Remember that trip to the Creation Museum during the big paleontology conference this summer? Linda Vaccariello has a lengthy, and pretty good, article about it in the current issue of Cincinnati Magazine. Here's a nugget I liked:
Looking over the exhibits in the Dinosaur Den, we learn that the flood killed all the dinosaurs except for the ones on Noah's ark. “But their days were numbered,” the signage explains ominously. What happened? Here, the museum makes a rare admission of uncertainty. But it does present a tantalizing possibility: “Dragons could have been dinosaurs,” the sign says.That's right. Evolution is only a theory. But God's Truth is supported by . . . dragons.
Snarky!
There are a lot of interesting tidbits to mull over. For example:
But at the Creation Museum, the answer is more basic still, and it's found at the end of a dark, graffiti-scarred alley that leads to a world where the Bible's word has been abandoned. There's a video of a teen worrying over a pregnancy test; another of boys looking at on-line porn; a third of parents listening to a “liberal” sermon while their son, sitting in the pew next to them, fiddles with a cell phone. And at the center of it all is the destructive force that has brought all these woes to modern life, symbolized in the form of a huge wrecking ball slamming into the side of a church. A label on the ball says “millions of years.”This, [pakeontologist] Arnie Miller has told me, was the real sticking point for him the first time he visited the museum; this is the “depth of the message” that he wants his colleagues to understand. “The idea that if you accept the view of evolution, you're undermining the church,” he says. “That's the one part of the museum that truly offends me: that we are evil.”
That's not the point at all, says Terry Mortenson, a researcher and speaker at the Creation Museum, when I talk with him after the paleontologists' visit. “The evolutionists who say that are not being very observant,” he insists. According to Mortenson, the push to accept evolution and the “old earth” notion that it depends on was first promulgated in the late 19th century by those with an anti-church worldview. The museum explains this history in a display that precedes the wrecking ball--an exhibit that includes an exploration of the evangelical movement in the U.S. and the Scopes trial. That century-old fight “was a worldview conflict,” he says, not a battle between science and the church. So...the wrecking ball? “Once the church accepted the 'millions of years' idea, it destroyed the authority of the Bible,” he explains. “It's not an issue of people against people; it's about ideas.” And the idea of evolution, Mortenson says, is “philosophy masquerading as science.”
Got that? It's not the scientists themselves that are evil, just the Bible-discrediting ideas they advocate. I'm sure Miller feels deeply chastened.
And just in case you missed the point the first time:
Otherwise, when scientists have come, they've done so on their own, as individuals. Mortenson knows that some have taken the museum's message personally. “Some have said to me, “You're demonizing science,'” he relates.”Not so, says Mortenson. If you're really paying attention, it is sin that's getting the blame: “[It's] human rebellion against the Creator that has produced all the evil.” Those who say otherwise, he adds, “are driven by an anti-Biblical agenda.”
And it's not really cigarettes that get the blame for causing cancer and emphysema, it is the toxic chemicals in the smoke. That's totally different.
Of course, the article discusses the science / religion aspect of things, and inevitably includes tidbits like this:
“It's so beautiful,” says Patricia Princehouse, a faculty member at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, looking across the lovely hillside gardens. “It's insidious, really. It seems criminal to lead kids into a situation where they have to choose between science and God.” Princehouse, a Dayton native and Harvard PhD, helped found the lobbying group Ohio Citizens for Science and she's involved in efforts to make sure that evolution continues to be taught in schools. Like a number of the conference attendees that I've talked to, she offers me her own faith perspective. “In the Catholic tradition,” she says, “you know God through His word and His works. This [Young Earth creationism] discounts His works.”
Criminal? Strong word. Richard Dawkins referred to that sort of religious indoctrination as mental child abuse, and was greeted with a storm of indignant condemnation for his trouble.
I would add that the indoctrination of small children into some rather unsavory beliefs plays a big role in the Catholic tradition no less than for the fundamentalists. Not to mention the other intellectual delights of that tradition, like the infallibility of its leader and the eternal damnation of anyone who questions its authority. I do not think the Catholics really have much basis for lecturing the fundamentalists about sound theology.
The article also found an atheist to interview:
Just when I'm beginning to think that paleontology is like a foxhole (i.e. according to the battlefield canard, there are no atheists there), I catch up with Jason Rosenhouse. Actually, Rosenhouse isn't a paleontologist; he's a math prof at James Madison University in Virginia. But he's a vocal opponent of the teaching of creationism and intelligent design and is a contributor to an evolution blog called “The Panda's Thumb.” He's also an atheist.A couple of years ago, when he was first learning all that he could about creationists and creationism, he sat in on a speech given by Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis. Afterward, he cornered Ham in a hallway and, “I was telling him why everything he was saying was wrong,” Rosenhouse explains. “He said I was very arrogant. And I said, 'No, arrogant is standing in front of an audience and pretending you know anything about science.'”
