Jurassic Park: Under New Management

I was planning to blog this L.A. Times story a couple weeks ago, and then Katrina hit and New Orleans sank and we all got a little distracted…anyway, the upshot is that creationists are buying up roadside dinosaur parks and adjusting them to fit their worldview.

From the article:

Dinny's new owners, pointing to the Book of Genesis, contend that most dinosaurs arrived on Earth the same day as Adam and Eve, some 6,000 years ago, and later marched two by two onto Noah's Ark. The gift shop at the attraction, called the Cabazon Dinosaurs, sells toy dinosaurs whose labels warn, "Don't swallow it! The fossil record does not support evolution."…

"We're putting evolutionists on notice: We're taking the dinosaurs back," said Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis, a Christian group building a $25-million creationist museum in Petersburg, Ky., that's already overrun with model sauropods and velociraptors.

"They're used to teach people that there's no God, and they're used to brainwash people," he said. "Evolutionists get very upset when we use dinosaurs. That's their star."

Three reasons why this is actually a good thing:

1. Roadside attractions should be weird.
2. Better a private park than a public school.
3. It gives me a new excuse to link to this.

Comments

[Meyer]

I believe that instead of dinosaurs the proper term is Jesus Horses.

[mediageek]

Not even the funniest thing I could come up with could possibly do this justice.

[mtc]

yeah umm, wouldn't the point be that they did NOT get on noah's ark, and hence thats why they're not here anymore?

[mediageek]

Didn't you read the link, mtc?

The fallen angels incited the dinosaurs to attack Noah's Ark.

[dead_elvis]

Speaking of roadside attractions, perhaps creationists have been indoctrinating kids for several generations already?:

I say leave our beloved Dino out of this.

[mk]

Forget roadside dino-parks, my creationist brother-in-law has been organizing guided tours of the Galapagos Islands for creationists.

Next, tours of mental hospitals by Scientologists.

[joe]

"The fallen angels incited the dinosaurs to attack Noah's Ark."

That's the dumbest thing I've ever read. Of course a dinosaur could beat a stupid ark.

[SR]

"wouldn't the point be that they did NOT get on noah's ark, and hence thats why they're not here anymore?"

That was the logical, semi-scientific viewpoint that most people held from the Middle Ages or so forward - it attempted to reconcile the fossil record (giant monsters) with what the modern world looked like (no giant monsters). However, in the last several decades, creationists have gotten so militant about reading the Bible literally, they increasingly take the position that when the Bible says "two of every animal" got on the Ark, it means two of every animal got on the Ark, including every now extinct species.

[David Earney]

I must agree with the three reasons why this is a good thing.

This is a damn laugh riot, and what the hell, let the religious wackos teach the youngsters whatever they want. Science will prove out in the end.

[thoreau]

Wow. I mean, WOW. That's freaking weird.

I've never seen a roadside dino park. I guess I've never done a long cross-country drive through the right areas. Or I wasn't paying enough attention to the tourist traps.

in the last several decades, creationists have gotten so militant about reading the Bible literally, they increasingly take the position that when the Bible says "two of every animal" got on the Ark, it means two of every animal got on the Ark, including every now extinct species.

Fortunately, this overly-literal approach to interpreting figurative writing is a flaw that nobody on this forum would ever exhibit.

[J]

"my creationist brother-in-law has been organizing guided tours of the Galapagos Islands for creationists."

I heard an interesting story about this on NPR not too far back. Apparently they're also putting evolutionists on notice that they're taking the Galapagos back too. And the presence of such a strange flora and fauna there has nothing to do with its having being a well-isolated insular environment for millions of years; God was just feeling frisky that day.

[Evan Williams]

The fossil record does not support evolution."...

It's truly amazing how willfully stupid people choose to be, all to justify their fairy tales. The mountains of evidence in the fields of anthropology, biology, geology, etc, most assuredly support 'descent with modification'. I wonder if the fossil record "supports" their kookie myths about talking snakes and the world being 6000 years old, or what that fossil record has to say about 2 motherfucking Bronchiosaurs marching onto a wooden ship along with 2 of every other species.

You know, if I were the creationists, and I were trying to convince people that my story was true, the last thing I'd do is start dabbling in the physical sciences to help prove my point.

[keith]

"We're putting evolutionists on notice: We're taking the dinosaurs back," said Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis, a Christian group building a $25-million creationist museum in Petersburg, Ky., that's already overrun with model sauropods and velociraptors.

My home state strikes again! I know where I'm going next time I head down to visit my parents.

