. The problem here is that their
dinos coexist with woolly mammoths and ancient Romans.
|11.19.07 @ 10:14AM|#
"I can imagine that many creationists who visit this place end
up at least reconsidering their beliefs in intelligent
design"
You can? That's a wild imagination you have there.
""Hundreds of Bible Prophecies have been fulfilled, and none has
failed."
I guess Christians don't believe in Grammar either..."
It was when Man had the temerity to invent rules of grammar that we
started to break away from God's language.
Sulla|11.19.07 @ 10:18AM|#
I'm somewhat sympathetic to those who are ridiculed for not believing in evolution, but the Creation Museum is really stupid on so many different levels.On an epistemological level, I know nothing and believe little, but I do think that science (as a philosophy) and religion have too much tension between them to allow for stuff like Intelligent Design. I do think it's fine to be a religious scientist, or a scientific religionist, but you shouldn't approach scientific pursuits with religious preconceptions or vice versa.
|11.19.07 @ 10:18AM|#
Posh, this stuff is positively benign compared to the
indoctrination you see in creationist "science" texts. My oldest
stepson is attending a Baptist high school (long story--suffice to
say that we're not Baptists), and, when he told his teacher that he
was a theistic evolutionist (God, sure, evolution, ditto), the
teacher asked him to keep an open mind about creationism.
Ha!
Our homeschooling texts often have similarly devious stuff, though
my wife can dodge most of it. Until we started homeschooling one of
the kids, we had no idea that a big chunk of the homeschooling
population exists because of the "insidious" teaching of evolution
in our public schools.
Anyway, I thought the truth was supposed to set us free?
|11.19.07 @ 10:19AM|#
http://web.mit.edu/gjordan/www/creation/slides/_DSC2403.html
This link reminds me of every anti-Ron Paul argument presented by
Edward..
Jesus Christ|11.19.07 @ 10:20AM|#
This isn't my fault. My Father gave you free will. You have to
take the bad with the good.
But it is a terrible waste of the science kit We gave you. I mean,
these folks are so down on themselves they can't even show the full
beauty of Adam and Eve in their natural state.
Dad made a woman's hair to be her crowning glory, not something to
hide behind. And don't even get me started on that
sheep.
jimmydageek|11.19.07 @ 10:22AM|#
It was when Man had the temerity to invent rules of grammar that we started to break away from God's language.
Well, there you have it, kiddos. Grammar killed God!
|11.19.07 @ 10:32AM|#
Science leaves plenty of room for faith. Science makes claims
over only a portion of human experience.
This museum and the thinking behind it represent the imperialism of
fundamentalist religion - the idea that religion must govern all
aspects of human experience.
The root word of "totalitarian" it "total." It's a term used to
describe the belief that all aspects of human life must reflect the
correct ideology.
|11.19.07 @ 10:44AM|#
Joe,
I don't think it is a desire to govern all aspects of human
experience.
The fundamentalists truly believe the earth is just a few thousand
years old and that Adam and Eve where to first humans and there
really was a garden of eden.
Adam and Eve's disobedience was the original sin and they were cast
out of the garden of eden. Jesus died for this sin and all other
sins committed by man. Now we can go to heaven when we die.
But, if evolution is true, then there was no garden of eden, no
Adam and Eve, and no original sin for Jesus to die for.
That is why the fundy's underwear is all in a bunch because of
Darwin's theory.
GILMORE|11.19.07 @ 10:44AM|#
I am curious about the Creationist reenactment of dinosaur
funerals. I mean, given that everyone got "buried" properly before
the fall of man...
oh, but wait - if this was prelapsian times... no one died? then
why were there any burials? Arg!! Does not compute! If it was
post-lapsian times, why werent god's pure dinosaurs wiping the
betraying man from the face of the earth???
I agree, this stuff does more to undermine itself than it does sell
"creationism"
|11.19.07 @ 10:45AM|#
i appreciate that eve is feeding a squirrel a
Popsicle
If that's Eve, isn't she a bit overdressed ?
Bingo|11.19.07 @ 10:45AM|#
Well the only place creationism does belong is in a museum, just not a museum of natural history!
edna|11.19.07 @ 10:48AM|#
I'm somewhat sympathetic to those who are ridiculed for not
believing in evolution
why? because they can't help being stupid? i think they can, but
choose not to, thus my utter contempt for them.
|11.19.07 @ 10:51AM|#
Well the only place creationism does belong is in a museum,
just not a museum of natural history!
Or a sideshow...
Reinmoose|11.19.07 @ 10:55AM|#
this is one of the best photo collections of the creation museum
I've seen.
I especially like all the non-content exhibits, like the wrecking
ball of "millions of years" knocking down a church, or the kids
having the "I never heard this before in school"
conversation.
Classics!
|11.19.07 @ 10:57AM|#
This exhibit of people attending the exhibits is actually post-modernistic genius.
|11.19.07 @ 10:57AM|#
Lurker Kurt,
But it is perfectly possible to believe in the moral truths of the
Genesis story, and still believe in evolution. You simply have to
recognize them as describing different truths, or different aspects
of reality.
The creationists most certainly do NOT reject evolution because it
doesn't leave room for their religion truths, but because they
don't want to acknowledge that there are other sources of
truth.