But, Rosenhouse admits, he was arrogant back then. These days, he has a more wry attitude toward the object of his, well, objections. This is his fourth visit to the Creation Museum, he announces pleasantly--a frequency that suggests that, in his own way, Rosenhouse is fascinated.
In his own way, Rosenhouse is fascinated by it. If you can manage the suspension of disbelief and really immerse yourself in the YEC view of the world, you can begin to understand why so many find it so appealing. This stands in stark contrast to the theistic evolutionist view of the world, which I do not understand at all.
I have moderated my tone over the years, at least when I am actually attending creationist conferences. I used to be a bit brash, which is emotionally very satisfying but probably not the best way of conducting oneself in this setting. On the other hand, I definitely don't regret lecturing Ken Ham on the nature of arrogance!
The article concludes with some more of my wit and wisdom:
Miller hopes the visit will help others understand, as he says, “the power of the message, how well it's being presented, and how many people are responding.” He'd like to motivate his colleagues to get involved when issues such as intelligent design come up in secondary schools. “And,” he says, “I'd like them to think about how to convey our message in a way that's not condescending, not overbearing, not alienating.”It's an approach that Rosenhouse seems to have embraced. Waiting for the bus at the end of the visit, I mention to Rosenhouse and the National Council for Science Education's Eugenie Scott that I saw him in one exhibit room patiently discussing something--fruit fly evolution?--with a couple of older teens. It looked to me like the teens were itching for a debate. Rosenhouse explains that an Associated Press reporter had been interviewing him about the museum's “misleading claims,” the teens overheard the conversation, and came over to question him. They weren't being confrontational, he says. “It was all very polite.”
“Did you make any headway?” asks Scott as our bus wheezes to a stop.
“Not a dent,” he says.
In the interests of heading off the inevitable comments about framing and accommodationism, let me reiterate the view I described in this post. Different modes of discourse are appropriate in different venues. There is a place for calm, civil discussion, and there is a place for angry polemics. Both have a role to play in advocating for evolution, and more generally for a more secular society. Endless hand-wringing over scaring away moderates is silly and uncalled for. But that doesn't mean screaming and yelling are always and everywhere the wisest things to do.
Politics
Comments
Aha! A relativist! Obviously you believe that all approaches are equally valid. [/snark]
Congrats on getting a fairly prominent spot in the Cinci mag article!
Posted by: The Science Pundit | November 11, 2009 5:59 PM
There is no mention of dragons or dinosaurs in the Bible. That these Creationists include them in their displays and talk about them drowning in the flood is heresy. The idea that they have to come up with some excuse for things in the real world that don't match the Bible should tell them that their "science" has flaws. It would make more "sense" to say that the fossils are incorrectly identified as dinosaurs and are "really" some kind of hippo or elephant. Of course, sense, has nothing to do with it.
Posted by: Ann Klein | November 11, 2009 7:00 PM
... a third of parents listening to a “liberal” sermon while their son, sitting in the pew next to them, fiddles with a cell phone.
Yes people, please give the utmost respect and reverence when in the presence of sanctimonious self-professed god channelers. Please do not fiddle with the cell phones when they are sermonizing.
Posted by: 386sx | November 11, 2009 7:20 PM
There is no mention of dragons or dinosaurs in the Bible.
Um, Anne. Here's a quick search of the Blue Letter Bible KJV concordance. Long story short, there are nineteen mentions of dragons in the Bible, in both old and new testaments. This makes dragons better attested than the resurrection of the dead. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Ham insists on dinosaurs on the ark just to support biblical mentions of dragons.
I realize that the Bible isn't as well-written or entertaining as some other Bronze Age texts, like the Illiad or the Ramayana or Chuang-Tzu (all recommended reading), but it's not as rough going as the Epic of Gilgamesh, so it's got that going for it. I've always maintained that atheists know the Bible better than the average Christian, but you've let me down.
Posted by: HP | November 11, 2009 7:44 PM
Posted by: llewelly | November 11, 2009 8:06 PM
Actually I love AIG and the museum. I donated alot of money to see that museum built. I know I will be rewarded for that in heaven. I know that I helped put a dent in Satan's plans and a thrin in his side to slow him down. That makes me smile knowing that children do have a choice between good and evil and that the truth is making a comeback.
Since kids are brainwashed with evil at school, (teaching of socialism, evolution, sex, gayism, etc.) we as church members and parents can counter that negative culture at home by monitorijng what the kids are being taught at school and explaining why evolution is wrong , anti-Church, and why it's in the textbooks and why the Binle is right and the ultimate book tjey should refer to in any situation, especially a school situation.
believe it or not, we are makimg headway. If you don;t believe it, try teaching evolution in a Mississippi high school class. The students will pass the test on evolution just fine., Theur answers will follow the lesson in the book to a "T". It's their hearts that are doubting what's the book says. Many students just put down the correct answer according to the book to satisfy the teacher. it doesn't mean they actually believe evoltuion ever happened.
