Creation Museum Opens

Originally Posted by Kaiser "John Rambo" Soze

Frankly, I don't see anything terribly surprising about the responses to any of this. Half of the group is shouting nonsense in support of these idiots, and the other half is shouting nonsense - while being largely as idiotic in their criticism as the side their attacking.

Why thank you. That's nice to hear.

Originally Posted by Kaiser "John Rambo" Soze

In all my life I've heard such a thing from even the lowliest of Jehovah's Witness at my doorstep.

From this site:

"The more that generations are trained to disbelieve the Bible's account of origins, the more they will reject the rest of the Bible," he said.

The teaching of evolution as fact, rather than as theory, has undermined the authority of the Bible and brought about the rise of secularization and moral chaos, Mr. Ham said.

He also believes the rejection of the Bible as a moral compass has given rise to an array of cultural conflicts on issues such as abortion, divorce, homosexuality, and euthanasia.

The Creation Museum is designed to inspire Americans to accept the Bible as absolute authority and to halt the spread of secular humanism and moral relativism in society.

As Mr. McConaughy sees it, the Creation Museum can change people's lives.

"The museum has all the scientific answers for creation," he said, "but they really want people to know that if you take the Bible as your starting place, you're probably going to be more successful in looking out at the world."

Originally Posted by Kaiser "John Rambo" Soze

I'm not sure of the point of this boogeyman de jure threat, honestly. I mean, given the prevalence of socialist thought in Scotland if it were free there would be a good chance of a socialist winning an election.
Do you really want Scotland led by a Red?
Think of what could happen: (Hypothetically, of course!); pogroms could become commonplace if you're a propertied individual, you could make more money not working than working a low pay job and who knows what else!
Maybe nothing else would change, I wouldn't really want to take that chance. If there's a Red next to you, hang them! There, I've managed to slander my favorite slander target (Scotland, those drunks) and make a spurious connection between events that may or may not even be accurate. (In this case, they are, based on the 2007 vote), but it still makes no sense at all.

I was just throwing out hypotheticals (no need to be a smartarse), as I said, maybe nothing would happen.
I wouldn't want to take the chance with a presidential candidate that feels strongly enough about evolution to make it known to the public that they don't believe in it. They could have done a George Dubya and said something along the lines of 'Well, the jury's still out on that one. I think both sides need to be examined equally," but instead they came out and made it known that they think it's wrong.
If they are that open about it then it is possible that they might act on their beliefs. Sure the US is a democracy but we've all seen that Bush loves to show his power with those couple of vetoes that he has made, who's to say that a president that believes in creation wouldn't try and force it into classrooms?
It would probably never happen but still I wouldn't want to take the chance.

Originally Posted by Noscreenname

Bible colleges receiving more funds? God help us!

The very idea of bible colleges sounded odd to me, then I found out there are some here in Australia!
Thankfully, I don't think they receive government funding (it's not much if they do). This site would agree with me:

The Sydney College of Divinity is financed wholly from student fees. Salaries or stipends of teaching staff in the Member Institutions are met by churches or religious orders and from student fees. Buildings, libraries and equipment are also provided by the churches and the Institutions affiliated with the SCD.

I found the idea that the US government would fund bible colleges really strange, maybe it's just a cultural thing.

Originally Posted by Noscreenname

Again, it's just one side of an argument, and a pretty lousy one. If someone who knows all about evolution and its evidence is convinced just by this museum, then they are simply very gullible and would probably believe silly things anyways. If young children are persuaded, then they will later go to school and learn about evolution and thus will have been exposed to both views and able to make a decision for themselves.

I think I'll point you to GDwarf's post here:

Originally Posted by GDwarf

You seem to be assuming that the average person can distinguish between actual science and something that looks very similar to science.

Some of them can, sure.

But when the others walk into a museum (Which implies that what's inside is true) and are then presented with countless 'scientific proofs' about how evolution is wrong, I'd say that the average person would likely start seriously doubting evolution, and science.

I was never saying that a person who knows all about evolution would be convinced by the museum, rather a person with a passing knowledge of it from high school might be convinced by the museum's claims.
The pseudoscience on display has been dressed up to look very convincing and scientific. As you said, some people are extremely gullible, that's the problem.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

However, these 'museums' promote irrationality, and I see that as a huge problem.

