Slashdot Mirror
Creationism Conference at Michigan State University Stirs Unease
sciencehabit writes "A creationist conference set for a major research campus — Michigan State University (MSU) in East Lansing — is creating unease among some of the school's students and faculty, which includes several prominent evolutionary biologists. The event, called the Origins Summit, is sponsored by Creation Summit, an Oklahoma-based nonprofit Christian group that believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible and was founded to "challenge evolution and all such theories predicated on chance." The one-day conference will include eight workshops, according the event's website, including discussion of how evolutionary theory influenced Adolf Hitler's worldview, why "the Big Bang is fake," and why "natural selection is NOT evolution." News of the event caught MSU's scientific community largely by surprise. Creation Summit secured a room at the university's business school through a student religious group, but the student group did not learn about the details of the program—or the sometimes provocative talk titles — until later.
Why isn't there a designated place for bullshit like this?
So don't go. Let them wallow in their beliefs.
Sounds like a good grounds to reconsider and reject them to me. Give them a refund and tell them to go book a venue elsewhere.
BACKDOOR STRATEGY
We may have been banned from the classroom,
but banned does not mean silenced. By book-
ing the speakers, and renting the facilities, we
still have an impact.
Creation Summit is visiting major college and
university campuses throughout the country,
bringing world renowned scientists before the
students. Scientists with tangible proof and
viable evidence. Many, for the first time ever,
are discovering that the Bible is true – That
science and Genesis are in total agreement,
and if Genesis 1:1 can be trusted . . . . .
so can John 3:16.
http://www.creationsummit.com/
I think everyone should read Ecclesiastes, it affirmed my lack of belief in Christian dogma. (or any religion)
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
"including discussion of how evolutionary theory influenced Adolf Hitler's worldview"
It is called social Darwinism. The rich are rich because the are better than the poor, eugenics, forced sterilization of people with low IQs,physical disabilities, and anti social problems.
It is a perversion of science but one that makes sense to a frighteningly large number of people. It does not have anything to do with biological evolution really except that humans have become a very powerful evolutionary pressure for a lot of species including ourselves.
Evolution does not have a goal except to reproduce which is by nature amoral. To use it as a moral or social guide is actually immoral.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
The concern is over the appropriateness of the venue. Since Creationists by and large reject major branches of science, allowing them to have a "conference" at a university seems wildly inappropriate.
As to refuting the Creationist's claims, some people have dedicated years just to that; www.talkorigins.org
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
challenge evolution and all such theories predicated on chance.
Do they have even the slightest understanding of the theory of evolution? At all?
discussion of how evolutionary theory influenced Adolf Hitler's worldview
Ah, Godwin.
why "the Big Bang is fake,"
And, I'm sure, also why the 6-days explanation is therefore true...
and why "natural selection is NOT evolution.
I wonder exactly how far their concession here goes.
These guys are really making a laughing stock of Christianity.
A fantasy convention wouldn't be spun as reality.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I say there are really 3 valid responses to creationists for an atheist.
1. Ignore them. It's a waste of time.
2. Listen to their premises and reject them for being logically inconsistent.
3. Listen to them and convert.
Getting uneasy and yelling at them is a serious waste of time. It won't get you anywhere. It also make you look like a jerk.
Let them believe what they want. It OK to have a debate, but if they start getting belligerent then respectfully remove yourself from the conversation.
I follow those guidelines for all free exchanges of ideas. I doubt MSU will allow this to get out of control. There is a lot of things that happen at my university that I don't agree with, but they don't affect me, so I let it go.
Very good point.
So what? It is use of a publicly available space. No matter how bizarre their beliefs, these folks have a right to assemble and speak (assuming they paid the rental fees!).
If the conferences are open to the public, then the appropriate thing to do would be to attend and laugh. Treat it like the comedy club act that it is, and get a good chuckle. If question and answer is permitted, follow the rules of proper debating and ask reasoned questions. Bonus points if you are actually a believer and use biblical/theological sources to tear apart the spurious claims of these extremists.
Opposing views on hot-button issues should not get the same access to facilities as approved views. Scientists know what's best for you. They will tell you what you need to know.
This reminds me of Chess. The idea that an entirely un-sound opening, still requires some level of expertise to refute. I think it is a good point. To me that was one of the big dividing lines between someone who is educated regarding Chess vs a casual player. That a person could at least understand that concept, even if not actually refute such openings.
The problem with this statement is it presupposes the need to treat what are essentially ridiculous theories which fly in the face of science as if they were a legitimate opposing viewpoint which should be considered.
This is blatantly denying actual science to prop up your own religious beliefs.
And that is not something you do in a university.
If you want a venue to have your creationist aired, go to your church.
No, because the creationists are essentially irrational people who simply say "I reject your reality and science and substitute my own hocus pocus".
You can't intellectually refute someone who doesn't actually rely on logic or facts. At all. And giving them the benefit of debating them is pointless.
They have no evidence other than their belief, which is in opposition to observable facts.
You might as well have a reasoned discussion with a two year old.
Facts and logic are completely irrelevant to people who understand neither, and assume that the things they believe hold as much value as things which we can prove.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
I don't care if MSU holds a anti-science conference... It's their freedom of choice in the same way that I have the freedom to be just a little bit prejudiced against any MSU alumni when I am evaluating the resumes/CVs of job candidates.
No sig. Move along - nothing to see here.
I think I've found the place to book my next neo-Nazi homeopathic phrenology conference.
I will relish the day when this religious insanity is a unfashionable as stone washed jeans from the 80's.
"cogent counter-arguments" are useless against people whose mental illness centers on the rejection of reason.
but since when it is a university's job to censor stupidity?
Let the conference go on, and have a good laugh at it.
Once upon a time, universities were places where ideas could compete, and the, um, fittest ideas would survive. Maybe not any more.
The difference is that people at a fantasy convention recognize and understand fantasy.
From TFA:
University officials say they have no plans to interfere with the event. “Free speech is at the heart of academic freedom and is something we take very seriously,” said Kent Cassella, MSU’s associate vice president for communications, in a statement. “Any group, regardless of viewpoint, has the right to assemble in public areas of campus or petition for space to host an event so long as it does not engage in disorderly conduct or violate rules. While MSU is not a sponsor of the creation summit, MSU is a marketplace of free ideas.”
The university is going to let the crackpots say whatever they like, and then ignore them. Which is as it should be.
Well, FWIW, YEC creationists make a host of very falsifiable statements, both on science and biblical hermeneutics. I suppose a university could, if they wished, host a forum devoted to 9/11 trutherism, but I would not hold them in disregard if refused. Now, I do have a problem with universities only choosing the wackiest alternatives to the established scientific consensus, and letting them represent everyone of faith. Some of us believe in the Big Bang and evolution, but we are never the ones elected to debate guys like Richard Dawkins. Just the crackpots.
