Creationism Museum Opening in Kentucky

Noel Linback writes "A new creationism-espousing museum is opening in the state of Kentucky. According to a New York Times article the museum depicts humans and dinosaurs living together in traditional 'diorama' style exhibit. 'Whether you are willing to grant the premises of this museum almost becomes irrelevant as you are drawn into its mixture of spectacle and narrative. Its 60,000 square feet of exhibits are often stunningly designed by Patrick Marsh, who, like the entire museum staff, declares adherence to the ministry's views; he evidently also knows the lure of secular sensations, since he designed the Jaws and King Kong attractions at Universal Studios in Florida. For the skeptic the wonder is at a strange universe shaped by elaborate arguments, strong convictions and intermittent invocations of scientific principle. For the believer, it seems, this museum provides a kind of relief: Finally the world is being shown as it really is, without the distortions of secularism and natural selection. '"

Comments

On the other hand, they also make great Bourbon.

[ScentCone]

I mean, the whiskey has to count for SOMETHING, right?

The museum was built in 6 days

[Anonymous Coward]

And they rested on the seventh, but that was due to union regulations.

Re:The museum was built in 6 days

[mclaincausey]

Bill Hicks:

You ever noticed how people who believe in evolution look a little bit less evolved?

"I b'lieve Gawd created me in 6 days!"

"Yeah, it looks like he might've rushed it..."

Re:The museum was built in 6 days

[mobby_6kl]

Since you mentioned Bill Hicks, there's another appropriate quote:

You know the world is 12,000 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."

Here's a video

Re:The museum was built in 6 days

[solafide]

But the word dinosaur was coined in the 1800s, while the KJV was translated in the 1600s. So it would be impossible to use words that would be coined in the future.

On the other hand, the KJV does make mention of dragons, and the descriptions given of dragons do, I believe, fit that of dinosaurs.

Re:The museum was built in 6 days

[maspatra]

It's pretty well established that the large flying dinosaurs were long extinct before the dawn of human beings; remember it took a long time since the extinction of dinosaurs before anything even remotely resembling homonids started appearing.

What's more likely is that tales of dragons grew out of another animal--namely pre-existing reptiles, snakes and crocodilians. All primates have an innate, instinctual fear of snakes--in fact it's been argued that primate eyes evolved the way they did because of snakes. (Do a google search on "primate evolution snakes"--there's some interesting stuff to be read) As for fear of the crocodilians, that's a no-brainer--they're big, hungry, and can tear off your leg. While I don't know about western dragons, I read an article several years ago that argued quite well that stories of Chinese dragons grew out of crocodiles.

But it makes sense--you want to think up a scary animal, make a big honking version of an animal that people are already instinctually afraid of--snakes. And make 'em fly too for good measure.

Heading off at the pass

[conigs]

Just remember: not everyone who partakes in Christianity (big C or little c) believes the world was created 4,000 years ago. Some of us actually believe in evolution. (Well, us non-fundies anyway.)

Re:Heading off at the pass

[Ice Wewe]

Wait... wait... wait. You're telling me that some Christians believe in evolution? Hmm, so if you're willing to compromise on evolution, why not gay marriage?
That's it, I'm starting the Homosexual Creationism Museum which honors homosexual Neanderthals and dinosaurs.
I think that's a fair compromise.

Re:Heading off at the pass

[Mateo_LeFou]

Agreed

"The other catastrophe, in the museum's view, is of more recent vintage: the abandonment of the Bible by church figures who began to treat the story of creation as if it were merely metaphorical, and by Enlightenment philosophers, who chipped away at biblical authority"

As a poet, I'm offended by the phrase "merely" metaphorical.

Re:Heading off at the pass

[catbutt]

Well the whole thing about God being perfect, but making humans flawed, blaming humans for being flawed, and then punishing someone else to make up for those flaws .....that seems a tad silly as well.

Or do you just consider Christianity the idea that we should be nice to each other? Because I don't think Jesus invented that concept.

Re:Heading off at the pass

[conigs]

I normally don't respond to ACs, but here goes:
In its broadest sense, a fundamentalist is someone who believes that unvarying principles must apply to all people or every situation, in this case, the Bible as absolute truth. So, if someone believes every word of the Bible is absolute truth and nothing is metaphorical, simplified in terms that the people of the time would understand, and was completely accurate in its translation from language to language, then that would qualify them as a fundamentalist in my mind. In general, there is nothing wrong with that. I see no problem with believing what you believe. It's when you force that belief on other people that causes problems. Open discussion of beliefs on the other hand, is good for everyone involved.
Now, what do I believe? I am a Christian, but I believe there is one problem with the Bible: it was physically written be humans. This means two primary things to me:

1. It could only be written in terms that the person writing it could understand. This could lead to simplification of concepts. For example, in the story of creation, seven days may not necessarily equate to seven 24-hour periods. It could just mean seven stages, where each stage could take years, centuries, millenniums, etc.
2. Because humans are flawed, some of those who physically wrote the Bible may have injected their views of the world into it. It then becomes a problem to decipher what may have been written by a human voice and not God's. This can only be done through self reflection which will be different for each person.

This is just what I believe and I have no expectations of other people to accept or adhere to this belief. This is where I depart from fundamentalists.

Re:Heading off at the pass

[nattt]

The logic and reasoning that points to the earth not being 4000 years old, and the logic and reasoning that points to evolution being what actually happened, also allow us to see through the charade that is christianity though. Now, if you were a deist, I could amost accept that, but christianity is just a bunch of made up stories. At least the fundies take their holy book by it's word. If you pick and choose from the Bible, you're demonstrating that you yourself have a much better sense of morals than the god you worship. If you've ditched the nasty bits of the Bible already, why not go the whole distance and ditch the rest. You know you want to!

Re:Heading off at the pass

[Belacgod]

Very well said. Furthermore, the arguments presented in the Bible are not logical arguments, which would lose their force if combined with shoddy reasoning. The Bible is a series of stories that advocate particular moral choices, and seek to make those moral choices attractive. If you find those moral choices attractive, it doesn't matter that the imperative to do them doesn't come coherently from the text, because the imperative to do them comes from yourself, and the Bible is only a way to encourage yourself to follow them, inspiration rather than command. Some may find the Bible inspiring enough to change their actions and principles to coincide with it, but they're not being convinced by any sort of logic--they're being convinced by the emotional attractiveness of the Bible's principles. That's what religion is--a set of explanations of the world and moral principles that derive their force by making us feel good when we follow them. It's not necessary to accept every part of your chosen religion to get the benefit of it--you just have to like it enough to be inspired to act accordingly. Clearly the Creationist Museum operators have taken a very different part of Christianity to heart than Conigs has.

Re:Heading off at the pass

[brezel]

Read the bible before trying to dispute it, you might learn something. You don't even have to read far to see that God created man in His image (i.e. perfect). Their disobedience caused their fall which brought on death and corruption. if humans had been perfect they wouldn't have disobeyed in the first place.
-> god is not perfect.
discussing with christians is just too easy. anybody with half a brain should see that statements like that can't even withstand a simple logical test.

Re:Heading off at the pass

[Belial6]

Hey now, you neglect the possibility that disobeying was the perfect thing to do, and hence god is punishing humans for behaving perfectly. Which leads to the simple logical conclusion that God is evil.

Re:Heading off at the pass

[JeanPaulBob]

OK, I see the jkorz has already replied, but I'm going to do so as well...but hopefully less inflammatory.

Well the whole thing about God being perfect, but making humans flawed, blaming humans for being flawed, and then punishing someone else to make up for those flaws .....that seems a tad silly as well.

Yes, that chain of four ideas does seem rather silly. What religion are you referring to? Christians don't believe God made humans sinful. He made us capable of making moral choices, but we're not punished for being able to sin--we're punished for sin.

Nor do Christians believe that God punished "someone else". Jesus was God incarnate. God taking on the punishment for the evil we choose is rather different than God "punishing someone else to make up for those flaws".

So...What religion were you talking about, again?

Re:Heading off at the pass

[Opportunist]

Oh, faith can be a wonderful thing. As long as people don't make a religion out of it...

Re:Heading off at the pass

[Opportunist]

I already have troubles with another part of the Genesis. Since God is omniscient and transcends space and time, he must have known that Adam and Eve will eat from the forbidden fruit of knowledge. Why did he punish them for something he must have known all along? Why did he let it happen first of all? Why did he put the trees into the garden of Eden, it would have been in his power (remember, omnipotent) to put them somewhere else so they could not reach it.

Personally, I think God framed the humans. And such a God I should worship? I'd rather say, he wanted to kick the nudists out and needed some reason. But then I wonder, what reason would God need to do what he pleases? Who does he have to report to?

Somehow, it doesn't add up.

Re:Heading off at the pass

[NMerriam]

He made us capable of making moral choices, but we're not punished for being able to sin--we're punished for sin.

What sin? She ate a fruit when it was offered to her, by a being that God _allowed_ into the Garden. Yes, she was told not to eat the fruit, but was never told why or what the consequences were, despite God being omniscient enough to know he had created man with curiosity.

Leaving completely ignorant and unsophisticated children alone with the greatest predator in the universe does not seem like a wise parenting decision.

Re:Heading off at the pass

[Frostalicious]

In general, there is nothing wrong with that. I see no problem with believing what you believe. It's when you force that belief on other people that causes problems.

I think the main problem is that if you are a fundamentalist, then that neccesitates that you either try to force those beliefs onto others, or kill all nonbelievers. If you are absolutely certain that your belief system is correct, and inherent in your belief system is that all other belief systems are evil, then it follows that you want everyone to have your belief system. At that point things like secular government and religious tolerance just dissapear. How can you state that the Bible is the direct infallible word of God, and in the same breath say that we aren't going to use this in government, and we are OK with the fact others don't believe what God is saying?

Re:Heading off at the pass

[tiffany98121]

You still believe in the unsupported theory that there is a supernatural being that created the universe and everything in it though. This position is just as unlikely to be true as the young earth theory.

Re:Heading off at the pass

[Goaway]

It could only be written in terms that the person writing it could understand. This could lead to simplification of concepts. For example, in the story of creation, seven days may not necessarily equate to seven 24-hour periods. It could just mean seven stages, where each stage could take years, centuries, millenniums, etc.

You know, even 4000 years ago, people did understand the concept of periods of time longer than a day.

Re:Heading off at the pass

[tftp]

Personally, I think God framed the humans.

Here is another example. Let's assume I am programming my new robotic dog. I explicitly code a statement that says to not bark. Then I run the code. The dog runs around and then barks. What options do I have now?

1. Throw the dog out of the window, declare that it knowingly offended and denied me, and make a law that all dogs of this type must be manufactured with intentionally built-in defects, from now and forever, as a punishment for the sin of this specific dog that I built myself from the ground up.
2. Admit that my code has a bug, find the problem, fix it and rerun the code to see if it now works properly.

A secondary test is to tell which action fits a wise man and which action fits a spoiled brat.

Re:Heading off at the pass

[dbIII]

Another thing is leading fundamantalists beleive the book is absolute but don't bother to learn the languages it was written in to discuss what it says like the Biblical scholars of other groups have been doing for centuries. Even worse - they are actively anti-intellectual, which is really what the creation vs evolution thing is about and why it's really a US only thing. It isn't the main issue that is just how it manifests there.

Re:Heading off at the pass

[Firethorn]

Yeah, I actually encountered a guy like this - He said that the bible was infallible, I asked him about translation errors, and he said even the translation was perfect - so I asked which translation he read. He didn't even know that there are dozens of translations into english alone. He couldn't even name which one it was. But it was still infallible - written by god, Yessir.

Re:Heading off at the pass

[wrf3]

Frostalicious remarked So basically you believe in the literal truth of the Bible...
I don't think you know me well enough to really know what I believe. For the record, however, I hold that parts of the Bible are literal, parts are metaphor, parts are allegory. I might even allow that parts are fiction, i.e. a story used to communicate some truth about God and/or man.

So are missionaries behaving improperly?
Depends on their behavior. But to the question I think you're asking, all Christians are commanded to share the Gospel (literally "good news"), just as we are commanded to leave the results up to God.

Is one supposed to spontaneously discover Christ unprompted?
Well, this assumes that the only way someone can discover Christ is through human agency. It's certainly one way, but God is quite capable of speaking for Himself. I have friends who work in the Middle East. God is doing things there that they couldn't possibly do via direct revelation of His Son.

Re:Heading off at the pass

[tftp]

You can't take the parts of the Bible you like and ignore the rest.

You must be kidding - the whole religion is based on selective quoting.

God cannot make a mistake unless he wants to make one.

In other words, God knew all the time that Eve will fail because He intentionally built her this way, fallible. Then why all the fuss? She performed as designed.

But if God did not know how she will perform, then He is not omniscient, regardless of his creative intent.

Is God omniscient or not? If He is then He indeed set her up, giving her no choice in the matter, and likely intentionally building her to succumb to the sin, unless God is not omnipotent either.

Re:Heading off at the pass

[Opportunist]

This hits the same nail as the question "Can God create a stone so heavy that he himself can't lift it?" And there is even an answer to both, this and your question, that does not contracdict the omni- qualities of God.

Since God is a singular entity (at least in monotheistic religions), there cannot be two. So if God created an identical clone of himself, both clones would immediately become one again, since both of them would be omnipresent, thus everywhere, taking up the same metaphysical "room" and become identical. Thus it becomes impossible for God to fight his clone, simply by the fact that he is himself, even in all possible fractions and instances.