To expect everyone to subscribe to your ideas of "rationality", in my opinion, is even more problematic. As far as I can tell, all the greatest among human ideas begin with a hint of something like madness that later proves to be absolute genius. It is the formula for progress--to push the status quo.

Why would you see that as a problem? Especially, you know, considering that the issue of how the human species came to be is really of no consequence, since we are, in fact, here, and belief cannot alter or undo that.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

In essence they wanted to doom all biology students who went though those schools.

Not that I don't agree with your sentiment, but to appeal to emotion is really an underhanded way to get your point across, especially since you can make a good enough case without it.

If I don't make much sense, forgive me; I'm tired.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

Finally, they do cause harm. As I've said repeatedly, they promote non-critical thinking, they promote doubting all science. In short, they promote irrationality.

Are you saying the religion itself causes harm, or their supposed promotion of "non-critical thinking"?

Originally Posted by MMKB

The museum will likely be a destination for many incredibly religious home-schooled kids and their parents. If their parents believe in young earth creation, then they will encourage this belief in their kids and this museum will only help promote this ignorance.
The people behind this are the same people that tried to force "Intelligent Design" into science classes in Kansas. Is that harmless?
Like GDwarf said, this 'museum' is only helping to promote ignorance, it encourages backward thinking.

Can't the same be said about every family world view? Parents teach their children their beliefs, and their children usually just believe them, whether they be evolution, creation, or any world view. I don't believe the problem is the world view itself, it's the blind belief in a world view without thinking it over (i.e., believing something just because you parents do, or because you know nothing else) - that is the issue. Some children are going to believe evolution just because their parents do, which I think is also a problem. I don't see you expressing this worry with anything other than creationism.

It may not be hurting anyone now, but what if this museum helps facilitate the belief in six-day creation in children? Young minds are very impressionable, they wouldn't look at it as an adult with proper knowledge of evolution would (who would read some of their 'scientific' claims and immediately think "bull****"), they would be overawed by those expensive dinosaur displays and those displays screaming 'God loves science' everywhere.
Not everyone is going to know this isn't scientific, some people simply don't have the knowledge.

I think you under estimate the mind of a young child. In short, my younger self (being a creationist) wouldn't be very happy reading what you just wrote. I wasn't an idiot, and I know there are others who weren't, also.

Originally Posted by MMKB

Maybe those things are to blame for society's ills, we aren't here to debate that though. Their claim is that the teaching of evolution is leading to immoral behaviour; that a teen who has learnt the theory of evolution is more likely to go and have unprotected sex or watch pornography etc. and that this behaviour leads to stuff like family breakdowns.
See anything ridiculous about that?

Yes, actually, I do.

Though, it is true that people without a belief in God tend to have less of a moral standard than those who do have a belief in God. But to say that evolution leads to pornography is extremely ridiculous, and unfair to those who believe in evolution and have moral standards and a "well-balanced life" (just like saying that young creationist children lead to irrationality is a bit unfair). I see the point they were trying to make, but that point was completely missed.

They may not be having an effect now but considering the popularity of creationism in the US these people could be a good chance of getting in.
Do you really want to be led by someone who believes in creation?
Think of what could happen if one of them gets into office (I'm only talking possiblities here); creation could get introduced into science classes as a compulsory component, bible colleges could receive more funding and who knows what else.
Maybe nothing would change, I wouldn't really want to take that chance if I lived in the US though.

You seem to be under the assumption that every single creationist wants to shove thier beliefs down everyone's throats and force it on others. Which is a very incorrect assumption. And I don't see anything wrong with Bible colleges, because Bible colleges are really an in-depth study of a wonderful piece of literature. Colleges are private studies that people choose to attend.

