Much, much more fun here. I particularly like the Garden of Eden exhibit featuring Adam and Eve, a penguin, and a velociraptor.
Virtual Visit to the Creation Museum
Comments to "Virtual Visit to the Creation Museum":
Taktix® | November 19, 2007, 9:45am | #
It's a fucking shame that what looks like hundreds of fossils are being wasted on this monument to unspeakable ignorance.Just think how much we could be learning from some of those exhibits if they fell into the hands of, god forbid, scientists!
Taktix® | November 19, 2007, 9:49am | #
I retract my previous post. Upon futher examination, it appears the fossils are fake, much like God himself.At least they're consistent...
Just because American flags weren't buried with dinosaurs doesn't mean that they didn't pledge allegiance everyday.
John-David | November 19, 2007, 9:57am | #
Jesus Christ.What is with all of the peeping, lurking velociraptors? ATTACK, GODDAMN YOU!
I can imagine that many creationists who visit this place end up at least reconsidering their beliefs in intelligent design because some of the displays are downright silly.
dhex | November 19, 2007, 10:06am | #
i appreciate that eve is feeding a squirrel a Popsicle.http://web.mit.edu/gjordan/www/creation/slides/_DSC2327.html
Taktix® | November 19, 2007, 10:11am | #
"Hundreds of Bible Prophecies have been fulfilled, and none has failed."I guess Christians don't believe in Grammar either...
Mike G | November 19, 2007, 10:14am | #
I retract my previous post. Upon futher examination, it appears the fossils are fake, much like God himself.To be fair, this country is dotted with little local natural history museums whose big dinos are mostly casts of the real fossils held by the major institutions like the Field Museum, the American Museum of Natural History, etc. It's not an uncommon practice, and the kids enjoy it. The problem here is that their dinos coexist with woolly mammoths and ancient Romans.
ChrisV | November 19, 2007, 10:14am | #
"I can imagine that many creationists who visit this place end up at least reconsidering their beliefs in intelligent design"You can? That's a wild imagination you have there.
""Hundreds of Bible Prophecies have been fulfilled, and none has failed."
I guess Christians don't believe in Grammar either..."
It was when Man had the temerity to invent rules of grammar that we started to break away from God's language.
Sulla | November 19, 2007, 10:18am | #
I'm somewhat sympathetic to those who are ridiculed for not believing in evolution, but the Creation Museum is really stupid on so many different levels.On an epistemological level, I know nothing and believe little, but I do think that science (as a philosophy) and religion have too much tension between them to allow for stuff like Intelligent Design. I do think it's fine to be a religious scientist, or a scientific religionist, but you shouldn't approach scientific pursuits with religious preconceptions or vice versa.Pro Libertate | November 19, 2007, 10:18am | #
Posh, this stuff is positively benign compared to the indoctrination you see in creationist "science" texts. My oldest stepson is attending a Baptist high school (long story--suffice to say that we're not Baptists), and, when he told his teacher that he was a theistic evolutionist (God, sure, evolution, ditto), the teacher asked him to keep an open mind about creationism. Ha!Our homeschooling texts often have similarly devious stuff, though my wife can dodge most of it. Until we started homeschooling one of the kids, we had no idea that a big chunk of the homeschooling population exists because of the "insidious" teaching of evolution in our public schools.
Anyway, I thought the truth was supposed to set us free?
Taktix® | November 19, 2007, 10:19am | #
http://web.mit.edu/gjordan/www/creation/slides/_DSC2403.htmlThis link reminds me of every anti-Ron Paul argument presented by Edward..
Jesus Christ | November 19, 2007, 10:20am | #
This isn't my fault. My Father gave you free will. You have to take the bad with the good.But it is a terrible waste of the science kit We gave you. I mean, these folks are so down on themselves they can't even show the full beauty of Adam and Eve in their natural state.
Dad made a woman's hair to be her crowning glory, not something to hide behind. And don't even get me started on that sheep.
jimmydageek | November 19, 2007, 10:22am | #
It was when Man had the temerity to invent rules of grammar that we started to break away from God's language.Well, there you have it, kiddos. Grammar killed God!
joe | November 19, 2007, 10:32am | #
Science leaves plenty of room for faith. Science makes claims over only a portion of human experience.This museum and the thinking behind it represent the imperialism of fundamentalist religion - the idea that religion must govern all aspects of human experience.
The root word of "totalitarian" it "total." It's a term used to describe the belief that all aspects of human life must reflect the correct ideology.
Lurker Kurt | November 19, 2007, 10:44am | #
Joe,I don't think it is a desire to govern all aspects of human experience.
The fundamentalists truly believe the earth is just a few thousand years old and that Adam and Eve where to first humans and there really was a garden of eden.
Adam and Eve's disobedience was the original sin and they were cast out of the garden of eden. Jesus died for this sin and all other sins committed by man. Now we can go to heaven when we die.
But, if evolution is true, then there was no garden of eden, no Adam and Eve, and no original sin for Jesus to die for.
That is why the fundy's underwear is all in a bunch because of Darwin's theory.
GILMORE | November 19, 2007, 10:44am | #
I am curious about the Creationist reenactment of dinosaur funerals. I mean, given that everyone got "buried" properly before the fall of man...oh, but wait - if this was prelapsian times... no one died? then why were there any burials? Arg!! Does not compute! If it was post-lapsian times, why werent god's pure dinosaurs wiping the betraying man from the face of the earth???
