Creationism Museum...WTF

[RamblerGambler]

I've read what some folks have to say on this topic, but I thought I might open it up to the community at large. Personally I find it's very existance a slap in the face to logic and reason. America already test among the lowest in the world, now we're going to give make-believe stories the same credibility as Science?

So, what does anyone else thing on this?

If you are not familiar with this topic, enlighten yourself at these websites:
http://travel.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/arts/24crea.html
http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/ars-takes-a-field-trip-the-creation-museum.ars

And, god forbid, the Creation Museum itself http://www.creationmuseum.org/

[mrdevious]

Of course we're going to make fairytales science, that's the whole creationist agenda with this "intelligent design" crap which I've read, and has no logical basis. It's bad enough that people don't understand the difference between a theory and a hypothesis and thus discredit evolution on such grounds, now we're apparently going to show humans living alongside dinosaurs! I wonder if the creationist museum people can even explain how carbon dating works.

[RamblerGambler]

According to the articles the creation museum even explains how coal can be created in weeks. Also, it explains the mystery of how adam and eve's children DIDN'T commit incest. Truly, this is the work of a great mind.

[delusionsofNORMALity]

i believe the next step for these folks is to turn the smithsonian into a stuckey's.

[Bob the Awesome]

Oh go fucking figure, it's near Cincinnati, that's not a big surprise -_- With that and our Giant Jesus, I'm ready to leave this zealotry-infused place.

[anangrymailman]

People really need to wake the fuck up.

[RamblerGambler]

Billionfold, a hands off approach to this could be rather dangerous. Worst case scenario is these things popping up all over the place. Best case scenario is that this museum is used to indoctranate a new generation of fundamental christians. What happens when a teacher tries to teach evolution to kids who have been forced to go to this travesty...i mean museum?

[RamblerGambler]

Kids don't call bullshit. They listen.

[mrdevious]

They'll either be believers, or call bullshit. It's really no big deal.

Dude, it's a big deal. We're talking about raising a generation on ignorant superstition or sound science and logical reasoning. Society needs to be pulled out of its supersticious mindset and start ruling with reason, not indoctrination. It's bad enough when fundies get into government or other possitions of power and start ruling based on their ingrained presuppositions, rather than logical interpretations of the situation at hand. Europe already endured the dark ages when Christianity took over, now we have a similary situation with nations ruled by Sharia law. We need a generation of thinkers, not believers.

[mrdevious]

Dunno about you, but when I hit puberty, I called bullshit.

Not everybody has strong critical thinking skills like you or I. If you're conditioned from day 1 to think only inside the box, a large portion of the populace will do just that.

[dawninthemorning]

Oh go fucking figure, it's near Cincinnati, that's not a big surprise -_- With that and our Giant Jesus, I'm ready to leave this zealotry-infused place.

Please don't group all of us together. Not all of us are idots

[Nation_1ne]

Billionfold, a hands off approach to this could be rather dangerous. Worst case scenario is these things popping up all over the place. Best case scenario is that this museum is used to indoctranate a new generation of fundamental christians. What happens when a teacher tries to teach evolution to kids who have been forced to go to this travesty...i mean museum?

The kids will already be taught this (if Christian), and the true Christians that are most likely to attend this place will have their kids home schooled. Another point being, if it's already a challenge to have our own children attend ordinary muesems why the hell will they go to this place? Not only that, we have plenty of Churches around, so what difference will it make if you have one of these museum's open. They will both spew the exact same ideas and ways of life. I think you're getting too concerned over nothing personally. I mean seriously, what's gonna' happen? The entire world turns to Christianity because, oh no! A museum has opened!

Come on, you have to admit the idea is a tad dramatic.

[mrdevious]

The reason I'm concerned is because this goes beyond the usual church indoctrination, they're now trying to justify this stuff on scientific grounds and bullshit the people out of questioning with nonsense theories like "intelligent design". Church and science were for the most part separate, but now as we reach an age of scientific understanding, creationists are trying to blur the lines and mudle the public psyche.

[Nation_1ne]

The reason I'm concerned is because this goes beyond the usual church indoctrination, they're now trying to justify this stuff on scientific grounds and bullshit the people out of questioning with nonsense theories like "intelligent design". Church and science were for the most part separate, but now as we reach an age of scientific understanding, creationists are trying to blur the lines and mudle the public psyche.

What? They aren't saying it's scientific to our way of life. Only to someone who is a Christian. Re-read what I have said, take it all in, and realise that there is nothing to worry about. Christian people aren't going to come in the middle of the night and steal your babies so they can sit them in the museum over night. The Church and Science aren't separate, just the Church doesn't feel our theories or reasoning are correct. Which is fine, the problem they have is that we can mostly put their reasoning to shame, unfortunately they can't do the same to us.

[RamblerGambler]

"This may be fascinating, but this is nonsense," said Lawrence M. Krauss, a theoretical physicist at Case Western Reserve University and a vocal defender of evolutionary science. "It's fine for people to believe whatever they want. What's inappropriate is to then essentially lie and say science supports these notions."

And why is this so important?

"When you're talking about origins, you're not talking about science," Ham said as charter members snapped photographs in an early walk-through. "You're talking about belief."

Polls suggest that about half of Americans agree. They dismiss the scientific theory that all beings have a common ancestor, believing instead that God created humans in one glorious stroke. Similar numbers of people say the world's age should be counted in the thousands of years, not billions, as established science would have it.

A Monument To Creation - washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/26/AR2007052600908.html)

And Billionfold, when I said kids earlier I meant children. Not teenagers who question, but elementry school kids and sunday schools and all manner of impressionable youth.

[Nation_1ne]

And Billionfold, when I said kids earlier I meant children. Not teenagers who question, but elementry school kids and sunday schools and all manner of impressionable youth.

And I'm telling you if a child had the choice to sit and watch cartoons or go to this Museum I can assure you most would sit and watch cartoons. The only way children will be invovled in this is if their parents take them or they are already Christian. You know it too.

[delusionsofNORMALity]

Christian people aren't going to come in the middle of the night and steal your babies ....
no, they are going to wait until those babies are in school and then fill their heads with these fairy tales. in case you haven't noticed, creationism and intelligent design are fighting tooth and nail with legitimate scientific reasoning and rational thought for a place in the school systems. do you really think they would stop short of full indoctrination if given half a chance?