Even when I was in college (10 years ago) our physical science survey professor got laughed at by three out of four students in the class when he tried to force us to accept evolution. Our faith and ou learning through the last 18 - 20 years at church countered his anti-faith message. Luckily he dropped the subject and moved on when he realized he was outnumbered three to one.
This is the stuff dreams are made of an why if so dearly and financially support AIG and the creationism movement whenever I can. I know that the future of civilization depends on people who know the truth or our existance and the purpose behind our universe that God spoke into existance some 6000 years ago.
I will continue to be a thorn in the side of evolutionary teaching until the day I die and I will do everything in my power to make sure that children know to reject this evil teaching with scripture when presented in the classroom.
The war is far from over my friend. It has only begun.
Posted by: Created Warrior | November 11, 2009 11:34 PM
Only an absent-minded person like you, Created Warrior, will go ga ga over this kind of crap.
Posted by: Crazyharp81602 | November 12, 2009 12:14 AM
"gayism"?
Posted by: tresmal | November 12, 2009 12:50 AM
"thrin"?
"Binle"?
"tjey"?
"Theur"?
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 12, 2009 1:11 AM
"I would add that the indoctrination of small children into some rather unsavory beliefs plays a big role in the Catholic tradition no less than for the fundamentalists. Not to mention the other intellectual delights of that tradition, like the infallibility of its leader and the eternal damnation of anyone who questions its authority. I do not think the Catholics really have much basis for lecturing the fundamentalists about sound theology."
This is the sort of bull that iritates me the most. When you can't even get the basics right, when all the information is a mere handful of mouseclicks away and yet insist on blathering on, positively delighting in your ignorance; indeed wearing it like a badge of honour a la Dawkins.
Oh and by the by, what has evolution got to do with a secular society?
Meh; you're no better than the YEC fundies.
Posted by: Hugh | November 12, 2009 5:14 AM
I notice, Hugh, that you declined to actually state where in fact Jason was wrong in that portion of text. Now, that may well be because you are so enraged that anyone would dare to compare Catholicism with Fundamentalism, though that cannot be the case, as many a learned individual believes that to be true. There is a certain irony is chastising others for not understanding something that you then decline to correct.
It almost makes one suspicious of your motivations.
Posted by: Damian | November 12, 2009 7:14 AM
Methinks 'Hugh' is really Bill Donohue. The faux outrage, the lack of any real substance.
...or maybe he's just your typical clueless catholic.
Posted by: FastLane | November 12, 2009 9:42 AM
To be fair, the Pope isn't infallible all the time. He just gets a special power that he can turn on and say "okay guys I'm infallible now". It hasn't actually been used for quite a while, and honestly probably never will be - just imagine the repercussions if he gets something wrong in God mode!
Of course, this nitpicky argument is equivalent to saying "Jesus actually wore sandals, you're no better than the YEC fundies!" You shouldn't expect people to know the ridiculous minutiae of your crazy fantasy for every offhand remark. It's bad enough that the Pope can be infallible at all.
Posted by: Tacroy | November 12, 2009 10:38 AM
@ Damian:
I would have thought it fairly obvious that I found the entire paragraph 'wrong' by the simple fact that I quoted it all.
If he, and indeed you, are interested in understanding the Catholic Church's views on education, science, faith, doctrine, papal infallibility, heaven and hell, philosophy, extraterrestrial life or anything else then, as I said in my original post, the answers are a mere handful of mouseclicks away. I suspect neither you nor he are that interested but yet see no problem in making judgement calls anyway. Such is the nature of 'New Atheism' it appears.
"Now, that may well be because you are so enraged that anyone would dare to compare Catholicism with Fundamentalism, though that cannot be the case, as many a learned individual believes that to be true."
I would respectfully suggest you look up "argumentum ad verecundiam"
"There is a certain irony is chastising others for not understanding something that you then decline to correct."
What irony? It would only be ironic if I failed to understand something that I was criticising others for not understanding.
"It almost makes one suspicious of your motivations." You do like your logical fallacies it seems.
Posted by: Hugh | November 12, 2009 10:58 AM
@ Fastlane
Methinks Fastlane doesn't know the difference between iritation and outrage.
"...or maybe he's just your typical clueless catholic." I would hazard that I am more clued up than you'd ever hope to be.
Posted by: Hugh | November 12, 2009 11:08 AM
I understand many of the Catholic Church's views on those issues, thank you very much. I was simply asking you to spell out exactly where Jason was wrong, which you manifestly refuse to do.
By the way, I am not a "new atheist", and even if I were, you have given me no reason to believe that it is necessarily a bad thing, your own seemingly irrational distaste for them, notwithstanding.
I would argue that the official position (of the Catholic Church) is largely redundant if the reality of Catholicism — i.e. the way in which individuals, and particularly large numbers of them, practice their faith — is not in concord with that official position, or if the official position has not taken in to account how it will be implemented in real world, or even if not enough is done to correct serious error (examples are too numerous and horrifying to mention).
