…and this is a 
We visited the Creation "Museum" last Friday.
I'm careful to put the title in quotes, because it is not a museum in any respectable sense of the word. I knew this ahead of time; I had no expectation of any kind of credible presentation in this place, but what impressed me most is how far it failed to meet even my low hopes. They clearly want to ape a real museum, but they can't — their mission is the antithesis of open inquiry.
The guards are a clear example. Real museums have guards, of course: they're there to protect valuable exhibits from theft and vandalism. But real museums want their guards to be discreet and not interfere with the attendees appreciation of the exhibits. At the Creation "Museum", one of the jobs of the guards is to suppress criticism. They hover about in rather conspicuous uniforms, armed with tasers, and some use police dogs to check out the visitors. They don't want dissent expressed in their building, and they admit it themselves.
There was a lot of mocking inside the museum Friday (and to a lesser extent during Dr. Jason Lisle's noon lecture) by dozens of the 285 in the SSA group, and some of the mocking could be clearly heard by many of our guests (especially in our Noah's Flood rooms, but also in the Garden of Eden exhibit when words like "garbage" were uttered, etc.). Several times during the day we had to ask mockers to keep their voices down (I did it five times myself), but generally, it was more peaceful than what we expected (many blog comments from those who were coming were promising some very aggressive actions).
Think about the genuine museums you might have visited. Can you imagine the curators at the American Museum of Natural History being concerned that someone might openly disagree with an exhibit? Do you think Niles Eldredge bustles about the museum, shushing anyone who questions the displays? Would they turn away a visitor wearing a Jesus shirt, or one that baldly declared evolution is false? At real museums, the attitude would range from indifference to active encouragement of discussion. The Creation "Museum" cannot tolerate that.
We were asked to sign a document before we entered that required us to be "respectful" of their facilities, which apparently meant more than simply appropriately regarding their building as private property. One of our atheists was in an entirely friendly conversation about evolution with a creationist visitor, when one of the guards came up and asked them to stop, saying that we had signed an agreement not to even discuss anything in the building where others could hear. (To his credit, the creationist said that he welcomed the discussion the guards wanted to silence, and they continued outside.) They knew we disagreed with them, and they were clearly on edge…and they knew that their beliefs could not stand up in the face of free speech.
There were other differences with real museums once we got inside. Think about the layout of serious museums, like the AMNH or the Smithsonian or our local Bell Museum: you enter, there are various rooms and areas organized by subject matter, but you're free to explore. In fact, that word, "explore", is a central theme of most museums. Maybe it's unfair to compare a small potatoes, non-science affair like Ken Ham's building to major scientific institutions; it's more of a place for family entertainment. So compare it to the Pacific Science Center, or OMSI, or the Franklin museum or the Science Museum of Minnesota— places where kids come on field trips and families show up with 5-year-olds, and entertainment is a major function. Exploration is still the byword, and they also emphasize interactivity.
Ken Ham's Creation "Museum" does none of that. They have a script you're supposed to follow. There is a single route that snakes through the building with a series of exhibits with a linear agenda. You are supposed to get their Sunday School lesson plan of the 7 C's (creation, corruption, catastrophe, confusion, Christ, cross, and consummation). Exploration is not an option. You will follow their track. There is no interactivity, either — it's a chain of displays, dioramas, and little scenes, supplemented with frequent videos that tell you what to think.
This was not a museum: it is a haunted house. It is a carnival ride. It shows throughout in the layout — the rubes are supposed to be shuttled through efficiently, get their little thrills, and exit so the next group can make the trip. If they'd had a few million more, I imagine they would have invested in tracks and little cars and turned it into the Creation Ride. The creators of this place wouldn't recognize a museum if they woke up in the middle of the Smithsonian on a bed of museum maps with a giant sign saying "MUSEUM" in front of their faces and an army of docents shouting directions at them. They seem to have gotten all their information about how a museum works by visiting Disneyland.
What about the scientific content? They must have made some kind of argument, right? Wrong. They didn't even try.
This is their core premise. They claim that scientists and creationists are all working from exactly the same set of facts, and the only difference is in how we interpret them…and that they have an extra source of information that scientists reject, the Bible.
Their first big exhibit is a perfect example of the principle in action. It's a model of a dinosaur dig, with two men working away at excavating the bones. There is a video accompanying it in which the two views are presented. The younger Asian fellow in front says, and I paraphrase, "This animal died about a hundred million years ago. Its body dried in the sun for several days before being slowly buried under layers of sediment in a local flood." Then the avuncular creationist says, "I see the same bones, but I believe this dinosaur was killed suddenly about 4400 years ago in a huge global flood, which buried it deeply all at once." And then he goes on to explain that see, they have the very same evidence, but he understands it in the light of God's word.
It is a profoundly dishonest display. No, they are not using the same evidence: the creationist is ignoring all but the most superficial appearances. The scientist says a few details about this particular dinosaur, but what Ken Ham hides is that every statement would have a large body of evidence in its support. This isn't two guys stating their mere beliefs in a field…it's one guy, the creationist, closing his eyes to the evidence and spouting Biblical gibberish, and one scientist stating the conclusions of substantial investigations.
The scientist does not say a particular fossil is 125 million years old simply because he feels like it. It's a conclusion built on careful observation of the geology — if you read a paleontology paper, you'll often find a substantial discussion of the details of the rocks surrounding the specimen — and by the morphology of the rocks, the history of the area, the physics of the radioisotopes present, the other animal and plant fossils found in the same plane (which, in turn, had their ages evaluated). It is the product of an impressive consilience of evidence, all of which the creationist is rejecting, or more likely, of which he is utterly ignorant.
It's part of our problem in getting the message of science out. In this video, the white-bearded creationist speaks calmly, acts like a pleasant and reasonable fellow, and appears capable of tying his own shoes. But if you know even a scrap of the actual science being misrepresented, you know that he's an ignorant fool who is telling lies to children, and he transforms instantly from Santa Claus to predatory propagandist. I think that's what they actually mean by "same facts, two views".
It's an ongoing theme throughout the "museum" that there are these two views in opposition, and it's often stated quite unashamedly that the conflict is between God's word and…human reason. It's also quite clear that human reason is the enemy to Ken Ham and his crew.
This display is a beautiful example of their tactics, though. I had come to this place expecting a Gish Gallop of misdirection, in which they'd hurl a barrage of half-truths, out-of-context information, and outright lies about the science at the viewer, which usually puts the informed critic in the position of having to struggle with correcting point after point, each one requiring more time to address than the creationist spent asserting it. This place is very different. Instead, we get a Ham Hightail, in which he hurtles along heedlessly pretending that the evidence simply doesn't exist, so he doesn't need to argue against it, and it's enough to back up his claims by quoting Bible verses.
I suppose it works well for the gullible attendees, but for those of us looking for some ideas with which to wrestle, the impression left is one of credulous vacuity. It's an empty "museum", with no real ideas, no evidence, just a collection of props to illustrate an unquestioned myth.
When they do make plain statements that contradict the science, they don't bother to provide a reason to accept their view over the scientific one — reason is the enemy, you may recall. It's enough to simply declare that this is GOD'S WORD, therefore it is true. Never mind that it is only one narrow interpretation of their god's awesomely vague words, that many of their fellow Christians can interpret it differently, or that the evidence of nature (which, presumably, is their god's creation) says something completely different. It is simply no problem to declare that human affinities to other animals are not real, we are unique and unchanging, and that divergence (of a very limited sort) only happens to animals. It is a simple-minded absolutism that relies on ignorance.
The "museum" actually spends more time condemning heretics than it does science, which, as I said, is mostly ignored. I was rather amused to discover several prominent exhibits frothing madly over Charles Templeton — I almost felt some sympathy for his foundation, since they get hammered from all sides. Almost. (Never mind, wrong Templeton. The exhibits do no refer to the founder of the Templeton Foundation, but to a apostate Canadian author and cartoonist…not to say anything against the fellow, but it's even weirder that he was given such prominence here.)
One mantra was repeated over and over: "millions of years". This is also the enemy, an idea whose sole purpose is to undermine their literalist interpretation of scripture. In several places there are little tirades against the whole concept that the world could be more than 6,000 years old — it's bad, not because there are problems in the evidence supporting an old earth, but simply because it would have the unfortunate consequence of opening the Bible up to interpretations other than their rigid formulation. They had a lovely symbolic representation of this idea with a wrecking ball labeled "MILLIONS OF YEARS" demolishing a church.
Reason is an enemy, millions of years is an enemy, let's add another: reality is their enemy. No wonder they're so paranoid!
Much of the museum consists of little more than pretty affirmations. The various exhibits that have gotten a fair amount of press, such as the models of Adam and Eve, the construction of the Ark, the consequences of the Fall, etc., etc., etc., just sit there. There isn't any evidence for them, other than a few sentences in an old book, so the construction crews in Kentucky just let their imaginations run loose and built improbably scenes out of the fabric of quaint myths. But there they are, solid and visible, and that's their sole purpose — to solidify Bible scenes in the minds of the faithful. This stuff has all the verisimilitude and significance of a wax museum exhibit of Britney Spears, Queen Elizabeth, and Liberace…more emptiness, with much money spent to make it a pretty void. There is a great deal of useless noise in this theme park…well, useless in making a defensible argument, at any rate. This is all eye candy for the believers.
There are some jarring moments. A lot of effort is spent discussing how horrible the consequences of the "millions of years" worldview are, yet they rather blithely skip over the horrible consequences of their imaginary god's actions. The space dedicated to Noah's Ark and the flood is very large — it might be the largest section of the "museum" — and the grim horror of that story is treated callously. A diorama contains, rendered in loving detail, a few rocks in a rising sea covered with desperate people struggling and frantically waving to the Ark serenely gliding by. Ah, yes, a little hint of the joys of heaven, when the saved will be able to smugly watch the suffering of sinners in hell.
There is an appalling video recreation of the flood which shows children playing and villagers going about their business in a small ancient town, when suddenly an immense wall of water rises on the horizon, and then…the roar of the tidal wave and the screams of the doomed. Charming.
I do not think I like these people.
I was also a bit aghast at this display.
With complete seriousness and no awareness of the historical abuses to which this idea has been put, they were promoting the Hamite theory of racial origins, that ugly idea that all races stemmed from the children of Noah, and that black people in particular were the cursed offspring of Ham. If they are going to reject science because of its abuses, such as eugenics, they should at least be conscious of the evils perpetrated in the name of their strange cultish doctrines, I should think.
Again, though, there's absolutely no science in any of this — every conclusion is built exclusively on an idiosyncratic interpretation of the Bible. There is nothing at all for a scientist anywhere in this entire edifice. There is nothing for anyone other than a fundamentalist Christian who has bought into a great deal of presuppositionalist nonsense, either.
One last example of this irrational absurdity. This is a strange thing: they seem to take pride in their boldness of stating this idea, making comics about it and even selling t-shirts in their store that declare it. They have an answer for where the sons of Adam and Eve got their wives, and they are quite definite about it. They married their sisters. And that was all right.
I think they might be disappointed to know that I find nothing shocking about their conclusion. What I find terrible is their rationale, which they explain at some length in this ugly wall of text.
Again, no science anywhere in there, just reasoning after the fact from a pre-determined conclusion. Everything written in the Bible must be literally true, so since 1 Corinthians and Genesis teaches that Eve was the mother of all people, no other interpretation is possible but that Cain had to marry another child of his mother and father.
The rest is excuses, claiming that since they were genetically perfect, inbreeding wouldn't have been a problem, and most amusingly, it was OK because God said so. Anything god says is good.
Since God is the One who defined marriage in the first place, God's Word is the only standard for defining proper marriage. People who do not accept the Bible as their absolute authority have no basis for condemning someone like Cain marrying his sister.
There is no rational argument that can address the claims of a group of people who claim absolute authority from an invisible man whose voice is heard only in their heads. We cannot change their minds with science; if you think you can sit down with a genetics text and a paleontology text and a geology text and run through the evidence and expose the foundations of the Creation "Museum" as false, you're doomed — there is no rebuttal to the illusion of an omniscient authority.
You will also not make headway by coddling religious belief or respecting their delusions. I recalled this quote while I was there:
The American scientific community gains nothing from the condescending rhetoric of the New Atheists--and neither does the stature of science in our culture. We should instead adopt a stance of respect towards those who would hold their faith dear, and a sense of humility based on the knowledge that although science can explain a great deal about the way our world functions, the question of God's existence lies outside its expertise.
Mooney and Kirshenbaum, Unscientific America, 2009
This is precisely what Ken Ham wants. He demands that you respect his ideas, and he certainly does hold his faith dear. His whole premise in his theme park is to amplify uncertainty about science, to insist that scientists must be more humble, while asserting absolute certainty about the existence of his god, and that his belief is the sole explanation for all natural phenomena.
Don't give it to him. All his carnival act deserves is profound disrespect and ridicule. Go to his "museum" as you would to a cheap freak show, and laugh, laugh, laugh…and go home to publicly mock and heap scorn upon it.
Irreverence is our answer, not dumb humble deference.
Politics
Education
Comments
Posted by: Chad | August 10, 2009 2:18 PM
Did anyone make a copy of the paper you had to sign?
Posted by: AgnosticTheocrat | August 10, 2009 2:20 PM
It's good to hear things went relatively smoothly, although I guess it's not a surprise that there weren't many surprises. I lived 3 hours away from that place for 5 years and never once considered its existence, let alone attending. I suppose it's good that all of you went, so that I never have to.
http://www.polyonymousprophet.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Glen Davidson | August 10, 2009 2:21 PM
You don't doubt god, or god's word. That's it. Same with the IDists, they're just more ambiguous and unsure about what "god's word" is.
Just suppose they were right, and god judged you by agreeing with words written in some uneven, and obviously wrong in many respects, book. It has a kind of logic, especially in keeping anyone from questioning the "facts," and atrocities praised in that book.
Of course they don't use the same "facts," they deny all unwelcome facts that they'd accept if it didn't disagree with their interpretation of "god's word." But it goes beyond that, the rest of the "museum" points out that they care much more about "facts" that science doesn't credit (because they're unsupportable), statements in "god's word." So they're lying on that score as well.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Sigmund | August 10, 2009 2:23 PM
A quick update of an old image, in honor of your visit.
http://sneerreview.blogspot.com/2009/08/pzvolution.html
Posted by: TTT | August 10, 2009 2:24 PM
I don't think Mooney & Kirshenbaum "get" the mindset that built Ham's Folly, or the mindset of its target audience.
I have asked them and their boosters repeatedly at their blog if they have ever actually had to communicate science to an unreceptive audience, rather than small lecture halls filled with people who had already bought their books (and maybe even bought their seats in the hall).
Because that's not real communication. Stars don't communicate with their fans--they share themselves. And if they have an off-day, well, nobody cares.
Let's see M&K try teaching science and dealing every single week with students who are prompted by their parents to memorize and recite Jack Chick tracts in an attempt to humiliate the prof. THEN they can talk about "respect for views," let alone how to communicate them.
Posted by: JMX | August 10, 2009 2:26 PM
Thank you very much for this interesting (but chilling) report.
Greetings from Cologne, Germany
Posted by: anon | August 10, 2009 2:28 PM
I was hoping for a write up of that talk we listened to around nooon, Jason something?
Does anyone have a link to a point by point evisceration of it?
Posted by: beige | August 10, 2009 2:29 PM
Poor old Hammy, he's not going to like this is he?
Posted by: Orac
|
August 10, 2009 2:29 PM
I was with you until you decided to use this post to indulge your dislike of Chris and Sheril yet again. Yawn.
Posted by: Joseph | August 10, 2009 2:30 PM
I actually made the same insinuation about the Templeton Foundation. It was Sir John Templeton that founded the organization. As far as I can tell, Charles Templeton has no affiliation.
Posted by: Mena | August 10, 2009 2:30 PM
That sign about where Cain got his wife was definitely bizarre. Apparently incest is ok as long as it is between one man and one woman because that's how marriages are defined? Not too political...
Also, what about the marriages between one man and many, many women? Were those not really marriages since they don't fit the definition? Solomon was a bastard in more ways than one?
Posted by: E.V. | August 10, 2009 2:31 PM
Let M &K be guest professors at Oral Roberts U, Bob Jones U or Liberty U. I'm sure they would soon have a moment of clarity and rethink their "stance of respect towards those who would hold their faith dear". Familiarity (with rampant willful ignorance) breeds contempt.
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 10, 2009 2:32 PM
Thank you PZ Myers and SSA for the tour of the creation edifice. My only dismay is people buy into the whole scenario because of the bible.
This way to the egress.
Posted by: Clemens | August 10, 2009 2:34 PM
Thank you for that amusing report. So sad how ignorant people choose to be.
Posted by: Travis | August 10, 2009 2:34 PM
I had been wondering what that "Millions of years" mass was all about. I kept seeing photos of it without descriptions and it made no sense.
I am simply struck by the lack of content there, and the almost total lack of pretend science presented. I had expected they would try to back up most of the exhibits with crappy "science" but instead it is exactly as you say, affirmations. I expected biblical quotes but some explaination afterwards why science really backs them up, but that does not seem to be the case. Very strange! Well, not that strange.
Travis
http://pretendbiologist.blogspot.com
Posted by: Personal Failure | August 10, 2009 2:35 PM
There were people? And they were talking? Horrors!
Honestly. I expect a certain boisterousness out a bunch of (mostly) young people on an outing. It doesn't qualify as bad behavior.
Although now I remember what I hated most about attending mass on Sundays.
Posted by: Samia | August 10, 2009 2:38 PM
Chilling indeed. Another European here, keeping up with what increasingly seems to await us as well as the ID movement goes slowly global...Ouch, ouch ouch ouch.
Posted by: H.H. | August 10, 2009 2:39 PM
PZ, great post.
Sigmund, that's awesome.
Orac, "indulge" his dislike? Or make a cogent point that really undermines S&K's purported mission? You know, the one they're still actively promoting on a book tour. If you want to defend their views, one would think you'd have a point to offer rather than simply dismissing all relevant criticism with handwave. Seriously, why even bother posting such an empty sentiment?
Posted by: Seriously? | August 10, 2009 2:39 PM
The characterization of the behavior of the guards -- totally exaggerated. You seriously think the Creation Museum folks wouldn't be nervous about the "atheist visit" after reading the foul, aggressive comments on this blog?
You get a 285-person group in *any* museum loudly mocking the displays and disrupting the other guests, people are going to get warned and/or kicked out.
Posted by: All Three | August 10, 2009 2:41 PM
Your work is now complete, PZ.
We have reduced your Going To Hell index to - Only Slightly Less Than Going Straight To Hell.
Posted by: jbw | August 10, 2009 2:41 PM
The excellent evolution exhibit at Chicago's Field Museum achieves much of its power from the linear, chronological layout and the single route you follow.
Posted by: ursa major | August 10, 2009 2:41 PM
I grew up with the big "debates" being the ones between the Old Earth Creationists and the Young Earth Creationists and it has left a bad taste in my mouth that has not faded in the decades since I got away from that crap. M&K are flat out wrong on their accommodationist stance. If anything, the "New Atheists" are way too nice to the denialist crowd.
Slightly OT, but the Babble has 3 incompatible creation stories though only 2 are reasonably intact.
Posted by: william e emba | August 10, 2009 2:42 PM
Orac:
You really don't get it? Just going to the Creation "Museum" and reporting on it as is is open indictment of M&K.
Posted by: skyotter | August 10, 2009 2:43 PM
"Ham Hightail" -- i'm glad this tactic finally has a name =)
thanks to the CreoZerg crew for all the updates! i admire anyone willing to throw themselves onto the grenade of stupidity in order to save their fellows from the shrapnel of ignorance
Posted by: Pete Dunkelberg | August 10, 2009 2:43 PM
You say
"But there they (Adam and Eve)are, solid and visible, and that's their sole purpose — to solidify Bible scenes in the minds of the faithful."
Not exactly. I recall from an early photo before the "museum" was quite finished that Adam and Eve don't exist below the waist. The torsos are atop thin rods, which are hidden beneath the "water" surface.
Posted by: AlanWCan | August 10, 2009 2:43 PM
I'd have less trouble with Mooney's ridiculous
if it were a two-way street, but the subtext to that statement is that all the while the religious can do and say what they like, insist that everyone who doesn't believe their stories is a hedonistic, child-abusing, nazi (unlike, say, the clergy). Where is the call by evangelicals to:
hmmmmmmmm?Posted by: Erp | August 10, 2009 2:43 PM
Charles Templeton has nothing to do with the Templeton Foundation but was a prominent Canadian who started life as a staunch evangelist and colleague and friend of Billy Graham. He was a big name in the field. However he apparently started having doubts so he went off to a mainline divinity school to get some proper foundations to his faith (he wanted Billy Graham to come also but Billy refused). Doubts were held at bay for a bit and he had his own weekly TV show on CBS. He eventually (about 1957) realized he was an agnostic and declared himself so. He then turned to journalism, politics, and writing. His turning his back on Christianity was extremely shocking to the Evangelical community hence the foaming in an exhibit some 5 decades after he did so.
The Templeton Foundation was founded by John Templeton, a financier, who was an American but later renounced his citizenship and became British. John Templeton seems to have been open to religion including non-Christian ones in general though lifelong Presbyterian by belief. His son, also John, is a staunch conservative evangelical and current president of the Foundation.
Posted by: Lanie | August 10, 2009 2:44 PM
It makes me sick that a place like this gets so much funding, while my own Alma Mater (the University of Wyoming) had to shut the doors on it's own severely underfunded geology museum.
Posted by: MikeM | August 10, 2009 2:44 PM
The display regarding the Hamite Theory of Racial Origins absolutely must come down. I'm surprised there hasn't been an uproar within their own numbers when it comes to this display.
Show me the evidence -- there is none.
These people are from a different culture. They're not coming to different conclusions from the same facts -- they're ignoring the facts. When you ask them to explain very basic things like carbon-dating -- they can't. It's not in the Bible? Well, then, it can't be true.
I was just going through the course catalog at SBTS. It's here:
http://www.swbts.edu/catalog/page.cfm
Look through it. Does anyone notice anything? I'll say it straight out: There are no actual classes there. Not one. You can major in evangelism and church music.
It's related here, because people do the same thing there as they do here: They lie to themselves.
I urge all of you who went last Friday to review the "Museum" on tripadvisor.com. Seriously, that opinion needs to be changed. Currently, it's rated much higher than AMNH. That's ridiculous, and says things about this country.
http://www.tripadvisor.com/Attraction_Review-g39743-d619562-Reviews-Creation_Museum-Petersburg_Kentucky.html
Posted by: Mu | August 10, 2009 2:45 PM
I hope you see the irony in being surprised how much Ham rips into his "defectors", and then use the same article to go after M&K again.
Posted by: Samia | August 10, 2009 2:45 PM
@20: as they say, 'heaven for the climate, hell for the company'! If I believed in any of it I'd be looking forward to it even more just about now... ;-)
Posted by: jim moore | August 10, 2009 2:46 PM
One thing that you missed was the symbols on the placards for “human reason” and “god’s word”. Almost always the symbol associated with “human reason” is snake like (symbol of the devil, prince of lies) and the symbol associated with “god’s word” is always a strait and unwavering line (strait shooter – telling the truth).
Posted by: Kitty'sBitch | August 10, 2009 2:47 PM
And he'd have gotten away with it if it weren't for you meddling kids!
Posted by: se-rat-o-SAWR-us | August 10, 2009 2:47 PM
It's also quite clear that human reason is the enemy to Ken Ham and his crew.
It would not surprise me at all if Ken Ham is an atheist in precisely the same way the Mother Theresa was an atheist. Ham knows that his faith contradicts reason and facts, so Ham attempts to reject reason rather than rejecting his faith.
In public, Ham acknowledges that human reason reason undermines his faith, and in private I suspect that he struggles with fundamental misgivings like Theresa's:
E pur si muove, Ham.
Posted by: Ricky Gremlin | August 10, 2009 2:48 PM
Bravo!
You need to write a book.
Posted by: A Recovering Catholic | August 10, 2009 2:48 PM
The creation museum, a real freak show. I do think that they should take your advice, install rails and run their visitors through on the tracks.
Posted by: IBY | August 10, 2009 2:50 PM
Hhhmm... That is a day of one's life that is not coming back. ^_^
Posted by: Bronze Dog | August 10, 2009 2:52 PM
Wow. If you were just about anyone else, I'd just assume you were joking, but really?
Posted by: freya | August 10, 2009 2:52 PM
excellent report, PZ. I was worried that the trip would donate money to the looneys, but I guess the report back would hopefully be worth it to be educating
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
August 10, 2009 2:52 PM
Actually, I don't dislike Chris and Sheril. I dislike their book, and this was an entirely relevant counterpoint.
The behavior of the guards was not at all exaggerated. They are in rather obvious uniforms (they look like state troopers, until you notice their badges all say "Creation Museum Security"), they do carry tasers and sniff at guests with police dogs, and they did act out of line in suppressing conversations being carried out in quite normal voices.
No one was disrupting anything, and anyone who says otherwise is a liar and propagandist supporting the creationist line. I was there. No one did anything to interfere with anyone else's enjoyment of the "museum" -- unless you count existing as interfering. And I think the testimony of Looy is a very good self-indictment. They did fuss over t-shirts that said "no god" and got pissy over speech that could be overheard.
Posted by: seanjjordan
|
August 10, 2009 2:53 PM
I really enjoyed your analysis of the "museum," PZ. I used to be a young Earth creationist myself, and it was only when I was willing to accept the notion that the Bible MIGHT NOT be 100% literal truth that I started to see how silly all of this circular reasoning can be.
The "Cain married his sister" argument is a bizarre idea that should have no place in a reasonable person's belief system. And yet, somehow, it seems reasonable when you're in the throes of justifying your holy book.
I'm really glad those who attended behaved so well. My only regret is that all of you guys gave Ken Ham money in the process. But hopefully, that small sacrifice will inform millions of others to stay away.
Posted by: Dawn | August 10, 2009 2:54 PM
JBW said:"The excellent evolution exhibit at Chicago's Field Museum achieves much of its power from the linear, chronological layout and the single route you follow."
The evolution exhibit is linear, but you don't have to get to it by going through other linear exhibits. You can see that exhibit, or go through other exhibits on their own. PZ's point, if I am reading it correctly, is that the WHOLE MUSEUM is a linear exhibit. You can't wander on your own from place to place, seeing things in any order that interests you.
Posted by: J | August 10, 2009 2:54 PM
Excellent post, PZ, probably your best yet. It was actually a bit moving.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 10, 2009 2:55 PM
The kerfuffle over Unscientific America got boring a long time ago; in fact, I'd say I only ever found it interesting when it provided an opportunity to talk about something else. I haven't interacted with either of the authors enough to have a personal estimation of them, either one of esteem or of disdain. All I see in this particular post is a judgement that a view espoused in their book is mistaken. Certainly, that's a kind of judgement which one could make even if one had had positive interactions with the author. (I've traded amiable e-mails with Alan Sokal, and I had a long and friendly chat with Hector Avalos, for example, but I'd be perfectly willing to dispute this or that in their books.)
Posted by: Ken Cope | August 10, 2009 2:57 PM
I hope you see the irony in being surprised how much Ham rips into his "defectors", and then use the same article to go after M&K again.
Mu, if you don't reject the claim of M&K, that "We should instead adopt a stance of respect towards those who would hold their faith dear, and a sense of humility," toward lying grifters like Ham and the message of his tax-exempt theme park, and your reason is the offer of lame facile equivalence, well then, you've earned my disrespect.
Posted by: Ray Ingles | August 10, 2009 2:57 PM
Never heard a creationist come up with a good answer to the simple question: What about human genes for which there are more than four known alleles? They couldn't all fit into a diploid genome of one man and one woman.
(Say, anyone know what the maximum number of known alleles for a human gene is? I'll bet it's greater than 12, which would be the max you could fit into three men plus three women...)
Posted by: anon | August 10, 2009 2:57 PM
@38 -
The very first thing I seen after getting out of the car and walking to the building was a group of 3 or 4 armed security men with a bomb dogs.
Posted by: James F. Trumm | August 10, 2009 2:58 PM
This is a wonderful scientific and rhetorical takedown of The Creation Museum. It's comprehensive, well-argued, passionate and correct.
But if this is all we've got on our side is truth, science and reason, we're doomed. We will see more and more of the country fall into medieval superstition, which will have serious consequences for a supposedly self-governing people.
What you saw, PZ, is a building full of ludicrous assertions, demented logic and unabashed kookiness. I saw that too, but I saw something more: I saw a facility that does a better job than most scientists, science educators, science writers and science museums do at selling a world view. Putting myself into the shoes of even moderately religious nonscientists--people who are nominally but not fervently Christian--I could see how the museum could convince people that the biblical worldview must be right and science is just a matter of opinion.
Scientists, rationalists, people who would defend the Enlightenment, freethinkers and atheists must face up to the fact that they have a serious public relations problem. We are losing the war of public opinion. It's a war we should never have to fight; science is not dependent on popular opinion. Nevertheless, it is a war that has been thrust upon us.
So bravo, PZ, for rounding us up, taking us down there, showing us around, and pointing out how crazy the whole enterprise is. I only hope that we save some of our energy for consideration of why so many Americans find The Creation Museum perfectly plausible and what we can do about it. The truth will not defend itself.
Posted by: SC, OM | August 10, 2009 2:59 PM
One of the main reasons verbal debates with these people are such a waste of time. (Funny, the debate between Greg Grandin and Lanny "The Liar" Davis I just wrote about has some similarities (on a lesser scale): skilled liars can act as if they have "Gotcha!" moments because honest opponents can't of course verbally provide evidence - all they can do is refer to it, even if it's overwhelming. It puts those on the side of the evidence at a real disadvantage.
Well, we've seen Mooney's response to criticism over many months: ignore it, link people to talks he gave to a receptive audience, state that he won't respond to people whom he perceives as having a hostile tone, pout when others don't let him set the terms of the discussion, claim he'll answer in at some unspecified time in the future, run away... (I'm sure one of these has been the response to your questions.)
For him to lecture to scientists and science professors who constantly have to communicate to apathetic and hostile audiences is laughable.
And give it a rest, Orac. Your little substanceless snipes are unworthy of you.
***
http://saltycurrent.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Bronze Dog | August 10, 2009 3:02 PM
I guess that's what I get for letting my optimism tell me that Even Evil Has Standards.
Posted by: paul kussmann | August 10, 2009 3:02 PM
It seems your big "bang" of an atheist excursion ended in a "whimper". Many were looking forward seeing twisted bodies burning at the stake...instead all we got is a rational explanation of why we shouldn't visit this so called museum. I suppose it was worth the while to do so but nobody who reads this blog would go to be enlightened anyway.
Posted by: anon | August 10, 2009 3:02 PM
The funniest thing we saw in the whole place was the menu for the little cafe.
The first item listed was something called a "3-way", and the next was the "4-way"
They really couldn't find a better way to try to sell their crappy chili bowls?
Posted by: Sara | August 10, 2009 3:03 PM
The set-up of this "museum" reminds me of the Ripley's believe it or not museum I toured recently. A uni-directional path through all the displays. The only difference being Ripley's Believe it or Not actually had at least some truth in it.
I wonder also what happened after Noah's flood where I assume (from their display) that the majority of humans were killed off. I also assume it was quite a time after Adam and Eve. Was incest still acceptable then? Also, why do we not find human skeletons littered along with dinosaur skeletons if they were killed at the same time by a great flood?
Posted by: Ken Cope | August 10, 2009 3:03 PM
Themed Attraction?
Lessee...
Scary Dark Ride through a tunnel.
Check
Close brush with death.
Check
Spill 'em out into plush.
Check
Not a museum.
Posted by: LMR
|
August 10, 2009 3:03 PM
PZ,
Those AIG cartoons are pretty bad, but you do have to admire this one:
http://cdn-www.cracked.com/articleimages/wong/bafflingcomic/creationwise2b.gif
Though, I don't think it works in exactly the way they intend it.
Posted by: RBH | August 10, 2009 3:08 PM
During the Panda's Thumb field trip to Ham's Folly two years ago I talked with a couple of the armed security guards. There not being a great mass of atheists there at that time they were fairly approachable, especially to one who carries an emergency services ID as I do. The three I talked with were sworn officers -- county sheriff's deputies -- working security during off-duty hours. This is not to defend their behavior last week, but to give some background on who they are.
Posted by: Lynna | August 10, 2009 3:09 PM
@29: I read some of the reviews on the Trip Advisor link you provided. Even more scary than the museum is how much the visitors loved having their ignorance praised by the museum exhibits. All of those good reviews are a window into a world where facts and reasons don't count, and the Bible rules. In fact the Bible is their version of fact and reason. It's mind-boggling.
We really should balance the 4-star reviews by posting some reality-based facts about the museum.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 10, 2009 3:11 PM
LMR:
Way back when, I tried adding dialogue to that comic strip.
Posted by: Marcus | August 10, 2009 3:11 PM
Well written, thanks for taking the time to do all that.
Did they mention Santa at all. I'm still unsure where he fits in all this? The dude has super powers obviously, so is he an angel, an agent of satan, or maybe his apparently fixed age despite being around so long is some kind of blessing from god. Maybe Santa and Mrs Claus are actually Adam and Eve? That would really fuck things up, wouldn't it.
And an easter bunny that lays eggs? Maybe it is so rare because only 1 made it to the ark in time. If two had made it we'd have plenty of easter bunnies and they'd probably be honey roasted for easter, not doing this odd plastic egg hiding gig.
Posted by: Kingasaurus | August 10, 2009 3:12 PM
Sara: "Also, why do we not find human skeletons littered along with dinosaur skeletons if they were killed at the same time by a great flood?"
because humans and other large mammals float longer than the dinosaurs and are therefore buried in "newer", more shallow sediments.
No, I'm not kidding.
Yes, that's the actual answer these nitwits give when you ask them.