Sulla|11.19.07 @ 11:03AM|#
I'm somewhat sympathetic to those who are ridiculed for not
believing in evolution
why? because they can't help being stupid? i think they can, but
choose not to, thus my utter contempt for them.
This is probably not a great medium for an extended discussion on
the matter, but it boils down to my thoughts on knowledge, belief
and faith. In my mind, nothing is truly knowable, i.e., we can
choose to accept certain premises about reality because otherwise
we would be stuck in a situation where we reject everything and
might as well stay in bed indefinitely. Different people choose to
accept different premises, such as, our senses provide a true and
useful view of the true nature of reality, or cause and effect,
some religious premise. Nothing is provable until you accept a
premise. I see no objective undeniably correct reason for choosing
a particular premise or set of premises. Reasonable people can
differ on the premises they choose to accept.
I think it is stupid to never examine your premises and blindly
accept any worldview. However, once you have legitimately
questioned your thoughts and beliefs, if you choose to accept
different premises than I do, it seems unfair to call you stupid.
If someone examines the available premises , and chooses to accept
one that does not involve evolution, why are they stupid?
|11.19.07 @ 11:04AM|#
On the sixth day, God created the 30-06 so man could shoot and kill the dinosaurs. That's what happened to them, overhunting, praise God!
|11.19.07 @ 11:06AM|#
But it is perfectly possible to believe in the moral truths
of the Genesis story, and still believe in evolution. You simply
have to recognize them as describing different truths, or different
aspects of reality.
I don't disagree with you Joe. But the fundamentalists believe
Genisis is the literal word of God.
No metaphors. No nuance. No symbolism.
Reinmoose|11.19.07 @ 11:06AM|#
The creationists most certainly do NOT reject evolution
because it doesn't leave room for their religion truths, but
because they don't want to acknowledge that there are other sources
of truth.
There's a lot of truth in this statement... oh wait. :)
But seriously, I think that is probably true for some.
|11.19.07 @ 11:07AM|#
If someone examines the available premises , and chooses to
accept one that does not involve evolution, why are they
stupid?
I'd say that they are not. However, if they then stake that belief
and attempt to squeeze it back into the
scientific-premise-accepting field of knowledge as if it followed
from scientific premises, they are being incredibly stupid, or
making a stupid argument in bad faith.
|11.19.07 @ 11:09AM|#
Lurker Kurt,
I understand that. It's a massive intellectual and spiritual
failure on their part.
The Bible is not a TV Guide. The great truths therein are not the
same type as "Friends is on channel 14 from 7-7:30 on Tuesday."
GILMORE|11.19.07 @ 11:14AM|#
uhh.
Getting into the epistemology argument is a waste of time. Just
because we dont have "pure knowledge" isnt an excuse for swallowing
bad ideas wholesale. I feel joe's angle here - which is sort of
like Gould's "Overlapping magisteria", where science and religion
dictate to different spheres of influence (rational and spiritual).
But for these exhibits to point out a/b comparisons of Science and
Religion, and then say, "Which side is GOD on??" is basically
asking people to throw away any semblence of critical thought. They
should be stripped of their right to use electric lights, the
combustion engine, or even their steam-heated homes, until they
first accept that science is testable, and their religious views
are not.
|11.19.07 @ 11:15AM|#
Hey man, what's Adam doing with that sheep?
God, I'd be so embarrassed if that thing was in my country.
Geez, I look around and see things way more embarassing than this.
Mostly because they're funded with taxes.
|11.19.07 @ 11:20AM|#
I don't disagree with you Joe. But the fundamentalists
believe Genisis is the literal word of God.
Also, fundamentalists (or at least the stripe I grew up with)
firmly believe in an on-going, everyday battle between God and the
Devil. And basically, the only people they think are on God's side
are the people that believe mostly the same as they do.
So when something like evolution comes along, they not only believe
it's wrong because it contradicts Genesis - they also believe that
if it contradicts Genesis, then Darwin (and everybody who has
argued in its favor since him) was either intentionally or
unintentionally working on behalf of the Devil. So it's not just
wrong, but it's one of the ways the Devil is destrying America
today . . . .
And any sort of evidence-based questions are simply proof that the
questioner has also been seduced onto the Devil's path.
So the better your arguments against them, the more they pray for
God to protect them from the Devil in the form of you and your
godless arguments . . . .
|11.19.07 @ 11:21AM|#
I've made some headway when I've pointed out to weak creationists (i.e., people who hold the position without much thought or passion) that the Young Earth Hypothesis doesn't just eviscerate the whole science of biology, but it also guts cosmology, geology, physics--really the whole host of scientific observations that require that the Earth and the rest of the universe came into existence something rather more than 6,000 years ago.
|11.19.07 @ 11:23AM|#
Sulla,
I apologize for calling the religious stupid. It's easy to fall
into god-bashing after seeing a display as stupid as this.
In addition, people can believe in whatever they want. It's just
that these fundamentalists want to force their opinion on my
(future) children by means of a coerced education system and bad
"science."
Sorry, but that's not kosher.
I mean, when we discovered microbes, religions didn't keep claiming
that illness is caused by God. I don't see why they can't just say,
"God caused evolution."