It's hard to explain it in English, but I hope it makes sense.

Re:Heading off at the pass

[dantheman82]

It is an interesting question, and one that has been asked before...I refer to things that could be based upon the Bible (I could quote references if desired). Of course if you throw out bits and pieces, it will become a tad difficult to argue.

Men (and women) were made in God's image. Mankind was created with knowledge, righteousness, and holiness. And a free will, even as God Himself. All creation was good, as God had said. Mankind was also perfectly good. So, God presented the choice, which was not a malicious one. One tree, the "Knowledge of Good and Evil", was where Adam and Eve could (as the tree is self-described) know about evil as well as good. They had perfectly good trees throughout that garden to eat from, and thus the choice was not difficult really. Should they listen to the God they walked with every day? Or trust someone or something else...

So, why would God, who knows all, allow this possibility? Because He wanted mankind to freely serve Him. Robots can be trained, people or animals can be "beaten into submission", but that is not the willing and free service of the Creator by the creature. And Luke's geneology refers to Adam as God's son, as he was created in God's image. So, as a parent, would you force your kid to always listen and totally protect them from every having any possibility of disobedience? Wouldn't that make you a tyrant?

But why would God allow this, especially as a Father who knew His children would rebel in such a way? Because He had a plan for this that would bring even more glory to Himself (no matter if His children remained in their sin or returned to His loving arms), as well as bringing greater glory to the creatures who repent and return to Him than even if they never fell.

God has chosen to have creatures made in His image (mankind) serve Him freely and willingly and perfectly. It was done before the fall, and can be done only in heaven for those who return to His loving arms and embrace His son Jesus Christ.

I can't say that people naturally will like this concept of God much, who designs mankind in His image in order to serve Him freely and joyfully. People also hate the concept that those who do not do so but rebel against His fatherly care realize the miserable consequences here (to some degree) and in the afterlife.

I guess if you've ever been a parent, and believe you should have some authority in molding your child in a moral and right way, you will understand a little what God the Father is like. If you have been a parent, and see the seeds of rebellion being sown and your good counsel being openly flaunted, you will realize in a very small way what it felt like to God. Some may wish their children to turn into little robots who always say "Yes sir" and "No sir" to their demands, and are never given the freedom to choose any wrong thing, and never are harmed or experience any negative consequences for anything. But then, to expect a spontaneous and free declaration of love from those children is impossible...

Re:Heading off at the pass

[Opportunist]

This was probably the best answer for the problem to date. Thank you.

So God wants us to choose. Him or not him. Freely. There is no force involved, he wants us to choose his path, of course, but he would rather see us choose the wrong path than force us on the right one.

Could someone please tell the fundamentalists?

Re:Heading off at the pass

[Phroggy]

but was never told why or what the consequences were "You will surely die" wasn't specific enough?

Re:Heading off at the pass

[NMerriam]

"You will surely die" wasn't specific enough?

Assuming the Bible is literally true, nothing in the universe had ever died when he gave this warning.

And while "you will surely die" is literally correct since it meant they would become mortal, it in no way even remotely approached the level of true consequences of the action. God didn't say "you will condemn a million generations of your offspring to torment and punishment, separating them from me and having them wither of old age, suffer from illness, violence, childbirth, etc", he said "you will surely die", which arguably was as meaningless to Adam and Eve as the word "day" before the sun and earth existed.

It would be like warning a child not to detonate an atomic bomb because then he wouldn't be able to ride his bike after school. Literally true, but not really the appropriate warning for the situation.

Just think, if God had the common sense of your average teenage unwed mother and put dangerous things where the kids couldn't get at it, the whole universe would be different.

Re:Heading off at the pass

[howlingmadhowie]

a few problems with this idea:
god defines what the right path and the wrong path is.
god would be free to install in us a different moral imperative more fitting to his definition of right.
god tries to coerce us into doing what he has defined as good by threatening us with hell.

all in all, it's just one huge logical mess.

As long as it's private.

[SanityInAnarchy]

Or in other words: I really don't care about this "museum", but get the fuck out of our public education!

Re:As long as it's private.

[User 956]

What I don't get is, why do creationists have such an obvious hatred for science, and yet they have a compulsion to explain their own beliefs using scientific-sounding words and scientific-looking venues?

That's what's so absurd about this whole thing. Nearly everything in that museum is owed to real science. From the depictions of ancient creatures and people, to the actual robotics and materials used in their construction.

You can't pick and choose which parts of science you like, and which parts of science you don't like. Talk about the ultimate hypocrisy.

Re:As long as it's private.

[Wavicle]

Okay, here's one of Hovind's arguments against the Pangea theory:

"I bet they never told ya they shrank Africa 40% to make it fit."

I'm not going to waste much space here, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out this is incorrect. What Hovind did is fail at the map maker's dilemma. There is no way to draw a proportion-correct spherical surface onto a flat surface. Africa wasn't shrunk except in that its projection onto a flat screen had to be distorted to fit. Cartographers have multiple projections for this depending on what they are trying to express (space-filling, equal area, etc.).

Re:As long as it's private.

[Coryoth]

No real evidence has ever been discovered (or much less reproduced) that one kind of animal can bring forth an animal of a different kind: i.e. a fish giving birth to a frog. This is, of course, a straw-man, since evolution suggests no such thing. Evolution claims that if enough small steps are made, the result can be that the accumulated change is large. Your suggestion that no-one has ever observed a fish giving birth to a frog is akin to arguing that a journey of a mile can't be made, because no-one has observed anyone teleporting over that distance.

Perhaps you are hoping for something akin to the "prime mammal" fallacy though? That argument runs as follows: clearly only a mammal can give birth to a mammal, thus there can have been no "prime mammal" to give birth to the first mammal, because it couldn't have been a mammal itself! It sounds good at first, but it is really just playing with semantics. Our classifications are simply an oder that we impose upon a world that has no such order. And often that imposed order isn't terribly good -- for example, genetically the difference between humans and chimps (which are in separate species) is smaller than the difference between subspecies of certain birds. We carve out arbitrary lines through nature that exist only in our own minds. In nature the lines are not crisp, but instead blurred. See, for example, ring species, which provide a continuous range between two separate species. Such continuous ranges stretch back through time as well, over many generations. Moving backwards we would see creatures that were less and less easily identifiable as mammals until the line begins to blur. We would see animals that we would not be able to class an mammals, yet we could neither (using out current definitions) really class them as "not mammals".* Thus there is no "prime mammal" not because mammals don't exist, but because the line blurs, and nature tramples over our artificially imposed order -- there is simply no clear point where some arbitrary threshold (which ultimately exists only in our minds) is crossed, thus no "prime mammal".

I would suggest that what you need to provide to support your argument, is some evidence that an accumulation of change cannot continue indefinitely. What you need to provide is some reason why generation after generation of small changes must, for some reason, result in change stopping, or reversing. Without such an argument simple induction on small changes is a perfectly reasonable argument to justify eventual large changes being the result.

* This is the sort of place where intuitionistic logic, which doesn't accept the law of excluded middle, starts to make a lot of sense.

Re:As long as it's private.

[Wavicle]

Everybody used to think that the earth was flat and that everything revolved around the sun.

No, the educated have for thousands of years known the earth was a sphere.

The bible clearly contradicted both of these theories and later science caught up with the bible.

So how high was that mountain in Matthew 4:8 where all the kingdoms of the world could be seen? I'd think that a little difficult if the earth were a sphere.

Same thing with sanitation.

Oh you mean the one that says if you have an STD wash in running water, but otherwise use stagnant water? (You should really be careful about reading literal translations of Hebrew euphemisms.)

No real evidence has ever been discovered (or much less reproduced) that one kind of animal can bring forth an animal of a different kind: i.e. a fish giving birth to a frog.

Wow, you're fond of lying, aren't you? You must hate yourself. Not only has speciation been observed, but evolution doesn't say that a fish would give birth to a frog.

You might also want to read how the fossils and rock layers are dated (spoiler: they are used to date each other... circular reasoning).

I thought you just said you hated lying... And yet you just did it, again, right there. (Spoiler: Geological dating has gold standards. Reference fossils always depend on radiometric geological dating.)

Re:As long as it's private.

[NMerriam]

No real evidence ... i.e. a fish giving birth to a frog

Such an event would, in fact, completely disprove evolutionary theory, so I can only assume you've been mislead as to what Evolutionary Theory really is. There are literally trillions of billions of events that would disprove Evolution as a theory beyond any capability of repair, yet none of those things has happened.

Evolution would be the simplest thing in the universe to disprove if it were untrue, since reproduction is one of the few things that happens whether scientists are starting the experiment or not. Think how easy it would be to disprove gravity if it had turned out to only be a local phenomena to our planet or galaxy -- the instant we had good telescopes and launched spacecraft we would have seen how wrong we were. Evolution is even easier -- there are species that reproduce in minutes, where you can fit billions of them in a container in your hand. The planet is running quadrillions of experiments every hour of every day and has been for thousands of times longer than man has walked upright, and you only have to stumble across ONE of them that disproves evolution and it would be completely discredited.

Everything you claim impossible has in fact been seen, measured, and reproduced. Speciation has occurred and been documented many times in laboratories and the wild. Sorry that mammalian evolution has not been observed, that's simply the nature of our lifespans. It's far more convenient to observe firsthand things that reproduce quickly. Locking 4,000 cats in a lab for a few centuries just is not as practical as it sounds (though no doubt it would be damn entertaining).

When you're discussing geological timescales and massive changes, all we can go on is the geological record. Note for the record, my mom is a geologist so I have more than a casual acquaintance with geology, and your dismissal of the science of dating is laughingly incorrect. The idea that it is circular logic to correlate multiple pieces of evidence to build confidence is absurd. We have written documentation of the ages of some locations, we have experimental proof of the decay of every element and every common material used by human civilizations, we have independent physical evidence of the age of major strata, we have experimental proof of the timespans required for geological and chemical actions taking place, if every one of those things agrees across multiple experiments then you've proven as well as anything can be proven that geological dating is reliable. It predicts where things will be well before we ever start digging or drilling, so if it is mistaken, it is mistaken in a bizarrely consistent manner.

Most importantly, like evolution, nothing has ever been discovered in a geological dig that showed such dating techniques were wrong. Again, this would be a simple thing to disprove, you just find a single iron axe that is 6,000 years old buried in stable rock from 20,000,000 years ago and geology as a science would have a MAJOR problem.

By your "circular" reasoning, both gravity and the speed of light are suspect because we use each to verify measurements of the other in many cosmological experiments.

"Missing links"? I don't even know what that is supposed to refer to. There is no such thing as a "missing link" except in Creationist books. In real science there are simply different species, and they all change over time, the greater the timespan, the greater the change. I find it is simpler to imagine evolution working vast change over vast time than it is to imagine why so many species would be so morphologically similar, so genetically similar, and yet have no actual commonality.

I appreciate the sincerity of your belief, but it really does appear to be based in large part on either a misunderstanding of what evolution is and says, or a misunderstanding of what the state and practice of science is. Unfortunately there are a great many people out there pub

So where are the cave drawings?

[arthurpaliden]

We have lots of cave drawings of man with impressive animals like wooly mamoths and the like. So why are there not cave drawings of man with really impressive animals like the dinasaurs. I mean I I was impressed enought to paint the large elephant like creature you would think that a 20' high meat eating moster would at least reate a few pictures.

Re:So where are the cave drawings?

[Sunburnt]

We have lots of cave drawings of man with impressive animals like wooly mamoths and the like. So why are there not cave drawings of man with really impressive animals like the dinasaurs.

Satan.

See, isn't this easier than thinking?

My favourite quote

[toby]

"It's a great place for children who are in public school and haven't really decided what to believe yet."

Who ya gonna believe! GOD or some hairy liberal professor!

Welcome to the 21st Century, America!

Re:My favourite quote

[Icarus1919]

The past is the future. Ignorance is strength.

Re:So where are the cave drawings?

[Icarus1919]

The dinosaurs wouldn't uh... stand still long enough. Cave-men drawn pictures are time-exposed shots.

Contractors might disagree

[Lurker2288]

Some of the contractors might tell you it actually took a lot longer, but Satan just sent them here to deceive us.

what I find odd

[nanosquid]

What I find odd is that the same people that promote this unscientific kind of bullshit still want the benefits of science and technology.

Re:what I find odd

[Opportunist]

What's odd about it? Wanting to Have the cake and eat it, too, is common practice today.

Why shouldn't conservative religious zealots not jump on the zeitgeist from time to time?

the Real Jesus...

[Anonymous Coward]

most non-christians and even many christians don't really know the real Jesus. There's a perception that he's gentle and kind and meek...but that isn't the savior you get to know when you really get up to the higher tiers of a REAL Christian church. We know our Jesus. He was ripped, aggressive, a take-no-prisoners-in-your-face kind of guy. And why not? He was god, he had the truth, can't argue with that! Yes, you non-believers (or unenlighted faux-believers) can wallow in your ineffectual caricature of our Christ, being "charitable" to the lazy and satanic poor, and promoting hellish pacifism...but we'll be down at our Kentucky museum observing truth, smashing whiskey bottles on the Devil's head, cuttin down some trees to burn some scientific lies, and paving an extra-wide thoroughfare to heaven for us and our kids!...Have fun taking the rutty dirt path to hell...sinners.