What we don't get an answer to is why small, multituberculate mammals "float" exactly like dinos do and are therefore found in the same strata with them.
If info like that doesn't prove to you that there is NO HELPING these people, I don't know what will. Except in unusual circumstances, their brains simply cannot be fixed. They're permanently meme-hijacked.
Posted by: E.V. | August 10, 2009 3:16 PM
Athe Ripley's in San Antonio you are asked to demonstrate your tongue dexterity while looking in a mirror at the penultimate display. As you round the corner, you enter a darkened room to find that it is a two-way mirror. You get to secretly watch the people trailing you make fools of themselves and then you realize you just did the same thing. The problem with the Creation Museum is that the believers are never clued in on the joke.Posted by: Aetre | August 10, 2009 3:16 PM
Sounds like it was a blast there. Wish I could've gone--but then, I'm also kind of glad they didn't get any money from me.
Posted by: Ray S. | August 10, 2009 3:16 PM
While it seems that there may have been a few rules bent (though those that were seem unreasonable to me), there doesn't seem to be any real incidents to report from the atheist excursion to Ham Fantasy Land. There are no reports of damage or vandalism I'm aware of, either to the building or the exhibits. There are no reports I'm aware of that any atheist accosted anyone, either physically or verbally. It seemed well handled by the SSA leadership. Congratulations on that.
My issue is the demand of respect for their beliefs, coming from a group of people offended that I even exist. Where is their respect in return?
For a group of people so concerned that science has gotten it completely wrong, I'd love to see them renounce all products of science. According to them, it's all based on faulty human reason. Stop driving your cars, turn off your air conditioners, renounce your computers and cell phones and tv sets - all products of faulty human reason.
Yeah, I didn't think so either, lying hypocrites.
Posted by: stogoe | August 10, 2009 3:17 PM
Oh, go fuck yourself, Orac, you simpering buffoon.
Posted by: Jim | August 10, 2009 3:18 PM
"Irreverence is our answer, not dumb humble deference."
Even if someone disagrees with you (and I don't), it is impossible not to see your reasoning. That's why I am blown away by people who insist that we should "respect" these absurdities. Ironically, they are the ones not respecting the believers. They don't take them seriously. They don't see the consequences of the believers' beliefs. They patronize them for the purposes of attempting to quiet them and chastise anyone who does not behave similarly. Those people can't see that if they genuinely respected the believers, they would be arguing and fighting with them, because this stuff matters!
Posted by: Pete | August 10, 2009 3:18 PM
Great article...i followed on friday on twitter the whole day.,,and cannot believe the crap that's been highlighted from your visit there.... I'd have loved to have ridden that triceratops !
I'm so glad I live in a more secular country...that place is an affront to any sensible society..it's just a way of lulling gullible sheep into giving over wads of cash...whoops I've just remembered something..we have a freakshow over here as well in the Netherlands...a guy who's travelling around in his Noah's Arc..can we send him your way please ??
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 10, 2009 3:18 PM
sigh
Posted by: Dave Nichols | August 10, 2009 3:19 PM
Another guard encounter: While touring the Garden of Eve section, a guy right behind me was stopped by a security guard who 'informed' him that he was not free to take any pictures of children and then post them anywhere publically. The guy was told that this constituted a 'felony'. I had heard the statement, but wanted to be certain I heard it correctly. The guard just stared menacingly at me, and the guy he had stopped repeated the statement. Wanted to call bullshit... but I just walked off rather than get into a legal argument with an armed creationist.
So it seems the Creation "Museum" approach to law seems to be in line with its approach to science.
Posted by: Skeptotoad | August 10, 2009 3:19 PM
Living a few miles from the Paleontological Research Institution's Museum of the Earth, I will say the linear exhibit style is impressive, since theirs takes one from the precambrian up to modern times in one long walk, complete with real fossils and other natural artifacts. No Noah's Ark silliness or Adam and Eve stories, just the carefully researched body of knowledge passed down by several generations of paleontologists and other dedicated scientists.
As to the story of Cain's wife, there is no mention of any other women in the world until another generation had arrived, seemingly out of nowhere. The only person capable of bearing children, if the fairy tale is to be considered accurate, would have been Cain's mother, Eve. Adam's reaction goes unrecorded...
I've been hosting a live chat for the last year or so called the Church of Reason, hoping to generate some rational discourse. I get a fair number of conservative Christians, eager to show me how their argumentative skills will show that their view is the only true reality, although it's rare I come across any new arguments; they trot out all the old, thoroughly discredited claims that I have seen pass across Pharyngula and other forums ad nauseam. One thing I have discovered is that few of these people have any real scientific knowledge or skills. Most of them simply parrot what they have read from Evangelical websites or right-wing talk shows without really understanding even the basis of the arguments they are presenting. Some of them can apparently reason fairly well, although how they can believe so unwaveringly in such a convoluted, irrational and evidentially unsupported body of nonsense is beyond me. They're not stupid, but their intelligence is unequivocally pointed in the wrong direction, an intellectual and empirical dead end.
And even though I knew what PZ and the troops were going to encounter, it was really fun to hear their insights and follow their adventures!
Posted by: Lynna | August 10, 2009 3:21 PM
I understand where they're coming from. As I noted on another thread, the "museum" is a Christian ministry. Everyone who works there thinks that all visitors should behave as if they were at a church function, one in which most attendees have agreed on the basic premise of the "service" -- and one in which invited guests should just nod and smile.
Christians who lead groups through the museum in Denver stand in front of the exhibits and proclaim their disagreement. At a museum, this is considered free speech.
Even in an art museum no one assumes they have a right to not be offended by someone else's comments about the art.
The Creation Museum equated "civility" with "no dissent, no mockery" -- same attitude Mr. Looy showed when he lectured Derek Rodgers about his T-shirt.
Posted by: DeLene | August 10, 2009 3:21 PM
Do they make every single visitor sign this form before entering, or only those they think will cause "problems"?
Posted by: ERV | August 10, 2009 3:22 PM
Yes, why would Orac say something like that?Posted by: Erik | August 10, 2009 3:24 PM
Well stated, PZ. Mockery is the only proper response, as any sort of respectful response lends this "museum" more credibility than it deserves.
Posted by: Happy | August 10, 2009 3:24 PM
"I was with you until you decided to use this post to indulge your dislike of Chris and Sheril yet again. Yawn."
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Mooney and Kirshenbaum want us to believe that every believer is like Kenneth Miller. Bullshit. There a *tons* of believers who are not Miller. Hell, they are not even Francis Collins. They are Young Earth Creationists who refuse to even talk about the science. And for this huge swath of people, Mooney and Kirshenbaum's "solutions" are useless. Completely. Totally. Utterly. Useless. Better PR and more friendly scientists will NOT persuade these creationists. And guess what? I don't think its even worth trying to get these dumbasses. The best we can do is mock these IDiots (with good arguments and solid science) and get people who are on the fence to acknowledge reality.
Posted by: Falconer | August 10, 2009 3:25 PM
Well, I guess we know what they're hung up on, if the Creation Museum is littered with ominous devices labeled "Millions of years."
That isn't the only field of science they're denying, but that's the one they treat as the big threat, and the linchpin of everything they're railing against.
@James F. Trumm: Millions of Americans go weekly, or more often, to sit and listen to religious authorities lecture them and pressure them into handing over a few bucks.
Relatively few are able or willing to sit through four or more years of daily science lectures.
Are universities tax exempt? Because that seems to be a large advantage that religious organizations have.
Posted by: SC, OM | August 10, 2009 3:25 PM
WTF?
Posted by: ElectricBarbarella | August 10, 2009 3:25 PM
(For the record, I still cannot log in and I've not received my confirmation email telling me moveable type has my account).
PZ, if you are ever down this way, I welcome you to Orlando and a "field trip" to the Holy Land Experience.
It doesn't quite claim to be a "museum" but is nothing more than of the same ilk as Ken Ham.
Either way, great write up.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 10, 2009 3:26 PM
And people have certainly found plenty of other reasons to dislike their book. It's been said that their verbal assaults on the "New Atheists" are just one specific example of their general tendency to prefer a simple narrative in favour of the messy and unpolitic reality.
Posted by: Jim | August 10, 2009 3:27 PM
@Seriously? #19
Perhaps you should check out this blog. It is written by a Presbyterian minister who went to the "museum" as well. His criticisms of the attitudes echo PZ's here. He is highly critical of the CM, not the least of which is because they had guard dogs roaming around. He brings this up several times, and each time it is clear that he was disgusted by that attitude. So, it isn't just PZ who is complaining. Ham's fellow Christians are unhappy as well.
Posted by: Bob Gardner | August 10, 2009 3:29 PM
I have to disagree Orac.
To quote Dara O'Briain "Bloke whose a professor of Dentistry for 40 years does not have a debate with some idiot that removes his teeth with string and a door."
Not all opinion are created equal, some are just wrong. When the evidence disagrees with your hypothesis, you change the hypothesis. Respecting the opinion of someone who is objectively wrong does little more than give the falsehood they state a weight it doesn't deserve.
When someone, such as Mr. Ham, states something that is objectively wrong (and burningly stupid >_
The "New Athiests", a phrase I dislike a great deal due to its redundancy, do exactly that. I will not give someone respect simply because they have chosen to believe in some superstitious nonsense. If someone held that there are fairys at the bottom of every garden, and spent there entire life raising money, opening "Museums" and so forth to further there opinion, would we have to defer to them to?
As for the whether the question of gods existence lays outside of the area of expertise of Science. I feel the point is rather irrelevant. Where's the evidence for the existence of god? If there is no evidence, why postulate the existence of something for which there is no requirement. Surely that mean the question of whether my house is full of invisible, ethereal pink unicorns is also outside the area of expertise of science. There is, after all, the same amount of evidence for and against. Disprove the theory of Solipsisms use that all other seemingly conscious beings actually lack true consciousness, instead they only display traits of consciousness to the observer, who is the only conscious being there is. Parismony, and simple application of scientific principles should really rule out the concept.
So...given that all these other ideas have the same quantity of evidence, and that all that changes is the number of believers, why should we defer to one over any other? Why do we not defer to pastafarianism? Why is Scientology not accorded the same protection from criticism?
I think I've started waffling.
I think I should probably stop.
Posted by: John | August 10, 2009 3:29 PM
Next stop Salt Lake City. I would love to see a similar group go to Temple square. If you think this story of Cain is bad look into the Mormon's past but now glossed over views and actions toward anybody darker than a cracker. Just a hint the closer to god you are the pastier you get.
Posted by: Tom Farrell | August 10, 2009 3:29 PM
Here is what the Smithsonian did when a 5th grader child questioned the accuracy of one of their exhibits:
http://blog.mlive.com/kzgazette/2008/04/allegan_fifthgrader_finds_erro.html
They checked out his remarks, acknowledged the error to him, and corrected it.
That's how a real museum behaves.
Posted by: Bob Gardner | August 10, 2009 3:31 PM
That just ate a section of my post, and now I can't remember what it was >_
*awaits the lynching*
Posted by: Callicles | August 10, 2009 3:33 PM
I'd just like to point out, having seen it pointed out by somebody else before me, the profound similarities between Creationist nonsense and post-modernist nonsense.
Their talk of "Same facts, different views" being explained by the way that *some* folk are committed to the evils of reason while others are willing to let "other" sources of information enlighten them (in this case the Word Of God) only needs a few references to Derrida and quotes from Lacan to be counted a work of Theory and up to the standards necessary for publication within certain academic journals.
Posted by: tubbolard | August 10, 2009 3:36 PM
No, do nothing of the sort. Don't waste time or energy on it. It was bad enuff you went in the first place.
Posted by: James Sweet | August 10, 2009 3:36 PM
Are you kidding me? If a group of 300 atheists were bragging online for weeks about how they were going to descend on Temple Square, they'd have riot police lined up ready to turn them away as soon as they arrived. No doubt.
Posted by: Dexter M.
|
August 10, 2009 3:36 PM
So they explain where Cain got his wife with incest? My mind is blown.
Posted by: jwc | August 10, 2009 3:37 PM
"there is no rebuttal to the illusion of an omniscient authority."
Unfortunately, this sums up the entire debate between those who view religion as a fantasy and those who view it as reality. If you ask someone of faith if they believe that there is an omniscient and omnipotent being running around the universe and they say yes, then that's it, debate over. Evidence is meaningless to someone like this. Radio carbon dating? God did it to fool non-believers. Murder? Not a problem if God is OK with it. Dinosaurs? Oh sure, God put em there to weed out the non-believers. AIDS? Same thing. On and on. Even the notion of existence in such a universe. You exist at the behest of God and it can take away your existence at any time. I don't even know how someone can say anything actually happened in such a universe: God could've invented your memories. Descartes should've thought a bit more about it.
Posted by: Chayanov | August 10, 2009 3:38 PM
Maybe Orac would have found more to agree with if PZ had referred to anti-vaxxers, homeopathists, or Holocaust deniers instead, since Orac certainly doesn't take an accommodationist stance with them. I guess religion is the special exception.
Posted by: Andy | August 10, 2009 3:38 PM
I haven't heard anything about the planetarium yet, how was that experience. I guess I'll just have to head down there some day and see for myself, although I really don't want to.
Posted by: EarthandIce
|
August 10, 2009 3:38 PM
# 19 I have been in several of the Chicago meusums when school field trips are occouring. I was attempting to go through one of the smaller exhibits with about 20 4th or 5th graders. The amount of noise they were generating was astounding, but there were no guards there to escort them out, nor was ther a chaperone to thry to get them to quiet down. The echo in the rotunda was amazing.
I have have tried to have 'discussions' with different New Earthers. The rationalizations I have heard have blown me away.
As to the comments about sibling incest, we have to remember that was the prefered way the ancient Egyptians. Granted most of the marriages were probably with half siblings, it still happened. In addition, the tradition of marrying cousins was acceptable until about 1900 or so here in the US.
I am not sure if it is still acceptable in Europe or not. Maybe some of the European readers can comment. I do know it happened in my extended family and there were second cousin marriages in my direct ancestry.
Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | August 10, 2009 3:39 PM
It is fascinating to see the other contrasts. The linked to AIG blog never mentions PZ by name in any form nor does it ever link to his blog. They repeatedly refer to him as "the prof" or "the professor" with no easy way to find out who he is or what his blog is. It is almost like they are scared that even mentioning him will give people too much info and bad influence. PZ in contrast seems happy to link to them when it is relevant. There's a definite element of intellectual dishonesty on AIG's part.
Posted by: The Science Pundit
|
August 10, 2009 3:39 PM
Geez, even the Bigfoot "Museum" lets you roam around freely.
Posted by: James F. Trumm | August 10, 2009 3:40 PM
You're right, Falconer (#75), and I didn't mean that the solution to our PR problem is to make every one a science major. Nevertheless, there are some things that can be done:
--Why isn't there a big Museum of Evolution right down the road from Ken Ham's place?
--Why isn't geology covered more thoroughly and better in elementary school, and why does instruction in geology typically end in junior high (if it's taught at all)?
--Why are we still producing generation after generation of high school students who don't understand and can't apply the scientific method?
--Why are scientists depicted as "mad" or "evil" in countless movies, TV shows and books without so much as a peep of protest? (Consider the outrage that would ensue if our bad guys were "mad Jews" or "evil Christians."
--Why have scientists allowed the frame of the "debate" over evolution to become Christian-vs.-Atheist?
These are just a few matters that occurred to me; I hope other readers will contribute more.
Oh, by the way, universities are tax exempt.
Posted by: E.V. | August 10, 2009 3:41 PM
Daaaayuuuummn! Orac. Rev BDC. PZ. Stogoe... (Stogoe? who the fuck is Stogoe?!!)
Flame War is on, muthafuckas.
Wait - let me get this straight: if I disagree with someone or criticize them for what I deem legitimate reasons - I have to hate them? This is going to be huge news to my wife, parents and my kids and 99% of the people I hang with. OK , if you say so... It's WAR bitches!
Posted by: Monkeyman8 | August 10, 2009 3:42 PM
I started reading this prepared for a good laugh, but now I really sad. I feel sorry for these people
Posted by: Attila | August 10, 2009 3:44 PM
I will say I had one guard thanks us for coming out. He seemed polite and I think realized that we behaved ourselves well. I felt a little bad in using his image as the sample of the guards in the piece I did on YouTube. (Posted on my blog at http://www.harsh-reality.org)
I also had a long conversation with someone who is says he is one of the founding members of the museum. I actually recorded it in the front lobby toward the end of the day. One of the guards did come up to us and asked if he did give permission and did he realize it may be posted to the internet. He said yes to both and the guard left us alone. The conversation with that gut reminds me of the whole Dawkins/Wright interview. I ended with says I suppose we just have to agree that each of us agrees the other is irrational.
It is a good example of the mindset. I hope to get it up within a week or so.
Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | August 10, 2009 3:44 PM
I'm not sure this is fair to Mooney and Kirshenbaum. While there are serious problems with much of what they have said, I doubt they would try to argue that one needs to respect Ken Ham and his ilk. Their focus (and indeed, the focus it seems in the quote you give) is more aimed at people like Francis Collins and Ken Miller or others who while believe in God aren't at all like Ham. There are serious problems with M&K's argument but it doesn't help to make a strawman.
Posted by: The Science Pundit
|
August 10, 2009 3:45 PM
I can't go into any details (as I'm sworn to secrecy), but I recently took part in a project that briefly involved my sister and me making a reference to just that. :-)
Posted by: Nitric Acid | August 10, 2009 3:45 PM
I like the two explanations for the dinosaur fossil side-by-side. But how does the corpse of a dinosaur get suddenly buried by the Great Flood -after- it's been floating around for a few days?
Posted by: AJ Milne | August 10, 2009 3:45 PM
Re the vaguely menacing armed guards, I gotta admit, it does seem so all of a piece with the mentality...
Funny thing. I used to live in DC, got to the Smithsonian pretty regularly. Some of their guards are armed, and okay, for a Canadian who's always found the number of handguns and uniformed sorts wandering 'round in US cities a bit heavy, sure, it did raise an eyebrow. But then, I also got that this was also DC--murder capital of the US, on and off. And I really wouldn't have called 'em at all imposing in their attitude, either. Seemed to me they went out of their way to be nice, polite, even jovial, keep things properly museum, y'know. Can't even imagine any single one of 'em giving you grief just 'cos, say, you thought the gift shop was selling junk and said so, or maybe didn't like one of the Jackson Pollocks in the East wing or what have you...
And I note that is very much part of a conscious thing, now, reading in the Post in the aftermath of the shooting at the holocaust museum that sure, they're thinking about safety, beefing up the armament, but they also get that a heavy armed presence and security checkpoints all over just don't really work with the museum ethos, so they still want to try to go light. Which I think is only smart. Place of learning, y'know? Guy standing there tapping a blunt object against the palm of his other hand like he's looking for someone to use it on, it really doesn't fit...
Granted, it's been a few years. Dunno what the atmosphere might be now. This was all pre-Dubya, pre consciously, continuously stirred paranoia. I heard they *do* have a K-9 bomb sniffing unit, now, too, that patrols the grounds... So mebbe Ham and Co. are just aping what they figure a real museum should look like... Never mind that it's a podunk town in KY... lookout! Could be them some of them durn tehrrists anywhere, see...
But then, man, there's that attitude. The guards are actually expected to tell ya 'no discussion'? That's pretty much hilarious. Tho' pretty much what I guess I should have expected, from that quarter, in retrospect...
I mean: thought? Here? Hey now... who told you you could bring that stuff in here? Geez... Watch out, man... you'll get it all over me...
(/So nuh uh. There'll be none of that, kiddo. Move along.)
Posted by: PixelFish | August 10, 2009 3:46 PM
Occasionally, while reading things like this takedown of the Creation Moozeum, I wish I'd had an atheist youth instead of my time in Mormonia. Because PZed casually says something like how the Noah's Ark and Adam and Eve exhibits provide NO evidence for their existence other than a few lines in a book, and I realise that I have this weird blindspot re: regarding Biblical persons as real. I don't accept the Bible as being any other than a collection of myth, but somehow Adam and Eve and Noah slip past the sanity filters. Believe me, if I'm actively thinking about it, I'll have the rational answer that we're dealing with a collection of myths BUT my subconcious still sometimes thinks of these people as existing. (I have the same thing happen for Book of Mormon people too.) It's a weird mental tic, and it's not active most of the time--it's just sometimes my early conditioning kicks in and I have to remind myself. Does anyone else who was religiously raised and came to atheism later in life have this mental tic too?
Loved the explanation about the mountain of evidence the scientist is using for his ideas. It really concretely explains the idea that they are NOT working with the same evidence or the same facts. The scientist didn't just look at the bones and go, "Hey, these must be X number of years old because I say so."
I was going to add that I don't necessarily have a problem with a directed exhibit, since both the Ramses II exhibit and the Lucy exhibit I saw were directed--but those particular exhibits tended to be very special, unique exhibits and not part of the regular museum fare. Furthermore, they provided context and multiple sources of evidence. The Lucy exhibit started with a section explaining the history of Ethiopia--which seems to be more extensive than a few thousand years, incidentally--and providing timelines of known Ethiopian history compared to European history. (I believe this historical part was to provide context for human diaspora and realising why it was reasonable to believe that one of our ancestoral species would be found in this area, as well as thanking the Ethiopian government and culture for allowing Lucy to tour.) After the historical and cultural contexts had been provided, there was displays about how archaelogists excavate, their practises and methodology, comparative skeletons showing the difference between chimpanzees, Lucy, and modern humans in terms of skull size, femur-knee-tibia angles, pelvic sizes, etc. There was discussions of carbon dating, geological strata, etc, so that people knew how the scientists had arrived at their conclusion. Basically context--both scientific and historical--was being provided for the culmination of the exhibit: a ramp which ascended up to Lucy's skeleton, showing skulls of transitional forms, and the forms that predate her. A giant diagram showed the likely descent, as well as branches that didn't end in modern humans. Evidence and context were given, as well as citations to look up sources. This is a far cry from putting up a pretty diorama of Adam and Eve and relying on a few bible verses. I can make a diorama from the Lord of the Rings, but that doesn't mean it happened.
Posted by: Bob Gardner | August 10, 2009 3:47 PM
Correction to #80:
When someone, such as Mr. Ham, states something that is objectively wrong (and burningly stupid), and we defer to his opinion out of respect all it does is gave there chosen falsehood a weight and equality that it doesn't deserve
Posted by: felixthecat
|
August 10, 2009 3:48 PM
I think that they are wrong: Cain had sex with Eve, and begat a sister/daughter whom he then impregnated several hundred times. God approves of parent/child incest as demonstrated in the story of Lot and his rapist-daughters.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | August 10, 2009 3:50 PM
But do M&K demand that you respect Ham's ideas? I don't see it in the quote, at least.
Classroom accounts have it that PZ respects students who hold faith dear ("should instead adopt a stance of respect towards those who would hold their faith dear"). So is it really what M&K wrote in that sentence which is objectionable? Or is it the fact that M&K don't seem to recognize that perhaps we need to respect many believers, but that this does not extend to people who make a career of distorting and lying about science?
Of course there's also the bit about the question of god being beyond science, which seems to simply be an exception that is not made for other existential claims.
Nevertheless, there is too much miscommunication on both sides, since the paragraph does not say that we ought to respect Ken Ham's ideas (other passages might support that idea), nor does PZ seem to truly hold that we should disrespect those who hold to faith in general. And of course M&K seem unwilling to understand why "New Atheists" sometimes find ridicule to be useful, particularly where truly honest dialog has been cut off, nor do they seem to understand how much respect is actually given to rank and file creationists, even though most of us find their ideas per se hardly worthy of respect .
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: dNorrisM | August 10, 2009 3:51 PM
Mammals are lighter than Dinos because they are made of wood, and so floated longer.
(Someone had to point this out... ;-)
Posted by: António Martins-Tuválkin | August 10, 2009 3:52 PM
On the lower left of the “Out of Babel” map
You can see samples of eight scripts under «Different Languages» (huh-hum!). The Arabic looks funny too me, although I cannot pinpoint why, and most of the other are out of my expertise or too blurry to attempt analisys, but…
Posted by: Kingasaurus | August 10, 2009 3:54 PM
NitricAcid: "I like the two explanations for the dinosaur fossil side-by-side. But how does the corpse of a dinosaur get suddenly buried by the Great Flood -after- it's been floating around for a few days?"
I guess I wasn't clear. Their idea (if I can use that term without laughing) is that these corpses float for a while after the flood waters come, and then sink to the bottom and are buried.
Because dead large mammals float longer than dinos(?), they sink later and are buried higher in the silt. Seriously.
It's never really explained why, say, an elephant and a herbivorous dinosaur that weigh the same nonetheless sink at different times and the dino ALWAYS sinks first. We never, EVER find an elephant and a stegosaur in the same strata - we never, EVER find a whale and a mosasaur in the same strata - we never, EVER find a dolphin and an icthyosaur in the same strata - yet this is the absolutely ludicrous, howlingly dumb answer that these people give.
Again, there's nothing to discuss with these people.
Posted by: Rolan le Gargéac | August 10, 2009 3:55 PM
Pete #66
That must be hilarious !
Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 10, 2009 3:58 PM
A legitimate point, and one that should be made. In principle, wholly fine. The tricky part comes in when a fellow shows up who sounds as loony as Ken Ham on some issues, but is regarded as "pro-science" for other reasons. Where do you draw the dividing line, and how do you get along with people who draw it in a slightly different location? Etc.
Sheesh. Humans are complicated.
Posted by: Attila | August 10, 2009 3:59 PM
@MonkeyMan8 #96
I used to be angry at Christians but the more I encounter the fundy variety I just pity them more and more.
The people like Ham really piss me off since they are stealing the beauty of the universe from these people and giving them crap.
Posted by: E.V. | August 10, 2009 4:00 PM
And you would know this because M & K have clarified that there is a difference between Collins and Ham? That on some linear graphic illustration there is a dividing line between dogma you can laugh at and dogma you must respect according to M & K? Thanks for the attempt at reconciliation Joshua Z., but you're talking out of your ass. See: rationalize/excuseBTW: Ham's ideology represents a sizable number within the evangelical/fundamental community. He's not a statistical anomaly within the Christian home school crowd.
Posted by: Ryan S | August 10, 2009 4:00 PM
#52 - They had 3 and 4 ways? I live in CA right now, but I would die for some good old "Cincinnati Chilli". mmmm. That has to be by far the best thing in the "museum".
Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 10, 2009 4:04 PM
Yes, the godless Communists went back in time and posed as Greek Christians evangelizing among the Slavs — that's just the way your hard-core Commie works.
Posted by: Ken Cope | August 10, 2009 4:04 PM
@98 $ @110
Wow, so now you're making up things M&K must have said? We must respect some religions but not others, some sects within one large umbrella religion, but not others? Where must they have drawn the bright line, between respect toward and humility in the face of, and A-OK to mock?
Posted by: Jadehawk | August 10, 2009 4:06 PM
definitely, and I was raised in a very liberal Catholic household (which by now has almost entirely slipped over to some form of agnosticism/apatheism). It was quite jarring for me to learn that people I thought of as historical figures (Abraham, Solomon, David, Moses, Jesus) equal to Julius Caesar turn out to be either completely fictional or very scantily supported by evidence and so overgrown with myth that I wouldn't recognize the real deal if he came up to me and showed me his ID.
Posted by: JakeR | August 10, 2009 4:08 PM
Open the graphic to the right of the page from the Templeton Foundation publication and read that Charles Templeton apparently was not a great student:
And I thought my youngest's computer engineering degree took too long at five years!
Posted by: Utakata | August 10, 2009 4:08 PM
So this really is just an elaborate display of someone's religious opinion. I not sure I would even used the word "museum."
Posted by: E.V. | August 10, 2009 4:11 PM
Someone, probably Orac in this case, should ask M &/or K to set the record straight(If he's not too pissed off). Do they feel that respect should be extended to someone like Ham who is trying to subvert science for the credulous and replace it with his own religious based
explanationlies for geology, biology, astronomy, paleontology, etc?Posted by: moonkitty | August 10, 2009 4:13 PM
@Callicles#84:
"I'd just like to point out, having seen it pointed out by somebody else before me, the profound similarities between Creationist nonsense and post-modernist nonsense."
I'd like to second that. I visited a creation museum in southern California a year or so ago, and they made a huge point of saying something like, "Everybody's interpretation of facts is colored by their point of view, and this is true of scientists as well as us." (There was no mention of the fact that the scientific method attempts to correct for errors based on the subjective blindspots of individuals.) An interesting rationalization, I thought.
I must say, though, the folks we visited were much more relaxed than Ham's bunch. Everybody was free to roam about the "museum". There was a talk at one point by a very nice man who took questions (didn't have very good answers, but he tried. Questions were not discouraged.) I don't recall there being any security guards--so if there were any they kept a low profile.
I think this place was affiliated with AiG but I can't remember the name right now.
Posted by: Nick | August 10, 2009 4:13 PM
I can understand your objections to the linear format, PZ, but there are times when I've seen it used to great effect. Two prominent Alberta museums use linear exhibits to demonstrate the passage of time. In the Royal Tyrell Museum of Paleontology, visitors are ushered through exhibits in the sequence of geological time, which actually leads to a quite climactic encounter with a full-sized Tyranosaur skeleton, and a nicely relevant quaternary denoument. At Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump, visitors are encouraged to view the exhibits as they're arranged to give a cultural and archaeological chronology of the plains peoples. Obviously, neither of these places are attempting to create some sort of dogmatic trap, but the linear format can be used successfully without sacrificing curiosity or exploration.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 10, 2009 4:15 PM
I think it's time for some catholic to make the Catholic Museum, where the same fact is on display, but different interpretations are shown.
It would be a very small museum, one room, really, where the only "fact" on display is the bible, and there is a giant fucking poster behind it with the 30 thousand PLUS different "interpretations" of it that constitute all the sects of xianity.
ok, so maybe the room would have to be large enough to list the 30K different interpretations, but still...
Something tells me that Catholics haven't gone about making a field trip to Ham's "museum" to make their point.
Oh yeah, that's right, according to Mooney et. al., that would be "impolite".
Posted by: dorcheat | August 10, 2009 4:16 PM
Hello Dr. Myers,
Thank you for the excellent summary.
After looking through the pictures on Flicker.com, I noted immediately as well of the many abnormalities you described. I counted only two hands on exhibits for children (and adults for that matter): the infamous Tundro the Tremendous with a saddle and the petting zoo. Indeed, the entire "museum" is "static", no dynamic demonstrations of science whatsoever.
PZ, as a born and raised Minnesotan who lived most of my life in that lake town called D.L. by the locals some 90 miles north of Morris on good old U.S. Highway 59, I try to visit my relatives in west central Minnesota every summer. As I currently live in Louisiana, flying is really not a very good option for me and especially my three children since it involves three flight transfers and I only end up in Fargo, North Dakota, still some 50 miles away from relatives.
Every summer, I drive to Minnesota with my family. Often they need a break from the monotony and so we pit stop at local science centers along the way such as Sioux Falls, SD, Fargo, ND, Omaha, Nebraska, Kansas City, Hot Springs, Arkansas, and Shreveport, LA. Also note that all of the centers are members of the Association of Science-Technology Centers (www.astc.org).
I said this before in a previous thread, but we should all endeavor to support our local science centers. Also by blogging, critiquing, and even mildly lampooning the Creation Museum, we can at least knock a major dent in their business model.
Posted by: Ken Cope | August 10, 2009 4:17 PM
@90 I haven't heard anything about the planetarium yet, how was that experience.
I'm curious too. It was either one of the #CreoZerg tweets, or a link to a blog from somebody at the event, where I read that Ham's Themed Atraction claims that searches for extra-solar planets by looking for wobbling stars are doomed to failure, since it's always planet first, star second, which left me kind of gob-smacked. Does anybody there recall anything like that?
Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 10, 2009 4:17 PM
I suspect that in practice, M&K will mock whomever they feel like mocking, and will disapprove of whatever bit of mockery PZ happens to indulge in. Damn the inconsistency, full speed ahead.
Re-reading my comment #110, I think I might have left the wrong impression. My personal notion of a "dividing line" has more to do with whether a person is so consistently insane that I don't bother listening to them in the first place, because I won't likely be missing anything important.
Ideas deserve to get criticized. Smart ideas are the ones which survive. The source of a statement does not give it an aura of protection. On the other hand, however, the identity of the speaker can have some predictive power as to whether the statements spoken will be worth the time to hear. Life is short, the Internet is crowded, and after a while I just don't care.
Posted by: PixelFish | August 10, 2009 4:18 PM
re: 81 and 86 on the logistics of calling people to go to Temple Square - While as an ex-Mormon, I would be amused to see people's views on the material provided at Temple Square, but I think it is very likely that an organised group of atheists would be turned away from the get-go, should LDS authorities catch wind of it. You could very likely infiltrate the main area in small groups, but should expect bouncing to occur if in large organised groups. The LDS peeps are very big on maintaining their territory--which is why there's that big debacle over the public easement they bought from the city. (That whole episode is filled with wrongness.) They are pretty clear from the start that they aren't into dissenting viewpoints. I have memories of protesters at General Conference, usually Baptists trying to preach Jeebus, or extreme anti-choicers who are upset that church leaders would let women get abortions if they were raped and/or their lives were in danger. Weirdly enough, I have no memories from my youth of liberal protesters. (Although I wouldn't be surprised if they had some now, since the whole Prop 8 shenanigans they pulled.)
Temple Square is free of charge, last time I checked, and unlike the Creation Moozeum, is an actual place of worship--although the areas where the worship is going on are generally off-limits to the general public. What areas you can access are the two visitors centers -- one which tends to focus primarily on Mormon history and the other which talks about Christ visiting the Americas -- and the Church Art History Museum which is adjacent to the main square. The temple and temple grounds are fenced off from the main section of TS and require church recommends (membership cards) to enter. I believe there are posted signs in the areas open to the public about how they can kick you out at any time.