[Psycho4Bud]

RG...were our tax dollars used for this?:mad:

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

[Nation_1ne]

no, they are going to wait until those babies are in school and then fill their heads with these fairy tales. in case you haven't noticed, creationism and intelligent design are fighting tooth and nail with legitimate scientific reasoning and rational thought for a place in the school systems. do you really think they would stop short of full indoctrination if given half a chance?

Yeah, of course they are.......Bullshit and you know it. Everyone in my school paid about as much attention to Religious studies as they did French class, and that was fuck all. Religious classes in school get hardly any attention what so ever and lack funds in comparison to other primary subjects. Who the hell said they are now gonna' turn around and make R.E. just as important as Math's and general Science. This changes absolutely nothing what so ever. Stating it's scientific facts is wrong indeed, but stating it's a Christian form of Science is not. Another point about your argument that made me laugh "Fill their heads with fairy tails" don't we do that already?

[mrdevious]

What? They aren't saying it's scientific to our way of life. Only to someone who is a Christian.

Sorry, but I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this. The science of how our universe works, and how we got where we are, cannot be different for each group of people. Either one's right or the other. But I may be interpreting what you're saying wrong, could you elaborate?



Re-read what I have said, take it all in, and realise that there is nothing to worry about.

I beg to differ. Your prior response postulates that the creationist museum is spouting the same thing as the churches and therefor makes no difference. The museum is doing more than any church is capable of, they're actually displaying these arguments in pseudo-scientific terms and thus justifying these beliefs at a high level. The churches don't have elaborote "scientific" explanations as to how coal can form in weeks, or why carbon dating for some reason doesn't work. Sure they may espew the same message, but the elaborate intricacy of the message from the museum portrays a considerably more impressive version of these beliefs.

What I'm trying to get across here is that people have always gone to church, and some end up questioning and rejecting the teachings as is there right. But institutions like these veil the superstition in a cloak of pseudo-science, they keep kids from questioning these beliefs becaues they actually manage to convince them that creationism is a scientific endeavor with plenty of faulty "evidence" to back it up. I think a lot more people would be willing to walk away from this system of thought were they not fed illusionary "science" that tricks them into believing the creationist reasoning is sound.


Christian people aren't going to come in the middle of the night and steal your babies so they can sit them in the museum over night.

It's not my babies I'm worried about, it's theirs. This isn't just religious education anymore, it's a full masters degree in pseudo logic.


The Church and Science aren't separate, just the Church doesn't feel our theories or reasoning are correct.

I totally disagree, the church and science are quite distinctly separate. Just because some people use faulty reasoning and unscientific interpretations, then call it "science", doesn't make it science.


Which is fine, the problem they have is that we can mostly put their reasoning to shame, unfortunately they can't do the same to us.

Well there's something we can both agree on!


Have a good one.

[Nation_1ne]

Sorry, but I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this. The science of how our universe works, and how we got where we are, cannot be different for each group of people. Either one's right or the other. But I may be interpreting what you're saying wrong, could you elaborate?

Religious Science, Non-Religious Science, 2 different subjects and two different versions. Both not the same thing meaning there is more than one. For there to only be one science both subjects would have to be teaching the exact same thing.




I beg to differ. Your prior response postulates that the creationist museum is spouting the same thing as the churches and therefor makes no difference. The museum is doing more than any church is capable of, they're actually displaying these arguments in pseudo-scientific terms and thus justifying these beliefs at a high level. The churches don't have elaborote "scientific" explanations as to how coal can form in weeks, or why carbon dating for some reason doesn't work. Sure they may espew the same message, but the elaborate intricacy of the message from the museum portrays a considerably more impressive version of these beliefs.

What I'm trying to get across here is that people have always gone to church, and some end up questioning and rejecting the teachings as is there right. But institutions like these veil the superstition in a cloak of pseudo-science, they keep kids from questioning these beliefs became they actually manage to convince them that creationism is a scientific endeavor with plenty of faulty "evidence" to back it up. I think a lot more people would be willing to walk away from this system of thought were they not fed illusionary "science" that tricks them into believing the creationist reasoning is sound.

Since you aren't worried about this affecting our children I fail to see what your point here is. I was lead to believe your concern was that this is going affect our way of life as a non believer. If that isn't the case then I came into the discussion for the wrong reasons.


It's not my babies I'm worried about, it's theirs. This isn't just religious education anymore, it's a full masters degree in pseudo logic.

More the fool you if you seriously don't think they already teach their kids this shit. Plus you should have been this specific from the start.



I totally disagree, the church and science are quite distinctly separate. Just because some people use faulty reasoning and unscientific interpretations, then call it "science", doesn't make it science.

I'm not saying it is science to the truest form if at all, but what else shall I refer to it as? If they believe that's Science and refer to it as Science then I'd say it's a Christian version of Science. Regardless if it should or shouldn't be called Science, they still practice this meaning that the two subjects (Rligion and Science) aren't separate.

Right, have fun crying Wolf. I'm off to make a cheese sandwich.

P.s I just read through the thread again, and you said to me that your concern isn't our children it's thiers. But Billionfold quite clearly stated non child believers and child believers. You went on to argue that children don't call BS. I'm sorry but this just gives me more reason not to discuss this with you. If you can't stick to your original debate then why should I even bother?

[stonedblue]

Personally, I believe God created the world and Jesus died to forgive my sins.

Do you hear me complaining about museums that only give credit to evolution and not creation?

It is interesting to argue about both beliefs and compare and contrast them. What is wrong with building a creationism museum? If you are right, and God isn't real at all, and we all just evolved from some stupid-ass bacteria, then this museum isn't really a threat and why does it matter? This isn't making people less intelligent, it's just giving them a broader range of beliefs.

So, why does it matter to you that much that this museum is being built?

[Nation_1ne]

Personally, I believe God created the world and Jesus died to forgive my sins.

Do you hear me complaining about museums that only give credit to evolution and not creation?

It is interesting to argue about both beliefs and compare and contrast them. What is wrong with building a creationism museum? If you are right, and God isn't real at all, and we all just evolved from some stupid-ass bacteria, then this museum isn't really a threat and why does it matter? This isn't making people less intelligent, it's just giving them a broader range of beliefs.

