"Creation" Museum... [Archive]

arunma

May29-07, 07:21 PM

I see what you mean (and appreciate how you put it). To be honest, I haven't looked too deeply into what ideas creationists have been coming up with. It's always somewhat painful and irksome to read. I guess that's why I find this so difficult to fathom...due to a degree of naivete about just how deep-seated/widespread some of these ideas are.

It's not quite as deep-seated as you'd think. There are many of us evangelicals who know that creation "science" is garbage (at best). Strangely, many of the professing creationists I talk to are aware, at some level, that this pseudoscience just doesn't hold up when put to the flame. My guess is that this movement is led by a small group of people who happen to hold sway over many Americans. They've probably realized that they're plenty of money to be made from creationism through seminars, literature, and museums. I think that if you have a reasoned discussion with most of these guys, without trying to present science as opposed to faith, they'll usually realize how dubious creationism is.

Should creationism be stopped? Absolutely. But I'd recommend a softer approach. Creationists seem to love having arguments, so if you take the adversarial road, you aren't going to win. Fortunately, creationists tend to recycle the same set of ten or so arguments (gaps in the fossil record, 300,000 year old mollusks, dust on the moon, etc.), so it's not too hard to explain their folly in an expedient manner.

Ki Man

May29-07, 09:54 PM

it would be interesting to see this become the next jurassic park

to bad there is no genetic engineering involved

ShawnD

May29-07, 11:22 PM

Bible as a literal story..........dinosaurs
Doesn't this contradict itself? Either that or it implies dinosaurs and humans were alive at the same time. :biggrin:

moe darklight

May29-07, 11:43 PM

Either that or it implies dinosaurs and humans were alive at the same time. :biggrin:
that's exactly what it implies. The guy on the radio said something along the lines of "and this is still true today, komodo dragons are dinosaurs." ... ok, komodo dragons are in fact very large reptiles. But I don't think it takes an expert eye to spot the slight differences between a komodo dragon and a T-rex :uhh:.

EDIT: I would actually have no problem with a bible museum if it presented the bible as a story, it could be very interesting and educational. It's one of the most important books ever written, we can also learn a lot about the way society functioned and the way we understood the universe back in those days— told, first hand, by those very people (The only reason I wouldn't go is because I don't think I could stand being in a place packed-full of religious nuts snootily ooohing and aaahing. And I get sick to the stomach when I see parents brain-washing their little kids with that crap).

But it's a great book, and it's one of the most ridiculously violent, racist, sexist, action-packed sagas ever written: thousands of years of generation after generation killing, raping, plaguing, enslaving, and torturing each other. Monstrous wars, the earth opening up an swallowing sinners into a fiery death! It's like "Terminator" minus the plot consistency!

ShawnD

May29-07, 11:52 PM

that's exactly what it implies. The guy on the radio said something along the lines of "and this is still true today, komodo dragons are dinosaurs." ... ok, komodo dragons are in fact very large reptiles. But I don't think it takes an expert eye to spot the slight differences between a komodo dragon and a T-rex :uhh:.

Did creationists always believe this? I thought it was generally accepted that dinosaurs existed long before humans, even for those who believed in creation.

moe darklight

May30-07, 12:20 AM

It really depends who you ask, they can't even agree between them. I've heard some of the more moderate ones say that the bible is a metaphor for God's work written for people to understand back in those days (which still would not make sense, since the order in which God created things during those 7 days isn't even the right order). Then there are others who say the bible is all true, but some parts are metaphors (mysteriously, all the parts that have been proven wrong are metaphors, while the others aren't)...

Then there are those who believe that God gave the earth the appearance of being billions of years old (that he created the earth already filled with fossils and rocks that are billions of years old)... because, you know, God's tricky like that; he likes to keep you guessing, even if it sends you straight to hell to guess wrong.

and on and on and on... in short, don't look for a rational or consistent argument.

Ivan Seeking

May30-07, 01:47 AM

These people need to be silenced, forcefully if necessary.

A call for the truth police! :uhh: I still tend to favor freedom of faith and thought.

Just wait until someone starts mixing the Many Worlds Theory with Bible doctrine. "In the beginning, in a very large number of worlds, there was light, in the rest there was not..."

Cyrus

May30-07, 01:59 AM

Ivan Seeking

May30-07, 02:03 AM

I favor reason and rationality way before I favor freedom of faith and thought. These people say mainstream science is a fairy tale and substitute their own ad-hoc BS.

Who gets to say what is truth? What is your definitive reference to look-up the right answers?

Cyrus

May30-07, 02:04 AM

I think well established science counts as truth. Im all for a well educated public. These idiots get wayyyyyy too much leeway.

The government cant tell them what to say or think. But as a society, we can shun them and outcast them, which I would be all for.

Ivan Seeking

May30-07, 02:12 AM

I think well established science counts as truth.

Throughout history, what percentage of scientific theories have required revision or were flat-out wrong?

The government cant tell them what to say or think. But as a society, we can shun them and outcast them, which I would be all for.

They already are, as are you by them. But I don't think we should have elected one as President.

SpaceTiger

May30-07, 02:18 AM

Throughout history, what percentage of scientific theories have required revision or were flat-out wrong?

Not to come off as supporting cyrus' pogrom, but I expected a much better argument here. Surely you're not going off on the "Newton was wrong, so science is just faith" rant? I thought that was reserved for cranks.

Ivan Seeking

May30-07, 02:24 AM

Not at all. But there is no way to rule out faith arguments. And people have a right to follow their own philosophy.

But I do appreciate the personal insults formed as a question.

SpaceTiger

May30-07, 02:32 AM

Not at all. But there is no way to rule out faith arguments. And people have a right to follow their own philosophy.

Sure, but I fail to see how that has anything to do with the practice of science, seeing that it's not based on faith. I don't think we should be aggressively silencing religious people, but I certainly don't think that all ideas are created equal. I find that sort of rational nihilism disturbing from a mentor on a scientific forum.

But I do appreciate the personal insults formed as a question.

"Surely you're not going off on the "Newton was wrong, so science is just faith" rant?"

I apologize if you interpret that as an insult, but I don't know why you would.

moe darklight

May30-07, 02:37 AM

I favor reason and rationality way before I favor freedom of faith and thought. These people say mainstream science is a fairy tale and substitute their own ad-hoc BS.

I say beat them with sticks like they do in Iran until they learn to shut up.

Hash yes, but their ignorance is a deadly plague and it needs to be put to an end.

These people need to be a laughing stock in the mainstream media 24-7. The news should make a joke out of these people every night.

They say things like "This country was founded with Judeo-Christian beliefs".............well, no. Most presidents were not Jesus freaks. Learn your own history and stop making up more BS like they make up their own science.

Full of it....there all full of it. The news should call them "Domestic Fundamentalists"

I think your view could lead to the point where anyone who questions mainstream science would be publicly humiliated. Let's not forget that much of what today is mainstream science, would have sounded ridiculous and magical some time ago.

I do think, however, that the news-media and politicians should act responsibly and drop their politically-correct stance when it comes to religion. Many of these views would be ridiculed (or at least ignored) by the media were it not for their religious background. The news-media's job is not to play it safe and try not to offend anyone, which is sadly what they're doing lately.

I also think that religious schools and religious programs aimed at children should be banned. An adult has the right to believe in whatever crazy theory he wants to, but filling young childrens' minds with this horrid crap is irresponsible and abusive. Watch a movie like Jesus Camp, and I hope you'll agree (I personally know from spending some childhood years in Israel where the old testament is read in class).

Also, like I joked about before, the bible is incredibly violent and many of its passages have terrible messages (especially regarding women, those who do not share your faith, homosexuals, and just human—and animal—rights in general)... this is not stuff that a young kid can process without proper guidance.
Most parents wouldn't let a 6 year old kid watch "Romper-Stomper", yet they will happily send them to a church once a week to be told about a man being tortured, his entire family killed, and his life ruined for the sake of some twisted bet (book of Job); or the first-born child of every non-beleiving family being murdered (this is, of course, celebrated as a joyous occasion— pesach ("passover" I think?). The murdered weren't of one's faith, so their lives are worthless, of course) ... etc. etc. etc.