That's it. Conflict over.
But no, they must cling to narrow interpretations as a testament to
their own faith, and work to destroy those who disagree...
Sulla|11.19.07 @ 11:25AM|#
joe:
I'd say that they are not. However, if they then stake that
belief and attempt to squeeze it back into the
scientific-premise-accepting field of knowledge as if it followed
from scientific premises, they are being incredibly stupid, or
making a stupid argument in bad faith.
Just for the record, I completely agree. I'm not trying to make an
argument that "creationism" or "intelligent design" should be part
of a science curriculum. They are not scientific and should not be
taught as such. My only point is that it is not inherently "stupid"
to have beliefs that contradict science.
|11.19.07 @ 11:28AM|#
Pro Lib... which curriculum did you choose?
I'm investigating home schooling, but (as you know) it's difficult
to find one that isn't God-infused. And it's impossible to find a
non-christian homeschooling support network in Kentucky.
Core Curriculum of America looks good... are they?
Please gmail me so as to avoid threadjack :)
OT: The Creation Museum is just one more contribution to the
continued Dumbification of America. Praise Jebus!
*puke*
|11.19.07 @ 11:29AM|#
Also, fundamentalists (or at least the stripe I grew up
with) firmly believe in an on-going, everyday battle between God
and the Devil. And basically, the only people they think are on
God's side are the people that believe mostly the same as they
do.
Yeah, a totalitarian mindset will do that to you.
It combines a pathological hostility to dissent, an inability or
unwillingness to distinguish between different opponents/enemies,
and a conspiratorial eagness to believe that all bad things are
working in cahoots.
"It is well known that Trotskyites are fascist agents" can only be
remotely plausible to someone who is already primed to hate
dissenters, and to divide the world into "us" and "the enemy."
Reinmoose|11.19.07 @ 11:29AM|#
jenl1625 -
You just described half my mother's side of the family (including
her).
She actually said to me the other day "I hope you don't go to
hell."
All I could think of to say was "I hope you don't go to hell
either," because I initially interpreted her phrase as a compliment
instead of a fear.
Sulla|11.19.07 @ 11:30AM|#
uhh.
Getting into the epistemology argument is a waste of
time.
You're probably right. I just get frustrated sometimes when person
A acts like person B is stupid because Person B doesn't believe
everything Person A does. Of course Person A is frustrated because
Person C is so insecure in their beliefs that they have to try to
squeeze their religion into a ridiculous contortion. Too much
frustration in the world, can't we all just get along?
|11.19.07 @ 11:31AM|#
I've made some headway when I've pointed out to weak
creationists (i.e., people who hold the position without much
thought or passion) that the Young Earth Hypothesis doesn't just
eviscerate the whole science of biology, but it also guts
cosmology, geology, physics--really the whole host of scientific
observations that require that the Earth and the rest of the
universe came into existence something rather more than 6,000 years
ago.
I've been in a similar scenario, and was met with the following,
condescending response:
"Well, when you're old enough to see the Truth, you'll
understand..." blah blah blah...
This was from a 27-year-old I had pre-marital sex with. I'm
25...
|11.19.07 @ 11:32AM|#
Sulla,
I completely agree. There are a lot of genius physicians out there
who believe passionately that the priest changes wine into
blood.
I've yet to meet one that would consider it a good idea to use it
for a transfusion.
robc|11.19.07 @ 11:36AM|#
can't we all just get along?
Empirical evidence suggests that the answer is "no".
|11.19.07 @ 11:38AM|#
They
do a great job with molecular genetics, though
I guess I'd better go through my dissertation on the fire.
|11.19.07 @ 11:39AM|#
Especially if that dissertation contains such egregious spelling
errors.
This girl needs some more coffee and a son who sleeps at
night.
Yes, that would be good.
Or am I being punished for my sins? Maybe if I pray on it, my son
will teeth painlessly and will sleep for more than an hour at a
time. Yes, that's it.
|11.19.07 @ 11:40AM|#
The Bible is not a TV Guide. The great truths therein are
not the same type as "Friends is on channel 14 from 7-7:30 on
Tuesday."
This is the most apt critique on the thread regarding
fundamentalism. To interpret any book of the Bible, you've got to
(answer at least) three core questions: 1) Who was the author? 2)
Who was the audience 3) What was the historical context?
Fundamentalism's answers are almost always: 1) God (and not just in
inspiration) 2) me 3) my country in the 21st century. Hence the
ignorance.
|11.19.07 @ 11:44AM|#
"If someone examines the available premises , and chooses to
accept one that does not involve evolution, why are they
stupid?"
I don't think anybody accepts young earth creationism on the basis
of critical thinking. The empiracle evidence in the world just
doesn't back it up. I think people who accept young earth
creationism do so because of a need to accept a literal
interpretation of the Bible. They believe that if Genesis is wrong,
how can they believe in the truth in anything in the Bible such as
salvation through Jesus's death on the cross.
Reinmoose|11.19.07 @ 11:44AM|#
we can choose to accept certain premises about reality
because otherwise we would be stuck in a situation where we reject
everything and might as well stay in bed indefinitely. Different
people choose to accept different premises...