A historian of the Americas would likely find many assertations about Book of Mormon peoples to be fun to deflate. Certainly there were some racist notions that the church propped up--although they are also kinda obsessive about covering their track records up once they've changed their minds. (Example: Try telling an active Mormon that Ezra Taft Benson, the Mormon prophet two prophets back, wrote an introduction to a racist pamphlet called The Black Hammer. Almost all of them will try to deny it, or say it was when he was younger and didn't know better. Ditto the proto-feminism of the Relief Society when Eliza R. Snow actually preached, prophesied and blessed people--things which are mainly considered to be only the province of the Priesthood, and therefore male only. Covered up, while the Church History Department correlates everything into oblivion.)
Sorry about this digression. I just meant to note that there's very likely not a good way to get 300 atheists onto Temple Square without getting evicted tout de suite.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 10, 2009 4:20 PM
Mammals are lighter than Dinos because they are made of wood, and so floated longer.
all mammals are witches?
where's my magic powers, then, damnit!
Posted by: Pablo | August 10, 2009 4:21 PM
Two comments:
1) In terms of the linearity, I note that both the Spy Museum and the Holocaust Museum in DC use that type of format, although I will note I don't think there is anything with going backwards, especially in the Spy Museum. In the Holocaust Museum, OTOH, there is a reason for that style, as it punctuates the statement at the end (recall you are given the passport at the beginning and told to imagine the tour from the POV of the person described therein)
2) This little pissing match seems to have distracted from a very interesting comment that PZ made, about the "same evidence, different views" nonsense. As PZ notes, the implication that comes out of their statements is that scientists are just making this shit up, and a different conclusion is just "a different way of looking at the evidence." Of course, this is not true at all. The biggest difference being, the scientists determination of the age of an object, for example, is a _conclusion_ based on an analysis of the various evidences that are obtained. Basically, the scientist looks at the case and says, "We find this, this, and this to be true. Given that, we conclude that the age of the object is X." Moreover, the "this, this, and this" are generally very detailed measurements and observations regarding things like position and the nature of the surroundings.
In contrast, the creationist says, "The bible says X. See, we can impose that on these features." Of course, they are superficial features that tell us nothing, and when it comes to the details, they dismiss it as not being reliable. The most important aspect here is that, while the scientists get their conclusion by interpreting the evidence, the creationists interpretation is determined by their conclusion. In that regard, you damn right it is "same evidence, different views."
My favorite example of what I mean: the floor of Carlsbad caverns is mostly bat guano. Much of it has been mined away, but there are some untouched sections. In one of the untouched regions, they took out a core. The core went down something like 60 feet (that's a lot of batshit!), and they carbon dated it at various sections. What they found is that for the first 30 feet or so, the C14 ratios varied in a way that indicated about 1000 years/foot. Below 30 feet, the amount of C14 was too small to measure by the technique that they were using.
Now, any objective scientist would look at that and say, it's pretty clear. Bats laid down layers of guano at a rate of about 1 ft ever 1000 years, and had been doing it for about 60 000 years. Meanwhile, the C14 starts decaying. Given the half-life of C14, we don't expect to see a measurable amount until about 30 000 years ago. Hence, we conclude that the guano that is more than 30 ft down was deposited more than 30K years ago.
I have no idea how a creationist would explain that observation scientifically.
Posted by: windy | August 10, 2009 4:21 PM
Joshua Zelinsky.
But that's the point. M&K are not being consistent when they say that we should respect all who "hold their faith dear" - I'm sure there are many creationists who do, even if the leaders are hucksters. They never explain why everyone should respect exactly the same people they do.
Here's Chris Mooney on the importance of respectful discourse:
"It was kinda fun to bash Republicans and the religious right again"
Oops.
Posted by: jadehawk | August 10, 2009 4:21 PM
well, yes, sorta. postmodernism was supposed to be an analytical tool to identify and analyze bias.
instead, it has come to mean some weird form of Absolute Relativism, where every opinion/worldview is equally true and valid :-/
Posted by: Boomer | August 10, 2009 4:21 PM
Very good summary of the visit PZ. I am also surprised at how honest the "museum" is about its motivations and how unashamedly vacuous the displays are. That's really the best they've got?
Posted by: RamblinDude | August 10, 2009 4:23 PM
Sure we know it’s not science, but try telling that to the millions of evangelicals. They not only believe it is science, they believe the actual science isn’t — and they’re getting increasingly angry about it! The fundamentalist movement has been very successful at dumbing down the country, and it’s not over yet.
Posted by: PixelFish | August 10, 2009 4:23 PM
Nick @121 : I lurve Head-Smashed-In-Buffalo Jump. I'd forgotten about it until you mentioned it. (Incidentally, I too offered up a defense for times I'd seen a linear format used successfully.)
Posted by: Christophe Thill | August 10, 2009 4:25 PM
"that ugly idea that all races stemmed from the children of Noah, and that black people in particular were the cursed offspring of Ham."
Of course it's BS! As we all know, God sent the cursed offspring of Ham to settle down in the great island where rabbits as big as men have pouches on their belly, and all other animals are poisonous. Later yet, a man from their line would cross the great salty river and arrive in the land where men eat greasy foods and drink bubbly drinks. There, he would build a great museum for all people to see. But remember he was cursed, so his museum would be a big joke and everyone would make fun of him.
Hey, don't people read their bible anymore???
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 10, 2009 4:26 PM
I realise that I have this weird blindspot re: regarding Biblical persons as real. I don't accept the Bible as being any other than a collection of myth, but somehow Adam and Eve and Noah slip past the sanity filters. Believe me, if I'm actively thinking about it, I'll have the rational answer that we're dealing with a collection of myths BUT my subconcious still sometimes thinks of these people as existing. (I have the same thing happen for Book of Mormon people too.) It's a weird mental tic, and it's not active most of the time--it's just sometimes my early conditioning kicks in and I have to remind myself. Does anyone else who was religiously raised and came to atheism later in life have this mental tic too?
Yes, and not just with that particular idiom.
It's a small mental hurdle to overcome that never should have been there to begin with.
Parents are literally permanently handicapping their kids by teaching them this crap. why on earth saddle your child's mind with an extra hurdle that doesn't even need to be there?
I think this is why many people who were raised religious often compare religious indoctrination with child abuse.
Posted by: Utakata | August 10, 2009 4:27 PM
...I should also add. And this bothers me for the facilities owners' inconsistencies in their beliefs. Why would God's army need security guards and sniffer dogs? Do they not believe that their god will shine in any type of adversity. And it doesn't matter what others do or say against their beleifs...as long they remain true to those beliefs? So why the need for protection? Maybe I've read a different bible from what they have read. 'Cause they seem to treat their god as awfully small and limited...
..then again, I never understood the need for angels and security and guns with some entity that's supposed to be omnipotent.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 10, 2009 4:27 PM
It's a weird kind of "cafeteria relativism", in which the "it's all in your point of view" line gets applied to shore up claims in which they have an emotional investment, rather than consistently across the board. The Right has its creationists, while on issues like alternative medicine, the Left has its HuffPostmodernists. . . .
Posted by: jimmiraybob | August 10, 2009 4:28 PM
They clearly want to ape a real museum...
Oh yeah? If their ape museum evolved from real museums then why are there still real museums? Huh? Huh?
Posted by: Kingasaurus | August 10, 2009 4:29 PM
"I have no idea how a creationist would explain that observation scientifically."
They don't. They just say dating methods are unreliable (because they say so) and therefore any observation you get which seems to throw their ideas into question (i.e.-old Earth) can't be trusted.
That's it. They don't feel the need to cross swords on the details, because the details make them look hopelessly wrong and they just prefer to gloss over that. Again, any conflict between real-world evidence and the Bible means the real-world evidence MUST be wrong. These people aren't honest brokers.
Posted by: waldteufel | August 10, 2009 4:31 PM
Like Andy @ #90, I'm hoping for some discussion of the "planetarium" at the "museum."
AiG has a particularly loony "astrophysicist" who actually does have a legitimate Ph.D. in astrophysics, but is a real YEC wackdoodle.
Posted by: stogoe | August 10, 2009 4:31 PM
That would be me, and I've been here (mostly lurking) since Dover.
I honestly don't think Orac's fainting spell in defense of M&K holds any value.
Posted by: Nyke | August 10, 2009 4:31 PM
I saw that last pic, and just had to do this.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v423/NikeYoung/imridingatriceratops.jpg
Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 10, 2009 4:31 PM
windy (#129):
Well said.
Heh heh heh.
Posted by: Teleprompter | August 10, 2009 4:33 PM
"Do you want this to be the dominant image of scientific atheism?"
Yes!
Posted by: Eidolon | August 10, 2009 4:33 PM
Orac @9:
I was touched, touched I say when I read your reference to your close personal friends, "Chris and Sheril".
Good of you to stick up for your appologist buds.
Posted by: ShadowFace | August 10, 2009 4:33 PM
"One of our atheists was in an entirely friendly conversation about evolution with a creationist visitor, when one of the guards came up and asked them to stop, saying that we had signed an agreement not to even discuss anything in the building where others could hear. (To his credit, the creationist said that he welcomed the discussion the guards wanted to silence, and they continued outside.)"
I was one of the two told to stop "engaging in conversation." The other guy apparently had a nice discussion with the creationist outside. We were discussing the fallacies in their "Anti-Evolution" bacteria display, and while explaining cell division, we were silenced. It was a mindnumbingly stupid debate, but at least the dialogue was open and friendly. I doubt the outside discussion with the other group member changed anything, as the creationist was stating some pretty terrible "facts," but at least he was friendly. He was, in fact, rather upset that the museum director with the bad tie came over and silenced us. Then, once we emerged into the little cafeteria area, one of our group came up and said he'd seen the director and some guards in one of the hallways laughing about quieting us down. Very mature individuals. "We sure showed them, a-hyuck!"
The Noah's Ark diorama cracked me up, because there was one island where the tigers left on the island were mutilating people, and the other island had a guy on another guy's shoulders like they were going to play beach games. On the opposite wall was a Noah's Ark cutaway, where what looked like two Dilophosaurs were sitting nice and docile on the same deck as small tasty mammals like lemurs. The multiscreen video of the flood ravaging the world would have been much better if it panned around to reveal God floating in space with a huge water hose.
We also went to the petting zoo(I'm a kid at heart, and wanted to go to the damn petting zoo to see if there were cute baby animals), and I dialed in the cell phone petting zoo audio tour (859-394-6048 exhibit 1 or 2 is the zonkey/zorse, iirc if nobody got a chance to listen). They explain that because a zebra and horse can mate and produce a zorse, a lion and tiger can produce a liger, as well as various other examples of mule, zonkey etc. that it proves that Noah only had to take one "KIND" of animal on the ark. They fail to mention that those mixed offspring are sterile.
The highlight of the trip was seeing PZ riding the Triceratops after I emerged from the "Dinos are Dragons" theater or whatever it was. It just didn't seem right for me to be wearing my hat while PZ didn't have one, so I tossed it up to him--and now my hat is all over the internet! Yay! (End PZ fanboy moment)
Posted by: peppershrike | August 10, 2009 4:35 PM
"and most amusingly, it was OK because God said so. Anything god says is good."
The Euthyphro dilemma: answered!
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 10, 2009 4:36 PM
they believe the actual science isn't — and they're getting increasingly
angrydefensive about it!that's exactly the reaction a psychologist would expect of someone whose rationalizations propping up a house of cards are directly challenged.
If this creationist mental conditioning were treated like it is supposed to be, as if these people had been indoctrinated in a cult, then progress could be made.
it's just SO rare that anyone raised as a creationist manages to break out of the conditioning via the simple presentation of actual evidence. It happens, there are case examples here on this blog, but it's oh so rare.
This is exactly why Mooney et. al. are so wrong about the accomodationist approach. This only works significantly for people who WEREN'T indoctrinated in creationism as children to begin with.
This is NOT speculation; there is a lot of science behind this, and many articles have been published on the subject over the last 20 years, including some excellent summaries over the last few.
again, since it's appropriate, I highly suggest reading one of these summaries (it's only 2 pages long!) that was published in Science a couple years back:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/5827/996
I'm thinking about asking the authors if they might make this item publicly accessible, but ITMT...
fisheyephotosAThotmailDOTcom
Posted by: LanceR, JSG | August 10, 2009 4:36 PM
There used to be bats the size of VANS in that cave! And they ate nothing but JEEBUS brand laxatives! So they pooped more! GawdsedsoIbelieveitThatsettlesit!
/sarcasm
Posted by: Valdyr | August 10, 2009 4:39 PM
"Now, any objective scientist would look at that and say, it's pretty clear. Bats laid down layers of guano at a rate of about 1 ft ever 1000 years, and had been doing it for about 60 000 years. Meanwhile, the C14 starts decaying. Given the half-life of C14, we don't expect to see a measurable amount until about 30 000 years ago. Hence, we conclude that the guano that is more than 30 ft down was deposited more than 30K years ago.
I have no idea how a creationist would explain that observation scientifically."
The Great Flood scared the bats so much that they shat 30,000 years worth of guano all at once. Remember, this is the Wrath of the LORD we're talking about!
Posted by: E.V. | August 10, 2009 4:43 PM
You are being facetious, but this is precisely why religion rolls are down despite (or perhaps because of) ecumenicalism. Tribalism and segregation benefited religion because the followers couldn't compare facts or if they did they had a huge peer group to discourage that questioning with the ace-in-the-hole defense of religious dogma - the declaration of blasphemy and all the consequences that came with it should one be judged as blasphemous.The information age has helped to shine the light of reason upon the unreason of religion, even if there are gigabytes of disinformation out there and inordinate quantities of religiously mired people and soft fuzzy logic, brain-addled goofs who can't distinguish critical thinking and the scientific method from What the Fuck Do We Know? New Age tripe. We must keep pointing out the contradictions and illogic of religion and hope more people begin to apply more rigorous critical thinking skills in their lives.
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | August 10, 2009 4:44 PM
For those of you looking for a different sort of misunderstanding of science to address, I give you this post by Mike Flynn. I thought the opportunity to address someone more open to debate than the typical creationist would left a few spirits.
Posted by: Somnolent Aphid | August 10, 2009 4:44 PM
Thank you PZ, this was the post I was hoping to see on Friday night. Clearly, it took a lot of thought. Well done.
Posted by: rath | August 10, 2009 4:45 PM
They might still learn something from Scientology, though:
Gwaker: Scientology's Hilarious Goons
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 10, 2009 4:46 PM
So . . . incest is OK . . . because god says so?
Do these people even listen to themselves? They say that people who do not accept the bible have no basis from which criticise the fictional characters of Cain and Abel for marrying their sisters. Even though incest is pretty much universally recognised as wrong. As for the Hamite origin of ethnicity stuff, that's just offensive, racist drivel. So misogyny and homophobia are not enough? Got to shoe-horn in a bit of biblically mandated race hate and slavery too?
It is hard to believe that they have the gall to call this vile charade a museum at all. Let alone expose children to its pernicious lies.
Just goes to show that free speach can be a double edged sword. At least (for the time being anyway) there a real museums that impart actual scientific knowledge to counteract this idiocy.
Posted by: bobxxxx | August 10, 2009 4:46 PM
Just when I thought I couldn't possibly have any more contempt for creationist assholes I read this:
they do carry tasers and sniff at guests with police dogs
Taser: A trademark used for a high-voltage stun gun.
Stun guns? Dogs? They call this a museum?
Ken Ham, if you're reading this, please go fuck yourself you disgusting piece of shit.
Posted by: PixelFish | August 10, 2009 4:46 PM
Shadowface @ 146 They explain that because a zebra and horse can mate and produce a zorse, a lion and tiger can produce a liger, as well as various other examples of mule, zonkey etc. that it proves that Noah only had to take one "KIND" of animal on the ark. They fail to mention that those mixed offspring are sterile.
Yeah, post-zygotic barriers to out-species reproduction kinda put the kabosh on that. I can't believe they offered that as some kind of justification for ark size and logistics.
(Also, I had no idea that there were zorses and zonkeys. Man, you learn something new every day.)
Posted by: Jay | August 10, 2009 4:47 PM
Here's to continued, well-reasoned irreverence!
Posted by: Rick Lannoye | August 10, 2009 4:50 PM
Wow, they actually depict the saved in Heaven looking at the tortured in Hell?
As ghastly as this display has to be, I'm actually not too surprised. While most of the Evangelicals I run into seem to feel at least a little bad for the people going to Hell, there are those believers who lack any empathy whatsoever, the really scary ones!
I’ve actully written an entire book on this topic–Hell? No! Why You Can Be Certain There’s No Such Place As Hell (for any interested, you can download a free Ecopy from my website: http://www.ricklannoye.com), but I'd like to share one of the points I make from it.
One of the many reasons why there can be no Hell is because it makes Heaven impossible. If the saved in Heaven were true followers of Jesus, and since Jesus taught his followers to care about the suffering and do all they can to help relieve their pains, the saved in Heaven could never be content or happy until they found some way to rescue the souls burning in Hell!
In a nutshell, Jesus' core message was, "Have empathy for others, as if they were me." Hell would only ruin Heaven.
Posted by: lose_the_woo | August 10, 2009 4:50 PM
The creotards need to be shouted down not just simply because they are wrong. They are dishonest liars who want special treatment regarding their insane ideas. They distort and dismiss scientific findings and data to prop up their falsehoods. Their MO, IMO, is pure evil because it allows them to commit any immoral act to achieve the goal of protecting their comfortable myth-fantasy, and justify it.
"These people's God has shown them by a million acts that he respects none of the Bible's statutes. He breaks every one of them himself, adultery and all." ["Mark Twain and the Three R's, by Maxwell Geismar, p.124]
Posted by: Somnolent Aphid | August 10, 2009 4:51 PM
See, I do look at this as a museum, but a museum of the kind that shows what the world would look like, or what it would have to look like, if there actually were a god. More evidence that there probably is no god so we can stop worrying and enjoy our lives.
Posted by: ShadowFace | August 10, 2009 4:53 PM
@Pixelfish 157
They had both a zorse AND a zonkey there at the petting zoo, which admittedly was pretty neat to see. They also had a cow(ooooooh!), several peacocks, a camel, a llama(cue llama song), a few pygmy goats, a pig, and the cutest damn baby wallaby you'll ever see. There was also a cage where they had pigeons--like they ran out of ideas and just decided to have a vermin cage.
Posted by: MikeyM | August 10, 2009 4:54 PM
Jake: Where'dya get your wife, Cain?
Cain: She's my sister.
SLAP!
Cain: She's my daughter!
SLAP!
Cain: She's my sister AND my daughter!
Posted by: Rolan le Gargéac | August 10, 2009 4:56 PM
felixthecat #104
Did they have nasty sharp teeth ?
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 10, 2009 4:57 PM
Ray Ingles @ 46;
"Never heard a creationist come up with a good answer to the simple question: What about human genes for which there are more than four known alleles? They couldn't all fit into a diploid genome of one man and one woman."
Come now Ray, you know the creationist answer to this one. Its the same answer they have to every question. All together now everyone.
GODDIDIT!
Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 10, 2009 4:57 PM
Reminds me of The Cartoon History of The Universe.
"This is my father, also my uncle, my grandfather and his own father-in-law."
"Is that why they call him Odd Lot?"
Posted by: Ken Cope | August 10, 2009 4:58 PM
@159
I see you haven't met our resident Susan Calvinist, David Heddle, who expects his god to remove his emotion chip in Heaven so he won't have to have any tears dried on behalf of any roasting babies on a spit, those that were destined to fry from the first moment of creation. And you'd better believe heddle, because he knows his Bible, and he's a physicist. Besides, nobody thinks what you do, because he never heard anybody talk like that in his church.
Posted by: Tim H | August 10, 2009 5:01 PM
There was a post here, about a month back, about a visit to the CM by someone (was his name Michael Ruse?) who claims to be a scientific atheist, but who schmoozes up with Discovery Institute types. He claimed he had a "Kuhnian moment" where he thought for a second that the whole thing might be true. Actually, it might have been a Newsweek article that got covered here.
Anyway, any "Kuhnian moments?" I hope not.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 10, 2009 5:01 PM
You are being facetious
yes, but not about the number of xian sects, just to be clear:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations
as of this date, there are over 38,000!
Posted by: E.V. | August 10, 2009 5:02 PM
What's all the fuss? After all,they were just unnamed chattel who were there to supply Cain and his brethren a place to spill their seed and start a begettin' frenzy. I just wonder what age all those sisters were when they were married off to their brothers? Were there polygamist marriages (Do as many of your sisters as you can handle!)? Did Rev. Adam do the officiating or did God put in a personal appearance with a bound copy of KJV in hand? (Not for Cain, obviously...)Misogyny and incest in teh Bible? Oh say it ain't so.
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | August 10, 2009 5:02 PM
Wow. Those gaurds sounds like jerks. I remember a bunch of evangelicals going to the LA Museum of Natural History while shouting about the lies presented there and I didn't see a single gaurd take action on them for it. Some guests did but not the gaurds. In fact they were doing thier job; keeping troublesome teens (like me and my friends) out of the area marked "faculty only."
What was most annoying is that their evidences for everything was "God said so." I am pretty sure that these evangelicals (and scientists) would be calling me insane if I had said that humans were born from the eggs of dragons created by a snake goddess just because "a Fairy said so." It's not EVEN bad science. It's just myths.
And to be fair. If it's going to be a "creationist museum" why not include everyone's ideology? I bet a Hindu could say that fossils were evidence that Shiva have brought the end of one Yuga (the Mesozoic) and the begining of a new one due to the will of Bhrama the creators of all things! Of course its not in accordance to their book written by sexist-racist-sheep-herders with no knowledge of geology.
Posted by: daveau | August 10, 2009 5:02 PM
PixelFish@157
Zonkey
Posted by: mcbender | August 10, 2009 5:02 PM
I'm a longtime reader, but this is my first time posting a comment, and I have only this to say:
Bravo, PZ. I've been looking forward to reading your write-up of the Creation Museum trip since you announced it in the first place, and you did not disappoint.
Posted by: Ken | August 10, 2009 5:05 PM
Perhaps its time for a "Museum of Religious High Points" or "Museum of Biblical Quotes" (or some other such name) illustrating & documenting the numerous Bibilical contradictions side-by-side with associated imagery & audio feeds to drive home the issues. Some examples for a real-museum-style arrangement with rooms by topic/theme:
- Contradictory lessons & assertions given (e.g. Jesus said that no sign would be given. Mk.8:12; Jesus said that no sign would be given except for that of Jonas. Mt.12:39; Lk.11:29; Jesus showed many signs. Jn.20:30; Acts 2:22).
- Contradictory Geography & Travels (e.g. The "Sermon on the Mount" took place on the mountain. Mt.5:1; The "Sermon on the Mount" took place on a plain. Lu.6:17, and, After the feeding of the multitude, Jesus went to Gennesaret. Mk.6:53; After the feeding of the multitude, Jesus went to Capernaum. Jn.6:14-17). Imagine lots of maps showing the conflicting, even impossible (in one or two instances) routes.
- Theological Guidance (e.g. Pray that you don't enter temptation. Mt.26:41; Temptation is a joy. Jms.1:2).
- Recurring stories, sentences, phrases (numerous different stories have identical, or nearly identical, wording, indicating they're repeats of the same original story, garbled by oral tradition into allegedly different stories -- Genesis has one or two of these...).
- Events for Adults Only...here's where some threatening guards & dogs might be warranted....
Etc. Just a simple museum of key highlights presented side-by-side to force people to think. Of course, the beleievers will boycott the place...but...how would they explain that to their kids, "Don't go to THAT museum--all they do is quote the bible..." Kids in such families won't understand that bit of seeming contradiction, given that they're reading & quoting the bible in the home all the time...and thus kicks in the "forbidden fruit syndrome" compelling them to see what their parents, etc. warn about, and if they come (and they will) they'll be induced to think about the facts they're confronted with. And that would be a good thing.
So here's your chance to advocate a "Believer's Museum of Biblical Quotes" ....
Penn & Teller advocated something similar in an episode of their "Bullshit" show...encoraging people to read the Bible for what it was...so I'm really not advocating much original here...but this seems like a really fun idea. Maybe there's a tract of land close to the "Creation Museum" -- think of the synergies & marketing draw this would have!
Posted by: Rolan le Gargéac | August 10, 2009 5:06 PM
António Martins-Tuválkin #107
I would put that down to magical thinking. Words have power therefore scramble to avoid potential difficulties.
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | August 10, 2009 5:06 PM
The "No Death Before the Fall" (& Veggieosaurs) are my favorite part. Mostly because the logic grinds to a halt when pushed to its obvious conclusions.
My mainstream churching taught that Eden was a special, utopian spot on the earth - hence the Garden of Eden. After the Fall, A&E were evicted from the GoE into the real world. The entrance to the GoE was guarded by an angel with a flaming sword, so A&E couldn't sneak back in. (Think about that for a minute.)
Now Hammie science says the WHOLE world was a utopian GoE, with no death. How could A&E be evicted and an entrance guarded by an angel if it was the whole world that was the GoE & turned bad after the Fall? Not a very literal interpretation of GoE.
But the BIG question is: How did A&E know what "death" meant (as in "Eat not of this Tree of Knowledge or Ye shall surely die" in a world where NOTHING had ever died. Nothing. Not even a mite or a moose. Sort of meaningless threat unless you actauly know what death is. (I also wonder if skin & blood cells died before the Fall....)
Reproduction of animals without death would eventually swamp the world. Did they or didn't they reproduce? If not, if the only animals were the actual ones created, then what is the point of "male & female, created he them"?
Even worse, does that not mean that EVERY animal from the lowliest bacteria, to earthworms, rats, to man, had eternal life?
Guess ol' A&E weren't so special after all.
Posted by: James Sweet | August 10, 2009 5:07 PM
Pixelfish, in regards to protesters at Mormon events/sites, writes:
That's my understanding. Me=also ex-Mormon, and I live very near Palmyra so I've seen the Hill Cumorah Pageant a number of times (even saw it a few times after I became godless.. it's quite a spectacle!) Anyway, yeah, the protesters are all crazy Baptists and shit who think Mormons are going to hell. I've always found them even more annoying than Mormons.
However, while I have not witnessed it personally, there's been quite a bit of prop 8-related protesting. I believe the last general conference got hit, as well as some occasional shit at Temple Square. 'Bout time!
Hmmm, anybody near upstate NY? How about an atheist trip to the Hill Cumorah Pageant next summer? Definitely would have to keep it on the DL though, cuz PixelFish is right, the LD$ leadership is not much into dissent and are not afraid to pull the "THIS IS PRIVATE PROPERTY, LEAVE NOW OR WE CALL THE COPS" line.
Posted by: heddle | August 10, 2009 5:07 PM
#159
Yes well thanks for that proof. That is certainly compelling if not down right irrefutable. I never exepected to see heaven disproved in a blog comment--but I, once again, misjudged the the logical skills of Pharyngulites.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 10, 2009 5:08 PM
I believe this was the post in question.
Posted by: Caymen Paolo Diceda | August 10, 2009 5:08 PM
I assume that Creation Museum people read this blog. They certainly did in the run up to the CreoZerg visit and maybe still do.
Please weigh in and tell us your reaction to PZ's review of your museum.
Posted by: Rolan le Gargéac | August 10, 2009 5:09 PM
António Martins-Tuválkin #107
And the symbol is the thing !
Posted by: robertm | August 10, 2009 5:09 PM
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/upload/2009/08/suffering.php
Look closely in the top right corner of the model depicting the people left behind by noah in the flood; there's some dude choking another dude!
HAHA!
Awesome.
Posted by: Barklikeadog | August 10, 2009 5:10 PM
daveau #172 that is the cutest thing I've seen all day. I like equines.
Posted by: Lynna | August 10, 2009 5:11 PM
PixelFish @102
Yep. It's weird. I have a mostly Baptist upbringing with some Episcopalian and cult stuff thrown in later. I live among Mormons now. With me, the mental tic shows up as visualizing the three wise men as real. Mary comes up real sometimes, but I picture her as a teenager lying to her husband about how she got pregnant.
Alma, of all the dumb things in the Book of Mormon, haunts me. Post Traumatic Stress from reading the damned thing.
Posted by: Ian Andreas Miller | August 10, 2009 5:11 PM
Wow, thank you PZ!
Really, thank you for saying that. It had to be said.
And I'm not giving the guy any respect. At all.
Posted by: shonny | August 10, 2009 5:12 PM
Sounds like Disneyland for dimwits, and should be named to show what it is: IDiotland.
Posted by: bsk | August 10, 2009 5:12 PM
While this report didn't seem (to me) to have the same flair that a few other PZ classics have had, I think it is one of the most important. I have a feeling the subject matter is just so inane that it's difficult to write about it with any humour or wit.
Orac (#9): Chris and Sheril have made themselves the poster children for accommodationism - they are by far its most prominent proponents at the moment, and I don't see a point in avoiding them just to skirt accustions of personal animosity. When/if other science writers publish similar drivel, I have a feeling the attention will shift (as it did from Miller and Giberson to Mooney/Kirshenbaum in the first place).
Posted by: James Sweet | August 10, 2009 5:12 PM
Heh, #167 predicted #178 quite accurately. Hello, heddle!
Posted by: Austin! | August 10, 2009 5:14 PM
I think the security may have been called in specifically for this event; when I went last Christmas, there was almost no security present. In fact, there wasn't much of anyone present—sure, there were some people buzzing about looking busy, but there wasn't anyone who made themselves available for questions. Kinda disappointing.
PZ left out my favorite part of the museum's silliness—the rafting tortoises! Pic here: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v485/highverbalfan/_CDA5141-1.jpg
Apparently tortoises and other animals were clever enough to figure out how to float on logs, but the rest of humanity was baffled by the floating wood and perished in the floodwaters.
Posted by: Rick R | August 10, 2009 5:14 PM
I grew up in Southern California in the rip-roarin' 70's. God was irrelevant in my home. We watched "The Ten Commandments" on TV, though.
So now, in my imagination, all the women in the bible look and sound like Anne Baxter.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 10, 2009 5:15 PM
Rick Lannoye @ 159;
"Wow, they actually depict the saved in Heaven looking at the tortured in Hell?"
Yup, didn't you know? Heaven is the place to go for the best the universe has to offer in the way of torture porn. At least, that's what the creationists appear to be saying.
Christianity is allegedly all about forgiveness and charity with its supposedly benign god, and yet crazies like Ham and co. actually believe that their primary entertainment in the afterlife will be observing the 'sinners' experience eternal torment in hell. These poor lost souls having been condemed to this fate by the aforementioned 'benign' god for the 'sin' of thinking for themselves. One assumes this show will be displayed on a heavenly IMAX and comes with divine popcorn.
Wow, I'm really feeling the love . . .
Posted by: KrateKraig | August 10, 2009 5:15 PM
As I read your excellent report on the CM, something about it was sounding familiar, when it hit me... The CM is just like my old religion class at St. Patrick's grade school!
You were not allowed to question what they told you. Questions and curiosity were bad. And mocking what they said would surely get you kicked out of "class".
For a more accurate representation of what the CM really is, perhaps they should trade in their uniformed guards for nun's with rulers. It seems they serve the same purpose.
Excellent report! Thanx.
RAmen.
Posted by: E.V. | August 10, 2009 5:15 PM
If we follow Hams incest theme further and extrapolate we find that sister/brother and later first cousins and perhaps uncle/niece, aunt/nephew, father/daughter & mom/son, granddad/granddaughter unions were the only viable way to populate the earth from from a single unique and spontaneously produced pair of humans at least for three generations. So the resulting genetic horrors were avoided... how? Magic! But hey, at least they upheld the sanctity of marriage.
Posted by: Sanction | August 10, 2009 5:16 PM
I note that the Wiki entry on the Creation Museum has not been updated with the result of your visit there.
I'm a total noob when it comes to such things, but perhaps one of you who are not could update it. It would at least provide some alternative to the pap that generally appears there.
(I grew up in the 1980s and mastered the Apple IIe, but I cannot understand the latest HTML tags and such. WTF? I thought that once computer-literate, always computer-literate. So much for that belief.)
Posted by: LanceR, JSG | August 10, 2009 5:16 PM
Classic heddle! The Amazing Disproof By Assertion(tm)! And he sticks the landing!!!
Let's see what the judges say...
Ooh! He's not getting good marks for that one. 1.3 from the Russian judge, 1.5 from the French judge and a 0.0002 from the British judge! That's not gonna get him any closer to that gold medal, Bob!
Posted by: SEF | August 10, 2009 5:17 PM
@ any attendees:
Was the typical clientele of that creationist "museum" strictly white UnSAnian fundamentalists? If anyone noticed any non-white theists present, did those people show any signs at all of noticing the embedded insult etc?!
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 10, 2009 5:17 PM
Yes well thanks for that proof. That is certainly compelling if not down right irrefutable. I never exepected to see heaven disproved in a blog comment--but I, once again, misjudged the the logical skills of Pharyngulites.
yes, well, thanks for that proof.
That was certainly predictable (and actually predicted!) if not downright hilarious.
We DID expect you to have exactly that inane response.
Isn't it scary we know you better than you know yourself?
If you were a rational man, you might be wondering what that might mean at this point, but again, living in denial like you are, it will just go right over that tiny point on your head.
Posted by: Kingasaurus | August 10, 2009 5:18 PM
"Apparently tortoises and other animals were clever enough to figure out how to float on logs, but the rest of humanity was baffled by the floating wood and perished in the floodwaters."
Bwahahaha!
I thought the flood was supposed to be "the end of all flesh"?
If you didn't make it into the big boat, you were dead meat.
Aren't those tortoises thwarting god's will by being too stupid to drown?
