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.
You know, it didn't HAVE to take 5 seconds to queue the comments... it could very easily be scientifically explained how the comments came about in only .5 seconds... you're so narrow-minded.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
Eve was naked until she ate from the tree of knowledge, at which point she made herself a skirt with leaves.
They fail at bible accuracy, in a frikkin bible museum!
You can't take the sky from me...
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.
Better be prepared!
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
This museum was built by godless atheists who want to profit from true believers!
Badass Resumes
I couldn't tell from their pics; did their Adam model have a belly button?
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Doesn't sound like it was very intelligently designed
buh-da-chingWell, back to rejecting software patent applications.
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
jesus christ! what an abomination.
I read in an illustrated book how this big guy with an S on his shirt turned coal into a diamond by holding the coal and merely pressing his hands together. That took seconds. So maybe coal could be made in weeks. I think too in a similar book, there was this guy who lived with dinosaurs on a hidden island. So maybe man did, or does live with dinosaurs. I mean, I saw these things in print. they must be true.
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!
How cool would it be if the Flat Earth Society opened a similar, though less expensive, attraction right next door. Even if somebody just put up a sign for it, it would be so poignant.
On the other side of their building, we could have a "global warming" museum..... Oh, crap. This is slashdot. I am about to get modded down into oblivion.
"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
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
I've been thinking a lot about this ever since I first heard about the Creation Museum, and I find myself powerfully troubled and conflicted -- not over its content, which I know exactly where I stand on -- but over my intense desire to decry this "museum" as an utter abomination. I have always tried to endorse tolerance and understanding, and I've always let people believe whatever they want.
But I have a big, big problem when it comes to the public actions of those believers. 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?
I don't know what to do. I fully believe in Voltaire's classic quotation on freedom of speech and belief. But in this instance, I find myself thoroughly unwilling to defend the "Creation Museum's" right to make up whatever crazy "facts" they want. It's the first time I find myself wanting to "think of the children" who may very well grow up into the willfully ignorant bible beaters that are founding this "museum."
And yet there I am, suddenly the intolerant monster I have never been able to stand. Yet I tremble to imagine a future dark ages in America, where real science -- the search for the evidence of the reality of the universe -- is stoned in the streets and systematically rubbed out.
Please: before you mod me into oblivion, I want to hear everyone's thoughts on this subject.
Limina.Log
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.
Speaking as a Frenchman, that such a museum has been conceived and built is mind-boggling, in a bad way. It reflects poorly on the american educational system. It shows how far fundamentalists can go to counter Reason in a way that hasn't been seen in France for centuries.
~~~ Paf. Le chien.
...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)."
I notice they're not closed for Jewish holidays. As a jewish person, I always find that interesting.
I look at it this way:
It's generally frowned upon to brand idiots. However, if you can encourage them to brand themselves, then it makes it easy for the rest of us to avoid them. In this spirit, I'd encourage anyone who visits this museum to buy the t-shirt, and wear it proudly...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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!
... That I went to a strict Catholic school, had Jesuits as science teachers, and Creation was relegated to Religion hour? In class, it was Darwin or bust, the Earth was some 5 billions years old, and nobody questioned evolution. Ever. And those who taught were priests.
I once asked my biology teacher (Jesuit) about the Bible's recount of the Creation. Answer: "The Bible was written by men, and inspired by God. Do you think He could have gone to some Bronze Age guys and told them about atoms, mass-energy equivalence, aminoacids and DNA? That was Abraham and company He was talking to, not Mr Spock."
You folks need some of these Jesuits types, methinks.