Artman

May30-07, 09:34 AM

The creation story in the Bible was not meant to be taken literally. And it certainly was not meant to be twisted to fit humans living with dinosaurs.

It was intended to show something that other creation myths did not: that God created order from chaos. Other contemporary creation storys taught the opposite, that the universe was in order before creation and then something happening to disturb that order. Such as the Persian teaching that the world was covered by a stone shield and a rock breaking that shield and setting the stars and planets in chaotic motion.

The Bible story teaches stewardship, that all of creation is good (...and God said "It is good"...) and should be cared for.

I agree with the man at the park who said that money should have been used for something else.

vanesch

May30-07, 09:46 AM

It was intended to show something that other creation myths did not: that God created order from chaos. Other contemporary creation storys taught the opposite, that the universe was in order before creation and then something happening to disturb that order.

I would rather say that order from chaos is the "standard" creation myth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_belief

Examples:
Rig Vedas (hinduism)
Greek mythology
Egyptian mythology

all proceed from a state of initial chaos from which some form of order arose...

Cyrus

May30-07, 09:50 AM

I think your view could lead to the point where anyone who questions mainstream science would be publicly humiliated. Let's not forget that much of what today is mainstream science, would have sounded ridiculous and magical some time ago.

But its not longer 'some time ago', and we all know, (or should know by now), that its flat out fairy tales if you think the world was created in 7 days and that all the animals were put onto a boat 2 by 2. When you fact check the bible with science, its wrong. Not just wrong, its ridiculously wrong.

I do think, however, that the news-media and politicians should act responsibly and drop their politically-correct stance when it comes to religion. Many of these views would be ridiculed (or at least ignored) by the media were it not for their religious background. The news-media's job is not to play it safe and try not to offend anyone, which is sadly what they're doing lately.

I agree.

I also think that religious schools and religious programs aimed at children should be banned. An adult has the right to believe in whatever crazy theory he wants to, but filling young childrens' minds with this horrid crap is irresponsible and abusive. Watch a movie like Jesus Camp, and I hope you'll agree (I personally know from spending some childhood years in Israel where the old testament is read in class).

I agree, and thanks for reminding me. I gotta see that movie. I herd its real bad.

Cyrus

May30-07, 09:56 AM

Throughout history, what percentage of scientific theories have required revision or were flat-out wrong?

Exactly. But science is not religion. It is based on logic and reason. When there is a problem, we revisit the science and correct it in light of new information.

The bible is absolute. Its right and if you dont agree with it blindly you're going to hell. And if you dont believe in my bible you're going to hell because your bible is wrong and my bible is right....oh brother.

vanesch

May30-07, 10:54 AM

Just wait until someone starts mixing the Many Worlds Theory with Bible doctrine. "In the beginning, in a very large number of worlds, there was light, in the rest there was not..."

Well, this is how string theorists try to solve the Landscape Problem, in fact... :biggrin:

Ivan Seeking

May30-07, 11:25 AM

Sure, but I fail to see how that has anything to do with the practice of science, seeing that it's not based on faith. I don't think we should be aggressively silencing religious people, but I certainly don't think that all ideas are created equal. I find that sort of rational nihilism disturbing from a mentor on a scientific forum.

I had two points buried in there. First, there is reason to doubt any particular theory in that science continually evolves. But more importantly, to most people science is taken on faith. Most people don't have the experience or training to gain the conviction held by scientists. And the evolution of science often is not understood as being a natural part of the process.

"Surely you're not going off on the "Newton was wrong, so science is just faith" rant?"

I apologize if you interpret that as an insult, but I don't know why you would.

I guess that I was shocked that you would expect such an argument from me.

Artman

May30-07, 11:45 AM

I would rather say that order from chaos is the "standard" creation myth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_belief

Examples:
Rig Vedas (hinduism)
Greek mythology
Egyptian mythology

all proceed from a state of initial chaos from which some form of order arose...

Many of these include fights between gods or destruction and other negative teachings about the act of creation, to explain good and evil. The Bible story from Genesis chapter 1 presents it as a pure act of good.

From your link:
...A Hindu creation account is recorded in the sacred texts, the Vedas, according to which the universe, the Earth, along with humans and other creatures undergo repeated cycles of creation and destruction (pralaya)...

...The later puranic view asserts that the universe is created, destroyed, and re-created in an eternally repetitive series of cycles. In Hindu cosmology, a universe endures for about 4,320,000,000 years (one day of Brahma, the creator or kalpa) and is then destroyed by fire or water elements...

Or Greek-
Demiurge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demiurge)

The concept of artist or creator and even the Platonist conflict between the poet and philosopher (see Plato's Republic) has a link in Plato's expression of the demiurge in his works...

...However, in contrast to Plato, several systems of Gnostic thought present the Demiurge as antagonistic to the will of the Supreme Being: his act of creation occurs in unconscious imitation of the divine model, and thus is fundamentally flawed, or else is formed with the malevolent intention of entrapping aspects of the divine in materiality. Thus, in such systems, the Demiurge acts as a solution to the problem of evil...

The unique aspect is more the purity and goodness of the act of creation described in the Bible. It also does not call the heavenly bodies gods or place the world on top of a giant turtle, or fish, or huge god such as Atlas as several other religions did.

SpaceTiger

May30-07, 02:22 PM

But more importantly, to most people science is taken on faith. Most people don't have the experience or training to gain the conviction held by scientists.

I wouldn't say this is analogous to religious faith, it's more like trust. It's true that most people don't have the knowledge to prove scientific claims, but the fact that the proof exists and the professionals could present it makes a big difference. Ask a priest for proof of god, he will tell you to have faith. Ask a scientist for proof of the big bang, he will present you with the evidence compiled throughout history. Science is logical and empirical -- even people who aren't trained in it understand this and many trust scientists. Inherent in this trust is the understanding that scientists and scientific theories can be wrong, and that if they are, the scientific method will eventually uncover the inaccuracies. Again, this isn't something you can expect from a religion.

I guess that I was shocked that you would expect such an argument from me.

I wouldn't, really, and was perhaps a bit glib in my surprise. Apologies.

Jimmy Snyder

May30-07, 04:13 PM

Surely you're not going off on the "Newton was wrong, so science is just faith" rant?
How about "Newton was wrong and that's exactly why science is not faith"?
In order to be scientific, a theory is supposed to be falsifiable. If Newton hasn't been falsified, then what does it mean to be falsifiable? Has the phlogiston theory been falsified yet? Don't forget, it was good science in its day. If Newton is still right because his theory continues to explain a limited set of phenomena, then so is phlogiston, is it not? To paraphrase an old joke, I thought that the difference between science and faith was that only scientists need a waste basket. Shall we do away with it?

cepheid

May30-07, 04:21 PM

I had two points buried in there. First, there is reason to doubt any particular theory in that science continually evolves. But more importantly, to most people science is taken on faith. Most people don't have the experience or training to gain the conviction held by scientists. And the evolution of science often is not understood as being a natural part of the process.

I think this is an excellent point. It is extremely difficult to convey to the general public the degree to which certain well-established theories have been corroborated and substantitated (by empirical evidence or otherwise), without delving into overly technical details. Even my "conviction" in evolution is based on a faith of sorts. I haven't taken any biology since my first year (and now I'm finishing up my undergrad). My memory of the genetics we learned in high school is sketchy. Nevertheless, my "faith" is a faith in competence of the scientists themselves and of the scientific method, if you like. My willingness to accept the results of mainstream science that I don't have the background knowledge to fully understand is based on an understanding that no one is more careful or skeptical of new ideas and theories than the scientists themselves. If it has survived the intense scrutiny of the peer-review process, if the evidence in support of it has only mounted over the last 150 years, if no one has ever been able to show significant findings to the the contrary...well, you get my point.