Posted by: anon 3:10 | August 10, 2009 5:18 PM
Now---- crazy as this entire thought may be, I did some line drawing... there is no way to fight the crazy when THIS stuff is going on. The thing that twigged me was the other day while looking up "strategic spiritual warfare" "demonic mapping" and "spiritual mapping" (cuz I couldn't believe it was for real) I came across some statements that said that police and their organizations were being targeted in the USA to fight the forces of darkness. When I saw in the discussions here and elsewhere that the security guards were local police officers working on their own time..... I made, what might be I agree, a giant leap. What are the motivations of these individuals? Why so much show of force? Why does no-one religious question this overkill? And why about fake science?
This link is fascinating though long...and it touches on both police and the Templeton organization. And it horrifies me. If you can, read the middle I deleted- or the whole article. I just deleted the middle cuz as this is it is a ridiculously long post.
Science, reason, personal liberties and many other things are under attack by people with some really strange agendas. I would like to see M&K answer how on EARTH you can fight this? There are no reasonable grounds. None.
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/10/27/115813/98
"The officers in these squads belong to evangelical churches, the official said, and see the extrajudicial killings of gang members, known here as `social cleansing,' as holy work. But they also have begun to commit crimes for their own profit." ( New York Times, March 5, 2007 )
Dennis A. Smith, a Presbyterian USA missionary in Guatemala wrote an article on Caballeros which was published by the Latin American Studies Association, and PCUSA.Sperisen, of the Policia Nacional Civil (PNC) used a weekly television show to provide police officers with the "spiritual resources they needed to combat the forces of evil." ..................................................................................................................................Caballeros has served on an Advisory Board for a grant from the John Templeton Foundation to Harvard and Tufts, and has been invited to speak at an academic symposium funded by Templeton at the University of Southern California. John Horgan writes writes in the Chronicle of Higher Education,
"Largely as a result of Templeton grants, some 90 American medical schools now offer courses on links between health and spirituality."
In his article, Horgan also cites another scientist who claims that,
"the entire purpose of the Templeton Foundation is to blur the line between straightforward science and explicitly religious activity, making it seem like the two enterprises are part of one big undertaking."
Posted by: Dan MacDuff | August 10, 2009 5:19 PM
I just posted a bazillion pictures I took at the Cremation Museum. Feel free to contact me if you want copies of the hi-res originals. These pics include several shots of the one, the only, the legendary....uh... whats-his-name, the biology teacher from Minnesota. Much to my surprise, I saw no horns on his head, and although I didn't want to look too closely, no pointy tail was apparent either.
http://picasaweb.google.com/danmacduff. These are free for use, but please give proper credit. Thanks Dan MacDuff
Posted by: Susannah | August 10, 2009 5:19 PM
Dawn #42:
It's a sermon, that's all it is. A sermon with its Bible text, neatly alliterative points, conclusion, altar call. ("They heard the gospel," Ham writes.)
And like during a sermon in church, the congregation is expected to be quiet and receptive, and especially, "reverent". Don't rustle your programs, remove your crying babies, laugh only when the preacher makes a joke. The usher will tap you on the shoulder and ask you to leave if you get a coughing fit.
That explains the security guards; they are just ushers with an added veneer of authority to bolster their difficult job; shoehorning the idea of a museum into a sermon format.
Posted by: H.H. | August 10, 2009 5:21 PM
My understanding of S&K's premise is that we atheists shouldn't criticize the religious beliefs of moderate theists so that they'll be on "our side" when we need to criticize really loony ideas like creationists and GW deniers.
The problem is S&K offer no evidence that this is how people actually operate in practice. Does Francis Collins really base his acceptance of evolution on the critical attitudes of atheists or on the actual facts? Does critiquing Miller's theology mean that he'll eventually reject the theory of evolution? Why is the scientific literacy of any theist dependent upon the deference I show his magical thinking in other areas?
I can't help but think of the analogy of weight loss.* We have an epidemic of obesity in America. PZ is a doctor who thinks we should explain what a healthy weight entails and encourage everyone to attain it. S&K, on the other hand, think we should focus only on the grossly obese and leave the mildly pudgy alone, otherwise they might sympathize with the really bad cases and unite in opposition against the whole idea of health. Is that really likely? Or should even those who only need to drop 10-20 lbs. be encouraged to do so without the fear that they can't handle the news?
*I say this as someone who could lose a fair bit of weight myself.
Posted by: not a gator | August 10, 2009 5:22 PM
Or maybe it says something about AMNH. Unless they've changed dramatically in the last few years, I don't remember it as being a particularly exciting museum. Actually, it's fairly on the depressing side. I've been to all the museums in DC and I'd definitely skip it (unless there's a cool talk going on). (I think the only exhibit I ever liked was a temporary small show on bugs sponsored by Orkin.)
The American History Museum, which I think is next door, is also pretty bad, but last time I went they had this 150 yr old house and displays about all the people who had lived there in the past, so that made up for it generally sucking.
Air&Space and the National Gallery, yo.
Posted by: PixelFish | August 10, 2009 5:23 PM
re: Cain and his wife - If the incest was okay then because the genetics were pure and just too awesome to worry about inbreeding, then why are the genetics so worrisome now that we have to worry about incest? That placard mentions mutations, which most people accept as one of the mechanisms through which evolution happens. Why do mutations exist at all if God is such an awesome designer?
Guess the creation moozeum folks weren't too worried about these questions?
Posted by: E.V. | August 10, 2009 5:24 PM
Yeah, and one left-behind cutie is bare-assed while another guy is wearing dungarees. The model builders either had great senses of humor or were total flaming idiots.Posted by: James Sweet | August 10, 2009 5:24 PM
I was also raised Mormon, and while I don't think I've experienced quite that same mental tic, the one I had is that I was an atheist for like eight years before I realized the significance of the Lucy Harris story. Having been told in Primary that it was a story that demonstrated the truth of the BoM and the value of faith, it never occurred to me that it pretty much proved beyond a doubt that Smith was making the whole thing up as he went along. It never occurred to me that the reason Smith decided that the Book of Lehi was sealed is because he couldn't remember exactly what he wrote.
It was sorta freaky, realizing that my brain had been conditioned so that such a mundane logical step was uncrossable. I met someone else on the comments of this blog who had the exact same experience, too, with the Lucy Harris story. Creepy...
Posted by: not a gator | August 10, 2009 5:29 PM
#203 is directed at #29.
Posted by: Chris Caprette | August 10, 2009 5:29 PM
#75 #94
Public universities in the US are funded by a combination of state and federal monies and are only exempt from taxes as institutions. Individual employees are not exempt from any taxes (except perhaps federal payroll taxes in cases in which they pay into a state program instead).
Private universities are not entirely tax-exempt, although many are incorporated as non-profit organizations and thus are exempt from most taxes.
Private for-profit universities are taxed as any other corporation.
Churches AFAIK [if I am incorrect in this I am certain one of the clergy that comments here can clarify] are exempt from all taxation and their employees are exempt from taxation on income earned from the church.
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | August 10, 2009 5:29 PM
On the matter of Cain, his wife, and incest; keep in mind that if Eve and her daughters were the only women available when Cain was old enough to marry, then Cain had no choice in the matter. Now he could've waited until his brothers and their sisters/wives had children of their own, but that would've meant marrying his niece.
That's the problem with starting a species off with just two specimens, you're gonna get a few generations of incest until the population has grown large enough for some genetic distance to appear.
As to why the daughters of Adam and Eve never got mentioned, the most likely explanation is that the author didn't think it was that important. A most bigoted attitude by any measure. Considering how important women are in other parts of the compilation, I'm thinking the composer of the bit in question had serious issue with women.
Posted by: Dale Husband | August 10, 2009 5:32 PM
All that emphasis on "God's Word" by those fanatics is just baseless assertions. I wrote about this issue here:
http://circleh.wordpress.com/2009/05/09/the-bible-cannot-be-the-word-of-god/
An excerpt from it:
{{{When you read the Bible, you are not reading the original Word of God at all, but something that was written by various authors (in many cases, unknown), copied many times, translated, printed and published in various languages and editions over thousands of years. After all this time, there is really no way we can tell what the real Word of God may be, and instead we are left with something that gives a dim view of God at best. It is like someone telling a long and complex story to a friend, who then repeats that story to another friend, and so on until eventually the story has been repeated about 30 or 40 times and finally the original storyteller hears the story again….and realizes how inaccurate his story has become, even with details added or omitted that he never intended, maybe even with different character names and a different outcome made by people who didn’t like the story as it had been told originally. Nowhere does this analogy become more apt than with the four Gospels in the New Testament, with their own contradictions and altered, added and omitted details. None of them were written by Jesus himself, and they were written decades after the events they describe, as even fundamentalists admit in their own propaganda.
The conflict between Creationism and evolution in the life of creation “scientist” Kurt Wise illustrates the absurdity of Biblical dogmatism clearly. He was unable to let go of his assumption that the Bible was infallible, so he declared, despite his scientific training (even studying under Stephen Jay Gould), that the teachings of the Bible trumped any physical evidence from the universe that supported evolution. This is illogical, since the Bible itself says that God created the universe and mankind, thus one would expect what we find when we study the universe to be the tool by which we can confirm whether or not the Bible is God’s Word. And the intelligence that God supposedly gave us must also be used as a tool to determine what is true or even acceptable, or God wouldn’t have given us brains in the first place.}}}
I not only disagree with the fundamentalists on their narrow and irrational views on scripture, I think they would be guilty of blasphemy against any real God that may be out there. If there is a "Word of God", it would have to be something a lot better than the Bible. Something that would have no creation myth, would have far better ethical standards (rejecting slavery completely, for example), and allow for plenty of diversity and dissent, instead of trying to tell us what to do with every little issue. Only idiots need or could benefit from that, and we need to stop being idiots!
Posted by: MaryF | August 10, 2009 5:34 PM
I suspect we will not see any reviews of the planetarium exhibit, because there was an extra charge ($8) for that. Most of the zerg was not interested in spending extra bucks there.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 10, 2009 5:35 PM
Dan MacDuff #200
Your link gave a 404 NOT_FOUND error.
Posted by: E.V. | August 10, 2009 5:35 PM
Wasn't Smith illiterate? Which begs the question, if you were an angel and you wanted someone to disseminate the new improved word of God..Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 10, 2009 5:36 PM
E.V @ 170 and 193;
Several good points there. The bible is replete with excuses to mistreat women and underage girls. Excuses that the, predominantly patriarchal, leadership of countless sects of Christendom have employed to justify their various forms of misogyny and child abuse with repugnant gusto on countless occasions throughout history. I would like to think that such pseudo-logic would have fallen out of favour even with the most unreconstructed cults by now. I am once again proven wrong. Whenever I think that the hardcore religionists can sink no lower they conspire to surprise me once more.
What about the genetic consequences of so much incest? All those horrible Hapsburg-esque birth defects. Hpow do the creationists get around that little wrinkle?
How else? You, E.V have hit the nail on the head. GODDIDIT! Free magic gene-reparing miracle woo side order with your main course of the sanctity of incestuous, probably pedophilic marriage.
Posted by: lose_the_woo | August 10, 2009 5:39 PM
This question and questions like this are mere trifles for religionists!
It's all god-magic!
Whenever the mind encounters mystery (i.e. not knowing) or wonderment about reality, the god meme hijacks reason and attributes god-magic to the event. The stories in religions like to evoke those feelings. They are designed to introduce incredible feelings of mystery often so as to give the god meme as much stage time in the mind as possible.
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | August 10, 2009 5:39 PM
I've always wonder this: What happeded to the marine animals during the "flood." Couldn't they just have swam through it. That would defy the whole killing all flesh plan that YHWH came up with in one of his biblical hissy-fit. Are we to conclude that the rain is lace with some toxic compound or that the seas became hyper-salinized? If so why didn't it effect the ark dweller?
Posted by: Jadehawk | August 10, 2009 5:39 PM
except that it's more likely that the story originally referred not to god making ALL the people, but HIS people. so Cain was exiled and threatened with death if he returned, went to dwell to the East of Eden in Nod and found himself a wife there.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 10, 2009 5:45 PM
E.V. #213
Joseph Smith was nearly illiterate. He also didn't understand Jacobian English usage, which is why the Book of Mormon, dictated in imitation of the King James Bible, is so full of grammatical errors.
Posted by: Dick | August 10, 2009 5:45 PM
What a contrast to the Darwin Exhibit I had the good fortune to visit a couple of weeks ago. Very well done and informative and just plain enjoyable.
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 10, 2009 5:46 PM
James@48:
That's because scientists, science educators, science writers, and science museums are not supposed to be "selling a world view". You're thinking of "science fiction authors". Common mistake. Ask the scientologists.
The truth needs no defense.
Posted by: not a gator | August 10, 2009 5:47 PM
Their talk of "Same facts, different views" being explained by the way that *some* folk are committed to the evils of reason while others are willing to let "other" sources of information enlighten them (in this case the Word Of God) only needs a few references to Derrida and quotes from Lacan to be counted a work of Theory and up to the standards necessary for publication within certain academic journals.
Thanks for pointing that out. (I must laugh because I have a friend who's deep into theory and also says he has a hallucinatory world of his own with a pantheon he made up but insists that he *knows* it's made up and is therefore not crazy.)
What's also similar, it occurs to me, is the way some Christian bloviators PZ has brought up recently like to go on about how profound theology is and how a scientific mindset is injurious to the human spirit or some rot like that, which is not at all unlike the feigned profundity through obscurity and muddled thinking achieved by the pomo set. To both I say, put down the bong.
It stinks that we're under attack from the right and the left. Maybe signing onto ideology predisposes you to believe silly things.
Posted by: MaryF | August 10, 2009 5:47 PM
However, I did attend the noon lecture by "Dr." Lisle. The ultimate proof of creation goes something like this: the very fact that reason and logic exist and allow human beings to use these tools to search for truth, is proof that god exists and that the bible is fact. QED. Really. That's it. Most of the lecture was the vicious dismemberment of straw men. Actually not vicious, quite mild-mannered. I got the impression that "Dr." Lisle was rather nervous and ill at ease during the entire presentation. Sorta like a Clark Kent in his newsroom persona, bumbling about and hoping that no one would recognize the charlatan behind the learned scientist disguise.
Posted by: PixelFish | August 10, 2009 5:50 PM
EV@ 213: Smith being illiterate - not precisely. He could read and write, but the level of his prose is pretty unimpressive. (There's a good reason the Book of Mormon reads like bad fan fic for the Bible.) One of those FUN things the LDS church doesn't like to get into is the number of alterations to the Book of Mormon for spelling, grammar, and consistency issues. In other words, the Book of Mormon they hand out on Temple Square today has gone through one hell of an editing process. (This still doesn't keep it from being "chloroform in print" as Mark Twain famously noted.) But the original editions have a lot of folksy idioms, as well as double negatives abounding, and bad spelling.
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | August 10, 2009 5:52 PM
Jadehawk, #217
You do have a point there. However, it only works if you admit there are other gods and they all played a part in piecing this place together. For a monotheist that explanation can not wash.
In her Roque Mage trilogy (post Armageddon with a twist) Faith Hunter has her heroine point out that the use of the plural 'elohim' meant that Earth was created by committee, and that it was only later that the idea of one creator won out. Which would go far in explaining many of the contradictions in the account. That and the marital troubles between God and His wife an the time. (The fact She was almost completely written out of the book shows it must've been a bitter divorce. :) )
Posted by: Chris Caprette | August 10, 2009 5:55 PM
I saw someone bring up the incest issue regarding Cain (and Abraham) with Brother Jed on Ohio State's campus one year, this coming up right after he performed a Gish gallop for another questioner. BJ's response regarding incest was that it was OK because God said so. Same explanation for every other evil act perpetrated by God or his favored acolytes in the bible. In other words, reason need not apply.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 10, 2009 5:56 PM
Yes, this is part and parcel of the presupposational argument we've heard here over and over and over.
And to a person who espouses it, they argue via blind unsupported assertion over and over and over.
Posted by: anon | August 10, 2009 5:57 PM
There was one slide in the talk that I loved.
It had two sides, on each side there was 3 pillars, Logic, Nature, and Morality.
On the God side the pillars are resting on the base of "God's word"
On the Reason side they are standing alone.
*PERFECT* Application of Occam's Razor if I've ever seen one.
His entire talk was a blizzard mix of half logic and projection. I especially loved his introduction which was basically about identifying bad arguments and faulty thinking.
He then proceeds to use each and every example he identified as incorrect. It boggles the mind.
Posted by: Darren Garrison | August 10, 2009 6:00 PM
That PZ on a dino picture is pretty dark-- I've done a little work on it (though it could be improved more):
http://s313.photobucket.com/albums/ll394/darrengarrison/various/?action=view¤t=pzfixed.jpg
Posted by: Anton Mates | August 10, 2009 6:01 PM
I guess humanity was still genetically perfect in Noah's day. Kind of weird that Homo superior would turn out so depraved that all but eight or so of them deserved death by drowning, and the patriarch of the survivors was a drunkard. But if Lucifer could fall...
Posted by: Dan MacDuff | August 10, 2009 6:08 PM
Ref 212: In post #200 I posted a link to some pics I took at the CM The link doesn't seem to work, and it still doesn't work if you copy and paste. However, if you simply type hppt://picasaweb.google.com/danmacduff into your address bar, it works. Very strange;I'm baffled! Dan MacDuff
Posted by: hje | August 10, 2009 6:09 PM
Dollars in Genesis will go on profitably for a while, socking away the money. But sooner or later (probably sooner), inevitable schisms will tear the whole creationist enterprise apart (as history repeats itself), and 25 or so years from now, I predict it will be a derelict ruin, like Hovind's dinosaur gardens.
I like the reference to the "300" at the beginning. Brings a scene to mind:
PZ: "Oh I've chosen my words carefully, creationist. Perhaps you should have done the same."
Ken Ham: "This is blasphemy. This is madness!"
After a brief pause, PZ says, "Madness? THIS ... IS .. SCIENCE!"
**KA-BOOT**
Ken Ham falls headlong into his Pit of Ignorance.
THE END.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | August 10, 2009 6:10 PM
Dear God,
I'm very interested in the marvelous way you populated the earth by having the children of Adam and Eve marry each other. As you know, we Batzrubbles have always married our sisters...so to me it seems eminently sensible. How did you come up with the idea, God?
GOD: Errr... well, actually I didn't? The sex part was an add-on. I hadn't intended to make Eve at first--but Adam was lonely...and he kept wanting to talk to me...talk, talk, talk...all the time...like a bored child. I needed some head space, so that was when I said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him."
SB: So you didn't intend them to do IT? But what about your marvelous omniscient plan?
GOD: Fair suck on the sausage, Smoggy. I was just starting out then...I've never really been a details-God. One can't plan for every contingency. You have to kick it off and let it develop...organically...
SB: So how did the fucking start, God?
GOD: It was the Garden, Smoggy. Every type of plant was in it, they were all perfect and super-potent, and it didn't take long for all the animals to discover that certain plants made them super-horny. It was one great inter-species orgy there in Eden for a while. Adam and Eve joined in once Adam discovered he could get a boner that would last for hours. And the orgasms, Smoggy! This was Paradise, remember. Every time they did it, it was like your first/best time to the power of ten. Eve had multiple orgasms that seemed to go on for hours. Even Adam was getting multiples.
SB: And what did you do, God?
GOD: Err... um... well... I watched [divine blush]
SB: You were a voyeur, God?
GOD: Hey, who are you to cast the first stone? You're a sheep rooter!
SB: Sorry God.
GOD: Anyway, they seemed to be having such a great time. Everyone was happy. In those days it all seemed clean, and natural--lots of firm young flesh and healthy biological fluids, and....
SB: Alright God, I get it. So what about the brothers mating with sisters thing?
GOD: That? Well, it wasn't just brothers mating with sisters...it was everyone doing it once they were mature enough: brother to brother; mother to son; son to father; etc. etc. Sex wasn't a big deal back then, it was like shaking hands. It only turned to shit later when I discovered that my lovely DNA—which I had worked on forever—was being damaged. I hadn't expected that, and I confess I lost my temper and made all those stupid rules about who could do it to whom, when and in what way.
SB: Wow, God. So all the sexual prohibition is you losing your temper?
GOD: Some of it Smoggy--who cares whether a couple of same-sex consenting adults are happy together. The parents with kids thing makes me puke--it's a betrayal of trust, a denial of love and an abuse of power. And as I've already said, close relatives getting jiggy mucks up my genetic code. As for all the other perversions--I just blame original sin, whatever that is...
SB: Amen
Posted by: Sanction | August 10, 2009 6:13 PM
Somewhat OT.
But not really. Reading PZ's blog has encouraged me to become a vocal atheist instead of a silent atheist.
But I have a problem "coming out" to my extended family. They are believing Catholics, for the most part, and some (my in-laws) are believing Baptists. (My wife, sister-in-law, and mother-in-law are generally with me, which is a great relief. If I thanked the nonexistent god, I'd thank that beyond measure.)
I hate to sound like a letter to Dan Savage, but how do I come out of the closet? Do I just proclaim that I'm an atheist? I have read many of PZ's prior posts and comments, but I have not discovered any topic that covers this issue.
I understand that you have not read any posts from anyone called "Sanction" before the last two weeks or so. Any advice that you can give to me will be welcomed. Thanks for your time.
Posted by: E.V. | August 10, 2009 6:17 PM
"No reason to spill your seed with all that hot young sister tail around..."
(How many Bible thumpers will start saying, "Now that's just wrong, you're going to hell for sayin' that!" without a clue to the irony?)
Posted by: Barry | August 10, 2009 6:18 PM
The whole controversy could have been avoided if arrangements had been made for just PZ and his group to visit alone. That’s what a lot of public attractions used to do for Elvis.
Posted by: not a gator | August 10, 2009 6:19 PM
@91
If no-one else has pointed this out, sibling marriage was ONLY practiced by the royal family in Egypt. It was taboo for everyone else.
The royal family were supposed to have descended directly from the gods (Isis and Osiris, I think) which may be why they were exempted.
Ancient peoples generally distinguished between the incestuous behavior of their gods and the sort of behavior acceptable in society. Isis, Osiris, and Horus form a triad with Isis as the sister-wife of Osiris who becomes the mother-wife of Horus.
Marriage of first cousins is something that varies in acceptability across cultures. Groups have often arbitrary rules (in practice) which are intended to prevent too-close marriages among kin (especially repeated). Just an example: in China, it's taboo to marry someone with the same last name, regardless of whether you are actually related. The cousin marriage among the landed gentry in England was practiced to keep family property together. The dividing of property (real property and financial assets) could lead to a precipitous decline in status of the entire extended family. Thus, a practice that was otherwise looked askance became acceptable. Cousins generally speaking are not raised in the same house, so the natural aversion towards mating with your littermates is not there.
Posted by: Rolan le Gargéac | August 10, 2009 6:20 PM
rath #154
Uniforms are very important..make no mistake, the uniform you laugh at today is the uniform that's channelling you into the right block in the concentration camp tomorrow.
And, frankly, for the U.S. that's probably a lot closer than ...
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 10, 2009 6:21 PM
I hate that "Same facts but different views" nonsense, if they actually used the same facts then there wouldn't be a problem.
Posted by: James | August 10, 2009 6:25 PM
> Think about the genuine museums you might have visited. Can you imagine the curators at the American Museum of Natural History being concerned that someone might openly disagree with an exhibit? Do you think Niles Eldredge bustles about the museum, shushing anyone who questions the displays? Would they turn away a visitor wearing a Jesus shirt, or one that baldly declared evolution is false? At real museums, the attitude would range from indifference to active encouragement of discussion. The Creation "Museum" cannot tolerate that.
Not too long ago, I read 'The Pluto Files' by Dr Neil deGrasse Tyson. (You've also seen him on The Daily Show, and other places.) He talks about his exhibit at the Hayden Planetarium, where they classified the planets, rather than just listing them. And Pluto was pretty clearly not a planet.
Completely opposite to the reaction at the Creation "Museum", Dr Tyson enjoyed the discussion about Pluto, and whether it was (or was not) a planet. The Hayden Planetarium hosted talks, with guests discussing their opposing viewpoints. It sounded great!
So I'm shocked that any place calling itself a "Museum" would ask you to sign a declaration that you won't be critical.
Posted by: Rolan le Gargéac | August 10, 2009 6:28 PM
ShadowFace #162
There's good eating on one of them !
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | August 10, 2009 6:29 PM
I always thought Heaven might be problematic for slave-holding Christians who converted their heathen slaves to Christianity. Imagine ending up in Heaven for an eternity with those "sub-human" men and women you had raped, beaten, sold down the river and worked to death in the sweltering cotton fields.
Posted by: CalGeorge | August 10, 2009 6:32 PM
"Anything god says is good."
Uh-oh. That will come back to haunt you.
Posted by: hje | August 10, 2009 6:34 PM
Re: "Imagine ending up in Heaven for an eternity with those "sub-human" men and women you had raped, beaten, sold down the river and worked to death in the sweltering cotton fields. "
No problem for them, 'cause their version of heaven is segregated! Or in more contemporary terms, they live in a gated community in heaven.
Posted by: Josh | August 10, 2009 6:35 PM
Are you thinking of the NMNH? The NMNH is the Natural History Museum in DC that's part of the Smithsonian. The AMNH is in Manhattan.
Posted by: Louis | August 10, 2009 6:42 PM
@ Hypatia's Daughter #241:
Oh silly! They'll be in a different section of heaven, somewhere towards the back. Don't you know proper access to heaven is only for white landowning males? Women and coloured folks know their proper place in heaven. (And there's no gays neither dammit!)
Louis
P.S. For the hard of detecting tongue in cheek: the above is not serious. I am merely following on from HD's comment on the illogic and inanity of certain religious beliefs.
Posted by: Erin | August 10, 2009 6:48 PM
Lanie @ 28: UW? Seriously? Hooray! Are you from Wyoming, too? We Democrats have to stick together in this state!
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | August 10, 2009 6:48 PM
Sanction @233: "I hate to sound like a letter to Dan Savage, but how do I come out of the closet? Do I just proclaim that I'm an atheist?"
It's up to you, but I wouldn't. If I were you (and my family's pretty irreligious, so it's never been much of an issue), I would simply say nothing until the subject comes up. If someone asks, of course, you should answer truthfully and unashamedly.
With many religious families, the subject will come up often. But then you've got the high ground: you're not the jerk turning every family get-together into a religious squabble by bringing up the subject. (Of course, they might say you're the jerk turning every family get-together into a religious squabble by failing to agree with them when they raise the subject.)
In my opinion, being a "vocal atheist" doesn't have to mean that you pester your friends and family about issues they have no interest in discussing, any more than being, say, a "vocal environmentalist" means you have to pester your friends about composting.
Posted by: ShadowFace | August 10, 2009 6:51 PM
@Rolan #240
Never tried one. I bet it'd be tender!!!
Posted by: Buffy | August 10, 2009 6:51 PM
Same old BS. They say every manner of hateful, bigoted bilge and it's OK because they're just "expressing their deeply held religious beliefs" or "preaching the Bible". Anyone else points out scientific facts they're "mocking" and engaging in "religious persecution".
Posted by: ex-christadelphian | August 10, 2009 6:53 PM
I can't believe you all wasted your time - and money, to visit this joke of a "museum".
Just to have an atheist or a science presence there? For what reason? Just because "it's there"?
Personally, I usually boycott places like churches and theistic displays, although I like to stir up things, if I can, on some of their forums.
Maybe it's just me - I am getting old, you know.
Posted by: Ganf17 | August 10, 2009 6:53 PM
The accounts of the AIG "museum" reminds me of the Firesign Theatre's wonderful "We're All Bozos on this Bus".
"Please state your name"
"Uh, uh, Barney"
"Welcome, uh, uh Barney"
"Please follow the yellow line"
Posted by: Flex | August 10, 2009 6:55 PM
@208, Chris Caprette wrote,
I'm not a clergyman, but as an elected official of a municipality with taxing authority, I can help you with this.
Churches are classified as 501(c)3 organizations and their employees are (supposed to be) taxed on any income they are paid by the organization.
See: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf
Of course, should the church purchase the properties, like homes, cars, boats, planes, etc., which their employees use is, it may not be reported as employee income by the filing agency. (An IRS audit may declare otherwise.)
While I was gathering this link, I a new publication on the IRS website which caught my eye. A list of organizations which have had their 501(c)3 status revoked in 2009. 37 so far this year, while in 2008 it looks like only 9 organziations had their 501(c)3 status revoked. http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=141466,00.html
It looks like the IRS is getting serious about 501(3)c compliance.
Posted by: Marcie Dietrich | August 10, 2009 7:01 PM
Great post, PZ.
Posted by: bunnycatch3r | August 10, 2009 7:03 PM
Ok, I hear a lot of folks laughing about how the incest story doesn't workout when you do the math. But wasn't incest necessary to propogate the fused second chromosome?
Posted by: Flex | August 10, 2009 7:06 PM
Doh!
I didn't read closely enough. The last link is a cumulative list of every organization from 2005 to present. It doesn't look like the rate has changed much at all.
Pooh.
Posted by: RC | August 10, 2009 7:16 PM
Ahhh Smoggy, I look for your posts.....Always fantastic!
On topic, though, PZ is right when he points out that this is not a debate. On one side is evidence, on the other side is an illogical belief. Without logic there is no room for debate.
This is why I stopped being willing to read or respond to Tom Estes blog. He stated that he will always believe Creation "Scientists" over anyone else and doesn't have time to investigate alternative theories. Debate over before it starts because logic and willingness to listen is absent. He would say that I do the same, but I actually went to the AIG website, read the tripe put up until I wanted to vomit, and discounted it because it was completely illogical and selective.
And have you ever tried to find the credentials of the people who write these things? Where you can find them, they have no expertise in their topic. But about most you can't find anything at all. I'm just a grad student, but you could find my credentials online with basically no effort. That seems to indicate most of these authors of 'creation science' are not scientifically trained at all!
Posted by: Chris Caprette | August 10, 2009 7:19 PM
Thanks Flex for the clarification @ #252.
Posted by: Ken Cope | August 10, 2009 7:20 PM
@251: The accounts of the AIG "museum" reminds me of the Firesign Theatre's wonderful "We're All Bozos on this Bus".
Just about everything reminds me of I Think We're All Bozos on this Bus. The link contains an essay about the 1971 album in the context of theme park design (I'm a former Walt Disney Imagineer and Show Designer, who worked on the VR Project that Randy Pausch Last Lectured about). An excerpt:
Posted by: JMk2 | August 10, 2009 7:22 PM
Kingasaurus wrote at #60:
And, of course, this 'hydrologic[al?] sorting' would be an example of order spontaneously arising from disorder (i.e. arising without intelligent design), which the creationists say (in another context) is impossible. (As has been pointed out, the prediction that fossils are so sorted does not match observations either.)
Posted by: tariqata | August 10, 2009 7:23 PM
Yes, exactly. I think it's perfectly reasonable to note that how different people interpret facts (or attempt to dispute their status of "fact") is influenced by pre-existing biases and beliefs. The error lies in assuming that the facts are necessarily as fluid as the ways in which they're interpreted.
Posted by: Ken Cope | August 10, 2009 7:24 PM
More Bozos:
Man! Woman! Child! All are up against the Wall of Creationism!
Posted by: Marc Abian | August 10, 2009 7:28 PM
@Rath
Scientology is a rich resevoir of humour, but I don't see anything that bad about those guys. It's certainly no match for the 80 page magazine Scientolgy sent around Florida recently -critics defeated in the crushing grip of logical checkmate (scientology claimed they were liars with their "pants on fire"), pictures of critics in their homes that seem to be taken from the bushes etc.
Ah yes, but did you go to the same high school?
Posted by: PoxyHowzes | August 10, 2009 7:32 PM
#52 — Cincinnati Chili must be tasted before it is disparaged!
#113 — me too!
The Wikipedia article on Cincinnati Chili sucks.
I believe that this chili has not a grain of cumin or "chili powder" in it (at least according THE ONE TRUE RECIPE I used to use.) Instead, it gets its heat through spices like cinnamon and allspice.
The "ways" are mystique worthy of ancient myth, for your individual chili dish is, as it were, "constructed" for you as it is served. Spaghetti (nice, thick #10) under or over the chili is an option (presumably Ken Ham's homage to the FSM), beans (dark red kidneys) is another, shredded cheese (the orangiest, fakest-looking "American" variety you can find) is another, diced raw onions are another (no sweet vidalia's allowed -- those are from US Georgia, not Cincinnati!)
Now the key to all this is that your options go on in a certain order! You cannot put the cheese on before the onions or the beans! So "two way," "three-way," on up to "five way" all have meaning — not only how many ingredients, but also the order in which they are piled on. Sure simplifies ordering.
Also, a chili dog cannot be made with anything but Cincinnati Chili. Just sayin'
P.S. Regarding the ONE TRUE RECIPE? It is a firmly kept secret, but everyone in Cincinnati and their aunt in Oregon has a copy. They're all different.
Posted by: PoxyHowzes | August 10, 2009 7:34 PM
Whoops! should be "aunts" in Oregon. Didn't want to continue the "incest" subthread!
Posted by: URL | August 10, 2009 7:34 PM
MadDuff #230 -
You included the sentence-ending period in the URL reference -- URLs cannot carry any non-pertinent baggage (like sentence punctuation, and such)!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 10, 2009 7:40 PM
Re: Cincinnati chili. The Redhead, as usual, looked at half a dozen (or more) recipes for Cincinnati chili (all claiming to be authentic) before making her own version. I can't complain about the results. *burp*
Posted by: Skemono | August 10, 2009 7:40 PM
Nonono--in heaven, blacks are turned white.
Posted by: not a gator | August 10, 2009 7:46 PM
(Just found out above not to use "cite", so using "blockquote" again.)
Wow. Well, despite all the attempts at improvement, not only is Twain correct, but the grammar and usage struck me as totally fake--and I'm no scholar of early English literature. The Book of Mormon is one long awful Biblical pastiche. The only part that's readable is basically a plagiarism from the Book of Matthew, when Jesus is on his New World Reunion Tour playing his best hits.
