Creation Museum Opens in Kentucky

[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.