Sulla,
I have mostly resigned myself to the reality that I am fucked in so
far as figuring out existential realities, so I definitely feel you
here.
I usually get to the "but where did God (or whatever initial
conditions had to exist for the creation of the universe) come
from" stage before I just give up and go eat some nachos in front
of the TV.
Sulla|11.19.07 @ 11:50AM|#
I don't think anybody accepts young earth creationism on the
basis of critical thinking. The empiracle evidence in the world
just doesn't back it up. I think people who accept young earth
creationism do so because of a need to accept a literal
interpretation of the Bible. They believe that if Genesis is wrong,
how can they believe in the truth in anything in the Bible such as
salvation through Jesus's death on the cross.
Once you accept the premise that our observations perfectly reflect
reality, then I think you are hard-pressed to use critical thinking
to accept the young earth theory. If you reject that premise, then
it is not a stretch. Even if you accept that premise, I could see
arguing your way to the old earth creation theory.
NoStar|11.19.07 @ 11:53AM|#
"Grammar killed God.",/i>
That cannot be. I have it on good authority that Grammar got run
over by a reindeer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPaGQEskSKM
tag|11.19.07 @ 11:54AM|#
Sulla|11.19.07 @ 11:54AM|#
Sulla,
I have mostly resigned myself to the reality that I am fucked in so
far as figuring out existential realities, so I definitely feel you
here.
I usually get to the "but where did God (or whatever initial
conditions had to exist for the creation of the universe) come
from" stage before I just give up and go eat some nachos in front
of the TV.
I'm glad you understand my point. One of my favorite pet theories
is that reality is based purely on belief, that is, reality is
created and changed based on the power of our beliefs, in sort of a
majority rule fashion. Neil Gaiman has an interesting story in a
graphic novel where cats ruled the world until humans believed
differently and shifted to another reality where they ruled. I
don't believe this theory, but it is interesting to think
about.
Bingo|11.19.07 @ 12:06PM|#
Sulla: Probably not a good idea to read any of the theories of
quantum mechanics ;)
"The
doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is
independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with
Quantum Mechanics and with facts established by
experiment."
Skwisgaar Skwigelf|11.19.07 @ 12:26PM|#
i appreciate that eve is feeding a squirrel a
Popsicle.
http://web.mit.edu/gjordan/www/creation/slides/_DSC2327.html
Popsgoggles? DEYS PURE GREAT!
R C Dean|11.19.07 @ 12:27PM|#
I alwaus thought that particular theorem was basically a
tautological wink-and-nod:, namely
"We can't do science about what we can't perceive, and we can't
perceive without using human consciousness, so we can't
scientifically prove anything exists independently of human
consciousness."
|11.19.07 @ 12:30PM|#
I don't see why there has to be conflict between creationism and
evolution.
Scroll down to "A Modern Solution" to see how to reconcile the
two:
Descent of
Man
Stratigraphy chart here (my fave is the "Pestiferous Era"):
Geologic Ages
UM|11.19.07 @ 12:39PM|#
But, if evolution is true, then there was no garden of eden, no Adam and Eve, and no original sin for Jesus to die for.
Interesting, since many Christians (like all of Orthodox
Christianity and many fundamentalists-cause it ain't in the Bible)
don't accept original sin. Many Christians aren't bothered by
whether there was a literal garden of eden. Your description brings
the words "straw man" to mind.
I realize that you're picking on YEC Christians, but using them to
represent religion is about as accurate as using Eric Dondero to
represent libertarians.
But then again, for all the heat and noise, very little
intelligence surfaces in Internet debates about religion, on either
side of the argument.
GILMORE|11.19.07 @ 12:39PM|#
RC DEAN
I alwaus thought that particular theorem was basically a
tautological wink-and-nod:, namely
"We can't do science about what we can't perceive, and we can't
perceive without using human consciousness, so we can't
scientifically prove anything exists independently of human
consciousness."
I think this is a misreading of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle,
in which 'reality' can only be decribed as probabilities and not
point-facts describing more than one variable at a given time (mass
& velocity of a particle at any given moment in time).
Meaning, it's not "either or", but rather that we cannot describe
reality in fixed positions as our consciousness tends to want to
perceive things in (absolute, fixed existence)
Then there's the whole angle about how if you want to use 'human
perception', you invariably have to change the thing you are
measuring. e.g. to 'see' an atom you have to bash it with light
(photons) and in the process affect it. So measuring by nature
affects the object. But this means you have to take this factor
into account - not just discard it as 'damaged' data.
GILMORE|11.19.07 @ 12:41PM|#
I realize that you're picking on YEC Christians, but using
them to represent religion is about as accurate as using Eric
Dondero to represent libertarians.
SPEAK NOT HIS NAME LEST HE COME FORTH!!!
DONDEROOOOO, I CAST THEE OUT!
First Little Pig|11.19.07 @ 12:41PM|#
Bingo,
Now that you mention Quantum Mechanics, may I make the following
statement?:
"God is merely the observer at the end of time since by the rules
of Quantum Mechanics and of some of the "spooky actions at a
distance" the history of our universe is corrected in the past to
make the present coherent."
|11.19.07 @ 12:49PM|#
I went to pictures and that is some funny shit, I almost want to
go just for the laughs. I don't however for three reasons.