And despite all the editing, the version I got in the late 1990's STILL asserted that when the Nahamites or Moronites or whatever got baptized, their skin became "exceedingly fair."
Yo Joe Smith--yeah you, bro--"fair of face" is a term from Grimm's Fairy Tales, not the Holey Bibble. Try to keep up.
Posted by: IvyMcAllister | August 10, 2009 7:49 PM
@Sanction
You might want to consider a visit to http://atheistnexus.org/
There's a search feature, so you could identify any "coming out"-related threads, etc.
Posted by: truthspeaker | August 10, 2009 7:50 PM
I don't see why. Contrary to what many people seem to believe, animals with different numbers of chromosomes can sometimes mate and produce fertile offspring.
Posted by: Sanction | August 10, 2009 7:52 PM
Thank you, Screechy @247. Just two weeks ago, I had a discussion with one of my paternal aunts about the "sighting" at Lourdes. She said that the proof of the Immaculate Conception was revealed by the children who were allegedly without any knowledge of the IC, and thus the IC of Mary was proved.
I was tempted to say, "Wouldn't it be more reasonable to assume that a priest mentioned the IC to the children and that the children, for whatever reason, decided to parrot that belief to the elders in whom the children believed?" But I did not.
I went along with my aunt's belief. I am ashamed of myself. She seemed so sincere. I could not stomach the idea of shattering my aunt's belief, however irrational it is, and even assuming that she was receptive to evidence.
I will apply your advice, Screechy. I'll post the results, for whatever it's worth. (I only see my extended family once or twice a year, so it might be some time...)
Posted by: AnneH | August 10, 2009 7:52 PM
I visited Washington DC two weeks ago, and really enjoyed visiting the various Smithsonian Museums. I saw a few very linear exhibits at the Smithsonians. One was an exhibit about the Wright Brothers and how they painstakingly developed their flyer. The linear presentation was essential to fully appreciating the exhibit. There was an excellent 'history of transportation' exhibit as well, that used a linear format. It's a practical way to display accumulated, concrete information that occurs over a relatively short timeline (decades, not millennia). More often than not, however, we were free to explore as we wished.
I did overhear some creationists loudly disagreeing with exhibits in the Museum Of Natural History, but I certainly did not confront them or complain about them to museum staff. They were free to interpret the exhibits as they wished, without hindrance.
I also visited Mount Vernon, George Washington's home, and we were very carefully guided through the actual mansion, with each room explained to us by a docent. Given that each room has several near-priceless national treasures, their caution is understandable. However, there were very few guards.(I would have dearly loved to examine Washington's personal library. He loved to read and learn new information. He was as endlessly curious about the world around him as Jefferson and Franklin were.)
Posted by: Rey Fox | August 10, 2009 7:54 PM
Regarding the Creation Orchard (?!) display, I think it shows one of the reasons I broke from the faith way back when. Because it's fucking BORING. The tree of life looks way more interesting than the straight line of "GOD made you and then sent a flood for some dumb reason and GUILT GUILT GUILT." Their limited worldview is just so damned dreary.
"A diorama contains, rendered in loving detail, a few rocks in a rising sea covered with desperate people struggling and frantically waving to the Ark serenely gliding by. Ah, yes, a little hint of the joys of heaven, when the saved will be able to smugly watch the suffering of sinners in hell."
I don't have as many religious blind spots as some other people (I'm not sure if I ever quite thought Jesus was a real guy), but it wasn't until very recently that I started thinking about how horrible the flood would be. Maybe it was when I saw a preview for "Evan Almighty" at a theater once and the water started rising. A real "WTF?!" moment. I turned to my brother (who is still Christian, although rather liberal) and snarked "Because nothing says Family Fun like global EXTINCTION."
I have no desire to see "Evan Almighty", did anyone here see it? Did they really drown the whole world in the name of a wacky family comedy? How could Morgan Freeman do such a thing?
Posted by: not a gator | August 10, 2009 8:00 PM
@244
I think you got me. Cripes. I've always heard about the one in Manhattan--it sounds cool.
Posted by: not a gator | August 10, 2009 8:09 PM
Funny, I read that as pestering your friends about composing. Now that would really improve the environment!
@273
Pardon the expression, but Morgan Freeman sold his soul a long time ago.
Posted by: PoxyHowzes | August 10, 2009 8:13 PM
Sorry — I'm on a roll tonight. (Or would that be a bun?)
Everything I Need To Know About Creation I learned by Eating Cincinnati Chili at the Creation Museum
1. It doesn't Occur in the Natural World, and so it is divine. (See 113 above, too.)
2. The whole dish is made up of ingredients created successively at different times (though not necessarily on different days).
3. There is a definite order in which the parts are made.
4. The basic dish comes in many variations over which their adherents argue vociferously, each insisting that their variation is the TRUTH.
5. There are hundreds of recipes, each claiming to be the correct one. There is no evidence of an "original" recipe or an "original" chef.
6. One of the first ingredients in the dish is "Love Apples," (i.e., tomatoes.)
7. There are parallels with other mythological traditions (the FSM, True, (i.e., fake) "American" cheese, spice from the East, etc.
8. It can be served with crackers or with meat, thus proving the equivalence between these two.
9. Randomness will not (cannot?) assemble a proper serving of Cincinnati Chili.
10. Atheists do not understand its ineffable glories (see #52 above).
Posted by: The Chemist | August 10, 2009 8:13 PM
Wow. Just, wow. I guess I should have expected it to be bad, but I thought it would be a little milder.
(I'm going to put some of the images from here up on my blog for comment if that's okay.)
Posted by: Skemono | August 10, 2009 8:14 PM
So... she proved one bizarre story was true by telling another bizarre story?
Welp, I'm convinced.
Posted by: Skemono | August 10, 2009 8:19 PM
A while back I read a book called Will the Gentleman Yield?, all about Congressional humor. One of my favorite portions was a series of quotes from various Senators (I think--maybe Representatives), each proclaiming how the chili from their state was the absolute best, and challenging the other chili-loving Senators to a chili cook-off to determine whose chili was best.
Sadly, the book doesn't mention if this ever took place, and if so, who won.
Posted by: AJ Milne | August 10, 2009 8:20 PM
Re #148:
Quite. It ain't exactly like no one's looking at this stuff.
Speaking of that very thing, one of the things that has struck me about the stance of 'accomodationism' from the beginning is there is so much about the views defending it that just seems assumed, possibly even unconsciously. On the one hand, you could say perhaps it's just 'common sense' that there's some line you can draw where criticism of irrational beliefs crosses over from effective to ineffective due to its suddenly being perceived as too 'insulting' or 'strident'... But then, shouldn't there be some science behind this, ultimately, if we're talking about science education? Shouldn't someone be able to say: look, here's a study, we deliberately pissed people off about whether their god was or was not a dirty joke told by a drunkard that someone repeated out of context and it then all got blown out of proportion, then we tested 'em on their ability to grasp Maxwell's Theorems... and the curves are here, the stats suggest the following relationship...
And okay, yes, that's a deliberately crude methodology to outline the point, but that point is: numbers? Evidence? Where is that, anyway? In fairness, now, I can offer nothing quite so solid suggesting the behaviour these folk label (I think more than a bit arbitrarily) as confrontational is any better, either, at convincing anyone, but then, I never exactly argued 'you must do it my way (and not yours) because it works'. I just always figured it was worth a try. Didn't so much write a book on it, assume my way was the be all and end all..
(Note also that the attitude of some of those so apparently worried about 'offending' potential allies right into the arms of some perceived enemy has also long made me suspicious for two reasons beyond this: a) it looks to me an awful lot like it's mostly a naive intuition of theirs that this would be the case, and in fact, it's one of the many, many places I happen to suspect intuition is frequently just dead wrong--oddly enough, yes, extremely (ahem) direct speech can impress people, make 'em reconsider, at least in some contexts, and b) in fact, I suspect that 'intuition' is actually something of a bastard child in its own right... as much a product of a defense mechanisms you could almost say religion has itself evolved over time... but this is a longer subject...)
Anyway, also from Bloom (coauthor of that summary), and in my ever so humble opinion also very worth reading, see in the Atlantic from a while back Is God an Accident... intriguing suggestions that dualism (and thus ultimately religions) may in fact be a fairly universal cognitive error, and for some fairly simple reasons.
Posted by: AdamK | August 10, 2009 8:27 PM
Nike @ 142.
Brilliant.
My ass is way over there, cause I laughed it off.
Posted by: Hockey Bob | August 10, 2009 8:30 PM
I posted a link to this on my Facebook account, and one of my friends, a staunch YEC, had this to say...
"not out of the question when you consider that they've found modern human remains in the same layer than that of dino bones (like they were covered by the same mudslide/died at the same time) + the innaccurateness of carbon dating beyond about 20k years..."
I replied thusly;
"If carbon dating was not accurate, your GPS would not be accurate, your smoke detector would fail to detect anything, and, if you ever ended up with a pacemaker, it, too, would fail. If you doubt the accuracy of reliably predictable radioactive material decay, I know a place in Nevada where you could get all the land you want, but you woulddn't ... Read Morereally want to live there. Besides, it looks like you just copied the talking points from Answers in Genesis anyway... all thoroughly and utterly debunked numerous times already, by people much smarter than I am. ;-)"
He replied two more times, to which I have not yet commented on...
"Zing. But I don't doubt carbon dating up to 20k years. It's just after that it I've heard it proves unreliable. Don't put yourself down... these "people" who you refer to as much smarter have just been around bones longer and have thus learned the lingo (perhaps just enough to snow the unlearned folk). And don't forget there are plenty of "smart" scientists who are creationists."
"Go ahead on the last word. I don't care to argue about this a whole lot anymore. I think it all boils down to whether you want to believe it or not. Besides the bible eludes to the fact that this world is goverened by Satan and his minions who are indeed much more intelligent than we are. And are actively trying to deceive and destroy man in any way they possibly can (including but not limited to the theory of evolution)."
Bottom line? No one who is a YEC is likely to be swayed, no matter how much you debunk their Bronze Age myths... :-(
Posted by: Jason | August 10, 2009 8:46 PM
I love this comment and it's right on. Every museum I've ever been to has a wide open layout. When we entered the 'museum' cave - I felt like at any moment they would turn off the lights or start hosing us down aka 'Planet of the Apes' style. Some memorable and I think appropriate quotes from said movie.
George Taylor - "It's a mad house. A mad house."
George Taylor - "A planet where apes evolved from men? There's got to be an answer."
Dr. Zaius - "Don't look for it, Taylor. You may not like what you find."
Posted by: Rey Fox | August 10, 2009 8:49 PM
"Besides the bible eludes to the fact that this world is goverened by Satan and his minions who are indeed much more intelligent than we are."
Well that settles it, I want to study under Satan now. (wait, no, I don't, knowledge is baaaaad)
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 10, 2009 9:13 PM
James@94:
$$$
$$$ $$$'Scientist' is a profession, those others are not. Comes with the territory; demonizing smart people is an ancient tradition.
As I said in an earlier comment on another thread, this is because scientists do not, should not, and must not "frame" any debates ever. They are always wrong when they do so. If you want someone to blame, blame those who are doing the framing. Not those trying to undo it. You sound like a Republican trying to convince me that Nancy Pelosi has something to hide because she pointed out the CIA deceived the Congress.
The real problem is, of course, we don't have anyone to do the framing except the religious. Our mainstream media and our own psychologies won't allow anything else. Don't blame the scientists; they're the victims. But even if they were allowed to, scientists need to be very careful to never "frame" anything. They stop being scientists then.
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | August 10, 2009 9:33 PM
I recall the "appalling video recreation" of the flood:
http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2007/11/noahs-flood-or-god-passes-buck.html
Two children, playing silly games--
One of them is winning.
God decides to kill them both
'Cos having fun is sinning.
Time to quickly learn to swim--
It's not enough to wade,
'Cos God is going to clean up
All the messes that He made.
It's not the children's fault at all
What happens on this day;
But God is great, and God is good,
And someone's got to pay.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 10, 2009 9:41 PM
see in the Atlantic from a while back Is God an Accident... intriguing suggestions that dualism (and thus ultimately religions) may in fact be a fairly universal cognitive error, and for some fairly simple reasons.
yup. also covered in the Science article as being core to the issue at hand.
thanks for the link!
The difference covered in the article I linked to is how the US seems to have become more reliant on the person making the arguments than the nature of the arguments themselves, and that this seems to be disproportionate in the US vs. most other countries.
It goes way beyond just creationism; of course many of us have already noted the similarities between creationists and AGW deniers, holocaust deniers, and even moon-landing deniers.
I think the way religion has been taught in the US has something indeed to do with it, but I expect there are other factors involved as well. Perhaps how advertising communication has become second nature in all channels of communication over the last 60 years?
meh, the point is, the accomodationists are missing what is the real issue here; it has NOTHING whatsoever to do with "faith" and instead has to do with trying to dismantle authoritarianism and associated thinking within the US. You simply aren't going to do that by leaving the delusional to their delusions.
It's like saying being polite to a schizophrenic and not challenging their delusions is the best way to get them to seek treatment.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | August 10, 2009 9:42 PM
* tosses bouquet of virtual roses to Cuttlefish *
Erp @ # 27: ... John Templeton... was an American but later renounced his citizenship ...
Y'know, given a little (ahem) framing, that fact should be enough to destroy all sympathy for any Templeton project in a very wide swath of US creationists & bible-bangers...
Posted by: MutantJedi | August 10, 2009 9:46 PM
Good post.
I'm not surprised that the "museum" provided no science. On the contrary, I would have been surprised if they attempted to cobble any sort of evidence to support their myths.
Well... within their own context, they did supply the only authoritative evidence that matters, the Bible. I seriously doubt that most Christians have any understanding of how their sacred text came to be. Why is it authoritative? Because it says it is authoritative, a circular argument like Escher's Drawing Hands. The whole process is as ridiculous as, say, a sci-fi writer turning his works of fiction into a religion. Yet, to give followers of the god of Abraham credit, their sacred text was at least "peer-reviewed" over thousands of years by bickering old men to determine exactly what they wanted their god to say.
Posted by: AJ Milne | August 10, 2009 9:51 PM
This is a pet notion of mine, too, actually. Not greatly analyzed, again, but it just seems to me there's this intersection there: the techniques in use in religion, in advertising, in more explicitly political propaganda, and even some interesting intersections in the target audiences, here and there...
Anyway, roughly put, the notion is: if you bathe your populace in deliberately irrational persuasive techniques (drink Coke... no particular reason... but here's a cute picture of a polar bear... drink beer... no particular reason... but look: bikini-clad women... let's invade Iraq... no, the reasons don't make much sense... but oh no, WMDS... please to turn off brain, listen to your deepest fears, and vote for the demagogue most adept at inducing useful paranoia), maybe you just erode people's overall sense of the value of reason and/or their ability to employ it or just their very interest in doing so. So it's fertile ground for irrationalities in general, and they run riot... Or that's it in a few sentences, anyway.
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 10, 2009 9:53 PM
Everyone needs to respect Ken Ham and his ilk. They need to respect everyone, regardless of their beliefs, or they are failing to live up to their own standards. It is vitally important (and, yes, part of why I got really pissed about that t-shirt asshole) that we respect every human being, man, woman, or child, rich, poor, religious, devout, agnostic, capitalist, whatever. Treat them as you would one of the 'in' group, or you are nothing but a dangerous hypercephalic chimp who needs to be put down, IMHO.
(Ironically, I realize now that Jesus is said to have said a very similar thing. No less true because of that, though.)
We need not respect their beliefs. If you can make clear the difference, you may (MAY) be able to handle a public debate with a religionist without embarrassing all the rest of us atheists in the process.
On that note, there is no more reason to respect M&K's beliefs than Ken Ham's.
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | August 10, 2009 9:57 PM
@216 Gyeong Hwa Pak
The Bible refers to things that "creepeth on the earth" being put on the ark. The assumption was that water dwellers could survive (I guess the 2x2 or 7x7 didn't count for fish).
However, most, if not all marine dwellers would have died. Under-salinization of the seas due to rain; over -salinization of fresh water lakes due to flooding from the rising seas, muddy turbulence cutting off light and oxygen; AND those continents crashing all over the place would have exterminated most of them. (The latter isn't actually in the Bible, but is necessary to make YEC geology work.) I have seen estimates that continental movements on such a scale would have made the oceans boil due to the energy released.
SOAPBOX MOMENT: This is where I lose my sense of humour. When creotard "scientists" skim the facts of real science and bastardize it without any follow through research.
If you are researching cross-breeding like ligers and zules, how do you miss the part about offspring being infertile?
If you are swiping from plate tectonics, how do you miss the fact that it releases a lot of energy (Jupiter's moon, Io, has a volcano due to the tectonic stress caused by Jupiter's gravity)?
You can't miss these facts. But you can lie about them.
I feel sorry for the dimwits who walk through Ham's Creation Theme Park, but I despise Hammie and the "scientists" who prostituted themselves to produce that god-awful testimony to ignorance.
It makes me thoroughly understand why PZ and Dawk don't cut these people any slack.
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | August 10, 2009 10:04 PM
Nope, no mad jews as bad guys
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 10, 2009 10:05 PM
God's honest truth, when I was realizing what utter shit (I mean, not just complete rubbish, but 'oh my god, for HOW many centuries...?') the Catholic dogma was, I remember feeling pangs of remorse for "betraying" the Virgin Mary. I was a kid, with mommy issues possibly, and she was the loving mother of the Son of God, I was told. How dare I condemn her to non-existence!
But, yes, it's rough. And don't let anyone fool you: atheist or theist, it is always more about psychology than anything else.
Posted by: AJ Milne | August 10, 2009 10:11 PM
... or expanding slightly on #290, the implicit message left behind both by those propaganda techniques and by religious indoctrination is essentially: reason is malleable, reason isn't important, or reason if useful at all is just to be used as a means to justify what you've already decided to do or believe anyway. Turn it off, if it doesn't give you the answers you like, turn it around, if it gives you grief, or just ignore it altogether--it's not that important. And at the end of the day, what it really comes out to is: believe what you like, or what is most socially convenient, not what the evidence and your reason would lead you to.
It's a rich irony, actually, insofar as I find thereby that some of the same religions that bitch all the time about 'moral relativism' are supremely relativist themselves in a profound and fundamental way. They're the ones who are really saying 'believe what you like', and really quite shamelessly: note again the prevalence of argumentum ad consequentiam throughout their apologetics, their missionary techniques, and on and on. It really is, quite unabashedly: 'believe these because you'll feel better.'
And honestly, it amuses me. The difference between their attitude and that of the Stones when they sang 'Whatever gets ya through the night' escapes me... But anyway, getting back to the point, it almost seems little wonder to me, really, that where the PR industry is old, established, and pervasive, and where the propaganda is poured on by the bucketful, you might also find religion and less organized superstitions thick on the ground.
Posted by: aratina cage | August 10, 2009 10:14 PM
Hell no! Ken Ham created that creationism theme park that robs people young and old of an education each day. He also promotes bigotry against many kinds of people, including atheists and scientists. Ken Ham's beliefs have moved from an abstract thought to concrete reality. What is there to respect about him?And of course Jesus 'said' to respect everyone (even though he was quite disrespectful to the local patriarchs according to the stories). Remember, the Romans were in power when Christianity arose. Do you think they would adopt a religion that didn't preach respect toward Caesar?
Posted by: Kingasaurus | August 10, 2009 10:19 PM
"not out of the question when you consider that they've found modern human remains in the same layer than that of dino bones (like they were covered by the same mudslide/died at the same time)..""
Hey, Bob. Just curious - did your buddy bother to elaborate on this? I must have missed it in all the newspapers.
I love these AiG nitwits who presume all their parroted, cut-and-paste nonsense is real, then when confronted as to why such earth-shattering news isn't publicized widely, it's always the same answer: Satan and the non-believing masses are working their tootsies off to make sure such godly "facts" are downplayed or ignored.
Classic conspiracy mindset - the world hates us and is secretly jealous of our "truth", etc. Blah, blah, blah.
Posted by: barry21 | August 10, 2009 10:34 PM
PZ - Thank you for this wonderful review. Since the Creation Museum opened, I have wanted to go see it. I thought there would be some chuckle-inducing kitsch worth the price of admission and a couple hours of my time.
Your short essay took the wind out of that particular sail. In a few paragraphs, you laid bare the intellectual debauchery and nonsense that this place offers the brainwashed attendees. There is nothing funny about this monument to wasted time, money, and intellect.
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 10, 2009 10:42 PM
Icth, buddy, I finally caught you saying something I could disagree with... ;-)
This right here is bullshit. It isn't rare at all. It just doesn't happen every time, and it only happens once. To each person. But it happens routinely, to a whole lot of people. Most just become agnostic, granted.
I think your larger point is that people don't have their mind's changed by outside argument. It is the purposeful presentation of evidence that fails to convince. A simple presentation does often (well, sometimes, but, again, only once each) work, but only when it is not purposeful.
This is a psychological fact which is not in any way limited to the religionists, or any other sub-group of what we like to call "human beings". It can be demonstrated that we are ALL like that, and I want to preemptively point out that being less so doesn't correlate with being more atheistic. The more we are presented with contrary facts, the more rigidly we grip to our beliefs.
And it makes perfect sense to be that way, as well. The harder everyone is to convince you something is true, the more skeptical you have to be about what they are saying.
We need to stop trying to convince people that God is imaginary, and start trying to convince them that what He has to say shouldn't influence legislation.
Posted by: Douglas McClean | August 10, 2009 10:47 PM
PZ, I was with you right up to the wrecking ball, then I fell on the floor. Are you fucking serious? A "museum" has an "exhibit" of a wrecking ball labeled "millions of years" destroying a church? Did they order it from ACME Propaganda? I would actually have more respect for an anti-gravity "museum" that used clips of the roadrunner as evidence.
Holy shit indeed.
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 10, 2009 10:56 PM
I'm still chuckling at that. By that I mean laughing uncontrollably.
Posted by: Lynn Wilhelm | August 10, 2009 11:01 PM
Please, please add some reviews to the Trip Advisor site. There's one sarcastic review, but it's a high rating and I don't really think many people viewing it wouldn't get it. Another from 2008, I think, says the "museum" is terrible.
I noticed that the reviews are most recent first. So your new posts would show up on top. I wasn't there so don't feel I can put in a review, although after PZ's review and the creozerg twitters and pics, I feel as if I've been there.
Posted by: Lynn Wilhelm | August 10, 2009 11:05 PM
Urgghhh! should preview before posting
My last post, #302, should have read:
There's one sarcastic review, but it's a high rating and I don't really think many people viewing it would get it.
Posted by: Liveliest Crib | August 10, 2009 11:07 PM
I don't know if people are still commenting on this thread, but I have a question regarding the definition of "museum." (My apologies if my query has already been discussed earlier. I skimmed the thread, but did not read all 300 posts.)
P.Z. argued that one of the differences between Ham's building and a museum was that the former involved a mere linear trek, viewing only what the owners wanted you to see, when they wanted you to see it, while the latter involves free exploration around many exhibits to contemplate at will. If memory serves, the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C. is more like the former -- a guided, linear, chronological tour through the German-led genocide of WWII. Would it not be a "museum?" Is it a lesser kind of museum for not including different rooms with different kinds of letters, uniforms, maps, recovered properties, and whatnot?
Granted, I walked through it when it was first built, many, many years ago. Perhaps it has since been expanded. But it was a powerful experience, just to walk through a museum that was, in essence, one long exhibit.
Just wondering.
This post is in no way intended as a defense of the lunatic Ken Ham or his idiotic waste of space. ;)
Posted by: John Morales | August 10, 2009 11:09 PM
tmaxPA,
This claim sounds specious.
I think I accept facts*, contrary or otherwise; you don't?
Hm, my degree of skepticism is much more influenced by the claim being made (and its provenance and context) than to the number of claimants or their vehemence.
--
* By facts I mean evidence (or propositions) I believe to be true.
Posted by: Marc Buhler, Ph.D. | August 10, 2009 11:25 PM
Up at comment #46, Ray Ingles asks the legitimate question about numbers of alleles of genes in the human genome.
Many genes would have minor allele frequencies where there are more than 4 alleles (a "polymorphism" is a variation of a gene with a frequency greater than 1% in a population while a "mutation" is under 1% frequency - all polymorphisms are of course mutations), but the most pronounced allele frequency in the human genome are the "tissue type" molecules that form the barrier to transplants and are the basis of "self" determination in immunity, the HLA system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_leukocyte_antigen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HLA-DR etc etc
Human Leukocyte Antigens (HLA molecules) were found to be highly polymorphic around 50 years ago with serological testing using antibodies from women who had had several children and developed antibodies to the partners HLA. There are *dozens* of alleles for each of the Class I (HLA-A, -B, and -C) and Class II (HLA-DR, -DQ, and -DP) genes, but while it suits a population of vertebrates (but not creationists) to have many different immune determinants (so any one pathogen will encounter immunity in *some* individuals), we each only carry about a dozen MHC genes. (See Nowak 1992, PNAS 89:10896-9, "The Optimal Number of Major Histocompatibility Complex Molecules in an Individual", since adding more MHC genes means deleting more and more T-cell receptors as potentially anti-self).
So "Why do we have so many different tissue type molecules?" is quite a valid question for them to be asked.
Note: In the late 70's I was a "gel electrophoresis technician" in a Stanford lab when HLA-DR was known but -DQ and -DP were not, and my gels helped to put -DQ on the map. I also got to know Dr. Rose Payne from the lab next to us - considered to be one of the founders of "tissue typing" - but all wikipedia has for her is a mention in a "List of Genetists".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_geneticists
Posted by: JoshS, Official SpokesGay | August 10, 2009 11:41 PM
@Orac:
That's fucking rich, from a blogger who slams on Jenny McCarthy, Dr. Sears, and the whole lot of them every day, and rightfully . Seriously, Orac, as a reader of your blog who cheers you on for demolishing and disprespecting idiots and their dangerous views, what the fuck is your problem when PZ does it? Pull the corn cob out of your ass and stop being such a hypocrite.
Love ya. . .
Posted by: Ben in Texas | August 10, 2009 11:45 PM
I have access to an archive of newspaper articles, and it can be amusing to go back sometimes a century or more to see the prevailing attitudes. It can also be depressing to see that we're fighting the same battles over and over. Below, for instance, is an article from the July 22, 1930, issue of the Kokomo Tribune. (Pardon the imperfections in the cut-and-pasted text.)
New York, July 22.—The 299.655
members, of the Seventh Day Ad
ventists throughout the world believe
the record as told in the
Book of Genesis of a literal creation
of the world in six twentyfour
hour days to be "the inspired
record of a historical facts,1' accorcftng
to a pronouncement adopted
at the recent World Conference
of Seventh Day Adventists held > in
San Francisco.
The text, headed "Evolution," was
made public yesterday by the Rev.
Louis K. Dickson, president of the
Greater New York Conference, at
the headquarters, 110 West Fortieth
Street. The pronouncement
also sets forth belief in a literal
flood which destroyed the world as
'portrayed In the Bible.
/."We believe that faith in a personal
God is fundamental 'not only
to Christian doctrine, but also to a
correct interpretation of natural
phenomena. -
;• ''While we accept fully and without
dispute," the pronouncement
said, "the remarkable discoveries
regarding the laws of nature, we
deplore the tendency among men
of science to regard these laws as
self-operating, thereby endowing
nature with inherent properties.
We repudiate this .materialistic Interpretation
of science and believe
that in all fields of scientific research
we must look for the causes
of natural phenomena, not in material
things themselves, but in the
active will of God, whose fiat is
the source of power for the creation
and maintenance of the universe.
"We accept the Bible as the revealed
word of God to man' and
believe that the Genesis record of a
literal creation in six twenty-fourhour
d'ays is an inspired record of
historical fact. We deplore the
present tendency to interpret the
past history, of the earth in terms
of long geological ages, for we
maintain,tllat the theory of evolution
rests on unproved hypothesis,
whereas the facts of science support
not only the great fundamental
doctrine: of i creationism but also
the idea of destruction of the world
by the flood as portrayed in the
Bible.
"We affirm that the variations
occurring in plants and animals do
not indicate, evolutionary progress,
but are clearly interpreted in the
light , of conditions prevailing
since the flood, and we utterly repudiate
the .implication that man
originated from any 'lower form of
life."
Posted by: Sarah | August 11, 2009 12:02 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong but...
Isn't giving money to a place such as this that helps keep it open just as idiotically stupid as swallowing all that crap without questioning it?
The collective amount of money wasted to get into the place by people who really didn't want to be there could probably feed or clothes a good bit of people.
I do have atheist friends, teenagers in fact and I'm sure they wouldn't waste their money to mock someone's religion and bother a bunch of close minded people.
So what if the place has stupid exhibits, take pictures and post them online for the general amusement of the people but don't parade around making jackasses out of yourselves and making the Christians interpretation of atheists and disrespectful hoodlums look like it's right.
It's just a religion, you could be doing so many better things with your time... and that goes for both the religious people and the non religious people.
On the idea of wasting money; if you have the money to go back... decide not to and send me some to hold me over while job hunting.
Posted by: TargetTheText | August 11, 2009 12:05 AM
One misspelling I noticed: improbably should be improbable.
Posted by: Bench | August 11, 2009 12:19 AM
Several posters here have suggested creating--er, building--an evolution museum in close proximity to the Creation "Museum". At least one other person suggested a Bible museum. So here's my amalgamated fantasy proposal: both! There are any number of qualified individuals to head up the evolution side. But, hands down, I can think of no one better than Bart Ehrman to handle the Bible museum side of things.
Off topic, I just went over to the AiG site to see what they're blogging about and found this amusing little morsel. Under the heading God’s Design Science Curriculum, it reads:
Whoa there. Etc? Really? I think after Kitzmiller v. Dover the list definitively stops at home school and Christian school.
The next sentence reads: "Recently, AiG upgraded its elementary through middle school science curriculum (God’s Design series) to all color!"
Does that mean you assclowns no longer see everything in black and white?
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 11, 2009 12:47 AM
Sarah wrote:
That's a good questions. I think the main reason the SSA (along with whom PZ tagged) went is so they could actually seem for themselves the depth of inanity the museum stoops to in order to peddle its delusional message to the credulous.
Kind of a 'you have to see it to believe it' deal.
Okay, this is less good - to the point of embarrassingly bad.
You should actually read the relevant posts. None of the atheists there were 'making jackasses of themselves'; even Canned Ham himself only describes one person wearing an 'offensive' shirt, and other people disagreeing with the content in normal speaking voices.
Get your facts straight before you criticise.
If it were 'just a religion', there wouldn't be a problem. But these people are lying about and perverting science, and attempting to get these lies and perversions taught as fact in schools. The 'museum' is only one aspect of a much wider movement.
Liars telling lies to children about how the world works makes me angry. If that doesn't make you angry then I'm sorry, there's just something wrong with you.
Again, do some research before criticising. That way you might look less foolish next time.
Posted by: Ken Cope | August 11, 2009 1:01 AM
Wowbagger, OM: Liars telling lies to children about how the world works makes me angry. If that doesn't make you angry then I'm sorry, there's just something wrong with you.
Not just a new sig line but words to live by, or, wish you had lived by them, when it's too late.
Posted by: Annette | August 11, 2009 1:12 AM
Wow, that was a fantastic article!! :)
Posted by: Erp | August 11, 2009 1:13 AM
As for why Charles Templeton is so prominent in the museum, even his own son, Brad Templeton, is baffled though he has some guesses.
http://ideas.4brad.com/charles-templeton-gets-own-mini-room-creation-museum-0
(Brad Templeton btw is a fairly prominent early internet figure)
Ken Ham seems to consider him a classic case of someone trusting too much to science and falling into unbelief because of that.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i3/unbelief.asp
"As this story unfolds, you will see the devastating results of compromising man’s theories with God’s Word, beginning in Genesis."
Posted by: anon | August 11, 2009 1:18 AM
From 52 -
Sorry in insult your chili, I grew up in Utah and now live in the south, and no one else I was with had ever seen these terms before, and my immature mind leapt to the hilarious sexual meanings.
"Yes what's the difference between a 3 way and a 4 way? You add another woman?"
Anyways the bowls they where serving smelled like ass.
Posted by: Dan W | August 11, 2009 1:22 AM
So they just ignore any science that doesn't agree with their ridiculous beliefs at the Creation "Museum", and just mostly take their exhibits on things from the Bible? And don't care for dissent within the boundaries of their "museum". Hmmm, sounds to me like the place doesn't deserve to be called a museum at all. More like a place where people are expected to blindly accept their irrational, ignorant beliefs without question. Rather like a church, except without requiring you to sit in rows all the time, or pray there, or listen to some nut drone on and on for the entire time. Ugh, I think I'm glad I didn't go. I'd much rather read stories from people who did go, like you PZ, than have gone myself.
Posted by: The Chemist | August 11, 2009 1:37 AM
[PZ Myers has written a take down of the Creation “Museum” on his blog. For those unfamiliar with the so-called Creo-Zerg...idea here was less to overwhelm, and more to ridicule...]
Posted by: Christophe Thill | August 11, 2009 2:28 AM
You know, I used to laugh each time I heard the words "Answers in Genesis". But the other day, I was listening to the radio, and what I heard was actually a pretty good answer. It was the song "Jesus he knows me". I wonder if Ken Ham likes it ?
Posted by: Rasmus Holm | August 11, 2009 2:35 AM
Beautiful ending PZ. I have yet to disagree with a single post you have written. Irreverence precisely.
Posted by: Sigmund | August 11, 2009 4:51 AM
Truthseeker #270 said:
"Contrary to what many people seem to believe, animals with different numbers of chromosomes can sometimes mate and produce fertile offspring."
