Warning: get_object_vars() expects parameter 1 to be object, null given in /home/newspeak/public_html/wp-includes/taxonomy.php on line 324
June 07
So our good buddy Nonprophet posted this video earlier this week:
It was interesting enough to make me do some research on the Creation Museum, located exactly where you think it would be—in the crotch of where Kentucky, Ohio and Indiana meet.
First off, check out their website, and be sure to watch the stunningly animated commercial they’ve got on their homepage. After all, if production quality is so good, you can sell anything, even a complete lack of reason.
The NY Times did a writeup a few weeks ago and reported that any reference to Darwinism, evolution or even survival has been expunged:
But for a visitor steeped in the scientific world view, the impact of the museum is a disorienting mix of faith and reason, the exotic and the familiar. Nature here is not “red in tooth and claw,” as Tennyson asserted. In fact at first it seems almost as genteel as Eden’s dinosaurs. We learn that chameleons, for example, change colors not because that serves as a survival mechanism, but “to ‘talk’ to other chameleons, to show off their mood, and to adjust to heat and light.”
It’s amazing to me the lengths to which the fundies will go in their terror of science. Are they just one step away from “proving” that vaccines are the Devil’s work? Or that mitosis is disproved in Corinthians? My favorite take on it is this May 24 editorial in the LA Times, which pretty outright mocks the fundotards:
Science is under assault, and that calls for bold truths. Here’s another: The Earth is round.
The museum, a 60,000-square-foot menace to 21st century scientific advancement, is the handiwork of Answers in Genesis, a leader in the “young Earth” movement. Young Earthers believe the world is about 6,000 years old, as opposed to the 4.5 billion years estimated by the world’s credible scientific community. This would be risible if anti-evolution forces were confined to a lunatic fringe, but they are not. Witness the recent revelation that three of the Republican candidates for president do not believe in evolution. Three men seeking to lead the last superpower on Earth reject the scientific consensus on cosmology, thermonuclear dynamics, geology and biology, believing instead that Bamm-Bamm and Dino played together.
Religion and science can coexist. That the Earth is billions of years old is a fact. How the universe came into being and whether it operates by design are matters of faith. The problem is that people who deny science in one realm are unlikely to embrace it in another. Those who cannot accept that climate change may have caused the extinction of dinosaurs 65 million years ago probably don’t put much stock in the fact that today it poses grave peril to the Earth as we know it.
Well said, and this is why people like Dawkins and Hitchens are looking better and better all the time; if the fundamental tenets of your faith are anathema to reason, reason will not hestitate to dissemble them. So buh-bye.
Posted by: Aaron Retka in Science | Permalink
Comments
51 Responses to “God creates man. Man creates science. Christians destroy science. God is pissed.”
Leave a Reply
-
-
-
Warning: get_object_vars() expects parameter 1 to be object, null given in /home/newspeak/public_html/wp-includes/taxonomy.php on line 324
the LA Times reviewer got the last point wrong I think since a lot of christians are into “stewardship” on moral/christian gounds which will serve the same purpose as secular environmentalism. Also, every christianist who boards an airplane or goes to the hospital, for example, has the scientific method to thank for his/her life. Scientific endeavor has also brought us the the noose with which to hang ourselves in the form of the bomb and the industrial age in general. Faced (mostly subconciously) with the possibility of nuclear devastation, so what if flawed/romantic/passionate behavior is exactly the foil.
I wanna go!! I wanna go!! After I read the Times article it’s become my #1 vacation priority! ROAD TRIP!
Were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark? The fact that adults in the 21st century are asking this question (and seeking answers to it!) only convinces me of the ultimate futility of the human enterprise. Of course, the answer provided by these dullards is priceless: the ark was big enough, so yes, dinosaurs were on it. Think about that for a second: every species of dinosaur, of both sexes, floating around in a boat on a planet completely covered in water. I can’t even fathom the level of denial and/or sheer stupidity it requires to believe in something so asinine, and yet we’re surround by assholes who do.