I always wanted to open a Genesis themed theme park. But then, I also wanted to make an epic, completely literal, hardcore porn film version of the Old Testament, too.

-Keith

[Lowdog]

That wacky god...will we ever understand his wild ways?

I've seen a dino park...can't remember where because it was years and years ago. I used to be big into dinos, but now they're a passing curiosity.

I do wonder, though - why aren't there animals larger than elephants walking around? Is it simply because of a great density of organisms, hence mega-fauna can't be supported anymore? I've seen that nut Ted Holden claim that gravity must have been different in the time of dinos, since they wouldn't be able to carry their own weight, but that's a little too far, even for me and the slack I give alternate theories of how the planets and universe came to be, or evolved, or whatever (a la electric and plasma theories).

Hopefully these creationists will be laughed away eventually. Unfortunately, it seems to me that belief in invisible sky (or sea, or earth) gods should have died out long ago...sadly we see that's not the case.*

* No real offence intended to all you believers out there, I just don't get it, personally.

[mediageek]

That's the dumbest thing I've ever read. Of course a dinosaur could beat a stupid ark.

C'mon joe, what if the Ark had Flame-throwing Angels protecting it?

[dhex]

"The manager of the local bank is not a human being.

He is a demon, and he enjoys seeing people come in and sign for their high interest bank loans."

banks of piety + imovie = good stuff

[dead_elvis]

I seem to recall seeing a tv show where somebody figuring out the dimensions of the ark and building a replica or some such thing, though I can't turn anything up on Google. Wouldn't it be simple for someone with the right kind of knowledge to figure out if such a vessel would be capable of carrying two of every one of some of the largest animals that ever lived?

[JSM]

They will somewhat mirror those in Santee, which takes visitors from Genesis to modern times with placards that say Darwin "came at just the right time to be the catalyst for a revival of ancient paganism" and that evolution birthed Communism, racism, Nazism and liberalism.

Ok, I added liberalism but its hard to not make fun of this!

[thoreau]

dead elvis-

Obviously the ark carried two eggs from every dinosaur kind. One egg with a male embryo, and one with a female embryo. It's compact that way.

[J]

"...and that evolution birthed...racism..."

Wow, times before Darwin must have been dreamy, with no racism. I bet everyone got their very own pony too.

[biologist]

If I recall correctly, the current consensus for why the North American megafauna has gone extinct is overhunting by the aboriginal human inhabitants of the continent. Presumably, the same is true for megafaunas of other continents. There's likely no way to know why a new megafauna has not developed (or, at the least, I can't think of one).

[unctorious]

I seem to recall seeing a tv show where somebody figuring out the dimensions of the ark and building a replica or some such thing, though I can't turn anything up on Google.

Yeah I saw something like that once too (maybe the same thing?) it was paid programming around noon on a Saturday, and the guy had charts and stuff sating how if the ark was so many cubic feet, it could house comfortably every type of animal (now did they have different breeds of animals, like dogs and cats? or just cat and dog?) I dunno, but I get the feeling that if Jesus were around and he saw that his followers had $25 million, he would want them to use it to help people, rather than use it on something stupid like this.

[unctorious]

Oh yeah, I couldn't read those scans for shit, only some of the bigger words, was anyone able to read every word? and if so, is there any way I can get a better picture?

[joe]

mediageek, grow up. There are no flame-throwing angels.

The dinosaurs would totally destroy the ark.

[mediageek]

They could have saved even more space if they'd had CatDog

[mediageek]

Even if they had CatDog?

🙁

[thoreau]

I get the feeling that if Jesus were around and he saw that his followers had $25 million, he would want them to use it to help people, rather than use it on something stupid like this.

Exactly!

[independent worm]

building a $25-million creationist museum in Petersburg, Ky.,

I'm impressed at how people that stupid can have so much money.

[mediageek]

Just goes to show you how much money we'd all have if we weren't taxed so exorbitantly.

[J]

biologist,

The overhunting hypothesis for extinction of the North American and European megafauna around 11-12,000 years ago isn't that well accepted anymore. It's generally considered more likely that the extinctions were related to climate changes associated with the most recent ice age. And as for why that megafauna hasn't been replaced, in the grand scheme of things 10,000 years is a pretty trivial amount of time for that sort of thing....