That's what I say. I am naked even as I type this message.
intolerance is evil
intolerance of intolerance is actually good
in fact, to meet a fundamentalist, and for them to call you intolerant, as in, hypocritically intolerant, is actually a badge of achievement
because you are not hypocritically intolerant if you are intolerant of them
because what they don't understand is that fundamentalism is true intolerance, and therefore to be intolerant of that is actually to strive in the direction of more tolerance
intolerant: "because you are not a true christian/ true muslim, i am better than you" =evil
intolerance of intolerance: "because you consider yourself better than me based on your religious bigotry, i am intolerant of you" =good
intolerance can be predicated on a number of characteristics of a person that is not intolerant in and of themselves: race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.
intolerance can also be predicated on someone else's intolerance: not tolerating their intolerance of someone because of race, religion, seuxla orientation, etc.
so you can judge any tolerance in question as to what it is opposed to. and if it is opposed to some inherently nonintolerant feature of a person, it is true intolerance. but if it is opposed to an intolerant feature of the person themselves, it is not intolerance, it is a form of tolerance, because it directed against real intolerance
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
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
I'm definitely not a creationist, but don't think for a minute that psuedo- and anti-science is limited to religious zealots.
Look at all the things that people buy into today, particularly in Europe, such as homeopathy, reflexology, chiropractics, magnet therapy, colonics, yadda yadda. How many people believe that irradiated strawberries are radioactive? How many people sit around worrying about the "toxins" in the body? How many people belive that Feng Shui increases the positive "energy" in a room?
Just because someone hurt your feelings by attacking your precious religion, you don't need to come around appealing to people's emotions by crying that someone is "attacking your freedom". How lame is that?
I don't smack people around for believing in god, and I don't smack them around for smoking 3 packs of cigarettes a day. I do, however, think both are without reason and terribly stupid things to do. I will probably spend the rest of my days criticizing both behaviors (my freedom, as it were), and doubt I will ever be bothered in the least about you crying into your pillow at night.
Religions promote falsehoods in that they foster environments of non-scientific thought, or more precisely, they foster lack of thought. This lack of thought is the antithesis of all human progress as we know it and we'd probably still sitting in our own shit if it prevailed. The same science that invented everything around you is the same science that shows the earth to be 4b years old, the universe to be upwards of 13+b years old, and so on. The foundations of the medicine you and your children take, the cancer treatments your mother takes, the emergency treatment given to your father when he got into an accident when he was 17, are of the science that show the bible to be wrong on many accounts.
Of course, the worst part is that now many people are starting to move from "literal" interpretations of the bible to more "story" based, or metaphorically based. This is the only thing that _could_ happen when underlying texts of a religion start failing, because had it not happened the religion would have vanished. (Sort of like the anthropic principle for religions?).
One of the reasons that [most] scientists (those who believe in the scientific method as the surest method to get as close as possible to truth) find certain religious people insufferable is that they attempt to assign their own meanings to words which already have plenty of meanings, thank you.
I understand that what you mean is "I believe that God exists", just as a scientist would say "I believe that quantum entanglement exists". But that's not what you're saying. And as long as you say what you don't mean, then you will be alienating those who do.
Others have said similar things to you, so this comment is somewhat redundant. But none of the other comments explain what the root problem is, and most of them are quite rude - which is fun, but not conducive to communication.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Sorry. The evolutionists are wrong. The creationists are wrong too.
The world came into being when I woke up this morning. It'll end after I fall asleep tonight.
I'll create a new one while I sleep. Hell, I've been doing it for the past thirty-odd years. I'm getting pretty good at it.
I'm even creative enough that I've given it multiple back-stories.
Shit, I should write this up in a novel.
*Big*Fscking*Grin*
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
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
This is how the debate between sound science and "intelligent design" looks from the sidelines. Note here that we replace the theory that life was created by an intelligent designer {who logically must have been created by a more intelligent designer, and so forth, since any mechanism which would account for the spontaneous generation of an intelligent designer must be capable of spontaneously generating life} with the theory that all roses are red. This has little bearing on the quality of the debate.
IDist: All woses are wed.
Scientist: No they aren't. Look. Produces white rose A white rose.
IDist: That is obviouthly not a wose. All woses are wed. That flower is white. Therefore it cannot be a wose.
Scientist: It is a rose. A white rose. Performs some unspecified test which demonstrates that the white flower indeed belongs to the genus Rosa.