You can't play chess if your opponent insists on playing checkers with the same pieces. There are rules that govern rational debate; through the correct application of these rules we can come closer to the truth. If one side doesn't follow the rules (for instance, they consider "but it says in the bible that x" a valid argument), a debate is impossible. That's why you can't debate creationists: they're not playing by the same rules.
OK. Except you left out a bunch and kinda reworded to fit your model.
In the real story, God created light, then 4 days later created the stars and our sun. Oops.
Plants were made on the third day, before there was sunlight to support them.
And yep, animals were created before plants in the bible. Exactly the opposite of what happened. What did all those herbivores eat? Remember, according to creationists all life were herbivores till after the flood. Oops.
The list of mistakes is a mile long.
Mike @ The Geek Pub. Let's Make Stuff!
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)
I mostly agree with you, but still think the University should approach these kinds of groups a little differently. Bringing the Creation Summit organization into a debate or similar venue with the university's biologists / geologists / etc. would be a fine idea. But just giving the group a pulpit to spout their garbage unopposed is not very appropriate, IMHO. Religious groups tend to target impressionable people such as college students and military personnel, and I don't think major universities should be helping them do this.
An open debate would be a great idea though.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
You cannot formulate a logical argument against something that is not based on logic.
If someone walked up to and said that the theory of general relativity was developed by goats, and refused to knowledge any evidence to the contrary, then they cannot be reasoned with because they have refused to see reason.
Creationism is not based on facts, evidence, or logical thinking, but by pure faith and conjecture. They believe creationism to be true because they believe the bible to be true. No where in that line of thought is there room for a logical debate.
"There are lies, there are damn lies, and there are statistics"
Are you kidding? Did you see Bill Nye tear Ken Ham to ribbons?
The problem is deeper than that. When God has told you how things are, you are free to ignore inconvenient things like facts.
Don't take life too seriously; it isn't permanent.
Except YEC creationism explicitly rejects this. They reject a poetic, metaphorical reading of Genesis 1 in favor of a literal (and historically novel) interpretation.
Why would anyone want to curtail these peoples' ability to assemble and share their dumb ideas? Public scrutiny is exactly what bad ideas need. The attitude that bad ideas are unsafe and must be silenced is regressive and usually counter-productive. Unfortunately the American University culture is exactly such a regressive culture. While the rhetoric focuses on "free exchange of ideas" the reality is that you're only free to exchange approved ideas. Why is the "creating unease"? Are the students and faculty really so feeble-minded that they're genuinely concerned about other people expressing dumb ideas in their vicinity? I really don't get the issue.
Well yea... if the guy dressed as an orc at comicon really believed he WAS an orc, that would be cause for concern if he was running around with a sword.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
"Natural selection is not evolution" is actually correct. Evolution is the observed fact that species change over time. The fact that evolution has occurred is not really open to debate, unless you're prepared to entertain loony notions like "God put those fossils there to test our faith."
Natural selection is the mechanism that Darwin proposed to explain why/how evolution happens.
Why? The school gets paid and students get to see the opposing view and decide for themselves.
If you have ever had a conversation with creationist it's fairly easy to poke holes in their arguments.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
None, if you're a modal hyperrealist about possible worlds. However, since the death of David Lewis there aren't very many of those left.
"None" is a bit too strong actually, since the number of fantasy convention goers who claim that the reality of, say, Hogwarts is actual rather than merely possible is negligible compared to the number of religious people who claim the existence of some deity or other is actual.
It is impossible to win an argument with someone who defends their delusions with the claim that "God planted the evidence for evolution to tempt you."
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
The biggest problem I see here is if the student body decides to hold a protest or something. It could draw lots of attention and potentially give the cause undeserved credibility. In theory, this could happen no matter where they hosted it, but college activism makes this seem a more likely place for it to happen.
Science plows fertile high ground when it humbly insists that all of its assertions are up for debate and will be constantly changed to adapt to new knowledge. Don't give that up by crowding out contrary views.
Becoming dogmatic in the face of dogmatism means that real problems with biology won't be addressed honestly, such as the taxonomy mess, the mysteriousness of gene expression, etc.
Dance like you're hurt, Love like you need money, and work when somebody's watching.
-Scott Adams
Creation Summit secured a room at the university's business school through a student religious group
So this has nothing to do with science, critical thinking, debate, or academic discussion. This is an 8-topic 1-day masturbation session technically located at a college that can later be rolled into propaganda and touted as a hallmark of the legitimacy of "creation science" despite an overwhelmingly scientific concensus to the contrary. Its sole purpose is to re-enforce validity for communities of homeschooled kids, backwoods churches, and easily exploited students around campus.
This isnt being held in a student center because that would invite public opinion and attract unwelcome and highly critical dissent. Its not being held in a lecture hall because the topic of discussion isnt academic. and it sure as shit doesnt get time in the biosciences buildings because the hardware store would run out of pitchforks before the presenters could ever get approval.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Imagine you're a god, and you have to explain the formation of the universe to illiterate scrub-dwellers with crayon drawings. I might write it the same way.
Yeah really, If it had been Harry Potter or witchcraft seminar, no body would care (actually some of your religious fanatics might). If they pay the rent they should be permitted the venue. We shouldn't care about the content.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I am saddened by these sudden cries for censorship. I should note that I believe in evolution. I believe that most Christians do, too; for example, the Catholic church in the 1950 stated that there was "no intrinsic conflict between Christianity and the theory of evolution". But if someone has a belief that is different from the mainstream, let them present it. If it's convincing, others will believe if. If it's not convincing, they will convince no one else.
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
I mean, do you want to be asked by a prospective employer "Oh, so you went to that school where the coocoo-club gathered?"
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Have they had New Age seminars at these venues? When the nonsense is based on Hinduism, Buddhism, or some other Eastern faith does it make them equally uncomfortable? Just wondering.
Calling a proposition "ridiculous" in no way refutes it. It sounds like you're emoting frustration at not knowing how to engage in a debate on the topic.
Now I think you're starting to zero in on a proper focus of the debate. And if it's debatable, a university may be a reasonable place for the discussion.
You're doing nothing to refute my conjecture that the university community is incapable of rationally debating the creationists' claims.
Simply calling the other party "irrational" in no way invalidates their claims. Remember, the main purpose of a public debate is to convince the audience, not the other debater, that your position is right. If you think the other party holds an irrational view, that should help you, not hurt you, in convincing the audience that you're position is the correct one.
You're going to have a hard time making a concrete case that the creationists are doing that. Every belief system has axioms, including yours. During a debate, you can try to show that a creationists' axioms are unreasonable, or his reasoning from them is flawed, but that kind of discussion is totally appropriate to a university setting.
You're painting with a very broad brush. If I didn't know better, I might conclude that you're incapable of engaging in the debate properly, which absolutely reinforces my main point in my earlier post.
The fantasy convention is not an attack on the University. Nor is the fantasy convention trying to abuse the reputation of the University for it's own gain.
There's a real trademark dilution problem right here that doesn't exist with something like Ogre-Con.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Well, it could stain your reputation, or at least that of your education, quite a bit if your university gets known as "that place where the religious nutjobs found a home".