So, why does it matter to you that much that this museum is being built?

Touché.

[mrdevious]

Oh sweet Jebus, we're having a total communication breakdown here. I wasn't contradicting myself, I'm explaining that YES billionfold is right that children don't question what they're fed, but they DO question when they get older and start learning about how the world really works. Maybe I've misinterpreted some of what you said, but you've misinterpreted almost everything I've said as well especially on the main points. It's a complicated issue with a lot of subject matter, and it gets awkward debating someone on an issue we disagree on, yet at the same time completely agree on in our view of the whole religious issue. This obviously isn't going anywhere fast so we'll leave it at that.

[mrdevious]

Personally, I believe God created the world and Jesus died to forgive my sins.

Do you hear me complaining about museums that only give credit to evolution and not creation?

It is interesting to argue about both beliefs and compare and contrast them. What is wrong with building a creationism museum? If you are right, and God isn't real at all, and we all just evolved from some stupid-ass bacteria, then this museum isn't really a threat and why does it matter? This isn't making people less intelligent, it's just giving them a broader range of beliefs.

So, why does it matter to you that much that this museum is being built?

Stoneblue, I agree with you that everybody needs to hear all the viewpoints and consider them accordingly. However, I do take issue with the fact that religion is encroaching on science, and this museum is teaching a form of "science" that in fact holds no weight in the scientific community. Evolution and other sciences have vastly develope and established theories based on the scientific method. This stuff like coal being made in a week and dinosaurs living by humans has no such validity or evidence, it's just outright twising the facts. Again, I agree that kids need to hear all the sides, but don't tell them stories or beliefs and tell them its science, just be honest about what it really is.

[delusionsofNORMALity]

Everyone in my school paid about as much attention to Religious studies as they did French class....

i would agree that if taken in the context of religious belief, such foolishness is no more harmful than the countless churches taking up space on perfectly good land all across the country. the problem arises when these fairy tales (fairies don't have tails;)) are given the same status as legitimate scientific study. whether the students are paying attention is unimportant, the fact that they could be exposed to such religious clap-trap in the guise of science is. these are ideas bred of superstition and they should be left to family or religious leaders, they do not belong in state sponsored educational institutions.



oooo... post count of four aces.

[Nation_1ne]

Just be honest about what it really is.

You can't expect them to call it anything different, they honestly believe that is science.

[stonedblue]

Stoneblue, I agree with you that everybody needs to hear all the viewpoints and consider them accordingly. However, I do take issue with the fact that religion is encroaching on science, and this museum is teaching a form of "science" that in fact holds no weight in the scientific community. Evolution and other sciences have vastly develope and established theories based on the scientific method. This stuff like coal being made in a week and dinosaurs living by humans has no such validity or evidence, it's just outright twising the facts. Again, I agree that kids need to hear all the sides, but don't tell them stories or beliefs and tell them its science, just be honest about what it really is.

Creationism does not contradict very many things. Evolution is one of the few things it contradicts. We cannot prove that evolution is real. We can not prove that creation is real. So, both do demand a bit of faith making both religion. Is this museum being funded publicly? If it is that is strange because the government does not usually build anything with "religious" views these days. If it is being funded with tax-payer's money, I understand why you are frustrated. I'm am sure the museum will not be telling children stories that have no supporting information.

[delusionsofNORMALity]

We cannot prove that evolution is real. We can not prove that creation is real. So, both do demand a bit of faith making both religion.

religion, by its very nature, concerns itself with absolutes. science, on the other hand, is about discovery and experimentation. a theory remains a theory until it can be proved or disproved by unimpeachable and reproducible facts. though there are many who may claim theory to be fact by an application of faith, this is mere pseudo-scientific garbage. so many things in this life are unprovable; through science we may approach an understanding, through religion we can only impose a definition.

[Nation_1ne]

I remember being taught in Science class that many of the Scientists who made outstanding discoveries were actually religious themselves or believed in a form of god.

[RamblerGambler]

Religious Science, Non-Religious Science, 2 different subjects and two different versions. Both not the same thing meaning there is more than one. For there to only be one science both subjects would have to be teaching the exact same thing.

I'm not saying it is science to the truest form if at all, but what else shall I refer to it as? If they believe that's Science and refer to it as Science then I'd say it's a Christian version of Science. Regardless if it should or shouldn't be called Science, they still practice this meaning that the two subjects (Rligion and Science) aren't separate.

The Catholic Church has long held a very Christian version of Science. Turns out most of the science it forced upon it's followers didn't quite turn out to be correct. That's not to say it's still so hidebound, but many fundamentalists today seem to echo this dangerous belief.

The thing is, Evolution is still a theory. Scientists continue to use it because it hasn't been proven wrong. If new information came to light, the theory would be replaced by a more accurate one. The same cannot be said for the "Christian Science."

That being said, I'll open myself up to flaming with a short rant. Religion and Science have always gone well together, just ask Galileo Galilei.

With the loss of many of his defenders in Rome because of Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, Galileo was ordered to stand trial on suspicion of heresy in 1633. The sentence of the Inquisition was in three essential parts:
â?¢Galileo was required to recant his heliocentric ideas; the idea that the Sun is stationary was condemned as "formally heretical." However, while there is no doubt that Pope Urban VIII and the vast majority of Church officials did not believe in heliocentrism, Catholic doctrine is defined by the pope when he speaks ex cathedra (from the Chair of Saint Peter) in matters of faith and morals. While Church officials did condemn Galileo, heliocentrism was never formally or officially condemned by the Catholic Church, except insofar as it held (for instance, in the formal condemnation of Galileo) that "The proposition that the sun is in the center of the world and immovable from its place is absurd, philosophically false, and formally heretical; because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scriptures", and the converse as to the Sun's not revolving around the Earth.[16]
â?¢He was ordered imprisoned; the sentence was later commuted to house arrest.
â?¢His offending Dialogue was banned; and in an action not announced at the trial and not enforced, publication of any of his works was forbidden, including any he might write in the future.

This is the danger of Theology ruling Science. If science is beyond the dogma of the current theology, the information is dismissed and the scientist is persecuted.