True, but the outcome of (the rare) successful mating is generally infertile offspring. The sort of gross robertsonian translocation event that resulted in human chromosome 2 is usually an individual that is highly infertile.
Its not impossible for such an individual to produce a child, just very unlikely, and that child itself will have the same infertility problem in turn. The best way for such individuals to produce a stable fertile population is to create a scenario where there are several individuals homozygous for the fused chromosome (rather than on fused chromosome 2 and the two individual non fused chromosomes 2A and 2b). This is usually achieved in the wild by means of reproductive isolation that forces family members to inbreed. In theory it could also be achieved if cousins that have inherited the fused chromosomes interbreed but this is much less likely for the human situation (too few children produced) compared to other mammals such as rodents who frequently develop different chromosome numbers when genetically isolated (such as in island settings).
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 11, 2009 5:55 AM
This stuff has all the verisimilitude and significance of a wax museum exhibit of Britney Spears, Queen Elizabeth, and Liberace PZ
Wow! Our alien shape-shifting lizard overlords will be after you, PZ! I thought MI5 had managed to keep that depraved episode from becoming public.
Posted by: Elizabeth | August 11, 2009 6:52 AM
Also post reviews of it on Yelp. I just added it as a business, so should show up in a day or so.
I feel nauseous.
Posted by: Tassie Devil | August 11, 2009 8:05 AM
'a sense of humility based on the knowledge that although science can explain a great deal about the way our world functions, the question of God's existence lies outside its expertise.'
Mooney and Kirshenbaum, Unscientific America, 2009
I'm sorry, I simply don't get this. Why should scientists, and those who champion the scientific approach to reality, be required to humble themselves before those who do not? Why does one group's sky fairy trump every piece of science in existence? This is just the lazy argument of someone who wants to take the easy path to superiority, and needs to be able to look down on those who have achieved expertise through hard, hard work. All I see is thinly-concealed envy.
Also, I'm not going to walk around in sackcloth and assume that my point of view is inferior and must remain humble before a faith-based one, when the evidence is all around me of the damage that faith is doing to our societies.
Posted by: Gustaf | August 11, 2009 8:07 AM
For those who uttered "garbage" in the haunted house, I think you could have saved it until after. It only makes the freethinking community look intolerant and hardheaded. There are situations where you don't need to be right.
Posted by: Joseph | August 11, 2009 8:19 AM
It is absolutely a genuine museum; no need to put the word in quotes.
Of course, the Muse in question is Thalia, rather than Clio...
Posted by: bsk | August 11, 2009 8:29 AM
I don't know if anyone's already suggested this, but I propose we start referring to creationism as "the curse of Ham".
At the very least that's what you get if you visit the creation museum with a credulous mind...
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 11, 2009 8:35 AM
As to the comments about sibling incest, we have to remember that was the prefered way the ancient Egyptians. Granted most of the marriages were probably with half siblings, it still happened. In addition, the tradition of marrying cousins was acceptable until about 1900 or so here in the US.
I am not sure if it is still acceptable in Europe or not. - EarthandIce@91
According to Cousin couples - get the facts, the USA is the only western country where there are legal restrictions on cousin marriage (I had no idea there were any). Here in the UK, marriage to first cousins, even double first cousins, is legal, but not common except among the Pahari or Mirpuri community (originating in Mirpur district of Pakistani-administered Kashmir), and perhaps other minorities I don't know about - though an uncle of mine married his first cousin's daughter. Sex, but not marriage, is legal between uncle and niece or aunt and nephew.
As to brother-sister marriages in ancient Egypt, someone said this only happened within the royal family, but The Random Scholar: brother-sister marriage in Roman Egypt gives references to the contrary.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 11, 2009 8:46 AM
My friend's sister in law married her third or forth cousin.
My friend got up during the toasts and said
"I'd welcome you to the family but...."
"Now I can tell everyone about my sister in law's Cousband."
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 11, 2009 9:03 AM
...and I can't resist linking to this.
Posted by: AdamK | August 11, 2009 9:13 AM
Cincinnati "chili" has a long dishonorable tradition going back to the 30's at least. It is served over spaghetti with onions, shredded murcan cheese, beans and/or oyster crackers (hence the multiple "ways" you can serve it.)
The aroma of ass is the essential defining characteristic.
It is best consumed early in the morning after a night of drunken revelry, in a state of borderline consciousness.
It is no coincidence it is served in the creation woozeum cafeteria, since both phenomena reflect the tastes of the same population.
Posted by: Ken Cope | August 11, 2009 9:43 AM
OK Knockgoats, I'll see your Tom Lehrer and raise you a PDQ Bach: part four of Oedipus Tex. . .
Posted by: Ken Cope | August 11, 2009 9:45 AM
. . . And the thrilling conclusion, parf five of Oedipus Tex.
Posted by: SC, OM | August 11, 2009 9:52 AM
Einstein's second wife was a first cousin on one side and a second cousin on the other; they didn't have any children.
Posted by: James F. Trumm | August 11, 2009 10:02 AM
This is in response to tmaxPA at #285, who argues that
I had suggested that it was a mistake of the scientifically-minded to allow discussions of evolution to become framed as atheist-vs-Christian, and I stand by that. Scientists and other people committed to rational and natural explanations of the world's origins have done a poor job of locating their conclusions within the realm of the scientific method. They fall all too easily into the trap discussed above of allowing their conclusions to be treated as just another text--and then the post-modern theocrats can simply say that you have your texts and we have ours. Scientists have not done a good job of explaining that it is not the job of science to prove or disprove the existence of god. As a result of this failure to frame what science is all about, the drool-flecked pulpit-bangers have framed science for us.
As to your assertion at #220 that the truth needs no defense, in a perfect world that would be the case. In this world, however, lies overpower truth unless truth is defended--vigorously. I don't care whether you call those defenders scientists or science fiction authors. And yes, scientists and others committed to reason are selling a world view, whether we like it or not. It is a world view that claims that the universe can be understood by rigorous examination of the evidence according to the scientific method and without recourse to supernatural phenomena.
It's always dangerous to read too much into short blog comments, but I think I detect in your posts a noble but blinkered attitude toward science. Do you think it is distasteful for scientists to have to sell their world view? Do you believe that since the truth needs no defenders, it's fine for scientists to retreat from the public sphere and to conduct their inquiries within the walls of the academy? If so, then I would expect to see the percentage of people who believe the theory of evolution continue to fall.
In The Creation Museum and many other forums, science itself is under attack. Ridiculing the natural craziness of such attacks amongst ourselves is fun and satisfying in a smug kind of way, but does nothing to address the public challenge raised by Ken Ham et al.
Posted by: bytera | August 11, 2009 10:34 AM
Thank you very much for this interesting report.
Greetings from Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Posted by: Sabrina | August 11, 2009 10:48 AM
I tried to read your account of the Creation "Museum" so I can understand, but I simply cannot do it. I feel like I need to know what these people believe, but I can't wrap my head around it - my brain doesn't work that way. You lost me at the 'digging up the dinosaur bones' bit; my brain started to hurt.
As a museum professional - I work for the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History - this just. makes. me. want. to. hurl. I mean, I work with plants, but still.
Posted by: Pablo | August 11, 2009 11:13 AM
I mentioned this in my comment well above. However, one distinction that I make is that the linearity of the Holocaust museum is part of the exhibit because, recall, you are given the "passport" at the beginning of a Jewish citizen, and you are told to view the tour through their eyes. In that respect, you get a better appreciation of the increasing oppressiveness that was felt, setting up the end of the story.
So the Holocaust Museum is far more than a collection of exhibits on a path.
Posted by: Lynna | August 11, 2009 11:16 AM
PixelFish @223: The number of errors in the Book of Mormon is indeed astounding. But what interests me more is that the foundational "First Vision" of Joseph Smith is plainly made up of contradictory visions, with a few additional corrections made much later by various "prophets." Talk about errors. The vision is even missing entirely from the earliest years of Mormonism.
"Deconstructor" posts a lot of research on e-mormon.org, and is especially good on the issue of the First Vision, errors in the BoM, etc. I liked this post for its clarity, and for the fact that it shows the Mormon heirarchy shooting themselves in the foot (they're really good at that):
Of course, the later version of the vision also has God and Jesus appearing to Joseph Smith. It's all a big stew of questionable ingredients.
Posted by: Lynna | August 11, 2009 11:24 AM
Od joke, but worth repeating:
"... and it came to pass.."
Thank God it didn't come to stay.
Posted by: Jes | August 11, 2009 12:08 PM
I find it horrifyingly amusing that they use genetic mutations as a reason we no longer marry close relatives while simultaneously denying the science is right about anything.
Posted by: Amanda | August 11, 2009 12:10 PM
It's interesting that words like "garbage" were heard from unruly atheists in the areas you mentioned. I heard that very word in, I think, Noah's Flood Rooms, but it wasn't uttered by an atheist. A man said to a woman, "I got stuck behind a group of atheists back there. Got sick of hearing their garbage." The woman replied, "Why did they even come in?"
Posted by: Illary | August 11, 2009 12:56 PM
Mr. Myers:
You made a mistake (or plainly lied) when you wrote:
"they were promoting the Hamite theory of racial origins, that ugly idea that all races stemmed from the children of Noah, and that black people in particular were the cursed offspring of Ham."
In fact, the Museum and Answers in Genesis, are opposed to that idea. They are an organization wich is anti-racist as you could see if you do a little research in their website. Ken Ham has publicly challenged you (in his blog), to document with photographs and actual scripts that the "Creation Museum" teaches the "Hamite" idea. I wonder if you dare to answer him and accept that you were wrong.
Illary
Lima - Peru
Posted by: Illary | August 11, 2009 1:02 PM
Mr. Myers:
You made a mistake (or plainly lied) when you wrote:
"they were promoting the Hamite theory of racial origins, that ugly idea that all races stemmed from the children of Noah, and that black people in particular were the cursed offspring of Ham."
In fact, the Museum and Answers in Genesis, are opposed to that idea. They are an organization wich is anti-racist as you could see if you do a little research in their website. Ken Ham has publicly challenged you (in his blog), to document with photographs and actual scripts that the "Creation Museum" teaches the "Hamite" idea. I wonder if you dare to answer him and accept that you were wrong.
Illary
Lima - Peru
Posted by: Barbara Stoner | August 11, 2009 1:03 PM
There are scientific truths which are explicitly denied by the bible but that are known today to be, in fact, true - and accepted as such even by fundamentalist creationists.
Chief among them are, of course, the "flat earth" supposition which was maintained for a few centuries based solely on biblical statements and the "geocentric" supposition which, the Church maintained, was also confirmed by scripture. A round earth and a heliocentric system were deemed biblically impossible and heretical.
Perhaps a little lesser known is the supposition that there is a ring of fire at the equator - or a line of fire, assuming a flat earth. That nothing exists beyond a certain point south, no people live there since somewhere in the bible it says something about all people having already received the word of god.
Curious about how the Creationist Museum "explains" these once heretical, now universally accepted facts.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | August 11, 2009 1:44 PM
It's probably in your spam folder.
Which is where it belongs, frankly.
I rather wonder if – see comment 217 – the Genesis 2 creation story is actually only meant to explain the origin of the Hebrews (and a few supposedly closely related peoples), not of humans in general: "we're so weak because we were created when our god was just 12 years old and had no experience in such matters".
And indeed, monotheism is only present in the younger parts of the OT and of course in the NT. Judges 11:24 has a messenger of Jephthah say "Chemosh thy god" and "Yahwe our god" to the king of the Ammonites.
You shouldn't be. According to the link, the address is not "http://picasaweb.google.com/danmacduff", but "http://picasaweb.google.com/danmacduff.", with a period at the end! That's of course nonsense and therefore of course doesn't work.
:-D :-D :-D
Posted by: origin | August 11, 2009 2:22 PM
This post is pretty freaking sweet, thanks for sharing with those of us too far away to make it out!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 11, 2009 2:32 PM
Not that I would expect anything different from one of Ham's disciples, but you of course didn't quote the whole thing.
He's already answered Ham's idiocy here and here.
Try to not be such a willing little tool of Ham and his dishonesty and idiocy, unless that's your sort of thing.
Posted by: Mr DArcy | August 11, 2009 3:08 PM
I have posted the following on Richard Dawkins' website, but it seems appropriate here also:
The question of how the (e.g.) Australian snails got to the ark in time, before Noah's flood, has been intriguing me. Now as we all know, snails are not the fastest of critters, and with only some 2 weeks to get to ?Turkey, say a distance of 5000 miles for argument's sake, the snails would have to travel at the princely speed of about 14 mph non-stop. Truely a Herculean task for any snail! What, if anything, they ate on the way, and how they were able to cross hostile lands and seas in the Biblical time span, and how they outran all those hungry Frenchmen, I fear, must remain theological questions, and not for science.
Perhaps now Sarah Palin has some spare time on her hands, she could give us the benefit of her views!
Before anyone asks any awkward questions about soil bacteria, it's obvious that God had pre-programmed them to resist flooding. There retaliated first!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 11, 2009 3:13 PM
Oh that's easy. It's all about "kinds".
Posted by: Illary | August 11, 2009 4:33 PM
Rev. BigDumbChimp:
Well no, man, I'm not a disciple of Ken Ham as you said, but I surely would like be called a disciple of Jesus Christ. I think you don't respect Him either, but... that it's another point. The part you said that I not quoted, is irrelevant for this discusion, specially because we are posting below the article. Whoever read my post, I suppose already read the article entirely, so I'm not trying to misrepresent, I'm indicating just the part I'm interested in comment.
About the "Hamite curse", Ken Ham himself stated that it's not true, in 2007, as you can listen here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/audio/answers-daily/volume-077/curse-ham-not-true
And there is an answer from AIG team, about slavery, which deal with the "Hamite curse" (wich is non-existent, by the way) you can read here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/02/02/feedback-bible-slavery
My last post here. Adios.
Illary
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 11, 2009 4:44 PM
Illary, we don't bother with the lies in AIG, other than to laugh at them. Which means you have no evidence. But then, that is expected since your god doesn't exist and the babble is a work of fiction. Which is why AIG is a bunch of lies. Reality, not for wimps like you.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 11, 2009 4:46 PM
Why should I respect a literary figure?
Yet you specifically chose to omit it.
Except you were the one who omitted it and it is very important to the meaning of what Prof. Myers wrote. You omitting it on purpose reveals either your purpose, your dishonesty or your inability to parse what was written.
Yes we know the bible is full of things that are untrue. Thank you for helping to support that.
Again thanks for pointing out but one of the falsehoods and inconsistencies in the bible.
But the point that you are using those links above shows you either completely miss the point of what was written above or you are deliberately trying to change what PZ was saying. This is backed by your omission of the first part of that paragraph.
Typical. You'd think those as strong as they claim to be in their faith would have a little more balls when it comes to defending it.
Run along now liar for christ.
Posted by: Jason | August 11, 2009 5:21 PM
In regards to Ham's use of the Hamite theory (#344)... First, the "museum" makes it clear that it regards the "middle-brown" Adam and Eve as being the first man and woman. They continue the story from there... Their Tower of Babel narrative clearly is suggesting the Hamite theory to be correct with it's Descendants of Ham, Descendants of Shem, and Descendants of Japeth slide. According wikipedia, the "Hamitic theory suggested that the Hamite race was superior to or more advanced than Negroid populations of Sub-Saharan Africa." I was going to try to find the references and images but PZ has already addressed the question here and also provided the source images.
As far as other proof of racist bullshit coming from the "museum" - this slide says it all to me. Ignore the Hamite theory stuff if you want (although it's clearly there and it's clearly racist).
You don't need to understand why the Ham's Hamite Hash - Just take a look at this slide. This slide was part of the lecture given on Friday called "Ape-Men: The Grand Illusion" at the 'museum'.
The above link to the real racism is taken from the answers in genesis site itself.
Posted by: Anne Johnson | August 11, 2009 6:28 PM
Next time you're tempted to pay for a brainwashing, remember that ShamWows are cheaper and can be re-used.
Posted by: Jim Lippard | August 11, 2009 6:42 PM
Illary's point when he says the Hamite curse is not true is that it was Canaan, not Ham, who was cursed.
Which just shows the Bible to be even more unethical, promoting a notion of moral guilt passed on to children for things their parents did.
AIG has an explicitly anti-racist website that Mark Looy has promoted in a comment on my blog. I've asked for clarification on what from that website is present in the museum displays, and how they handle racists who go through their museum and see the display and treat it as confirmation of their racism.
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 11, 2009 10:11 PM
You have to admit, they're at least starting to understand the concept of independent evidence...
Posted by: Calilasseia | August 11, 2009 10:13 PM
@46:
Ray, I found something interesting out when checking for genes with multiple alleles. Courtesy of this paper at PubMed, it appears that the ABO blood group genes comprise more than 70 alleles. Apparently more than one DNA sequence for the gene coding for the A antigen, for example, will code for a working A antigen protein, with the result that a human can inherit two different versions of the A antigen gene, yet be indistinguishable via standard blood antigen tests from an individual who has only inherited one version. The only way you can tell such people apart is by sequencing their actual ABO antigen genes, or performing a direct chemical analysis of their ABO antigens and determining the exact amino acid sequences.
So the allegedly "simple" matter of the ABO blood groups alone rather blows the Adam & Eve myth out of the water.
Posted by: Calilasseia | August 11, 2009 10:16 PM
Update with respect to my post above on ABO antigens. to my great surprise and delight, the full paper is a free download. Looks like I have more interesting bedtime reading! :)
Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | August 11, 2009 10:42 PM
E.V. The reasoning behind that conclusion is that a) Mooney has in the past specifically called Young Earth Creationism as something he finds ridiculous b) as far as I am aware, everytime he has mentioned a specific individual as one that should be given more respect they have not been a YEC.
Again, I think there are serious problems with Mooney's general thesis, but it doesn't help to misrepresent it.
Posted by: Fargus | August 11, 2009 11:07 PM
If they teach that incest was OK back in Cain's day because God hadn't yet issued the commandment against it, then how do they justify Cain's banishment from Eden for killing Abel, even though God hadn't yet issued a ruling against it?
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 11, 2009 11:12 PM
My apologies if this is a double-post. This software still sucks. Talk to Kos, okay guys?
James@335:
I submit again it is not the purview of scientists to do this, and further that they should avoid it. That's our job. Not theirs. Were we to expect scientists to frame anything, even "what science is all about", we would be treating them like priests. Science is what it is. It can be studied empirically, if you wish. Or it can be rhetorically described. But not both at the same time. You're not doing one when you do the other.
Viola! Rather, it is an attitude blinkered by nobility.I don't think it is necessary for scientists to sell their world view. They provide data. Nothing else is what a scientist does.
I think they do that anyway, don't they? Do they actually have a choice? If so, yes, I do believe they should not just retreat, but wall themselves in, to academia, so that we can know that what we get out is actual data, and not just politics masquerading as a mathematical decree. Your way invites just that: bully intelligencia forcing political ends no matter what the real science shows. You can deny it but you cannot prevent it.This is the point; no, it is not. It cannot be. The nobility of science comes from this simple premise: science can only be "under attack" by other science. It can be suppressed, it can be perverted, it can be stymied, but it cannot be prevented except by better science. Period.
I agree entirely, so I wish you would stop trying to trivialize my point. It was not offhand and it was not ill-considered. It isn't that scientists need not frame things; it is very much in fact that they must not frame things.
PZ is free to spout any opinion he wishes, of course, on any science he desires. So long as it isn't his own, and he isn't getting into flame wars based on psychological issues with other scientists in place of dealing with data logically. And that, writ large, is what comes from trying to "popularize" science the way that you are thinking.
So we muddle along as we are now, with no big changes, and sooner or later in a couple decades or centuries, it won't be so much of an issue, if we're lucky. "Activist" scientists will not hasten, and will hamper, this process.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | August 12, 2009 12:39 AM
tmaxPA @ # 362:... science itself is under attack.
... no, it is not. It cannot be. ... science can only be "under attack" by other science. It can be suppressed, it can be perverted, it can be stymied, but it cannot be prevented except by better science.
Dunno 'bout you, but if I found myself being suppressed, perverted*, & stymied, I would tend to consider that an attack, and would proceed immediately to counterattack &/or escape, as rudely & crudely as necessary.
*exceptions allowed for certain perversions by certain persons. Applications must be submitted in person.
Posted by: Ian Pattinson | August 12, 2009 5:35 AM
I find myself drawn to that Ark diorama with the unsaved on a rock being devoured by bears and tigers. It's like something the Chapman brothers would come up with.
Posted by: DavidK | August 12, 2009 10:06 AM
Hey, I didn't see any dinosaurs boarding the boat, and there seems to be some dissention in the YEC camp as to how this might have been accomplished. Some say dinosaurs actually boarded, some say they laid eggs that were put on board. Perhaps that's the origin of the Hamite curse, that there was Ham but no eggs?
Seriously though, this is the method of the creationists / ID'ers, to lead you down the path without allowing questions. They get very, very, very upset if you interrupt their scripted message (oral or written) in any way, for it distracts from their intent to bombard you and hypnotise you with nonsense.
Posted by: Rod Wilson | August 12, 2009 10:42 AM
I think the single most important observation is the one about the guards being the to suppress dissention. It gives a hint at what the country would be like if these people gained power
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | August 12, 2009 11:52 AM
Yeah, about those guards - more specifically, about their dogs.
People here are referring to them as bomb-sniffing or drug-sniffing - but unless, like (some of?) their human colleagues, they're off-duty sheriff's department workers, what reason is there to believe they've had such training?
I can see the appeal of visiting the Creation "Museum" stoned (though the level of weirdness prob'ly produces that effect without need for THC), so maybe the deputies hope to score some easy pot busts, but is even Mr. Looy so revved up that expects infidels & heretics bearing dynamite?
Have the dogs at the CM ever fulfilled a purpose other than intimidation?
Posted by: Calilasseia | August 12, 2009 5:12 PM
After my earlier tangential diversion with respect to alleles, I'm going to post on topic, and dwell specifically on the presence of armed guards and dogs at Ken Ham's alternative-universe theme park.
I live a 30 minute bus ride from Liverpool Museum. Which is housed in an impressive piece of Victorian architecture, manifesting the aura of solidity that is associated with Victorian civic buildings, and then some. One is tempted to think, upon seeing it for the first time, that the original architects predicted the appearance of nuclear weapons, and built the museum to withstand everything short of a direct hit. It looks not so much as if it was assembled, more as if it was hewn out of a solid chunk of mountain. Don't make the mistake of thinking that it's an ugly building as a result, far from it, though it is upstaged considerably by St George's Hall a short walk away, an edifice which was obviously built as a status symbol, and which in its day cost almost as much as a small battleship to build.
Now, this museum is slap bang in the middle of a city that has long been the butt of jokes regarding the supposed lawlessness of its inhabitants, jokes that are based upon woeful stereotypes that, upon critical examination, bear little resemblance to reality. Indeed, recent Home Office statistics support the view that Liverpool, far from being overrun with brigands and cut-throats, is one of the safer large cities in the UK to visit. Moreover, anyone who has sampled Scouse hospitality at first hand, will know that whilst your average Liverpudlian exhibits extreme suspicion when presented with something that looks like bullshit, there's a warm-heartedness beneath the no-nonsense exterior, coupled to a sense of humour that catches the unwary outsider completely off guard at times, with its highly individual view of the world. However, the lamentable stereotypes still persist, and as a consequence, those who insist upon regarding those stereotypes as truth would probably baulk at the thought of some of the Museum's exhibits being freely available for people not only to look at, but in many instances, to get up close and personal with in a big way. Given, for example, how delicate preserved entomological specimens can be in some instances, the thought of having lots of primary school children in close proximity might give some older taxonomists a fit of the vapours, but Liverpool Museum manages to pull off this trick with success, year after year, and in doing so introduces those children to some spectacular wonders. Among the more visually spectacular exhibits is a reconstruction of a Quetzlcoatlus skeleton, suspended from the roof, boasting a forty foot wingspan. Somewhere on my hard drive I have a very nice photo of this, which hopefully gives some impression of how stunning the animal must have appeared in life.
Likewise, just a minute's walk from the Museum is the Walker Art Gallery, housing a spectacular collection of art treasures, including an original Rembrandt, an original Stubbs, works by Landseer, Sir Joshua Reynolds, a surprising collection of Italian Renaissance Madonnas (including one by Bartolomé Esteban Murillo that is almost shockingly human and warm in its execution), and a collection of Pre-Raphaelite and Victorian Neoclassical art that is little short of world class.
Yet, despite the fact that these two institutions (which, incidentally, are organisationally connected) constitute an insurer's nightmare, the staff are, in the main, surprisingly laid back. Obviously they're trained to deal with idiots, but they're trained to do so in a calm, measured fashion, employing only whatever means are necessary in order to restore peace and harmony, and quite a few of them will happily engage visitors in animated yet good-humoured and well-informed discourse, and if they happen not to know something, they'll tell you so, and point you in the direction of someone who does.
Now as far as I'm aware, Liverpool Museum isn't subject to a continuous onslaught of creationists engaging in blatant acts of witnessing for their magic man, but I'm pretty damn sure that any who do turn up are simply told, quite politely, that everything they see around them quite simply does not lend one atom of support for their doctrine, and that an appropriate education in the requisite areas can be obtained by chatting to some of the in-house experts. Incidentally, I know for a fact that world-class research is conducted by the staff of the Invertebrate Zoology department, and I'm pretty sure the same applies to other departments too, so the institution isn't short of people who know a thing or to about basic biology, for example.
The idea of forcing people to conform to a doctrine is completely alien to the ethos of the institution. There is no way on Earth that the curators would consider for a moment funnelling people through the building as if they were inmates of a penal institution. Yet this is precisely what Ken Ham's taser-armed thugs are there to do. It's a chilling insight into the creationist mindset, which consists, at bottom, of "conform or else". What we have in Ham's "creation museum", is, in effect, a tarted-up concentration camp for the brain. Just as Dembski revealed, with his comment about "putting evolutionists on trial", the Inquisition-wannabee mindset behind creationism, Ham's enforcers in his house of smoke and mirrors reveal that creationism isn't about fidelity to reality at all, despite their duplicitous apologetics claiming that this is so. Creationism is, at bottom, like every other ideology founded upon unsupported assertions presented as being purportedly "axioms" about the world, in that it requires its adherents to give credence to the notion that when reality and doctrine differ, reality is wrong and doctrine is right. Henry Morris stated this explicitly in one of his turgid little tomes, and creationists have been adopting this position ever since. Ham's taser-wielding guards and dogs merely bring home, in stark fashion, how deeply this principle is embedded, and how ruthlessly it is enforced whenever those at the top of the doctrinal hierarchy possess the power so to do.
Whilst I have long suspected that creationism was rotten to the core, I'm grateful to PZ for providing the appropriate insights of this in operation on the creationists' home territory.
Posted by: rgz | August 12, 2009 6:35 PM
Epic picture is epic.
Posted by: James Pinder | August 12, 2009 9:06 PM
Wonder what god has to say about all of this...
Posted by: Lanie | August 13, 2009 1:53 AM
Erin @ #246
Yep, I'm a Wyoming girl; born in Cheyenne. We few liberals DO need to stick together, we're a dying breed in the
"Equality State."
Posted by: Kerim Mansour | August 14, 2009 6:59 AM
Was the fun at least worth the money or did you ask your money back ? :-)
Posted by: SEF | August 14, 2009 7:12 AM
@ DavidK #365:
Does the famous Dr.Seuss book need a spoof re-write ... ? The ambiguous nature of its undifferentiated animal kinds fits.
Posted by: barry21 | August 16, 2009 11:03 AM
I don't know what's worse, Ken Ham's bad ideas or his paranoia. Either way, they work together to form a heady brew of nonsense and delusion. His most recent blog post, which I wrote about on my own blog is yet another layer of icing on a very thickly-iced cake.
I lost myself in that metaphor. Sorry.
Posted by: gerard pawling | August 16, 2009 12:21 PM
WWJD?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 16, 2009 12:24 PM
wgaf
Posted by: frodo | August 16, 2009 9:20 PM
What do you mean--there's no evidence for dinosaur and human co-existence? Here's the evidence, in black and white:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/07/17/feedback-wheres-evidence-dinosaur-human-coexistence
I am now a true believer--they just didn't die at the same time. The first person died 340 years after the flood (no one was harmed during the actual flood event). That explains everything.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 16, 2009 9:24 PM
Sorry, AIG is not the peer reviewed scientific literature, so you alleged citation is not meaningful and any sense other than fiction. Try real science, found in college libraries around the world. The the dinosaurs died off 68 million years ago, and Homo sapiens weren't around until 0.2 million years ago.
Posted by: frodo | August 16, 2009 9:27 PM
I agree, Nerd of Redhead, that is my point exactly. I am prone to sarcasm, forgetting it doesn't read well in the written word
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 16, 2009 9:30 PM
Sorry Frodo, I thought you had posted here before, and had a WTF moment.
Posted by: frodo | August 16, 2009 9:36 PM
Nope, the creation museum expedition has brought me to Pharyngula. I 've been enjoying the commentary. I shouldn't be surprised at such "research" though, I was at a zoo that stated hybrids were sterile because "nature tends not to create new species".
Posted by: E.V. | August 16, 2009 9:41 PM
I waded through almost 400 posts to see where I misrepresented Mooney, Joshua Z.
I still don't believe I misrepresented him. Where are his public criticisms of Ken Ham? Has he published them?
Posted by: Anthony | August 18, 2009 11:39 AM
Thank you for an informative article concerning this "museum". I grew up in the church and have faced a lot of "crap" from my family for now being a non-believer. I have a trip scheduled to visit them in a month and one of the stops while I am there is the "museum". This should be a fun day of upseting mom and dad.
Posted by: memyselfi | August 19, 2009 1:55 PM
Thank God for scare quotes!!! The scary "museum" is scary!!!
Posted by: nerfette | August 19, 2009 3:36 PM
We cannot change their minds with science
A long chain of scientific discoveries lead to the invention of the wood chipper.
Posted by: Klaus | August 20, 2009 1:51 PM
Very interesting to read both PZ's review and the responses to it.
Equally entertaining is the fact that my comment will be the 386th, while commenting on what Ken Ham is fabricating is not allowed. Seems on par with the "security" policy at their "Museum"/store/church.
Posted by: Stella True | August 21, 2009 8:59 PM
I followed the link to the website and didn't see anything about the "curse of Ham." It said that racial characteristics are insignificant and that the Bible contains no bar to interracial marriages.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 21, 2009 9:12 PM
I was at a zoo that stated hybrids were sterile because "nature tends not to create new species".
Oh, I just have to know which zoo could make a statement so wrong on so many levels.
Posted by: John Morales | August 21, 2009 9:22 PM
Stella, did you see the photo in PZ's post?
The exhibit clearly indicates Africans are "descendants of Ham".
Posted by: Kathy Hamstra | August 22, 2009 1:31 PM
Interesting. You make mention of the guards several times,yet never question why it was necessary for them to be there. Could it be the museum had many, many bomb threats, promise of riots and a hateful attitude (including blogs)from people who did not agree with them? How many other museums open their doors to visitors that are angry,and disruptive? If your science is so pure, why the angst? Is this not still a free country, where the right to free speech is respected? The lack of respect is obviously driven by fear. Faith is something that will never be understood by those who have not found it. Thank you, I cannot wait to go there and see what I have been missing!
Posted by: Louis | August 22, 2009 1:46 PM
@ Kathy Hamstra #390:
Just one thing:
Really? There is no other possible driving factor?
I think that, if you give the matter some thought, you'll find there is at least one other possible driving factor.
Louis
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
August 22, 2009 2:19 PM
Or it could be driven by a lack of anything worthy of respect.
Many of us here used to have faith. We know what faith is, we understand faith, and we know about the fallacy of faith. Faith is believing in something for which you have no evidence. In psychology, it's called magical thinking and, if it involves almost anything but religion, is considered delusional.
Posted by: Trinity | August 23, 2009 4:38 PM
It appears PZ is engaging in the same form of obfuscation and double speak (lying) that he is accusing Ken Ham and AiG of. His analysis (if you can call it that) of the Dispersion of Babel and comparison to the Hamite Theory is disingenuous at best, ignorance at the foundation level, and dishonest subterfuge hoping the minions who read his yammering share in his ignorance of what the Bible teaches.
1. The Hamite curse was from a hung-over Noah, not God
2. The curse was on Canaan, not his descendants
3. Any idiot can read Genesis 9:25 to 27 and figure this out on their own – not simply sit here and nod their heads at some drivel from a militant atheist
Posted by: John Morales | August 23, 2009 6:07 PM
Trinity:
See, there's your problem. We're not idiots.
Curses and maledictions, oh my! ;)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 23, 2009 6:13 PM
Trinity, the babble = fiction. No reality to genesis and exodus. For example, no physical evidence for the flud, garden of Eden, or the exodus. Show us otherwise.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | August 23, 2009 6:29 PM
Trinity, the fact is this, many slave owners in the south of the United States used the idea of the curse of Ham to justify the continual bondage of people of African descent. PZ does not have to engage in any interpretation of the bible to come up with this. Many christians believed this. To accuse PZ of double talk and obfuscation is shows your own blindness in what different people interpret the bible.
Either that you you are a disingenuous simpleton.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 23, 2009 6:31 PM
1. The Hamite curse was from a hung-over Noah, not God
hmm, I rather think you might want to stretch that hypothesis a bit further...
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 23, 2009 6:37 PM
How many other museums open their doors to visitors that are angry,and disruptive?
all of them.
If you would spend any time at a real museum, instead of clutching your pearls at home, you'd find that they would open their doors to you angry and disruptive lot too.
I've seen many a fundy moron like yourself pretend at gettin' the vapors from some display at a local REAL museum, and strangely, they weren't kicked out by the museum staff.
...and bomb threats??
ROFLMAO.
who would even bother.
no atheist feels personally threatened by someone trying to pass off the Flintstones as a documentary. Rather we find it an endless source of humor.
