Creation Museum Opens in Kentucky

[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.

 

[Surrealist]

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

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

End of story.

 

[Moridin]

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

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

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

 

[Artman]

cyrusabdollahi,

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

 

[Surrealist]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Moridin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[drankin]

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

 

[Moridin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[drankin]

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

 

[Surrealist]

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

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

Let me leave all of you with this thought.

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

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

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

 

[Moridin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[daveb]

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

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

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

 

[Artman]

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

I believe the Bill of Rights does.

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

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

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

 

[Evo]

There seems to be a lot of bickering going on. I think we have had a lot of thoughts expressed on both sides, but I don't see the bickering stopping, so I'm going to close this before it gets ugly.