IDist: Well, OK then, I acthept that it may be a wose, but you still haven't dithpwoved my theowy. Even you must surely have to admit that it is sort of a bit wed-ish. No, it's not a white rose -- it's just a vewy pale wed wose. You still haven't dithpwoved my theowy. All woses are wed!
Scientist: Now you're just talking bollocks.
IDist: Waaaah! You used a naughty word! Well, that just pwoves it, doesn't it? All woses are wed. I win! Come on, mummy, buy me an ithe cweam!
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
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.
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.
> The world came into being when I woke up this morning. It'll end after I fall asleep tonight. ...
:)
> I'll create a new one while I sleep. Hell, I've been doing it for the past thirty-odd years. I'm getting pretty good at it.
>
> Shit, I should write this up in a novel.
Why not just wake up tomorrow in a world where you've already written it?
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
Cafeteria Christianity is a pejorative term, used in general to describe individual Christians or Christian churches who selectively follow or believe in the doctrines of their religion, particularly what the Bible states as being the word or will of God. The use of the term suggests that the believers being so described are not as legitimate as other Christians. As cafeteria style means to pick-and-choose, as in choosing what food to purchase from a cafeteria line, the implication of the term "Cafeteria Christianity" is that the individual's professed religious belief is actually a proxy for their personal opinions rather than a genuine interpretation of or spiritual relationship with Christian doctrine or the teachings of Jesus. The selectivity implied may relate to the acceptance of Christian doctrines (such as creationism and the virgin birth of Jesus) or Biblical morality and ethical prohibitions (e.g. a rejection of homosexual acts and dietary laws) and is often associated with discussions concerning the applicability of Old Testament laws to Christians and the Sermon on the Mount.
The label "Cafeteria Christianity" has been used both to encourage more conformity with Biblical teachings and to advocate for less. When used by Conservative Christians, it is often an expression of a preference for a more literal and uniform approach to the Bible, rather than the carefree do-what-you-want theology preferred (as some see it) by Liberal Christians. The term in this sense thus expresses contempt for those viewed as lax in their Christianity.
It is also used by some Christians and skeptics to undermine the advocacy of particular Christian precepts by pointing out the supposed inconsistency of the advocate's position. The logic of such a usage is that someone who has rejected one supposed command of God has little room to argue that another such command should be followed. Thus these individuals observe that some Christians are more than willing to condemn certain behavior on Biblical grounds and yet do not themselves adhere to the Bible in its totality, i.e. a charge of hypocrisy. For an example, see An Atheist argument on Cafeteria Christianity. The counter argument is usually that, according to the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 (as well as some Paul's letters), Gentile Christians are not obliged to keep the entire Old Testament Law.
The term Cafeteria Catholic (also à la carte Catholic or CINO = "Catholic In Name Only") is a pejorative or an insulting characterization and is used to describe people who dissent from certain teachings of the Roman Catholic Church while maintaining an identity as Catholics. These people are said to view the Church much like a "cafeteria", where one picks and chooses only those items that appeal to them. The term is typically applied to those who blatently dissent from selected Catholic moral teaching on issues such as abortion, contraception, premarital sex, and homosexuality. The term is less frequently applied to those who dissent from other Catholic moral teaching on issues such as social justice, capital punishment, or just war. Groups labeled as such include Call to Action, FutureChurch, DignityUSA, and Catholics for a Free Choice. Some of those who employ the term in their vocabulary accuse those who view the term pejoratively of believing dissent from the constant teaching of the Church to be a form of devoutness.
It should be noted that the this epithet is not created, used, or endorsed by official church teaching. However, the practice of selective adherence to the magisterium of the church has been repeatedly condemned through the teaching of the Popes:
* In a homily delivered on April 18, 2005, Pope Benedict XVI clarified the relation of dissent to faith:
Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
>Not all religions promote falsehoods either.
>>Name one.
Scientology!
barack to the future?
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.