Slashdot Mirror
A Field Trip To the Creation Museum
Lillith writes "The anti-evolution Creation Museum opened last weekend and Ars took a field trip there and took lots of pictures. 'There were posters explaining just how coal could be formed in a few weeks as opposed to over millions of years, and how rapidly the biblical flood would cover the earth, drowning all but a handful of living creatures. The flood plays a big part in the museum's attempt to explain away what we see as millions of years of natural processes. There was also an explanation as to why, with only one progenitor family, it wasn't considered incest for Adam and Eve's children to marry each other.' (Myself, I liked the picture of the velociraptor grazing peacefully next to Eve, who is wearing some kind of dirndl, in the Garden of Eden.)" The reporter posted more photos from the museum on Flickr.
Why shouldn't we be anti-"religious", if "religion" means promoting falsehood? Why should we give anyone a free pass to go on and on about nonsense without criticism?
Ok, I'm confused. What does the great flood have to do with creationism? Is it "evidence" of creation?
This just seems to validate that it's more of a biblical museum than a creation museum.
Developers: We can use your help.
Belief in something with no scientific proof is the foundation of just about every failed adventure in human-kind.
It turns man against man, because of different ancient social mores and savagely ignorant beliefs about the workings of the universe.
Glad I could accomodate you, as religion has been a particular pox on my existance.
Blar.
a local radio host had on an atheist the other day who refused to recite the pledge in its current incarnation because of the "one nation under God" part.
Someone came on and identified themselves as a Catholic and bemoaned how society has become "me first" and this was because of people not worshipping God.
That got me thinking, if the caller was upset about the "me first" generation then he should certainly have a problem with the biggest "me first"er of them all: God.
After all, God says that there will be only one God, him (her/it/whatever), that you must follow his rules and you must give thanks to him. If that isn't self-centered, I don't know what is.
As we can see from the exhibits (it's not a museum folks), apparently anything can be twisted enough to justify a religious rather than scientific or logical reason for something.
The really depressing part is now we'll have another generation of kids having their minds polluted by nonsense of dinosaurs living with man and the Earth being only a few thousand years old. I guess being oblivious to reality is the easiest way of getting through life.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Even though I know God exists, I don't try and fill in history that the Bible doesn't explain. I'm not sure why other people have this desire to do so.
God spoke to me.
Only in USA you could see such a building, a museum worshiping stupidity.
Why don't creationists take the $20+ million they spent on the museum, and use it to apply "Flood Geology" to finding valuable mineral deposits and such? They could open a bunch of museums with the profits, and provide solid evidence for their "theory" that would make those 'deluded geologists' take notice.
Funny how they never seem to want to actually try to apply what they say they believe...
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
Because a more direct and effective route would be to skip right over religion and go straight to being be anti-falsehood promotion?
"Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
It is sad but true. A very "renaissance" of obscurantism. The US looks more and more like Iran or the Taliban. No science, no reason, only stupidity. This is the beginning of the end of the US empire. No doubt about it.
"Tolerance" isn't just some blanket value which lets everything go. It goes hand-in-hand with a kind of skepticism about dogmatic claims and the absence of a moral teleology (that is, the idea that there is one way people were "meant" to live.) It doesn't mean you have to accept absurd or contradictory ideas, or lifestyles that are actively hostile and dangerous to your own.
...by saying that somehow the benefits of democracy outweigh censoring even really dangerous, stupid shit like this museum.
At least we all get a good laugh out of this one.
And a good cry.
Ok, so maybe not a caveman but do they realy think that God would bother to explain to people who doesn't even know that there is atoms how he created the universe? It's what Pratchett calls Lies for children.
God - Ok so afte a couple of million years...
Secretary - Hold on, how much is a couple million years?
God - Sigh... ok so on the first _day_ I made light using what I like to call the Big Bang.
Secretary - Sorry that's too long and my hand hurts. I'll just write God made light on the first day.
God - Sigh....