Almost funny...

[John3]

Ken Ham (President of Answers in Genesis, sponsor of the museum) would be amusing to watch if he wasn't so scary. There was a segment in the documentary "Friends of God" which showed Ken speaking to a group of children about dinosaurs and evolution. His logical argument to the children was that since scientists weren't around 4,000 years ago but god was then we have to believe god and not the scientists.

"Intelligent Design" groups have been running tours through legitimate museums, providing their own narrative in order to dispute the information provided by the museum displays. Maybe after this museum opens some atheist tour group so do the same thing...take tours through Ken's "museum" and provide scientific narrative to dispute his biblical nonsense.

Re:Almost funny...

[techno-vampire]

Maybe after this museum opens some atheist tour group so do the same thing...take tours through Ken's "museum" and provide scientific narrative to dispute his biblical nonsense.

Intelligent Design groups get way with their propaganda because the museums believe in free speech, and allow them to have their say. Do you really think that these fundamentalists will allow pro-evolution groups to spread their propaganda in the Creationist Museum? To them, free speech only applies when it's in their favor, not their opponents.

Irrational arguments will always win

[unlametheweak]

For every argument made against irrationality, there will always be irrational arguments made to contest the rational. There is no way of winning against the irrational. So it goes. Religion will always win so long as the human mind is irrational.

Re:About the Bible

[__aaclcg7560]

That would explain why all the prophets were put to death for criticizing the government of their day.

Re:One question about this story:

[__aaclcg7560]

Since God gave man dominion over the earth, it wouldn't look right if a dinosaur was eating a man. If the museum flops, it can always be turned into a minature golf course.

Re:So where are the cave drawings?

[Tatisimo]

You'd think that being the master of deception he'd at least be able to draw more than rough stick figures and such. Satan needs art classes. Or maybe it's because he was younger and less experienced back then...

Creationism Explained, by Gary Larson

[PHAEDRU5]

http://answersingenes.blogspot.com/2006/12/creatio nism-explained.html

That just about covers it, I think.

Best Protest

[moehoward]

The best way to protest this is to get a couple thousand people to show up there and laugh for 5 minutes on queue. I recall a similar protest was done in India some years ago and it is brilliant.

Just laugh as hard as you can at them for 5 minutes. Rinse. Repeat.

Re:Not going there

[Tony]

I'm not positive that science has everything right. . .

That's the great thing about science: neither do scientists! They don't know what they have right, either. Isn't that a fucking hoot?

What they know is what *makes sense* based on observed facts. The epistemology of science is simple: if your explanation is contradicted by observation, it is not true. Otherwise, it *might* be true.

That's it. Nothing is ever "proven." It's just that some things only have one current explanation, and so we use those as our working assumptions. If another explanation comes around that isn't contradicted by the *observable facts*, that explanation is also considered.

Human nature makes us sure of ourselves-- sometimes *too* sure. But, for the most part, the scientific method, and the knowledge gained from that method, are self-correcting.

And that is why this museum can never win any converts from those who understand science. Their explanations do not cover the observable facts.

And on the Seventh Day...

[Findeton]

And on the Seventh Day... god rested by switching off the creationists brains!

Science is

[fermion]

The process of observing the world and drawing a logical set of self consistent conclusions. All sciences, especially the soft sciences, have bias, or systematic error, We will tend the local world view on situations that far removed in time or space. Such errors can be corrected by future research and a more diversified group of scientists. There is no attack on faith, as faith is what we believe, not what we use when we need to model a natural process.

This museum, while attempting to provide a self consistent set of conclusions, fails to limit itself to observable and verifiable fact. In fact I feel it mocks Christianity by further limiting the power of the creator. Limiting such power has always been popular in the sinful human population that wishes to transfer power from the creator to itself. Just look at catholicism and the belief that certain religious leaders can speak for the almighty. For example, when I was growing up it was quite a popular belief that the creator put fossils and likes on earth as a test of fate. Those that continue to believe the bible even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary are those with sufficient faith to be saved. Now these sinful humans are trying to rewrite the bible and limit the power of the almighty by saying that dinosaurs existed and the grand canyon and the fossils were caused by the flood. You know, if the creator wanted a grand canyon, or fossils, or dinosaurs, or floods, or whatever, there is nothing to stop the desire becoming a reality, no matter what greedy and corrupt humans have to say.

I wonder if the future will see this museum as an artifact of a time in Christianity when the leaders were more concerned with wealth and personal power than serving the almighty. If, perhaps, someone like Martin Luther will emerge to blog 123 ways that the christian church is corrupt, and call for a post-christian movement.

not a museum

[JustShootMe]

I'd defend the right of the people who started this to continue on as long as they can support it, but I'm not sure it should be called a "museum". A museum implies some hind of historical accuracy.

Perhaps "theme park", or "house of ill repute" instead?

Re:On the other hand, they also make great Bourbon

[kennygraham]

several groups (both religious and secular) will be protesting. come join us!

Re:It's not a compromise

[Paradise Pete]

Some christians believe that the bible contains the truths necessary for salvation

If there is a salvation to be had, here is the secret: Be kind to each other.
What else could possibly matter?

Any God that cares if you worshipped him doesn't deserve the position.

Re:About the Bible

[microsoft_hater]

You're both joking, but you're absolutely right. Christopher Hitchens once said in an interview: "Yes, and the Seventh-Day Adventists, who descended from the Millerites. I can see that Scientology now enjoys charitable status as a religion, which I think is a real triumph. I can't get over that. You can set some idea of what it would have been like to live in third-century Nicea when Christianity was being hammered together - an experience I am very glad I did not have. Religious diversity is confused with pluralism. Because of multi-culturalism and what is called "political correctness," religion has a certain protection that it couldn't expect to have if it was a state-sponsored racket like the Church of England." Not that it's cool to be an apologist for oil wars or anything, but the guy *really* likes the Kurds...

Re:So, what exactly is wrong with it?

[Lurker2288]

The problem is that most 'true believers' aren't just content to hold their own beliefs, and to indoctrinate their kids while they're young and accepting. All the born-agains I know says that it's also god's will for them to convert others and "bring us to Christ's truth." That's not tolerance, and if the rational people of the world refuse to make a stand against this kind of ancient bullshit, then religious mania will take us over. Just look at the 'moral majority' of the 70s carrying Reagan into office, or our current situation with George Bush.

And it's ridiculous to put religious belief on par with scientific explanations for how things came to be. Science generates hypotheses; those hypotheses are tested with observation and experiment, and the ones that hold up become theories, which will be amended or rejected when contradictory evidence is found. When science doesn't know an answer, it speculates, but it does not proclaim. Contrast this with religion, which tells us god made everything, and our brains can't comprehend the awesomeness of it all. What proof do they offer for these extraordinary claims? Oh, no proof, see, because it's all about faith--believing DESPITE the fact that all they really have to back it up is a book, and the words of 'holy men' who, of course, have a vested interest in keep the sheeple flocking in one direction.

Religion is poison to rationality, and we lose sight of that at our own peril.

Small god cares what you believe

[DeeVeeAnt]

It always amazes how these people underestimate the scale and beauty of "god"'s creation by so many orders of magnitude. Apparently their god would not have been subtle enough to make life which could adapt to a changing world? There is nothing in any science which confirms or denies god's existence. Imagine if they had won over the astronomers, we would have been stuck with a tiny god who could only manage one little planet, and one star. Now we know about the vast beauty of the stars and galaxies spread across the sky. Surely if you are going to believe in a creator, this sort of knowledge can only increase your respect for it? There I go again, trying to apply reason to religion. But why doesn't it ever work?

Re:So where are the cave drawings?

[arthurpaliden]

In there examples the closest thing to a cave drawing was only mineral stains on rock. The rest were 'modern' illistrations of accepted legends of the time. And as to the foot prints, a walking foot print does not look like any of those depicted.

Re:On the other hand, they also make great Bourbon

[jfclavette]

Now I'm torn between supporting young-earth creationnists or an organisation with a marquee on its website. Help me Slashdot !

Re:So, what exactly is wrong with it?

[mushadv]

You can't prove God does (not) exist

Nor can I disprove the existence of unicorns living in Venus's core. So as long as we can't put cameras there, we might as well just accept that we'll never know, right?

don't teach creationism nor evolutionism as an exact science

And why in the hell not? Evolution is a scientific theory, and a widely accepted one at that. There's no reason it shouldn't be taught. Creationism on the other hand is religion and nothing more.

I see a lot of atheists that hang on to evolution and the big bang theory as a religion, something that has to be and is true, no matter what other people think or say. Why? Because you feel the need to be religious about something? What if I come up with a scientific theory that better fits the bill? You're going to massively change then? Or am I going to be incorrect.

Hey, feel free to try. If it has significant basis in fact and mountains of evidence behind it like evolution before it, then sure, we'll "massively change." You seem to think this is some kind of a game, evolutionists vs. creationists. In reality, the "debate" doesn't exist. Evolution is scientific theory and is based on facts. Creationism is based on a book, and on no facts whatsoever. Game over.

All knowledge is uncertain

[Anonymous Coward]

The human mind only knows what it experiences (including the experience of receiving communication from others in any form). The accuracy of said experiences, as well as the soundness of the interpretation, is always questionable.

Some people are very uncomfortable with uncertainty. They desperately crave a solid and unquestionable source for correct knowledge. So, in the absence of such a source, the mind will play games with itself to create one. Hence the popular religious trend of interpreting mythology as if it were history.

It is true that scientific knowledge is not rock-solid. It is vulnerable to inaccuracy and just as questionable as any other kind of knowledge. So, the religious believers are correct in pointing this out. However, there is a very important difference of methodology at work. The scientific process is one of perpetual questioning and re-examination of fact, and hence of perpetual refinement of accuracy. The religious process utterly lacks this element, and as such it has no demonstrable means of approaching any kind of practical validity. That, however, does not prevent people from convincing themselves that their religion of choice is correct and unquestionable, and that any and all evidence to the contrary must be in error.

So long as this thought process is confined to the realm of private institutions (museums, churches, clubs, and what have you), I am fine with it. Just don't go infecting public education with your myths.

natural selection

[mistersooreams]

Urm, even if you reject the scientific theory of evolution, it's just ridiculous to reject natural selection. You can easily observe it in your own lifetime, as Darwin did.

Re:On the other hand, they also make great Bourbon

[tomhudson]

"And fried chicken, mmmm..."

... and now bronto-burgers, you atheist secular humanist!

An appeal

[Puff of Logic]

I'm attaching this as a reply to the first post in the hopes that it will be seen by people entering the thread and thus head off some inevitable posts. Creationists, this is addressed to you.

Here goes:

The word "theory" is not synonymous with the word "hypothesis" in science.

Please, please try to remember this when you instinctively want to cry "but it's only a theory!" when talking about evolutionary theory. As has doubtless been explained to you ad nauseum by the scientifically-inclined, Theory is a designator that must be earned and requires a reasonable body of supporting evidence. So while indeed the colloquial allows the use of "I have a theory" to mean a hypothesis, this is not correct in science.

Make whatever other arguments you will, but please stop making this elementary mistake. cheers.

Re:An appeal

[jcr]

Exactly: evolution is a theory, like gravity.

-jcr

Re:An appeal

[semiotec]

WTF! You mean there's no gravity?

Re:An appeal

[iminplaya]

Nope. The Earth sucks!

That means the Biblical hero's were all girly-men

[arthurpaliden]

OK, so man and dinosaurs lived together. That must mean then, that all the Biblical hero's were pansies. I mean all they did was kill few wolves (David) and enter a Lions den (Daniel) . If they were real hero's why did they not slay one of the T-Rexes that were wondering around eating everything in sight or enter a den of hungry Velosoraptors. Then they would have been real hero's.

Really, like what?

[benhocking]

fortunately science consists of more than theories

Sure, it consists of laws (i.e., observations), hypotheses, theories, as well as methods that allow us to test theories against observations. The theory of evolution invokes the law of natural selection, and has withstood the scientific method quite well. Is there something else you have in mind for what science consists of?

Please, please, be sure to understand that laws are not "above" theories. If anything, they are beneath theories in that they are only descriptive, whereas theories are also explanatory.

Re:So, what exactly is wrong with it?

[bertok]

nor can you prove that the big bang was (not) a big explosion.

Don't confuse science with religion - the big bang theory is not taken on faith. It is a falsifiable scientific theory like any other. It most certainly can be proved wrong, if evidence is found that is not consistent with the model of the universe expanding from a denser state. Scientists spend a lot of time and money looking for such evidence, for example, the WMAP probe, which measures the properties of the cosmic microwave background to test the big bang theory. So far, the theory has checked out, but it would be dropped like a ton of bricks if we found, for example, stars much older than the expected age of the universe.

Science is about verifying and testing our theories, not about saying "why don't we just agree to disagree" so that we can all feel fuzzy and warm in our ignorance.

PS: While we're at it, I love the way creationists can't tell the difference between the big bang theory of the universe, and the evolution theory of biological life. Is schooling in America that bad that supposedly 'educated' people are having trouble differentiating between galaxies and animals?

Re:It's not a compromise

[dn15]

Any God that cares if you worshipped him doesn't deserve the position.