In contrast, many people don't understand that scientists are held to such standards. This problem is compounded by the oft-mentioned discrepancy between the colloquial and scientific use of the word "theory". In common parlance, a theory is akin to a hypothesis in science -- an as yet untested educated guess. In light of all this, I can see how the scientists are fighting an uphill battle, and it is relatively easy for the creationists to claim that scientists are guilty of obfuscation by resorting to overly technical jargon and using it to claim intellectual superiority (or even supremacy) in a given field of knowledge.

What I DON'T understand is why people would BUY such an argument on the part of the creationists. Don't they ever ask themselves, "what would the scientists have to gain by lying to us and spreading falsehoods in general?" Unlike the creationists, the scientists do not have a personal stake in the outcome of this "debate."

One news story I saw on MSNBC illustrated this point. It was discussing a man who was using the rapid geological changes induced by the eruption of Mt. St. Helens to argue that the Earth could have been shaped in a timespan as short as that claimed in the Bible. To his credit, he had taken it upon himself to learn a fair bit about geology. The criticism of real geologists was that although he understood some of the science, he was not employing the scientific method. He was starting with the conclusion that he wanted to be true, and then using certain scientific evidence to justify that conclusion. Scientists, on the other hand, don't start with any preconceived notions about what they "should" find. They just go where the evidence leads. This argument, for me, clinched it. I couldn't see how anyone in his/her right mind could refute it. If we are to embark upon a "search for truth," surely this approach is the absolute best we can do?

Kurdt

May30-07, 04:43 PM

I think cepheid hit the nail on the head there. Creationists have already decided what nature is to them and try desperately to see meaning where there is none. Many lack the knowledge and training as has been mentioned to corroborate mainstream scientific theories and take the words of scientists as those of a preacher where they are to have faith in them or not. As soon as those theories start indicating nature is not as they see it then they become very defensive. For some reason having ones perception of how things are turned upside down sems to aggravate a lot of people. But I would say iof they needed any more proof that modern scientific theory was well grounded just look at the technological innovation in the past 100 years or so.

I also believe as cepheid highlighted, that the general public do not realise how harsh peer review is.

SpaceTiger

May30-07, 05:04 PM

If Newton is still right because his theory continues to explain a limited set of phenomena, then so is phlogiston, is it not?

I'm not trying to say Newton was right, just that saying he was wrong is an oversimplification and can be deceptive. His theories are still useful for many purposes and act as a limiting case for more modern theories. If one's only concern is the true nature of things and the most basic workings of the universe, then sure, Newton was completely wrong. Science, however, is not just about answering the ultimate questions (in fact, I don't think it should even try), it is about being able to understand and predict the behavior of the natural world. Newton's laws can still do this in certain limits. Perhaps one can use phlogiston to predict or understand something, but I can't say I'm familiar enough with the theory to say one way or the other.

I think a person can treat science as an object of faith, but I don't think they should, nor do i think most people do. If one believes that what we can test with science is all there is, then they have a faith of sorts. If one simply takes science as means of describing the natural world with increasing precision and accuracy, then I wouldn't say they have faith in it, just logic and understanding.

moe darklight

May30-07, 05:09 PM

The creation story in the Bible was not meant to be taken literally. And it certainly was not meant to be twisted to fit humans living with dinosaurs.

At no point in the bible does God say "metaphorically speaking," or "here's an analogy to better illustrate my point." No, in fact, pretty much every page has a passage warning you about the infallible/pure/true and only Word Of God and the suffering that will come your way if you are to ever doubt it or change it.

If God is so smart, why would he mix up so many analogies in with his facts without even warning us. Couldn't he see this coming? couldn't he have predicted that one day those analogies would cause a lot of trouble?

The whole "well, god meant it as an analogy" thing is new, and was introduced only once certain passages have been proven to be so ridiculously wrong and, well, crazy, that even religious authorities could no longer stand by them. By doing so, they are sinners in the eyes of the bible, because the bible is pretty clear on what happens when you in any way change God's word.

7and the LORD spoke to Moses, saying,

8"Take (A)the rod; and you and your brother Aaron assemble the congregation and speak to the rock before their eyes, that it may yield its water. You shall thus bring forth water for them out of the rock and let the congregation and their beasts drink."
9So Moses took the rod (B)from before the LORD, just as He had commanded him;

10and Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly before the rock. And he said to them, "(C)Listen now, you rebels; shall we bring forth water for you out of this rock?"

11Then Moses lifted up his hand and struck the rock twice with his rod; and (D)water came forth abundantly, and the congregation and their beasts drank.

12But the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "(E)Because you have not believed Me, to treat Me as holy in the sight of the sons of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land which I have given them."

Moses, a man who gave his life to God's word and is seen as a holy man, is forbidden from entering Israel once the Jews reach it. Why? well, you see, God told moses to speak to a rock so that water will come out (to prove to the Israelites God's amazing rock-watering super powers... because you know, even after he split the sea in two they weren't quite convinced)— But Moses, for some reason, hits the rock instead of speaking to it (maybe he simply misunderstood? maybe the poor guy was just frustrated after 40 years in the desert?). This is terribly offensive to God: HITTING a rock when God said, specifically, that he should TALK to the rock! Moses is banned from Israel. After a life-time of hardship, he is not allowed to enjoy the fruits of his labor because he misinterpreted one word.

could you imagine God's wrath if he could hear these people say that his word is not meant to be literal?

The Bible story teaches stewardship, that all of creation is good (...and God said "It is good"...) and should be cared for.

Maybe at some points; I guess it really depends which parts... the bible is pretty hypocritical.

Danger

May30-07, 05:16 PM

At no point in the bible does God say "metaphorically speaking," or "here's an analogy to better illustrate my point."

You seem to be suffering under the belief that the bible wasn't written by human beings.

arunma

May30-07, 05:20 PM

Moses, a man who gave his life to God's word and is seen as a holy man, is forbidden from entering Israel once the Jews reach it. Why? well, you see, God told moses to speak to a rock so that water will come out (to prove to the Israelites God's amazing rock-watering super powers... because you know, even after he split the sea in two they weren't quite convinced)— But Moses, for some reason, hits the rock instead of speaking to it (maybe he simply misunderstood? maybe the poor guy was just frustrated after 40 years in the desert?). This is terribly offensive to God: HITTING a rock when God said, specifically, that he should TALK to the rock! Moses is banned from Israel. After a life-time of hardship, he is not allowed to enjoy the fruits of his labor because he misinterpreted one word.

Hope I'm not starting an argument here, but your assessment seems to be based on what you want the Bible to say rather than what it actually says. Various denominations of Christianity have spent centuries developing systematic theologies through which they view the Bible. But, if I may be so bold, you seem to be taking the same approach to the Bible that creationists take with science (i.e. "let's see what facts we can find to support our conclusion"). I recommend a different approach, because this one will most certainly not sway any creationists over to your side. What it will do is drive them to vote for one of the three available creationist presidental candidates, who will then write creationism into law.

moe darklight

May30-07, 05:21 PM

You seem to be suffering under the belief that the bible wasn't written by human beings.

I say "God says" when I talk about the Bible just as I would say "Jim says" were I talking about Huckleberry Finn :biggrin:.

moe darklight

May30-07, 05:32 PM

Hope I'm not starting an argument here, but your assessment seems to be based on what you want the Bible to say rather than what it actually says. Various denominations of Christianity have spent centuries developing systematic theologies through which they view the Bible. But, if I may be so bold, you seem to be taking the same approach to the Bible that creationists take with science (i.e. "let's see what facts we can find to support our conclusion"). I recommend a different approach, because this one will most certainly not sway any creationists over to your side. What it will do is drive them to vote for one of the three available creationist presidental candidates, who will then write creationism into law.

I'm not an expert in religions or anything like that. But I do know that the Bible (as far as the old testament goes) is pretty clear on being unquestionable. The irony is that most of the bibles sold today are at some level edited versions of the original. The king James bible is, well, King James' bible... some passages are deliberately changed. And pretty much every group changes or interprets different parts of the bible to suit their own needs.— but at the end of the day, the bible says what it says.