I don't actually see that much problem with being both beliver of evolution and the Big bang and being a christian. I think the problem is that people read the bible like it was a book about natural science instead of what it realy is ie a history book and a book about ethics.
"This message was brought to you by Sarcasm and Troll Feeders United (or STFU, for you un-hip people)."
How many thousands of children and impressionable adults will never even have the chance to learn basic tenets of logic, reason and science after being indoctrinated by a "museum" like this and the cooing, gentle voice of its proponents, telling children stories about dinosaurs living next to adam and eve and jesus?
It's, essentially, in the middle of no-where in Kentucky. The only people that are likely to visit the museum are people that already have their minds made up, or the children of those people. They'll already be indoctrinated.
If schools start mandatory field trips to the museum, we can talk. Until then, it's not likely to get visited by anybody who is "on the fence." People will either be going to take pictures and mock it, or they'll be going because it's a museum dedicated to what they already believe.
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
Falwell, Pat Robertson, Robert Tilton, Kenneth Copeland, everyone on Trinity Broadcasting Network, and this stupid-ass museum...
PLEASE GO AWAY or SHUT THE HELL UP! You're fscking embarrassing.
Except TBN - you're Jesus pimps... which is far worse. The Bible has something to say about pimping God... and that He doesn't take kindly to it.
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
The more I think we seriously need to consider "weeding out the population" of all the dumb shits too stupid to accept...
Yes! Death to everyone whose theological beliefs don't agree with your own. That will show the religious extremists!
The thing I never understood was that the fruit was meant to give 'knowledge of good and evil,' allowing them to choose between good and evil. Before eating the fruit, they were only capable of good, and yet were naked. After eating the fruit, they were still naked, but now they realised being naked was 'evil,' and so they must have been doing 'evil' while they were only capable of 'good.'
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Well, that and in this country we value freedom of speech. Let's face it: you and I might think these folks are first class loonies, but it does absolutely no good to denigrate their belief, because they have developed a system whereby there is no challenge to their faith that they cannot nullify. No amount of inconsistency in their world view is going to sway them. That's because belief is a core function, based on the rational part of our mind. We have to "believe" that the world around us is the way it is in order to function in it. We have taken that mechanism and applied it to things we cannot see or experience and that's where the trouble lies, because we can convince ourselves that things we cannot see are more real than things right before our eyes.
Let them be. They are only fooling themselves. I think it's safe to say that they are truly a minority group, and this is their chance to have a moment in the sun. The rest of us know better and can safely ignore them, unless they intend to force us to see things their way. Then the gloves come off.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
Being naked is not a sin. Looking upon the nakedness of others is considered taboo in the Bible. The Old Testament talks about special architectural requirements for towers so that others would not be able to "look up and see their nakedness". Jesus clarified the problem in the New Testament when he explained that lusting after someone you're not married to is a sin. (And one which I'm sure most men have fallen into at some point or another. That's why we have "Grace" per Jesus's death at the cross.)
:-(
So in short, Adam and Eve became self-conscious about their state of dress after eating the apple, because they were starting to understand the concept of sins and evil.
FWIW, both the museum and the story strike of flamebait. Not much good will come of this. In fact, this whole "war" between science and religion is doing horrendous things to both sides. Let science be science and let religion be religion. Don't try to make religion science and don't try to make science into religion. The former is bad because it misses the possible truths about God's universe. The latter is bad, because science can blind itself to its self-correcting design if those running the show dig their heels in too far.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
It actually comes down to being about free will. The whole point of the story is to point out that humans are not fighting against good and evil, but either choosing God's path or not choosing our own path. It was suppossed to be a choice, and God does not punish us for not choosing him, its that without him we make decisions that hurt each other and ourselves. That's the actual theology of it, for any of you who are interested.
I agree that you can approach it different ways; two of those ways being thematically and literally. As a thematic interpretation, I've got no problem with that take on it (even though I don't share those beliefs)...but we're talking about a group who has claimed to interpret it literally.