The problem is that the creation/evolution theory has become dogma. Neither side will listen to the other, nor bother to acknowledge gaps in their own theories. There is no open and honest dialog. Is the idea of dinosaurs (eggs, btw) on the ark any more ridiculous than evolution’s “hopeful monster” theory? Do you know the difference between speciation vs. the general theory of evolution? Do you know about the bullshit that is the geologic column? The circular reasoning that no scientist worth his weight in salt would ever accept as “science?” Does anyone realize that the whole debate falls outside the realm of empirical science, which requires hypotheses and then rigorous testing? I have spent 20 years reading every damn shred of information on both sides of the debate, including an entire textbook from a class taught at Northwestern University, not exactly a school of dumbshits. Few bother to educate themselves or have the ability to defend what they “believe”….because they don’t know what they believe. They just hold rigidly and irrationally to what they’ve been told. On both sides of this “debate.”
I don’t have the ability to discern what’s true about the origin of species. Nor do I give a shit. But intellectual dishonesty pisses me off.
Oh, one more thing before I have my morning coffee and get revved up. Man did not create science. Man discovers scientific truth. And Christians do not have the ability to destroy science. Truth stands…independent of what idiots believe.
Sorry Marie, but you are wrong. Evolution is one of the most empirically supported theories in science. And before anyone jumps on the word “theory,” let me say that the meaning of theory that laypeople understand is not the same meaning used by the scientific community. Briefly, a theory is an explanation for a large body of empirical data–so if evidence exists that does not support a theory, then the theory is wrong. All the research in this area supports the theory of evolution. Evolution is fact. Full stop.
Oh, okay. Thanks for setting me straight!
“….old creationist wine in new designer label bottles.”
Yeah, Marie, I agree with Patrick. The fundie tack is to say there’s room for debate, and then slip that wedge of doubt into the public mind. There’s no room for debate, because evolution is science. Creationism is belief. Period. One of the most insidious lies ever foisted on the public is that evolution is an incomplete theory. It’s not, nor is there a “missing link” to be filled with faith. It’s time to stop giving ground to fundies, because this is how we end up with the farce that is a biology class teaching intelligent design.
I’m not really talking about creationism or intelligent design. I am talking about some of the holes or difficulties with the theory of evolution. The inability to explain very complex systems using the Carl Sagan mantra of “billions and billions of years.” All you have to do is read the paper weekly and you’ll find that scientists have made a new discovery that turns the whole timetable on its ear..often because they found a pig’s tooth and a kneecap three miles from each other so now our science books must be revised…There are gaps and inconsistencies…the fossil record is not wildly supportive. Can’t we just air these things out and admit that the theory isn’t rock solid and irrefutable….at least in part if not in total?
Believe me I’m no young earth creationist….so don’t categorize me and put me on the “do not call” list just yet.
and verily the morons on the video knew not where the fuck thy art located…
Elroynium 3:33
Mark Twain wrote a wonderful short piece called “Letters From The Earth” where he talks about how all of the diseases of the world must have been on the ark, therefore Noah and his family were simply loaded with parasites and venereal diseases.
It’s good stuff. here
As if we needed it, here is proof that Noel is going to hell.
Deuteronomy 23:1
“He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.”
I vote that we all chip in and send Marie a subscription to Popular Science.
Thank you, Diann, for proving my point. There can be no discussion. Everyone is too fucking afraid that tomorrow they might be slain in the aisles by the dumbshit religious zealots. Truat exists outside of fear. I knew I would have no supporters. This is the life I’ve lived for years. Kisses to you all….no worries. I won’t contend further.
“There are gaps and inconsistencies…the fossil record is not wildly supportive.”
No Marie, there are not holes. And the fossil record is more than supportive, it is indisputable. Ask any scientist. I repeat, evolution is THE MOST WELL-SUPPORTED theory in science. Better supported than, say, the theory of gravity.
Put me on the list for Marie’s subscription.