[couch-potato]

We cannot prove that evolution is real.


:wtf: lol

[Dro_Princess]

I would go to that museum. It sounds like it would be very intresting to go and see. Smoking before would be awesome. I believe in creationism and it may not be the popular opinion in this thread, but that is how I believe. I dont see anything wrong with the museum. It brings to life everything Christians have read about.

[delusionsofNORMALity]

I just pictured Jesus sitting out front doing a Bible signing.
no; god does the bible signings, jesus gives the guided tours and the holy ghost is in charge of security.

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

i could put logic into intelligent design, but not this whole museum thing. it is utter bullshit.


i dont particularly care, but i definitely say it's total BS.



as for being logical, it's simple really: mind over matter, and energy for that matter:P


mind is ever present, eternal, and infinite, matter and energy are illusions created by the mind.



kind of like a video game, where did video games come from? they surely werent just a product of random occurrences between computers and programmers!



life is just a giant MMORPG for the mind(s).


your mind is the real you, your body is just your character lol

[jsn9333]

Who cares what they believe? They obviously have made very little headway in getting their religion taught in public schools in any form at all, and have made zero headway in getting evolution out of the schools. In fact, their goal isn't even to get evolution out of the schools, but that's for another thread.

I don't necessarily believe in the 6 24-hour day creation. But I don't care if someone does. Many of these people are high acheivers in the "secular" educational system. So creationism existing in society doesn't make people dumber. It just makes them more open to various theories that exist... whether they agree with them or not.

The low test scores in the U.S. have nothing to do with Christianity. If anything, they have to do with morality, discipline, and Christianity being taken OUT of the schools in the middle to end of last century (amazingly enough, when things sort of started going downhill in this country economically and socially).

I don't think public schools should teach religion or Christianity... don't get me wrong. But basic morals (pilosophy of ethics, morality, etc.) should be back in the curriculum in public schools. Getting it from Christianity as a *State* religion was wrong... but in tossing out moral ethics and Christianty from the school system they threw the baby out with the bathwater.

Kids should be taught the morals of good, hard work, diligence, fighting laziness, not wasting time and effort in gossip, backbiting, fighting, abusing drugs (not necessarily using them... but abusing them) etc... a host of things. All these things were taught when Christianity was in the schools (since they are all part of that religion).

Again, I *don't* want Christianity in the schools. But there needs to be a moral foundation for kids to grow on.


I've read what some folks have to say on this topic, but I thought I might open it up to the community at large. Personally I find it's very existance a slap in the face to logic and reason. America already test among the lowest in the world, now we're going to give make-believe stories the same credibility as Science?

So, what does anyone else thing on this?

If you are not familiar with this topic, enlighten yourself at these websites:
Creation Museum - Religion - New York Times (http://travel.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/arts/24crea.html)
Ars takes a field trip: the Creation Museum: Page 1 (http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/ars-takes-a-field-trip-the-creation-museum.ars)

And, god forbid, the Creation Museum itself Creation Museum - Creation Museum (http://www.creationmuseum.org/)

[Hardcore Newbie]

I don't believe in creationism but I'd love to go to the museum. My beef with it from what I've read, is that these people are claiming only one "true" method of creationism, rather than many different views. Not every creationist theory thinks that the world was made 6000 years ago, so they shouldn't be putting that up as "a creationist fact". But the idea of a creationist museum done properly doesn't bother me at all.

I love the saddle on the triceratops tho :D

[peacetrain]

Creationism Museum...that's really too bad.

Creationism doesn't broaden anyone's viewpoints, it gives us the same viewpoint we've always been given wrapped up in a new pseudo-secular package. God created the earth because you can't DISprove him and the world is too complex for there not to be a Christian God. Bull.

Also, anyone who thinks the world is 6,000 years old is seriously delusional. You are abandoning all sense of world history. The history of our world is important.

[BokingTowls]

Creationism does not contradict very many things. Evolution is one of the few things it contradicts. We cannot prove that evolution is real. We can not prove that creation is real. So, both do demand a bit of faith making both religion. Is this museum being funded publicly? If it is that is strange because the government does not usually build anything with "religious" views these days. If it is being funded with tax-payer's money, I understand why you are frustrated. I'm am sure the museum will not be telling children stories that have no supporting information.

see this is the type of brainwashing that bothers me about this whole museum issue and well the christian faith itself. you are right in one thing, we can't prove creationism. however, evolution is a proven theory. it can be duplicated. now whether humans evolved from primates and so forth down the line is up for debate. personally a 99% gene match is good enough proof for me. the point of this is, species can evolve. it doesn't happen over night, it takes generations. but evolution does exist.

[natureisawesome]

Aahhhh I just can't take it.

I was going to try and read all 2 pages, but no way. I have never read or heard so many ignorant comments about creation science in my whole life. If any of you got into a debate with a creationist, your egos would drop like a bomb. You would probably get very mad or feel afraid or intimidated and soon you wouldn't even be able to say anything because you don't even understand what he's saying anymore.

If something is stupid or faulty, fine say it's stupid or faulty. But all I hear is how it's a psuedo science and name calling. No explanations.

When people do that it just plainly shows how ignorant they are.

[king of the world]

let me get this straight

its ok for yall to believe that there is no god

but its wrong for people to believe in a god?

some of yall might think that creationism is a fairytale but most of the science stuff is based on theory.

this site is becoming more and more disrespectful to those that have a religion. not cool.:(

[DreadConches]

nature, yes I would get mad. But not because I didn't understand what they are trying to say but rather because they are basically committing scientific blasphemy. Science is based on fact, find any fucking fact that proves "gods" existence. Think of it this way, remember that book by Dan Brown (DaVinci Code)that was created as a work of literature that raised such a big stink in the world of Catholicism? Now just think what is happening here, i'm surprised scientists haven't lashed out the same way. I hate that most peoples proof of creationism is that the world is very complex. Yeah, it is complex, so, does that mean that god is automatically real? This is just an attempt to try to get Christianity into the schools under the label of Science. It is stupid to argue with them because that implies that they are willing to see how fucking ludicrous their ideas are and get them past "no one can prove god isn't real, so he must be real."

From Death Row this is DreadConches Abu-Jamal signing out.