I agree, this stuff does more to undermine itself than it does sell "creationism"
Kenny | November 19, 2007, 10:45am | #
i appreciate that eve is feeding a squirrel a PopsicleIf that's Eve, isn't she a bit overdressed ?
Bingo | November 19, 2007, 10:45am | #
Well the only place creationism does belong is in a museum, just not a museum of natural history!edna | November 19, 2007, 10:48am | #
I'm somewhat sympathetic to those who are ridiculed for not believing in evolutionwhy? because they can't help being stupid? i think they can, but choose not to, thus my utter contempt for them.
Taktix® | November 19, 2007, 10:51am | #
Well the only place creationism does belong is in a museum, just not a museum of natural history!Or a sideshow...
Reinmoose | November 19, 2007, 10:55am | #
this is one of the best photo collections of the creation museum I've seen.I especially like all the non-content exhibits, like the wrecking ball of "millions of years" knocking down a church, or the kids having the "I never heard this before in school" conversation.
Classics!
Kenny | November 19, 2007, 10:57am | #
This exhibit of people attending the exhibits is actually post-modernistic genius.joe | November 19, 2007, 10:57am | #
Lurker Kurt,But it is perfectly possible to believe in the moral truths of the Genesis story, and still believe in evolution. You simply have to recognize them as describing different truths, or different aspects of reality.
The creationists most certainly do NOT reject evolution because it doesn't leave room for their religion truths, but because they don't want to acknowledge that there are other sources of truth.
Kenny | November 19, 2007, 10:58am | #
darn, reinmeese are fleet of footSulla | November 19, 2007, 11:03am | #
I'm somewhat sympathetic to those who are ridiculed for not believing in evolutionwhy? because they can't help being stupid? i think they can, but choose not to, thus my utter contempt for them.
This is probably not a great medium for an extended discussion on the matter, but it boils down to my thoughts on knowledge, belief and faith. In my mind, nothing is truly knowable, i.e., we can choose to accept certain premises about reality because otherwise we would be stuck in a situation where we reject everything and might as well stay in bed indefinitely. Different people choose to accept different premises, such as, our senses provide a true and useful view of the true nature of reality, or cause and effect, some religious premise. Nothing is provable until you accept a premise. I see no objective undeniably correct reason for choosing a particular premise or set of premises. Reasonable people can differ on the premises they choose to accept.
I think it is stupid to never examine your premises and blindly accept any worldview. However, once you have legitimately questioned your thoughts and beliefs, if you choose to accept different premises than I do, it seems unfair to call you stupid. If someone examines the available premises , and chooses to accept one that does not involve evolution, why are they stupid?
zig zag man | November 19, 2007, 11:04am | #
On the sixth day, God created the 30-06 so man could shoot and kill the dinosaurs. That's what happened to them, overhunting, praise God!Lurker Kurt | November 19, 2007, 11:06am | #
But it is perfectly possible to believe in the moral truths of the Genesis story, and still believe in evolution. You simply have to recognize them as describing different truths, or different aspects of reality.I don't disagree with you Joe. But the fundamentalists believe Genisis is the literal word of God.
No metaphors. No nuance. No symbolism.
Reinmoose | November 19, 2007, 11:06am | #
The creationists most certainly do NOT reject evolution because it doesn't leave room for their religion truths, but because they don't want to acknowledge that there are other sources of truth.There's a lot of truth in this statement... oh wait. :)
But seriously, I think that is probably true for some.
joe | November 19, 2007, 11:07am | #
If someone examines the available premises , and chooses to accept one that does not involve evolution, why are they stupid?I'd say that they are not. However, if they then stake that belief and attempt to squeeze it back into the scientific-premise-accepting field of knowledge as if it followed from scientific premises, they are being incredibly stupid, or making a stupid argument in bad faith.
Jesus Christ | November 19, 2007, 11:08am | #
Jesus Christ.Leave me alone, dude- I'm hunting Triceratops horridus.
joe | November 19, 2007, 11:09am | #
Lurker Kurt,I understand that. It's a massive intellectual and spiritual failure on their part.
The Bible is not a TV Guide. The great truths therein are not the same type as "Friends is on channel 14 from 7-7:30 on Tuesday."
GILMORE | November 19, 2007, 11:14am | #
uhh.Getting into the epistemology argument is a waste of time. Just because we dont have "pure knowledge" isnt an excuse for swallowing bad ideas wholesale. I feel joe's angle here - which is sort of like Gould's "Overlapping magisteria", where science and religion dictate to different spheres of influence (rational and spiritual). But for these exhibits to point out a/b comparisons of Science and Religion, and then say, "Which side is GOD on??" is basically asking people to throw away any semblence of critical thought. They should be stripped of their right to use electric lights, the combustion engine, or even their steam-heated homes, until they first accept that science is testable, and their religious views are not.
Isaac Bartram | November 19, 2007, 11:15am | #
Hey man, what's Adam doing with that sheep?God, I'd be so embarrassed if that thing was in my country.Geez, I look around and see things way more embarassing than this. Mostly because they're funded with taxes.
jenl1625 | November 19, 2007, 11:20am | #
I don't disagree with you Joe. But the fundamentalists believe Genisis is the literal word of God.Also, fundamentalists (or at least the stripe I grew up with) firmly believe in an on-going, everyday battle between God and the Devil. And basically, the only people they think are on God's side are the people that believe mostly the same as they do.