As a literal read; God created the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Everlasting Life (yup, two trees, kids!), and told Adam not to eat the fruit or they would die. The snake told Eve that was BS and that God didn't want them to eat the fruit because they would become more like Him.
They ate it. God lied (having said the fruit would kill them), and the snake told the truth (they became more like God). God expelled them from the Garden of Eden (the implication in the text being that He didn't want them eating from the Tree of Everlasting Life) and cursed them to a hard life (that was their punishment).
That's what my Bible says; and I've never heard a creationist/literalist cop to that story.
So, thematically - a useful representation of why one should follow God's path. Literally - a cruel con job on two innocents by someone who owed them better.
I've gotta stop reading this thread. It's driving me nuts...
Running Windows^H^H^H^H^H^H^H OSX and Linux in the home. (I don't have time for Solitaire any more.)
That's no "clarification" at all. I am entirely capable of lusting after a hottie whether she is dressed or not, and capable of viewing a naked person whom I don't find attractive without a bit of lust. (And my hormonal reaction is in no way a "sin", an "error", it is exactly healthy functioning of the male human animal. If one posits some sort of "creator" or designer" of human beings, I'm functioning entirely according to their requirements spec when I see a cute redhead go by and my heart skips a beat. Now, what I do in response to that lust, may be wise or may be stupid...)
We find naked people extra-sexy only because we live in a culture that tells us that nakedness is sexy. Spend a few days in a clothing-optional environment and the excitement quickly dissipates - indeed you may find people wearing sexy clothes more interesting than the naked ones!
The problem is clarifying what is "religion". As long as people try to use religion to understand or explain objective consensual reality, and posit all sort of supernaturalism and superstitions, conflict with science is inevitable. And sadly, that's pretty much the bulk of contemporary mainstream American Christianity.
The reason these people feel threatened is because if you take away this sort of gobbledygook, there's not much left in the religions that they've made the center of their lives.
Meanwhile, you're got people like Unitarian Universalists, Quakers, some of the more contemplative Catholics and Jews, many Western Buddhists, a large percentage of Neopagans, a bunch of Sufis, and others using religious tools of myth, ritual, and contemplation to understand their subjective internal worlds. They know that the question of how old the earth is will not be settled by these means, and is in fact irrelevant to the question of how we should best live our lives.
It's unfortunate that the term "religion" has to be stretched to cover all of these.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
What scares me is not that people believe this stuff, but that people who believe this stuff are getting into public office and passing laws that affect me. I've read more than one message in this thread decrying other posters for speaking out against the Creationist museum. I ask you to please consider your obligation as a US citizen (if you are a US citizen) to participate in the democratic process.
If our elected officials change our government such that it adopts policies in line with Creationist views, and you disagree with those views, it is your right -- your obligation -- to express your contrary opinion in spoken and written form, as well as in the voting booth. The mere existence of a Creationist museum scares me because it means that there are enough voters to push our government in what I feel is a bad direction. The Creationists have a right to have the museum and express their views. But I have a right, and a duty, to express my views that they are mistaken, to argue against their beliefs.
Here's a thought experiment to illustrate my point: Imagine that all medical research and treatment, everywhere in the US from now on, had to adhere to strict supervision by a board of politicians and clergy with fundamentalist views. Now wait 100 years. What do you think the state of US medical technology would be in such a case?
1) How does one express an epic level eye roll in text?
2) I am the only one that thinks that they put this thing in Kentucky because they think that everyone there is an inbred hill billy who won't know any better? (Not saying that everyone from Kentucky *is* an inbred hill billy but that the people who put the museum there think this)
3) Haven't we figured out by now religion and science don't mix? Copernicus, Galileo, Da Vinci, and who knows who else?