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
All evidence must be BELIEVED. Don’t you think they should be allowed to present their evidence, if they have any, and then you and others can be the jury as to whether to believe or disbelieve and render a verdict? That is how we do it in courts of law.
A sufficiently advanced simulation is indistinguishable from reality.
Well, being the socialist I am I really want to agree, but can't. There are lunatics everywhere on the political spectrum. They just excel in different areas of idiocy, from "the invisible hand will fix it" right over to "private property is theft".
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Universities teach scientifically baseless things all the time, F'rinstance:
1) Economics
2) Philosophy
3) Theology
4) Psychology for dummies (i.e. psychoanalysis).
5) Political "science"
6) Art
7) Music
8) Theater
9) Sociology
I could go on, but science isn't a prerequisite for being forced to pay to learn a bunch of nonsense.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
- most strangely and remarkably - seems to only happen in the USA. Why ?
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
Even the RomCath decided in the meantime that literal interpretation of the Bible is a no-go and that creation didn't happen 6000something years ago. They still cling to a maker, but they're tentatively embracing the Big Bang theory. They just claim that it was God who pulled the trigger for it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
allowing them to have a "conference" at a university seems wildly inappropriate
The fact that it is a state funded university makes it doubly so.
You must be new here. Do you think that no one has ever asked those people those very kinds of questions? When challenged to present their evidence for their claims, the bible is held up, and presented as "the word of the lord" and "all the evidence anyone would ever need", and then they fall back on "faith as evidence".
You cannot logically argue with asshats. They claim to already have *all the answers* and those answers are contained in the bible. And they believe that without question. They are as radicalized as any Taliban fighter, as any Christian abortion-clinic bomber, as any other ultra-religious nutcase.
You can either ridicule them or ignore them and hope they go away, or stomp them into the ground (like we're trying to do with ISIS), but you can't argue with them because their logic is circular. You might as well attempt arguing with a delusional mental patient.
They are lost causes, once they hold onto those convictions, they never let go, and will not even consider an alternative.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
You cannot checkmate a man who refuses to play chess. IOW, you cannot win a logical argument against those who refuse to acknowledge the rules of logic and the primacy of reality.
more logical and more fun for sure. Bible writers sucked at making stories.
Probably that, despite all the oddity, the cosplay, the heated discussion on whether this or that imaginary figure is more powerful and all the other stuff that appears scary to an outsides, I do not know a SINGLE fantasy geek (over the age of 10, at least) who'd consider anything of his favorite fantasy real, or even having an impact on their life.
Let alone letting their fantasy creation dictate how they should lead their lives...
Huh? Yeah, but the ones that do do get sent to the insane asylum. But that's the big difference here. If I say I have an imaginary friend and he tells me how I have to live my life, I get sent to therapy. Do it with 2000 other idiots and you have a cult, with 2,000,000 you have a religion. And then it's a-ok suddenly for some reason.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The "discussion" as you call it has been going on since Origin of the Species was written. One side of the "discussion" has brought 150 years of scientific research and refinement the other has brought... the bible... or at least some interpretation of it, an interpretation that would have horrified and/or confused most theologian from 2000 BC to 1800 AD.
Don't the creationists have the right to free speech also? This tolerance/acceptance business cuts both ways. Nobody said you had to listen to them just like they probably wouldn't listen to you.
If you wish to engage a religious person into a debate on the relative merits of creationism versus evolution, please, be my guest.
The problem is there is no credible physical evidence to support creationism. None whatsoever, it doesn't exist.
And by the time you are claiming the Earth is 6000 years old, and that evolution is a lie, and that the dinosaur fossils where put there to test your faith ... you are outside reason, logic, discourse, debate, or anything called science.
Which leaves you with sophistry, begging the question, logical shell games, and loudly reiterating that you believe it so it's a valid position.
In other words, not what we would call "rational" from a reasoned discourse and science perspective. If you have no actual evidence for your claims, your claims aren't as equally valid as those of people who actually do have evidence you refuse to see.
Sorry, but it's not my job to frame the question in such a way as you get to pretend to be rational and with a valid point or evidence.
The existence of the Bible is in no way actually evidence for anything in the Bible. Treating it like it is just panders to a set of people who like to think their belief somehow equates to facts.
So, when they're willing to offer facts, or actually engage in a reasoned debate ... maybe we'll consider it. Until such time, I'm afraid I'll stick with irrational, and exhibiting signs of fantasy and wishful thinking.
Or, just drooling idiots for short.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Usually the people at a fantasy convention realize it's all a lie.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
I don't know about the background radiation thing, but we do know that the big bang created a whole lot of hot, dense plasma with incredible amounts of energy (like, say, a whole universe's worth), and since ancient people don't understand energy or plasma, calling it light is not as inaccurate as it could be.
yes, but you're also not trying to "win" the debate as you would a chess game. if your argument speaks to the audience more than your opponents' then you've won.
Youa re usiung the same fallacy which is placing on the same level flat earther versus the rest. You can have all opnion you want - at home or at your church. At a university I expect evidence based studies. NOT opnion. If you want that go to a social study or political U (snark).
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Everything that humans do begins in their mind. Why should that be any different with God? In the Genesis account we read over and over again, “God said”. Speaking is a form of communication from a mind. There is evidence that the human mind can communicate with matter at the quantum level. Why is it not conceivable that an infinitely greater and more powerful mind, the mind of God, could directly create and then influence/control matter by simply sending forth a communication from His mind? Just because we don’t have the foggiest idea how that might work does not automatically make it impossible. There is a lot about reality, especially quantum physics that we don’t know. Richard Feynman, one of the most prominent and famous physicist of our time said this in: The Character of Physical Law (1965), “I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.”
A sufficiently advanced simulation is indistinguishable from reality.
I say go ahead and let it into the science textbooks. However, require that they present only scientific evidence, rather than "Holy Book X said so". The result will be blank page. Let them stare at their blank page. It may wake them up.
If they want to create a "criticism of natural selection" section, I'm perfectly okay with that also. Science involves criticism. But, it should be made clear that gaps in evidence for NS is not automatically evidence for C. "Unknown" is "unknown". The default to a mystery is "unknown", not NS nor C. This "default" issue is often addressed incorrectly as a false dichotomy.
For example, the relatively sudden appearance of so many phyla in the "Cambrian explosion" is a legitimate mystery. So many phyla appearing almost completely without any (established) fossil history is solid puzzle. However, I don't fill in the blank with "god-did-it", but rather a "?", as it should be.
Table-ized A.I.
I thought they were all about 3D printing cute plastic toys and stuff.
Have gnu, will travel.
1) The word "Lucifer" does not exist (cover-to-cover) in most modern and widely-accepted translations of the Bible.