So when something like evolution comes along, they not only believe it's wrong because it contradicts Genesis - they also believe that if it contradicts Genesis, then Darwin (and everybody who has argued in its favor since him) was either intentionally or unintentionally working on behalf of the Devil. So it's not just wrong, but it's one of the ways the Devil is destrying America today . . . .
And any sort of evidence-based questions are simply proof that the questioner has also been seduced onto the Devil's path.
So the better your arguments against them, the more they pray for God to protect them from the Devil in the form of you and your godless arguments . . . .
Pro Libertate | November 19, 2007, 11:21am | #
I've made some headway when I've pointed out to weak creationists (i.e., people who hold the position without much thought or passion) that the Young Earth Hypothesis doesn't just eviscerate the whole science of biology, but it also guts cosmology, geology, physics--really the whole host of scientific observations that require that the Earth and the rest of the universe came into existence something rather more than 6,000 years ago.Taktix® | November 19, 2007, 11:23am | #
Sulla,I apologize for calling the religious stupid. It's easy to fall into god-bashing after seeing a display as stupid as this.
In addition, people can believe in whatever they want. It's just that these fundamentalists want to force their opinion on my (future) children by means of a coerced education system and bad "science."
Sorry, but that's not kosher.
I mean, when we discovered microbes, religions didn't keep claiming that illness is caused by God. I don't see why they can't just say, "God caused evolution."
That's it. Conflict over.
But no, they must cling to narrow interpretations as a testament to their own faith, and work to destroy those who disagree...
Sulla | November 19, 2007, 11:25am | #
joe:I'd say that they are not. However, if they then stake that belief and attempt to squeeze it back into the scientific-premise-accepting field of knowledge as if it followed from scientific premises, they are being incredibly stupid, or making a stupid argument in bad faith.
Just for the record, I completely agree. I'm not trying to make an argument that "creationism" or "intelligent design" should be part of a science curriculum. They are not scientific and should not be taught as such. My only point is that it is not inherently "stupid" to have beliefs that contradict science.
Bronwyn | November 19, 2007, 11:28am | #
Pro Lib... which curriculum did you choose?I'm investigating home schooling, but (as you know) it's difficult to find one that isn't God-infused. And it's impossible to find a non-christian homeschooling support network in Kentucky.
Core Curriculum of America looks good... are they?
Please gmail me so as to avoid threadjack :)
OT: The Creation Museum is just one more contribution to the continued Dumbification of America. Praise Jebus!
*puke*
joe | November 19, 2007, 11:29am | #
Also, fundamentalists (or at least the stripe I grew up with) firmly believe in an on-going, everyday battle between God and the Devil. And basically, the only people they think are on God's side are the people that believe mostly the same as they do.Yeah, a totalitarian mindset will do that to you.
It combines a pathological hostility to dissent, an inability or unwillingness to distinguish between different opponents/enemies, and a conspiratorial eagness to believe that all bad things are working in cahoots.
"It is well known that Trotskyites are fascist agents" can only be remotely plausible to someone who is already primed to hate dissenters, and to divide the world into "us" and "the enemy."
Reinmoose | November 19, 2007, 11:29am | #
jenl1625 -You just described half my mother's side of the family (including her).
She actually said to me the other day "I hope you don't go to hell."
All I could think of to say was "I hope you don't go to hell either," because I initially interpreted her phrase as a compliment instead of a fear.
Sulla | November 19, 2007, 11:30am | #
uhh.Getting into the epistemology argument is a waste of time.
You're probably right. I just get frustrated sometimes when person A acts like person B is stupid because Person B doesn't believe everything Person A does. Of course Person A is frustrated because Person C is so insecure in their beliefs that they have to try to squeeze their religion into a ridiculous contortion. Too much frustration in the world, can't we all just get along?
Taktix® | November 19, 2007, 11:31am | #
I've made some headway when I've pointed out to weak creationists (i.e., people who hold the position without much thought or passion) that the Young Earth Hypothesis doesn't just eviscerate the whole science of biology, but it also guts cosmology, geology, physics--really the whole host of scientific observations that require that the Earth and the rest of the universe came into existence something rather more than 6,000 years ago.I've been in a similar scenario, and was met with the following, condescending response:
"Well, when you're old enough to see the Truth, you'll understand..." blah blah blah...
This was from a 27-year-old I had pre-marital sex with. I'm 25...
joe | November 19, 2007, 11:32am | #
Sulla,I completely agree. There are a lot of genius physicians out there who believe passionately that the priest changes wine into blood.
I've yet to meet one that would consider it a good idea to use it for a transfusion.
Bronwyn | November 19, 2007, 11:33am | #
Love how they gloss over physicsrobc | November 19, 2007, 11:36am | #
can't we all just get along?Empirical evidence suggests that the answer is "no".
Bronwyn | November 19, 2007, 11:38am | #
They do a great job with molecular genetics, thoughI guess I'd better go through my dissertation on the fire.
Bronwyn | November 19, 2007, 11:39am | #
Especially if that dissertation contains such egregious spelling errors.This girl needs some more coffee and a son who sleeps at night.
Yes, that would be good.
Or am I being punished for my sins? Maybe if I pray on it, my son will teeth painlessly and will sleep for more than an hour at a time. Yes, that's it.