Well, I’m sorry to have to reveal that I come from a family of PhDs…in molecular biology (from shitty Nobel-prize winning schools like UC-Berkeley) and chemisty from the best and brightest labs in France and other enlightened European countries…..so please…believe as you will..but don’t put down those of us with doubt. You’ll remember that people were once hung for believing the world is round…we are in a very similar situation. Intelligent people, unwilling to consider anything outside their dogmatic “truth.” I have no interest in contending further…and I congratulate you on having unraveled the mysteries of the universe. Such power! I hope you all receive your well-deserved prizes.
Let’s move on. Has anyone seen the latest edition of Sweet Sixteen? OMG…what fricking entitiled brats!
And, Diann, I could happily send you a subscription for Creation by Design….so your trite and unhelpful putdowns just prove my point. Kisses to you.
My point, Marie, is that with the fundamentalist crowd there’s a systematic assault on reason. Believe what you want to believe, but don’t insist upon dismantling fact in the name of faith. They don’t have to be mutually exclusive.
There are no fucking facts…only theory…I don’t care what is true…but don’t pretend that I am not a critical thinker. You might be. I am not.
First of all, Marie, my comment was not meant to be a put down.
It was simply to help point out that Science is both fact and theory. Truth is what is illusive and sometimes an illusion.
In that regard, I suppose we could agree.
The nature of science is to prove facts and theory as essential truths. There are overwhelming and massive number of facts that hold up to scrutiny over long periods of time, especially evolution. Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact from theory from the very beginning, including Darwin. Evolution is agreed upon as a fact among most biologists. What is a theory is that they are not sure about how the mechanism works, theorizing from some facts that it is a process of natural selection.
Certainly, there is room for debate on how that process of evolution takes place.
While 99.9% support of factual evidence of evolution may not seem enough of an argument in support of evolutionary mechanisms for you and leaves room for doubt, my sliding scale (there is no definite dividing line) points to truth.
My faith education was based in the Bible Belt of our Blessed Kansas, home of Intelligent Design, so I am quite familiar with
all of the arguments and have no need for the subscription you so kindly offered. Years of my own research, readings and familial connections, also from institutions of higher learning, grant me a reprieve, although redundantly and grudgingly to say we are all products of our environment.
Jesus H. Christ, these fundies are just so fucking hip! They’ve totally tapped into my generation’s post-post-modern love of 4-second sound bites, non sequiturs, and otherwise inane go-nowhere dialog! I can’t even make out what they’re selling, which just makes me want to buy it that much more! One ticket for the crazy-bus, please!
Several of you could say this better, but the word “theory” is misused when this topic comes up. “Only a theory” suggests a casual fleeting notion, one of many possibilities. As I recall, a theory is a hypothesis which has been tested by the scientific community, has never been disproved, and has been proved correct over and over and over so many times that it graduates to a special category, theories. They aren’t called “facts” because people respectfully acknowledge the sliver of a chance that the theory could some day be disproved. This is why there aren’t many scientific theories and why something like believing in Bigfoot would not correctly be called a Bigfoot Theory since no one can seem to find physical proof of one. Although that would be totally cool.
E=MC2
anon 7:02 almost has it right. A theory is kind of a grand idea that explains the outcomes of many different tested hypotheses–so a well-supported theory is basically fact.
The reason that we call evolution a theory is because we cannot run an experiment (e.g., random assignment to groups and a controlled environment)that demonstrates evolution, because it would take, you know, billions of years.
That said, look at Darwin’s finch research for evidence of evolution on a micro level.
Patrick’s right. But after some reflection overnight, apologies to Marie are in order. My comment was meant to be funny, not unhelpful or trite and I’m sorry you took it that way. Well, at least a little.
Bottom line is the reason that there can be no debate or relevant discussion between the two camps is for one reason solely, as indicated by over 70 major Science organizations, including the prestigious American Academy of Science, that have issued statements concerning their non-support of Intelligent Design. Because it has no scientific basis in fact. It is a philosophical issue and unless they come up with some evidence, there is no basis for debate or discussion. Disturbing really, that it has such a well-oiled and funded machine that it has become so pervasive in our American society and no other countries around the world. Their premise has been to simply attack known facts, scientific evidence, etc. looking for holes to support their theory of a Creator. That does not constitute Scientific Method.