If you want the purist point of view, visit a Jewish extremist in Israel (the ones who wear only black and will stone you if you drive a car on a saturday), they take the bible literally (for example, if you ask them, they are Jews, and everyone else in israel is not a Jew because a Jew is not to interpret the word of God as he pleases).

out of whack

May30-07, 05:34 PM

He was starting with the conclusion that he wanted to be true, and then using certain scientific evidence to justify that conclusion.

Another point of view occurs to me: creationists are starting with a hypothesis just like scientists do, and they attempt to prove it just like scientists do. Their hypothesis is that an intelligence is involved in the design of nature. The difference is that they have failed to formulate a valid theory that successfully makes predictions and therefore explains the hypothesis, whereas scientists have indeed reached this stage in many fields. This puts the difference between science and creationism in a different light: science advances while creationism is stuck at the hypothesis stage. Maybe books on ID should carry a sticker with a disclaimer. "This is only a hypothesis, it is not even a theory yet!" :wink:

Jimmy Snyder

May30-07, 05:37 PM

If one simply takes science as means of describing the natural world with increasing precision and accuracy, then I wouldn't say they have faith in it, just logic and understanding.
Well put. That is how I take science.

arunma

May30-07, 05:44 PM

I'm not an expert in religions or anything like that. But I do know that the Bible (as far as the old testament goes) is pretty clear on being unquestionable. The irony is that most of the bibles sold today are at some level edited versions of the original. The king James bible is, well, King James' bible... some passages are deliberately changed. And pretty much every group changes or interprets different parts of the bible to suit their own needs.— but at the end of the day, the bible says what it says.

Actually, most modern Bibles say, more or less, exactly what is written in the original languages. I'm not aware of any major Bible translation that is edited with a particular bent of any sort (there are a few edited Bibles, but they are specifically sold as paraphrases). And as it so happens, virtually every denomination agrees on the meaning of the passage you cited earlier. In short, your argument isn't very convincing, except to others who already feel as you do.

Then there's also the fact that even if your interpretation of the Bible were correct, this is simply the sort of thing that you just shouldn't say. Fundamentalist Christians have a good deal of political clout in America, and if you anger them, they will retaliate. Already we have seen that many school boards in America are opting to teach creationism alongside evolution. Like it or not, the American public controls funding for science. So if we want to keep our careers free of pseudoscience, then I recommend that everyone with unpopular religious views keep it to themselves.

moe darklight

May30-07, 06:09 PM

What is the interpretation? At school I was taught that this showed how one must always follow God's word. That Moses brought this upon himself by doubting God.

It's true that most bibles say more or less the same thing. But some passages are subtly changed and this can make a big difference when interpreting them.

So if we want to keep our careers free of pseudoscience, then I recommend that everyone with unpopular religious views keep it to themselves.

So the solution to a problem is to ignore it to save one's own skin? The only reason society has progressed this far and we live in a world where we are free to express our opinions is the many people throughout history who have risked their lives in the name of freedom; those who spoke up when everyone else shut up.

If you don't speak up, you might find it's too late once you wish you had. The religious plan (of pretty much any religion) isn't to "live and let live," it is to take over. Look what fundamentalists did in 8 years of being let to do as they please.

Cyrus

May30-07, 06:27 PM

So if we want to keep our careers free of pseudoscience, then I recommend that everyone with unpopular religious views keep it to themselves.

I strongly disagree with that. Now is the time to speak up and educate these people on science. Its time to expose these people for who they are. They are just as bad as 'muslim fundamentalists'. Im going to start calling them christian extremists.

arunma

May30-07, 06:29 PM

I strongly disagree with that. Now is the time to speak up and educate these people on science. Its time to expose these people for who they are. They are just as bad as 'muslim fundamentalists'. Im going to start calling them christian extremists.

I'm not suggesting that we do nothing. I'm suggesting that when scientists explain the folly of creation science, they ought not to portray science as opposed to religion. In other words: attack creationism, not religion.

Cyrus

May30-07, 06:30 PM

That's obvious. Read it again. Someone did say (rhetorically) that science is faith and I quoted him in my post.

In other words, you don't get it, but it's wrong. Name a level.

Aha, I misread what you wrote sorry. Seems like we are saying the same thing.

Cyrus

May30-07, 06:31 PM

I'm not suggesting that we do nothing. I'm suggesting that when scientists explain the folly of creation science, they ought not to portray science as opposed to religion. In other words: attack creationism, not religion.

True, but I dont like religion either. :tongue2:

I prefer not to be mentally enslaved.

Cyrus

May30-07, 06:35 PM

I'll delete mine if you delete yours.

http://www.rightwinged.com/images/photoshops/yougotitdude.jpg
"You got it dude!"

arunma

May30-07, 06:44 PM

True, but I dont like religion either. :tongue2

And you're free to hold that belief. But your views on religion are your personal beliefs, and they can't be formulated as science. As such, it would be academically dishonest to claim that science is opposed to religion (it would be more accurate to say that science doesn't comment on religion). But again, if intellectual honesty isn't motivation enough, then please consider that the more you portray science as antithetical to religion, the harder it may be for me to get funding in the future. Furthermore, comments like this are likely to incite an anti-scientific backlash, as we've already seen in recent years.

Cyrus

May30-07, 06:57 PM

And you're free to hold that belief. But your views on religion are your personal beliefs, and they can't be formulated as science.

I never said science was/is religion.

As such, it would be academically dishonest to claim that science is opposed to religion.

:confused:I never said that.

But again, if intellectual honesty isn't motivation enough, then please consider that the more you portray science as antithetical to religion, the harder it may be for me to get funding in the future. Furthermore, comments like this are likely to incite an anti-scientific backlash, as we've already seen in recent years.

I have no problem with christians that keep shut and listen to the scientists. But when they think they run the show, then I will fight them back....hard.

When they try to run the country based on the bible, I will fight them back...hard.

This isnt the United States of Jesus Land.

moe darklight

May30-07, 07:46 PM

But science is in many ways opposed to religion, I don't think they can coexist. One of the main principles of religion is "faith:" belief without proof. This goes completely against everything science (or rational thought) stands for. How can the two ever be compatible?

What is the interpretation?

I realize this might read sarcastic or confrontational on the internet, but that wasn't my intention. I'd actually like to know if there is another interpretation of these types of verses.

Like I said, I'm no expert. My understanding of the old testament comes only from what I was taught in school and from my own personal interpretation. To me it seems like the bible is quite clear on referring to itself as being literal.

out of whack

May30-07, 07:56 PM

To me it seems like the bible is quite clear on referring to itself as being literal.

Maybe its claim to be literal is only a figure of speech! :biggrin:

Artman

May30-07, 08:39 PM

At no point in the bible does God say "metaphorically speaking," or "here's an analogy to better illustrate my point." No, in fact, pretty much every page has a passage warning you about the infallible/pure/true and only Word Of God and the suffering that will come your way if you are to ever doubt it or change it.

And you read these passages from the original Hebrew texts? Are you aware that the original language of the Bible applies vowels in extra short, short, long, or extra long form? That the word for Red sea may also be Reed sea? Are you aware that striking a rock in the desert to find water isn't a miracle, but rather breaking a salt deposit to free trapped water? The Hebrews that this story was originally told to would have been aware of that. Creationists attending that theme park would not.

Literal to them (people who lived during that time, knew their customs, spoke the language, lived in that area), and literal to us (thousands of years later, are reading translations made from translations from oral traditions, who don't know the customs, don't know the climate, don't know the area) are two different things.

It takes study to understand the Bible, study to apply it's teachings.

Kurdt

May30-07, 09:05 PM

The reed sea? That makes a lot more sense. They parted the reeds and waded to freedom across a lake while the chariots got stuck in silt.

I propose a new translation of genesis too.

Genesis 1: A lot of people say to me, 'get out of my garden'.

Genesis 2:......

Just cuts to the chase.