2) "Lucifer" is a Latin word. None of the scriptures were originally written in Latin. Isaiah, who is credited as haven written the singular verse that mentions Lucifer directly, wrote in Hebrew, and hence never wrote the word "Lucifer." The only reason this word entered Christian vocabulary is due to incomplete translations from the Vulgate, rather than from the original scriptures.
3) Isaiah wrote his passage as a long list of honorifics being applied to a very human king (Nebuchadnezzar, specifically). The notion that he was *also* talking about some angel from long ago is a second layer of interpretation that is added to the passage, with no contextual support from the passage itself (nor from any other part of the Bible).
4)The Hebrew word "hay-lel" (used by Isaiah in the disputed passage) means "morning star." The word "Lucifer" means "Light bringer." The equivalence is rough, at best.
5) In the book of revelations, Jesus plainly states "I am the morning star." Is Jesus claiming to be Lucifer?
Would there be so much "unease" about a fantasy convention?
What's the difference?
Honesty.
"You can't intellectually refute someone who doesn't actually rely on logic or facts"
Sure you can. Even if you don't convince them, they still stand refuted. That's the problem, isn't it? You know there is little chance of convincing any of them.
Let's ask what we would like to see. We would like to see them accept mainstream science. (and hopefully realize that there is no conflict between science and faith, but we don't really care about that part.) What's a more likely scenario?
1. All creationists collectively slap foreheads and go "Oh!"
2. Creationism slowly falls apart as they try to apply science to it. (Just like they are attempting to do at MSU.)
To be honest, it sounds like a lot of you are just spoiling for a fight with them.
My first question was, "Did the group *pay* to rent the space for the conference?"
Had to...ahem...RTFA...but buried midway I found this gem:
Creation Summit secured a room at the university’s business school through a student religious group, but the student group did not learn about the details of the program—or the sometimes provocative talk titles—until later, says MSU zoologist Fred Dyer.
Right.
So they got the room by tricking some undergrad student group, then plastered it all over their flyers and website
Give 'em the Boot!
Thank you Dave Raggett
The group tricked their way into getting the space...they didn't rent it through some kind of proper channel
from TFA:
Creation Summit secured a room at the university’s business school through a student religious group, but the student group did not learn about the details of the program—or the sometimes provocative talk titles—until later, says MSU zoologist Fred Dyer.
The group then used the University's name in all their press materials, giving them false credibility.
It's a sham all around....this has nothing to do with academic freedom and everything to do with dirty tricks, half-truths, and manipulation from an allegedly religious group
Thank you Dave Raggett
I disagree. There may not be any discussion in that room, at that time. But that does not prevent discussion, which will continue in many venues. I suspect there will be many other presentations, where opposing points of view will be aired. Debating over valid sources of evidence is nothing new, either.
Preventing the airing of unpopular ideas is its own problem.
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
I don't think literal interpretations were ever part of the Catholic tradition. Even the Hellenic and Roman-era Jews shed many literal interpretations of the Bible in the face of Hellenic learning. For instance, Genesis clearly invokes the Sumero-Akkadian cosmography (which doubtless had spread to many Semitic-speaking peoples in the Middle East at the time), but I doubt you would have found a single learned Jew in the First Century who would have pounded his fist insisting the world was flat. And thus it long was in Judeao-Christian thinking. New learning was adopted, and since everyone tended to be governed by the notion that the Bible and nature could not be conflict, they were quick to decide "I must be reading the Bible wrong."
Actually, among Medieval Jewish, Christian and Muslim scholars, the writings they held in the highest reverence were Aristotle's, and it was Hellenic philosophy that was the lens they viewed the Bible through. Creationism's roots are not deep at all, but rather very young, no older than the 19th century as the Evangelicals and related movements were formed.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I don't see why that should be a problem for having the discussion. I think one trick to having a productive discussing is figuring out where your and the other party's beliefs diverge, and starting the discussion there.
If these creationists reject certain assumptions of working scientists, then maybe the best people to debate the creationists are philosophy-of-science professors, rather than more bread-and-butter science professors. But if a university can't handle that, it's really, really far from the ideals of Plato's academy, and I think that should be a wake-up call.
I see.
Well, then perhaps we should turn the tables then. Let's see how open your local church would be to hosting discussions about evolution.
Better yet, how about we adjust all tax laws for Universities that also host and support religious debates and offer them the same tax-sheltered status that many churches (ab)use today.
Yes, let's see how smooth that two-way street really is.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Creationists have the Right to Free Speech, that's why the American Government can't disqualify them from public office or round them up in camps but no private forum is required to give them stage time.
Example, during the entire Chick-fil-a homosexuality thing both sides retained their First Amendment Rights however due to the private nature of Malls where the stores were only the supporters of the franchise were allowed to set up next to the location, people objecting to the CEO's opinion on homosexuality were relegated to the public land surrounding the Mall. Fair or not it is legal, if you want to change that go ahead and try, but that's the way it is now.
No. If the prevent the presentation, an interviewer might ask, "Oh, you went to that pro-censorship university?"
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
What's obvious from this is that the campus religious group was played by the creationist organization, getting space at a public university vs. some random Baptist church hall in Alabama, to spout their nonsense. They'll then turn around in their next round of PR blather and claim these views were debated, successfully (since I doubt they'll accept any counter-arguments) at said university, so clearly they're valid. The problem is a) the lack of actual debate vs. simply getting up and talking b) the appropriation of the University's name for their future publicity. If I were MSU's front office, I'd be very watchful of the latter for the near future.
Instead of writing off creationism as pseudo-scientific clap-trap, why don't we start referring to it as a sport? Kinda like how curling and checkers are sports. When I was a student at Ohio State, studying computer science, I stayed way away from the campus during every football event. The traffic was a nightmare, and you'd have to park miles away and walk to every game, probably getting a ticket because where you parked was vaguely marked, and Ohio cops will use any excuse to get more ticket revenue. Hell, parking for a football game at the Ohio stadium was in itself a sport on many levels!
Anyhow, so how interested we are in sports, as scientists, varies quite a lot. Some of us care. Some of us could take it or leave it. Either way, a sport is mostly an event of mindless brutes kicking balls around and running into each other. Either that or it's comically painful like curling. Or self destructive like base jumping. So if we start referring to creationism as a sport, we'll be able to be clear about just how we think about it: A generally pointless exercise that makes whoever runs the event an ungodly amount of money. The debate as to whether or not creationism is serious science is about the same as the debate over whether or not it's possible to have a sport that involves ice skating and sweeping at the same time without being reduced to uncontrollable laughter.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Then you would be a particularly stupid deity.
The concern is over the appropriateness of the venue. Since Creationists by and large reject major branches of science, allowing them to have a "conference" at a university seems wildly inappropriate.
As to refuting the Creationist's claims, some people have dedicated years just to that; www.talkorigins.org
The venue is a public university. The venue is appropriate for any group to peaceably assemble and express their views.
Make sure you know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
That's an unreasonable expectation for a capital-A Atheist.
Teach the controversy! Right?
At some point, certain ideas simply need to be put to rest. Flat earthers, people who think storks deliver babies, you name it.