Smappy | November 19, 2007, 11:40am | #
The Bible is not a TV Guide. The great truths therein are not the same type as "Friends is on channel 14 from 7-7:30 on Tuesday."This is the most apt critique on the thread regarding fundamentalism. To interpret any book of the Bible, you've got to (answer at least) three core questions: 1) Who was the author? 2) Who was the audience 3) What was the historical context? Fundamentalism's answers are almost always: 1) God (and not just in inspiration) 2) me 3) my country in the 21st century. Hence the ignorance.
Rattlesnake Jake | November 19, 2007, 11:44am | #
"If someone examines the available premises , and chooses to accept one that does not involve evolution, why are they stupid?"I don't think anybody accepts young earth creationism on the basis of critical thinking. The empiracle evidence in the world just doesn't back it up. I think people who accept young earth creationism do so because of a need to accept a literal interpretation of the Bible. They believe that if Genesis is wrong, how can they believe in the truth in anything in the Bible such as salvation through Jesus's death on the cross.
Reinmoose | November 19, 2007, 11:44am | #
we can choose to accept certain premises about reality because otherwise we would be stuck in a situation where we reject everything and might as well stay in bed indefinitely. Different people choose to accept different premises...Sulla,
I have mostly resigned myself to the reality that I am fucked in so far as figuring out existential realities, so I definitely feel you here.
I usually get to the "but where did God (or whatever initial conditions had to exist for the creation of the universe) come from" stage before I just give up and go eat some nachos in front of the TV.
Sulla | November 19, 2007, 11:50am | #
I don't think anybody accepts young earth creationism on the basis of critical thinking. The empiracle evidence in the world just doesn't back it up. I think people who accept young earth creationism do so because of a need to accept a literal interpretation of the Bible. They believe that if Genesis is wrong, how can they believe in the truth in anything in the Bible such as salvation through Jesus's death on the cross.Once you accept the premise that our observations perfectly reflect reality, then I think you are hard-pressed to use critical thinking to accept the young earth theory. If you reject that premise, then it is not a stretch. Even if you accept that premise, I could see arguing your way to the old earth creation theory.
NoStar | November 19, 2007, 11:53am | #
"Grammar killed God.",/i>That cannot be. I have it on good authority that Grammar got run over by a reindeer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPaGQEskSKM
tag | November 19, 2007, 11:54am | #
Sulla | November 19, 2007, 11:54am | #
Sulla,I have mostly resigned myself to the reality that I am fucked in so far as figuring out existential realities, so I definitely feel you here.
I usually get to the "but where did God (or whatever initial conditions had to exist for the creation of the universe) come from" stage before I just give up and go eat some nachos in front of the TV.
I'm glad you understand my point. One of my favorite pet theories is that reality is based purely on belief, that is, reality is created and changed based on the power of our beliefs, in sort of a majority rule fashion. Neil Gaiman has an interesting story in a graphic novel where cats ruled the world until humans believed differently and shifted to another reality where they ruled. I don't believe this theory, but it is interesting to think about.
grammaticus | November 19, 2007, 12:04pm | #
"none" can be singularBingo | November 19, 2007, 12:06pm | #
Sulla: Probably not a good idea to read any of the theories of quantum mechanics ;)"The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with Quantum Mechanics and with facts established by experiment."
Skwisgaar Skwigelf | November 19, 2007, 12:26pm | #
i appreciate that eve is feeding a squirrel a Popsicle.http://web.mit.edu/gjordan/www/creation/slides/_DSC2327.html
Popsgoggles? DEYS PURE GREAT!
R C Dean | November 19, 2007, 12:27pm | #
I alwaus thought that particular theorem was basically a tautological wink-and-nod:, namely"We can't do science about what we can't perceive, and we can't perceive without using human consciousness, so we can't scientifically prove anything exists independently of human consciousness."
Malto Dextrin | November 19, 2007, 12:30pm | #
I don't see why there has to be conflict between creationism and evolution.Scroll down to "A Modern Solution" to see how to reconcile the two:
Descent of Man
Stratigraphy chart here (my fave is the "Pestiferous Era"):
Geologic Ages
UM | November 19, 2007, 12:39pm | #
But, if evolution is true, then there was no garden of eden, no Adam and Eve, and no original sin for Jesus to die for.Interesting, since many Christians (like all of Orthodox Christianity and many fundamentalists—cause it ain't in the Bible) don't accept original sin. Many Christians aren't bothered by whether there was a literal garden of eden. Your description brings the words "straw man" to mind.
I realize that you're picking on YEC Christians, but using them to represent religion is about as accurate as using Eric Dondero to represent libertarians.
But then again, for all the heat and noise, very little intelligence surfaces in Internet debates about religion, on either side of the argument.
GILMORE | November 19, 2007, 12:39pm | #
RC DEANI alwaus thought that particular theorem was basically a tautological wink-and-nod:, namely
"We can't do science about what we can't perceive, and we can't perceive without using human consciousness, so we can't scientifically prove anything exists independently of human consciousness."
I think this is a misreading of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, in which 'reality' can only be decribed as probabilities and not point-facts describing more than one variable at a given time (mass & velocity of a particle at any given moment in time).