1. A bit of a drive from kansas just to laugh my ass off
2. I dont want to give them any of my money
3. I would get kicked out for laughing so dam loud, though after
awhile I might have to start crying over how sad it is.
maybe they can franchise it and put one out here.
Really, it is not worth putting out all the flaws in the exhibit
and there faulty logic, and they obviously don't care. But really,
a penguin in the garden of eden? Come on, I would like to think
that even the most staunch fundi would think that was stupid.
|11.19.07 @ 12:52PM|#
I realize that you're picking on YEC Christians, but using
them to represent religion is about as accurate as using Eric
Dondero to represent libertarians.
I don't believe I am using them to represent most or all
religion.
Creationism has come up several times before on H&R and a lot
of agnotics, atheists and apatheists have difficulty understanding
why Creationists maintain their beliefs with such tenacity.
I was trying to explain the logic behind their continued belief in
a young earth and creationism in the face of so much scientific
evidence to the contrary.
Fluffy|11.19.07 @ 12:53PM|#
Sulla -
Your argument essentially eliminates the entire concept of
"stupidity". There can be no such thing as a "stupid" idea, from
that viewpoint. If you take an addition test and get every answer
wrong, you just begin from a different premise about the
consistency and veracity of our rules of mathematics. If you grab
fireworks with lit fuses and jam them up your ass, you just begin
from different premises about the rules of chemistry and human
anatomy.
Etc.
UM|11.19.07 @ 12:58PM|#
I don't believe I am using them to represent most or all religion.
Sorry to have misread you. My bad. Although any number of posters
here would do exactly that. My points really was that a lot of what
people assume is central to religion is based on assessment of one
sort of religion, and often a faulty one at that. That said, the
Creation Museum and YEC pretty much writes their own
criticisms....
UM|11.19.07 @ 1:00PM|#
err, writes their own criticisms. Yeah, that was,
uh, deliberate, based on the whole "grammer" bits up above...
SPEAK NOT HIS NAME LEST HE COME FORTH!!!
DONDEROOOOO, I CAST THEE OUT!
It only works if you imitate Larry the Cable Guy while saying
it.
|11.19.07 @ 1:08PM|#
Bronwyn, Re: Curriculae for homeschooling... do a search for unschooling: a very different take on the idea of homeschooling... and best of all... No Religion! (unless you want it)
GILMORE|11.19.07 @ 1:17PM|#
Fluffy | November 19, 2007, 12:53pm | #
Sulla -
Your argument essentially eliminates the entire concept of
"stupidity".
Not necessarily. Depends on what you mean by Stupid.
My personal favorite definition =
http://www.cantrip.org/stupidity.html
...a work of genius, that.
In short - one can be consistently "wrong" or incorrect, but so
long as the consequence of said decision neither hurt oneself or
others, it's not technically stupid.
This is also a reasonable framework to explain why religion in some
instances is an "Intelligent" proposition - insofar as it benfits
the practioner and others in the process.
Obviously, it doesnt always work out that way, but still, the same
can be said for a lot of 'science'.
|11.19.07 @ 1:17PM|#
I realize that you're picking on YEC Christians, but using
them to represent religion is about as accurate as using Eric
Dondero to represent libertarians.
This is very true. I think it's more accurate to use YEC Christians
to represent social conservatives and Bush
loyalists/apologists.
Sulla|11.19.07 @ 1:20PM|#
Sulla -
Your argument essentially eliminates the entire concept of
"stupidity". There can be no such thing as a "stupid" idea, from
that viewpoint. If you take an addition test and get every answer
wrong, you just begin from a different premise about the
consistency and veracity of our rules of mathematics. If you grab
fireworks with lit fuses and jam them up your ass, you just begin
from different premises about the rules of chemistry and human
anatomy.
Etc.
It's a little more complicated than that. My argument is not about
the details of our experience, but about larger metaphysical
premises. Take the math test example - we need to consider the
underpinnings of a belief that rejects the veracity of the math
that is taught in schools. I am having trouble conceiving of a
worldview that could be premised merely on that idea, but I can
imagine that there are worldviews that include that belief as part
of the overall conception of reality. If you subscribe to such a
worldview, and your answers are correct, according to your
worldview, is that stupid? I don't think it would be fair to say so
without understanding the totality of that worldview. That being
said, any worldview that rejected arithmetic would not be very
useful in describing the world that is revealed by our
observations. Some worldviews are definitley more "useful" than
others. A worldview that you will not be hurt by jamming fireworks
up your butt is not very useful either. However, if your worldview
includes that idea, because doing so brings you closer to Pyro, the
god of fire, then sticking the fireworks up your butt is not
"stupid." I would wonder about anyone who subscribed to such a
worldview, because in my experience there is no evidence to suggest
that this is the case, but I would at least consider it. I'm not
saying all premises are necessarily equally valid, but that to
immediately reject someone else's belief system merely because it
is implausible suggests that you are blinded by your own
premises.
technomist|11.19.07 @ 1:26PM|#
Funniest thing I've seen in years. Eve looks like every preacher's wet dream.
|11.19.07 @ 1:27PM|#
I see I should have read the caption on the picture I linked
too.