Bravo! I find it inconceivable that a being as omniscient and all-knowing as a "god" would be so petty as to consider one set of dogmatic beliefs to be right or wrong. It would judge people (if it chooses to judge them at all) by their actions and the intentions behind them, not details of which creation story they chose to believe in. In fact, I say such a god would see right through the people who treated others like crap but went to church every sunday because they thought that's what is necessary for salvation. And this is one of the reasons I myself am not religious. I see no reason to seek validation by any being who would actually care whether I attend church or not.

The main thing I'd like to see...

[localman]

...is a recognition from both sides that evolution is not in opposition to the bible or Christianity. Many (most?) Christians know this already, but there are a few (like the folks that made this museum) who haven't figured it out yet. There are also many non-Christian evolutionists who think that evolution is counter to Christianity. I was raised a Christian, though I am no longer one, but I don't see that evolution contradicts the bible.

The bible is full of events natural events that science has gone on to explain but which we don't fret about. Every time someone falls to the ground they were being pulled by a magical force which science later called "gravity". Does knowing the way in which gravity works, and the ability to predict its effects contradict the bible? No: people assume that God created gravity and that is the method by which he keeps people stuck to the Earth and the planets and stars in rotation. What about disease? When it was discovered that bacteria and viruses cause disease, and that we could control the effects to a large degree, was the bible's absence in describing the physical mechanism of disease a sudden point of contention? No.

So why is it that natural selection, an obvious, elegant, and indeed predictive theory (see drug resistant pests) seen as something else? Why can't natural selection be the mechanism by which God brought forth first the plants, then the animals, and then man, as described in Genisis?

He does not need to be a "God of the Gaps" filling in only that which we don't know. He can be God the architect, designer of all that which we do know, and also that which we have yet to discover.

Personally, I don't believe in God, but most of my family does. I am continually surprised that they struggle so hard with evolution.

Cheers.

Re:The main thing I'd like to see...

[RodgerDodger]

Believing in evolution means you toss out large chunks of the bible, at least with the old testament. In particular, the acceptance of "Deep Time", required for evolution and geology, tosses away the idea that a diety created Earth only a few thousand years ago, put humans on it fully formed in a garden, then kicked them out into the wide word.

Accepting evolution and other modern scientific viewpoints increasingly forces you to treat the Bible as a set of parables, not the literal word of God. And if it's just a bunch of parables, where does it's definitive authority, and the authority of religion come from?

No, it's very easy to see why many deeply religious Christians have problems with evolution....

Re:The main thing I'd like to see...

[localman]

Good point. I wonder how long the debates went on about their discoveries... a solid theory of evolution has only been around for 150 years or so. Maybe just like the earth-centered universe we'll all eventually come around.

Funny related story: my grandfather was a pastor at a Christian church. At some point in the sixties, I think, he had an guest preacher come by -- a very old Italian fellow. For his sermon, he focused on how ridiculous it was that scientists claimed the earth was round. He read passage after passage from the bible that demonstrated that the earth was flat, and he had a good laugh since it was so obvious that it was flat. The scientists, he said, were fools. Again, this was in the 1960's.

My poor grandfather had to dedicate the entire sermon the following week to undoing the damage. He found several passages in the bible that implied the earth was round, and he preached about that. He also bought the old fellow, the guest preacher, a globe.

Aside from the obvious ridiculousness of believing the earth is flat at that point in time, I find it extra amusing that both men were able to support their completely contradictory ideas from the same book.

Re:So where are the cave drawings?

[Opportunist]

That's the nice thing about religion. There's always an easy answer for a complicated problem. Usually, it's either God testing your faith or Satan trying to thwart you, and that's good enough. Have faith! Don't question, believe blindly.

I slowly get a hunch just why the government is suddenly so keen on supporting religion and faith based education...

And so we go through this AGAIN.

[khasim]

Yes, every time evolution comes up, the same arguments against it are presented. Despite the fact that those same arguments have been discredited time and time again (if one would but do some basic research).

#1.

The only thing that has ever been observed is minor changes within a kind of animal over time: adaptation.

No, DNA mutations have been observed. Most of these mutations have NO adaptation value AT THE POINT IN TIME THAT THEY OCCURRED. Changes to the environment AFTER those mutations caused them to become advantageous.

#2.

No real evidence has ever been discovered (or much less reproduced) that one kind of animal can bring forth an animal of a different kind: i.e. a fish giving birth to a frog.

Yes, it has. The easiest example is a colony of fruit flies. Split them into two sub-colonies and within a dozen generations they will no longer be able to inter-breed between the colonies. They have become two different species.

Your fish/frog example is flawed because there is no reason to believe that one those different animals could achieve gestation within each other. Modern fish came from animals that were ALMOST identical to modern fish. Modern frogs came from animals that were ALMOST identical to modern frogs.

#3.

The idea that a complicated organism can "evolve" one part at a time is just idiotic, no matter how many people believe it.

And yet the evidence seems to support that theory.

And not only that, but the theory of evolution is the basis of our entire medical science now. And that seems to work, also.

Re:And so we go through this AGAIN.

[Man On Pink Corner]

It's frightening to see how, in 4 years, the creationism vs evolution has become, in both parts, an accepted "debate".

It's depressing as hell, too. I thought this "debate" was won 70 years ago, but apparently the stupidity gene refuses to die out.

Your knowledge of catholicism is clearly deep

[Mateo_LeFou]

If I weren't already catholic I'd probably steer clear, based on those things you said. Most of them were false, but I imagine you know that.

The only one I'll address is "their teachings are not Christian and aren't considered so by anyone other than themselves".

Everyone in the world, except for a few Protestant sects, considers the Roman Catholic Church to be Christian. By that I mean literally about 97% of the world.

Re:funding

[bruce_garrett]

Grassroots donations, but also a few very friendly right wing billionares, like Howard Ahmanson. He's been a big friend to creationist organizations like The Discovery Institute. I expect some of the other usual names (Scaife, Olin, Bradley, Coors, and so forth) are sending a little money their way too, via one cash teat or another.

Re:Now *that is a fascinating topic

[NMerriam]

The catholic church is NOT mainstream Christian thought. The catholic church on many occasions killed anyone who opposed them, their teachings are not Christian and aren't considered so by anyone other than themselves.

You do realize that the vast majority of Christians outside the USA are Catholic, right? They're not exactly some obscure sect of Christianity. Protestantism is, by any reasonable definition of "mainstream", NOT mainstream Christian except in the USA and a few other places.

Re:So where are the cave drawings?

[Wavicle]

There are even fossilized dinosaur tracks with human footprints going through them.

No there aren't

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/tsite.html

Appalling

[Saraphim]

I weep for America when, in otherwise legitimate media, the articles actually approach a topic from a superstitious angle: "... For the believer, it seems, this museum provides a kind of relief: Finally the world is being shown as it really is, without the distortions of secularism and natural selection." I'm not an American, but from what I have read of NYT's articles, I got the idea they was the kind of newspaper that would not stoop as low as to lend any credibility to superstition.

Re:So, what exactly is wrong with it?

[localman]

I agree 100% with your "let's peacefully co-exist". I am content to let everyone believe what they want and to express what they like as long as they do the same for others. So don't take my expression below to be an attempt to convert or insult yours or anyone elses beliefs, but rather as an expression of my view.

I am an athiest and I believe natural selection to be the orgin of the species, as it were. The big bang is too abstract for me to seriously consider, but it might as well be true as it doesn't say much practical to current existence. But in response to your claim, I really don't think that many people "hang on to evolution ... as a religion". If someone came up with a better explanation I would most certainly consider it; that's why science is not a religion: it adapts. The bible is purportedly unchanging, and for that reason alone it is of limited usefulness as it can't take into account new discoveries. Science can. Sure, there are some scientists who hang on to pet theories in spite of evidence to the contrary, but fundamentally science is an endless exploration of what is, and it allows for error. Ptolomy was overturned by Copernicus. Newton was overturned by Einstein. It's amazing how non religious science is, given that it's coming from people, an inherintly religious tending breed of creature.

I don't discount the usefulness of myth (and I use that term entirely non-pejorativly). Myth is an important part of the human experience, and can help us discover truths about ourselves on which science has nothing to say.

Re:Not going there

[maxume]

Fossils: geological processes are not always conducive to exhaustive records(some gaps just be). Adaptations that confer advantages often confer massive advantages; I'm not an expert, so I don't have reasonable figures, but there is some truth to the idea that successful creatures are *very* successful. Strong environmental stresses will lead to strong expression of phenotypic traits in a population; simply put, a tendency for long legs will exist in a population long before it becomes an advantage; when it becomes an advantage, it will overwhelm other traits very quickly.

Sophisticated DNA: There is a good chance that DNA based life was preceded by simpler self replicating protein like molecules. Trillions and trillions of them. The first DNA based organism wasn't born into ooze, it was born into ooze that it was able to exploit, in that it could replicate itself while expending much less energy than the somewhat similar molecules around it. It defies explanation, but it isn't surprising that a highly successful replication strategy managed to become very pervasive(there could have even been a 'necking' incident where there were dozens of extant replication strategies, and then some environmental factor changed such that only one of them persisted, to much benefit).

If you consider it in terms of information persistence and replication, with different molecular strategies having different rates of success in different molecular and energy environments, it isn't so crazy that a stable and successful strategy emerged, or that graduated improvements occurred.

Finally, creationism doesn't rely on facts. A creator could have done whatever he damn well pleased. No research can ever reveal that which is stated to be beyond research.

Re:So, what exactly is wrong with it?

[ndogg]

Evolution has nothing to do with religion. I don't care if you're Hindu, Voodoo, Greek (pagan), Seikh, Muslim, Wiccan, or Catholic--evolution has nothing to do with religion.

If you decide to ignore all the evidence out there that supports evolution (including its laboratory use, and as a basis for creating new technology), that's your choice, but realize you lose credibility with everyone else that decides not to ignore the evidence.

Also, Catholicism supports theistic evolution. Even Pope Benedict's more recent comments on the situation weren't actually against evolution in spite of what many have said, but rather the use of evolution to push atheism.

Peacefully co-exist? Sure, but you and everyone else that says evolution isn't science should just be honest and say that you don't really believe in science, instead of hiding behind some pseudo-science like ID.

Re:On the other hand, they also make great Bourbon

[Lord Apathy]

Why are you protesting? Who gives a shit? As long as they keep their creationist crap out of our schools, that's all I care about.

My own idea.

[prelelat]

The question of creationism has always puzzled me. When I was younger I believed in it whole heartedly. Now that I'm older I have had to rethink my beliefs which I think everyone should do regardless of what you believe, you should always re-evaluate everything. But I don't think that the percentage of people that believe in Creationism are going to be compelled by a museum. I mean personal beliefs usually have some kind of variation between others (different religions and your own ideas), but I guess if you're in an organized religion they might be quite similar. I just don't think you can have a museum on Creationism, I think peoples efforts would be better spent on a museum of Religion. This would be more beneficial to everyone knowing the history of theirs and others beliefs. Knowing what is actually true about someone else's religion could help them to understand others as well.

What I purpose is a place where you can go and be educated on every belief. I myself think that atheism requires just as much faith as a person who believes in god. Who are you to know for a fact that something intelligent didn't create everything, something had to come from somewhere no one knows so why it is that it has to be nothing. Frankly I haven't seen much come from nothing I haven't seen any proof of that so I don't know why people think that it takes less faith to believe that there is no god than it does to believe that there is. Frankly you will never convince someone who has a strong faith to switch in either direction. That is why I think that it fits in as well, I'm sure that there are a lot of people on Slashdot that will disagree with me. I've met quite a few in my travels and at work when the subject comes up. But I think that we can all agree that people generally need to make the decision themselves, be it one way or another.

Back on topic I think it would be better to give a whole history of different beliefs such as Greek/roman gods, Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Atheism, and much much more. I think it would be more educational for people and help them with clarity on their own beliefs. I guess when I was younger I was exposed to all the differing views on everything so that I could make a more educated guess at the time in what I believe. Not that it would help much because I always wonder as I think most of you must.

Of course this is all just my opinion, I'm pretty sure someone will disagree or say it wouldn't work or that it's no different than what is proposed. I just think it would be a good idea in my own head.

Re:It's not a compromise

[Aequo]

I really can't believe this debate (and the same "yeah, me too!") still comes up and gets modded insightful all the time. The point is not that Christianity's God wants you to worship him through his own insecurity, but that the bible says that the natural state for humans is to worship him -- that humans are happiest when they do so.

Re:It's not a compromise

[DarkSarin]

Unless, of course, said deity saw that, if done correctly, attending regular worship services could help people to be nicer to each other--and said deity also knew that it would only do that if those worship services were teaching certain specific bits of information. Furthermore, if the deity was really smart, said deity might also want people to know about its true nature before it revealed itself to them. So, there just might be a reason to be religious after all.

Oh, and perhaps there are some other reasons for going to church that you just haven't thought of. One of the neat things about postulating an omniscient being is that it is smarter than you are.

Re:Now *that is a fascinating topic

[dgatwood]

The Catholic church isn't maintream? What are you smoking? I want some of that.

The Catholic church is the foundation of Christianity. All other Christian churches split off from the Catholic church, mostly for political reasons. The schisms between protestant denominations is far greater than the differences between some protestant churches and the Holy Mother Church. The difference between the Episcopal Church and the Catholic Church pales compared to the huge schism between the Christian Church and the Church of Christ (two protestant churches).

