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?
Doesn't sound like it was very intelligently designed
buh-da-chingWell, back to rejecting software patent applications.
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.
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!
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.
I think it is better to argue that human corruption of faith is the underpinnings behind such misadventures. Furthermore, I would argue that in these instances, faith was the vehicle, the gullible nature of humans was the road and the corrupted "leaders" were the drivers.
Science COULD have the same effect on making people do seemingly illogical things. See the Milgram Experiments for reference. I would argue that if everyone ditched religion for science, it is inevitable that someone would use science in the same way to corrupt people into achieving their agenda.
A hypothesis is not the same thing as a belief. The difference is just as you said: when a scientist has a hypothesis, he does everything in his power to try and prove that his hypothesis is wrong (i.e he "tests it"). Compare that to when a religious person has a belief, and he does everything in his power to prevent people from proving it wrong.
but don't think believing something w/o proof is wrong in any way
It is if you refuse to reconcile your beliefs with the facts. Ask any Christian Scientist whose child died for lack of a blood transfusion.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Paraphrasing Contact:
Palmer: Did you love your father?
Ellie: Yes.
Palmer: Prove it.
We know all sorts of things. Our knowledge is vast, but compared to the infinity of space, insignificant. If nothing else, quantum physics teaches us that there are many gray areas, where things are not as cut-and-dried as they seem. Belief and/or faith in something without scientific proof is not the death of Mankind -- belief and/or faith in something when the evidence before contradicts that belief/faith is where the madness lies.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
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.
u-bend
I can't believe this was modified "insightful" and I also can't believe I'm bothering to reply, but here goes.
These people aren't trying to disprove their theories, they're trying to find explanations that fit them. They therefore ignore all the data that supports the opposing view and weasel their way into a contorted version of reality where it's possible for these things to be the case. The science is based on (at best) invalid assumptions and (at worst) deliberate lies.
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?).
A "hypothesis" that cannot be proved wrong also cannot be proved correct, and therefore isn't a hypothesis. See Merriam-Webster, definition 2.
All Your Memory Are Belong To Java
This extra condition - made with little or no real reason beyond the Word or what have you - makes a world of difference in the scientific picture. I don't have the knowledge of geology to critique an explanation of the formation of the Grand Canyon in any detail (Well, provided its in any way coherent. But lets assume it's somewhat reasonable), so I won't bother asking for citations or the like, but I would expect that the need for the Grand Canyon to be created in a short time frame featured pretty heavily in the development of the theory.
By comparison, consider that not so long ago, suggesting the world was "old" was breaking the status quo in a massive way, going against both the religious and scientific establishments. People did not do this without a reason, and it took a significant amount of evidence from many fields to build a convincing argument for the case. It begs the question - why would people do this if there was a "simpler" young earth explanation? It can't have been the vast old-earth athiest conspiracy, since such a thing presumably didn't exist before people considered the idea of an old earth in much detail.
Preconceived notions are a significant weakness if anyone is serious about the scientific method, and any theory based around them should, I feel, be viewed with at least a touch of skepticism
Here's something we're not "making up as we go:" radiocarbon dating. Something the young earth creationists like to jump on is that it's "only" accurate up to ~60,000 years. That is true, but aren't they claiming the earth is only ~6,000 years old? We can date man made things back to a time before the Earth was created... which makes no sense if you assume man was created on Earth (and I certainly don't see these people suggesting that we're the product of a curious alien entity experimenting with creating life). People are trying to show that the grand canyon could have been created in hours? Alright, well I'm sure they could also try to show that the sky could be blue because someone got up there and painted it instead of being due simply to Raleigh scattering.
So they might be trying to prove their theory (anyone else think it's funny that they seem to feel the need to prove their beliefs to others using the same methods used by those they claim to hate for using methods that confuse and lead people astray from the clear truth of the Almighty?) but that doesn't shield them from comments or even ridicule from the outside. Scientists even ridicule other scientists when they come up with harebrained ideas. In the case of the young earth creationists, I have to agree with those that mock them and their attempts. These people are trying to prove a "theory" that takes more than a few liberties with the truth and is based on a premise that is demonstrably false.
Of course, I'm sure in response to evidence that the planet is older than 6,000 years they'll simply say God sucked out enough carbon-14 (whether as part of the creation process or to purposefully throw us off - by the way, why does anyone want to believe in a God that purposefully deludes us in an attempt to keep us ignorant?) to make it seem like things are much older than they are. There is the problem we evil science lovers have with these God issues. We could have a mountain of evidence and even God himself come down and tell them they're all morons, and they would still not believe and call our presentation of God a hoax (humorously, they'd probably say it was some trick of the devil trying to condemn them to Hell for believing in science). Part of the scientific process is peer review which includes others smacking you and your beliefs down when they clearly prove you are wrong. How can that process function when you can have a "God" response to every counterclaim?
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
"It is inevitable that someone would use science in the same way to corrupt people into achieving their agenda."
I'm pretty sure I've already seen this happen. The scientists involved usually seem to be unconcerned with the corruption of scientific principles. I've spoken with a microbiologist who was unconcerned, and he said that it was important for the most intelligent people to make all the decisions. To this end, he reasoned that people who were easily swayed by flawed science were rightly manipulated by scientists who deliberately misrepresented their findings. His aim was to become a public policy maker.
The view that most people aren't smart enough to make the best decisions for themselves is very troubling to me. It is one that I have heard many people express to me when they felt I would be like minded. Based on my personal experiences, I have concluded that most people feel this way (including most scientists).
People should be careful not to delude themselves into thinking that religion causes this kind of mass manipulation. It is always caused by people thinking they are smart enough to make decisions for others.
Copernicus was a Roman Catholic who was encouraged by his bishop to spread his research about heliocentrism. Galileo ran into trouble because of remarks he made about the hope - politics was the problem, not science. I don't recall Da Vinci running into any problems re: science and religion and he is recorded as wanting to die catholic with confession etc. If you take a look at two of the greatest ever scientist, Faraday and Maxwell, you'll see that they were evangelical Christians who played in active role in teaching the Bible in their local churches. Alister McGrath, the previous principle of Wycliffe College, the theological college of Oxfod University, got his first PhD in Biophysics. A large proportion of Christian students in Oxford are scientists, medics, mathematicians and engineers.
Try telling them that Christianity and science don't mix.
Wow, no sweeping generalisations or assumptions there.
Actually, the OT was written in Hebrew and the NT in Greek, with a handful of Aramaic. Translations have been made into a variety of languages over the years, but when a new translation is made, people don't take the most recent translation in another language then put it into their own; they take the most reliable Greek and Hebrew manuscripts and start over from them. seriously, read the translation notes from something like the NIV or the English Standard Version and see how absurd your allegation is. Modern translations are superior to older ones because we have more and better manuscripts available and are better at translating them.
Where do you get the idea that most people swear the KJV is the only true and correct version? There are quite a few vocal people about it, but most churches use one out of NIV, NRSV, ESV, NASB, NLT and serious scholars end to recommand translations like NASB and ESV.
Sure, if we go along with your false dichotomy that anything you think is a contradiction must be a contradiction and the explanations of those who know the Bible better, have studied it considerably more and arrive at a different conclusion are clearly wrong.
Pot. Kettle. Black. Do some research.
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.