Oh, well, great minds...and all that.
Sulla|11.19.07 @ 1:29PM|#
Here's my quick definition of stupid.
Someone is stupid if they believe that their worldview/premise is
the correct one and refuse to consider any other possiblities.
Sulla|11.19.07 @ 1:31PM|#
Quick revise:
Here's my quick definition of stupid.
Someone is stupid if they believe that their worldview/premise is
the only correct one and refuse to consider any other
possiblities.
GILMORE|11.19.07 @ 1:31PM|#
However, if your worldview includes that idea, because doing
so brings you closer to Pyro, the god of fire...
...that would make you an admirer of the Brotherhood of Evil
Mutants.
Seriously, check out the link i posted above. You will thank me
GILMORE|11.19.07 @ 1:34PM|#
Here's my quick definition of stupid.
Someone is stupid if they believe that their worldview/premise is
the only correct one and refuse to consider any other
possiblities
in practice, that pretty much means everyone, all the time. :)
Which is probably not far from the truth, if not actually the same
address.
|11.19.07 @ 1:35PM|#
So "human reason," according to the museum, is in direct
competition with creationism.
I'll buy that.
|11.19.07 @ 1:36PM|#
Libertarian test:
Should you be able to sue the Creation Museum to get your money
back on the grounds that you went there to learn something about
the origins of the Earth?
Chris Puzak|11.19.07 @ 1:45PM|#
Science fiction author John Scalzi also visited the Creation Museum. You can read his report here - http://scalzi.com/whatever/?p=121
Paul|11.19.07 @ 1:48PM|#
But, if evolution is true, then there was no garden of eden,
no Adam and Eve, and no original sin for Jesus to die
for.
Lurker:
This museum is somewhat of a good example of where ID'ers and
Creationists come together. Not an absolute, but it's the strange
mishmash of acceptance of both dinosaurs and Adam and Eve in the
same philosophical breath.
There was a time when Creationists believed that dinosaurs didn't
exist, if I recall. Oh how far they've come.
Bill Hicks, RIP|11.19.07 @ 1:56PM|#
anybody remember this riff?
"You know the world's 12 thousand years old and dinosaurs existed,
they existed in that time, you'd think it would have been mentioned
in the fucking Bible at some point. "And lo Jesus and the disciples
walked to Nazareth. But the trail was blocked by a giant
brontosaurus... with a splinter in his paw. And O the disciples did
run a shriekin': 'What a big fucking lizard, Lord!' But Jesus was
unafraid and he took the splinter from the brontosaurus's paw and
the big lizard became his friend. And Jesus sent him to Scotland
where he lived in a loch for O so many years inviting thousands of
American tourists to bring their fat fucking families and their fat
dollar bills.And oh Scotland did praise the Lord. Thank you Lord,
thank you Lord. Thank you Lord.
"Get this, I actually asked one of these guys, OK, Dinosaurs
fossils - how does that fit into you scheme of life? Let me sit
down and strap in. He said, "Dinosaur fossils? God put those there
to test our faith." I think God put you here to test my faith,
Dude. You believe that? "uh huh." Does that trouble anyone here?
The idea that God.. might be.. fuckin' with our heads? I have
trouble sleeping with that knowledge. Some prankster God running
around: "Hu hu ho. We will see who believes in me now, ha ha."
[mimes God burying fossils] "I am God, I am a prankster." "I am
killing Me."
|11.19.07 @ 2:08PM|#
But, if evolution is true, then there was no garden of eden,
no Adam and Eve, and no original sin for Jesus to die
for.
That doesn't follow. The occurrence of evolution doesn't preclude
there having been two individual "first humans", and has nothing at
all to do with original sin.
Captain Chaos (now in thrall t|11.19.07 @ 2:09PM|#
Bill Hicks-And, if you buy into God's prank (or fail his test)
you burn in hell for all eternity. Because he loves us. In fact,
it's he so loved the world that he gave his only begotten
son...
Yeah, that makes sense.
|11.19.07 @ 2:11PM|#
The only weak defense of the whole ID/Creationist industry I would probably accept is that they may wind up stumbling on something correct by accident, in the same way the Tycho Brahe's laborious observations to sustain a geocentric universe was used by Kepler to discovered the eponomymous law.
Reinmoose|11.19.07 @ 2:16PM|#
Yeah, that makes sense.
But that's just it Captain Chaos! He's testing you on that too! If
God's actions or the explanation of those actions made sense, then
everyone would believe in him, and nobody would be spiritually
better than anyone else because they have "faith" in something that
apparently actually happened.
Syloson of Samos|11.19.07 @ 2:25PM|#
crimethink,
And these "first humans" (this Adam and Eve) evolved into a "garden
of eden?" Why even bother with the Genesis story?
Syloson of Samos|11.19.07 @ 2:28PM|#
Lurker Kurt,
You are right of course; evolution presents a problem for the
concept of "original sin." "Original sin" depends on two humans
making a "bad choice" that then effects the all of the humans which
follow on from then (we'll ignore for now that Genesis seems to
suggest that other humans were living at the time - though one
might want to ask how they were effected by the actions of Adam and
Eve).