The various Orthodox churches (the second largest Christian religion, second only to Catholicism) are very nearly identical to the Catholic church in their beliefs. The Anglican and Episcopal Churches (all protestant) are all reasonably close; many even believe in transubstantiation, though it is not universally held in these faiths. The Lutheran and Methodist Churches are also mostly theologically compatible with the Catholic Church, with the exception of transubstantiation, and in fact, some have joked that in many ways, the Lutheran church is more Catholic than the Catholic Church, as it has stayed closer to its roots through the years.

Thus, even if you ignore the Catholics, there are still considerably more people whose beliefs are similar to Catholicism than there are people with more extreme protestant beliefs. I would, therefore, contend that it is your religious belief that is non-mainstream.

Don't get me wrong---I'm not saying that the Catholic Church hasn't done some bad things in the distant past (the wars you mention, for example), but those are the failings of men, not of the Church itself, in much the same way that modern-day suicide bombings are the failings of men, not of the Muslim faith. Do not make the mistake of believing that Catholics are a bunch of nuts with guns in their basements who plan to take over the world. I've heard such foolishness from the occasional protestant over the years (and I won't mention their particular denomination because it is a bizarre, non-mainstream minority view even among the denomination in question). The only word that came to my mind upon hearing that was "moron." It just isn't so.

There's a couple...

[SanityInAnarchy]

Others have already pointed out a couple easy-to-refute claims.

But the real reason people don't usually refute these claims is, we don't have the time. It's obvious that "creation science" is as much pseudoscience as the Q-Ray to anyone who pays attention. Real scientists, in general, would much rather go about discovering reality than disproving your biblical fantasy.

It'd be kind of like asking the government to go around disproving every UFO sighting and conspiracy theory. It's a pointless waste of resources.

Re:On the other hand, they also make great Bourbon

[name*censored*]

I dunno man, really cool special effects have been making movies succeed despite the ridiculous stories attached to them for a long time now..

Re:On the other hand, they also make great Bourbon

[mad.frog]

No, you have it exactly wrong: belief has nothing to do with it, and that's the point.

The schools should be teaching what is supported by evidence (e.g., evolution), not what is proposed to prop up a theology (e.g. creationism).

How does this guy know that it happened like that?

[CrazyJim1]

The Bible tells a rich history of God with man. Why does man have to make up stories because there were certain details left out? I don't take sides with the young earth or ye old universe theory, but it bothers me when someone thinks they're so right they have to do something like this. It's almost as bad as bickering between denominations. Anyway, I know God is real, but that doesn't mean I know everything, and odds are neither does this guy.

Apropriate....

[dragondm]

... I always thought Creationism belonged in a museum.

Re:On the other hand, they also make great Bourbon

[flyingsquid]

several groups (both religious and secular) will be protesting. come join us!

Are you kidding? This museum is doing us a tremendous favor. If anything, we should send them money.

The intelligent design movement managed to make creationism look vaguely scientific. Its proponents had academic degrees and wrote books; Behe is actually a biochemist. They didn't make patently absurd claims about world being 6000 years old, they didn't use the Bible as a primary source, and they didn't directly refer to God and Jesus in every third sentence. They didn't do science, but they did a decent job of pretending to, and made creationism look almost respectable.

But if you want to see creationism made to look ridiculously unsophisticated and ignorant again, nobody could do a better job than this museum. Apatosaurus living with Adam and Eve? Dinosaurs on Noah's Ark? If you were trying to parody creationism, or create a strawman of all the worst creationist arguments, you couldn't do a better job. And the intelligent design guys- Behe and Dembski- will suddenly find that when they're arguing for creationism, people will be asking them if they believe that Jesus rode a Velociraptor.

So I say, put the Genesis account on display, in all its glory, and let people see it. I think most people will leave thinking exactly what they thought when they came in: evangelicals will leave still knowing that every word in the Bible is true, people looking for a laugh will emerge thinking that while science doesn't have all the answers, it's a lot better than a bunch of ancient myths, and kids- well, I say, let them see dinosaurs and men living alongside each other. Because while adults like to be told what they already know, kids like to ask questions, and I think those dioramas will get them asking a lot of questions.

They could be right!

[ragefan]

I think they might be on to something... its quite possible that natural selection is wrong, given that people this stupid exist! Otherwise their ancestors would have been eaten by bears.

Also, they probably feed their plants with Brawndo: "Its got what plants crave!"

ATTENTION CREATIONISTS!!!

[khayman80]

I've noticed that many slashdot articles about evolution seem to attract a sizeable number of creationists. Because of this, I've decided to address the serious (i.e. non-trolling) creationists that frequent slashdot in the hope that I can prevent you from making the same easily avoided mistakes that make so many of your brethren sound like ignorant cretins. Here are some common arguments that creationists use, and why I think that you shouldn't use them... unless of course you want to be ridiculed. Note: this is by no means a comprehensive list.

(1) "Evolution is just a THEORY"

This is the most common (and the most disappointing) creationist argument I hear on a regular basis. While it's true that evolution is a theory, this statement is made in an attempt to cast doubt on evolution by implying that evolution is akin to a wild guess that scientists came up with after a night of heavy drinking. Newsflash: it's not going to work. Most educated people understand that you're confusing the word "theory" (which means an explanation or model that is capable of predicting future events) with the word "hypothesis" (which means an educated guess). Calling evolution a "theory" isn't an insult. For the millionth time, I will repeat this: gravity is also "just" a theory (for example, google the "General Theory of Relativity"). I might even add that most scientists would consider evolution to be a better-supported theory than gravity, because of the fact that gravity cannot (currently) be quantized, despite decades of attempts. If you want to debate evolution, fine- but don't play these childish word games.

(2) "But evolution has never been observed!"

Most creationists, faced with the mind-numbingly obvious fact that viruses and other creatures (like those famous moths) evolve right in front of our eyes, make a distinction between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Micro-evolution is "proven", they say, because it only represents a change in allele frequency within a species. Macro-evolution, defined as change from one species to another (aka "speciation"), is more of a problem for creationists. They often insist that speciation has never been observed outside of laboratory experiments. This is blatantly false. Many examples of speciation have been observed in the wild- for example check out this large list of peer-reviewed journal articles here and also here.

The next step that creationists take in response to this rebuttal is to claim that speciation proves nothing- only a change from one kind of organism to another will prove evolution. What's a "kind", you might ask? No one knows. Creationists will give vague examples, such as saying that a dog is a different kind of animal than a whale, but a rigid definition has never (to my knowledge) been offered or universally accepted by the major creationist organizations. It's just a convenient goal post which keeps getting pushed back every time new evidence is found. The fact is, speciation is rather easy to observe in organisms which breed relatively quickly. Observing the creation of, say, a new phylum or order could take many millennia. Unfortunately, human civilization hasn't been around that long. Plus, standard biological nomenclature isn't based on evolutionary criteria, so it isn't clear to me that equating a "kind" with a phylum or order is meaningful in this context.

(3) "But Intelligent Design is different than Biblical Creationism! It's a purely scientific alternative theory."

Don't try to pretend that "Intelligent Design" is somehow different than creationism. Especially don't try to pretend that it's a scientific theory. Seriously. No one's buying it. "Intelligent Design" is a disguise- a secular-sounding term thrown over religious creationism to try to smuggle it into a state-funded science class

Re:ATTENTION CREATIONISTS!!!

[khayman80]

I've not really considered that before, but I'm not really sure I'd want to give a lecture like this in public. From what I've seen, public debates on evolution are usually failures for rationalists. There are several reasons:

(1) Most scientists are accustomed to honest, civilized debate. Scientific conferences are full of disagreements and arguments, make no mistake about that. But (almost) all the participants are aiming to understand the universe better, to examine their assumptions and use experimental evidence and logic to figure out whether or not they need to change their assumptions or ideas. They might attack a speaker's ideas if they believe that a mistake is being made, but there's nothing very personal at stake. So once proven wrong, they admit it (usually politely if you're lucky). Most creationists, on the other hand, are defending the One True Religion. They already know The Truth, and simply pick and choose arguments from creationist websites to attempt to defend that Truth. This kind of backwards reasoning (arrive at conclusion first, find supporting facts later) is so alien to scientists that they simply can't handle it. I'm not sure I could, for that matter.

(2) Creationists often make statements like "Evolution can't produce new information in a genome" or "We don't know how old the earth is because carbon dating isn't useful on large timescales and we don't know the initial amounts of isotopes and polonium halos disprove old ages anyway". Answering each one of these statements would require hours of boring, dry lecturing- something that simply isn't going to happen. And the problem is that creationists don't just make one of these statements, they make DOZENS of them. Answering this kind of deluge of mis-information in such a way that it can be intelligible to the average person would take an unbelievably long amount of time. As such, even answering questions from the crowd can be a tricky business. How do you explain isochronology and radioactive dating methods in 2 minutes to a young earth creationist? I can barely explain it to a fellow scientist in less than 15 minutes. Now imagine someone standing up and asking two or three of these questions in rapid fire mode, and ridiculing you for not having a snappy answer. This kind of public failure would not look good.

(3) Creationists are usually much better at the fine art of crowd manipulation, whether they're participating in a debate or simply asking an "impromptu" question from the audience. I'm finishing up my PhD now, and I've taught some pretty big classes, but never had to worry about anything like this. I'd probably be slaughtered if I tried...

I'm not completely knocking the idea, it's just that I can easily see it becoming ugly.

Re:ATTENTION CREATIONISTS!!!

[khayman80]

Maybe the best answer is to say that it's actually a fact and a theory. It's a fact that objects fall to the earth when we release them, and several theories (Newtonian gravity, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity) have been proposed to fit these facts into a coherent whole. It's a fact that species evolve, and several theories (gradualism, punctuated equilibrium) have been proposed to fit these facts into a coherent whole.

Re:ATTENTION CREATIONISTS!!!

[ranton]

Why do scientists such as yourself disparage supernatural proposals as though they were false, when you are yourself not in honest pursuit of truth, but of credible naturalistic explanations?

That is pretty much a semantic argument. There really is no difference between the natural and the supernatural. When we describe something as "natural", it is because we can explain it already. When we describe something as "supernatural", it is because we cannot explain it yet. Lightning was once supernatural. As soon as we have a working theory for something, it becomes "naturalistic".

Science does not ignore "supernatural" occurances. They are routinely dismissed because they are usually found to be simple misconceptions, but the options are always on the table. Any decent scientist will tell you that we know that we dont know everything yet.

If God was shown to exist, he would be a very natural being. He would just have natural laws that are completely unknown to us, just as electromagnetism was unknown to us 1000 years ago. The reason why God's existance is dismissed is not simply because he is deemed to be supernatural, but because there is no reason to believe that he does exist.

Not a single scientific experiment that I am aware of has ever pointed to the existance of any god that has ever been worshiped by man. Quite the opposite in fact. An almost infinite amount of natural phenomena that have at one time been attributed to a godlike being have been explained with "natural" laws.

We basically have two choices:
1) Almost every god that has ever been worshiped in the history of mankind is false, but the One God worhiped by a few similar religions today is real.
OR
2) ALL relgions that provide no tangible and reasonable proof are false.

I am sure that the Romans thought the same thing that we do today. I am sure that they laughed at the idea of the old babylonian gods actually existing. Just like our descendants a thousand years from now will probably be laughing at our current religious beliefs.

Science is not being close minded by not listening to religious arguments. Science has listened, but has found nothing worth continued listening. The only reason that it is even a topic of discussion is because of how many people still believe in organized religion. Illiteracy is something that has only recently been almost eliminated in the civilized world. Our civilization's next step of enlightenment is to rid ourselves of religion, but it will take a while. Until then we will still have discussions that confuse the natural and supernatural, and confuse scientific conviction with religious conviction.

--

Re:ATTENTION CREATIONISTS!!!

[Weedlekin]

"I will point out, however, that Intelligent Design and Creationism are not the exclusive property of theists. Sir Fred Hoyle and the "panspermia" proposal are an example of a prominent scientific atheist and a naturalistic intelligent design theory (limited to chemical evolution in scope)."

Hoyle's panspermia was nothing like you are presenting it. He believed that the "seeds" for for life are a property of the universe, which his steady-state model claimed has always existed, and will continue to do so for eternity. Hoyle's universe was thus not created intelligently or otherwise, because it's always been there, together with the seeds of life, which were also not created -- indeed, one of the driving forces for his theories was to refute the very concepts you claim he was supporting. Note also that rather than being "limited to chemical evolution", Hoyle thoroughly rejected that concept, although he fully accepted Darwinian evolution because, unlike ID / creationists, he understood the fact that life origins and evolution theory are separate fields, and did not therefore attempt to use one as a straw man against the other.

"His ideas were not accepted, of course"

As is always the case with science, he had some prominent supporters and some prominent detractors -- Darwin had a much harder job getting his ideas accepted than Hoyle did. Note also that Hoyle didn't invent the concept of panspermia, because it dates back to at least the 5th century BC, and was quite a popular idea during the 18th and 19th centuries.

"I wonder whether his audacity in questioning such sacred cows (and providing quotable material to the infidel creationists) didn't cost him Nobel Prize recognition in the end."

If this was actually the case, then how did Francis Crick, a prominent supporter (and possibly co-originator) of directed panspermia, get a Nobel prize?

