Creation Museum Opens in Kentucky

[cepheid]

"Creation" Museum...

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

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

 

[neutrino]

This news has been around for sometime, and the news of its opening was out a few months earlier.

Some related blog posts: http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/05/21/calling-all-ohio-indiana-and-kentucky-scientists/
http://scienceblogs.com/interactions/2007/05/may_28_a_dark_day_for_science.php

 

[moe darklight]

yea the guy who owns (or directs or something) the museum was on CFRB today (talk radio station from Toronto) on the John Moore show (who was not at all impressed), but I'm glad he didn't start arguing with the guy and actually let him talk because it was a pretty nice insight into the "logic" behind these things.

 

[Gokul43201]

The hardly unexpected next step after Kent Hovind's enormous success with Dinosaur Adventure Land.

 

[Danger]

This has got to be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard of...

 

[SpaceTiger]

That anyone is surprised by any of the surprises that come from the creationists anymore is a surprise to me.

 

[Danger]

I'm not surprised, just disgusted. Just think of how many abortion clinics and archeological expeditions could have been funded with that money...

 

[cepheid]

That anyone is surprised by any of the surprises that come from the creationists anymore is a surprise to me.

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.

 

[arunma]

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]

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

to bad there is no genetic engineering involved

 

[ShawnD]

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.

 

[moe darklight]

Either that or it implies dinosaurs and humans were alive at the same time.

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 .

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]

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 .

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]

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]

These people need to be silenced, forcefully if necessary.

A call for the truth police! 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]

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"

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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]

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

The government can't 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]

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 can't 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 got to see that movie. I herd its real bad.

 

[Cyrus]

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 don't agree with it blindly you're going to hell. And if you don't believe in my bible you're going to hell because your bible is wrong and my bible is right...oh brother.

 

[vanesch]

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...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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]

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-
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]

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]

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]

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]

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 realize how harsh peer review is.

 

[SpaceTiger]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 .

 

[moe darklight]

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]

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!"

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

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]

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]

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]

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'. I am going to start calling them christian extremists.

 

[arunma]

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'. I am 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]

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]

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 don't like religion either.

I prefer not to be mentally enslaved.

 

[Cyrus]

I'll delete mine if you delete yours.

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

 

[arunma]

True, but I don't 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.