The same premise could be used in support of alien intervention. And in some regards, more supportive as there is at least, some supposedly observable evidence to support the theory.
So personally, I would be more inclined to believe in UFO’s and aliens than a god who created men who constantly war and kill one another over their respective beliefs for hundreds of years.
Ask the citizens of Darfur where hell is.
Sorry I got my skivvies in a wad yesterday about this. My sense of humor is usually more reliable. I do understand that most scientific organizations support the theory of evolution. But telling me to read stuff coming out of the National Academy of Sciences to support the theory is like Christians using the Bible to prove creationism or telling a non-Mormon that they really ought to read the Pearl of Great Price to be convinced. It is about getting beyond personal biases and agendas and seeing the full body of information.
That was all I was suggesting. Accept what you want, reject anything that doesn’t fit…but don’t rely on ignorance or rhetoric to keep you “safe.” There should be no fear in truth. The creationists have some interesting and credible things to support certain parts of their theory. Of course, micro-evolution is true….we know know that it’s a result of dominant and recessive traits and natural selection. But macro-evolution, and the lack of fossil evidence to support it, is a little harder to swallow for a thinking person. In my opinion. But so what?
There’s no lack of evidence to support macroevolution, Marie. Anyone telling you that is trying to push an anti-science agenda. And show me a scrap of evidence to support creationism: Talking snakes! Voices from above! As David Cross said, where the fuck are the unicorns? What kind of crazy D&D bullshit is this?
Aaron, honey. I never said I supported creationism. NEVER. I said there are some interesting things, catastrophism for example, that seem to be somewhat credible within their theory. There is some modern day evidence, Mount Saint Helen’s, to support a different view of what might possibly have created the petrified forests, the Grand Canyon, etc. I am not a nutty young earth creationist. Believe me. I also think that are some gaps in the theory of macro-evolution, the hopeful monster theory being just one of them. I am simply saying the house isn’t quite finished yet. So let’s not move in and make it home. Why the blinders? Why does everyone get so kooky about evolution? Does it matter in the slightest?
Your implication, much more biting than my trite comment, is that I am relying on ignorance and rhetoric? And imply that I need it to feel “safe”?
Your opinion is not valid and your “truth” is unsubstantiated scientifically.
Sorry, Marie. Discussion ended.
What matters is that the creationists believe that their view should be taught in the public schools along with real science.
That’s what matters. And it’s people like you with the real blinders on that will allow it.
I’m all for the teaching of comparative religions at an age that kids can discern for themselves what their faith should be. Not the indoctrination of a nation of Christian right-wing sheep.
That’s what matters.
Okay, Diann, I agree that the discussion should be over. May I just say that I am not pointing fingers at any individual, certainly not you…I’m not discounting anyone’s beliefs….I am a firm supporter of people having the right to believe what they will and being respected even if other reasonable people disagree.
I am sorry if I offended anyone. If we had had this discussion face to face, you’d see the twinkle in my eye and know that I’m not pretending to know anything about anything. Just generating a debate. Which, on the internet, seems to always get me in trouble! Time I learned a lesson I think! Mea culpa.
Whoops…sorry..one more comment. I do not believe that creationism should be taught in the schools. Not for one second. I don’t believe it myself and, even if I did, I still wouldn’t think that it should be in the public school system. A little thing called the wall of separation should be immovable. Just to be clear.
Just so you know, that’s their agenda. And it came into existence after the 1987 Supreme Court ruling on the separation of church and state in the public schools. The support of their theory or opening it to debate is a support of that agenda. That’s how organized it is. Be clear.
Yes, I know. I am clear. And I never fear a house of cards. But just to be safe, that’s why I am on the board of the ACLU
Hey ladies, whats cooler than being cool? Ice cold!