It won't do to simply hide behind some magical "official position" as a defense, in an attempt to wash your hands of those people/groups and their deeds. No other organization would get away with pointing to its official position as an absolute defense, so why should the Catholic Church?
For example, it may not be the official position that evolution is in conflict with Catholicism — though even the official position is hardly ideal — but a sizable number of Catholics are either full blown creationists, or at the very least, don't accept evolution as it has been described by science (42% don't accept the scientific account of human evolution, according to Pew, for example). Also, the experience of many people attending Catholic schools can most politely be described as, horrifying. They were indeed told that they would burn in hell if they didn't accept Catholic teachings.
And I would respectfully suggest that you attempt to understand what an "argument from authority" actually is before accusing others of committing that fallacy. There is no fallacy involved in arguing that many people who do understand Catholicism believe that its claims are no less justifiable, and that its mark on the world is almost certainly even more destructive, than that of the Fundamentalists.
Posted by: Damian | November 12, 2009 1:12 PM
Damian,
If you really understood Catholic dogma on these issues, you wouldn't need to have the mistakes pointed out. I have not been a Catholic for 20 years, and I was irked by the blatant falsity in Dr. Rosenhouse's remarks. I expect more from him.
As for whether the Catholic Church should do more to make its doctrines better understood, that really doesn't have much to do with the correctness of original remarks, from what I can see.
Posted by: One Brow | November 12, 2009 1:31 PM
What I don't get is why so many people will gladly go to high school or college to get education in business, economics, social science, psychology, history, math, etc., but want to get biology (and some physics and astronomy) education from their church. Since when has any church been accredited for biology education or any other academic field for that matter? While some religious based universities such as Notre Dame have accredited biology programs by The Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, as well as other organizations, many more (or most other) religious universities such as Liberty University, do not have biology programs, or have accreditation by a Christian organization like International Christian Accrediting Association. If some knows of a biology program from a religious University that has and accreditation by a non religious organization, please post it. But, nonetheless, I don't equate education from a University with education from a church. More people attend church on Sunday than go through biology programs at a university. I guess those people don't know the difference.
Posted by: MartyM | November 12, 2009 2:50 PM
Where, exactly, is the "blatant falsity in Dr. Rosenhouse's remarks"? I've looked at that paragraph claim by claim, and I see nothing that is blatantly false.
Ritual cannibalism (see the miracle of transubstantiation) is quite unsavory. If it wasn't Jesus, we'd be disgusted at the behavior of those weird religious people.
The Pope is not always infallible, but he can choose to be so. In the context of "intellectual delights", it doesn't really matter if he's always infallible or not - all that matters is that the tradition states that one man can be infallible.
Honestly, I'm not even sure what makes you damned nowadays - but Martin Luther was definitely excommunicated because of his questioning of Church authority, among other things.
This is obviously an opinion, and so can't be a "blatant falsity".
Posted by: Tacroy | November 12, 2009 3:27 PM
Created Warrior,
You are so obviously dangerously deluded and perhaps even mentally ill it would be fruitless to even begin to criticize the enormity of your insane comments about evolution.
Posted by: naturalist | November 12, 2009 5:53 PM
Created Warrior,
Did you ever think it's possible the reason these kids are laughing at professors is due to the indoctrination they've suffered at the hands of their idiot parents, rather than the failure of evolution as a theory? Probably not, and I'm not here to insult you (it's already been done by others way better than I could manage, anyway). But, from the perspective of a person who was told throughout his childhood that evolution was ridiculous: I just hadn't been exposed to the evidence. I'd been brainwashed into laughing at people as they patiently tried to explain the theory. If those kids you mentioned stopped laughing for half a second and listened, you'd probably be scared by how fast they'd flip sides.
Posted by: Michael the little boot | November 12, 2009 7:01 PM
Oh, sorry I didn't clarify. For those of you who accused me of being Catholic, you are wrong. I am Southern Baptist and proud of both the Southern and the Baptist.
Posted by: Created Warrior | November 12, 2009 8:58 PM
Flip sides eh. I think the Bible mentions something about that. Somewhere it mentions that leaving one's faith is worse than not having the faith at all .
In short, betray your maker, and you are screwed!
Posted by: Created warrior | November 12, 2009 9:08 PM
Sitting here looking at a bunch of midgets trying to decipher what the Pope and infallibility means is really low grade entertainment. What the Church says is that the Pope speaks infallibly when he issues a dogmatic statement on FAITH OR MORALS, to the UNIVERSAL Church from the CHAIR (EX CATHEDRA). Now that is a rare occurrence. In fact, I think the last time that happened was early in the 20th. Century when he declared that the Virgin Mary was ASSUMED into heaven BODY AND SOUL. Now that may sound counterintuitive, it may sound fanciful, it may sound who knows what. But, I don't think anyone is going to undertake the job of trying to PROVE that it didn't happen. You say you don't believe it - fine, you say that no rational person would believe it - fine. Now, all you have to do is PROVE it didn't happen and the whole idea of Papal infallibility is discredited. GOOD LUCK.