Creationists, by their own admission, will never change their hypothesis due to contradictory evidence. How can you have a debate?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
the State school can't really do anything about it because it would be an obvious case of religious discrimination.
No, it's not religious discrimination (not that it would matter). The subject material is both sensationalized and runs counter to the charter of the school, which is to educate students in science and humanities. This is neither science nor religion, but fake science pretending it is religion. Would you allow a conference on Cold Fusion using Palladium Electrodes if it were set up by the Campus Hindu Society? Any conference which occurs on a campus is somewhat reflective of that campus, even if the event is unrelated (rightly or wrongly). They should ask that the conference be moved - perhaps to a more appropriate location like a church facility?
If students and faculty are really worried about the image of the school, they should just put on a competing event. That is, if they really care that much about it.
And legitimize the conference? No, that would certainly backfire, offering the visibility that this pseudo-science is looking for. Merely engaging them is an admission that they hold an arguable point. It's the last thing they should do.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
these frauds will certainly try to associate themselves with the university in order to gain an illusion of legitimacy. Otherwise, they would have held it at a local church.
How about a Cold Fusion conference in the Physics department? A White Power rally in the African Studies department? A Holocaust Denier's conference in the Jewish Studies department? A Westboro Baptist Church meeting in the LGBT studies department?
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
as long as they offer conference space to anyone as a publicly available service for a fee, they must offer it to everyone.
the group's motive in choosig the university over some other venue is irrelelvent.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
too bad it won't work.
Don't the creationists have the right to free speech also? This tolerance/acceptance business cuts both ways. Nobody said you had to listen to them just like they probably wouldn't listen to you.
Nobody said governments and lawmakers had to listen to them either, but they do. And quite intently.
Like, when someone says that quoting Nimzowitsch's "My System" on a question of chess strategy -categorically cannot be a valid argument-, regardless of any concurrent establishment of the general veracity or lack of it in the GM's book, for example.
Oh look. They guy playing checkers--that's you.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
How people hold on to old fashioned, outmoded, and completely disproved ideas. I thought the last of the major Creationism crap happened in the 1920s. Apparently, the bible thumpers don't quit easily. The definition of stupidity is repeating the same thing over and over despite being wrong.
Judging from your inability to grasp analogies, if you want to play chess then I guess you're forcing me to play checkers, yes.
I see a possibility for a cold fusion conference in a Physics department.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
No, that's the fun thing. Your argument fails both on the level of analogy and literally.
And, well, I'd destroy you at chess. So I guess that makes 3.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
Creationists have the Right to Free Speech, that's why the American Government can't disqualify them from public office or round them up in camps.
Really!? What is this, a crusade or an inquisition? If you don't have the right scientific viewpoint and able to glibly mouth the latest theory you are to be pilloried? When was the last time a group of people because of beliefs or nationality were rounded up into camps? I could give you a list...
Freedom of speech and freedom of religion point to a freedom of conscience for you and everyone else. Worship God, Satan, Science or the flying spaghetti monster if you wish. When you and any one else say to round up those you don't agree with, you are NOT tolerant, accepting, or enlightened.
If you can't leave those alone who think and believe differently than you, then don't expect them to do the same to you. Having a conference near you is not the same as having a rabid christian screaming in your face.
And to those of you who are rabid about your (any) belief and want to scream it into someone else's face...DON'T.
There is an old saying: 'A man convinced against is will is of the same opinion still'. Screaming in someone's face or browbeating them or calling their POV evil is just not effective. The only way to get through to them is to have a civil discussion in which you, with solid reasoning, convince them how they are wrong and you are right. Any other way is just counterproductive.
Well, then one has to wonder where that kind of movement is coming from. Some sort of anti-age-of-enlightenment rebellion against a society turning away from god and instead proposing a world view that everyone who doesn't outright reject any form of science has to consider bullshit? Last time I saw something like this, i.e. a "if we want you to believe a little we have to make you believe a lot" doctrine where they tried to go overboard just to eventually end up with what they wanted were the Khmer Rouge. And we remember how THAT ended...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Sounds like all you are missing would be an orgy in the cafeteria. Speech is protected even if it is offensive vile speech. A very similar case to your Holocaust Denier's one was litigated all the way up to the US Supreme Court.
Time to offend someone
I'll bet the PC tards running MSU would've rolled out the red carpets. Hypocrites.
So it's a religious conference, they happen all the time at state unis. What's the problem? Just as long as they abide by the rules.
It is of course a worrying development if a religious group is able to hold a conference at a prestigious university to give its ideas a scientific guise.
If this cannot be prevented, try holding a scientific conference on the topic of creationis, thus in contrast to what gstoddart holds, analyse the subject through scienfic discourse.
Why don't the churches let physicists, geneticists and other scientists read lectures in churches instead of their Sunday/Saturday/whatever day sermons?
You can't handle the truth.
Anyone who graduated from an NCAA member University should demand their tuition be refunded. http://www.businessweek.com/ar...
I honestly don't know why anyone cares. Let them believe whatever they want to believe, it doesn't affect me or my family.
Let's book seminars at MSU on the *science* of telekinesis, cryptozoology, UFOs, astrology, and seances.
Presumably the chess player; the checkers player would not recognize the importance of what the chess player perceives to be the checkers player's king piece. The checkers player would only win once all of the opposing pieces were removed, but the chess player would only have to remove the checkers player's king.
Well, even that is being too literal. When we say "in those days", are talking about specific days, or an epoch? We're talking about a prophetic vision, every bit as poetic and metaphorical as Revelation.
Probably because these people really believe it, are somewhat numerous, and many wish to have their nonsense taught in schools. Why people want to ban it, I don't know. It's better to just ignore the mental midgets and oppose them when they suggest getting their nonsense put in laws.
It's just a waste of time. No one's "skills" are weak just because they don't want to waste time dealing with people who have been refuted a thousand times over and won't listen to reason.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It's just a waste of time. No one's "skills" are weak just because they don't want to waste time dealing with people who have been refuted a thousand times over and won't listen to reason.
That's generally how both sides of world-view debates feel about the other. So it seems like you're arguing against trying to have that kind of debate whenever two world-views are in opposition.
I agree that it's a waste of time, in the sense that the two debaters won't convince each other. But the real goal is to make the audience aware of the best arguments on both sides, and that may be helpful to them.
Not many people say it's impossible, just that there's no evidence.
There's no more reason to believe in a biblical God than Xenu or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Just because someone says something happened doesn't make it true - even if science could theoretically model it.
Last post!
This is a perfect opportunity to actually correct ignorance through debate. You go to these things and then pose the hard questions - the ones their theories can't account for, or only have fantastical answers with no basis in fact. Any time someone with a broken theory decides to showcase it in the face of solid science he's doing the world a favour by providing an opportunity for those who know better to show everyone why it's broken.