Syloson of Samos|11.19.07 @ 2:30PM|#
Lurker Kurt,
At least as the concept is presented in the Genesis account.
Gilmore,
Given that science and religion do compete and are often in
conflict I've never really found Gould's thesis very
compelling.
GILMORE|11.19.07 @ 2:35PM|#
the guys who really kill me are not the Dinosaur-Deniers, but
the ones who have some limited ability to talk in science-terms,
but go after some niggling point to try and prove the negative =
"that if *maybe* science doesnt have 99.999% certainty for
something, THEREFORE this ridiculous pile of shit potentially has
merit!"
One guy tries it on that http://scalzi.com thread, here:
" ...however according to the sedimentation rates analyzed in
the Yellow River, it should take 10M years to take Everest from its
peak to level ground… yet it is still here.. and its been here for
millions of years, right? how come?
WHERE IS THE TRUTH!! WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO HIDE!!
They basically go after some oblique 'fatoid', then flip it into,
"ergo!.."
I learned in college that a certain class of people just slap the
word 'therefore' at random in sentences, although they havent
actually proposed any form of argument. Aint that America.
GILMORE|11.19.07 @ 2:40PM|#
,I>Gilmore,
Given that science and religion do compete and are often in
conflict I've never really found Gould's thesis very
compelling.
They only tend to 'compete' with people who stubbornly choose to
see them in competition, in silly things like the age of the earth
or whether or not fertility treatment is 'legal'. The point is that
you dont teach ethics with a bunsen burner, and you dont teach
people to identify cellular structures with Ecclesiates. Yes,
gaileo went to jail, but i'm talking about more current state of
affairs.
Syloson of Samos|11.19.07 @ 2:48PM|#
Gilmore,
The point is that you dont teach ethics with a bunsen
burner...
Evolutionary biology has a lot to say about the development of
ethics actually. There is no firewall, etc. between science and
religion.
Syloson of Samos|11.19.07 @ 2:50PM|#
Gilmore,
Indeed, a non-theistic ethics may necessarily look to various
branches of science to aid in the answer of various ethical
questions.
|11.19.07 @ 2:50PM|#
Fundamentalists believe that dinosaurs are mentioned in the bible. There is a reference somewhere about a "behemoth" who can spray all the water from a river from his snout, which my mother in law claims could only be a dinosaur. She had no answer when I pointed out that it could be a description of an elephant.
|11.19.07 @ 2:53PM|#
"Fundamentalists believe that dinosaurs are mentioned in the
bible. There is a reference somewhere about a "behemoth" who can
spray all the water from a river from his snout, which my mother in
law claims could only be a dinosaur. She had no answer when I
pointed out that it could be a description of an elephant."
Actually the reference is to a crocodile.
|11.19.07 @ 3:00PM|#
Fools! The reference is really to alien spacecraft with fire hoses. Jesus, do I have to do all of the thinking around here?
|11.19.07 @ 3:04PM|#
That doesn't follow. The occurrence of evolution doesn't
preclude there having been two individual "first humans", and has
nothing at all to do with original sin.
As I said, they hold a literal interpretation of Genesis where the
two original humans in a earthly paradise failed a test and all of
their descendants (you and me included) have suffered for it.
|11.19.07 @ 3:38PM|#
Rattlesnake Jake | November 19, 2007, 2:53pm | #
Actually the reference is to a crocodile.
Either way, it is not a Brontosaurus
|11.19.07 @ 4:39PM|#
Daddy, why doesn't the Bible mention dinosaurs?
"""As I said, they hold a literal interpretation of Genesis where
the two original humans in a earthly paradise failed a test and all
of their descendants (you and me included) have suffered for
it."""
A just God wouldn't punish us for something Adam and Eve did
thousands of years ago, would he? Talk about a being without
forgiveness. I guess God just can't let it go. Who knew that
holding a grudge for so many years was the way of the lord?
I've only seen a few of the pics, but the one above cracks me up.
Are they actually claiming that the lack of empirical evidence is
why it is wrong?
|11.19.07 @ 4:56PM|#
A just God wouldn't punish us for something Adam and Eve did
thousands of years ago, would he?
I've always wondered about that, TrickVic. I'll have to ask one of
my bible loving co-workers.
|11.19.07 @ 4:59PM|#
"A just God wouldn't punish us for something Adam and Eve did
thousands of years ago, would he?"
"I've always wondered about that, TrickVic. I'll have to ask one of
my bible loving co-workers."
And watch them twist themselves up like pretzels trying to explain
it.
Reinmoose|11.19.07 @ 5:16PM|#
"A just God wouldn't punish us for something Adam and Eve
did thousands of years ago, would he?"
"I've always wondered about that, TrickVic. I'll have to ask one of
my bible loving co-workers."
And watch them twist themselves up like pretzels trying to explain
it.
The way I've always heard it, all you have to do it accept Jesus
Christ as your lord and savior.
I've always responded to this claim with:
"WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN?!"
GILMORE|11.19.07 @ 5:39PM|#
Evolutionary biology has a lot to say about the development
of ethics actually. There is no firewall, etc. between science and
religion
Sure. And religion has a lot to say about the kinds of questions
we're predisposed to ask. It doesnt mean they are in mutual
competition for the same precise applications. They can be mutually
complementary, or exclusive in any given case. Tell it to Spinoza
mein freund
Syloson of Samos|11.19.07 @ 6:28PM|#
Gilmore,
To be blunt, though I love his work dearly, Spinoza was wrong. The
liberal state has not ended the competition between religion and
science, nor has it denuded religion of political power.
