Creation Museum Opens in Kentucky

[Cyrus]

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.

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 isn't the United States of Jesus Land.

 

[moe darklight]

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]

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!

 

[Artman]

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]

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]

This has always made me laugh.

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]

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]

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 truly 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.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...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]

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!

 

[moe darklight]

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]

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 truly 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 don't mix the two. Why does President Bush have 150 people working in his office from the pat robertson law school? 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 that's 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 don't agree with communism, but a broken watch is still correct twice a day.

http://www.boston.com/news/educatio...andal_puts_spotlight_on_christian_law_school/

 

[Cyrus]

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 can't 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 don't 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 ass off.

 

[Surrealist]

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]

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]

But those books are going into public schools.

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

 

[Cyrus]

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]

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]

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

 

[Cyrus]

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]

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

 

[Smurf]

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]

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.

Can you provide an example?

 

[MeJennifer]

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.
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 that's 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
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]

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]

Here is a good essay on the perils of literal interpretation 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]

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! I am 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 won't 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

I don't 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[drankin]

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]

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.

 

[drankin]

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 no one died). I don't believe the comparison is valid.

 

[Moridin]

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.

 

[drankin]

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]

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]

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.

http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/clergy_project.htm"

 

[Kurdt]

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]

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]

[

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! I am 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 won't 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]

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 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8210522903232438954&q=the+virus+of+faith&hl=en

 

[Surrealist]

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]

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.