[JD1stTimer]

lol "scientific blasphemy". That is a good one. Don't take DNA's name in vain!!!! That being said, everyone who is worried that people might manage to get this pushed into the public schools need to realize ONE BASIC PRINCIPLE re: government services. If you allow the government to take charge over any area of you and your children's lives, it will simply be the tyranny of the majority or the whims of a few determining the style and quality of service. In other words, you get what you pay for, and if you're pooling your resources you lose your individual control over the utilization of those resources. In other words, for a creationist, why should you let THEM decide what to teach YOUR CHILDREN? And for a non-creationist, why should you let THEM decide what to teach YOUR CHILDREN? As far as government funded schools are concerned, this will always be the basic flaw unless a completely ideologically neutral voucher system is in place. In other words, if you want your children to be taught that Dr. Seuss wrote non-fiction historical works, then you and the other parents who agree should get up your own school and hire a teacher. Of course, there would have to be a math, history, reading, writing, and science test for the children to pass in order for the school to accept the vouchers for payment, but you can teach the skills for those tests and still ground the children in whatever philosophy you like the best. Even if kids learn creationism, so what? If they have a good understanding of biology they won't have any trouble understanding college classes, and if they're not college-bound it surely won't have any effect on their work performance or success in life. Take me for example. I was taught in the Christian private school all my life. But in college I got all 4s in my life sciences. I know all the organs of mammals, I knew at one point all the parts of the brain and almost all the bones, I understand genetic replication, protein coding and synthesis, inheritance, natural selection, the generally accepted timeline of life on Earth, radiocarbon dating, and the use of genetic markers to trace lineages. Why? Because they did teach the scientific principles of observation and testing, which are what's REALLY important for young people. So everyone get your heads out of your heinies and realize that ideological matters are relatively unimportant from an educational standpoint, and the quality of the curriculum is what's really important. I was by no means disadvantaged compared to my classmates, and neither will anyone else be if they learn to read, write, do math, and experiment.

[JD1stTimer]

RamblerGambler re: the danger of religion ruling science. That's not a good example. It's only a good example of the danger of religion legislating and executing law.

[JD1stTimer]

I just thought of another point... it seems like the topic REALLY up for debate isn't even science, it's what most museums very accurately call "Natural History". Reminds me of a great museum I spent a lot of time in as a child. The Fort Worth Museum of Science and History. The Science wings had computers (personal computer were new back then, lol), the visible woman, star charts, preserved fetuses, skeletons, plate tectonics, physics, etc. The History wings had the dinosaurs, coal, amber, timelines, phylogeny, cosmology, early man (I used to LOVE the stone-age surgeons trepanning with their lava-rock bone drill. I could look at that for hours.. if anyone else remembers it, wasn't that cool?), different civilizations and cultures. IOW, the proper context of the evo/creation debate is within the realm of history, with the science only useful to provide the evidence with which to back up your claims.

[jamstigator]

Heh, 'intelligent design' is such a joke. Rabbits have to eat their food, crap it out, and then eat their crap, in order to properly absorb the nutrients. That's intelligent design, eating your own poop? There are lots of similar examples where evolution didn't quite work out very well and produced 'an inferior product'. If there is a God doing this designing, he's a retard and not worth worshipping.

I don't think the word 'museum' should be used for this building. It's a place of proselytizing an unproven theory, more of a place of worship than anything else.

As to right-wing Christians coming in the night and stealing babies, no, of course not. But when they gain a majority, they assemble in Congress and steal your rights. Which is rather ironic because one of the most basic conservative tenets is small government, less government intrusion. Yet, when it comes to what you might do with a consenting partner in your own home with the curtains drawn, they definitely want the government in there, to make sure you don't inadvertently do something they consider immoral and thus put your soul in peril.

[natureisawesome]

When someone says that evolution is purely scientific and then says creationism is not science, they are really declaring their own ignorance about what science even is.

Science can do a lot of neat stuff. It can help build airplanes and calculators and computers etc. It can help us learn a lot of new information about the outside world and test any theory we may have about how the natural laws of the universe work.

But the thing about science is, : Science only works in the present!. Science is a tool that we use to observe and make observations and tests here in the present today.

When it comes to the past, it is always relegated to the area of belief, even with evolution. This is because neither creationists nor evolutionist were there to see exactly what when on.

We all have the same evidence, but two different presuppositions, two different worldviews, and so we interperet the evidence differently. A scientist who is a creationist will take his beliefs and look and the evidence and try to look for ways the evidence fits with what he assumes about the natural world and how it got here. He can extrapolate back in time by using scientific data and knoledge about natural laws, and it is possible to come to the right answer, the thing about it is if you start from a faulty presupposition you could get incorrect results.

Evolutionts purport to use science in much the same way. There is and never has been any observable example of any bio-organism
gaining complexity and an increase of genetic information by evolution. They have to make assumptions and beliefs about the past too, just like creationists. They try to look for things in the natural world that show evidence of evolution. Since there is no empirical evidence they have to make assumptions about the past. They look and bones, and interperet them a certain way.

Now it's true that both interperetations cannot be right, but both make assumptions about that past. I hope that is clear enough.

Modern science as we now know it was founded by Christians and
flourished because of a release of ideas and freeedom through the reformation. Science itself is established on one asumption, that is that the natural laws of the universe always hold true. Even evolutionists accept this and forget that without a Christian philosophy to shape that assumption beleiving in a God of order, there is no reason to belive that the natural laws always hold true.
That was a big assumption that was made back then, but it turns out that that act of faith has been validated, and even before that was validated by early observers of the universe.

Finder out which theory is closer to the truth is a lot more obvious than people think. Evolution and creation are such enormously different concepts that the evidence and information we have available should fit one much more readily than te other. And it does! but it's not evolution, it's creation. When looking at a theory, it's a good idea to look at it's past history. When we take a look at evolution, and very much of the evidence it has shown as proof, you will find that it's just about all been discounted and discarded. But all the time they try to come up with new ideas, trying to save the sinking ship. But creationism has a different story. What it's shown as proof has stayed stable far longer than evolution has ever ixisted as a theory. And furthermore there's much more evidence for creation then evolution. And Creationism has had very few examples of evidence that has had to be discarded, although there have been some.