Evo

May30-07, 09:06 PM

This has always made me laugh. :biggrin:

http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/wise.htm

A Creation "Science" Geologic Time Scale

1,500 years. Pre-Flood "Geology." Laws of science invalid.

(2) Adam and Eve, talking snakes, etc.

3) World's waters are in great Venus-like atmosphere or in ground
water. No rain, no ocean basins.

(4) Radiometric dating invalid; speed of light changed.

(5) Humans, dinosaurs, mammals, the "works," all live together in
peace. Both lions and Tyranosaurus Rex are vegetarians in Eden before
the "fall."

(6) Human life spans up to 900 years.

(7) Battle of Satan and angels produces craters on moon.

continued...

http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/wise.htm

moe darklight

May30-07, 09:10 PM

And you read these passages from the original Hebrew texts?

Yes I read them in Hebrew, I don't know what version of the texts seeing as there are so many copies. (it might be somewhat modernized Hebrew, I don't know, I've never seen personally an ancient scroll so I don't know if the language is the same. If it was, it's at least closer than the English translations)

Are you aware that the original language of the Bible applies vowels in extra short, short, long, or extra long form? That the word for Red sea may also be Reed sea?

Hebrew words are not that easy to confuse*, or else it would be a pretty unsuccessful language to communicate with. Also, special punctuation is sometimes used when a word might be mistaken (though I don't know if these punctuation's are a modern invention).

Are you aware that striking a rock in the desert to find water isn't a miracle, but rather breaking a salt deposit to free trapped water? The Hebrews that this story was originally told to would have been aware of that. Creationists attending that theme park would not.

But that's the point of the story: God asks Moses to speak to the stone, not strike it. He wants moses to do this publicly to show God's great powers (Moses asking a stone to give its water, and the stone obeying would be a miracle. I think we both agree on that). But Moses disobeys, and strikes the stone instead, which is why God becomes so angry and banishes him from Israel.

Literal to them (people who lived during that time, knew their customs, spoke the language, lived in that area), and literal to us (thousands of years later, are reading translations made from translations from oral traditions, who don't know the customs, don't know the climate, don't know the area) are two different things.

Yes, this is true if we agree that the bible is a work of fiction by humans. But the bible claims it is the word of God. The bible claims that God knows all. God would have predicted Darwin and Quantum Physics and the fossil record and so on.

It takes study to understand the Bible, study to apply it's teachings.
it takes study to fully understand almost any literary work. This doesn't mean that one can't understand some aspects of it. I might not understand many aspects of an Aphrah Behn or Shakespeare play without years of studying the culture and language of their times, but when a character tells another she loves him, the message is pretty clear.
Many parts of the bible might lend themselves to interpretation, but when the bible says that it is the truth, that it is literal, and so on, (to me it seems, at least) like it is written in straight to-the-point language. I'm not aware of any part where the bible even slightly insinuates that it is not meant to be taken literally. I might be wrong (great Radiohead song, by the way).

* EDIT: at least not so often that you can say that every miracle in the bible is just the words being other words.

scott_alexsk

May30-07, 09:50 PM

Jimmy Snyder

May30-07, 10:03 PM

To me it seems like the bible is quite clear on referring to itself as being literal.
In the New Testament, the bible declares itself not be be taken literally. Read Matthew Chapter 13, verses 10 through 17.

moe darklight

May30-07, 10:24 PM

I didn't know that. I'll check it out. I don't know much about the new testament, so I won't comment on it. In the old testament God seems pretty insistent on constantly making a point of his word being perfect.

Artman

May30-07, 10:30 PM

moe darklight,

I think the later translations add the special punctuation. I believe that ambiguity is what makes the Bible a living document. If it was as concrete in it's
statements as some of the already dead religions, it too would have died. It is this openness to interpretation that makes it relevant to those who believe it today. Unfortunately, it also leaves the door open for creationists to argue without facts against scientific theories. People like that do more harm to the Christian religions then they will ever do good.

arunma

May30-07, 10:30 PM

In the New Testament, the bible declares itself not be be taken literally. Read Matthew Chapter 13, verses 10 through 17.

Sorry, but I'm not sure I'm seeing the same thing. This passage seems to be referring to God's act of blinding those who harden their hearts against him...as would be consistent with this thread.

Alas, this thread seems to be turning into a religious debate. Rather than arguing against the claim that the Bible is responsible for all evil on earth, I'll simply leave you all with the request that my fellow scientists not say/do something stupid to get all our funding taken away one day.

moe darklight

May30-07, 10:42 PM

Rather than arguing against the claim that the Bible is responsible for all evil on earth, I'll simply leave you all with the request that my fellow scientists not say/do something stupid to get all our funding taken away one day.

I haven't read anyone say that on this thread. My argument is simply that science and religion are incompatible, and that this new notion that they can both somehow meet half-way is not only illogical but possibly dangerous.

I also think that the worst thing that scientists could say or do is nothing, which is where I disagree with your assumption that if we let them be they won't try and interfere.

Artman

May30-07, 10:53 PM

...My argument is simply that science and religion are incompatible, and that this new notion that they can both somehow meet half-way is not only illogical but possibly dangerous...I agree with this.

Surrealist

May31-07, 12:15 AM

moe darklight

May31-07, 12:35 AM

OK, a creation museum is a retarded concept, but what I don't understand is why people felt the need to protest it.

I mean this non-profit organization raised $27 million dollars, but it's not like the money came from the government. Why would people protest how a non-profit organization decides to spend its own money?

If I raised $27 million, from like-minded supporters, to open a muesuem of "piss and ****"... who the hell are you to tell me how to spend the money I raised for that specific cause?

Last time I checked, this is America... land of the FREE!

I have no problem with a museum on creationism or the bible. I do have a problem with it claiming to be something it is not, and for kids being brainwashed with this nonsense. There is a difference between freedom of speech and misinformation.

freedom of speech: I write a book about flying pigs.

not freedom of speech: I write a book about how pigs can fly; it is filled with misleading statements that are presented as facts and makes the reader believe that this flying-pig theory is backed by "a growing number of the scientific community" (as they always claim).

To me, the second part is where freedom of speech should end. The same as the press should not be allowed to report news that never happened, a museum or textbook should not be allowed to present a theory that has not been even remotely proven possible as indisputable.

I also have no problem with considering and investigating theories such as intelligent design, god, or the "paranormal". But this should be done responsibly, not through propaganda and lies— this could also end up hurting serious scientist who legitimately ask these questions — And if the research leads to a conclusion that is not what you wanted, then you should admit it, not just ignore the evidence against your theory.

Cyrus

May31-07, 12:47 AM

I don't even know why you people care so much and waste so much time jabbering about how stupid us Christians are. If life has no meaning then it does not f***ing matter how stupid our belief is, and what consequences it has. It is our choice how we want to spend this time, and you are truely stupid, if you think that life is meaningless, that there is a right way and a wrong way to spend it. If it is all so bad, evolution will rid our world of people with defective brains like mine.

We care so much because religious people in this country are trying to put religion into science, and government. That is oil and water. You dont mix the two. Why does President Bush have 150 people working in his office from the pat robertson law school? :confused: Religious people are spreading their filth and polluting this great country.

PS, life is not meaningless. A meaningless life is living by a stupid book written by men thats full of myths and fairytales and closing your mind. A meaninful life is helping others, contributing to society, and science etc. Live and let live. Religious people go on and on about tolerance, yet they are the most intolerant people I have ever met.

Religion is an opiate of the masses

I dont agree with communism, but a broken watch is still correct twice a day.

http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/04/08/scandal_puts_spotlight_on_christian_law_school/

Cyrus

May31-07, 12:51 AM

I'll simply leave you all with the request that my fellow scientists not say/do something stupid to get all our funding taken away one day.

Taken away by who? The federal government cant do that because of religion. I think this is a load of pro-creationist crap - at least it sounds like it to me.

In fact, I dont think you have ever worked in a lab based on what you said.

If *any* employer asks you about your religious views you can sue their *** off.