"is that because the ideas are profoundly and obviously wrongheaded, or simply because it's professional suicide for anyone less renowned than Sir Fred Hoyle to confess public doubt in evolution?"

Fred Hoyle never expressed any doubts whatsoever about evolution - indeed, he proposed the idea that viruses and other organic matter falling on to the Earth and causing new epidemics among species (which either adapt and survive or die out) might act as one of its fundamental driving mechanisms.

I didn't bother reading the rest of your post, because it's obvious that you are both a liar and a fool. Everybody on Slashdot is by definition on the Internet, and can therefore use Google etc. to check up on Hoyle's ideas for themselves, and then know that you are being completely disingenuous. This type of tripe might work when preaching to the converted, but only an utter fool would post it on a forum where the average IQ is above that of a cardboard box, and people can quickly and easy see for themselves that your argument is built on a foundation of obvious lies.

Re:ATTENTION CREATIONISTS!!!

[khayman80]

In your first paragraph (of point #3) you point out a strong correlation between belief in intelligent design and certain religious views. You are appealing to the prevailing Slashdot bias against organised religion when you do this: the correlation says absolutely nothing in and of itself as to whether the idea is true or false. C. S. Lewis described that form of argument as "Bulverism": dismiss the argument on the basis that the person raising it has particular motives for doing so. "You just say that because you hold religious view X." I can't argue against this, because it isn't an argument.

Note that I wasn't attempting to use this correlation to argue that intelligent design is false. I was arguing that intelligent design is a religious idea, not a scientific idea. I believe that the fact that evolution is not well correlated with religion, whereas intelligent design IS well correlated with religion, is evidence that intelligent design is related to religion in some manner. Of course, as I point out at the end of that paragraph, there are ways to argue around this point so I don't consider it particularly strong evidence.

I will point out, however, that Intelligent Design and Creationism are not the exclusive property of theists. Sir Fred Hoyle and the "panspermia" proposal are an example of a prominent scientific atheist and a naturalistic intelligent design theory (limited to chemical evolution in scope). His ideas were not accepted, of course, and I wonder whether his audacity in questioning such sacred cows (and providing quotable material to the infidel creationists) didn't cost him Nobel Prize recognition in the end. Still, he started a meme that may yet bloom and grow: "seeds of life".

That's interesting. I didn't know that Fred Hoyle identified as an atheist. I wonder if he continued to self-identify as an atheist after espousing these ideas...

I'm not sure that panspermia is at odds with evolution. As far as I understand the idea, panspermia simply expands the "biosphere" from planet Earth to the whole galaxy or even beyond. Natural selection still acts, species still evolve to fill available ecological niches, etc. If true, it completely changes the answer to the question of the origin of life on earth (ordinarily called abiogenesis, but that term doesn't seem appropriate in this context). Depending on the rate at which microbes survive re-entry into earth's atmosphere, it might also contribute somewhat to genetic diversity on geological timescales. But it seems compatible with evolution unless I'm misunderstanding something.

As far as his often-quoted "tornado assembling a 747 from a junkyard" remarks, I don't think I'm qualified to deal with this issue in detail because I'm not a molecular biologist. I do have two things to say, though. First, he seems to be arguing that abiogenesis (rather than evolution) is statistically unlikely. From what I can tell he's not arguing that natural selection is incapable of producing the diversity we see around us, provided we assume the existence of just one living cell. He's simply arguing against abiogenesis by saying that the first cell is so improbable that it can't have formed by chance.

Secondly, abiogenesis is arguably the most mysterious question in biology because of the fact that it happened so long ago and left no trace of how it happened. It will probably remain mysterious until we find other biospheres (crossing my fingers for Mars, Europa and Titan) or find a way to successfully simulate abiogenesis in the lab. I haven't read his explanation of how he arrived at his claim that "the cell has one chance in 10^(40,000) of forming". And, again, I'm way out of my depth here, but I'd like to go out on a limb and suggest a possible flaw in his analysis. As far as I can tell, he seems to be examining the simplest cell he can find, and calculating the probability of

Parental responsibility, and much more

[cbhacking]

There are numerous problems. Would you like them listed?

• If God created Adam and Eve in His own image, and God is perfect or infallible, so too would Adam and Eve have been. Direct contradiction if you accept that interpretation.
• If "free will" is what God has, and it is what He gave Adam and Eve, then that is certainly in His own image. However, humans have curiosity and must experiment to satisfy it, and God does not (based on the assumption that He already knows anything that He might possibly be curious about), so God clearly denied us a tool we needed to be safe (it was supposedly safe in the garden, right?) Put differently, exactly why were Knowledge and Life suppsed to be mutually exclusive?
• For that matter, why would would God create such a temptation in the first place? What purpose does it serve? How was its creation essential to the creation of everything else? I'm pretty sure I haven't seen any trees of knowledge (or life) lately, so they can't be terribly important elements of the world. If nothing else, it clearly falls under the category of an attractive nuisance.
• Let us not forget the God also supposedly created the snake (and apparently made it either evil or possessed of free will and a twisted sense of humor... not to mention speech) let it loose in his childrens' paradise! Nowhere does it state that the snake should have been created good (although one might infer that from the fact that its creator was supposedly the essence of goodliness) but what an utter lack of morality would be required to put such a thing in the garden where your children play! Thus God is either evil or both irresponsible and uncaring.
• Almost at the end, the explanation most directly relevent:
  If God created Adam and Eve, then they were His children and His responsibility. It was His duty to teach them, to guide them, to nurture them, to comfort them, to correct them when they made mistakes, and to keep them safe from their own ignorance. Creating beings with free will, whether by divine powers or natural conception, makes you responsible for those who are created. If they screw up their lives because you left them in an environment with dangerous elements that your children have no experience in dealing with, then it is your fault. Heck, from the perspective of Adam and Eve, the snake was probably a perfectly legitimate source of guidance; nobody had told them it wasn't!
• Finally, if God didn't want humans to be little automata, but denied us education, didn't He pretty much just make a pair of amusing little pets? At best, Adam and Eve were sentient monkeys in a zoo, placed there without having ever known their parents and watched by an uncaring master through semi-silvered glass. At worst, they essentially WERE automata, except they lacked a pre-defined sequence of instructions. Robots without any programming except curiosity, that had once been given a command but that had been designed to act with a certain degree of randomness. If that's your idea of creating beings with free will, I sure as hell hope you aren't involved in any major AI projects.

In any case, if Adam and Eve existed, then they had pretty much the worst growing up experience possible. They were given curiosity but were kept ignorant, provided with dangerous temptations, and given no guides save for malicious entities that they had never even been warned against. When the urge to satisfy that curiosity (at the urging of a creature made by their same creator and dwelling in their own safe garden) became too great, they were irrevocably changed, cast out from paradise, and defamed as the originators of sin for the rest of eternity. At THIS point, their all-powerful 'parent' offers no comfort or assistance, but decides that NOW He would put protection on the one thing that might, possibly, have reversed the change done to them.

You are arguing that this deity loves us, and that we should worship Him? The average everyday, non-omniceint, flawed-in-various-ways father and mother that most of us had growing up is far more worthy, in my opinion (not that I worship anybody, but maybe I'm just a bit too cynical).

Re:It's not a compromise

[morcheeba]

I almost modded you up for the Bill S. Preston, Esq. quote, but you didn't get it quite right.
It is: Be excellent to each other. (from here)

And then, of course, Ted says ... Party on, dudes!

The God Delusion

[BillGatesLoveChild]

A good book by Richard Dawkins who wrote 'The Selfish Gene'. Here's a summary:

Richard Dawkins on why religion sticks: "There is no such thing as a Muslim Child. There is a child of Muslim Parents. There is no such thing as a Christian Child. There is a child of Christian Parents.

My specific hypothesis is about children. More than any other species, we survive by the accumulated experience of previous
generations, and that experience needs to be passed on to children for their protection and well-being. Theoretically, children might learn from personal experience not to go too near a cliff edge, not to eat untried red berries, not to swim in crocodile-infested waters. But, to say the least, there will be a selective advantage to child brains that possess the rule of thumb: believe, without question, whatever your grown-ups tell you. Obey your parents; obey the tribal elders, especially when they adopt a solemn, minatory tone. Trust your elders without question. This is a generally valuable rule for a child. But, as with the moths, it can go wrong.

Natural selection builds child brains with a tendency to believe whatever their parents and tribal elders tell them.
Such trusting obedience is valuable for survival: the analogue of steering by the moon for a moth. But the flip side of trusting obedience is slavish gullibility. The inevitable by-product is vulnerability to infection by mind viruses.

Sociologists studying British children have found that only about one in twelve break away from their parents' religious beliefs."

Remember the old consistency thing. People are loathe to change their mind:

"It would be a severe disadvantage, for example, when hunting or making tools, to keep changing one's mind, so under some circumstances, it is better to persist in an irrational belief than to vacillate, even if new evidence or ratiocination favors a change."

Douglas Adams: "Religion . . . has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. What it means is, 'Here is an idea or a notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about; you're just not. Why not? - because you're not!' If somebody votes for a party that you don't agree with, you're free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it. If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it. But on the other hand if somebody says 'I mustn't move a light switch on a Saturday', you say, 'I respect that'.

Why should it be that it's perfectly legitimate to support the Labour party or the Conservative party, Republicans or Democrats, this model of economics versus that, Macintosh instead of Windows - but to have an opinion about how the Universe began, about who created the Universe . .. no, that's holy? . .. We are used to not challenging religious ideas but it's very interesting how
much of a furore Richard creates when he does it!

Everybody gets absolutely frantic about it because you're not allowed to say these things. Yet when you look at it rationally there is no reason why those ideas shouldn't be as open to debate as any other, except that we have agreed somehow between us that they shouldn't be."

Andrew Mueller: "Pledging yourself to any particular religion 'is no more or less weird than choosing to believe that the world is rhombus-shaped, and borne through the cosmos in the pincers of two enormous green lobsters called Esmerelda and Keith'."

Sam Harris: "We have names for people who have many beliefs for which there is no rational justification. When their beliefs are extremely common we call them 'religious'; otherwise, they are likely to be called 'mad', 'psychotic' or 'delusional' . . . Clearly there is sanity in numbers."

Richard Dawkins: "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodth

Re:On the other hand, they also make great Bourbon

[ENIGMAwastaken]

We actually know for a fact that Jesus rode a raptor into Jersualem: http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/UnNews:Legitimate_Bib lical_archeologists_discover_raptor_tracks_in_Jeru salem/

Re:So, what exactly is wrong with it?

[ControlAltDelete]

Show me one religion that hasn't changed or "adapted" over the years. I don't think you can say that, because science adapts, that excludes it from being a religion (not to say that science is a religion, but to contest your apparent requirement that, in order for something to be a religion, it must not adapt or change).

Re:So, what exactly is wrong with it?

[ControlAltDelete]

Well, it's one thing to criticize infallibilistic dogma, and it's another to criticize religion. I'm all for the former, since the former is clearly insane. It just bothers me when people claim that they're one and the same.

Re:Not going there

[king-manic]

No, that's is not true. There are absolutes in the universe and the universe exists by a finite set of absolute physical laws. To be more specific, the universe exists by Mathematical laws. When a Mathematical absolute is proven, then it is absolutely true. It is through applied Mathematics, Physics, where modeling of existing observation and prediction of future observation are created using Mathematics. The models can lead to situations where a model is correct for the observation but needs refinement to be correct universally. This is the exact point of the scientific process...to test, verify, retest and refine until a Mathematical model can be defined as an law. Through this method, all absolute physical laws of the universe will eventually be known. Actually, NO. Mathematics gives us a tool to define self consistent systems that approximate reality. There is always doubt and margin for error (see the law of gravity's refinement). The difference between a scientific "law" and a scientific "theory" is not the amount of proof or iterations it is simply "laws" are more terse then theories and tend to be called laws simply because people got used to calling it such. Moore's law is terse, and throughly unscientific, while the theory of radiocarbon dating has a lot of scientific back up.

Re:It's not a compromise

[physicsphairy]

If there is a salvation to be had, here is the secret: Be kind to each other. What else could possibly matter?

That is indeed the crux of Christianity, although it is stated a bit more strongly than that: (this is just one verse of many)
My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.
and even
But I say unto you whi hear: Love you enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, and pray for those which spitefully use you.

If you can obey that wholeheartedly, welcome to heaven.

The problem happens when you decide you are going to be selfish and step from the path of the redeemed to the path of the sinner. Suddenly, you have crossed the chasm which leads to imperfection, and we're left with two big questions, (1) How can an infinitely just God forgive the trangression when justice requires that it be punished? (2) How is it possible to unite a wayward, sinful creature, which has chosen selfishness, with a perfect and Holy God?

The Christian answer to both of these questions is the same: Jesus Christ. In regard to question (1) God remains just because he doesn't forgive the penalty of the sin... he pays it himself on our behalf. In regard to question (2) because God has paid our penalty we are able be spiritually reborn through our faith and acceptance of God's offering of free grace.

The big catch which you appear to take issue with is that freewill is still in the equation. Before you chose to be selfish, and so God paved the way for a second chance, but you still have to choose to accept God's offer. And you have to do so sincerely. (Which is to say, if you have what Christians call "faith" you will try to fulfill God's commandments--embodied wholly in showing love to one another--even knowing that you're now covered for mistakes. Just saying the words 'I am a Christian' doesn't prove anything to anybody, least of all God.)