You want to talk about irony? How about this; fundamentalists and atheists as strange bedfellows. You see they are the only two groups that talk about the literal interpretation of the Bible as if it were something real. That's because most Christians and certainly almost all Catholics do not believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible. The Catholic Church teaches that the Bible is neither HISTORY NOR SCIENCE. So where is the literal interpretation of the Bible? Well, it's in the minds of the fundamentalists who believe in the literal interpretation and the minds of the atheists who believe that all religious people believe it. Sorry fellows, it just ain't so. The Old Testament is a conglomeration of various literary genres, including redacted Babylonian folklore and Assyrian myths. The New Testament is written in the form of Greco-Roman biographies.
So, as St. Paul is reputed to have said: you guys need to come out of the darkness and into the light. I've had enough laughs for one night.
Posted by: Silver Fox | November 12, 2009 9:53 PM
Thank you for the explanation that was already provided above by Tacroy. I guess pretending it wasn't previously explained is helpful when you want to call people midgets and/or be needlessly redundant.
Fixed.
Posted by: AL | November 13, 2009 6:05 AM
Re Created Warrior
Gee, does Mr. Warrior mean atheist scientists like devout Catholic Ken Miller. Or is Mr. Warrior one of those Southern Baptists who considers the Catholic Church the whore of Babylon?
By the way, it's nice to have a moron like Mr. Warrior to laugh at. Makes up for the departure of Mr. Jon S who hasn't been heard from in several years.
Posted by: SLC | November 13, 2009 7:25 AM
@ Damian;
"I understand many of the Catholic Church's views on those issues, thank you very much."
I remain to be convinced by such an assertion. So far the evidence has been lacking.
"By the way, I am not a "new atheist", and even if I were, you have given me no reason to believe that it is necessarily a bad thing, your own seemingly irrational distaste for them, notwithstanding."
My quarrel is with the often sloppy, uninformed, beligerant, needlessly confrontational, self gratifying willful ignorance of 'New Atheism'. It's a matter of hate the sin not the sinner. I bear no animus to any individual.
"I would argue that the official position (of the Catholic Church) is largely redundant if the reality of Catholicism — i.e. the way in which individuals, and particularly large numbers of them, practice their faith"
Firstly it is simply ludicrous to apportion blame to the heirarchy of the Church for the ignorance or wrongdoing of some of its members unless it was directly complicit. Secondly you'll have to show that 'particularly large numbers' are evolution deniers "(42% don't accept the scientific account of human evolution, according to Pew, for example)"
Well I don't know where you got that figure but this quote from PEW's U.S. Religious Landscape Survey 2008 'At least seven-in-ten members of evangelical Protestant churches, Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses reject the evolutionary account as the best explanation for the development of human life, while large majorities of Catholics, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and the unaffiliated agree that evolution best explains the development of life on earth.' paints a different picture. The actual figures were 58% agree 35% disagree and 7% don't know. The problems with the understanding and acceptance of evolution are more to do with the education system and those who insist that accepting evolutionary theory must mean accepting an atheistic position.
"Also, the experience of many people attending Catholic schools can most politely be described as, horrifying."
What all Catholic schools; a majority; a significant minority; how many people?
"They were indeed told that they would burn in hell if they didn't accept Catholic teachings."
If that happened, which I very much doubt, then they were lied to.
"And I would respectfully suggest that you attempt to understand what an "argument from authority" actually is before accusing others of committing that fallacy."
I'm sorry but "...as many a learned individual believes that to be true." is a perfect example of that logical fallacy
"There is no fallacy involved in arguing that many people who do understand Catholicism believe that its claims are no less justifiable, and that its mark on the world is almost certainly even more destructive, than that of the Fundamentalists."
Which of course was not your original position but regardless you have merely served to compound your error by using another fallacious argument 'argumentum ad populum'. You have to demonstrate that your position is valid; it is not sufficient to appeal to 'many people' even if they are 'learned'. I could quite easily use the same argument.
Posted by: Hugh | November 13, 2009 7:30 AM
Created Warrior I apologize for insulting you.
Posted by: naturalist | November 13, 2009 4:49 PM
I used to be a Southern Baptist (a reluctant one), and I can confirm that the "Baptist bubble" is real. I left because not only pushing creationism, but because of the other logical fallacies I started recognizing more often, and the constant declaration that if I didn't think and feel like I'm told to when I'm told to, then there is something wrong with me. A notion I flatly reject.
@ Sliver Fox
I don't understand the notion that Jesus (and for some Mary) physically ascended into heaven. I always thought Heaven is spiritual place. I mean if one digs up an old buried Pope, would his body not be there? And if it's a physical place, then the begging question is "Where is it?". The onus to prove it is on you, the one claiming that "truth", not on those who don't accept it.