Surrealist

May31-07, 01:12 AM

a museum or textbook should not be allowed to present a theory that has not been even remotely proven possible as indisputable

You would be correct if you said a "federally funded museum or textbook paid for with tax payer dollars"... but we are clearly talking about a specific case of museums and textbooks paid for by private parties.

It is not your place nor the government's place to decide how individuals or private organizations spend their own money.

At this point, I would like to reiterate the fact that I am neither a Christian nor a supporter of the creationist movement. However, I would like to make a point of saying that I believe in freedom, and this country was founded on this principle of individual freedom. It scares the **** out of me that people like you--people who want to take away individual freedoms--are flourishing in this country.

Cyrus

May31-07, 01:13 AM

But those books are going into public schools.

You can say whatever religious BS you want to, but you cant call it science. You have freedom of religion. Not freedom to make up science. Try making up science when you build a bridge and see what happens when you get to court because the bridge failed. You will get the living crap sued out of you because science means real honest to goodness science must have been done to build that bridge.

Surrealist

May31-07, 01:15 AM

But those books are going into public schools.

That comment has nothing to do with my arguments concerning the specific case being discussed.

Cyrus

May31-07, 01:16 AM

Yes, it does. Because those private organizations are spilling into public institutions. Its finding its way into the hands of children in public schools.

It all comes down to misinformation. If you spread misinformation you can be sued for it. We should have an ammendment to the constitution so that you have freedom of speech, provided that its not misinformation you are spreading.

Surrealist

May31-07, 01:22 AM

Yes, it does. Because those private organizations are spilling into public institutions. Its finding its way into the hands of children in public schools.

We are arguing about a private organization and their right to make their own museum. Don't steer the discussion onto a different topic.

Also, don't edit your post (by adding additional content) after I have already quoted it. It is in poor taste and should be regarded as an act of deception.

Cyrus

May31-07, 01:22 AM

Cyrus

May31-07, 01:24 AM

We are arguing about a private organization and their right to make their own museum. Don't steer the discussion onto a different topic.

Also, don't edit your post (by adding additional content) after I have already quoted it. It is in poor taste and should be regarded as an act of deception.

A private organization can make their own museum if they want to. I already said that much earlier in this thread.

I added to my post and it showed up before I saw your post.

moe darklight

May31-07, 02:08 AM

Surrealist, I don't oppose freedom of speech or the freedom to make a museum on something I don't agree with. But like cyrusabdollahi said, try building a bridge with made up science.
There is a difference between expressing an opinion and spreading misinformation.

Extreme example: If a group of people out there were publishing books making up health benefits for crystal-meth, and they claimed this was backed up by the scientific method. would you say they have the right to publish this book?
I hope not. I would say they have the right to believe that crystal-meth is good for you all they want. Hell, they even have the right to propose research to be done in search of these supposed health benefits and publish their proposal... just don't claim that it was proven when it wasn't.

It scares the **** out of me that people like you--people who want to take away individual freedoms--are flourishing in this country.
if it makes you feel any better: I'm canadian :smile:

Smurf

May31-07, 02:20 AM

Also, don't edit your post (by adding additional content) after I have already quoted it. It is in poor taste and should be regarded as an act of deception.

In Cyrus defence, it was only a minute after you posted, he was probably in the editing screen when you posted.

Jimmy Snyder

May31-07, 07:21 AM

MeJennifer

May31-07, 07:54 AM

I couldn't believe this story when I saw it...

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070528/creation_museum/20070528?hub=TopStories

From the article:
"The non-profit group created the US$27 million Creation Museum, but protestors said the money could have been better spent. ``Twenty-seven million dollars could have gone towards a lot of other things other than propping up a fairy tale,`` said one man."

Not sure what there is to protest. :confused:
This money comes from private contributions.

You've got to be f'in kidding me. These people need to be silenced, forcefully if necessary.
This kind of commentary is inappropriate IMHO.

Religious people are spreading their filth and polluting this great country.

Also I find this statement highly offensive.

A meaningless life is living by a stupid book written by men thats full of myths and fairytales and closing your mind.
When we are young we have far less life experience than when we get older. At the same time young people tend to think they know it all :smile:
Sometimes these books provide information that can help avoid problems later in life, we may not understand them when we are young, but when we get older we are more prone to understand them.
I do not disagree with the notion that most stories in religious writings are fictional and mythological but that does not mean they are useless and are as you call it closing the mind. I do recommend others to read religious works, not only do I consider it part of general education but also these writings contain wisdom about human nature.

Surrealist

May31-07, 09:49 AM

Free speech is not an absolute, for exmaple:

-Defamation/Slander/Libel
-Obscenity
-Lying in court
-Talking out of turn during a trial, or talk that causes contempt of court
-Lies that cause a crowd to panic or causes Clear and present danger or Imminent lawless action, such as Shouting fire in a crowded theater

Then I guess you agree that those guys were doing none of the above when they opened their own private museum on creationism... but thanks for the completely off-topic remark... you almost steered the conversation onto another subject.

Artman

May31-07, 10:12 AM

Here is a good essay on the perils of literal interpretation of the Bible:

The Critical Study of the Bible (http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/aageson_biblicaltext.htm)

...For example, in Mark 12:1-9, Jesus tells a parable about a man who planted a vineyard, put a fence around it, dug a pit for a wine press, built a watchtower, and then rented it to tenants before leaving for another country. When the harvest came, he sent a slave to collect the rent, but the tenants seized and beat him instead of giving him the owner's share of the harvest. Other slaves were sent, and they, too, were beaten or killed. Finally the owner sent his own son thinking that the tenants would honor him and give him his share of the rent. Instead they seized him, killed him, and threw his body out of the vineyard. If a reader of this story were simply to read the surface level of the text, the entire point would be missed because this is a parable that takes the form of an allegory. In other words, the characters in the story refer to other figures: God, prophets, Christ, etc. A meaningful, dare we say a correct reading of this text, requires more than a literal adherence to the surface level of the words. In that sense of "literal," a surface reading of the text would be anything but a sound reading of the text. An insightful reading would require other judgments about the text to be made, for example, the literary genre of the text, in this case an allegory...

Cyrus

May31-07, 10:42 AM

This kind of commentary is inappropriate IMHO.....Also I find this statement highly offensive.

Sorry if its offensive, but I find religion to be highly offensive. All I hear from my one friend is how "Jesus died for me" and that I need to convert for Jeusus. I hate people ringing my doorbell asking for donations to their church. I hate the whole damm concept of religion for weak minded people to follow in the masses. ARG I HATE RELIGION PERIOD! Im not kidding when I say its a plague and its infesting the minds of everyone around the world. I hate people (like my friend, and I tell him this all the time) that are close minded because they believe in 'faith' and wont hear logic and reason first. These people are dangeous to society.

When we are young we have far less life experience than when we get older. At the same time young people tend to think they know it all :smile:

I dont have to be old to know somethings bad for you.

Sometimes these books provide information that can help avoid problems later in life, we may not understand them when we are young, but when we get older we are more prone to understand them.
I do not disagree with the notion that most stories in religious writings are fictional and mythological but that does not mean they are useless and are as you call it closing the mind. I do recommend others to read religious works, not only do I consider it part of general education but also these writings contain wisdom about human nature.

Yes, but many books provide the same information on how to live life without the need of GOD. The bible should be restricted to the fiction section of the library.

When people are born into religion its like being fed heroin since birth. These people will never break the habbit no matter what, and that scares the hell out of me. There are very few people I have ever met that were religious and turned athiest. The majority become more and more religious as they get older. The sight of people standing around holding hands and crying, shaking, and praising something that does not exist is very distrubing to me.

MeJennifer

May31-07, 12:11 PM

I don't have a problem with you hating religion, frankly I don't care.
But I do have a problem with statements like:
You've got to be f'in kidding me. These people need to be silenced, forcefully if necessary.
Religious people are spreading their filth and polluting this great country.
These people are dangeous to society.
These statements are offensive. I would be as much offended if we´d replace "Religious people" or "These people" with infidels, homosexuals, blacks, Arabs, Jews or any other group that does not violate the laws.

drankin

May31-07, 12:26 PM

Cyrus, I completely understand your stance on religion. I know where you are coming from. But, in basic principle, for someone to live by the teachings of Christianity, (not a political, or an activist type Christian), is very healthy for a person, family, and community. I pick Christianity because it is the only religion I am familiar with. The values, in general, are "good" for society.