This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.

Re:The Famous Moths

[oaklybonn]

I did take some time to read that document, and I also took some time to look into its author. To quote this page:

Rev. Wells decided in 1976 to "devote my life to destroying Darwinism" since it is incompatible with the beliefs of the Unification Church (the "Moonies"). He subsequently earned two Ph.D.'s (in theology and in biology) as a preparation for battle. Wells has indicated elsewhere that he is an "old-earth" creationist. He agrees that speciation has happened, but disputes common descent, and wants an ongoing role for God. Please read some of the reviews and rebuttals of of Reverend Wells other book, and see for yourself how its possible for someone to have a PhD in biology and yet still not understand how science works. I'm not a biologist, so I won't attempt to rebut the page you linked to - but you owe us all the favor of continuing to research what he writes, if you're going to cite it as cannon.

Re:On the other hand, they also make great Bourbon

[jkabbe]

Just wanted to say a few things before you get modded down into non-existence.

Evolution isn't any more "non-science" than astro-physics is non-science. Sure, it's pretty hard to set up an experiment to test evolution. But the same can be said for most of what goes on in space. That hasn't kept science out. Unfortunately, it does mean that the scatter is a little larger and research takes longer. But research still does happen because predictions can be made and then you wait and see if the observations match up.

Evolution is falsifiable. If we actually wanted to run experiments we could. It might take a few hundred million years, but we could do it. Creation, on the other hand, is not falsifiable. But that won't stop those with blinders on from claiming they are similarly situated.

Re:On the other hand, they also make great Bourbon

[southern yank]

Kids often visit museums. If you're looking to influence young minds and you can't get into schools, museums are the next best thing.

Re:On the other hand, they also make great Bourbon

[tukkayoot]

Why are you protesting? Who gives a shit? As long as they keep their creationist crap out of our schools, that's all I care about.

This museum represents a direct attack on science. I give a shit because I happen to think that science and scientific literacy are important. The stuff presented in this museum is blatantly wrong, and ridiculous, and is a menace to the public understanding and enlightenment even without government support (though, I would not be surprised if the museum has not benefited at least indirectly from the tax breaks our government is too happy to give religious institutions.) The only educational value it has to serve as a case-in-point as to how excessive religious faith can obliterate any trace of rationality in an otherwise intelligent individual.

Also, some schools (hopefully only private/religious schools) are undoubtedly planning field trips to this museum (an earlier article I read noted the parking lot which was designed to comfortably accommodate school buses). It's bad enough that parents and churches poison impressionable, helpless children's minds with this garbage, but now they'll have a multi-million dollar, Universal Studios caliber set of displays and presentations to even more thoroughly inculcate kids to this backwards, pre-medieval nonsense.

Re:On the other hand, they also make great Bourbon

[DShard]

Sure, it's pretty hard to set up an experiment to test evolution.

No, it is very easy to set up an experiment. I do it all the time when I reuse yeast on many consecutive brewing sessions. Yeast rapidly evolves due to it's simple nature, and six generations is enough to change it's behavior. This results in a very different beer that can change a nice cream ale into a poor chimay. The thing that is hard is understanding what is happening, not finding the examples of it in your daily life.

Re:On the other hand, they also make great Bourbon

[Lord Apathy]

Evolution is a science. Why is it a science? Because it follows the scientific method. There is evidence and rules what can be treated as evidence. When the evidence no longer fits the model the model will be changed to fit the evidence. An this goes on and on until the evidence and the model fit together like a fine wine and cheese.

Creationism on the other hand cannot follow the scientific method. For one thing there is only one theory and that theory can never be modified. Where on the other hand the theory of evolution has changed in the last 150 years since is formulation. Creationism is just the opposite of science. Since you can't change the theory you have to change the evidence. You can't do that in science. You have to go by what the evidence says.

My friend as Penn & Teller say, "Creationsim is Bullshit!"

Re:On the other hand, they also make great Bourbon

[hazem]

Unless you researched everything yourself, then there is belief. Who do you trust?

Creationism and Evolution have one thing in common - a big stack of paper that tells what each is. But that's where it ends.

Creationism says "This stack of papers states the absolute proof and if you challenge it you are a heretic who will burn in hell."

Evolution(ism) says "These papers say the way we think things are based on the information we've found so far. If you can refute the evidence and findings in them, please do so, and add your evidence and findings to the stack of papers."

One requires blind belief in "information" that cannot be examined or refuted. The other requires no belief and encourages examination and refutation.

Falsification

[Mark_MF-WN]

You can run an experiment on evolution in a matter of hours, using viruses or bacteria.

This just shows how evil and destructive the theistic movement is -- they've already brainwashed society into thinking that evolution is an untested theory. It HAS been tested -- undergrad students (and even high school students) routinely run experiments in which they allow various traits to evolve in micro-organisms. There are thousands of examples of species that have evolved in the last century, many of them extremely novel. Novel ecosystems have developed. Entirely new metabolic pathways have appeared -- I somehow doubt that titanium-oxidizing bacteria, nylon-oxidizing bacteria, or fungi that subsist on high levels of ionizing radiation, developed before Human were around to provide pure titanium, nylon, or Chernobyl-level nuclear disasters.

Re:Falsification

[Tomfrh]

It HAS been tested -- undergrad students (and even high school students) routinely run experiments in which they allow various traits to evolve in micro-organisms.

Creationist folk argue that this is a case of microevolution, much like the breeding of dogs. To prove macroevolution is true they demand to see a transitional fossil, e.g. a mudskipper with monkey paws or something.

Re:Falsification

[Tyreth]

Get a clue. Or at least have the decency to know a little something about what you criticise.

As surprising as it may sound to you as someone who obviously doesn't know what they're talking about, Creationists *do* believe in evolution. They believe that mutations occur, that children differ from their parents, and that bacteria adapt to novel situations. If you don't believe me, take a look at the Answers in Genesis website, it shouldn't take you too long to find that out.

What they dispute is the idea that all living things share a single common ancestor. They just don't believe that the dog and the shark are distantly related. But they do believe that evolution, defined as a change in allele frequencies in a population over time, does occur.

Re:Falsification

[Anonymous Coward]

Every fossil is a transitional fossil.

Re:Falsification

[neomunk]

I personally think that since we know enough (not everything, but a good decent working approximation) about biochemistry that it is entirely possible to now do enhanced speed evolutionary experiments in a simulated environment. In fact, I know such research has been going on for longer than -I've- been alive already.

I myself, being passively interested in self-adapting systems have been mucking around for years with various AI, AL (artificial life), machine learning and genetic algorithm programs. You can experience the wonders of evolution for yourself if you're willing to stare at a screen for hours on end. This IS slashdot, many of us do that already. :-)

Seriously though, if you're really interested in at least seeing the very basics of evolution at work, I'd suggest a good start to be NetLOGO. It comes with a nice allotment of pre-built experiments for you to study and watch. Adaptive systems can effect very complex behaviors with very simple rules, and you can see that happen yourself if you really care.

After NetLOGO you might wanna have a look at framsticks. Framsticks is basically an evolution simulator. Not true biochemical evolution (though I do think work has been done to make a biochemically accurate framework for framsticks) but a decent framework for macro-effects of biological evolution.

Basically we already know that the mechanisms of life can (DO) change over time, and it's not too hard to grasp that the ones that work better survive longer. Since all life reproduces, it's probably a good assumption, though not 100% accurate, that the longer an organism lives, the more it reproduces. I cannot possibly fathom why such a simple system can draw so much ire.

Oh, here are links to the programs I referenced.
http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/
http://www.frams.alife.pl/

With framsticks (if memory serves, it's been a year) you need (unless you're a text mode superstar) the shareware package. It's not annoying bother you alot shareware, and though it IS slightly crippled, IFIAK all the crippling is done on things like rendering your creatures in a full OpenGL world. It DOES render them for you, just not in a beautifully crafted world. Again, I may be wrong, or things might have changed.

Re:Falsification

[mdwh2]

no new species were made.

Speciation has been observed.

And by "evolution / secular humanism movement", you mean "science".

God Created Religious Nutjobs To Test Me.....

[IHC Navistar]

JESUS SAVE ME..... .....from your followers.

-
It is *MY* belief that the Bible, and religion in general, has been hijacked by nutjobs who have bastardized and perverted the Bible and religious teachings into things that they are not.

Keep in mind, following the Ten Commandments and the Bible DO NOT make you a religious nutter. They just make you more polite, and generally more pleasant to be around. It's when religion gets taken out of context, exploited, and contorted into something far different than what it was meant to be do people become the religious extremists that we have today. This goes for pretty much ANY religion, not just Christianity.

Scientology is one exception: It just stupid no matter how you look at it, drunk or sober.
-

Who Cares?

[JaSla]

You'll all be dead within 100 years anyway. It's funny how anytime something about God is posted we all have an opinion. Here's my 2 cents...

If you don't believe in God, then I propose that for 24hrs you take notice that most everything in your life more than likely rotates around something man made. Whether it be the screen you're reading this through, the chair you sit, or the cup that holds your drink. You could very well be an unaware caged being. Take a camping trip and observe things not made by human hands.

If you're a Christian, then I suggest you stop beating people over the head with the bible. Live by example & not comparison. Realize there IS a place/need for science. This isn't a fairly tale world we live in.

Most of us possess strong beliefs whether it be in God or not. Science has a great need for fact, religion has a great need for faith. People of science find it difficult to believe in what they can't see & those of religion question the knowledge of man. I agree with both. It's difficult to believe in what one can't see & it's equally difficult to have faith in a species as corrupt as humans. However, in the end I feel actions speak louder than words. Have you stepped up and taken part in something aside from you own interests, or are you spinning your wheels a pissing contest?

Re:On the other hand, they also make great Bourbon

[jeremyp]

Creationism is falsifiable. The Genesis creation story makes some very specific claims about the way everything was created which should have predictable effects on the fossil record.

For instance, all of the animals were made on the same day according to Genesis. This means that we should see fossil cows at every level of the geological column. Do we? No. Creationism is not only falsifiable, it is falsified.

Epistemology a bit too simple

[jenik]

Your epistemology of science appears to be a little too simple. The anomaly of Mercury's perihelion was known since the beginning of the 19th century but it had no effect on newtonian mechanics whatsoever until Einstein presented a rival theory. Also, all theories require supplementation by the ceteris paribus clause (i.e. everything else is the same). This means that a contradictory observation may ALWAYS be explained as failure of the ceteris paribus clause rather than failure of the theory. And so on and so forth, it's actually worth reading something on epistemology and scientific method (Popper, Lakatos, Kuhn...), you may be surprised by how science actually works.

Re:On the other hand, they also make great Bourbon

[BakaHoushi]

Watch my keen, tactical observational and logical skills:
Bears, boars, and lions all exist, so they made it to the ark. These creatures are manly.
Dragons, unicorns, and faeries are all mythical, so they didn't. Girls like these creatures more, in general.
Humans tend to like things similar to themselves. Therefore, dragons, unicorns, and faeries are girly.
Girls take FOREVER to get ready to go anywhere.
Therefore, they all missed the ark because they were "still putting on their face" when the ark left.
Damn women.

On a side thought, if the entire world was flooded, why don't we find fossils/fish remains on the top of tall mountains, usually? You'd think the fish of the world would have swam to these new areas.

People never lived in caves

[Chemisor]

If you believe the Bible, people never lived in caves. Adam and Eve went straight to a bronze-age livestyle, raising crops and livestock, and living in more or less decent housing. If anyone in their time lived in caves, it would have been some poor stupid shmucks who had no idea how to build a house. (All normal people are born knowing things like that and can undertake great engineering projects like, say, a giant floating Ark, without much instruction) Surely, we can't expect stupid people like that to know how to paint, can we?

Wrong article title.

[Toon Moene]

The title *should* have been:

Creationism relegated to museum.

Re:On the other hand, they also make great Bourbon

[tukkayoot]

Evolutionism and Creationislm (bad spelling) are two opossite ends of the spectrum. One is Judeo/Christian at its fineist (once again, horrible spelling), the other pretty much directly attacks it.

The theory of evolution and creationism are on opposite ends of a spectrum, if the spectrum you are talking about is one of scientific credibility and reason. I wouldn't call creationism Judeo-Christian belief at its finest, unless by "finest" you mean "most demonstrably incorrect."

You cannot just teach one or the other and expect to make everyone happy. There are only two possible solutions to this.

The "solution" is that you accept the fact that you can never make everyone happy and, after accepting that, accept the fact that the science education of children should not be compromised by anyone's religious beliefs. Anything else would be a ridiculous expression of excessive political correctness. The same sort of argument you're making here could be made against teaching about a heliocentric solar system, or a spherical Earth, if only you can find a parent who has a strong religious conviction that the Earth is flat and at the center of the universe and that contradicting theories/ideologies are the devil's work.

2) Teach both. Unfortunately, this has issues as well, in that you are limiting yourself to Judeo/Christian and Science. You must include all religions. Actually, my public high school is doing this as an elective, they cover Christianity, Judiasm, Islam, native-American views, so forth and so on. Present the kids with all the information from different religions and theories in science, let them make up their own mind. I support this, but only in the teenage years, when the student's mind have evolved to the point where they can make an informed decision. Some will probably choose to go with views different than what their parents believe, most will go with how they have been raised, but at least the information has been presented in a non-biased manner.,

Evolution should be taught in science class, for the reasons I've already outlined. Creationism has no place in science class.