4) Umm....the book of Genesis doesn't exactly print out a recipe for world building and population. If it said something like 2 cups of flour, 1 cup of butter.....bake at 350 for 20 minutes, I might be willing to buy this. But the fact of the matter is that it doesn't. Instead it gives us a big allegorical story and makes all sorts of references about the fact that time for God doesn't pass like it does for us humans. I myself see no conflict between evolution and religion. They are answers to separate questions - Why and How.
5) Am I the only one that finds it odd that a bunch of nutballs who don't even bother to read their own holy book swear that the it is the literal word God even though it was originally written in Aramaic, translated in to Hebrew, then to Latin, then to Greek, and the back to Latin, and then to English? And that's a best case scenario for most of the books of the "Bible".
6) Am I the only one who really questions the validity of the King James version, the one that most of the swear is "true and correct"? King James had all sorts of things tucked into his translation that supported his divine right to rule. It was politically motivated and PAID FOR by a King - as in "You didn't do what I said. Off with his head!" kind of a King at that.
7) What about the places where the Bible contradicts itself? Since its the literal word of God, that makes God wrong and since God is infallible, he can't be wrong, therefore - using their own logic - God did not write the Bible OR God isn't God.
Oh, but we can ignore all of the historical facts because we have "faith".
2 cents,
QueenB.
HDGary secures my bank
So are you against all fiction books, cartoons and television?
There's a big difference --- the producers and consumers of Bugs Bunny, James Bond, and Star Wars don't promote those things as being real and don't attempt to substitute events depicted therein for science. It is understood that they are strictly entertainment.
Whether it's a movie or a religion that's false, neither of them are really harming you, personally... I wouldn't think.
Ask Salman Rushdie about that.
Evo has not been demonstrated making large-scale complicated life-forms under full, controlled, and repeatable observation.
And gods have been so demonstrated? I must have missed that one.
Incrimental changes do not necessarily equal large changes.
Incremental changes times a million generations do.
Making a beak grow larger is not the same as making brains and immune systems.
Why?
"Time ate my homework" is not good enough.
Actually, it is. In fact, it is the central concept that makes evolution work and that's why the current crop of fairytale believers are so keen to deny deep-time and push the young earth nonsense. They know that the one thing that does make evolution possible - and obviously possible to even fairly dull people - is the huge timescales geologists uncovered in the late 1700s and early 1800s. If they can get people to doubt that then they can shift them off evolution, science, and rational thought, and get them to post money for quack miracles performed on daytime TV. Which, ultimately is what all organised religion is about when you get down to it.
Time, in this case, not only ate your homework, it is your homework.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Not all religions promote falsehoods either.
Name one.
The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
Having said that, the scientific community is typically quite open to new ideas and concepts when they are put forth in a rational fashion. The issue comes when there is significant disproof of a concept, and yet its proponents insist on being given "fair treatment". A prime example is the current fear of "electrosensitivty", where people are convinced that Wifi/mobile phones etc are giving them headaches and so forth. The idea was actively investigated and it was found that, although many patients suffered real symptoms, they were not correlated to the presence of microwave radiation, and the idea was largely dismissed. However there is still a growing group of 'sufferers' who claim that their problems need to be investigated, that the scientific community is ignoring them, and so forth. People with an entrenched opinion tend to only see the surveys which support their cause, while work which investigates their argument but does not support it often ends up getting dismissed out of hand (often as part of a conspiracy of some sort).
As a Christian, I've been dreading the opening of this museum. It can only undermine what little dwindling respect remains for the Bible and for God.
Not all Christians believe the King James Version is a perfect literal translation, and therefore that earth was created in less than a literal week. Some of us are at least willing to accept that the ancient word translated "day" in Genesis has more possible translations than "a 24 hour period", and dinosaurs never walked among humans.
Another example: their model of the ark isn't just unrealistic, it's unscriptural--the Bible clearly states the ark of the flood was box-shaped. Sure, this might seem like a petty point compared to some of the more obvious and scientific blunders, but it only goes to support the point that this museum is more interested in pandering to neo-Christian tradition than explaining Bible truth.