The absolute worst thing that could happen is that a creationist conference could be held in a place that is absent of any opposing view. It's much easier to convince someone that your opinion is right when nobody is opposing it.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
The problem is there is no credible physical evidence to support creationism. None whatsoever, it doesn't exist.
Here is the physical evidence:
https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/the-10-best-evidences-from-science-that-confirm-a-young-earth/
You may not agree with it, but to say "None whatsoever, it doesn't exist," shows a remarkable ignorance about the debate. The reason there EVEN IS a debate is because there are severe problems with the theory of evolution that are not answered easily.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Nope, they believe in winning at any cost against the other team, regardless of the rules of the scientific method or formal debate.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Nope. I saw that AnswersInGenesis.org still links to the debate on YouTube and sells copies of it on DVD. I see that Bill Nye and his associates do neither. That makes the winner of the debate pretty obvious to me. AIG believes they won it and Bill Nye believes that AIG won it.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
That's generally how both sides of world-view debates feel about the other.
And sometimes, one side is more right and the other isn't. This has been done a thousand times already, anyway. If people want to see such debates, go on Youtube.
But the real goal is to make the audience aware of the best arguments on both sides, and that may be helpful to them.
If the people in a university aren't aware that creationists are idiots, then that reflects poorly on the university's ability to reject trash.
And yep, animals were created before plants in the bible.
Not sure which Bible you are reading, but in the actual Bible, plants were made on day 3, animals on day 6.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
What does (historically novel) mean?
MOST people in the history of the world from 300 AD to 1600 AD believed in YEC.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
The fantasy convention is not an attack on the University. Nor is the fantasy convention trying to abuse the reputation of the University for it's own gain.
How about if you were to go to the conference and ask them, "Do you deny that you're attacking the university?" Or, "Why are you abusing the reputation of the University for your own gain? Wouldn't you agree that's a despicable act?"
~Loyal
I aim to misbehave.
Maybe that's why he added the "evening and morning" qualifiers... To make it more of a literal reading...
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Let's do a quick test, to see if you're being hypocritical: There's lots of evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was real, and rose from the dead three days after being crucified by the Roman empire. Now that I've asserted that, are you open to changing your hypotheses about how you should live your life?
Well, it could stain your reputation, or at least that of your education, quite a bit if your university gets known as "that place where the religious nutjobs found a home".
Well, it could stain your reputation, or at least that of your education, quite a bit if your university gets known as "that place where free speech is permitted".
I aim to misbehave.
There are many different theologies on Creationism. Some of which have no problem with evolution or an older universe. Arguing one as being correct and the others wrong isn't a wise undertaking.
I think more people should focus on the love commandment from Jesus. Anyone can see that the world needs more love.
God spoke to me
Obligatory xkcd
We know because it doesn't even mention, much less explain, the Celestial Teapot.
Maybe these nuts should share a meeting hall with the flat Earth lunatics. The Bible is not an instruction manual for how the Earth was created. The Old Testament will not help me repair my TV either.
Are you saying you have empirical evidence for this claim? If so then yes. You will need some crazy-good evidence to overturn the mountain of evidence I have accrued over the years which supports the idea that "people do not return from the dead." But I'd love to see what you've got. I hope it's not just a book that makes some claims, gets some historic items right, and was written by motivated reasoners though. Otherwise your "evidence" is hardly worth the paper it was written on.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
Plants were made on the third day, before there was sunlight to support them. And yep, animals were created before plants in the bible. Exactly the opposite of what happened. What did all those herbivores eat? Remember, according to creationists all life were herbivores till after the flood. Oops.
What Bible are you reading, it didn't go in that order?! In Gen 1:9 Land and Water were created/seperated. In Gen1:11 Vegetation was created. In Gen 1:20 Sea animals and birds were created. In Gen 1:24, land animals and live stock were created. In Gen 1:27 man was created.
How does that follow the order that you wrote. Looks to me it was in the correct order, and your using lies yourself to support your point of view. Shame on you!
See subject line.
News of the event caught MSU's scientific community largely by surprise. Creation Summit secured a room at the university's business school through a student religious group, but the student group did not learn about the details of the programâ"or the sometimes provocative talk titles â" until later.
Don't Feed The Trolls. They like when you feed them, making you part of the problem. Stop paying attention to intentionally provocative attention whores.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
And this is why debate is pointeless. There's heaps and heaps and heaps of links, and you surely won't be happy until every one is refuted in detail. The thing is one can generate such garbage far faster than one can refute it.
It took 10 seconds to read that there is C-14 found apparently in coal. It took 10 minutes of reading around to find why in fact this is not evidence of a young earth, where it comes from, how potassium starts to dominate at loc C-14 concentrations making measurement very hard and so on.
That's one link out of hundreds. If I took the time to dig up all the refutations to them, you could post another equally junky links. For every minute you put in, I would have to spend hours.
The result would still be the same.
I do love the one that asserts that rocks can't be bent. I picture the author thinking about bits of brittle rock and how they just don't bend. However, the author has never tried to bend a mile thick of solid rock wita large radius under unimaginably large pressures. I think he would find his intuition wrong.
You may not agree with it, but to say "None whatsoever, it doesn't exist," shows a remarkable ignorance about the debate. The reason there EVEN IS a debate is because there are severe problems with the theory of evolution that are not answered easily.
No, there is no evidence. I picked a few and looked in detail. Eventually they can be refuted using widely available information.
Life's too short to do every one, but really, there is no evidence. Simply posting such volumes of junk that no one has the time to refute every last crumb is not the same as having evidence.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I am not in the least afraid to criticize or argue with/against a Muslim or any other theist. The issue at hand isn't fear; the issue is need.
The reality is, Muslims are not all in my face, trying to change the laws that affect me or the public schools my offspring go to. Nor are Hindus, Saucer cultists, Scientologists, etc. Or if they are, it's at such a low level of effectiveness that I just don't care.
But Christians are in my face. They're screwing up laws that directly affect me, they have already screwed up such laws, they are trying rather hard to screw up our schools (further) and because they are actively screwing things up, I am anti-pretty-much-the-whole-shooting-match. This creates a rather exclusive, but entirely deserved, focus on Christianity.
The day they go back into their homes and churches and the public square to act out no further than to speak their minds, while they stop trying to use the law to tell me I must do this or that, is the day I will no longer be concerned with them. That day does not appear to be coming soon.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
We can start right now. I assume you have several billions of years available for observation, data recording and so on, yes?
Oh, wait. The fossil record has already done much of this for us. Intermediate forms of life abound; also, the process of evolution has been repeatedly verified such that the process itself is validated without question. Evolution, (capital E) the idea that evolution is what changed us, as you sort of said, from single cell organisms to where we are today, is the very best hypothesis we have, because it inspires many testable things (including the process itself) and thus far, none of those tests have been failed. Some of them are inconclusive at this point, but it may take quite a while to gather the data required to falsify or confirm the predictions.
Creationism, on the other hand, has passed no tests, suggests no testable issues, and is 100% at odds with a great deal more than just "did we Evolve"; the idea that the earth, the animals on it, including humans, are a few thousand years old, is flat out 90 degrees from objective reality.