The country was founded on religious freedom. To turn around and condemn all religions for the sake of the keeping America a great country does not make sense in this respect. It wouldn't be the America it was intended to be when all is said and done.

Also, people standing around holding hands, crying, and shaking... I heard this is how the Quakers got their name. "quaking".

They are having what is called a "religous" experience. What's wrong with that?

Moridin

May31-07, 12:29 PM

It is irrelevant if you feel that they are offending. The US have freedom of religion but also freedom from religion. Religious freedom is so that the government are prevented from preventing religious people from carrying out the customs of their religion. It does not, in any way, shield them from criticism. At all.

According to Gallup, one third of the US population believe that the bible represents absolute truth and over 40% thinks that evolution never happened and that the earth is less than 10 000 years. Religious freedom argument is not a valid defense.

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=27682
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=21814

A creation museum should be dealt in the same manner as if they trying to build museums to show that the holocaust never happened.

drankin

May31-07, 12:40 PM

A creation museum should be dealt in the same manner as if they trying to build museums to show that the holocaust never happened.

A religous museum vs a museum that depicts that the holocaust never happened? I'm amazed at how threatened people are when other people peacefully excercise their religious freedom in this country. What is the threat exactly?

Moridin

May31-07, 12:50 PM

drankin

May31-07, 01:08 PM

It is not a threat, it is just a thought-provoking analogy for equalizing religious and racial prejudice.

You need to let go of this notion that they are only 'peacefully exercising their religious freedom' as if their behavior deserves appeasement. People who are against the description of the Holocaust could say that they are exercising their religious freedom, but I think that we can all agree that such a museum would be enormously damaging to our modern society and humanity as a whole.

We must stop ignoring the neochristian ID/AiG movements. This museum is just another pathetic attempt to mask religious prejudice as intellectual freedom.

There is no religious foundation for declaring that the Holocaust did not take place. It can't be compared to this religious museum. The reason I emphasize "peaceful" is because jihad is also a religious expression but peaceful? Not so much.

There is no "neochristian" movement. Christians in this country have not changed since it was founded. To now call it a "movement" is not correct. If that were correct then it has been a movement in this country for hundreds of years.

Moridin

May31-07, 01:14 PM

drankin

May31-07, 01:27 PM

Some parts of Islamic and Christian dogmatic movements that attest that the Holocaust never happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=The+holocaust+never+happened&btnG=Google+Search (notice how the two first hits are from Christian websites)

They are a small organisation, just as ID or AiG in that they do not represent the majority of the people within their religion.

It is a valid analogy. I don't want a museum on creation for the same reason as you do not want a museum where they present 'evidence' that the Holocaust never happened. Both would be trying to mask religious prejudice as intellectual freedom.

The distinction is that denying the holocaust is denying that millions of Jews were killed. The museum simply promotes an unscientific view of the origin of mankind. One is offensive to relatives and survivors of the Holocaust, and is also offensive to all who abhor genecide. The other is simply offensive to the scientific community (but noone died). I don't believe the comparison is valid.

Moridin

May31-07, 01:34 PM

drankin

May31-07, 01:41 PM

It is so much more than simply offending the scientific community, if that is even true. It is an assault on reason, offending to anyone with a shred of intelligence, just as denying the Holocaust is. It is an assault on reality, trying to indoctrinate people in what is neither real nor factual. A creation museum is ever so dangerous as a anti-holocaust one, because both are a treat to reason, both a treat to humanity.

I suppose this goes for churches as well? Maybe one day all churches will be abolished? Then all who practice religion at all will be arrested for defying reason? Where does your line of reasoning end?

out of whack

May31-07, 01:51 PM

The freedom to be offensive to others can either be protected or restricted, but I don't see why the reason it is offensive should be relevant or why it is better or worse when it is either political or religious in nature. Offending and being offended in various ways seems perfectly natural and human. I see neither reason nor means to regulate it. Let people speak and let others reply, noting that civility often speaks louder than insults.

Artman

May31-07, 01:52 PM

Found this while following the links in the 2nd post on this thread (the link I followed was posted by neutrino). It's called the "Clergy Letter Project" it is a statement by clergy members in support of the scientific community in general, and as a result of defending the theory of evolution in specific. More than 10,000 clergy persons have signed.

Clergy Letter Project (http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/clergy_project.htm)

Kurdt

May31-07, 01:59 PM

One must question the motives of opening such a museum in the first place. The owner is a well known roponent of teaching creationism in schools under the disguise of intelligent design. One wonders whether this museum is an expression of his religious freedom or just another attempt to force-feed the public his views.

Religious expression is fine, but when the motivation of those expressing it is to convert others covertly or force their religion upon others then it becomes very dangerous.

Moridin

May31-07, 02:07 PM

http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf (sister site to talkorigins)

"We intent these to encourage and equip with new scientific evidences that supports the faith, as well to 'popularize' our ideas in the broader culture."

Sounds familiar?

daveb

May31-07, 02:26 PM

[Sorry if its offensive, but I find religion to be highly offensive. All I hear from my one friend is how "Jesus died for me" and that I need to convert for Jeusus. I hate people ringing my doorbell asking for donations to their church. I hate the whole damm concept of religion for weak minded people to follow in the masses. ARG I HATE RELIGION PERIOD! Im not kidding when I say its a plague and its infesting the minds of everyone around the world. I hate people (like my friend, and I tell him this all the time) that are close minded because they believe in 'faith' and wont hear logic and reason first. These people are dangeous to society.
That's a perfectly valid opinion. There are also people who are close minded because they believe only in logic and reason, and refuse to see that faith can have be part of society as well. If it wasn't then it's a miracle mankind has survived as long as it has.
Yes, but many books provide the same information on how to live life without the need of GOD. The bible should be restricted to the fiction section of the library.
Actually, it should be restricted to the religion/philosophy section. Unlesss you also require that (some) Aristotle and Plato also be placed in fiction.

When people are born into religion its like being fed heroin since birth. These people will never break the habbit no matter what, and that scares the hell out of me. There are very few people I have ever met that were religious and turned athiest. The majority become more and more religious as they get older.I have news for you. Many people break free of this, and either turn atheist or agnostic. Go talk to a member of the Universalist Unitarian Church. A great deal of them are (jokingly) self-referred as recovering Catholics, Jehova's Witnesses, Mormons, etc.
The sight of people standing around holding hands and crying, shaking, and praising something that does not exist is very distrubing to me.Why does this disturb you? Who are they harming in performing these specific actions?

Moridin

May31-07, 02:30 PM

Religious indoctrination is a serious issue all around the world, from conservative US to fundamentalist Iran.

It is described in the second part of a Channel 4 documentary here (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8210522903232438954&q=the+virus+of+faith&hl=en)

Surrealist

May31-07, 02:46 PM

First, I want to say that people should be allowed to live in ignorance. There is no law requiring people to be "right" in their personal beliefs. People should have the right to believe in the creation story, and they should have the right to raise families with these beliefs.

It bothers me that people on these boards want the government to step in and police the thoughts of American citizens.

Since people on this board seem extremely short-sighted, I will reiterate than I am neither a Christian nor a believer in creationism. I am just a concerned citizen who sees other citizens trying to interfere with the Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion rights of others.

Let's not forget that social norms are cyclic. It was not too long ago that certain societies decided that intellectuals should persecuted. Books were burned and banned and speech that challenged the government was silenced.

I do not want to see anyone's rights taken away--not in the least. Once a precedent is set, it opens a Pandora's Box of uncertainty.

What happens when suddenly something you strongly believe in is suddenly "out of style" (or no longer a social norm), and people want to take away your rights?