Nice "spycology" there, bringing up "transposing" of feelings. Projection is the term you want, but it is not the all purpose "I'm rubber, you're glue" kind of rejoinder you're making it out to be. I suggest you read some more books on "spycology" before trying to apply it in a debate. In any case, its a transparent attempt at poisoning the well.
Sorry, but it IS the same science that makes cars, TVs, and all our modern conveniences that says the universe is a certain age. You are no scientist and have no understanding of science. It all hangs together in a vast web of interrelations. If one part of that web were false, it would have ripple effects on all of the rest of science. You can't just isolate the part that says the universe is X years old from the part that, say, lets us make televisions.
No one hates you for your religious views. Get over your Christian persecution complex. Christians control this country and dominate the political and social landscape. You people are not persecuted. We think your religion is stupid, and we think people shouldn't pay any attention to it. That is not the same as hating you.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Hitler was a Christian. Science does not take away any meaning to life. Religion does not bring any meaning to life. You are free to create your own meaning, using religion, science, or anything else you find. No one is forcing any opinions on you. Disagreement is not force. Torturing someone until they recant their beliefs and agree to yours is force, and science has never done that. We think your beliefs are incorrect and foolish. Saying so is not forcing anything on you. You are free to say otherwise, and believe whatever you like. You do not have the right to force us to keep quiet.
You are free to leave the discussion, to ask that people refrain from insults (and saying "I don't believe you" IS NOT an insult, sorry), and to state your opinions.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
The writers of the bible claimed to be inspired by God, but no part of the Bible actually constitutes God's word, not even when Jesus speaks, as our minds rarely remember quotes exactly, and not a single book of the Bible was written by Jesus. I'm tired of the extremists from both sides telling me I can't accept the morality of Jesus without accepting every insane 4000-year-old metaphor given by people who had no word to literally explain what happened even if they knew.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
5) Am I the only one that finds it odd that a bunch of nutballs who don't even bother to read their own holy book swear that the it is the literal word God even though it was originally written in Aramaic, translated in to Hebrew, then to Latin, then to Greek, and the back to Latin, and then to English? And that's a best case scenario for most of the books of the "Bible".
Wow. I'm not sure I've ever seen a more fundamentally ignorant statement on Slashdot. This translational game of telephone that you're proposing is divorced from all history. Textual transmission is nothing like what you're suggesting. Our English translations are not obtained from Latin texts; they are obtained from the original languages (Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic).
The Old Testament:
Originally written in Hebrew, except for three or four small sections written in Aramaic. The main Hebrew manuscripts we have now is called the Masoretic text, compiled by the Masoretes in the 9th & 10th centuries. It's a Hebrew manuscript, and does not come from any translational lineage. We also have the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament written before the time of Jesus.
The New Testament:
Originally written in Greek. We have that Greek. (We have many manuscripts copied at different times, some dating back to the second century.) We also have the early Latin translation called the Vulgate, but the Greek manuscripts we have did not come from the Vulgate. We have both. We also have some other early translations (e.g. into coptic/Egyptian language).
Now, there are some who think that the NT was originally in Aramaic. This is highly unlikely for much of the NT, written as letters to Greek Christians throughout the Roman empire. It may be more reasonable for the Gospels, and some of the letters written to primarily Jewish Christians. Hey, Luke's gospel account starts out with a statement that he'd sought out many witnesses as his research, and it's entirely likely that some of that was Aramaic.
So even granting Aramaic primacy for all the NT, the chain for the NT is Aramaic-->Greek. We have that Greek. For the OT, it's just Hebrew (with a little bit written in Aramaic). We have that, too. For both, we also have various later translations, but those translations are not part of the lineage that we have now. For instance, there is no Latin in the lineage of our OT manuscripts at all--that was a ridiculous error. (I.e., our Greek manuscripts are copied from earlier Greek manuscripts, back to the originals.) The English translations are from the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, with no lineage of translation except possibly Aramaic-->Greek.