In my opinion, comparative religion should be taught as social studies. Creationism could be touched on here, as a part of a larger study of the beliefs of the Abrahamic faiths. Evolution would probably be outside the scope of this particular set of classes, except to possibly mention that it (or science generally) is where naturalists and non-religious people tend look to find answers to some of the questions that religions try to answer.

Personally I think such classes should be taught as a fairly young age, for a similar reason that you suggest it should be taught later. Teaching comparative religion later rather than sooner does relatively little good, if your goal is to open minds and really, truly educate. At a young age, children are hardwired to believe virtually anything a parent or other authority figure tells them. It's not the school's place to tell children what religion they should believe, but I think it would be great if they were simply made aware of the fact that other religions exist, with an education of some of their more salient, defining features.

This idea is objectionable to religious people of many stripes because I think deep down they realize that kids are smart enough to realize that looking at all of these different faiths side by side, that they can't all be true, and some of them will wonder if there is a good reason to believe one set of religious beliefs over another. The truth is, there really isn't, but there's no need to explicitly tell the children that ... they can come to that conclusion on their own -- or not.

But why should schools take it upon themselves to potentially plant such a seed of doubt in the child's religious faith? To me, it comes down to trying to cultivate healthy critical thinking skills in students and allowing them some chance of making a personal

Re:On the other hand, they also make great Bourbon

[tukkayoot]

Attacks on religion, religious thought, and religious people are, of course, perfectly acceptable. It doesn't matter if we offend Christians as long as no atheist feelings are hurt.

I'm not concerned with feelings, Christians, atheists or otherwise where public understanding and scientific literacy is concerned. If someone's presentation of scientific theories, or logical statements of fact are offensive to some Christians, that is just too bad for the Christians, just as it is just too bad for atheists that we (at least those of us who live in the United States) have to endure the incessant, grating displays of piety that religious people are so enamored with (though that's something I'm more annoyed at than I am personally distressed about).

I am a Christian, although honestly I think exhibits of dinosaurs and humans living together are just as laughable as you. Do I think the Earth and everything on it was created in a literal 7 revolutions of our planet? Not even close. 4.5 billion years sounds good to me. Does that mean I need to go protest/attack those who think otherwise? Nope! They can believe what they want to on this subject because I don't think this is an issue of salvation.

As I said in another post, what really gets me riled up is the presentation of ideas that you describe as "laughable" as being somehow scientifically or academically credible, when they are anything but. It's deceptive and is, as I've said, it seeks to actively undermine and degrade science by employing a scientific facade to fool the ignorant and gullible. It's just bad for Kentucky residents' scientific literacy and in my opinion, the lack of critical thought and scientific literacy in the public at large is a serious problem.

Do I think humans and monkeys share a common ancestor? Once again, no. Can I prove that I'm right? No. Can you prove that I'm wrong? No. We each have our own belief in this case. You can try to build your side up as the side of reason and science, but it's based on just as much assumption as you say mine is. Neither of us has proof, so we fill in the blanks with what we've each reasoned as the most logical answer.

I can say that my side is built on the side of reason and science, simply because it is. Of course, you could say your own position is more reasonable (and from your point of view it may be, if you rate the Bible as being a very credible source of knowledge about the nature of the universe) but it certainly isn't as scientifically well-supported. That doesn't prove outright that I'm right and you're wrong about whether or not humans and other animals share a common ancestor, but logically one would have to conclude that I am at very least, more likely to be correct on this point.

So just listen: This museum is not an attack on your beliefs in science any more than it's an attack on my beliefs. It's a presentation, albeit rather extravagant and fancy, of their beliefs. Your beliefs still get plenty of attention, whether in schools, TV, movies, magazines, etc. Get over yourself, you arrogant jerk. You and I both disagree with them, yet somehow I can continue to live my daily life without the need to feel offended that someone somewhere may disagree with me. And lay off this crap about wanting to save the children. If it were up to you, they would be spoon-fed evolution from day 1, nothing else. How's that any different or better? At least with religion in the home and evolution in school they get more than just one viewpoint.

Where to begin?

Although I find the Creation Museum offensive in that it is an affront to what I think museums should generally be about -- presenting accurate information about the subject matter and that they should strive for some degree of scientific legitimacy when treating that concern science, like biology (origin of species, the history of the world's ecology), geology (age of Earth) and cosmology/physics (age and origins of the universe) ... I do not find a

Re:C-14?

[RobertLTux]

(for details from my viewpoints talk with any of the AIG team)
the big problem with Radio-X dating is that if you have a chunk of rock and then date it using [method] you will get a number pick another [method] and you will get another number. Chain this out for a bit and you may land up with X methods and X+Y numbers all from the same chunk of rock

carbon dating has the problem that a sample drawn from a guy said he had been dead for x thousand( or was it million) years , when he was informed the man in question was surprised.

Radio-X dating is about as reliable as statistics for the time frame in question (BC 5000 and earlier)

not the "Tree of Knowledge"

[mateomiguel]

Its not Tree of Knowledge, as in knowledge was bad. Its the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, a very specific kind of knowledge, as in knowing that there is an alternative to Good is bad. Its a recurisvely-named tree. It is the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Don't eat of it, or you will gain the knowledge of Good and Evil. Evil is going against the command of not eating from the tree. So if you go against the command of not eating the tree, you will know what evil is.

Re:AIG

[Tyreth]

I've been through answers in Genesis. Acknowledgement of what they call "microevolution" is simply their latest fall-back point. They only concede it's truth because to do otherwise would make them look so deliberately ignorant that they would lose all but their core membership

So, it turns out that they're not refusing the evidence you cited, but in fact embrace it, and so your response is "they're lying! They really don't believe it, but they're lying to us to suck us in". Well, you're wrong. I'm trying to help you understand something here, because it's quite obvious you're quick to criticise but slow to understand that which you reject. The YEC position (and I don't consider myself a YEC) is that natural selection and changes in allele frequencies in a population over time have played a *very* large part in the 6000 year history of the world, and their worldview. For you to say that they only concede it so as to not lose membership is a major (yet common) misunderstanding of the YEC position. I direct you to:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i3/fi nches.asp

Most people are blissfully unaware of the objections cited to Darwinism, and so they wonder at how people can reject it. Maybe taking the time to understand the objections might make things a bit clearer.

Nevertheless, if someone were to demonstrate a contradiction between the bible and "microevolution", they would be denying the existence of changes in allele frequencies soon afterwards.

This is probably correct, but they don't expect this to happen. Since for them the Bible is revealed truth from God, it will *never* contradict facts of the world. So if something is actually true, then the Bible will never claim that it is false.

You know you're in America when...

[Profound]

...your "creation science" museum has a notice saying:

"Please note that the Creation Museum is a smoke-free facility. Firearms and pets (other than service animals) are not permitted in the museum."

http://www.creationmuseum.org/plan-your-visit

Re:AIG

[Tyreth]

The sad little article in AiG was nothing more than the same bullshit and lies that theists have always engaged in.

Your vehemence and irrationality seems to stem from this idea that all us theists (not just YEC's now!) willfully and knowingly tell lies to promote whatever cause we believe in.

Whatever your reason for thinking this, I don't know. But if you think you'll persuade me, or indeed any theist, by telling us we're liars then you'll be sorely disappointed. I know I don't lie, so telling me I am a liar is not going to achieve anything. Who are you hoping to convince? Or do you have a chip on your shoulder from when you went to church, and now you think all theists are your natural enemies? Perhaps some of that Dawkins hostility has found its way to you. Whatever your problem is, there's no way you'll discuss anything meaningfully with a theist with your current attitude.

I quoted that article not to justify any YEC belief, but just to show you that they don't reject natural selection. It doesn't matter if the conclusions they draw are completely wrong - the fact remains that they believe in natural selection and a change in allele frequencies in a population over time.

Re:On the other hand, they also make great Bourbon

[aadvancedGIR]

"why don't we find fossils/fish remains on the top of tall mountains, usually?"

Actually, we do. You'd be surprised to see how few million years plate tectonics needed to change some sea bottom into very tall montain (there is one famous example between India and asia, but also many more around the world). Of course, the sediment layers in which fossils usually form tend to be destroyed by erosion when they are in direct contact to the athmosphere.

Re:On the other hand, they also make great Bourbon

[Copid]

However, no one has ever breeded two dogs and gotten a cat.

That would be extraordinarily surprising and hardly what evolutionary theory predicts. Species are a continuum much like colored light. If I start with red light and slowly increase the frequency, I'll eventually reach violet light. The fact that red light only begets more orangy-red light doesn't change that fact. It would be silly to say "I've never seen red light turn into violet light by this method!" In fact, any too adjacent light frequencies will be very similar.

No new DNA information is created or used. Rather, existing information is scrambled around or duplicated in those cases. I don't think there is any such thing as a beneficial mutation. If you can name me an example, please do so.

Your post is long on assertions and rather short on evidence. This is a classic case. What do you mean by "information" and how would we measure it? This is important, because without a halfway decent definition of the quantity "information" your whole point falls apart. If you're looking for an example of a beneficial mutation, you might want to look into the assorted mutations that imbue resistance to antibiotics or the now famous "nylon bug" in which a mutation allows a certain bacterium to "eat" nylon. The mutations are understood (i.e. mapped to a particular piece of DNA--the researchers know what happened) and they're clearly beneficial in that environment.

We can't even know for sure how long ago it died, since modern dating methods have been proven unreliable.

No, they haven't. You're just not looking deeply enough into those specific examples and understanding why they are the way they are.

If I recall correctly, a freshly killed seal ( or some such animal ) was measured using Carbon Dating, and it was found to be thousands of years old... which was false because it had just died. That is a proof by counter-example that Carbon Dating is unreliable.

It's very important to note that it was a seal or some such animal and not something else. The effect that whoever told you about this didn't mention to you (I'll be charitable and assume that it was an honest mistake) is called the "reservoir effect." For radiocarbon dating to work, the organism should be at equilibrium with atmospheric carbon. This isn't the case when organisms get most of their carbon from "old carbon reservoirs" like the seal in question did. The classic example is mollusk shells, which can often be constructed from the carbon in limestone to which the creatures are attached. In that case, the amount of "old carbon" from the rock will dwarf the amount of "new carbon" from the atmosphere, causing old dates. The same is true for the seal example (from Wakefield's "Mummified seals of southern Victoria Land"). The seal in question lives in an area where large quantities of old carbon are known to be in the food chain.

Basically, you've taken a well-understood special case and made a hasty generalization to completely discard a huge pile of evidence to the contrary. It's important to understand that knowing how to use the tools is just as important as the accuracy of the tools themselves. Organizations like AiG often exploit this in their "research" and forcibly "break" the dating methods and pretend to be surprised. I recommend reading into the topic a little bit before discarding good research and essentially calling the vast majority of scientists incompetent based on stuff you read on the Internet.

Re:On the other hand, they also make great Bourbon

[Copid]

I attended a lecture by a member of the scientific community a couple years ago concerning two invalid assumptions Radio-Carbon dating makes (wow, a scientist who disagrees with Evolution! We don't hear much about those... I think more of them disagree with evolution than the average North American thinks).

I think that this is an important section to respond to because C14 dating gets a really raw deal in the general populace. There are some really important details that a lot of these debates gloss over, and people leave with the impression that C14 dating is little more than witch doctoring.

I'm scraping the dregs of my memory, but as I recall, the first assumption was that we know how much c-14 was contained in the animal when it died... there's really no way to prove that, at least not that I know of... unless someone invents time travel.

A common technique to deal with that is calibration with tree ring data. Most organisms are at equilibrium with the atmosphere when they die, so the question is, how much C14 is in the atmosphere? If you can get your hands on wood from old trees, you can trace back the years and then measure the carbon ratios for a given year. After that, you have a very good measure of what to expect to find in organisms from that year. As it turns out, C14 dating has been very successful when proper calibration is done. This field of research is called dendochronology. It should also be noted that for timeframes longer than a few tens of thousands of years, we have to go to something other than C14 dating, so C14 is really not relevant to anything but the "last mile" of evolutionary theory. Even so, I think it's important to point out that it's not the mess that most people seem to think it is.

Second, the dating method assumes that c-14 decays at a uniform rate. This is also open to question. Basing an entire dating method on these two assumptions seems a bit shaky to me.

Well, as I pointed out, the first assumption is testable for more than 10,000 years back. The second assumption is a consequence of atomic theory and has serious consequences if it's not true. Nobody has proposed an alternate atomic theory in which decay rates change in appreciable amounts. You'd be fiddling with some fundamental values in physics. That's not to say that it's not possible. It's just highly unlikely. The constancy of radioactive decay is not the house of cards so many people make it out to be.

Another fact is that the radioactive dating methods tend to agree with each other, even systems that are based on different types of decay. Changing one type of decay would not be expected to have any effect on other types of decay. Likewise, different elements would be affected differently. We don't observe anything to support this, unless all of the decay rates have been fiddled with and tuned in such a way as to completely negate any measurable effects. Having an open mind is one thing, but essentially discarding most of modern physics simply because you're not comfortable with dates that C14 dating produces takes epistemological nihilism a bit too far, IMO.