Slashdot Mirror
Darwin Evolving Into A Tricky Exhibit
rbochan writes "The new Darwin Exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History
has 'failed to find a corporate sponsor in the United States because American companies are anxious not to take sides in the heated debate between scientists and fundamentalist Christians over the theory of evolution' according to articles at The Sydney Morning Herald, The Telegraph, and The Register. The $US3 million needed for the exhibit was met by private charitable donations."
no, they evolve, but they remain a bacteria.
show me a bacteria that has become a fish
Supplies!
How in the world could you be a Christian and not take the Bible literally? If you don't think that what is in the Bible is literal, you CAN'T be a Christian.
A man with a gun is called a citizen. A man without a gun is called a subject.
Would that such were true. Unfortunately I'm stuck with the political and social structures that the majority of Americans want: from a president who's either delusion, criminal, or most likely both; to stores that start putting Christmas decorations out in the middle of Septemember; to TV channels full of "reality" programs; to schools that, should I ever have kids, will want them to start their school days in a religious ceremony of devotion to a starred and striped rag.
Now, maybe you're completely apolitical and asocial and can avoid these things.
(People asking me about my recent trip to Japan often inquire if I felt alienated or out of place; the fact is, Japanese society seemed or weirder or alien to me than mainstream American society.)
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
As I understand the "problem" with Evolution as described by Darwin is that it may accurately describe what we observe, but it has no predictive power.
This is the more scientific definition of theory:
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. (dictionary.com)
How has evolution been repeatedly tested? Is there a theorem, mathmatical model that can describe evolution? I may be wrong here, but it's closer to a hypothesis with a not-yet-made theorem to prove/disprove the hypothesis.
Another problem exists because the word "theory" is not used in a disciplined way. Many people use "theory" to describe something when they should probably use conjecture. But "theory" sounds so much more persuasive.
The last problem is faith. A person can believe in something with no material proof. So "faith" has somehow injected itself into what is cold hard science. I don't know how you persuade a person that takes creationism on faith that it's a good story and we humans tend to need a creation story. (Jung)
If I haven't offended enough people yet, I actually wouldn't have a problem with teaching comparing many alternative interpretations of the biological record. It's fun to see and a good way to teach the scientific method.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
The response of the slashdot community to these sorts of topics is so predictable. As always, a whole lot of complaining & moaning, a whole lot of courageous statements without a whole lot of backup. Let me respond to a bit of that here. First, many complain about Christians being a minority. Well, in reality that is not true. Now, on SLASHDOT, Christians may be a minority. However, in the United States, where this exhibit is being built, Christians are NOT the minority. Second, many here tote the EVIDENCE of evolution proven by micro-evolution, fruit flies & bacteria & the sort. While this may be true, nothing has been proven in relation to evolution on the macro-scale. IRL, macro-evolution has not been proven. Third, I seriously doubt that many here have done much study into the theories presented by Intelligent Design. There is much more to this theory then most around here would like to admit. Fourth, my suggestion on how to resolve this issue fairly. Get those corporate sponsors to shell out the big bucks for a multifacetted exhibit. Get the proponents of ID to do that exhibit, Evolution, etc. And have two specific parts of each exhibit - the first to define each theory, and the second to give counter-arguments. Anyhow, I am sure this will be modded down, bashed, critisized. But it was fun to speak up for the other side of the fence.
Darwin Evolution theory != Science, it is only faith. I don't knock your faith so how about leaving mine alone. Funny, my son asked his anthropology professor for proof of Darwinian Evolution and the professor said we don't have the proof yet; though, we are close. My son's response, then you believes in Darwinian Evolution by faith? The professor conceded, yes it is by faith.
Even if fellow Christians aren't acting straight, I'd never be ashamed to be a Christian.
Maybe I'm ashamed to be a scientist though. There are so many posters that think science has done so much for the world, and is so superior to many other modes of thinking, that evolution 'has to be the cause of life.' If you start thinking about all the groups throughout history that thought they were better than other groups, you'll start seeing the danger of that way of thinking. Scientists are supposed to be free thinkers, that allow repeatable events to let them draw conclusions on the universe. There are some scientists that like to favor their own theories and fudge their own way, but they're mostly frowned upon by pure scientists. I think its foolish to rally around evolution as the definitive answer of life. I'll rally around F=MA or that the earth isn't the center of the galaxy or that its beneficial to genetically alter foods to have more to eat. But to get all high and mighty about science and its guesswork towards the origins of life is something I'll not want to be a part of.
God spoke to me.
This is a side question but related to the universe as a whole...
What does the space for the Universe come from? The size is beyond comprehension. Okay maybe it is infinite. Well where did the space for it come from to begin with?
You forget the answer they will give you and which you have no counter-argument: "God made it so."
You CANNOT debate this crap with the idiots who believe it, as they "know" they are right, and the invisible being they believe in can do ANYTHING.....