Much like we find you.
Posted by: Trinity | August 23, 2009 6:51 PM
Wow... 5 posts and not one of them can seem to defend what PZ lied about.... hmmmm.... of course the assertion by John M that you all are not idiots makes me wonder....
The fact of the matter is PZ lied about this specific exhibit, no one wants to defend his correlation with the Hamite Theory, ergo... we start in on other attacks.
Typical.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 23, 2009 6:54 PM
Trinity, and you show no evidence whatsoever that your babble isn't fiction. Way not to score one for the godbot side....
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 23, 2009 7:02 PM
How is the dogma of the children of Ham from the Bible a theory?
How is it possible for Noah to have godlike powers with a curse?
How is PZ Myers misrepresenting the creation "museum"?
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 23, 2009 7:04 PM
The fact of the matter is PZ lied about this specific exhibit, no one wants to defend his correlation with the Hamite Theory
to us, it would be like arguing if Dumbledore is gay or not.
Posted by: Josh
|
August 23, 2009 7:10 PM
All of them. Have you ever been to a real museum? Dissent happens all the time. I once saw a father stand right beside a museum scientist and tell his small son, regarding the dinosaur skeleton mounted in front of them, "Yeah, that animal there? It never existed." The scientist smiled and went about his business. You wanna know what he didn't do? Ask them to be quiet upon penalty of being shown the door.
Could you be anymore off the point? This isn't a free speech issue. This isn't about two disagreeing views on the same evidence, no matter how often Ken Ham falsely asserts that it is. This is about us having evidence and you ignoring it. Science isn't democratic, any more than geometry is. And that holds true no matter what country the topic is being discussed in. You're entitled to hold whatever opinions, views, and beliefs you like. Hell, I'll go to war to defend your right to hold them. You're also free to express those views. I'll crawl under rifle fire to defend that freedom too--happily (they give me pretty medals for it). Regardless of your opinions, however, those damn right triangles all continue to have that pesky 90 degree angle. Where we tend to get annoyed is when people like you insist on telling America's children that the 90 degree angles don't exist, when you're standing right in front of them. You're lying to children and it makes us angry. That's where the angst comes from.
The lack of respect is driven by the fact that you deserve none.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | August 23, 2009 7:13 PM
Dear Brother Trinity,
Don't worry, you are not alone, I support you wholeheartedly on this one. It is a great tragedy that God's marvelous plan to have some races subservient to others has been disregarded. How will we ever get back to a properly subservient relationship with our Lord if we don't have lesser humans to wait on our needs? Thank God for Ken Ham's unique understanding of the Scriptures. With Ken on God's side the future of Christianity is in great hands!
Yours
Smoggy Batzrubble
PS My own son saw me naked in the shower the other day and has now been banished to live in the woodshed. Would you like to buy him?
Posted by: Owlmirror | August 23, 2009 7:50 PM
You're absolutely correct. Really, you are 100% right.
The problem is, up until after the American Civil War, pro-slavery Christians were all idiots. Every single one of them.
The Curse of Ham in the Early Modern Era
I agree that racist, pro-slavery Christians engaged in obfuscation and double speak (lying), and that their analysis of the verses was disingenuous, ignorant, and dishonest. But there you go: Christians, driven by greed, lie to themselves and others for the sake of money money money.
Just like Ken Ham does.
Posted by: Trinity | August 23, 2009 9:10 PM
Lets see here… we have posts from John Morales, Nerd of Redhead, OM, Janine, Omnivore, Ichthyic, Nerd of Redhead, OM (who contributed nothing in his first response to my post and does the same thing in his second post for some reason), JefFlyingV (who does nothing but ask irrelevant questions to the topic at hand), Ichthyic (responds again but provides no cogent explanation for PZ’s lie), Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus, and Owlmirror.
All of your posts only affirm the bankruptcy of your hero’s character here. You’ll attack me, Christianity, the abuse of God’s word, et. al., however, what NONE of you did was provide some form of cogent response for PZ’s lie. He stated that the display at the Creation Museum outlining the dispersion of people groups after the Tower of Babel is a form of promotion for the Hamite Theory. This is a lie… told by a liar!
Folks, you can call the Bible fable, the stories contained therein fantasy, complain about its subsequent abuses, and try to belittle those who would dare to question PZ… but that does not change the fact at hand here. I knew that by posting on this on this board here I would get these types of responses… no problem, however, what I did not expect was the complete and total disregard for PZ’s journalistic integrity at the expense of the truth. The man lied about this display and no one here seems to think that is a problem.
This only displays how profoundly empty is your own ability to think critically about this issue.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 23, 2009 9:15 PM
Liar, your posts confirm the bankruptcy of the godbot position, since you showed absolutely no evidence for your imaginary deity and fictional babble. Failure by you, and by proxy, the creationist community. FAILURE. Evidence, it is not on your side.Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | August 23, 2009 9:24 PM
Dear Brother Trinity,
Jesus Christ is my hero! I take great offense at your assertion that he is of bankrupt character.
I call you out, Brother Trinity. You are no true Christian!
And I'm telling on you next time I pray you Heretic!
Smoggy4Jesus
Posted by: Feynmaniac | August 23, 2009 9:36 PM
Trinity,
Look at the picture from the Creation "Museum" here:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/upload/2009/08/hamite.php
It clearly shows "Descendants of Ham" going into Africa. Perhaps PZ was a bit wrong in saying they were "promoting the Hamite theory of racial origins". However, the picture quite clearly shows that the "museum" is implying that Africans came from Ham. This despite the fact that there is no genetic, archaeological or even biblical reason to believe this is the case. Even if Ken Ham doesn't buy into the "Curse of Ham" (too many Hams!) he should take down the display due to lack of evidence1 and ugly history of the idea.
___________
1. Yeah if he took down everything in the museum that lacked evidence it'd be an empty warehouse, but one thing at time.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
August 23, 2009 9:46 PM
Listen up, asshole, your hero Ken Ham has a poster showing the Sons of Ham going to Africa. Not that long ago, other Christians were using the Curse of Ham to justify the enslavement of Africans. It's not a stretch, even for an ignorant asshole like yourself to figure out that Kenny was promoting that Black Africans were descendants of Noah's son Ham. You know, the one who either stared at his father's nakedness or raped his father (depending on which interpretation you prefer).
As an aside, I've never understood if Ham did the naughty, why his son was cursed. But then the Bible never did go in for logic. Bronze age fables about an insane god are not likely to be rational.
Posted by: Trinity | August 23, 2009 10:01 PM
Tishimself wrote:
"Listen up, asshole,"
That didn’t take long… too funny.
He goes on to write:
your hero Ken Ham has a poster showing the Sons of Ham going to Africa. Not that long ago, other Christians were using the Curse of Ham to justify the enslavement of Africans. It's not a stretch, even for an ignorant asshole like yourself to figure out that Kenny was promoting that Black Africans were descendants of Noah's son Ham.
Which is all well and good… however, this still does not explain why PZ insists that the Museum’s display promotes the Hamite Theory. There is no correlation… unless of course, you are willing to provide all of us… assholes… some form of coherent, citable explanation other than ‘its jus wut ya think.’
Posted by: aratina cage | August 23, 2009 10:05 PM
Trinity, please do tell us why Ham's descendants are depicted as migrating to Africa in Ken Ham's illustration of the Dispersion of Babel. Give us the real reason—if you can.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | August 23, 2009 10:08 PM
Dear Brother Trinity,
Just quietly, don't go down the "coherent, citable explanation" route because it puts all of us Christians in the poopoo. The atheists keep asking for citable explanations for Young Earth Creationism and the proof of existence of God etc., and so far none of us Christians have been able to deliver.
Please be careful—let's concede that it's pretty clear that a map sending the descendants of Ham down to Africa is uncomfortably close to the arguments used to justify slavery, and then we won't be buttfucked over some of the things we can't prove.
Yours in Christian obfuscation,
Smoggy
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 23, 2009 10:13 PM
Trinity still has shown no evidence to show himself right. I wonder why?...
Posted by: Rorschach | August 23, 2009 10:19 PM
trinity,
please tell me how the display at the CM does not place the descendents of Ham in sub-saharan Africa( you know,that big arrow thing right in the middle, where it says "descendents of Ham"),while placing the other descendents in Arabia and Europe, and how this then isnt exactly what the Hamitic theory says ?
Moron.
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 23, 2009 10:23 PM
Trnity, I'm getting the feeling you are angry about something. What is the problem?
Posted by: Trinity | August 23, 2009 10:31 PM
Feynmaniac wrote:
Perhaps PZ was a bit wrong in saying they were "promoting the Hamite theory of racial origins". However, the picture quite clearly shows that the "museum" is implying that Africans came from Ham. This despite the fact that there is no genetic, archaeological or even biblical reason to believe this is the case. Even if Ken Ham doesn't buy into the "Curse of Ham" (too many Hams!) he should take down the display due to lack of evidence1 and ugly history of the idea.
First: PZ was not only wrong in promoting the Hamite Theory… he was intentionally lying about what this displayed represented. His statements make Ham out to be a bigot…
Second: Whether or not you feel there is no evidence supporting this dispersion theory is irrelevant to the fact that PZ is lying about its implications. If AiG and the Museum want to keep it up because they feel it represents an accurate description of what occurred after the Tower of Babel… that is their business. However, the last reason they should take it down is because a few confused souls (like PZ) can’t seem to get their Biblical exegesis correct.
Third: FYI - It was Canaan, not Ham who was cursed by Noah.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | August 23, 2009 10:38 PM
Dear Brother Trinity,
I am impressed at your certainty that PZ "was intentionally lying". I assume that's equivalent to your certainty that God exists, that you have Jesus in your heart, and the earth is less than 10,000 years old. One can't argue with an accumulation of certainty.
Praise the Lord for Faith!
Smoggy
Posted by: Feynmaniac | August 23, 2009 11:01 PM
Trinity,
Maybe he was wrong, but that doesn't mean he was lying. If you have evidence that he was intentionally lying please present it.
It's perfectly within their rights to do so. It's also completely within my rights to say that it's wrong and should be taken down or changed.
How about the fact that this museum is located in the South where the Hamitic "theory" has done much damage? You don't think many of the visitors may walk away with the impression that the museum is endorsing the idea.
Yes, I know. However the idea is popularly known as the "Curse of Ham" .
Posted by: aratina cage | August 23, 2009 11:06 PM
Trinity, your response (#417) is a cop out. There is a singular reason that Ham's descendants would be shown as populating Africa, and that reason is the racist Hamite theory, isn't that right?
There is no other known reason for such a depiction (unless you are willing to offer one up, which you so far have not done), and the Hamite theory is known well enough that any non-White-supremacist Biblical scholar ought to have avoided alluding to it so directly as Ken Ham did in his fantasyland. You cannot escape the fact that the Dispersion of Babel as depicted by Ken Ham promotes the racist Hamite theory of racial origins whether it was knowingly or unknowingly done by Ken Ham in the first place.
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 23, 2009 11:14 PM
Next I suppose the very important topic is asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Genesis is mythology, is getting the exact details right really anything to argue over? It's still an untrue fable, with no evidence for and a load of evidence against. Genetically scientists have been able to work out the migration of humans throughout the planets and the relationships between us. There was a single migration out of Africa where the natives of Europe, Asia, the Americas and Australia all descended from - and this took place between 70,000 and 100,000 years ago. Stories like the Tower of Babel are fables constructed in the absence of genetic and archaeological evidence.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 23, 2009 11:29 PM
That's all religious stories ever are - made-up explanations for things that the people at the time had no scientific understanding of. It's acutally a good illustration of the power of storytelling - but that doesn't change the fact it's all fiction.
Most Christians accept this, but refuse to go that one step further and admit that the same is true about Jesus. A bunch of people realised that peace and kindness is better than hostility; however, they didn't have any explanation for why this was so and they had to credit it to a god - if they'd just told people that it's 'good to be good to each other because it...just is', they'd have been ignored.
That we have enough trouble convincing Christians that it's okay to be good without their God in this day and age is evidence of that.
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 23, 2009 11:50 PM
Recently I sat down with my father to watch the wonderful British series: The Incredible Human Journey. During each episode the host was talking about all the different kinds of evidence while I was shouting at the TV - "get to the DNA!"
It's not that the other evidences are unimportant, but there's nothing so precise as the genetic code. Some Chinese scientist analysing homo erectus bones for morphological similarities just doesn't compare to the DNA showing that all Chinese share that same ancestry exodus from Africa. Just as showing the different kinds of tools in North America might indicate two different migrations, but the DNA evidence confirms it.
Of course, it would make the series far less interesting if it was just explaining what the genetics say, would take it from 5 episodes to 5 minutes. :P
Posted by: hollygolightly | August 28, 2009 5:36 PM
This sounds like a cheap knock off of the biblical theme park in Orlando. Sure it doesn't disguise itself with words like museum, but the Holy Land experience has Jesus, complete with crucifixion ... which I am sure is wonderful for all the children *sigh*.
Posted by: Ross | September 5, 2009 5:26 PM
I find it interesting that the world of evolution is possibly more religious than that of the Christian worldview and you completely dismiss it. The argument about how old bones are is one of the best examples that there is about this. You blindly accept that man came up with for carbon dating and accept it just as we Christians "blindly" accept Jesus as our Christ and Creator. There is no possible proof that carbon dating is right or wrong other than you accept it for what they say it is. Stop pretending that there is proof of anything!! Realize that we are both living by faith it is just a matter of what we have faith in.
Posted by: amphiox | September 5, 2009 5:31 PM
Ross, it is obvious you do not understand the concept of "proof".
Neither do you understand the concept of carbon dating, but that was obvious from the start.
The most puzzling thing of all, though, is that you apparently don't understand the concept of "faith" either.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | September 5, 2009 5:32 PM
except, you know, all the stuff dated with Dendrochronology, varves, ice-cores, Thermoluminescence, etc., which somehow, magically falls into the same time-frame as C14 dating, thus conclusively proving that C14 is accurate.
don't talk about things you don't understand, creobot.
Posted by: amphiox | September 5, 2009 5:38 PM
Whereas, on the other hand, Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 say DIFFERENT things about the same events.
Posted by: Stanton | September 5, 2009 5:49 PM
So, tell us, Ross, do you not believe in radioactivity, or think that antibiotic resistant bacteria and new strains of infectious viruses are "evolutionist" faerie tales?Posted by: Dania
|
September 5, 2009 5:56 PM
I find it interesting that you felt the need to come here and show everyone how ignorant you are about evolution, radiometric dating and science in general.
Posted by: Ross | September 6, 2009 1:23 PM
To answer a couple of your comments yes I to believe in micro evolution not macro evoltion which there is no ligit evidence of. I do believe in radioactivity just not the way in which you interpret the data. Your personal belief system determins how you interpret the data. To the person who called me ignorant I do have enough of a science background that I have a general understanding of these things and have my opinion of them but I would like you to do one thing. Think about all the things your science can't explain by true scientific proof or evaluation and consider those things that you accept without proof as being your beilf system that is different than mine.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | September 6, 2009 1:28 PM
Think about all the things your science can't explain by true scientific proof or evaluation and consider those things that you accept without proof as being your beilf system that is different than mine.
blah blah blah blah blah
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | September 6, 2009 1:38 PM
Because you refuse to see the obvious "ligit evidence of" since it would undermind your dogmatic beliefs.
How? Data can only be interpreted as one thing- as data and nothing more. There is no inherited quality that allows it to be interpreted as otherwise.
If you consider using a dogmatic religion with the conclusion already set as proven as science, then I must conclude you have a weak (if not nonexistence) background in science. But since you want to play the "appeal to authority" game, I must warn you that you will be chewed out by much better scientist then I am. (and actually, as an anthropologist, we have made scientific studies that explains your lousy "truths".)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 6, 2009 1:38 PM
The data is consistent across the board. You are saying you are a delusional fool.No, your background isn't that good. Some of us with PhD's in science, and we laugh at your vain attempt at authority. Your opinion is that of layman, and irrelevant to science and scientists. Oh, and if you wish us to believe you, cite some real evidence, and not just whine like toddler not getting its way.Posted by: Dania
|
September 6, 2009 2:41 PM
Except that there is, and it's overwhelming.
Which data? How do you "interpret" it? Care to be more specific?
You may be surprised to hear, but science is not a belief system.
But you're not going to share your "opinion" with us, right? Is it because you already know that you have no evidence to back it up?
Wait... "true scientific proof"? What does that even mean? And you were saying you had a good science background...
Well, I'm going to assume you meant "evidence" instead of "proof". That would make more sense given that we are talking about science and not logic or mathematics.
You were asking me to consider the things I accept without evidence, right? I can't think of any, really. Why would I accept something for which there is no evidence? Doesn't seem very reasonable, does it?
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | September 6, 2009 3:01 PM
To the person who called me ignorant I do have enough of a science background that I have a general understanding of these things and have my opinion of them but I would like you to do one thing. Think about all the things your science can't explain by true scientific proof or evaluation and consider those things that you accept without proof as being your beilf system that is different than mine.
I like my word salad with ranch dressing.
Did you ever stop to think that perhaps these unnamed events that you propose can be better understood once we learn more about these hypothetical phenomenon.
There are believe systems that does not depend on appealing to a higher non corporeal power.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | September 6, 2009 3:06 PM
I notice you completely dodged my mention of alternative dating methods, all of which corroborate Radiocarbon dates.
So you say you have a good scientific background, but then talk about "true scientific proof", which doesn't exist, and everybody with even a basic understanding of how science works knows doesn't exist.
ergo, you're either just plain lying, or you're simply too ignorant to know just how ignorant you are.
Posted by: john@hotmail.com | September 12, 2009 10:19 AM
http://lost-forum.com/member.php?u=134865
Posted by: ScottNelson
|
October 1, 2009 10:27 PM
The evidence for evolution is
persuasive not coercive
Posted by: Tim Jacobs | October 23, 2009 1:02 AM
You present yourself as an unbelievably bitter, intolerant, narrow-minded, judgmental, and childish person in your post. Of course you have a rabid bunch of "we are all accidents" followers - your rhetoric draws them all out.
Clearly Ken Ham has gotten under your skin. If his museum is so sophomoric as you believe it is, why does it pry so much vitriol out of you? How could contempt evolve in a human being to the level it apparently has in you?
It's an easy target to go to this museum and mock it. It gives you an tangible image in which to fixate all of the pent up anger you have against those who actually believe that there is a God who wrote a book that, yes, just may transcend your vast intellect.
Live and let live, man. Who are you to shove your beliefs down other people's throats?
Peace.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
October 23, 2009 1:12 AM
Bitter? Bitter?!? Oh noes! He is deep, not bitter. Get it right, Tim.
Those people are delusional. Your brains are on the floor Tim. Shall we get a mop?
If you hadn't opened your mouth so wide (or at all), it wouldn't have been so easy to shove our beliefs down your throat.Posted by: Tim Jacobs | October 23, 2009 7:20 PM
Aratina Cage - Is it not possible to be both deep and bitter? Why would the two be mutually exclusive? Could you honestly perceive depth from that post? By the way, what is "deep" about the link you provided?
What beliefs have you so easily shoved down my throat? And how does your worldview allow for a determination of objective truth in the first place?
Thanks for the dialogue.
P.S. - Can you offer any real answers to the questions I posed to the professor? They weren't rhetorical. They were based an observation of his post and a sincere desire to understand.
Posted by: Owlmirror | October 23, 2009 7:39 PM
It's not just sophomoric. It's false.
Is a lie not worth refuting with passion?
The same way that being contemptable has evolved in Ken Ham and other delusional creationists.
If a God that transcends human intellect wrote a book, why does it contradict itself and reality?
You don't have to believe in truth. You're allowed believe in lies.
But those who do believe in truth are allowed to call lies for what they are. Who are you to deny anyone that right?
Posted by: aratina cage
|
October 23, 2009 7:48 PM
I should have linked directly to this comment on that thread: Comment #21. I found it hilarious how you called him "bitter" only hours after he disassociated himself from that term.
I dunno. You were whining about something, weren't you? I thought I'd just help you whine some more.
It really isn't an absolute truth we are getting at, and theists often don't understand that. It is a harmonization of our knowledge with reality to whatever degree is possible or desired. Gods (and your god) are not necessary for the reality we are part of. This worldview does not allow me to determine that. Rather, this worldview is a conclusion based on scientific knowledge. As for Ken Ham's nonsense, nothing in the Creation "Museum" has any evidence for it; the whole thing is based on fictional stories.Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 23, 2009 7:51 PM
Easy, we have scientific evidence, and you only have a fictional book written 2000 years ago without any scientific evidence to back it up. You can't even demonstrate physical evidence for your imaginary deity.Your contempt questions are irrelevant, and are only due to Ham claiming to be scientific, which is a total falsehood (I'm a 30+ year professional scientist, and recognize the lie), when he is only religious in thought. We only want science, as defined by science, to be taught in science class. If creationism is truly a science, you should be able to cite the peer reviewed primary scientific literature, with names like Science and Nature to back up your claims. The fact that neither you nor Ham can do so shows your religious thought.Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
October 23, 2009 7:51 PM
You're calling PZ judgmental? Timmy, you're about as judgmental as a fundamentalist creotard. Oh wait, you are a fundamentalist creotard.
Whereas you're the type who rejects reality because your religious masters have told you The Big Guy In The Sky hates people who think for themselves.
Willful ignorance does that to some people. Ken Ham is willfully ignorant and wants the rest of the world to be the same. There are folks who really dislike ignoramuses like Ham.
See, Timmy, even you admit that Ham's museum is easily mockable. That's because Ham and his peons are not only ignorant, but they're stupidly ignorant.
Your god is a is a really nasty, petulant bully with the emotional maturity of a spoiled six year old. He may transcend the intellect of stupidly ignorant people like you, but some of us were paying attention in third grade and actually learned something about the real world.
You're whining because a biologist objects to people like Ham promoting a 2500 year old creation myth over reality? Who are you to shove your idiocy down other peoples' throats?
Reality.
Posted by: Tim Jacobs | October 23, 2009 8:40 PM
Well, back to the point. The fact that you guys believe something different than I do doesn't make me mad. I don't understand why the reverse isn't true. The professor's mockery was staggering for someone who is supposed to be so objective (how did those emotions evolve anyway?).
I have raised a number of questions, to which everyone so far has responded to with condescension and name calling. Again, strange for people who put so much faith in objectivity.
The fact is, you can criticize my belief in God. But you believe that the equivalent is nothing. I can't say things like "petulant" and "spoiled" when I'm referring to nothing.
We all have access to the same evidence - and we're all entitled to form our own conclusions and see how those conclusions work themselves out in the marketplace of ideas.
But it doesn't seem that you agree. It seems you do everything to stifle debate. Your way of dealing with opposition is yell louder.
We will find out in the end, however. Nothing can stop that. if you're right, I lose nothing. If I'm right. well, that's a different story.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 23, 2009 8:53 PM
We are objective, but we hate liars and bullshitters. Ken Ham is a liar and bullshitter. He claims creationism is scientific, which is a falsehood the size of Alaska, Texas, and Montana combined. Telling deliberate lies to your colleagues is the worst "crime" a scientist can commit. And Ham deliberately lies.Science versus non-science, better called religion. Science is only refuted by more science. Science cannot refute religion, but it makes religion look silly if religion does not agree with science. That is the problem of religion, not science.Another deliberate falsehood. To call creationist ideas scientific or that they refute science is a bald faced lie. So you, like Ham, deliberately lie.We will listen to any scientific evidence (but not religious evidence) that you present. To date, you have presented nothing, so we presume you have nothing. There cannot be a debate between science and religion. The speak different languages.No, we already know. Your deity exists only between your ears, the babble is a work of fiction, and religious people bear false witness left and right. That's the facts.Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
October 23, 2009 8:54 PM
Shorter Tim:
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
October 23, 2009 9:03 PM
You can believe anything your little heart desires. Big JuJu took a massive dump and created the world? Go for it. A man and woman ate some fruit so thousands of years later another man had to be tortured to death so you can play a harp after you die? Have a nice time. I do draw the line at Huitzilopochtli being offered human hearts so the Sun can rise tomorrow, but my objection is to the practical aspects of that belief.
You can even believe the universe was created in six days some six thousand years ago. What gets folks like us angry is when Ham and his sycophants insist this nonsense be taught in public schools instead of science.
No, Timmy, you didn't ask questions. You started out saying that PZ Myers was "an unbelievably bitter, intolerant, narrow-minded, judgmental, and childish person." In the next sentence you described us as "a rabid bunch of "we are all accidents" followers." You weren't asking questions, you were insulting both Myers and the regulars at this blog. So don't whine when we insult you back.
Posted by: Owlmirror | October 23, 2009 9:12 PM
What does it make you feel, then? Why are you even bothering to comment here?
If those who believed like you were not trying to affect public education and public policy, the reverse might indeed be true.
I mean, there's a guy who believes that time is cubic. He's crazy, but since he's a singular nut, he doesn't make people mad.
But if he had a following that was trying to change national school curricula, well, scientists and mathematicians might well be annoyed.
And condescension is definitely deserved; your comments, so far, have been terribly insipid. Name calling, maybe not so much. But are you capable of actually ignoring the names and posting something of substance?
It's an objective fact that most here find insipidity annoying.
False. The universe works the way that it does; it is obviously not "nothing".
Correct. That's because a universe that is simply working the way that it does, without intelligence or awareness, cannot have any emotions. So what is your point?
And are you actually studying the evidence, or just accepting what other creationists tell you about it?
On the contrary. As I said, you're allowed to believe lies, dogma, and insane propositions like "time is cubic" or "the bible is correct and the universe was created 6000 years ago and there was a world-covering flood ~4400 years ago".
We're allowed to point out that what you believe is lies, dogma, and insane. That, too, is part of the marketplace of ideas.
Sorry, but the only "debate" on the side of creationists is lies and dogma. Science actually has evidence.
Which side is just yelling louder?
Aw, Pascal's Wager. How very insipid.
Posted by: WowbaggerOM
|
October 23, 2009 9:13 PM
The fact that you and your credulous co-religionists believe in something for which there is no evidence or compelling argument for, and substantial evidence and numerous compelling arguments against doesn't make us mad - it simply makes us think you are delusional fools.
That you, and people like Ken Ham, blatantly lie about science and reality, on the other hand, makes us very mad - as it should any honest person. Then again, you're a Christian who probably only associates with other Christians, and - as far as I can tell - in order to remain a Christian you have to constantly lie to yourself; so, perhaps you don't have as big a problem with lying as an atheist would.
You asked inane questions; you were treated accordingly.
If you can't grasp the concept that not believing in your god ≠ nihilism then you're either ignorant, and idiot, or both. Ever heard of humanism? Many atheists subscribe to that philosophy. How is that 'nothing?
Nope. The truth isn't subject to popularity contests. The evidence is indisputable: the earth is billions of years old, not 6,000. Humans evolved from other lifeforms; they were not created by a magic fairy sprinkling pixie dust over clay. You can choose to pretend that isn't the case, but you can't claim you do so from a position of intellectual honesty. Lying for Jesus™ is still lying.
Feel free to submit any scientific paper to the appropriate journal. If it has merit it will be published. Nobel prizes, worldwide acclaim and the satisfaction of being found correct await any creationist who can support their findings with science.
Why haven't any of them done so?
Except you've already lost. You'll have spent at least some - if not all - of your life living a pathetic, delusional lie because you were too afraid to apply critical thinking to something you believed for emotional reasons. You'll have hindered the progress of human society by opposing medical research, scientific research, social development and equality.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
October 23, 2009 9:22 PM
I missed Pascal's Wager in Timmy's balderdash. Like we haven't been told that bit of sophistry at least a bazillion times.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
October 23, 2009 9:25 PM
Aw, Pascal's Wager. How very insipid.
Don't forget the wank regarding "nasty people" suffering eternal torture. Noooo need to get pissed when you can get off on the fantasy of others suffering for all eternity.
Posted by: llewelly | October 23, 2009 9:51 PM
Tim Jacobs:
You lose the opportunity to understand how understanding evolution informs the use and development of antibiotics and pesticides.
You lose the sense of wonder and grandeur that comes from understanding the stupendous age of the universe.
You lose the opportunity to understand how the record of ancient climates, derived from the study of ice cores, sediment cores, tree rings, and many other proxies helps understand how our climate will change in the future - and what we need to do about it.
You lose the feeling of amazement that comes when one begins to see the remarkable complexity of the interrelationships between the many lifeforms that populate our planet.
You lose the opportunity to understand why and how science has saved billions of human lives.
You lose the opportunity to understand how humans first learned to cook food, to domesticate other animals, to grow crops, to brew beer and vint wine, and to perform the numerous other tasks which make humans unusual.
To accept Ken Ham's nonsense is to deprive yourself of the very knowledge and understanding which enables nearly 7 billion humans to live on this earth (at least temporarily...) and enables many of us to live relatively long, happy, and healthy lives. It is to deprive yourself of a vast library of human understanding that can amaze, enlighten, inform, inspire, and humble us all.
Posted by: Tim Jacobs | October 23, 2009 11:59 PM
I appreciate all of your comments. I had a feeling I'd be sticking my hand into the proverbial hornets nest. :)
Yes, I did begin this whole thing with my observations of the professor's critique of the Creation Museum. That's a fair point. I tried to be measured, however, by saying that this is how his post presented him. He might be the most reasonable guy in the world, but that's not how it came across.
Rather, his article was in poor form - it was juvenile. Seriously, I was quite frankly surprised that it was written by a university professor. He so clearly had an ax to grind, which is what "my side" always gets accused of. My desire was to point that out, which I did.
Incidentally, I do have a sense of wonder and amazement at all I see. I just have a person, namely God, to thank for it all. You don't. I don't know how one directs gratitude toward an object. That seems odd to me.
Also, please acknowledge that this really is about one religion vs. another. I look to God and the Bible for meaning, you look to evolution and its implications for meaning. We both believe that we are right, respectively.
As much as this will draw out your ire even more, I will have to cut off my posts here. I have a wife, children, and a job and they all need my attention. Even though you all seem to be quite an angry bunch of collections of cells, you are sincere, and you have taken my comments (at least somewhat) seriously, or at least seriously enough to fire back at me. :)
- Tim (or Timmy, to the guy who thought that was clever)
Posted by: aratina cage
|
October 24, 2009 12:20 AM
Atheism is not a religion. And your comparison of how you derive your meaning to how we do is not true. We don't look to evolution for meaning; we look to it in part as an explanation of how life can be so interconnected and diverse.
Atheists don't direct gratitude for the wonderment of life towards objects, but you direct gratitude towards a fictional character in a book all the time and it seems odd to you? Look, that seems odd to me, too, but I'm not the one doing it — you are. It is like thanking Harry Potter for the wonder and amazement at the world, completely unnecessary and a little warped. You Christians are so funny when you try to put down atheists. All we have to do is hold up a mirror and laugh.
At least you have some understanding of biology.
Your side is a bunch of bullies, bigots, and scammers. Do you really think we care when you realize that you are being called out on your lies? Well, we don't. Go spew your nonsense in your own church instead of dumping it in our home.Posted by: Owlmirror | October 24, 2009 12:33 AM
And yet, you never addressed anything specific. Can you, I don't know, pick something and address it, rather than whining incessantly?
We're grateful to people who are real. Being grateful to imaginary friends is what's odd.
Oh, hell no. This is about sanity and the scientific method versus delusion and the rejection of science.
Wrong again. There are theists who accept evolution and science.
It isn't about "looking to" evolution. It's about looking to the scientific method and its implications. Evolution is simply a conclusion of the scientific method.
Yes, but I know why I'm right and you're wrong. Do you know why you reject the scientific method? Do you care at all about what is or is not real?
Believe me, if you're going to be as insipid as you have been, you might as well not have commented in the first place.
So do lots of people here.
Probably more than your insipidity was worth, but hey, got to keep in practice.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
October 24, 2009 1:07 PM
Wow, are you a genuine wage earner with a family and a dog and a cat and a weed whacker and everything? I thought those people were only in movies and on the T&V.
You're not only insipid and insulting, you're patronizing as well. Do you honestly think you're the only one posting here who has "a wife, children, and a job"?
That was me, Timmy. I didn't think it was clever, I was trying to patronize you back.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
October 24, 2009 1:20 PM
Why do the chew toys always toss out "you must be so angry"? Is Tim able to do diagnoses from blog comments like Frist was over edited videotape?
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
October 24, 2009 1:21 PM
Wow. I think Timmy wins a Patronizing Asshole Creationist of the Week award for that effort.
I have a wife and 3 kids, too -- they're pretty independent, though, so it's not as if they demand my attention all the time. I'm sorry to hear that Timmy is nursemaid to a household of invalids.
I also have a job. One that consumes much more time than the standard 40-hour work week.
And, I know Timmy can't possibly match this, I have two cats. Not only that, they're unremittingly evil cats. They're very demanding.
As for his complaints about this post: my post wasn't strong enough in condemning the lies and sleaze of the Creation "Museum", so it just makes me laugh to see a scumbag creationist complain that my tone is too bitter.
Posted by: Jeff | October 26, 2009 9:16 PM
"Irreverence is our answer". Ah yes, because that is so much easier than thinking. Riddle me this evolutionist; How and where did everything begin? Evolutionists can never get to the beginning. At least creationists start there ("In the beginning, God"), whether you believe it or not.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 26, 2009 9:24 PM
Not with your imaginary deity, until you explain his/her/its beginnings.Right, evolution does not start at the beginning. We acknowledge that. The beginning is called abiogenesis, and it is being worked on. Unlike you creationist, who simply wank your brain.And there is your fallacy by your logic. Something was created (god), ergo it must have a creator. Who also needed a creator. Massive recursive stupidity...Posted by: Owlmirror | October 26, 2009 9:43 PM
By "everything", do you mean just our universe, or our universe and whatever hyperdimensional superstructure that our universe may be part of?