When people say no creation science should not be discussed in schools, they're showing the same kind of attitude that they would not want to have pushed on them. They wouldn't want to live in the Roman catholic empire where they cannot speak or learn about other religions or ideas besides catholicism. But they will not allow another idea for how our world got here except evolution. No cross examination. But that's one of the most IMPORTANT parts of empirical science!! Creationism is discounted
merely because it includes God and therefore must be religious indoctrination. How is it religious to merely talk about the idea that God made the universe? Are they forcing your children to pray or obey the ten commandments? Are they pushing them into the water to get baptized? It's a farce, and it's a pathetic tactic to keep any competition to evolution out of the secular dominated schools.

THe creation museum is something you really should go see before you start slandering it and saying it's just the same stuff they preach in sunday school only hid behind psuedo science. What ignorance. You don't even realize that churches have been one of the biggest hinderances to the creationist movement. Many churches you go to nowadays have no clear doctrine on whether things came by evolution or not, and many are firmly opposed to creation. ANd that is not only true today, but also right from the beginning! When darwin's idea first came around it wasn't church who gave resisitance to his idea, it was the scientists! The church practically worshipped him. More about that here:

Holy war? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i4/holywar.asp)

I've seen pictures of the museum and it's indeed world class. People have come from all over the world to see the museum and it is a great acheivement for creation science. It's funded by donations and sales. The exibits arn't just bible stories, but include scientific evidence that fits with creation and refutes false evidence and concepts propogated by evolutionary theory.

I suggest anyone feeling critical of the museum should go to the website and learn more about it first:

Creation Museum - Creation, Evolution, Science, Dinosaurs, Family, Christian Worldview - Creation Museum (http://www.creationmuseum.org/)

[Iambreathingin]

Just another testiment to organized religion.

[Delta9 UK]

Evolutionts purport to use science in much the same way. There is and never has been any observable example of any bio-organism
gaining complexity and an increase of genetic information by evolution.


That simply isn't true, you are completely wrong.

I can give you LOTS of examples.

[natureisawesome]

Go ahead. I challange you.

But do it in another thread.

[JD1stTimer]

Please post them, Delta9uk. Now I'm going to get in my time machine and see what was going on in 10 MILLION BC! O wait, that's science fiction. Sorry guys I can't bring you a report on dinosaurs.

[Delta9 UK]

<sigh> OK then......

[BlueDevil]

Creationism does not contradict very many things. Evolution is one of the few things it contradicts. We cannot prove that evolution is real.


Man I hope you were high when you wrote that.

Creationism is built upon the Genesis, and Genesis is nonsense. Hell, I personally know pastors who have conceded this! Only a vocal fringe group really takes young earth creationism seriously.
Evolution, via natural selection, IS real - the evidence is overwhelming and denying it makes you look brainwashed. Plain and simple.

If evolution were false, then pesticide companies like Orkin and pharmaceutical firms like Phizer wouldn't have the business they do today. Care to guess why?

I feel bad for many christians, as I know they're sensible people in general but they allow they're feelings to lull them into believing the weak talking points so en vogue with their vocal and closeminded brethren. In my experience the most vehement anti-evolution types are in fact the ones who are ignorant of even the most basic evolutionary principles. Case in point the people who made this museum. I can't help but feel sad when dogma wins over reality. :(

And people wonder why the US is losing it's global dominance in science.... *sigh*



When people say no creation science should not be discussed in schools, they're showing the same kind of attitude that they would not want to have pushed on them.

You are COMPLETELY misrepresenting the opposition here, odd behavior if you're indeed confident in your sides position.
People don't want creationism taught in science class - there is a huge difference. If you want the christian literary tradition covered in public schools, then it belongs in a Comparative Religion class, many high schools already have syllabuses to that effect. Creationism should not be taught, and is not taught in a science curriculum for the exact same reasons we don't dispense astrology in astronomy class.
Parents who have a problem with that should either enroll their kids in a private school more in line with their religious sensitivities, or look to Bible School at their prefered church for the additional tutelage. Pretty straight forward really...

[jamstigator]

The problem with Creationism, aside from there being no evidence of any kind to support it, is that if there is a God, Creationism necessitates him being a conniving and purposeful liar. Hiding dinosaur bones all over the planet, along with the humanoid bones of what appear to be our ancestors, in minute detail, just to trick us into thinking he doesn't exist? That's pretty hard to swallow.

What did Sherlock Holmes say? "The most obvious answer is most often the correct one." Something like that. The simplest explanation for there being dinosaur bones all around the planet that carbon date to many millions of years ago in time is that there were dinosaurs many millions of years ago. The simplest explanation for the fossil record showing increasing complexity in lifeforms over time is that lifeforms grow more complex over time.

There's no reason to inject religion into this other than that the material facts don't match this or that piece of religious writing. That's the problem with religion mixing with science: religion tries to make the facts fit the religion. Science doesn't try to make the facts fit anything; scientific theories are refined constantly to reflect the available evidence. Most scientists are willing to accept that God created everything, even a mere 6,000 years ago or whatever, provided that that is what the evidence shows. But it doesn't. Creationists are not nearly that flexible. If the facts don't fit their beliefs then either the facts must be wrong, or God did it all just to trick us.

[natureisawesome]

Quote:
Creationism does not contradict very many things. Evolution is one of the few things it contradicts. We cannot prove that evolution is real.



Man I hope you were high when you wrote that.

I hope you're not talking to me because I didn't type that.


Evolution, via natural selection, IS real - the evidence is overwhelming and denying it makes you look brainwashed. Plain and simple.

This is just an opinionated comment with no scientific examples to back it up.


If evolution were false, then pesticide companies like Orkin and pharmaceutical firms like Phizer wouldn't have the business they do today. Care to guess why?

Because there was already a small percentage of bugs that were resistant to the pesticide in the first place. When the other bugs got killed off, the resitant ones survived and this became the dominant gene. The information pre-existed in the organism. This is one of the many lines of false evidence for evolitionists, that creationists have to answer over and over again because people like you are so ignorant you don't even realize that your own leading evolutionists know this but you don't.