Meaning, it's not "either or", but rather that we cannot describe reality in fixed positions as our consciousness tends to want to perceive things in (absolute, fixed existence)
Then there's the whole angle about how if you want to use 'human perception', you invariably have to change the thing you are measuring. e.g. to 'see' an atom you have to bash it with light (photons) and in the process affect it. So measuring by nature affects the object. But this means you have to take this factor into account - not just discard it as 'damaged' data.
GILMORE | November 19, 2007, 12:41pm | #
I realize that you're picking on YEC Christians, but using them to represent religion is about as accurate as using Eric Dondero to represent libertarians.SPEAK NOT HIS NAME LEST HE COME FORTH!!!
DONDEROOOOO, I CAST THEE OUT!
First Little Pig | November 19, 2007, 12:41pm | #
Bingo,Now that you mention Quantum Mechanics, may I make the following statement?:
"God is merely the observer at the end of time since by the rules of Quantum Mechanics and of some of the "spooky actions at a distance" the history of our universe is corrected in the past to make the present coherent."
kcjerith | November 19, 2007, 12:49pm | #
I went to pictures and that is some funny shit, I almost want to go just for the laughs. I don't however for three reasons.1. A bit of a drive from kansas just to laugh my ass off
2. I dont want to give them any of my money
3. I would get kicked out for laughing so dam loud, though after awhile I might have to start crying over how sad it is.
maybe they can franchise it and put one out here.
Really, it is not worth putting out all the flaws in the exhibit and there faulty logic, and they obviously don't care. But really, a penguin in the garden of eden? Come on, I would like to think that even the most staunch fundi would think that was stupid.
Lurker Kurt | November 19, 2007, 12:52pm | #
I realize that you're picking on YEC Christians, but using them to represent religion is about as accurate as using Eric Dondero to represent libertarians.I don't believe I am using them to represent most or all religion.
Creationism has come up several times before on H&R and a lot of agnotics, atheists and apatheists have difficulty understanding why Creationists maintain their beliefs with such tenacity.
I was trying to explain the logic behind their continued belief in a young earth and creationism in the face of so much scientific evidence to the contrary.
Fluffy | November 19, 2007, 12:53pm | #
Sulla -Your argument essentially eliminates the entire concept of "stupidity". There can be no such thing as a "stupid" idea, from that viewpoint. If you take an addition test and get every answer wrong, you just begin from a different premise about the consistency and veracity of our rules of mathematics. If you grab fireworks with lit fuses and jam them up your ass, you just begin from different premises about the rules of chemistry and human anatomy.
Etc.
UM | November 19, 2007, 12:58pm | #
I don't believe I am using them to represent most or all religion.Sorry to have misread you. My bad. Although any number of posters here would do exactly that. My points really was that a lot of what people assume is central to religion is based on assessment of one sort of religion, and often a faulty one at that. That said, the Creation Museum and YEC pretty much writes their own criticisms....
UM | November 19, 2007, 1:00pm | #
err, writeSPEAK NOT HIS NAME LEST HE COME FORTH!!!It only works if you imitate Larry the Cable Guy while saying it.
DONDEROOOOO, I CAST THEE OUT!
Roberto Leibman | November 19, 2007, 1:08pm | #
Bronwyn, Re: Curriculae for homeschooling... do a search for unschooling: a very different take on the idea of homeschooling... and best of all... No Religion! (unless you want it)GILMORE | November 19, 2007, 1:17pm | #
Fluffy | November 19, 2007, 12:53pm | #Sulla -
Your argument essentially eliminates the entire concept of "stupidity".
Not necessarily. Depends on what you mean by Stupid.
My personal favorite definition =
http://www.cantrip.org/stupidity.html
...a work of genius, that.
In short - one can be consistently "wrong" or incorrect, but so long as the consequence of said decision neither hurt oneself or others, it's not technically stupid.
This is also a reasonable framework to explain why religion in some instances is an "Intelligent" proposition - insofar as it benfits the practioner and others in the process.
Obviously, it doesnt always work out that way, but still, the same can be said for a lot of 'science'.
Les | November 19, 2007, 1:17pm | #
I realize that you're picking on YEC Christians, but using them to represent religion is about as accurate as using Eric Dondero to represent libertarians.This is very true. I think it's more accurate to use YEC Christians to represent social conservatives and Bush loyalists/apologists.
Sulla | November 19, 2007, 1:20pm | #
Sulla -Your argument essentially eliminates the entire concept of "stupidity". There can be no such thing as a "stupid" idea, from that viewpoint. If you take an addition test and get every answer wrong, you just begin from a different premise about the consistency and veracity of our rules of mathematics. If you grab fireworks with lit fuses and jam them up your ass, you just begin from different premises about the rules of chemistry and human anatomy.
Etc.
It's a little more complicated than that. My argument is not about the details of our experience, but about larger metaphysical premises. Take the math test example - we need to consider the underpinnings of a belief that rejects the veracity of the math that is taught in schools. I am having trouble conceiving of a worldview that could be premised merely on that idea, but I can imagine that there are worldviews that include that belief as part of the overall conception of reality. If you subscribe to such a worldview, and your answers are correct, according to your worldview, is that stupid? I don't think it would be fair to say so without understanding the totality of that worldview. That being said, any worldview that rejected arithmetic would not be very useful in describing the world that is revealed by our observations. Some worldviews are definitley more "useful" than others. A worldview that you will not be hurt by jamming fireworks up your butt is not very useful either. However, if your worldview includes that idea, because doing so brings you closer to Pyro, the god of fire, then sticking the fireworks up your butt is not "stupid." I would wonder about anyone who subscribed to such a worldview, because in my experience there is no evidence to suggest that this is the case, but I would at least consider it. I'm not saying all premises are necessarily equally valid, but that to immediately reject someone else's belief system merely because it is implausible suggests that you are blinded by your own premises.
technomist | November 19, 2007, 1:26pm | #
Funniest thing I've seen in years. Eve looks like every preacher's wet dream.Isaac Bartram | November 19, 2007, 1:27pm | #
I see I should have read the caption on the picture I linked too.Oh, well, great minds...and all that.