[Evan Williams]

Lowdog:

Eventually, they will be laughed away. Just like the folks who said the earth is flat, and the folks who said that the sun revolves around the earth. There was a Copurnican Revolution, and we are in the midst of a Darwinian Revolution. Yes, there are still those who reject the facts of 'descent with modification' as the explanation of speciation and diversity...even those who argue for Aristotelian "essentialism" under difference auspices. But that will come to pass, and the more mainstream "god uses evolution as a tool" will come to be the religious explanation that jives with science. Because, after all, when Darwin claimed to be explaining the "origin of species", he was really explaining the origin of speciation. Nobody really knows where the first species came from, but we do know that all subsequent species are simply exponentially-removed offshoots of that one, with modification. So, saying that some invisible God uses descent with modification as a tool doesn't refute Darwinian concepts in the least. Just give it time...

[thoreau]

I have 3 different and equally cynical takes on why these idiots have $25 million:

1) After the laws of supply and demand, the most important law of economics is that the fool and his money will soon be parted. However they may have come across this money, the construction of the museum is a way of parting the fools from their money, hence restoring the natural order of things.

2) The people who invested in this museum aren't actually fools: It's the people dumb enough to pay admission and buy stuff from the gift shop. So, the purpose of the museum is still to part some fools from their money.

3) Ignorance can be a powerful tool. Some people are spending a lot of money to promote ignorance because they believe that it will advance an agenda from which they can ultimately profit.

"This boy is Ignorance. This girl is Want. Beware them both, and all of their degree, but most of all beware this boy, for on his brow I see that written which is Doom, unless the writing be erased."
--Ghost of Christmas present

"Ignorance like a gun in hand, reach out to the promised land."
--Social Distortion

OK, that last one was more cynical than the first 2.

[zach]

...evolution birthed Communism, racism, Nazism and liberalism.

well in a sense, it did, along with every movement and sentiment in human history, since it birthed humanity.

[Stevo Darkly]

I believe that instead of dinosaurs the proper term is Jesus Horses.

Shouldn't that be Jesus Lizards?

Oops. Already taken. (And not by the band.)

[Dakota]

The real question...which is more accurate the revamped "Dino Park's" view of the past or Disney's 1958 "Tomorrowland".

[New Horizons Church of Godwin]

...and that evolution birthed Communism, racism and Nazism

I guess this brings new meaing to GODwin's law! In their mind, God wins, period.

[M1EK]

"Lowdog:

Eventually, they will be laughed away. "

Doesn't help the next couple of generation of Americans, more and more of whom will grow up believing this anti-science shit, and proceeding to get their asses kicked in the global market as a result.

But, hey, Kerry would have been worse, right?

[zach]

is there any actual evidence that more and more americans are "believing this anti-science shit"? i hear this kind of sentiment all the time but rarely see it supported. it does seem more prevalent in the public eye these days, but that might not mean much.

[Ken Layne]

Shit, that's not just any old dinosaur roadside attraction ... that's THE roadside dinosaur attraction, the world-famous Cabazon Dinos off the I-10 on the way to Palm Springs.

Where Pee Wee and his waitress gal (Dotty? Some other whore?) sat in the bronto's cockpit and watched the sun rise ... these creationists are heartless people, aren't they?

The best part of the story is this quote from Dr. Science Guy: "For them, 'The Flintstones' is a documentary."

And as usual, the liberal / Bush-worshipping Main Stream Media completely ignore the REAL issue and maybe a BLOGGER could tell the TRUTH: Is the Wheel Inn now owned by the creationist-dino creeps, too? (That's the round-the-clock diner next to the dinos. A great place to get a bad steak on the way home from Joshua Tree or where-ever.)

[Jason Ligon]

Has anyone read Niel Gaiman's American Gods? A+ concept in a B- execution, but still it is pretty cool.

The deal is that the mythology of the US is the mythology of its constutuent groups. So, we have Leif who brougt the norse gods, eastern european gods, native american gods, and so forth running around. They hold council to figure out a way to stop losing clout.

Anyway, a big part of the book is incorporating the American landscape into the mythologies. One of the conceits is that those roadside attractions are the American equivalent of Stone Henge. People in other countries sense something magical about a place and build monuments that don't make any sense. People in the US sense magic and build businesses that don't make any sense - giant balls of twine and the like.

Fun book.

[thoreau]

zach-

That's a good point. The creationists are louder. Are they really more numerous? Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. I simply don't know if louder = more numerous in this case.

Yeah, I know, there's those polls where some huge percentage believe in a supernatural role in the origin of life. But there's a lot of ground between the response of "God was, like, probably involved somehow, you know?" that a person with no strong opinion might give, and actually believing that a T. Rex was on the Ark.

Hell, there's a lot of ground between "God was, like, probably involved somehow, you know?" and accepting the notions put forth by the ID folks. The notions put forward by the ID folks, although creationism in disguise, are creationism in a very elaborate disguise. Buying into it requires that you first devote some time to a rather elaborate sales pitch. The person who says "God, like, probably did something with it" probably hasn't devoted much thought to the notion of irreducible complexity (wrong as that notion might be, it takes a little time to digest).

[mediageek]

is there any actual evidence that more and more americans are "believing this anti-science shit"?

Polls have pretty consistently shown that a majority of Americans believe in all sorts of supernatural things.

I have a theory that as science and technology continue to grow beyond the understanding of the average Joe, that they will be more and more likely to believe supernatural explanations in lieu of scientific ones.

After all, if both explanations are sufficiently convoluted, you may as well just flip a coin and pick one, right?

[thoreau]

mediageek-

Like I said above, there's a big difference between the person who has a vague belief in the supernatural but no real objection to science, and the person who believes T. Rex was on the Ark.

Vague supernatural beliefs will probably always be common. That doesn't necessarily translate into hostility to science. Even thoughtful religious beliefs need not translate into anti-science hostility.

I have no clue whether the people with active hostility toward science are really becoming more common. The only thing I fear about the "God was, like, probably involved, you know?" crowd is that even though they have no real beef against evolution, they might be tricked into giving the creationists "equal time."

"It's just, like, fair. I mean, evolution is what all the scientists say and scientists always prove their stuff, but, like, we should probably be fair anyway."

[ChicagoTom]

is there any actual evidence that more and more americans are "believing this anti-science shit"?

I don't know how many people believe it (or how many more people believe it) these days but I don't think that number is that relevant.

To me, what is relevant is the fact is that many school districts are actively debating whether or not to teach this as science. The fact that there is a possibility that it could be taught as science is what scares me. That is how widespread acceptance will occur.

It seems to me it isn't about how many people believe it, but WHO believes it (or at the very least advances the agenda). It seems like there is a pretty large number of decision makers / policy shapers who believe (or advance) this position.

[ChicagoTom]

Here's a Harris Poll about it :

http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm

Interesting trend lines

[poco]

It's truly amazing how willfully stupid people choose to be, all to justify their fairy tales.

<armchair shrink> Then people would have to admit that their parents and priests lied to them when they were children, and they subconsciously know the resultant anger would be intolerable, so they redouble their efforts at defending the myths.

Pee Wee and his waitress gal (Dotty? Some other whore?)

Elle s'appellait Simone (she was a Francophile: "au revoir, Pee-Wee!").

[zach]

no, i've been misunderstood. weird supernatural beliefs are definitely prevalent in the states as well as around the globe. my question was, is there any evidence to support that this percentage is growing, as is constantly alleged?

[Robert Zych]

Jason,

That very book caught my eye in my wife's stack of books this morning. Since she usually reads crappy female soft-core porn I assumed that's what it was and ignored it. I think I'll take a look and see how generous your B- was.

[Dumb Ass Newbie]

Meant to post that under an amusing name as seems to be the fashion here. Whoops, live and learn.

[mediageek]

Thoreau, of course you have to give them equal time. If you don't, you get accused of religious intolerance and bigotry.

Yep, first you exclude Creationism and ID from the text books, next thing you know Christians are being thrown en masse into the ovens.

[zach]

zych, i haven't read the book myself, but from what i've heard there are some softcore-porn-like moments therein.

[Satan Welcomes Your Jurassic L]

is there any actual evidence that more and more americans are "believing this anti-science shit"?

Well, being the country is going to hell in a hand basket....

[Slainte']

'American Gods' is OK. Gaiman's 'Stardust' is absolutely A#1 top shelf excellent. 'Neverwhere' is wonderful and a very close A#2. 'American Gods' pales in comparison, but it's still a good read, better than 98 percent of the dead tree matter sitting on the shelves.
On a related subject, i.e., 1,000,000 Years BC, didn't I see recently that Raquel Welch turned 65? Wow, tempus fugit.

[kwais]

"I also wanted to make an epic, completely literal, hardcore porn film version of the Old Testament, too"

Strange, I have also wanted to do that. If done well it might be the best movie ever.

[kwais]

Also the crap about Americans getting their asses kicked in the global market because of their belief in creationism? Come on now. Americans have been superstitios for a while now, and that hasn't hurted them. What will hurt them is high taxes and protectionism crap.

[Douglas Fletcher]

I suppose Christian strip clubs would be the next thing. Or maybe a feminist strip club.

[J. Goard]

Eventually, they will be laughed away. Just like the folks who said the earth is flat, and the folks who said that the sun revolves around the earth. There was a Copurnican Revolution, and we are in the midst of a Darwinian Revolution.