Your analogy really doesn't work too well, it goes a lot deeper than just finding it unpleasant (or annoying or whatever you're getting at).
I think the reason why so many atheists are getting uptight about it is that this movement could end up increasing scientific illiteracy. It's fine having personal beliefs but trying to present these beliefs as science is just plain wrong. Many of the people that believe in creation flat out reject science.
One of the reasons Ken Ham cited as being a reason for building the creation museum was to reach out to non-believers and 'make them see the truth'. People that don't have any specific beliefs that are without any scientific knowledge might visit the museum just to see the dinosaur displays, but could then end up being convinced by the pseudoscience on display that everything being said there is scientific and real.
If you're fine with the level of scientific literacy dropping in your country, then by all means go ahead and criticise the people protesting against it.
Freedom of speech and personal belief is one thing, trying to undermine science is another.

Another incorrect assumption you have is that science is a completely definite thing. Continue to believe that, and science might turn around and stab you in the back.

By your standards, one is not allowed to have personal beliefs that condradict your own (and "science"). But you are saying one can have personal beliefs, and then you condemn those who do. Example? Creationists. You are keep repeating all the horrible things they promote, like backwards thinking. Obviously, you would say this personal belief "undermines science", and therefore are condemning personal beliefs in general that don't believe exactly what you do (and all religion, because all religion supposedly disagrees with science). In this case, you cannot have one without the other, so pick and choose: Get rid of personal religious beliefs altogether, or have everyone conform to your idea of a correct belief (evolution), so not to "undermine science".

Originally Posted by MMKB

I was never saying that a person who knows all about evolution would be convinced by the museum, rather a person with a passing knowledge of it from high school might be convinced by the museum's claims.
The pseudoscience on display has been dressed up to look very convincing and scientific. As you said, some people are extremely gullible, that's the problem.

Can ignorance always be avoided? Should the possibility of some believing irrationally ruin the chance for others to learn? I enjoy learning about other religions and world views. Is there anything harmful in that (in just learning)? Be it the truth or not, one should examine, compare and contrast all world views, and search to find the truth. How is that possible if evolution is the only thing one has ever known? This museum can help others see the truth more clearly, whatever that truth be. Those who do think critically can further their search and either find that the museum confirms their beliefs, or challenges them (creationists and evolutionists). But is it worth the millions of dollars they spent on it? Not more than any other museum.

Originally Posted by dann

Another incorrect assumption you have is that science is a completely definite thing.

Science, however, is based on fact proven through studies and experiments, whereas religion is often based on blind faith. Science may not be a completely definite thing, but it is, in my opinion, much more definite than religion.

But is it worth the millions of dollars they spent on it? Not more than any other museum.

woa there. I'd say that this claim is a bit ridiculous. What about the museums that hold and display real artifacts from thousands of years ago, clues as to how past civilizations rose, lived and fell, windows into the daily life of past generations, bones of extinct creatures? Historic documents that founded and changed nations? Museums that aim to display and educate about actual, proven history?

The people who set up this creation museum are free to do what they wish with their money and beliefs. No one is being forced to visit it, and no one is being forced to believe what it promotes, just as no one is being forced to believe that dinosaurs once walked the earth just because they see a skeleton displayed in a museum. However, even though this museum does provide an opportunity for people to learn about the beliefs of others, I'd say that a museum that displays pieces of actual proven and significant events in history is more worthy of the money spent on it.

I actually believe that a museum showcasing displays of the different theories of the Earth's origins would be an excellent idea, if one doesn't already exist, but a museum displaying only one idea is more propaganda than education.

Originally Posted by MMKB

Sure the US is a democracy but we've all seen that Bush loves to show his power with those couple of vetoes that he has made, who's to say that a president that believes in creation wouldn't try and force it into classrooms?

I'm sorry, but being someone who knows some basic things about politics I had to actually laugh at this one.

Of 43 presidents, 10 have used fewer (either one or zero). One has used the same number. George Washington: 2.
For the last five presidents the numbers are:
Carter: 31
Reagan: 78
Bush Sr.: 44
Clinton: 38
GW Bush: 2
The most ever used was FDR with 635 and Grover Cleveland with 414 (he did nothing else his presidency, it seems). Interestingly, they did it for largely opposite reasons. Cleveland did it attacking "pork barrel spending" in budgets, and FDR did it when budgets didn't give his favored programs enough, among other things.

The teaching of evolution as fact, rather than as theory, has undermined the authority of the Bible and brought about the rise of secularization and moral chaos, Mr. Ham said.