Department of Homeland Security: Removing the rights real patriots fought and died for since 2001
Yeah, I know I sound like that. But the thing is, where do you really see anyone ranting like this? It's usually only the religious nut-jobs that get away with it.
And you're right, I don't respect their "beliefs" because that's all they are, beliefs. I respect science. I respect testing and proofs and facts. Not some fable meant to keep the masses in check for fear the boogieman will get them. How can you respect someone that claims to be intelligent yet still thinks this way? It's idiotic to begin with. But fine, everyone has a right to be idiotic just as many people reading my rant thought I was idiotic. Only thing is, I'm not trying to re-define science as the Kansas School Board did to encompass ID. I'm not trying to stifle free-speech because someone "may" show a naked breast on TV. I'm not trying to halt stem-cell research because it may or may not be immoral. I didn't set back the FDA when it tried to make the Morning After Pill over-the-counter for fear women may become more promiscuous. I could go on and on, but I won't.
Also, when you quoted my post you forgot to take out "believing in Santa Claus" etc etc. How many Atheists believe in that? And by the way, I'm not an Atheist, I'm just pissed.
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
Not taking as stand on evolution is like not taking a stand on the existence of electricity.
How so? My house is going to go dark if I don't venerate Darwin as the One True Scientist?
Let's get real. The people on one side are militiant fundamentalists. The people on the other side are militant athiests.
The rest of us are a mix of pious, agnostic, athiest, etc. We're not particularly angry about the issue. We're not using Darwin to bash religion, we're not using religion to bash Darwin.
resigned
The problem is that they were looked at the last time they pushed their inane fantasies. Back then they called it Creationism. Now they call it Insidious Dribble, or something like that, but all they've done is changed the names.
What more proof do you need than the book they forced into high schools. It was called "Of Pandas and People" and it claims to talk of Incompetent Decisions. But earlier drafts of the book spoke of Creationism.
Creationism was rejected as religious fantasy several decades ago. Now the same Christian Taleban have dressed it up with a new name - but no new ideas - and are trying to pretend it's a new "theory". Well first off the bat, it's not a theory. Second, it's not new. Third, it was rejected last time.
*don't feed the trolls*
*don't feed the trolls*
*don't feed the trolls*
*don't feed the trolls*
*don't feed the trolls*
Aw, nuts.... I can't do it.
I think both arguments should be equally put forth and let every individual decide for themselves
No, they should not be put forth, because one is a rational, well thought out theory based on the ample evidence that surrounds us, and has stood up to thousands of agenda-pushing detractors without a scratch, and another is a fairy tale made up out of whole cloth back when we thought the earth was flat, with no evidence besides literary sleight-of-hand "ooh, this is complicated, therefore it must be made by god!".
Send lawyers, guns, and money!
"Kids believe Santa Claus is a man. Are you saying there is no such thing as men, that all men are a figment of man's imagination?"
Substituting "love" with "a man" doesn't make sense, except for those who love a man.
No data, no cry
The poster's title is not only misleading, but also incorrect. It should have read: "Darwin Exhibit Corporate Support Is Devolving".
The neo(Con)artists and the Dubya regime have, in only five short years, turned the USA into something that resembles a Western (christian) version of a Middle Eastern (islamic) religious fundamentalist oligarchy. Between tax cuts that favor the wealthiest citizens, dismantling of the social safety net, the apparent push to "gentrify" the reconstruction of New Orleans, and the dual-edged sword of globalization and the tacit approval of illegaly imported wage slaves, it would appear that the Islamists hold a more charitable position regarding the Middle Class and the Poor than do these "Christians". The optional (and badly run) Iraqi Conflict is the only point in which USA's foreign policy appears to favor the Saudi Arabian Wah'habist goal of regional hegenomy, since the USA is doing all it can to forment civil war. Planning the peace, planning the reconstruction, and "winning hearts & minds" were never part of the Dubya equation.
So, what am I "really"?
I refer to the flag as a rag because it's accurate. All flags are rags, i.e. mere pieces of cloth, and pointing this out occasionlly helps counteract the bizarre idolatry that surrounds the starred and striped one. Don't confuse the map with the territory.
Oh, bullshit. First, I don't hate the U.S., I love it. I also love Maryland, but that doesn't mean I think it is favored by God above New Jersey, or that its flag is a holy relic, or that its governor isn't an ass and its legislature largely corrupt. Still, it's home.
Second, I am not misrepresenting on insulting anything; it is people like you who misrepresent the rag and the nation.
Confusing a colorful rag with "the sacrifices of people who died protecting the ideals of freedom" is a big error; confusing the sacrifices of people who died because they were fooled into thinking that wars of imperialism had anything to do with protecting freedom, fooled into thinking that serving the government was serving the people of the nation, is a bigger error.
Wow, about 42 cents per American for the year. Out of federal spending of $2.568 trillion, or $8,683 per American. Less than 0.005 percent of federal spending. Yep, no doubt, the NEA budget is tiny.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood