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."
Only a bioscience professor could spin the abscence of donations into religious extremism. I am tired of that term being used for everything that is not athiest. Lets reserve it for things like 9/11 and the crusades, and keep the sensationism to Fox News and CNN.
I guarantee every single one of the 51 percent is a so-called Christian. Your country decided to abdicate rationality when it decided that spouting ridiculous Christian fantasies was more important.
I'm almost ashamed to be a Christian
You should be ashamed that you call yourself a Christian. You can't be a Christian and not believe in Creation. This is an irreconciable difference. You can not believe that Christ is who he says he is without taking the Bible literally. If you don't believe that, then you can't be a Christian and you shouldn't call yourself one.
And any church that is teaching ID instead of Creationism shouldn't be calling itself a Christian church either.
A man with a gun is called a citizen. A man without a gun is called a subject.
Well, for one, faith-based intelligent design is not natural history and therefore not worthy to be in a natural history museum.
And another person shows that they know NOTHING about what Intelligent Design teaches. Intelligent Design is based in natural history- for it is through natural history that we learn the mind of God (NOT through the Bible- amazing how many people miss that).
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
The whole "Dis-separation of church and state" that our current administration has done absolutely freaks me out more than any of the other 'popular ridicule points'. Obviously there are plenty of other kooks out there that are disturbing as hell but never before (at least in my lifetime) have I seen such a thing be viewed as "OK".
I could say more but I wont.
do() || do_not();
Creation Watch is a good resource to know about these pityful facts. By the way, the whole world is laughing at the USA.
Intelligent design is creationism in a different suit.
Or it's evolution in a different suit. Hard to tell, since it has elements of both.
Also, how is having a problem with astrology being presented in a science museum bigotry?
Rejection of an idea or a people based on prejudice.
I'm saying "This garbage has no scientific support."
Only because you've redefined science to eliminate 4000 years worth of empirical evidence.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Wait, let me get this straight. You're saying that to avoid "religious fundamentalism" they should go to Europe (where they're having so many issues with the onslaught of fundamentalist Muslims)? As for "aggregate spending by religious extremist rednecks" -- most rednecks are poor, and just because someone doesn't agree with the myth of evolution doesn't mean that they're religious. It just means that they want irrefutable proof of something before they'll call it a "fact".
ID is Evolution. Anybody who says differently is either:
not being honest with you, or
not being honest with themselves.
Means about the same as your argument. And it's funny that you say this:
The oh-so-predictable Ad Hominem attacks aside, excluding such claptrap as astrology and ID from the realm of scientific discourse is not because of bigotry...it is because astrology and ID are not science. Take your persecution complex elsewhere, thanks.
Claiming that something is not science without actually examining the evidence for it is the very definition of bigotry and prejudice. So no- you've failed to convince anybody of anything, and in fact, repeated the error.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Bioscience does not in any way depend upon the T of E!! Evolution is not science and for a so-called professor in bioscience to make such unfounded claims makes me really fear for the education of those students in your care. No one is rejecting a scientific understanding of our world.
Nice strawman! Fighting the teaching of Evolution in schools as fact when it is not
fact has nothing to do with any form of "Religious extremism". If we lose our edge in
science, it will be caused by the mental laziness caused precisely by teaching T of E as
if it were science.
Evolution is a scientific theory, testable and falsifiable, with a clear, defined premise at its foundation and decades of rigorous scientific observation that backs it up.
Really? How do you test random chance? How do you tell the difference between random chance and molecules obeying physical laws that we don't understand yet?
See the difference yet?
Not until you can prove that randomness exists. Which you can't. And since random chance vs God is the only difference between "evolution" and "ID", I have to say you've failed utterly to explain the difference.
have examined the "evidence", thanks...and without a single exception every piece of "evidence" in favor of Creationism...er...ID
Since you confuse the two, it is obvious that you don't know the first thing about what ID teaches. It's hard to miss the difference between creationism and ID in the age of the universe, or even the age of planet earth, for instance (hint- ID requires 18 billion years, not 6000 years). So if you haven't even examined the evidence enough to know the difference between ID and creationism, why should we believe that you've studied it enough to not be prejudiced against it?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Yes and no- like everybody, the Vatican is made up of human beings and is just as subject to propaganda. Notice what Coyne doesn't say- that God does not exist. That is the difference I'm pointing to between ID and Evolution currently- belief in God vs belief in Randomness- and neither is a scientific point of view, but rather a philosophical one.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
I've heard lots of "evidence" such as "there are fish....and there are dogs....and there are preople -- evolution exists!!!!" and all sorts of ridiculous unprovable claims. I'm taking botanty, microbiology, and zoology right now and have yet to see anything that convince me of evolution. I have no problem believing in it -- if they'd just give me some solid undisputable proof (though statisically speaking evolution is possible, yet HIGHLY unlikely given the age of the earth).
I would like to preface this by saying I mean this in all seriousness and I ask that you seriously consider the points presented in the following site and the specified article. One can't merely discard ID as an explanation, not only from a Christian standpoint...but from a scientific one as well. Please read.
o n=view&ID=774
www.icr.org
A great place to start would be here:
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&acti
If you would like to comment or ask questions...do so to invalidmail@gmail.com (it's a real address...promise).
If you mean that this is a heavily supported theory with plenty of evidence, I'd say that crap is being implied every time you turn around. It is so pervasive and self assured as to be mind numbing.
What you feel is missing then is the lack of confidence that this theory will be worked out into fact, thank God for that!
That is not science my dear fellow that is a fanatical attitude. You would have my son or my daughter to believe evolution without any question about the base argument and have him embroiled in the details of how we evolved. You aren't satisfied with giving kids a chance to escape the thinking of religious fanatic parents or hear a second viewpoint. You crusade for all kids to be following your "theory" as fact.
That my friend is not scientific, it is ludicrous.