Sulla | November 19, 2007, 1:29pm | #
Here's my quick definition of stupid.Someone is stupid if they believe that their worldview/premise is the correct one and refuse to consider any other possiblities.
Sulla | November 19, 2007, 1:31pm | #
Quick revise:Here's my quick definition of stupid.
Someone is stupid if they believe that their worldview/premise is the only correct one and refuse to consider any other possiblities.
GILMORE | November 19, 2007, 1:31pm | #
However, if your worldview includes that idea, because doing so brings you closer to Pyro, the god of fire......that would make you an admirer of the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants.
Seriously, check out the link i posted above. You will thank me
GILMORE | November 19, 2007, 1:34pm | #
Here's my quick definition of stupid.Someone is stupid if they believe that their worldview/premise is the only correct one and refuse to consider any other possiblities
in practice, that pretty much means everyone, all the time. :) Which is probably not far from the truth, if not actually the same address.
Jamie Kelly | November 19, 2007, 1:35pm | #
So "human reason," according to the museum, is in direct competition with creationism.I'll buy that.
Jamie Kelly | November 19, 2007, 1:36pm | #
Libertarian test:Should you be able to sue the Creation Museum to get your money back on the grounds that you went there to learn something about the origins of the Earth?
Jamie Kelly | November 19, 2007, 1:37pm | #
"none has" is grammatically correct.He be not lyin'. I seen it in a book.
Chris Puzak | November 19, 2007, 1:45pm | #
Science fiction author John Scalzi also visited the Creation Museum. You can read his report here - http://scalzi.com/whatever/?p=121Paul | November 19, 2007, 1:48pm | #
But, if evolution is true, then there was no garden of eden, no Adam and Eve, and no original sin for Jesus to die for.Lurker:
This museum is somewhat of a good example of where ID'ers and Creationists come together. Not an absolute, but it's the strange mishmash of acceptance of both dinosaurs and Adam and Eve in the same philosophical breath.
There was a time when Creationists believed that dinosaurs didn't exist, if I recall. Oh how far they've come.
Bill Hicks, RIP | November 19, 2007, 1:56pm | #
anybody remember this riff?"You know the world's 12 thousand years old and dinosaurs existed, they existed in that time, you'd think it would have been mentioned in the fucking Bible at some point. "And lo Jesus and the disciples walked to Nazareth. But the trail was blocked by a giant brontosaurus... with a splinter in his paw. And O the disciples did run a shriekin': 'What a big fucking lizard, Lord!' But Jesus was unafraid and he took the splinter from the brontosaurus's paw and the big lizard became his friend. And Jesus sent him to Scotland where he lived in a loch for O so many years inviting thousands of American tourists to bring their fat fucking families and their fat dollar bills.And oh Scotland did praise the Lord. Thank you Lord, thank you Lord. Thank you Lord.
"Get this, I actually asked one of these guys, OK, Dinosaurs fossils - how does that fit into you scheme of life? Let me sit down and strap in. He said, "Dinosaur fossils? God put those there to test our faith." I think God put you here to test my faith, Dude. You believe that? "uh huh." Does that trouble anyone here? The idea that God.. might be.. fuckin' with our heads? I have trouble sleeping with that knowledge. Some prankster God running around: "Hu hu ho. We will see who believes in me now, ha ha." [mimes God burying fossils] "I am God, I am a prankster." "I am killing Me."
crimethink | November 19, 2007, 2:08pm | #
But, if evolution is true, then there was no garden of eden, no Adam and Eve, and no original sin for Jesus to die for.That doesn't follow. The occurrence of evolution doesn't preclude there having been two individual "first humans", and has nothing at all to do with original sin.
Captain Chaos (now in thrall to URKOBOLD) | November 19, 2007, 2:09pm | #
Bill Hicks-And, if you buy into God's prank (or fail his test) you burn in hell for all eternity. Because he loves us. In fact, it's he so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son...Yeah, that makes sense.
The only weak defense of the whole ID/Creationist industry I would probably accept is that they may wind up stumbling on something correct by accident, in the same way the Tycho Brahe's laborious observations to sustain a geocentric universe was used by Kepler to discovered the eponomymous law.
Reinmoose | November 19, 2007, 2:16pm | #
Yeah, that makes sense.But that's just it Captain Chaos! He's testing you on that too! If God's actions or the explanation of those actions made sense, then everyone would believe in him, and nobody would be spiritually better than anyone else because they have "faith" in something that apparently actually happened.
Syloson of Samos | November 19, 2007, 2:25pm | #
crimethink,And these "first humans" (this Adam and Eve) evolved into a "garden of eden?" Why even bother with the Genesis story?