Evan,

I'm not too sure about that. While it may have been difficult getting to the post-copernican layman's conception of the solar system and galaxy, the content of that conception is pretty straightforward. (Lots of 4th grade science fair projects sum it up pretty well.) Evolution via natural selection, by contrast, requires a sophisticated perspective that in many ways goes against the basic ("common-sense") inclinations of the human mind.

Now, what I can see occurring is a humanist revolution, wherein appeals to the divine for mental stability and moral guidance are being gradually replaced by appeals to secular psychology and lay versions of deontological and consequentialist ethics. (Oprah calls herself a Christian, but in all the good she does with her wealth and the influence of her show, note how little she appeals to the Bible or specifically monotheistic lines of argument.) If this conceptual revolution becomes entrenched, then evolution will probably cease to be under attack, since non-scientists won't fear that any scientifically preferred account of our species' origin will undercut the basis for public morality. In other words, the public won't have to appreciate evolution any more than it appreciates current theories in, say, metallurgy. But it will no longer feel the deep impulse to ignorantly challenge expertise in the area.

[crimethink]

I get the feeling that if Jesus were around and he saw that his followers had $25 million, he would want them to use it to help people, rather than use it on something stupid like this.

Uh, tell that to the poor kids of a dinosaur sculptor, who will have presents under the tree for the first time in years, because of that $25M.

Oh yeah, and don't be so sure that Jesus isn't around and he doesn't see these things...

[J. Goard]

Addendum:

I should have pointed out in the context of your comparison that the real "Copernican revolution" lay not in so much in no longer thinking the Earth was the center of the universe, as in thinking that it didn't matter to the value of human life and the importance of historical actions whether or not the Earth was at the center of the universe.

[Hakluyt]

Belief in the Ark tale actually makes me feel sorry for the adherents of such non-sense.

thoreau,

Of course I wasn't being overly literal. Funny thing was once she proferred a proper question I was able to easily answer it.

Evan Williams,

Much less the crackpot and wholly irrational idea that a God created a human male out the earth, and his mate out of his rib. Of course its no worse or better than any of the other silly creation myths out there.

____________________

"...and that evolution birthed...racism..."

What a load of bullshit. Don't these idiots even realize that some of the greatest 18th and 19th century apologists for slavery were Christians who based their opinions on notions like the idea that Africans were the children of Ham?

[The Wine Commonsewer]

There ain't any dinosaurs there and it isn't a dinosaur park.

I quickly skimmed the comments and I don't think this was mentioned. Dinny of Cabazon (windiest place on the fargin' planet btw) is a big old-timey Route 66 style roadside promo that was designed to get people to stop at the Wheel Inn off of I-10. There are actually two of the concrete dinosaurs (the other is named Rex) and they used to be clearly visible but are now obscured by surrounding development that has occurred in the last 10 years.

Some of you will remember the dinos from Pee Wee's Big Adventure

There are plenty of dinosaur bones around the general area but this spot doesn't have any. Or at least any that we know of. They did find a bonanza of bones, including several almost intact specimens during the excavation work that created Diamond Valley Lake some 40 miles from Diny.

[mediageek]

Hey thoreau, question for you:

I've gotten into a debate over creationism on another forum, and I pointed out that evolutionary theory is supported by experimental data that adheres to the scientific method, where as C/ID does not.

Then someone asked me to give evidence of scientific experiments that support evolution.

Now, I know that there are the experiments regarding inherited characteristics and whatnot, and I'm sure guys like Watson and Crick probably did experiments to come to their conclusion, but I'm not quite sure where to look to find info on this.
No need to write a big essay, just some names and/or info to point me in the right direction and I'll be happy to look it up on my own.

Thanks!

[Jim Anderson]

mediageek, you might start by looking at TalkOrigins' handy-dandy FAQ.

[thoreau]

mediageek-

Not my area of expertise. You'd probably want to go to a university library and use a database like Web of Science to search for original research articles.

Or find a popular book on evolution with a good bibliography that references original experiments. Not all popular science books do that.

[The Wine Commonsewer]

Okay, so I missed Ken Layne's review of the concrete dinos. Apologies.

[Jon Bristow]

Every time I think of dinosaurs, I think of http://www.qwantz.com/

[Number 6]

Jason Ligon- American Gods was a tremendously entertaining book. I thought I was the only person besides a few comic book nerds who has read it.