You are COMPLETELY misrepresenting the opposition here, odd behavior if you're indeed confident in your sides position.
People don't want creationism taught in science class - there is a huge difference. If you want the christian literary tradition covered in public schools, then it belongs in a Comparative Religion class, many high schools already have syllabuses to that effect. Creationism should not be taught, and is not taught in a science curriculum for the exact same reasons we don't dispense astrology in astronomy class.
Parents who have a problem with that should either enroll their kids in a private school more in line with their religious sensitivities, or look to Bible School at their prefered church for the additional tutelage. Pretty straight forward really...

Creationism doesn't teach religious doctrine. What creationism deals with is how the universe and everything came to be. It doesn't neccessarily tell you what laws to obey or how to go to heaven. If that's what fits with the evidence then so be it though. If creationism should be banned from science class because it requires belief, then so should evolution which has it's own accompaning philosophy. You don't understand that facts by themselves are useless but people fit them into a larger philosophy. You can seperate the facts from the philosophy, even though it's better to teach both together. But ultimately everyone will fit the facts into their own philosophy as with evolution fits into a greater philosophy such as humanism or naturalism or pantheism. Either have them both evolution and creation compared and examined or none at all.

Where do you get this idea that simply because a concept involves God or inteligent design it instantly becomes religion? That's not true.

Jamstigator said:


The problem with Creationism, aside from there being no evidence of any kind to support it,

I will simply say you are totally wrong and ignorant, and suggest you go study some creation websites to understand what they really teach. LIke I said we both have the same evidence, but interperet it differently. There is evidence for creation in fossils, geology, archaeology, astronomy, dna, plants, natural laws, irreducible complexity, microorganisms, hydrology, human biology, mathmatics,musicology, zoology, etc. etc.

Go ahead check it out : Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics (http://www.answersingenesis.org) (there are lots of other sites besides that one as well)


Creationism necessitates him being a conniving and purposeful liar. Hiding dinosaur bones all over the planet, along with the humanoid bones of what appear to be our ancestors, in minute detail, just to trick us into thinking he doesn't exist? That's pretty hard to swallow.

Actually the bones and sediment layers fit WONDERFULLY with the creationist model of a worldwide flood. No deciet there at all. The deceit is with evolutionists who show you what's called the geoligical column which exists nowhere in the world asi t's shown exept for a few places in layers that are much too thin. Furthermore they use circular logic, dating the layers by the fossils, then dating the fossils by the layers.

Heres more:

Chapter 4: Unlocking the Geologic Record - Answers in Genesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/geologic-record)

FOSSILS AND ROCKS: CIRCULAR REASONING (http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/12fos11.htm)

Noah's Flood Q&A (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/flood.asp)


What did Sherlock Holmes say? "The most obvious answer is most often the correct one." Something like that.

While I don't believe with the imaginary character sherlock, the most obvious answer is creation. If you say things don't look designed, you are a liar. Lying to yourself.


Science doesn't try to make the facts fit anything;

Science is a tool, it has no mind of it's own. It can be used one way or another. Scientists are biased human beings just like you and me. They think of theories of what they think best happened and search for evidence that's fits with the theory they like best.

Feedback: Are scientists really biased by their presuppositions? - Answers in Genesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/07/13/feedback-interpreting-facts)

I think that there's just too much ignorance in this world. As it says in the Word, If you are wise, you are wise for yourself and if you are a fool you alone will bear it.

[palerider7777]

i believe the next step for these folks is to turn the smithsonian into a stuckey's.

did somebody say stuckey's yum lol the pecan rolls r great

[sam44]

Heh, 'intelligent design' is such a joke. Rabbits have to eat their food, crap it out, and then eat their crap, in order to properly absorb the nutrients. That's intelligent design, eating your own poop? There are lots of similar examples where evolution didn't quite work out very well and produced 'an inferior product'. If there is a God doing this designing, he's a retard and not worth worshipping.

lol +rep

[BlueDevil]

I hope you're not talking to me because I didn't type that.

No shit. Did you see your name attributed to it? There's your answer. Partly my fault as it's a habit of mine from another forum, but suffice to say it's not hard to recognize one's own words, is it? I get by fine without having to be told what it was I wrote.
Anyways...I got as far as..


This is just an opinionated comment with no scientific examples to back it up. ...and alarm bells went off.

*buzzzer sound* Ugh, wrong! Evolution via natural selection is a fact, there are mountains of evidence to back this up - sorry! Is my belief in gravity just an opinionated comment too? Why don't you jump out the window and prove me wrong? ;) Sweet jeebus, you might as well have said there's no proof the sun is yellow.

You'll have to forgive me, I don't feel your brand of indoctrination warrants the effort required on my part to illustrate just how wrong you are. Been down this road before; provide all manner of verified proof and what I get is backpeddling, diversions, then nothing but crickets. If you've made it this far knowing absolutely nothing about Darwin's Natural Selection yet still continue to rail against it, I hold no illusions that an anonymous poster on this forum is going to change your mind. Likewise, it kinda strikes the rest of your replies not worth responding to, no matter the number of strawmen and downright falsehoods you post. I learned a long time ago not to debate with those wearing earplugs and blinders. Mea culpa.

Is there anyone else here who would like to discuss this without resorting to talking points that were shot down a long time ago?

For the lazy folks (not a slam, I'm kinda lazy myself!) National Geographic did a pretty good article on this topic not too long ago, it was called 'Was Darwin Wrong?' I'm sure you can find it online, some of you might even have the issue it's in.

[BlueDevil]

Aha! Found it! An excerpt from the article I mentioned:


Today the same four branches of biological science from which Darwin drewâ??biogeography, paleontology, embryology, morphologyâ??embrace an ever growing body of supporting data. In addition to those categories we now have others: population genetics, biochemistry, molecular biology, and, most recently, the whiz-bang field of machine-driven genetic sequencing known as genomics. These new forms of knowledge overlap one another seamlessly and intersect with the older forms, strengthening the whole edifice, contributing further to the certainty that Darwin was right.

He was right about evolution, that is. He wasn't right about everything. Being a restless explainer, Darwin floated a number of theoretical notions during his long working life, some of which were mistaken and illusory. He was wrong about what causes variation within a species. He was wrong about a famous geologic mystery, the parallel shelves along a Scottish valley called Glen Roy. Most notably, his theory of inheritanceâ??which he labeled pangenesis and cherished despite its poor reception among his biologist colleaguesâ??turned out to be dead wrong. Fortunately for Darwin, the correctness of his most famous good idea stood independent of that particular bad idea. Evolution by natural selection represented Darwin at his bestâ??which is to say, scientific observation and careful thinking at its best.

