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."
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.
A fantasy convention wouldn't be spun as reality.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
About the only thing Social Darwinism has to do with Darwinism is the word "Darwinism". Darwin explicitly made the point that the more variation the better. Social Darwinism, on the other hand, actually rejects the notion of a healthy population having plenty of variety in individual specimens; asserting that limiting variety is the path to population health.
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.
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.
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 think I've found the place to book my next neo-Nazi homeopathic phrenology conference.
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.
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!
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"
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
As far as I am concerned, it IS a university's job to guide people from stupidity to enlightenment. That's the whole point of one, not to cash in your money and hand you a piece of paper in return. I know that we're in the age of the "education for sale", but that's not what universities are supposed to be for.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It's more a matter of place than of time. Come over to Europe, the place where even mentioning that creationism could be something to be taught at school is a surefire way to sink your political career instantly.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Social darwinism not so much a perversion of science, but an incredibly basic "is/should" fallacy.
It's absolutely true that if you have a system of economics that favors survival of some genetic traits, those traits will become more common. The problem is that people assume that the ones the current system selects for are somehow ideal. It's completely unjustified.
I thought they were all about 3D printing cute plastic toys and stuff.
Have gnu, will travel.
If you applied that at a University, all of the Liberal Arts would be out, and STEM would be the only thing left.
Evidence based study of a Shakespeare Sonnet? Pottery and graphic design? Film criticism and Foreign language courses?
There is a broad range of subjects between hard objectivity of STEM and pure conjecture of Creationism. And those have a place in the Uni as well.
So does Creationism, if it is related to religious studies which examine belief systems
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
Well.... Philosophy, specifically epistemology, is the basis for scientific method, so I would concede that much. Still, there's a lot of ... speculative philosophy that touches the physical world nowhere.
Music, at least touches physiology and mathematics.
Economics. To the extent that it generates reproducible results and has both descriptive and predictive power, I'd say it has a scientific basis. That's not how it's taught in Econ 101, nor does that appear to be the way it's practiced. In educational institutions, start talking about complex systems theory as applied to money to some tenured faculty and they look at you like you've grown a third head.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Frankly, I think Hitler's religious views, indeed the religious views of all the leading Nazis, is irrelevant. Few of them ever got their hands directly bloody murdering Jews, Gypsies and the like. It was all their God-fearing Lutheran and Catholic subordinates who did the dirty work. The underlying motivations of Hitler, Goebbels, Himmler and the other leading figures are interesting in certain perspectives, but to me, the most horrifying part of the Holocaust isn't that the leadership possessed some "out there" beliefs, but that ordinary men and women, who under other circumstances would have been considered your average citizens, no better and no worse than anyone anywhere else in the world, could be so easily manipulated into viewing people that they had lived side by side with for generations as vermin who needed exterminating.
I have two observations to make on that topic; one factual and one anecdotal.
The factual observation is that the Holocaust, while engineered by Hitler and his inner circle, was in fact the product of centuries of anti-Semitism to be found throughout Christendom. The chief difference between the Nazis and Isabella and Ferdinand was the latter did not have Zyklon B at their disposal, and thus had to use more mundane methods to get rid of the Jewish populations within the borders they ruled. The number of pogroms dating back to the earliest days of Christian dominance of Europe suggest that the Holocaust wasn't some outlier, but rather the culmination of anti-Semitic beliefs and sentiment.
The second observation is anecdotal. When was a teenager, my best friend's family had originated in Germany. Only one of his father's siblings; his youngest aunt, was born in North America. The rest had all been born in Germany before and during World War II. One day I was visiting my friend, when his grandfather, a very nice man, came up to us and told us "Whatever you hear from other people from Germany about what went on before and during the war, don't believe anyone who says they did not know. We all knew what was happening. We knew whole families were disappearing, that people who were outspoken were gone in the morning. Anyone who tells you they were ignorant of what was happening is lying."
It has stuck with me for many years, and it is chilling, because it suggests to me that many people I know personally, in the same circumstances, might turn their back on such conduct, and indeed, might allow their prejudices of any group to be built up to the point where that group is dehumanized. At that point, you don't even care what happens to them, and can bury your head in the sand with ease.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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)
Then you would be a particularly stupid deity.
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?
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.
Nope. The result will be this:
https://answersingenesis.org/answers/
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...