Syloson of Samos | November 19, 2007, 2:28pm | #
Lurker Kurt,You are right of course; evolution presents a problem for the concept of "original sin." "Original sin" depends on two humans making a "bad choice" that then effects the all of the humans which follow on from then (we'll ignore for now that Genesis seems to suggest that other humans were living at the time - though one might want to ask how they were effected by the actions of Adam and Eve).
Syloson of Samos | November 19, 2007, 2:30pm | #
Lurker Kurt,At least as the concept is presented in the Genesis account.
Gilmore,
Given that science and religion do compete and are often in conflict I've never really found Gould's thesis very compelling.
GILMORE | November 19, 2007, 2:35pm | #
the guys who really kill me are not the Dinosaur-Deniers, but the ones who have some limited ability to talk in science-terms, but go after some niggling point to try and prove the negative = "that if *maybe* science doesnt have 99.999% certainty for something, THEREFORE this ridiculous pile of shit potentially has merit!"One guy tries it on that http://scalzi.com thread, here:
" ...however according to the sedimentation rates analyzed in the Yellow River, it should take 10M years to take Everest from its peak to level ground… yet it is still here.. and its been here for millions of years, right? how come?
WHERE IS THE TRUTH!! WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO HIDE!!
They basically go after some oblique 'fatoid', then flip it into, "ergo!.."
I learned in college that a certain class of people just slap the word 'therefore' at random in sentences, although they havent actually proposed any form of argument. Aint that America.
GILMORE | November 19, 2007, 2:40pm | #
,I>Gilmore,Given that science and religion do compete and are often in conflict I've never really found Gould's thesis very compelling.
They only tend to 'compete' with people who stubbornly choose to see them in competition, in silly things like the age of the earth or whether or not fertility treatment is 'legal'. The point is that you dont teach ethics with a bunsen burner, and you dont teach people to identify cellular structures with Ecclesiates. Yes, gaileo went to jail, but i'm talking about more current state of affairs.
Syloson of Samos | November 19, 2007, 2:48pm | #
Gilmore,The point is that you dont teach ethics with a bunsen burner...
Evolutionary biology has a lot to say about the development of ethics actually. There is no firewall, etc. between science and religion.
Syloson of Samos | November 19, 2007, 2:50pm | #
Gilmore,Indeed, a non-theistic ethics may necessarily look to various branches of science to aid in the answer of various ethical questions.
Fundamentalists believe that dinosaurs are mentioned in the bible. There is a reference somewhere about a "behemoth" who can spray all the water from a river from his snout, which my mother in law claims could only be a dinosaur. She had no answer when I pointed out that it could be a description of an elephant.
Rattlesnake Jake | November 19, 2007, 2:53pm | #
"Fundamentalists believe that dinosaurs are mentioned in the bible. There is a reference somewhere about a "behemoth" who can spray all the water from a river from his snout, which my mother in law claims could only be a dinosaur. She had no answer when I pointed out that it could be a description of an elephant."Actually the reference is to a crocodile.
Pro Libertate | November 19, 2007, 3:00pm | #
Fools! The reference is really to alien spacecraft with fire hoses. Jesus, do I have to do all of the thinking around here?Lurker Kurt | November 19, 2007, 3:04pm | #
That doesn't follow. The occurrence of evolution doesn't preclude there having been two individual "first humans", and has nothing at all to do with original sin.As I said, they hold a literal interpretation of Genesis where the two original humans in a earthly paradise failed a test and all of their descendants (you and me included) have suffered for it.
Sean | November 19, 2007, 3:38pm | #
Rattlesnake Jake | November 19, 2007, 2:53pm | #Actually the reference is to a crocodile.
Either way, it is not a Brontosaurus
TrickyVic | November 19, 2007, 4:39pm | #
Daddy, why doesn't the Bible mention dinosaurs?"""As I said, they hold a literal interpretation of Genesis where the two original humans in a earthly paradise failed a test and all of their descendants (you and me included) have suffered for it."""
A just God wouldn't punish us for something Adam and Eve did thousands of years ago, would he? Talk about a being without forgiveness. I guess God just can't let it go. Who knew that holding a grudge for so many years was the way of the lord?
I've only seen a few of the pics, but the one above cracks me up. Are they actually claiming that the lack of empirical evidence is why it is wrong?
Canada | November 19, 2007, 4:46pm | #
What we NEED is the outlaw incandescent light bulbs. That will fix it.Canada | November 19, 2007, 4:46pm | #
gosh darn it, I posted in the wrong threadLurker Kurt | November 19, 2007, 4:56pm | #
A just God wouldn't punish us for something Adam and Eve did thousands of years ago, would he?I've always wondered about that, TrickVic. I'll have to ask one of my bible loving co-workers.
Rattlesnake Jake | November 19, 2007, 4:59pm | #
"A just God wouldn't punish us for something Adam and Eve did thousands of years ago, would he?""I've always wondered about that, TrickVic. I'll have to ask one of my bible loving co-workers."
And watch them twist themselves up like pretzels trying to explain it.
Reinmoose | November 19, 2007, 5:16pm | #
"A just God wouldn't punish us for something Adam and Eve did thousands of years ago, would he?""I've always wondered about that, TrickVic. I'll have to ask one of my bible loving co-workers."
And watch them twist themselves up like pretzels trying to explain it.
The way I've always heard it, all you have to do it accept Jesus Christ as your lord and savior.