Science does in fact have a testable theory. And they are testing it constantly. And it's doing fine in that regard.
So, short version: One side does have a testable theory. Science.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I read it, it's creationist logic to think that way.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
All evidence must be BELIEVED. Don’t you think they should be allowed to present their evidence, if they have any, and then you and others can be the jury as to whether to believe or disbelieve and render a verdict? That is how we do it in courts of law.
So therefore if this were a legal case, you would find “them” guilty without even a trial? Do you even know who “they” are? Even the vilest criminals are allowed to present their case even though of course they really don’t have a case. Creationists are not criminals but merely have a different idea about origins.
A sufficiently advanced simulation is indistinguishable from reality.
No. Belief is an act of faith; an assumption/assertion of truth without requirement of evidence.
One can (and should) consider at all evidence and conjectures arising from that evidence with a measure of confidence, one that is derived directly from the ability of that evidence to exhibit consensually experiential, repeatable characteristics measurable and observable in our objective reality, where those characteristics appear to confirm or falsify the conjecture(s) at hand. That confidence might be high or low, but it is not based upon faith; it is not belief; and in the final analysis, it should not be absolute.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
That's because it is the crackpots who pose the most danger to the rest of society.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
No. We don't know that. It is the theory with the most adherents today; but inasmuch as it depends upon physics that we have no inkling of, we're quite short of "knowing" that this is what happened. Right now, it might as well have a formal basis of "it started with magic."
We're extrapolating backwards; and like a thrown baseball where the pitcher was unseen, we run the danger of assuming the ball came out of the ground and trying to make up an explanation to fit that idea -- because we can't see the pitcher. If true, that would take new physics understandings/discoveries. The big bang has the same requirements. That should be more than enough reason to not apply really high confidence to the big bang idea -- yet. Still, based on hand-waving though it is, it's the best there is at this point in time because like the thrown baseball, we can make the picture work all the way down to the ground, It all makes sense until... it suddenly doesn't. The odds are decent that it is correct, and we just have to figure a few more things out (or a lot of them), but since we have not gotten there yet... some reserve is called for.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
> There is evidence that the human mind can communicate with matter at the quantum level.
Cite?
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I didn't want to work at all. But that eating thing, and that shelter thing, and that health thing... ...soooo inconvenient.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
A while back, John Schindler and I wrote about the collapse of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, and specifically about the dangerous degree to which the Obama administration was ceding influence to Russia in the region. We wrote as two experts with differing views on many things but with a shared specialization in the politics and foreign policy of Russia.
Apparently, all that education, travel to the USSR and Russia, years of discussion, exchange, and research, and our long combined service in various government and non-government posts was all a waste of time. John and I were inundated by tweets and emails that crisply, often in fewer than 140 characters, explained to us how we just didn’t understand Russia, how we just didn’t get it about what Vladimir Putin is really all about, and how we had no idea about how foreign policy is really worked out in Washington. We were too blinkered to see how the Obama administration had really played the Russians, and not vice versa. And on and on.
This, I should note, came not from our peers, some of whom engaged us in public, and a few who engaged us electronically and in person. No, these long-awaited clarifications about Russia, finally delivering us from our bleak and ignorant state, came from ordinary folks. The ones who, you know, read websites and stuff.
Why is this important? Because when it comes to numerous topics, there is no definitive answer. Politics, Philosophy, Ethics all require belief and faith. In the case of the origin of the Universe, there are surely differing and contrary opinions.
The most rational arguments for a creator as the origin of the Universe (has nothing to do with Theology) on this site will result in the post being modded specifically to censor the opinion. Even if the people moderating lack knowledge, the crowd here is predominantly atheist. Meaning, the most finely crafted insults will be modded insightful or interesting and everything else is down modded.
This has created an environment where it is extremely hostile for any non atheist to speak their opinion, even if they have in depth knowledge on the subject matter. It has also provided a safe haven for anyone with any level of bias a free reign to attack people with a different opinion, and more dangerously to be rewarded for doing so.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
If they are not a student group the University has the right to tell them to fuck off, just as you'd have to same right to tell them to get out of your house. Even if they were a student group and they are doing something the University has the right to call it off just as you would have the right to shut down a party in your house where your kids invited a thousand people off Facebook.
The constitution doesn't come into it at all. It just means they can't be dragged off to jail for speaking, it doesn't mean no conditions on room hire.
1) How evolutionary theory influenced Adolf Hitler's worldview:
Hitler was a roman catholic who blamed the Jews for the putting Jesus to death, that is why he enacted revenge. He later converted to atheism, but atheism had nothing to do with why the holocaust started. It's also important to note that evolution never played a roll in the holocaust.
2) why "the Big Bang is fake,"
This is a common topic by the creationist, the big bang is fake because something can't come from nothing. Except God came from nothing or always existed, either breaking there logic from the big bang or breaking common logic and creating a massive paradox. It's also important to note that if the universe can't come from nothing but God can, God would be at a higher informational state then the universe, so basically the creationist believes that you can't create a universe, but you can create higher order and information then the universe out of nothing. This is the single worst piece of logic used by the creationist.
3) Why "natural selection is NOT evolution."
Natural selection can't be part of evolution because we've never seen one speices evolve into another. Well if this is there logic, we never saw anyone write the bible, we never saw Jesus, we never saw God, etc.. etc.. etc.. another flawed piece of logic from the creationists.
Why on earth do we put up with this non-sense. Creationism is NOT science, it's not viable and it have absolutely zero evidence in it's favor. It's religious driven dogma that harm life, dignity, morals, rationality and ethics. I'll put to the creationists to show me ONE piece of hard evidence that backs up the existence of God. Keep in mind you can't cause a paradox or use the infinity logic. Go for it, I really want to see someone be the first person in history to take this on.
You forgot that checkers player has allowed themselves to play chess when it is to their advantage. They will switch to chess rules as soon as check mate is at hand and claim that they beat you in your own game.
No, people who go on mass murder sprees are the most danger to the rest of society. I'll put up Stalin and Mao against the crusades any day of the week.
Science doesn't have to defend anything - the evidence for AGW is massive, well documented, well checked, and stands on its own.
take hold of your gov. Science goes out the door and indoctrination takes hold.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
erm. The challenge was credible evidence. We're still waiting..
The people of the time had complex social structures, the ability to read and write, architecture, agriculture and manufacturing skills and an understanding of timescales beyond their own lifespan.
I'm struggling to see how that makes them morons, or why you think they were materially less intelligent than the people of today.
They can settle the burning question; which of the accounts of creation is correct? The one in the first chapter of Genesis, where God starts with the waters, then the land, then the animals, etc. then finally on the sixth day "So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." (Genesis 1:27) or the one in the second chapter, where God creates Adam in the Garden of Eden first, then creates the animals and brings them to Adam to name, then "So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man." (Genesis 2:21-22) because all the literalist believers I meet seem to get these two stories mixed up into one and leave out the parts that don't fit, and that can't be right.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Most Christians are embarrassed to be associated with these people.