[biologist]

mediageek:

Watson and Crick are most famous for deducing the structure of DNA, not any research they did on evolutionary theory

J:

thanks for straightening me out. I wasn't up on the current consensus and I'm completely incapable of remembering dates of various events. assuming you've got the timeline correct, it is unlikely that any new megafauna could have arisen in only 10,000 years

[wellfellow]

I say, more power to them. Let's give them some more rope...

[Jason Sonenshein]

I've never seen a roadside dino park. I guess I've never done a long cross-country drive through the right areas. Or I wasn't paying enough attention to the tourist traps.

Here's one on State Route 163 in Marblehead, Ohio. As the website says, "You can also rent a dinosaur. Call us for details 1-419-798-5230." Check it out the next time you're in Ohio's Lake Erie Vacationland!

[mediageek]

But didn't a lot of their work sort of hinge on this? I seem to recall that they did some experiments to determine DNA structure that involved using XRays to get an image of the crystal structure, or somesuch. (Vague memories, I read their book years ago.)

Oh well. So much for name dropping in an attempt to sound all edumacated.

[Kahn]

It's truly amazing how willfully stupid people choose to be, all to justify their fairy tales.

Sure. But the really scary part is that I swear, reincarnation is for real. Example: big Christian theme is that man is a terrible creature (they call it sinful).

Now look at modern environmentalism, where the big problem is that man is a terrible creature (Save the Plant: Kill Yourself).

I have a theory that as science and technology continue to grow beyond the understanding of the average Joe, that they will be more and more likely to believe supernatural explanations in lieu of scientific ones.

That isn't just a theory. I was debating a creationist back in my grad student days, and somewhere in the middle of it his girlfriend (a poor, innocent bystander) got flustered and told me that all my "science and technology" was no different from her faith and superstition.

She wasn't kidding.

[Tom Crick]

I haven't seen any environmentalists say that we should save the planet and kill ourselves... Maybe some of them have said it, but I haven't heard it. ...gotta link?

"I have a theory that as science and technology continue to grow beyond the understanding of the average Joe, that they will be more and more likely to believe supernatural explanations in lieu of scientific ones."

For some time now, I've advocated the theory that most people don't use logic and facts to determine what they believe, they just believe whatever they hear from the people they trust. It would blast a big hole in my argument if someone were to show that there was a time when science and technology were within the grasp of the average person.

...Could you be specific about when that time was?

"Don't these idiots even realize that some of the greatest 18th and 19th century apologists for slavery were Christians who based their opinions on notions like the idea that Africans were the children of Ham?"

In my lifetime, I've heard Christians use that story to explain why so many bad things have happened to black people over the centuries--mix that ridiculous myth with the observation that most people believe whatever the people they trust tell them, and it's truly terrifying.

[Kahn]

I haven't seen any environmentalists say that we should save the planet and kill ourselves...

It's a bumper sticker.

[Jim Walsh]

I have a theory that as science and technology continue to grow beyond the understanding of the average Joe, that they will be more and more likely to believe supernatural explanations in lieu of scientific ones.

Reading Darwin et al, is just too much work. Maybe there are some creationists who have read Darwin, or at least made an effort in earnest to understand what they're supposed to be opposing. I've never met one.

[Kahn]

Maybe there are some creationists who have read Darwin

You don't need to bother reading Darwin. All it takes is to have your sensibilities offended at the idea that there might be a link between humans and apes, albeit millions of years ago.

That, or you've spent entirely too much time already reading the bible.

Most people don't know that while Darwin explains why there are 457 species of sparrows (or x, whatever x is), he was deeply unhappy at the fact that he couldn't explain where sparrow came from. Somebody above mentions this.

Telling this to my creationist brother is a sure recipe to get his blood boiling.....

[Douglas Fletcher]

"I also wanted to make an epic, completely literal, hardcore porn film version of the Old Testament, too"

I don't think it would be completely literal (realistic, anyway) if you filmed it anything except Odorama. Folks back then just wasn't as clean as us Ivory-scented superhumans these days, you know.

[Hakluyt]

Douglas Fletcher,

Imagine how ripe Lot was hanging out in that cave (while boning his daughters!).

mediageek,

Also go here: http://www.pandasthumb.org/

[thoreau]

If they have $25 million to spend, I wonder how many Ph.D. students they can sponsor to attend prestigious universities and obtain PhD's. Isn't their plan to establish creationist sleeper cells in university science departments? Get doctoral degrees, get tenure, and then come out of the closet as creationists?

[ed]

Religion is THE cosmic joke.
Nothing else comes close.

[J]

JGoard said,
"Evolution via natural selection, by contrast, requires a sophisticated perspective that in many ways goes against the basic ("common-sense") inclinations of the human mind."

