Creation Museum Opens in Kentucky

[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.

 

[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.