Posted by: MartyM | November 14, 2009 11:04 AM
Created Dupe,
I was raised Southern Baptist too. If you think they aren't indoctrinating children and behaving as poorly as the Catholic Church, then I really suggest you study the history of your faith. Heck, the SBC rejected slavery less than 15 years ago.
You can believe whatever you want. What you may not do is push that belief on anyone who does not voluntarily walk through the doors of your church (and anyone under the age of 18 does not voluntarily walk through those doors).
Posted by: kevin | November 14, 2009 4:37 PM
Marty:
"I don't understand the notion that Jesus (and for some Mary) physically ascended into heaven."
It's good that you don't understand that because if you did you would be wrong. Jesus ascended into heaven; Mary was assumed into heaven. As the second person of the trinity, Jesus rose by his own power. Mary had no such power and so was assumed into heaven, not by her own power but by the power of God.
"if one digs up an old buried Pope, would his body not be there?"
I would hope so. I don't think the Church has ever said that any old popes have risen to heaven or been assumed bodily into heaven.
"the onus to prove it is on you, the one claiming that "truth"
I accept heaven by virtue of my FAITH in the teachings of the Church. So, I'm not looking to prove anything and I'm not out looking for "truth". Now, if you can't accept it, that's fine by me.
Posted by: Silver Fox | November 15, 2009 3:38 AM
"At least seven-in-ten members of evangelical Protestant churches, Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses reject the evolutionary account as the best explanation for the development of human life"
You mean that 30% of these fundamentalist groups accept evolution? That's amazing; I would have thought that none of them would accept it.
Posted by: Silver Fox | November 15, 2009 3:52 AM
Wow, Created Warrior. Why do you people WANT to believe in someone who considers it a betrayal to follow the evidence? Why do you WANT to believe in a person who will "screw" you (you know, in the bad way) if you simply accept as true what it looks like happened? And why do you happily defend this tyrant? I'm just glad for the high probability no one like this God you describe actually exists.
And you reason like a twelve year old. Apologies if you actually are that age.
Posted by: Michael the little boot | November 15, 2009 1:37 PM
In the beginning, creationists cited the Bible as being literally true; i.e., the earth was created in seven twenty four hour days in 4,004 B.C. I was told repeatedly by many early creationists that the old fossils, especially the dinosaurs were created by God as fossils, that there were never any alive. Now they lived and children played with them. Is this an interpretation of the Biblical account?
The Bible tells us the earth is flat; therefore, any creationist who says otherwise has interpreted the written word. The Bible tells us that Adam and Eve were the first humans, but Cain and Abel married women from the land of Nod. Where did they come from? Were they human or did these two boys marry outside the species?
If creationists are going to profess the Bible as literally true they must do so without variation which also means they must go to Genesis in Hebrew, its original language, where they will read, "When God began to create heaven and earth..." which leaves open the question as to whether there was something before.
Then, of course, the YEC's (young earth) might want to resolve their disagreement on the timing of this with the OEC's (old earth) who accept the scientific view of the big bang occurring 13.7 billion years ago.
Rather than argue with creationists, I prefer to encourage them to tidy up their own disagreements as to creation.
Besides, if you believe in an almighty god, which would you believe: that god created every life form from scratch, atom by atom, or used existing forms as the basis for more advanced forms. The true fundamentalist creationist might insist that god created everything from scratch which means he would create everything particle by particle. The creationist belief is a belief based on a story. It's a good story if you don't take it as fact.
Posted by: oldfuzz | November 15, 2009 6:34 PM
Silver Fox:
Honesty noted.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 16, 2009 12:29 AM
Hi guys,
Let's go back to the scientific methods.
Can you SCIENTIFICALLY PROVE that there is no creator or God?
As my understanding, if someone want to prove its absence,
he or she should know absolutely everything in the universe.
Can you?
If you can, you were in the universe from the beginning of this universe and you should be able to see (or understand) everything in the universe from end to end.
Then you should know the final destiny of the universe because you should prove it will not show up later.
As I know then you are God because you live forever and know everything and you can control every destiny (because you should ensure that there will not be the Creator even in the future).
So, the initial hypothesis is wrong now.
Therefore, Removing God or Creator from science is not science any more because they BELIEVE NONEXISTENCE OF GOD WITHOUT ANY PROOF.
Please be aware. It's not the battle between science and religion. Darwinism is mere a belief, too.
Posted by: sam | November 16, 2009 3:26 PM
False, of course... though I admit that if one were to compare my grasp of logic with sam's, I might seem god-like by comparison. But that's not saying much, now is it?