They can be mutually complementary, or exclusive in any given
case.
The facts on the ground seem to demonstrate that there is a lot of
antagonism between religion and science; and that this antagonism
is held by hundreds of millions of people to a greater or lesser
extent depending on the person, faith community, etc. So, whether
they "need" to clash or not isn't as important as whether they do
indeed clash. And they do.
|11.19.07 @ 9:27PM|#
Ah, come on! I click on the link and get a "page can't be displayed" message. You've whet my appetite for these great pictures! What a tease!
LarryA|11.19.07 @ 11:56PM|#
He said, "Dinosaur fossils? God put those there to test our
faith."
I usually respond to arguments like that with, "So God
lies to us?"
The point is that you dont teach ethics with a bunsen
burner,
Tell that to Joan of Arc.
|11.20.07 @ 12:41AM|#
"Hundreds of Bible Prophecies have been fulfilled, and none has
failed."
I guess Christians don't believe in Grammar
either...
"None" can be considered singular, the equivalent of (or contration
of) "not one," especially for emphasis.
... presented purely in the spirit of "And why beholdest thou the
beam that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the mote
that is in thine own eye?" (Yes, that wording is deliberate.)
I hate to say it, but from a purely visual standpoint some of those
exhibits are quite beautiful. For example, I'm not exactly sure
what this
is, but it's rather pretty.
I guess this is why: The creationmuseum.org site says the museum
was "designed by a former Universal Studios exhibit director." You
can tell that no serious paleontologist was involved. Instead, most
of the dinosaurs appear to have been designed by whoever did the
dinosaurs for the Jurassic Park movies.
For example, the juvenile tyrannosaurs visible in photo #5 is based
directly on the baby T. rex that appeared in Jurassic Park 2. At
that time, the appearance of a juvenile tyrannosaur was almost
entirely hypothetical; that the museum's restoraction is based on
the unique design of the JP2 movie is unmistakeable.
Since then we've found a fossil (nicknamed "Jane") of what appears
to be an actual juvenile tyrannosaur. I can't find a decent life
reconstruction, but it appears a real T. rex juvenile had a more
elongaged, narrow skull and disproportionately long legs.
Similarly, the "velociraptors" in photos #6 and #21 are
unmistakeably of Jurassic Park movie provenance. The
"velociraptors" in the JP movies are actually made up chimeras.
They are much larger than real velociraptors (which were about the
size of a jackal or medium-sixed dog) and their heads are all
wrong. The JP movie version of a "velociraptor" is unmistakeable,
and that's what appears in the Creation Museum.
Also, in recent years, it has been thought likely that
velociraptors had feathers of some sort. (JP didn't include the
feathers because the animation gear at the time couldn't handle
them, although they added a token few in JP3.) Recently it was
proven that velociraptors did have feathers, because
quill-attachment knobs were found on the animal's forelimbs.
This, by the way, further strengthens the
as-close-to-iron-clad-as-you-can-get-in-science theory that birds
evolved from dinosaurs. The group that velociraptors belong to has,
in fact, so many birdlike traits that it's increasingly academic
whether they are properly classed as "dinosaurs" or "birds" -- it
appears they were both.
I'll bet this evidence of "evolution in action" -- one "kind" of
creature giving rise to another -- doesn't get addressed in the
Creation Museum.
(Agh! I'm geeking out!)
Oh, but at least the museum's ceratosaur (photo #31, on the left)
is more accurate that the one in JP3; the movie's version was extra
sloppy. It looks kinda familiar, though; I suspect it's based on an
illustration from a kid's book.
(Agh! Drowning in geekitude!)
|11.20.07 @ 12:43AM|#
What I guess I'm saying is, the exhibits in the Creation Museum appear to owe nearly as much to the Jurassic Park movies as they do to the Bible, is what I guess I'm saying.
|11.20.07 @ 9:19AM|#
I hate to say it, but from a purely visual standpoint some
of those exhibits are quite beautiful. For example, I'm not exactly
sure what this is, but it's rather pretty.
It is quite beautiful. I thought so too. BTW,it's a grove of
Lycopsids.
GILMORE|11.20.07 @ 1:28PM|#
Syloson of Samos | November 19, 2007, 6:28pm | #
Gilmore,
To be blunt, though I love his work dearly, Spinoza was
wrong.
When you or hitchens publish the definitive rebuttal, i will be
first in line.
|11.20.07 @ 4:15PM|#
"""The way I've always heard it, all you have to do it accept
Jesus Christ as your lord and savior.
I've always responded to this claim with:
"WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN?!""""
It means God is sooo unforgiving that his only son had to die so we
could receive get out of jail free cards.
|11.20.07 @ 4:22PM|#
The people who started this museum really don't understand the Judeo/Christian God. God demands faith, you must believe without proof or evidence of his existance. Trying to empirically prove the existance of God undermines God's method. You must surrender unto him dispite the way of the world.
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