Moridin

May31-07, 02:56 PM

There is a difference between being open-minded and being gullible. Having an open mind is objectively investigating scientific evidence. It means accepting possibilities, but evaluating probability. It does not mean believing in everything.

By criticizing people who apply logic and science to religion and trying to attack them with 'not respecting religious freedom or freedom of speech' is guilty to the same.

You need to separate political and religious subjective relativism from scientific objectivity.

Surrealist

May31-07, 03:02 PM

My words are wasting on you. Your mind is too closed to accept the fact that people are entitled to choose their own way of life.

You have the right to criticize others. You do not have the right to interfere with the lives of others.

End of story.

Moridin

May31-07, 03:06 PM

I have already refuted the 'closed mind' argument. Read my analogy with a museum that promotes a denial of the Holocaust.

This is not about whether people are allowed to think for themselves. It is about what happens when they are trying to indoctrinate others into lies, injecting imaginary conflicts between science and religion in their pathetic attempts to destroy science and reason.

You still need to separate political and religious subjective relativism from scientific objectivity.

Artman

May31-07, 03:07 PM

cyrusabdollahi,

Your views towards religion are so harsh as to be neglegable. Statistically speaking they are so far to one side that they would be ignored, along with the view of someone diametrically opposed. The best way to change these closed minds is with the help of open minded Christians such as the 10,000 clergy members who signed that letter opposing creationist dribble.

Surrealist

May31-07, 03:13 PM

This is not about whether people are allowed to think for themselves. It is about what happens when they are trying to indoctrinate others into lies, injecting imaginary conflicts between science and religion in their pathetic attempts to destroy science and reason.

You still need to separate political and religious subjective relativism from scientific objectivity.

No, you and cyrus seem to try to steer the conversation in a different direction every time you realize you are wrong... just so that you can feel like you are right about a different argument.

This argument pertains to people and their right to have a museum of their choice. It does not pertain to religion in schools, or whether or not those same people might be trying to incorporate their believes into a federal or state sponsored system.

Stop accusing me of combining political and religious beliefs with my scientific beliefs. I never made any statements that would provoke such an accusation.

You need to separate your anger from your logic, then you will be able to think clearly.

Moridin

May31-07, 03:21 PM

Your post is filled with ad hominem, which is not that professional.

Did you read the link to the Wedge Document that I posted? It is all part of their plan to destroy science and inject religious creationism into the schools, the government and society. This is their own written agenda.

I am especially critical of this type of appeasement against religion, even though it is clearly that these groups are trying indoctrinate others into lies, injecting imaginary conflicts between science and religion in their pathetic attempts to destroy science and reason.

Now you have suddenly shifted from the 'religious freedom' argument I refuted earlier to some kind of 'everyone can start a museum no matter the consequences'.

There should be restrictions on museums that try to inject denial of the Holocaust in society as well as trying to deny evolution and science as a whole for that matter.

It has nothing to do with religious freedom or freedom of speech. It is increasingly imperative for you to separate the concepts of political and religious subjective relativism from scientific objectivity.

drankin

May31-07, 03:44 PM

Moridin, noone is going to destroy science and reason. You seem unreasonably threatened by the idea. You seem to want to forceably protect "science and reason" by restricting the rights of the religious when in fact "science and reason" basically protects itself through self evidence. It isn't going anywhere no matter what religious Bob and his friends do.

Moridin

May31-07, 03:54 PM

Please, read it this time and then ask yourself if it is unreasonable to put emphasis on science. This threat is real.

http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf (sister site to talkorigins)

Science and scientists have been followed, hunted, oppressed and killed in the past. Science has been twisted and distorted by many regimes during the 20th century. There are areas where science have been distorted during the past few years such as evolution, stem cells and global warming.

Science do not attempt to conserve status quo but you need to realize that their ideas have been either disproven or is not testable, repeatable, falsifiable or does not produce any useful knowledge. However, the most important thing is that they have not shown that this system (which has a massive amount of evidence) needs to be revised.

I assume that you have heard about the Dover school board and other places where they succeeded in changing the curriculum? It is not that hard and appeasement against religion never works.

http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/47366?&print=yes
http://www.jci.org/cgi/content/full/116/5/1134

drankin

May31-07, 03:59 PM

I promise to read it in detail after work. But I believe you are over-reacting.

Surrealist

May31-07, 04:11 PM

At this point, I believe that any further discussion with Moridin is no longer a debate but a fight. I do not post on this board for the purpose of fighting. I post for the purpose of sharing ideas and learning from others.

All of my posts in this thread have been directed at preserving individual freedom for American citizens, protected by the US Constitution.

Let me leave all of you with this thought.

Michael Faraday was a religious fanatic in every sense of the word. He belonged to a small cult that preached of invisible forces and fields. During his lifetime, such doctrine was considered a form of witchery by most. However, it was because of this personal, religious belief in invisible forces that he was inspired to speculate about the existense of electro-magnetic fields. After critical evaluation of this possibility, he discovered what today we call Faraday's Law.

Without diversity in a population, there is no room for the evolution of beliefs or ideas--social, political or scientific. People like Morodin who want to create a homogeneous society in which the government decides what is right, and the citizens must believe this are nothing more than fascists. Because government control of ideas and personal beliefs is fascism.

I would be the first person on this board to separate religious material from entering the public schools, but I would also be the first person to separate government regulation from the Sunday schools. To me, this museum is just part of the "Sunday school" experience for a certain group of law abiding citizens.

Moridin

May31-07, 04:35 PM

You are the one using ad hominem, not me. I have no problem with this discussion.

Seems to be a recycled 'Darwin was a creationist' argument. Faraday was a person who made progress in science. Creationists do not make progress in science. Faraday and the cult was not over 100 million people (see link to Gallup Poll) and it was not shown appeasement towards by the rest (as you have said). Analogy is invalid.

Without diversity in a population, there is no room for the evolution of beliefs or ideas--social, political or scientific. People like Morodin who want to create a homogeneous society in which the government decides what is right, and the citizens must believe this are nothing more than fascists. Because government control of ideas and personal beliefs is fascism.

The logical fallacies in the above quote are ad hominem, slippery slope argument and begging the question.

I have pointed out, again and again, that you need to separate the concepts of political and religious subjective relativism from scientific objectivity. You can use that argument to motivate why both republicans and democrats should be able to influence politics and society.

However, this argument does not hold for science versus arbitrary social constructions. There is nothing that says that restricting the influence of religion in our society on certain things will make the world into a fascist dictatorship.

You need to separate the arbitrary socially constructed ideas that have been proven to be wrong by science from science.

daveb

May31-07, 05:20 PM

It is true that some creationists have a desire to have ID taught as science rather than religious thought. It is also true that some creationists are outraged at the idea that it would be taught in public schools. It is probable (since there are no statistics I could find) that the first group outnumbers the second group.

It is likewise true that creationism is at odds with the scientific process and reason, and therefore each is a threat to the other. The problem with the dialogue in this discussion is that the museum was funded by private donations, and is in no way funded by the government. No institution is above criticism, be it a private, public, religious, or scientific. To deny the right of anyone to criticize any institution goes against the core of what the scientific process is about. However, this does not necessarily allow for imposition of will upon that institution by the government. The only institutions the government can (or rather should) impose its will upon is public institutions, such as public schools, publicly funded museums, etc., unless imposition of its will is for the public good. Only the public, through boycott, peaceful protest, or other means of civil disagreement can impose will upon any private institution.

With this in mind, I find it perfectly acceptable for those here who vehemently criticize the museum to do so. If they want to organize protests, boycotts, etc. that's fine as well. But to call for such things as governmental interference into a privately funded institution that is operating within the boundaries of law, I wonder where the line between religious and scientific authoritarianism/totalitarianism is drawn.

Artman

May31-07, 05:24 PM

There is nothing that says that restricting the influence of religion in our society on certain things will make the world into a fascist dictatorship.

I believe the Bill of Rights does.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

In a letter written in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists, Thomas Jefferson gives a clarification of the term seperation of church and state:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.