Posted by: James Sweet | November 16, 2009 3:55 PM
You know, one of the most annoying things about people like sam is that they think we haven't heard this worthless shit before. It's so insulting... You really think we haven't heard that tired fallacious line of argumentation? Really? Wow.
sam, please google for "Russell's teapot" just for starters. Trust me, every idiotic point you make in your comment has been addressed time and time again.
Posted by: James Sweet | November 16, 2009 3:57 PM
No. Evolution is a theory that is almost universally accepted by scientists because, unlike the existence of God, it is backed up by mountains of evidence.
I know he's just a driveby and I'm wasting my time but sometimes...
Posted by: tresmal | November 16, 2009 9:27 PM
The creation museum doesn't even try to do science. It is a lie to protect a belief.
The entire creation movement was started because they didn't "like" what science had realised. That is all there is to it.
But Sammy dear, we don't need to disprove the existence of "a god or creator". We only need to show that "your" god is made up nonsense, along with heaven and souls and all that rubbish.
You would be wise to remember that.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 17, 2009 10:58 AM
SLC, nice to see you haven't forgotten me. Created Warrior actually made some good points. I also donate money to the museum, as well as other Creationist organizations, and I'm happy to see Creationism coming on strong, despite the indoctrination of Evolution in schools and all the evolutionary hate books by Dawkins and his ilk.
MartyM: "What I don't get is why so many people will gladly go to high school or college to get education in business, economics, social science, psychology, history, math, etc., but want to get biology (and some physics and astronomy) education from their church."
It's not that we want to get a biology education from the church; it's that we want the church to be equipped and have answers to questions evolutionists raise, and to defend scripture. If the church can't answer evolutionary questions, then, naturally, students will get their answers from evolutionists- who are more than happy to indoctrinate the students, and that's when they end up leaving the church.
kevin: "I was raised Southern Baptist too. If you think they aren't indoctrinating children and behaving as poorly as the Catholic Church, then I really suggest you study the history of your faith... You can believe whatever you want. What you may not do is push that belief on anyone who does not voluntarily walk through the doors of your church (and anyone under the age of 18 does not voluntarily walk through those doors).
But Kevin, this is what atheists do every day. They disguise their philosophy as science and push their beliefs on whoever walks into the classroom. If you don't like the church countering this, then perhaps the schools shouldn't push evolutionary indoctrination in the first place.
oldfuzz: "In the beginning, creationists cited the Bible as being literally true; i.e., the earth was created in seven twenty four hour days... The Bible tells us the earth is flat... The Bible tells us that Adam and Eve were the first humans, but Cain and Abel married women from the land of Nod. Where did they come from?... Then, of course, the YEC's (young earth) might want to resolve their disagreement on the timing of this with the OEC's (old earth) who accept the scientific view of the big bang occurring 13.7 billion years ago... The true fundamentalist creationist might insist that god created everything from scratch which means he would create everything particle by particle. The creationist belief is a belief based on a story. It's a good story if you don't take it as fact."
Actually the Bible tells us that God made the heavens and the earth in six days (Exodus 20:11), and from its context, they would be ordinary days, not long ages. The Bible does not tell us that the earth is flat; that's a myth atheists like to promote, but the church never held this view, and there were few who did. In fact it can be argued the Bible teaches the earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22). Adam and Eve were indeed the first humans, and Cain and Abel would have married their sisters since there was no one else to marry. I'd be very happy if YEC could come to agreement with OEC, however, in reality, there will always be conflict. The key is providing sound answers to show that the Bible is the reliable and accurate Word of God. Now I don't know if God created everything particle by particle, but I do believe he created the heavens and the earth in six ordinary days, so how he created it is open to speculation. Creationist beliefs are based on true, historical events, and not 'just a story'.
Posted by: Jon S | November 18, 2009 8:44 PM
Pointing out the patterns in nature is not indoctrination. I'm also a little confused why we shouldn't teach biology...in biology. Perhaps we should just have hour long prayer sessions to our god of choice instead? and believe me its a choice.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 19, 2009 5:53 AM
Richard,
True, pointing out patterns in nature is not indoctrination. So if that's the case, then you should be in agreement with teaching patterns in nature that support a young earth (or universe), rather than an old earth, right? You see, evolution isn't really about observing patterns in nature at all, it's about one world view against another. And I never said we shouldn't teach biology in biology. I'm saying that if one is offended with those who disguise philosophy as science, then perhaps we should leave evolution out of the classroom all together because evolution is more about religious beliefs, politics and philosophy than about science. Actually, I'm not opposed to teaching evolution in the classroom as long as we can point out all the flaws as well. It's just unfortunate that militant evolutionists don't want students informed of those flaws.
Posted by: Jon S | November 19, 2009 5:24 PM
The only thing that says young is a book from one minor sect of one religion. And ONLY because somebody went and counted a load of begets.
No, its about DNA, animal growth and change over time. Your body is made from exactly the same stuff as all the other animals, we even get the same diseases sometimes. That should tell you something about our connection to the animal kingdom.The creationists started politicising this issue. Now you complain that its too politically charged? How amusing.