I didn’t start it, Dad. Really, I didn’t.
Ignorance mixed with Power is a deadly cocktail. If fundamentalist Christians didn’t represent such a huge voting block, then I’d consider them as benign as the Amish. But they do, and that is why rational, freedom-loving folks need to be outspoken. We have two choices here, really: accept the overwhelming empirical evidence of ice-core samples that can be read like tree rings, clearly showing that the earth is 100,000+ years old (and hundreds, if not thousands, of other phenomena, such as carbon dating or geologic record), or we can trust in the literal truth of stories from the Book of Genesis that the Hebrews told each other out in the desert 3000 years ago, none of which having even close to the amount of empirical evidence supporting them that the mainstream scientific community has. That said, science cannot explain everything, nor should it attempt to. The scientific method is a process that begins with radical skepticism and ends with relative certainty. Religious faith neither begins with skepticism, nor ends in certainty. Faith is belief in the irrational, that is, the unexplainable. Science doesn’t tread in these waters, nor should it. Scouring the earth for evidence of the literal truth of one’s faith is NOT science. Science just doesn’t work that way, but unfortunately we have millions of people in America who have renounced the scientific method for something different: the “faith method.” Bottom line: we each have to choose whether we want the “scientific method” or the “faith method” taught in our public schools, whether we want to elect politicians who trust in the “scientific method” or the in “faith method,” and whether or not the ultimate direction for our nation should be founded in scientific reasoning or a literal interpretation of 3000-year-old myths. That these myths are not interesting, beautiful, or inspiring is not the issue. Many of them are packed full of metaphoric “truths” concerning the nature of human beings and their place in the universe. Some of them may be factual, even if unprovable. Modern science is indeed limited in scope, but at least it doesn’t claim to provide all the answers. However, the next time I fly on an airplane I’ll be wondering how much the design engineers knew about physics. Whether or not they could recite any verses from Genesis is of no concern to me.
Snort. Geez, Chris. Women (and may I say, others that you ignored) having socially relevant dialogue? Is that a problem for you?
I’m pissed off now, too.
Eloquently said, Klayton.
I’m going to shut my monkey hole and go back to eating nits out of my children’s hair. I’m sorry I started such a shit storm. It’s the 792nd birthday of Habeas Corpus…which has been under siege even more than the science curriculum as of late….
Maybe we chould chat about that, an undeniably important thing it is to the entire country…I promise not to be unreasonable. I’m back to the loving place.
And, Klayton, don’t worry about air travel. It’s based on Bernoulli 3:16. Rock solid.
Ya’ll should read Al Gore’s new book, which is entirely about how Americans have abandoned the pursuit of reason for, as Stephen Colbert calls it, truthiness. It doesn’t matter if it’s not technically true or can’t be backed up by facts or empirical data—I feel it in my gut that Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs and that painful childbirth and mortality occur because of a talking snake.
well the part with the ‘hey fellas’ in that song wasnt as cool as the ‘hey ladies’ part. i dont really take gender in consideration on the internet. i could change my posting name to Sharesa and automatically i am a woman. but carry on!
Too late….the wind has inheritantly left the sails wafting.
I kinda like the idea of talking snakes….oh yeah, I forgot, I’ve already met a few of them. Scratch that. “Snakes on a Plane” was one of my favorite date movies of all time. Eek. Watch out Klayton!
Okay, this has been a lesson learned. A number of years ago, when Dave and I were getting divorced, he went around and told ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE that I didn’t BELIEVE in dinosaurs. I could tell for years thereafter when I was dealing with someone who had heard that about me…..kind of a kid glove treatment…like this isn’t a rational person so give her what she wants. To this day, he thinks it’s the funniest thing he ever did. And I did laugh my ass off when I heard that he’d said that….so humiliating. Touche. I really can get as well as I give.
CAMEL… TOE. DEER… HOOF. Damn.
Hi
Looks good! Very useful, good stuff. Good resources here. Thanks much!
G’night