I'm fairly certain it was already established above that Ken Ham is more hack than Christian, and doesn't actually believe it himself.

But no pertainent responce yourself. Do you have any actual opinion on the original topic... or are you just stopping by to be as contradictive as possible?

If I had no opinion in my response, how could I be contradictory? Is it possible to be exist contrary to a proposition that does not? Merely asking if I have an opinion or am being contrarian suggests that I do, in fact, have an opinion, as would be required to exist contrary to another. I fail to see your point, other than you dislike having nonsensical arguments stymied by equally facetious ripostes and then having someone come along to point this out. In case you haven't guessed, for the record: Whether you call it science or pseudoscience, education or propoganda, shutting it down or denouncing it in some manner other than producing a counter (my god!?) display of some manner somewhere else (or simply explaining concisely why it's factually inaccurate - not morally bankrupt) would be thoroughly beyond the pale of responsible behavior - as would leaving it idly by entirely be because it is factually inaccurate. You'd think after millions of years people would figure out that shutting down even the most utterly absurd topic only makes more people believe it. Every half-assed conspiracy theory in the world will tell you this is so. Holocaust denial in central Europe will tell you this is so.

The state of the debaters continues to be evidenced.

Originally Posted by Kaiser "John Rambo" Soze

I'm sorry, but being someone who knows some basic things about politics I had to actually laugh at this one.

Of 43 presidents, 10 have used fewer (either one or zero). One has used the same number: George Washington: 2.
For the last five presidents the numbers are:
Carter: 31
Reagan: 78
Bush Sr.: 44
Clinton: 38
GW Bush: 2
The most ever used was FDR with 635 and Grover Cleveland with 414 (he did nothing else his presidency, it seems). Interestingly, they did it for largely opposite reasons. Cleveland did it attacking "pork barrel spending" in budgets, and FDR did it when budgets didn't give his favored programs enough, among other things.

I knew that past presidents had used a lot more vetoes than Bush, I had no idea it was that many though .
As an Australian, US politics (especially the history of US politics) aren't exactly my strong point sorry.
My point was that Bush overturned a democratic decision using his power, and that it's possible a creationist president could do the same in regards to introducing creation science into schools.
As I acknowledged, it would most likely never happen, but seeing how strongly those candidates were pushing their views on evolution it's still a possibility.

Originally Posted by Kaiser "John Rambo" Soze

I'm fairly certain it was already established above that Ken Ham is more hack than Christian, and doesn't actually believe it himself.

The state of the debaters continues to be evidenced.

That view is what the museum is pushing, make of that what you will.
There must be quite a few other people that believe what he does too, he got some pretty hefty private donations to go towards building the creation museum.

Originally Posted by dann

Can't the same be said about every family world view? Parents teach their children their beliefs, and their children usually just believe them, whether they be evolution, creation, or any world view. I don't believe the problem is the world view itself, it's the blind belief in a world view without thinking it over (i.e., believing something just because you parents do, or because you know nothing else) - that is the issue. Some children are going to believe evolution just because their parents do, which I think is also a problem. I don't see you expressing this worry with anything other than creationism.

There are many other beliefs indoctrined into children that are just as bad or worse, but seeing how this is a topic on creationism that's what I'm discussing.

Originally Posted by dann

Another incorrect assumption you have is that science is a completely definite thing. Continue to believe that, and science might turn around and stab you in the back.

That's the great thing about science, when new evidence is discovered, it either furthers knowledge on a subject or it might force scientists to rethink the way things work within that subject. Despite many attempts, the theory of evolution has never been disproven. There is far too much evidence in its favour.

Originally Posted by dann

By your standards, one is not allowed to have personal beliefs that condradict your own (and "science"). But you are saying one can have personal beliefs, and then you condemn those who do. Example? Creationists. You are keep repeating all the horrible things they promote, like backwards thinking. Obviously, you would say this personal belief "undermines science", and therefore are condemning personal beliefs in general that don't believe exactly what you do (and all religion, because all religion supposedly disagrees with science). In this case, you cannot have one without the other, so pick and choose: Get rid of personal religious beliefs altogether, or have everyone conform to your idea of a correct belief (evolution), so not to "undermine science".