Evolution has been worked on for over 150 years. The major issues from creationists have been answered. We also know a great deal more about this scientific theory. Especially with our new knowledge about DNA and genomes. I think if it did have "major flaws" they would have been noticed, worked on, and the people involved would have won awards for overturning that bit of science. That is how science works. Or perhaps you think Einstein knocking Newton was a bad thing for science?I suspect it is more likely that you do not understand particular parts of evolutionary theory and therefore some bits probably seem contradictory and nonsensical on the surface. If you have questions or want to know why we say a certain thing happened you are free to ask. You will have to tell me what flaws for instance as i'm not actually aware of any that would undermine such an obvious and prevelant pattern in nature.
Every part of evolution has reasoning and evidence behind it...and we are always happy to talk about why we know what we know.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 20, 2009 5:44 AM
Richard: "We have trees older than 6000 years."
Trees older than 6,000 years aren't a problem for creationists. I believe the earth is well under 10,000 years old, so trees confirmed to be over that age could pose a challenge.
Richard: "...rocks, ice layers, sediment layers, multiple radiometrics...all say old earth. The light in the sky says old too."
Sorry Richard, but rocks, ice, sediment and light do not speak, therefore they don't say the earth is old. People speak and say the earth is old. This is what I'm talking about; it's a matter of interpretation, not evidence. The evidence doesn't have a voice. The evidence must be interpreted by fallible human beings. Creationist scientists reject the old earth interpretations of rocks, ice, sediment and light, and have provided interpretations consistent with a young earth. (see the RATE: Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth).
Richard: "The only thing that says young is a book from one minor sect of one religion."
Not true. Christianity isn't a minor sect of one religion, and neither is Islam. Both teach creation. Islam teaches that Allah created the world anywhere from 4-8 days, and that man was created from the dust, and woman from man. The Creationist account can't be marginalized as you suppose.
Richard: "No, its about DNA, animal growth and change over time. Your body is made from exactly the same stuff as all the other animals, we even get the same diseases sometimes. That should tell you something about our connection to the animal kingdom."
You've said nothing that contradicts Creationism. We believe in DNA, animal growth and change over time, and we believe our bodies are made from exactly the same stuff as all the other animals.
Richard: "The creationists started politicising this issue. Now you complain that its too politically charged? How amusing."
What's amusing is you accusing Creationists of starting the politicizing. I, for one, don't know who started the politics, but science has never been free of politics, and never will be.
Richard: "The major issues from creationists have been answered."
Oh, really? We know for a fact that life only arises from life, and that life doesn't arise spontaneously (as the Creationist Louis Pasteur proved), or do you deny that? Can you tell us how the first life form arose spontaneously? What about the left handed chiralty problem of amino acids? Are you aware of the problems the Big Bang theory has, and can you explain how they've been resolved?
All the major Creationist organizations (AIG, CMI, ICR) have evidence for a young earth based on the scientific method. Can you refute them all to the satisfaction of the Creationist community?
Richard: "I think if it did have "major flaws" they would have been noticed, worked on, and the people involved would have won awards for overturning that bit of science. That is how science works."
Scientists have noticed flaws, and they've been pointing them out for years, but they don't win awards because secular journals won't accept anything a Creationist writes because of politics and bias. The film Expelled did a fine job of exposing this.
Richard: "I suspect it is more likely that you do not understand particular parts of evolutionary theory and therefore some bits probably seem contradictory and nonsensical on the surface."
I'm quite familiar with evolutionary theory, and I've been following and commenting on this and other evolution websites for several years now. Every time I look critically at the evidence for evolution I find there's a lot of interpretation involved, and it boils down to a worldview rather than evidence or science.
Richard: "You will have to tell me what flaws for instance as i'm not actually aware of any that would undermine such an obvious and prevelant pattern in nature."
We know radiometric and carbon dating are not accurate because things of known age cannot be accurately dated. How then can we be certain of ages which no one has observed? How can we be certain that one life form evolved into another if it was never observed? How can you be sure dinosaurs evolved into birds when the evidence is spotty at best, and even evolutionists such as Alan Feduccia dispute it?
"Every part of evolution has reasoning and evidence behind it...and we are always happy to talk about why we know what we know."
Richard, it's one thing for you to have an answer for everything, but it's also another thing to convince everyone that you're right and they're wrong. And I'm not saying that you don't have all the answers, but even if you do, I can assure you that you're going to have to work hard to convince those who are skeptical of your claims. I'm familiar with most of the evolutionist talking points, and they've been refuted by creationists, but I'm sure that evidence probably won't convince you otherwise because you have a certain worldview in which you already believe in an old universe. Any evidence to contradict that will be rejected by you based on your interpretation of the data. Likewise, Creationists reject the evolutionary talking points based on an interpretation supported by our worldview.
Posted by: Jon S | November 20, 2009 6:33 PM