I've always responded to this claim with:
"WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN?!"
GILMORE | November 19, 2007, 5:39pm | #
Evolutionary biology has a lot to say about the development of ethics actually. There is no firewall, etc. between science and religionSure. And religion has a lot to say about the kinds of questions we're predisposed to ask. It doesnt mean they are in mutual competition for the same precise applications. They can be mutually complementary, or exclusive in any given case. Tell it to Spinoza mein freund
Syloson of Samos | November 19, 2007, 6:28pm | #
Gilmore,To be blunt, though I love his work dearly, Spinoza was wrong. The liberal state has not ended the competition between religion and science, nor has it denuded religion of political power.
They can be mutually complementary, or exclusive in any given case.
The facts on the ground seem to demonstrate that there is a lot of antagonism between religion and science; and that this antagonism is held by hundreds of millions of people to a greater or lesser extent depending on the person, faith community, etc. So, whether they "need" to clash or not isn't as important as whether they do indeed clash. And they do.
Ah, come on! I click on the link and get a "page can't be displayed" message. You've whet my appetite for these great pictures! What a tease!
LarryA | November 19, 2007, 11:56pm | #
He said, "Dinosaur fossils? God put those there to test our faith."I usually respond to arguments like that with, "So God lies to us?"
The point is that you dont teach ethics with a bunsen burner,
Tell that to Joan of Arc.
Stevo Darkly | November 20, 2007, 12:41am | #
"Hundreds of Bible Prophecies have been fulfilled, and none has failed."I guess Christians don't believe in Grammar either...
"None" can be considered singular, the equivalent of (or contration of) "not one," especially for emphasis.
... presented purely in the spirit of "And why beholdest thou the beam that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the mote that is in thine own eye?" (Yes, that wording is deliberate.)
I hate to say it, but from a purely visual standpoint some of those exhibits are quite beautiful. For example, I'm not exactly sure what this is, but it's rather pretty.
I guess this is why: The creationmuseum.org site says the museum was "designed by a former Universal Studios exhibit director." You can tell that no serious paleontologist was involved. Instead, most of the dinosaurs appear to have been designed by whoever did the dinosaurs for the Jurassic Park movies.
For example, the juvenile tyrannosaurs visible in photo #5 is based directly on the baby T. rex that appeared in Jurassic Park 2. At that time, the appearance of a juvenile tyrannosaur was almost entirely hypothetical; that the museum's restoraction is based on the unique design of the JP2 movie is unmistakeable.
Since then we've found a fossil (nicknamed "Jane") of what appears to be an actual juvenile tyrannosaur. I can't find a decent life reconstruction, but it appears a real T. rex juvenile had a more elongaged, narrow skull and disproportionately long legs.
Similarly, the "velociraptors" in photos #6 and #21 are unmistakeably of Jurassic Park movie provenance. The "velociraptors" in the JP movies are actually made up chimeras. They are much larger than real velociraptors (which were about the size of a jackal or medium-sixed dog) and their heads are all wrong. The JP movie version of a "velociraptor" is unmistakeable, and that's what appears in the Creation Museum.
Also, in recent years, it has been thought likely that velociraptors had feathers of some sort. (JP didn't include the feathers because the animation gear at the time couldn't handle them, although they added a token few in JP3.) Recently it was proven that velociraptors did have feathers, because quill-attachment knobs were found on the animal's forelimbs.
This, by the way, further strengthens the as-close-to-iron-clad-as-you-can-get-in-science theory that birds evolved from dinosaurs. The group that velociraptors belong to has, in fact, so many birdlike traits that it's increasingly academic whether they are properly classed as "dinosaurs" or "birds" -- it appears they were both.
I'll bet this evidence of "evolution in action" -- one "kind" of creature giving rise to another -- doesn't get addressed in the Creation Museum.
(Agh! I'm geeking out!)
Oh, but at least the museum's ceratosaur (photo #31, on the left) is more accurate that the one in JP3; the movie's version was extra sloppy. It looks kinda familiar, though; I suspect it's based on an illustration from a kid's book.
(Agh! Drowning in geekitude!)
Stevo Darkly | November 20, 2007, 12:43am | #
What I guess I'm saying is, the exhibits in the Creation Museum appear to owe nearly as much to the Jurassic Park movies as they do to the Bible, is what I guess I'm saying.TobyCat | November 20, 2007, 9:19am | #
I hate to say it, but from a purely visual standpoint some of those exhibits are quite beautiful. For example, I'm not exactly sure what this is, but it's rather pretty.It is quite beautiful. I thought so too. BTW,it's a grove of Lycopsids.
GILMORE | November 20, 2007, 1:28pm | #
Syloson of Samos | November 19, 2007, 6:28pm | #Gilmore,
To be blunt, though I love his work dearly, Spinoza was wrong.
When you or hitchens publish the definitive rebuttal, i will be first in line.
TrickyVic | November 20, 2007, 4:15pm | #
"""The way I've always heard it, all you have to do it accept Jesus Christ as your lord and savior.I've always responded to this claim with:
"WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN?!""""
It means God is sooo unforgiving that his only son had to die so we could receive get out of jail free cards.
The people who started this museum really don't understand the Judeo/Christian God. God demands faith, you must believe without proof or evidence of his existance. Trying to empirically prove the existance of God undermines God's method. You must surrender unto him dispite the way of the world.