Of course Darwin was wrong. In the bible snakes could talk, now they can't. We are going backwards.
This isn't connected to any department, it's presented by a student group. If a student group wants to hold a conference on why Cold Fusion research was suppressed by people who think the Holocaust happened, and needs to be supported by the Westboro Baptist Church, what harm does it do?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The Constitution doesn't say that the government or its institutions can't be involved in religion, but rather that there cannot be any discrimination on the basis of religion. If I were a Michigan State student, I'd be looking into organizing a Pastafarian counterpart to this. Perfectly legal.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Thing is, there are a lot of mindless fanatics out there, and we need to know how to deal with their stupid arguments. Making counter-arguments at most of them is probably useless, but if there's any discussion of them it's useful to have some idea of what to tell interested people who don't know who to believe.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
With most of my Christian friends, a debate into the relative merits of creationism versus evolution would be pointless, since they aren't Creationists and figure the scientists are probably mostly right.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
In a couple hundred years hopefully belief in religion will be seen as ridiculous as the belief that the world is flat.
Stalin and Mao found no ideas in atheism -- lack of belief in a god or gods -- that led them to kill anyone. This simply because there are no such ideas. Atheism has no dogma, no canon, no nothing. The state of atheism consists of a lack of belief in a god or gods, and nothing else. Consequently, ideas like "kill some number of people" by definition come from another source. And in particular:
Stalin and Mao were psychopaths (crackpots, frankly), and that is where you want to look to find out what drove them to kill. Whatever you find, it is an absolute certainty it won't be atheism.
However, the crusades were, in fact, driven to a significant extent specifically by theist reasoning, canon and dogma. As were the murders and tortures perpetrated during the inquisitions, the witch-hunts and subsequent burnings, blood libel, and pogroms, many events such as the 9/11 incidents, various wars, as well as the lesser but still despicable centuries of subjugation of women, repression of sexuality, interference with relationships and legislation, social ostracism, and so on.
I will also say that theist thought has also been the prime motivator for a massive amount of great art in many forms -- sculpture, paintings, architecture, music and a whole host of various other artifacts, and when charity and compassion are foremost and the compulsion to impose belief is absent or at least minimal, theism is at its absolute best at doing little to no harm while doing extensive good. This does not, in any way, say that we should forget, or forgive, or ignore, the many evils done in the past, being done now, and those impending, in the cause of theism.
So you want to be very careful before you go waving Stalin and Mao around as examples of atheism causing problems, or, as a counter to the historical fact of the murders committed directly for the (various) causes of religion . Atheism providing a rationale to harm others is not the reality. It's never been the reality. Claiming it is the reality is either disingenuous or ignorant.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I had to think about that. I don't have much time for creationism but I think their arguments have been underestimated.
The main problem with creationism is not that their arguments are so weak. I believe some of their arguments are valid and too easily dismissed by let's say 'most people who believe in evolution theory'. For instance it's a very legitimate concern that the power of the combination of selection and random variation may be too weak to explain what we see around us.
The thing is that the approach is one of case-making rather than scientific investigation. That's why you can't discuss with them. The arguments they'll come up with will be borrowed (in let's say, the best cases) from investigation that is arguably scientific. So it's not really proper to dismiss the arguments as a rehash of things that have long been settled. but because the appoach is one of case making, the arguments are only pursued as long as they can support a case. The story ends once the case is won.
Another approach is to accept the validity of some of the creationist's objections and to just keep on digging and finding out how it works.
And gradually you figure out more. And that is what has happened and will happen. A lot of work has been done on the speed of evolution since the first iteration of Fred Hoyle's Junkyard Tornado argument in 1982.
The only problem I can see arising from this is gluing the university's name to the idea.
Creationism; as talked on Michigan State University.
Sounds like the motto for the H-1B visa program! USA USA USA!
On the other hand, if the University decided that this type of conference isn't in line with what they think is appropriate for an educational setting and don't let them, they would use that as ammo for a grand conspiracy, etc...
Better to let them have it. Have the few devote followers show up to hear what they already believe in, and be prepared to have a bunch of young drunk immature university students show up to make fun and heckle them.
On the plus side, they likely have to pay the school for the conference space, which if it isn't funneled into the administration, might be used directly to fund real science (or arts I suppose)!
4. Thank them for renting the space, and apply the value to some science program (say Evolution 101) :)
Irony: Creationists funding real science FTW.
Not only did Hitler *not* base his ideas on Darwin or on the Theory of Natural Selection, but there is not even a single reference to Darwin in any of Hitler's writings. Even in the Nuremburg Trials, where they actually went through the personal libraries of Nazi leaders to find the origins of the ideas behind the Third Reich, none of Darwin's works were found, and there were no references to Darwin in any of the testimonies or transcripts whatsoever.
Even when Hitler made reference to anything resembling biological arguments for his racial ideas and policies, he clearly showed that his understanding (if you could even call it that) of the subject was psueodoscientific and Lamarckian, not Darwinian. And in numerous cases, Hitler's views on race and biology *directly contradicted* Darwin's Theory of Evolution in extremely basic and fundamental ways.
For example (from http://rationalrevolution.net/...):
-Hitler stated that "racial purity" was "God's Will". Darwin showed that there is no such thing as racial purity in the first place, and that secondly, races and species are not formed by God.
-Hitler said that segregation of species and races is a "rigid law" of nature. Darwin showed that there are no such rigid laws in nature.
-Hitler said that species only naturally mate with members of their same species. Darwin showed that many species naturally hybridize (in fact, research now shows that more than 10% of "species" hybridize in the wild).
-Hitler said that species are uniform in character. Darwin showed that there is a high degree of variation within species.
-Hitler advocated the use of race laws to favor only "Nordic" peoples. Darwin stated that no such laws should be made.
-Hitler despised sympathy and said that sympathy should not extend to all races. Darwin stated that sympathy was the highest moral value, that indeed sympathy was an important attribute for human success, and that we should extend our sympathy to all people.
-Clearly, Hitler's views reflected the traditional "pre-Darwinian" views of nature. Hitler viewed race as sacred, he viewed the Germans as "God's chosen people", and he justified racism, genocide, and eugenics through his sacred views. The sacredness of race is what made race worth fighting for to the Nazis.
Hitler publically declared himself to be a Christian, used Christian language and rhetoric openly to promote Nazi ideology, and spoke openly about his vilification of atheists.
...And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."
In his book Mein Kampf Hitler made numerous religious pronouncements: "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
Before his ascension to power, Hitler stated before a crowd in Munich: "My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter."
In a speech delivered in Berlin, October 24, 1933, Hitler stated: "We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
Also, from a speech delivered by Hitler:
"In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.
http://atheism.about.com/od/is...
As Stephen Jay Gould said, Religion and Science are non-overlapping magisteria