If the former, well, we're working on the problem, and you are not. If the latter -- why does "everything" need to have begun?
Neither can you. Everyone is in exactly the same boat. Creationists just don't realize it.
What makes you think you're right?
And if there were no God and no beginning (in the secondary sense), you would be wrong twice over -- whether you believe it or not.
Posted by: Robert Foster Lee | October 31, 2009 12:43 PM
Hi. I read the article rather fast, so may have missed alot. But..., I was at the British Museum about 10 years ago, and even then encountered defensiveness from the "guards" regarding my questioning of British ownership of the Elgin Marbles. That at one of the world's premier museums. So it should surprise no one that one small organization, built predominantly around the efforts of one man and the funding that organization can raise, and directed against the overwhelmingly secular educational and cultural establishment in America, gets many things wrong. Perhaps if we were more fair-minded, we would acknowledge a built-in worldview bias in American education from the earliest age through the university level, despite claims to objectivity. Though fundamentalism may seem an easy target, the real issue is the conflict of visions that goes clear back to Plato and Aristotle, patrons of "the one and the many" dicotomy. Aristotle said, what you see is what you get, echoed today in Sagan's The cosmos is all there is. Plato, anticipating the message of the church and of thiests of all times and places, said otherwise. It really seems to me to be disingenuous, and indeed bigoted, to ridicule the opposing view as faith-dependent, which within the church is, after all, the point of it, and yet deny that there are aspects of the scientific world view which end up affirming the assumptions it begins with. The fact that one small embattled institution over-reaches in its claims is less egregious than using this example to convince one's readers/followers that there neither is nor could be anything beyond this present reality. The church does not point beyond this life to avoid the world and its problems, including those best solved scientifically or politically, but rather because no amount of scientific optimism regarding human advancement can ultimately answer life's deepest questions. This reality is frankly acknowledged in Richard Tarnas's book, The Passion of the Western Mind.
Posted by: JDC | November 3, 2009 9:47 AM
I just visited the Creation Museum for the first time. I was pleasantly surprised by how well-done it was. The exhibits were detailed, interactive and included many special effects. My experience was nothing like this author's. The guards did not wear uniforms with tazers and dogs. They just had safari vests and hats. They did have a specific viewpoint they were trying to communicate, but obviously that's their purpose, and whether or not I agree with it, I admit that they did a good job communicating it. Before accusing people of being closed-minded and intolerant, maybe you should do a self-check.
Posted by: JDC | November 3, 2009 9:49 AM
I just visited the Creation Museum for the first time. I was pleasantly surprised by how well-done it was. The exhibits were detailed, interactive and included many special effects. My experience was nothing like this author's. The guards did not wear uniforms with tazers and dogs. They just had safari vests and hats. They did have a specific viewpoint they were trying to communicate, but obviously that's their purpose, and whether or not I agree with it, I admit that they did a good job communicating it. Before accusing people of being closed-minded and intolerant, maybe you should do a self-check.
Posted by: R Samson | November 4, 2009 6:58 PM
After doing a quick read, I simply just feel sorry for you and your though processes. If creationists (Bible believers) are wrong, then it is just for their lifetime. But if the evolutionists (non-Bible believers) are wrong, then they will be wrong for eternity. I'm not certain I'm willing that willing to take that chance.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 4, 2009 7:06 PM
Your big and erroneous presuppositions are that your imaginary god exists, and when you die, you don't stay dead. No solid evidence for either delusion. Which just makes you a delusional fool.Posted by: Owlmirror | November 4, 2009 7:11 PM
I feel sorry for you and your lack of thought processes.
Pascal's wager is insipid.
One of the many problems with Pascal's wager is that if the Bible is true, then God is evil and/or insane. You have no way of knowing what an evil and/or insane being will do to you after you die.
Maybe not eating pork is actually important. Or maybe not lighting a fire on Saturday is important. Or maybe you didn't really love your neighbors as yourself.
Maybe you're just as damned as any atheist, so all your investment in believing the bible and denying reality is for nothing.
Posted by: Caine
|
November 4, 2009 7:32 PM
R Samson @ 468:
Pascal's Wager. Bleargh. You all need to come up with something better. Much better.
Marcus Aurelius said: "Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid."
This bit is key: If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. As someone who has read the bible, more than once, and different translations, I'm familiar with your god. More familiar than I'd like to be. Even if your fantasy SkyDad turned out to exist, I certainly wouldn't fall to my knees wishing I had worshipped said psychopath. If it all turned out to be true, and I ended up in a horror of hells, so be it - I would be the one who stayed ethical all the way.
In the meantime, I'm not wasting my life pining away for the attentions of a psychopathic god; throwing it all away on a fucked up notion that this life is pointless and worthless, except as an entry exam to 'heaven'. No thanks.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | November 4, 2009 7:34 PM
I'm not certain I'm willing that willing to take that chance.
What if you have the wrong god? You're still taking the chance.
Or are you joining every religious group?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 4, 2009 7:47 PM
Keep in mind over 1000+ deities have been invented by man. Just like the one you believe in. Invented by man 2500 years ago.Posted by: Rachel | November 11, 2009 11:50 PM
I'd just like to point out that Ken Ham is very very against the "curse of Ham" He believes that Adam and Eve were medium toned skinned.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
November 11, 2009 11:52 PM
Sure he is Rachel. Sure. Let's see him remove that display then.
Posted by: melissa | November 18, 2009 3:40 PM
i will pray for you all
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 18, 2009 3:46 PM
Saying those words to antheists is the same as giving them the middle finger salute. So, following the golden rule, "fuck you, too".Posted by: Steve_C | November 18, 2009 3:46 PM
Kiss my ass melissa.
But keep praying, it'll keep you busy.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
November 18, 2009 3:50 PM
I will weep for you melissa #476. And fuck the whole lot of you followers of Ken Ham.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 18, 2009 3:53 PM
i will pray for you all
Oh yay!
The more time you spend praying and accomplishing nothing, the less time you have to interfere with the rest of the rational world.
So I say
KEEEEEEEEEEP ON PRAYIN'!
In the mean time I'll brush up on my hula hoop skills. We'll be accomplishing the same thing, basically nothing.
But I'll have mad hula hoops skills, and you'll just be talking to yourself.
But a
Posted by: B. Ballejo | November 19, 2009 9:19 AM
Disagreement is one thing, but bus loads of people showing up at an establishment who are there for the sole purpose of ridicule, and doing so with loud and boisterous abandonment is something that any museum including the wax museum would have a hard time swallowing. Your not bullshitting anyone. Everyone knows the score and the way the game is played. Mr Meyers you are far more intelligent to fain stupidity.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 19, 2009 9:43 AM
Oh, we have a stoopid one in B. Ballejo. The busloads of people paid their money, which the "museum" gladly accepted. If they were afraid the evolutionist would cause a problem, they could have stopped the "invasion" then. But they let them in to see their inane and unscietific exhibits. If they are scientific, why don't you cite the peer reviewed scientific literature to back up your point?
By the way Mr/Ms Balllllejo, the name is Myers, not Meyers.
Posted by: Britomart | November 19, 2009 11:14 AM
Darn, I wish I had seen this conversation was continuing back when it was warm enough for me to go on the full moon and dance naked under the oaks for all the people who want to pray for me. We had a lovely Indian summer there for a bit, but now its way too cold !
Is there a way besides being lucky to catch an old thread like this when it revives ? Particularly good ones, I have noticed some spam posters that cling to some older threads, I get enough of that in my email.
Thank you kindly
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
November 19, 2009 11:35 AM
And you are far too stupid to feign intelligence.
Nothing to see here... keep moving...
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 19, 2009 11:40 AM
Thank you for teaching me how to pronounce feign. I had been doing it wrong.
melissa, I'll think for both of us...
Posted by: GMattsen | November 19, 2009 5:52 PM
Great stuff! I saw something about the museum on TV. Of course the network had to be all PC and stuff. Thank you to Dr. Matsch Phd - Geology and Dr. Mauston Phd - Biology for showing me the light and delivering me from the evil of religion.
GMattsen
BS Biology Minor: Geology University of MN, Duluth
BAS Computer Networking Boise State University
Long live plate tectonics.
I'll give you a billion dollars if you find a bunny from the precambrian.
Posted by: Kelly | November 28, 2009 5:01 AM
I think it's sad that so many evolutionists take such a hateful approach to religion.
I am a Christian and well aware that there are many Christians who preach the teachings of Jesus and then turn around and act in a way that showcases only their ability to act about as un-Christlike as possible.
I am also aware that many Christians take a hateful approach to anything that questions the teachings of the Bible, as if they're afraid it will prove them wrong. I was one of those people for a long time.
I don't know science to any kind of professional level, but being a Christian does NOT make me an idiot incapable of any kind of intelligent thought. I have read arguments that are both pro-evolution and pro-creationism and can honestly say I don't completely understand all of the biological terms and the concepts of physics that scientists argue over as to whether evolution occurred or did not occur. I do know that most Christians, myself included, believe in microevolution--changes within a species--not macroevolution--one species evolving into another. You can rip apart my "stupidity" at the simplification of the concepts if you want, it is not my point. I'm open to learning about both concepts. If evolution could be proven without a shadow of a doubt, it would not lessen my faith in God. I do believe, however, that my God is powerful to create the universe as opposed to simply starting a process and allowing it evolve.
What it comes down to for me is that believing in God and having a relationship with Jesus goes much deeper than how the earth was created. I choose to believe Biblical accounts of how the earth was created because the existence of God is so clear to me in other ways. It's become apparent to me that humans are so inclined to rebel against God--I know that differs with a lot of people whose views are that humans search for a God to comfort themselves. It would be a lot easier not to have someone holding me accountable and not to have a moral code to live up to. I'm not saying I would go out and kill people, but little things like cheating on a test I had no time to study for or lying on my taxes--why not do those things if there is no higher power? And why find them wrong if you don't believe in one? If everything is about survival and enjoyment, things like that serve no purpose under that heading. And if humanity is inclined to or supposed to act in a decent way for these purposes, why is the earth in such a bad state? I believe what I believe for more reasons that simply what is in Genesis. The Bible, as a whole, makes sense out of life for me. It gives life a greater purpose than simply chasing pleasure for 70-80 years, then ceasing to exist. It teaches me a way to live that works for me. If you haven't found it to do the same for you, that's your decision. I don't think you're less intelligent than me, nor would I deny you your freedom to make that decision--I wouldn't insult you in any way for it, either. I believe that we are given freedom of choice for a reason, and I respect others' choices, in a way that most evolutionists/atheists/etc. do not respect mine.
It's also sad to me that many Christians don't welcome arguments against their beliefs; but, at the same time, evolutionists rarely are willing to discuss their beliefs with the intent to understand the other side, and more often question my intelligence, saying that I'm deluded or incapable/unwilling to understand real science. It's not fun to try to have an open discussion with someone who continually shakes their head at you and says that you're too "deluded" or "blinded" to understand. Honestly, I do want to know why you feel evolution, atheism, and everything else you believe is the right choice for you. I want to understand your reasoning. I don't want to insult your intelligence, tell you you're going to Hell, or perform an exorcism.
People are sinners and that's why the church and Christians in general have done so many stupid things over the years. Priests still do horrible things to children, and it's awful. But please understand that things like that aren't Christianity as it should be, it's sin that causes things like that to happen. Christians deserve Hell as much as anyone else--we believe it's the fact that we have a savior that allows us to go to heaven. Trust me, I see my nature as just as awful as anyone who isn't a Christian. Christians are not called to have a holier-than-thou attitude, but display the love of Christ. I will be the first to admit most struggle with that.
Ken Ham does not equal Christianity. I don't know how much of what is asserted in this blog is true or false, but I do know that it is unfortunate if you choose to base your perceptions of our religion on anyone but Jesus Christ, because the rest of us are sinners too.
I know this is long, but I guess my point is this: there are many Christians who want to have an open, respectful discussion about beliefs opposite of theirs and who are also capable of it. We're not all going to have a freak-out if you challenge the Bible. And hey, even if you don't want to talk to us about your beliefs, you could at least respect our choice to believe in what you do not, because that's what it is, it is our choice. I think you could agree that we have a right to choose as much as you do, and we also have a right to not be ridiculed for those beliefs as much as you do...I'm sorry if Christians ridicule you for yours. It isn't the right thing for them to do...Jesus wouldn't be cool with that and neither am I.
Thanks,
Kelly
Posted by: melissa | November 28, 2009 5:40 PM
the love of Jesus flows through me and i am not offended by any comments. i love you still and i will continue to pray.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 28, 2009 5:45 PM
Since Jebus is a myth, that means you have mental problems.You appear to be very dense. We said above, that telling an atheist you will pray (no evidence that prayer is effective) for them, is the equivalent of giving them a middle finger salute. So, using the golden rule of your imaginary savior, Fuck YOU.Posted by: Knockgoats | November 28, 2009 5:57 PM
I don't know science to any kind of professional level, but being a Christian does NOT make me an idiot incapable of any kind of intelligent thought. - Kelly
Well, yes, it does, Kelly, as you go on to prove with the rest of your ludicrous screed.
I don't want to insult your intelligence
Having my intelligence insulted by you, Kelly, would be like being called ugly by a naked mole rat.
tell you you're going to Hell
You then go straight on to tell us everyone deserves Hell, but you have a get-out-jail-free card (and we don't).
I think you could agree that we have a right to choose as much as you do, and we also have a right to not be ridiculed for those beliefs as much as you do
You have a right to believe whatever crap you want. Neither you, nor anyone has, has a right not to be ridiculed for their beliefs. If you don't want to be ridiculed, choose some less ridiculous beliefs, mkay?
Posted by: Kel, OM | November 28, 2009 6:15 PM
I think it's sad that creationists constantly lie and misrepresent evolution for an ideological agenda. It doesn't reflect well on the people who are claiming one needs God for morality are themselves lying through their teeth (or speaking with absolutely no knowledge on the subject as if being ignorant is a virtue), and it certainly doesn't reflect well that the challenge to evolution is not coming from science but from religion.Can you do the simple maths?
It's not scientists who are challenging evolution on data terms, it's not that there's any scientific evidence for designer in nature, it's a religious-driven ideology that is opposing an issue that is scientific in nature.
See the box in front of you? It's a device capable of making billions of calculations per second, and it's possible only because of the scientific method. The physics that underlies the computer is the same physics that shows the universe is 13.7 billion years old, and the same physics that powers the computer shows the earth to be around 4.6 billion years old.
The problem here is that science works, the tool is so powerful that it central to our lives. And evolution is one of many different scientific concepts that has stood under intense scrutiny and triumphed in explanation. And what's the objection to it? Religion.
This is not to say that all religious people object, or that one needs to reject it on the basis of religion. But it can't be denied that the opposition to evolution is religious in nature. So you might find it sad that evolutionists are so hostile to religion, but the fact of the matter is that it's the religious objection to the theory that pushes it as a public controversy. There is no scientific controversy over whether we evolved or not. The data is there, all data in many different fields all point to the fact that we evolved - just like every other creature on this planet. Macroevoltuion is just microevolution on a longer time line, to distinguish between one and the other is like saying that someone can walk to the shops but can't walk to the next town.
Quite simply, if you want there to be a cessation of hostility towards the religious, stop the religious objection to science. Otherwise you're going to see that there's bitterness towards those who reject evolution out of ignorance and those who lie about evolution to protect their religious beliefs.
Posted by: Steve_C | November 28, 2009 6:32 PM
Long winded christian creationist is sad.
Besides the whole "macroevolution" crap you got wrong.
You do NOT have the right to be free from ridicule. Sorry, you believe in nonense and step forward to defend the nonsense.
You will be ridiculed without mercy.
Evolution isn't a belief. It's a fact. If you want to look more ignorant, attack it with your pathetic understanding of science.
Posted by: WowbaggerOM
|
November 28, 2009 6:36 PM
I don't necessarily doubt that, but what being a Christian is guaranteed to do is make you incapable of intellectual honesty when it comes to processing the results of intelligent thought; i.e. you will choose to ignore everything that reality shows you if it doesn't line up with your Christian beliefs - e.g. the consistency issues with the bible; the lack of scientific evidence for god (and the plethora of scientific evidence for not-god); and the pure, unadulterated logical inconsistencies implicit in the existence of the specific god defined by Christian theology.
Basically, if you were capable of separating your intellect from your emotional attachment to your faith then you wouldn't be a Christian.
Posted by: Jason | November 28, 2009 6:44 PM
I'm sorry your so angry and hateful. Offended by things you don't even believe are real. May God decide to save your souls.
Posted by: Kel, OM | November 28, 2009 6:48 PM
If one wants to learn about theology, they don't go to a biologist. They go to a theologian. If one wants to learn about history, they don't go to a theologian. They go to a historian. If one wants to learn about physics, they don't go to a historian. They go to a physicist. etc...
So why would one who wants to learn about how evolution works go to anything other than a biologist? Why wouldn't they find where the scientific consensus lies and study up on what the proponents of evolution say about evolution?
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 28, 2009 6:52 PM
And yet no creationist has ever explained what it is that stops the process of "microevolution" from continuing until it becomes macroevolution.
Why do you and your fellows not understand that any process that continues on a micro level will eventually have an effect on the macro level?
Even the bible says that water wears away stone...
Good for you. So what's the problem?
Which means what, exactly?
Just to be clear -- you're referring to the existence of the God specifically described in the Bible? The one that flooded the world with a giant world-covering flood that left no empirical evidence of its having happened?
What exactly makes the existence of that God, as opposed to any other God-concept, so "clear" to you?
Obviously not because God is around dispensing ethics to everyone.
The reasoning exists, but can be somewhat involved. In simple terms, though, there is no reason to believe that a God is necessary to explain anything at all, and therefore can be rejected as an hypothesis. This can be expanded upon, of course.
And the bible must be rejected as a potential source of evidence, because there is nothing that demostrates that it was actually written by or inspired by an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good entity, and because it contradicts both reality and itself.
If you don't think that contradiction is important, I don't see how we can possibly discuss anything at all on the basis of reason.
Alas, that doesn't work too well either. The history of Christianity is as fragmented as it is precisely because everyone came to different conclusions -- sometimes completely opposite ones -- of who Jesus had been, what he had done, and what he wanted people to do.
Reading the bible doesn't help. What is an objective reader to make of the Jesus who tells people to hate their parents and families and their own lives?
Disrespect happens -- sometimes accidentally, sometimes indirectly, and sometimes very deliberately, and sometimes directly.
The Creation Museum indirectly ridicules those who think that the evidence of reality is true when it contradicts the bible.
I think if you read the bible carefully, you will see that Jesus does ridicule those who don't believe as he does, quite deliberately, and often very directly.
It's quite often possible for human beings to be better -- more ethical; more honest; more compassionate -- than Jesus. He really was not that great in his behavior.
Posted by: Kel, OM | November 28, 2009 6:52 PM
just why do I need my soul saved?Posted by: Knockgoats | November 28, 2009 6:55 PM
Jason@494,
I'm sorry you're so illiterate and self-righteous. I'm offended by invincible ignorance such as yours, not by the fictional characters in your silly fairy tales. Why do you worship an imaginary psychopathic megalomaniac, Jason?
Posted by: WowbaggerOM
|
November 28, 2009 6:55 PM
Jason, a moron, wrote:
Every honest person hates lies and the liars who tell them. Why shouldn't we hate liars and those who seek to prevent the evolution of a better society?
Your vile monster-god may not be real (something for which I'm profoundly grateful) but you fools who believe in him and his messages of hate and intolerance and lies and hypocrisy are real enough.
Of course I'm angry; woo-soaked morons like you are agitating and providing funding to support legislation to keep my gay friends from being treated like equals, my women friends from having the right to make choices regarding their bodies, and my sick friends from benefiting from the medical breakthroughs gained from stem cell research.
Demonstrate that this god you speak of exists, or that such a thing as the soul exists and I'll convert to your religion on the spot. No ifs, buts or maybes.
Posted by: Steve_C | November 28, 2009 6:56 PM
I'm not offended by the things that don't exist. It's the lack of thought that's offensive. But lots of things are offensive, sure you have a right to believe nonsense, millions of people do, and I get to ridicule it.
Your condescending "god will judge you" shit is really offensive.
If that god existed, it would be as big of a douche bag as you.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 28, 2009 7:01 PM
Jesus was offended by Pharisaic Judaism, which he didn't believe was real.
Who are you to tell God what to do?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
November 28, 2009 7:07 PM
Jason #494
No, you're not sorry. If you were sorry, you'd be telling your co-religionists to stop lying about science. Kel in post #491 explained why we're angry and you're patting us on the head and saying "it's too bad we keep telling lies but we're not going to stop." So take your "I'm sorry" and shove it up your rosy red rectum.
What the fuck does this mean? We don't believe Ken Ham and his lickspittles are lying about science, we know they are.
If you're saying we're offended by your god then you're wrong. Believe whatever you like. Just don't lie about those things you chose not to accept. If you feel that accepting evolution means you're annoying god (I've never understood how that works but you guys believe in all kinds of weirdness) then don't accept evolution. But stop lying about evolution in particular and science in general.
Yawn.
Posted by: Kel, OM | November 28, 2009 7:11 PM
Offended by what I don't believe is real? pfft, that sounds like projection. I take no offence to the idea of creation. Though it seems that you among others take offence to the idea of evolution, that it is offensive to think that we are related to apes and monkeys and every other piece of life on this planet. Yet I'm not offended by the idea of God, I think it wrong but it doesn't offend me.What does offend me is that people who believe in God lie and lie and lie about evolutionary science. They mislead the general public, they claim that one cannot believe in God and evolution, they claim that one of the many different myths from different cultures is the absolute truth despite the evidence not showing that. And to top it all off, these liars are the ones who claim that without God there's no morality. So it's okay to lie to protect the idea that lying is wrong? Got hypocrite?
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 28, 2009 7:13 PM
See, that's where it starts. Scientists have not argued about whether evolution occurs since the 1870s, when the last scientists who were creationists died.
First of all, you're wrong before you even reach the first comma – most Christians are Catholics, and Catholicism officially has no problem with the theory of evolution (...as long as they can claim there's a soul that was created by God).
Next, there's a reason why practically only creationists use the terms "micro-" and "macroevolution" anymore. That reason is that species don't really exist. They grade into each other without interruption. Are wolves, red wolves, and coyotes one, two, or three species? Depends on which definition of "species" you prefer. There are (as of February 2009) 147 definitions of "species" in the scientific literature, and they lead to very different results – depending on the definition, there are from 101 to 249 endemic bird species in Mexico, for instance.
Hitler believed there was "an iron law of Nature" that miraculously made evolution stop when it reached the limit of a species. He made that up. There is no such law and no such limit.
How? Please explain some of those ways.
But if there is no god, there's nobody to rebel against. :-|
I can turn this on its head.
If this world, this vale of tears, is but a temporary station we have to endure before eternal bliss, then what does this world matter? What does anything or anyone in this world matter?
Does "kill them all and let God sort them out" ring any bells? Because it should.
I get my morals from innate empathy and from considering my own long-term (!) self-interest.
Why?
Because you, too, have innate empathy (unlike Mr Burns from The Simpsons), so you wouldn't find it fun in the first place, and because you have managed to think about whether it's in your interest to live in a society where people can't be sure of their lives. That's why.
The argument from consequences is a logical fallacy.
You are saying "if the Bible were true, that would be great, so it is true".
And if you get bored by chasing pleasure, you're doing it wrong. :-) Copy my name, go to http://scholar.google.com, paste my name in, and you'll see what I do for chasing pleasure.
If you believe in a scientific theory, you're doing it wrong.
Choice doesn't even enter the question. I don't get to choose on reality. I've seen evolution happen with my own eyes, in a petri dish, overnight – I can't choose whether it happened; it just did.
Unfortunately, however, he equals that kind of Christianity that gets the vote out in the USA. The kind that elects people to school boards who don't understand what they're talking about. The kind that wants to bring about the end of the world by triggering more and more wars in the Middle East in general and Israel in particular... The kind of Christianity that wants to abolish the US Constitution and replace it with the Bible.
...which is to say "not at all whatsoever".
There is no such right. I have the right to say whatever bullshit I want, and you have the right to point at me and laugh – both of these are free speech, and both of these go in
bothall directions.Like so:
You wish.
As long as you learn something from our comments...
Pity that you won't start thinking. I guess I'll have to keep doing it for you.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 28, 2009 7:22 PM
Whoppie shit. That and $1.4 will get you coffee at our local diner. We only atheists only need the $1.4. One lie for the godbot.Which means you know next to nothing. Compared to me, a 30+ year professional practitioner. Another lie for the godbot (2).You don't get it. Scientists don't argue whether evolution occurred, but how it occurred. Another lie (3) for the godbot.An acknowledgment of a scientific truth.Then comes the ignorant but...Gee, all macroevolution is, is microevolution integrated over time. Another lie (4).It has been, there are a million or so scientific paper backing evolution, both directly and indirectly. Another lie (5).Ah, delusional evidenceless fool. Another lie (6).More delusional/lying talk (7).It is nothing but a book of myth/fiction. Another lie (8).Boy, what a fool. Another lie (9).You posted here, so you don't respect ours. Another lie (10).You are too deluded to have a discussion if you can't provide conclusive physical evidence that your imaginary deity exist, and your babble isn't a work of myth/fiction, both of which you have failed to do. Another lie (11).Very simple, until you provide conclusive physical evidence, evidence that will pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers, as being of divine, and not natural, origin, like an eternally burning bush, you have nothing. Another lie (12)He thinks so, so another lie (13).A mythical figure, no hard evidence that he existed. Another lie (14).Any open discussion has to start with the fact that evolution is a scientific theory, and can only be refuted by scientific evidence found in the peer reviewed scientific literature. Not, as per you, a difference in philosophy, or the mistaken belief that religion refutes science. Another lie (15).Bullshit. Another lie (16).You have a right to choose the scientific theory for biology of your choice. But as of the moment, only evolution is available to you. Creationism and ID are religious theories, and the US court system including SCOTUS concurs with that decision. To say otherwise means you are a delusional fool. Another lie (17).If you believe in things that cannot be proved with scientific evidence, from the peer reviewed scientific literature, you can and will be mocked for your ignorance. Another lie (18).You haven't show evidence your Jebus exists, so another lie (19). Almost twenty lies in one post. It doesn't get much stoopider than that.Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 28, 2009 7:23 PM
ScienceBlogs software fail. Obviously the comma shouldn't be part of the link.
Ken Ham is, unfortunately, real.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
November 28, 2009 7:25 PM
So your morality is based on the idea that if you're bad then god punish you forever. That's like a small child not being bad because otherwise her bottom will be spanked.
I'm moral because I believe in altruism and the Golden Rule (which predates Christianity by several thousand years). I act morally towards other people because I want them to act that way to me.
Your morality is that of a frightened child. My morality is that of an adult.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 28, 2009 7:33 PM
I see 'Tis is working on a tentacle cluster. Fine by me...Posted by: Kel, OM | November 28, 2009 7:53 PM
Reciprocal altruism. Shit, this is ethics 101. Why do we find it wrong if others cheat? Because they make things unfair, they don't play by the rules which means that those who do play by the rules are at a disadvantage. It's simple game theory.Say we were doing a test, and Tony over there didn't study as well as the rest of us. So he decides to bring in notes to the exam while everyone else is relying on memory. Do we honestly need a higher power to say that such actions are wrong?
Posted by: Sili
|
November 28, 2009 8:09 PM
Oh, the irony.Posted by: Lo | November 30, 2009 12:31 AM
Whether or not you agree with what Kelly said, I felt like she was respectful...I personally am an evolutionist but she was right about one thing--you are acting hateful.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
November 30, 2009 12:45 AM
Lo, respectful bullshit is still bullshit. Go complain about tone somewhere else.
besides, do you really think the "can't be moral without the bible" argument is respectful to atheists?
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 30, 2009 12:49 AM
I think she may have been trying to be so, as she understood respect.
That's interesting.
What do you think evolution means?
I ask because so many who post here condemn, or deny, evolution, without seeming to really understand it. I'm wondering if you understand what you support.
I'm sorry that you're upset. I tried to not be hateful, as I understood it. I can't speak for anyone else, of course.
We sometimes try to give people a chance, but it depends on what they say, and how they say it.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
November 30, 2009 12:57 AM
Lo, you mean Kelly #487 who lied about possessing evidence for a god? Kelly used the common Christian tactic of special pleading to garner undeserved respect for a boatload of crap. And I don't know what kind of self-respecting person would join in Kelly's game of labeling people who don't willfully ignore biological science as "evolutionists".
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 30, 2009 1:19 AM
Here's something I see a lot from the drive-bys: "I'm sorry you're so angry." First of all, it's armchair psychiatry from a computer screen. Secondly, it doesn't address the actual issue being discussed (surprise, surprise). And third...what exactly is wrong with being angry anyway?
I know plenty of Christians, and I know that few if any of them are completely serene individuals. People get angry. We have every right and reason to be angry (see Wowbagger, comment #499). It doesn't make us wrong, nor does it make us bad people. Anger is natural. Anger can even be useful. Anger is certainly not something you want to take over your life, but let's not go around pretending that you have an edge on anyone on the internet because you think that they're angrier than you are. And don't bottle up your anger because you think that Jesus would not approve, it ain't healthy.
Posted by: Taylor | November 30, 2009 2:18 AM
Regardless of what anybody believes, it does seem we are determined to hate Christians.
If they offer kindness in a way that translates to them, we take it as sticking up a middle finger in a "fuck you" kind of way.
If they tell us to go to hell (because in their mind we deserve it), we accuse them of being self-righteous Christians.
If they dispute our beliefs (and yes they are beliefs because atheism and even believing that evolution is 100% fact is in fact a BELIEF). Believing that science is true is a BELIEF. It's a belief that can be proven, but we believe it.
There's nothing wrong with being angry. There is something wrong with being hateful.
Christians find the beliefs of homosexuals ludicrous, but I doubt any of us support Christian-propelled hate crimes against homosexuals simply because they find the homosexual lifestyle to be ludicrous.
Calling someone "stoopid" is hateful and rude. We're awfully afraid of what will happen if creationism/ID is taught in schools. If there is no evidence and it's so ridiculous, who cares if our kids hear it? We haven't instilled the proper ideas in them so that they can establish fact from fiction? C'mon.
I get what you guys are saying. No, I suppose no one is making you be respectful but you get offended when people accuse you we wanted to get the RIGHT idea out there, why not start explaining some actual science rather than call them stupid, fools, etc?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 30, 2009 2:24 AM
Oh my. Taylor has just committed the concern fallacy all over the thread.
Taylor, your concern is noted, and fallacious.
p.s. "we," Kemosabe?
Posted by: Taylor | November 30, 2009 2:34 AM
Weird. Hateful, rude, and doesn't address the issue. go figure.
Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | November 30, 2009 2:42 AM
Taylor, if you do not like the tone here; start your own blog where you can maintain your desired level of respect and politeness.
Just remember to maintain your tone when you have seen the same discredited argument for the one hundredth time.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
November 30, 2009 2:46 AM
Christianity, not Christians; also, who is "we"?to quote a very smart man: if you believe in science, you're doing it wrong. And this silly "all 'beliefs' are equally valid, so don't dis mine" argument is bullshit. for some things there's evidence; others are empty sophistry; others still are just plain old lies; why would anyone treat them as equally valid?
that's despicable on multiple levels. homosexuality is not a belief or a lifestyle any more than being black is. and don't you fucking dare comparing being rude to someone on the internet to hate-crimes.
have you been to an American high-school lately? have you any acquaintance with reality and the million different kinds of woo people believe because someone told them it was true? evidently, most people don't have the knowledge to really make these sort of decisions, and certainly teenagers don't. maybe if we taught critical thinking and skepticism in schools more people would be able to tell pseudo-science from science; until then, keeping the pseudo-science out of schools is important.
because some of them (I'm looking at you, Banana Man) aren't listening and need to be ridiculed so others don't accidentally take them seriously.
Posted by: Kel, OM | November 30, 2009 2:51 AM
The computer you are sitting on relies 100% on multiple scientific concepts being true. It's not just belief, and by the fact that you're sitting on a computer you agree.Posted by: aratina cage
|
November 30, 2009 6:42 AM
Taylor, I don't believe you are an atheist, and this makes no sense:
WTF? What exactly would the "beliefs of homosexuals" be? Atheists have every right to hate Christians who support violence against gays because those Christians are bigots. I don't understand why you think atheists would support Christian bigotry at all except for the possibily that you are a Christian troll who was momentarily confused by its own blather.Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 30, 2009 6:57 AM
I'm sorry, Taylor, that you found me "rude." I can assure you that I was and am not "hateful," however.
"Weird" is a fair cop.
And your "issues" are noted.
Posted by: WowbaggerOM
|
November 30, 2009 7:00 AM
How about when it's an accurate description of the person in question? It's quite simple, really; if people don't want to be called stupid they always have the option of not believing in stupid things or acting in stupid ways.It's a belief that can be proven, but we believe it.
No, dumbass. The difference is that something real isn't dependent upon us believing it, it's true nonetheless. That's the joy of accepting reality; it's exactly the same whether we believe in it or not.
Sheesh.
Posted by: Josh | November 30, 2009 8:58 AM
I'm not going to arm-wrestle with you over the word belief, but what the hell is a 100% fact? What's a 70% fact? A 50% fact? Were you trying to acknowledge that facts have margins of error (uncertainties) associated with them? If so, then great (+1 for you).
Your wording, however, suggests that you think the fact of evolution* has a larger margin of error associated with it than we think it does (or you perceive that we think it does--I don't know). So I'll bite: what do you think the margin of error is regarding the observation that life has changed through time, and why?
If you believe that ScienceTM is TrueTM, then you're doing it wrong.
*As opposed to the Theory of Evolution.
Posted by: Mike John | December 17, 2009 5:36 AM
my rgrds t y nd t y cl nml blg :)