But the thing about evolution by natural selection is that a basic thumbnail description of it is exceptionally simple and straightforward conceptually - organisms vary in their abilities to get food, avoid predators, etc; the more successful ones pass on more offspring, which tend to be similar to their parents; so these successful traits are passed on more than unsuccessful traits. I think it's very common sense, and easy for almost anyone to understand at that level (of course things can get very complicated when you really get into it, just like the notion that the earth revolves around the sun is simple, but the details are not).

The big problem with the acceptance of evolution is that so many people mistakenly think that evolution has anything at all to say about the existence of god(s). The relatively few who hold extremely literal religious beliefs that really are in contradiction with evolution have been very successful at convincing many others that evolution is not consistent with _any_ god (or any Christian god), which is completely untrue.

[Sean]

You know, as a Canadian this whole debate you seem to be having fascinates us. How you can tolerate letting religion getting taught as science scares us as well.

On a side note I lived in the Carribean for 3 years and attneded a private boys school which was run by a Catholic teaching order and Father O'Dwyer (God bless him) taught us that Genesis was written for simple people to be able to understand how the world came to be. Why is it only protestants in America seem to have a problem with this? Then again if you elect religious right wing zealots you have to lie in the bed that you make.

[mk]

J,
Perhaps you have alighted on the root of the PR problem that science has. People with a real investment in science are almost incapable of giving thumbnail descriptions of complex processes. Not quantifying your statements and discussing the anomalies seems like intellectual cowardice to them (and rightly so).
Real science will never have the simplistic punch of "God said it, I read it, that settles it".

[J]

mk,

I don't think that sort of absolute appeal to authority is necessarily true of religious people as a whole (as I understand it, some Christian and Jewish traditions, and probably others I'm not familiar with, are surprisingly open to discussion and disagreement), but I would agree with you about certain religious people. The "scientific" creationists who argue successfully against evolution tend to be exceptionally good at rhetorical tricks, obfuscation, and misrepresentation, and it's often hard for evolutionists not trained in that sort of thing to hold their own even if the facts are on their side. It is hard to come up with a thumbnail description for some complex evolutionary phenomena that creationists dispute.

[M1EK]

"Also the crap about Americans getting their asses kicked in the global market because of their belief in creationism? Come on now. Americans have been superstitios for a while now, and that hasn't hurted them. What will hurt them is high taxes and protectionism crap."

You're fooling yourself. It's impossible to be an effective scientist while believing in ID; and the science infrastructure of the US is what many people, including myself, believe propelled us to the top of the global economic heap. Hell, the money to be made from stem-cell spin-offs might propel South Korea and Western Europe past us, and that's just ONE of the areas we'll be screwed in.

ANYTHING which erodes the scientific method's acceptance in our society is bad news. Even in fields like mine (computer science), you need a basic understanding of hypotheses, testing, disprovable vs provable, etc. to be effective.

Meanwhile, our kids are being taught that handwaves are on an equal footing with science. You disregard this at your own peril.

[J]

"It's impossible to be an effective scientist while believing in ID"

This isn't true. It's impossible to be effective in a field such as evolution or ecology and believe in ID, but for other fields that aren't so directly related, there are definitely effective scientists who are also creationists/IDers. I've known biochemists, molecular biologists, and physicists who are at respected schools, well-known in their fields, and publish significant papers, and who are creationists. I don't know the field of computer science at all, but I would be very surprised if there weren't productive, successful computer scientists who are also IDers. People are amazingly good at compartmentalizing their beliefs and belief systems.

I would agree that any "scientific" education that gives any credence to creationism, ID, or other pseudo-scientific beliefs is definitely bad news, because the people being educated are already starting out with that handicap; it can be overcome, but it makes things harder.

[M1EK]

"People are amazingly good at compartmentalizing their beliefs and belief systems."

Sorry, anybody who doesn't trust the scientific method is not a scientist. Period. I have yet to meet a good computer scientist who turned out to be a literal creationist, and those who admitted belief in ID still wouldn't have taught it in science class.

For instance, those who believe that ID is on a par with evolution would also have to give credibility to theories that the output of my computer program is determined by the interaction of various angels and demos inside the computer.

(I should probably have restricted my comment to that degree, by the way; it's certainly within the realm of reason to BELIEVE in ID while acknowledging that it is unproven and shouldn't be taught as science).

[M1EK]

"Then again if you elect religious right wing zealots you have to lie in the bed that you make.