No, you do not have to pick and choose one or the other. Popes Pius XII and John Paul II have both acknowledged that evolution is more than compatible with religious beliefs. John Paul II said himself that evolution is much more than just a hypothesis.
So there you have it, evolution is officially endorsed by the world's largest religious body- the Catholic Church.

Originally Posted by dann

But is it worth the millions of dollars they spent on it? Not more than any other museum.

The money spent on building the museum could have been put to much better use (in my opinion). $27 million could have gone so far towards poverty relief or disease research or something else useful.

If I had no opinion in my response, how could I be contradictory? Is it possible to be exist contrary to a proposition that does not? Merely asking if I have an opinion or am being contrarian suggests that I do, in fact, have an opinion, as would be required to exist contrary to another.

Sorry, I did not make myself understandable. As the thread's original topic was "Creation Museum Opens; What do you make of this development", most posters had, up until your post, made their position on that particular issue clear. Though you said much, you did not do this, which why I asked.

As an aside, being contradictory without a backing opinion is not only possible but rather common around here. Assaulting the flaws of other posters and their argument without presenting any personal opinion on which you yourself may be challanged is a fine self indulgence.

I fail to see your point, other than you dislike having nonsensical arguments stymied by equally facetious ripostes and then having someone come along to point this out.

Meh, why should I enjoy it? Its not difficult to be critical from the outside of the issue; you allow yourself to say whatever you want about whoever you want without any risk of hypocrisy; but ultimately the only thing you accomplish is the creation of a number of pointless deviations from the original argument.

Shutting it down or denouncing it in some manner other than producing a counter (my god!?) display of some manner somewhere else (or simply explaining concisely why it's factually inaccurate - not morally bankrupt) would be thoroughly beyond the pale of responsible behavior

Has a conpiracy theory ever been struck from human consideration by a calm consise counter argument? Any more than be a sharp moral denunciation? My experience suggests that they are, in most cases, equally useless.

Originally Posted by Sugar

Science, however, is based on fact proven through studies and experiments, whereas religion is often based on blind faith.

Science is just as rooted in faith; faith in a set of man-made principles as the only dictators of truth. I am, of course, referring to the laws of logic. Of course, tell any scientist this and you're like to be claimed as something in the ballpark of irrational simply for challenging the rules it operates under. Authority is as potent a force in the realm of science as in the realm of religion. Correctness in determination of fact or in process changes nothing; the fact of the matter is that science has become as dogmatic a practice as religion.

Or, if you want that in one sentence, the pot ought admit its hypocrisy to the kettle.

Originally Posted by LexLionHart

Or, if you want that in one sentence, the pot ought admit its hypocrisy to the kettle.

I think this site refutes that claim quite well.

Originally Posted by MMKB

I think this site refutes that claim quite well.

The Scientific Method, Rules of Rationalism, etc. etc. are all dogmatic in nature.

That an article refutes my claim means nothing, because I need not subscribe to the authority of the author or his position, especially according to the tenets of logical reasoning in which science bases itself. To have and adhere to a set of principles is to assert their authority; to include the submission to authority as a contrary to principle within those principles makes them self-effacing.

I have no problem with the Creation Museum.

As long as they don't try to pass ID off as fact, I'm fine with it.

For the record I'ma Catholic and I believe that there is a God and I also believe that Evolution is how we got here.
I'm not very religious and I've questioned alot about religion.(Looking back on it its funny how many religion teachers I've pissed off when I argued with them)

Originally Posted by LexLionHart

The Scientific Method, Rules of Rationalism, etc. etc. are all dogmatic in nature.

Dogma means to believe without any doubt. That said belief is unquestionably true.

Scientists will admit that science is not unquestionably true (nothing can ever be proven to be 100% right) and is fallible (see what happened to Lamarck's theory of evolution).
Scientific theory uses hypotheses, laws and facts to provide an explanation of a natural phenomenon and can be modified and changed if evidence to the contrary is discovered (a scientific theory can never be proven absolutely true, only disproven, changed or modified).