Hey! I didn't vote for any of them. I didn't vote for the other party either since I agree with the Democrats on economics as much as I agree with the Republicans on religion;"

Then you effectively voted for the Republicans in two ways: 1) by throwing away your vote on a third-party candidate, and 2) by falsely equating the dangers posed by Democrats to those posed by Republicans.

[thoreau]

Sorry, anybody who doesn't trust the scientific method is not a scientist. Period. I have yet to meet a good computer scientist who turned out to be a literal creationist, and those who admitted belief in ID still wouldn't have taught it in science class.

M1EK, I hate to come across as "defending" creationists, but I agree with J: Some people are amazingly good at compartmentalizing. Acceptance of the scientific method is not the binary thing that you make it out to be. I know at least one physicist who does good work but believes that the book of Genesis is the literal truth. He doesn't work on cosmology or any other field that might be in direct contradiction with his belief, so it works just fine for him.

Does his approach make sense to me? No. Do I agree with him? Absolutely not. But somehow he does it.

Human beings are far too strange and complex to fit into any neat box. They compartmentalize amazingly well as long as the contradictions don't produce any obvious conflicts that affect their daily life.

Again, I am not defending his views, but he is a good practicioner within his field. It's not what I expected, but who ever said that the world must be as I expect it to be?

[thoreau]

Maybe part of the reason for the compartmentalization is a distinction between past and present: Once upon a time, everything happened according to a supernatural plan, and so you can't extrapolate backwards to the past based on fossils and whatnot.

But nowadays everything is mechanistic so you can do experiments on phase transitions, study biochemical reactions, and debug a computer based on the assumption that its behavior is deterministic, etc.

I know, it doesn't make much sense. But it makes compartmentalization easy for some people. Don't ask me why they prefer that to a more rational approach. They just do.

[Stevo Darkly]

Then you effectively voted for the Republicans in two ways: 1) by throwing away your vote on a third-party candidate, and 2) by falsely equating the dangers posed by Democrats to those posed by Republicans.

Why "falsely"? That's an unproven assertion at best. Each poses serious dangers, just different ones. What would Akira gain if he threw himself into the clutches of Scylla to avoid the whirlpool of Charybdis?

[Stevo Darkly]

Human beings are far too strange and complex to fit into any neat box. They compartmentalize amazingly well as long as the contradictions don't produce any obvious conflicts that affect their daily life.

Yeah. Compartmentalization is what lets me enjoy listening to "Bullet to Blue Sky" even though I think Bono's an idiot. It's a necessary function of life. Hardly any thing or situation is all good or all bad from any one person's viewpoint, so you have to learn to sift.

[Lowdog]

M1EK - not to thread-jack, here, but leave the "you threw away your vote" bullshit alone.

I had a girlfriend once, who didn't believe we decended from monkeys. Ok, no problem, I could live with that. Then I saw a special where these scientists had shown that whales had evolved from predatory marsupials (if I remember correctly). She argued with me about this big-time. It was only then that I realised that not only did she not think we decended from monkeys, but that she didn't believe in evolution at all.

Weird, since religion never really came up in our conversations.

[J]

"...Iran (supposed endpoint of Republican-style theocracy)..."

Where in the sweet holy fuck did this come from?!? "Supposed" by who (besides you, apparently)?

[M1EK]

""...Iran (supposed endpoint of Republican-style theocracy)..."

Where in the sweet holy fuck did this come from?!? "

The fact that Iran is a theocracy, and the dangers from the Republicans largely run from the theocratic camp of same.

[Jason Ligon]

"2) by falsely equating the dangers posed by Democrats to those posed by Republicans."

Er, hmm. Catastrophes come in all flavors. I remain unconvinced that Dems getting their way would help matters.

Yeah, thoreau, I hear ya ...

[thoreau]

What?

I've never said they should get their way. I just said that maybe the other guys shouldn't get their way either. Gridlock is a respectable notion with a long (but admittedly imperfect) pedigree...

[Osama in Undisclosed Location]

Well they are a bunch idol venerating Shia, but I would have to go with Iran.

[thoreau]

I know this thread is about to slide off the page, but I just saw something relevant on the Daily Show: They interviewed a guy from the Christian Exodus organization, a group akin to the Free State Project that's trying to relocate a bunch of Christian conservatives to South Carolina. I guess that SC doesn't have enough of them or something.

Anyway, the guy is apparently working as an electrical engineer. I don't understand it, but clearly he can compartmentalize and use scientific knowledge relevant to his work but ignore large portions of biology and geology.

Say what you will about him, M1EK, but the world is full of people who compartmentalize in strange ways. There are more weirdos in heaven and earth than your strictly rational approach can account for.