Some of science's greatest figures are those who proved the current beliefs wrong (or outdated), by either updating them with new evidence or by providing brand new insights into their fields. These include people like Einstein who revolutionised physics with his theory of relativity, and Darwin who changed thinking not only in biology, but in other fields of science as well.

Some scientists may believe in things dogmatically, but to say science itself is a dogma on par with religious beliefs is just plain wrong.

Originally Posted by Mike87

I have no problem with the Creation Museum.

As long as they don't try to pass ID off as fact, I'm fine with it.

But that's exactly what they are doing.

Originally Posted by MMKB

Scientists will admit that science is not unquestionably true (nothing can ever be proven to be 100% right) and is fallible (see what happened to Lamarck's theory of evolution).

This statement is equally questionable and fallible, then, yes?

Scientific theory uses hypotheses, laws and facts to provide an explanation of a natural phenomenon and can be modified and changed if evidence to the contrary is discovered (a scientific theory can never be proven absolutely true, only disproven, changed or modified).

In other words, science studies things that happen now, or that we can detect as having happened. Am I right?

Some scientists may believe in things dogmatically, but to say science itself is a dogma on par with religious beliefs is just plain wrong.

I am not so much saying that "science" is dogmatic; just that "scientific rationalism"--that idea that "fallacy" can be determined from a set of logical principles formulated by fallible thinkers--is dogmatic. I am not so much saying that this is negative; this is how it indeed must be. I am simply saying that asserting the credos of science as being superior to any other credos (which underlines the entire anti-creationist argument, whether they are indeed correct or incorrect) is somewhat of a hypocrisy.

And I think I'd like to see this museum myself before making a statement. An Atheist who disgards any and all to do with religion is just as bad as a Roman Catholic who dismisses all ideas against God.

Originally Posted by Bingo675

And I think I'd like to see this museum myself before making a statement. An Atheist who disgards any and all to do with religion is just as bad as a Roman Catholic who dismisses all ideas against God.

The basic claims are this: The Earth is 6 000 years old, and everything in the Bible is 100% correct. Ergo, Dinosaurs had to be on Noah's ark and had to co-exist with humans.

Evolution never happened.

etc.

For a summary of both sides of this argument, check out the Answers in Genesis website and the Talk Origins website.

However, it isn't really their claims that have me upset, it's the fact that they're claiming that science proves them right (And, at the same time, that science is a horrible, lying, evil system...), which is wrong.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

The basic claims are this: The Earth is 6 000 years old, and everything in the Bible is 100% correct.

Meh. This is a bit of a misrepresentation.

More accurate: The Earth is 6,000 years old, because the seven days of Genesis are literal, and the Bible cites the lifespans of Adam's descendants to a point, after which we can trace the line to the modern day.

Main reason why I and evolutionists can't agree with it as a scientific study is bolded, and that it assumes this is true for their "study".

Perhaps it's a desperate cry from the religious world, perhaps not. I'd like to remain open-minded, as the subject is so touchy.

Although the bible has no paradoxes(most "paradoxes" are just misunderstandings or not very well thought out, literal interpretations) or historical errors(ABSOLUTELY NO HISTORY in the bible has been found incorrect, while a lot of it has been found correct), you cannot take it 100% literally, as God is outside our dimensions of time and space and so forth, he has a completely different idea of time. not all christians are 6-day creationists, I am, but I don't disagree with poeple who are, I merely have a different interpretation which is no more or less accurate than that of another christian(my father for instance).
Also, may I point out that It is just as or more logical to say that the world had a creator than for it not to.
My father has this perfectly credible understanding of creation:
God created all elements and the cosmos, He then caused elements to combine into basic cells, he then intervened in the cells reproduction, causing mutations, adaptations, and differing traits in the cell, God then went on to interfere with every step in the "evolutionary process" and create all life.

I agree with some of that. I think it's wrong to assume one side is completely wrong, while also wrong to assume one side is completely right. Why couldn't God, or some upper being, have set up evolution? I think it's wrong to say there's God and only God and do what the Pope says, but I also feel strongly against people who say that there are no upper beings to humans. We don't honestly know, so how can anyone be sure? How can anyone be so arrogant to stick to a point, when we don't honestly know enough to have an answer?