Douglas Futuyma is a highly respected evolutionary biologist, author of textbooks as well as influential research papers. His office, at the University of Michigan, is a long narrow room in the natural sciences building, well stocked with journals and books, including volumes about the conflict between creationism and evolution. I arrived carrying a well-thumbed copy of his own book on that subject, Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution. Killing time in the corridor before our appointment, I noticed a blue flyer on a departmental bulletin board, seeming oddly placed there amid the announcements of career opportunities for graduate students. "Creation vs. evolution," it said. "A series of messages challenging popular thought with Biblical truth and scientific evidences." A traveling lecturer from something called the Origins Research Association would deliver these messages at a local Baptist church. Beside the lecturer's photo was a drawing of a dinosaur. "Free pizza following the evening service," said a small line at the bottom. Dinosaurs, biblical truth, and pizza: something for everybody.

In response to my questions about evidence, Dr. Futuyma moved quickly through the traditional categoriesâ??paleontology, biogeographyâ??and talked mostly about modern genetics. He pulled out his heavily marked copy of the journal Nature for February 15, 2001, a historic issue, fat with articles reporting and analyzing the results of the Human Genome Project. Beside it he slapped down a more recent issue of Nature, this one devoted to the sequenced genome of the house mouse, Mus musculus. The headline of the lead editorial announced: "HUMAN BIOLOGY BY PROXY." The mouse genome effort, according to Nature's editors, had revealed "about 30,000 genes, with 99% having direct counterparts in humans."

The resemblance between our 30,000 human genes and those 30,000 mousy counterparts, Futuyma explained, represents another form of homology, like the resemblance between a five-fingered hand and a five-toed paw. Such genetic homology is what gives meaning to biomedical research using mice and other animals, including chimpanzees, which (to their sad misfortune) are our closest living relatives.

No aspect of biomedical research seems more urgent today than the study of microbial diseases. And the dynamics of those microbes within human bodies, within human populations, can only be understood in terms of evolution.

Nightmarish illnesses caused by microbes include both the infectious sort (AIDS, Ebola, SARS) that spread directly from person to person and the sort (malaria, West Nile fever) delivered to us by biting insects or other intermediaries. The capacity for quick change among disease-causing microbes is what makes them so dangerous to large numbers of people and so difficult and expensive to treat. They leap from wildlife or domestic animals into humans, adapting to new circumstances as they go. Their inherent variability allows them to find new ways of evading and defeating human immune systems. By natural selection they acquire resistance to drugs that should kill them. They evolve. There's no better or more immediate evidence supporting the Darwinian theory than this process of forced transformation among our inimical germs.

Take the common bacterium Staphylococcus aureus, which lurks in hospitals and causes serious infections, especially among surgery patients. Penicillin, becoming available in 1943, proved almost miraculously effective in fighting staphylococcus infections. Its deployment marked a new phase in the old war between humans and disease microbes, a phase in which humans invent new killer drugs and microbes find new ways to be unkillable. The supreme potency of penicillin didn't last long. The first resistant strains of Staphylococcus aureus were reported in 1947. A newer staph-killing drug, methicillin, came into use during the 1960s, but methicillin-resistant strains appeared soon, and by the 1980s those strains were widespread. Vancomycin became the next great weapon against staph, and the first vancomycin-resistant strain emerged in 2002. These antibiotic-resistant strains represent an evolutionary series, not much different in principle from the fossil series tracing horse evolution from Hyracotherium to Equus. They make evolution a very practical problem by adding expense, as well as misery and danger, to the challenge of coping with staph.

The biologist Stephen Palumbi has calculated the cost of treating penicillin-resistant and methicillin-resistant staph infections, just in the United States, at 30 billion dollars a year. "Antibiotics exert a powerful evolutionary force," he wrote last year, "driving infectious bacteria to evolve powerful defenses against all but the most recently invented drugs." As reflected in their DNA, which uses the same genetic code found in humans and horses and hagfish and honeysuckle, bacteria are part of the continuum of life, all shaped and diversified by evolutionary forces.

Even viruses belong to that continuum. Some viruses evolve quickly, some slowly. Among the fastest is HIV, because its method of replicating itself involves a high rate of mutation, and those mutations allow the virus to assume new forms. After just a few years of infection and drug treatment, each HIV patient carries a unique version of the virus. Isolation within one infected person, plus differing conditions and the struggle to survive, forces each version of HIV to evolve independently. It's nothing but a speeded up and microscopic case of what Darwin saw in the Galápagosâ??except that each human body is an island, and the newly evolved forms aren't so charming as finches or mockingbirds.

Understanding how quickly HIV acquires resistance to antiviral drugs, such as AZT, has been crucial to improving treatment by way of multiple drug cocktails. "This approach has reduced deaths due to HIV by severalfold since 1996," according to Palumbi, "and it has greatly slowed the evolution of this disease within patients."

Insects and weeds acquire resistance to our insecticides and herbicides through the same process. As we humans try to poison them, evolution by natural selection transforms the population of a mosquito or thistle into a new sort of creature, less vulnerable to that particular poison. So we invent another poison, then another. It's a futile effort. Even DDT, with its ferocious and long-lasting effects throughout ecosystems, produced resistant house flies within a decade of its discovery in 1939. By 1990 more than 500 species (including 114 kinds of mosquitoes) had acquired resistance to at least one pesticide. Based on these undesired results, Stephen Palumbi has commented glumly, "humans may be the world's dominant evolutionary force."

Among most forms of living creatures, evolution proceeds slowlyâ??too slowly to be observed by a single scientist within a research lifetime. But science functions by inference, not just by direct observation, and the inferential sorts of evidence such as paleontology and biogeography are no less cogent simply because they're indirect. Still, skeptics of evolutionary theory ask: Can we see evolution in action? Can it be observed in the wild? Can it be measured in the laboratory?

The answer is yes. Peter and Rosemary Grant, two British-born researchers who have spent decades where Charles Darwin spent weeks, have captured a glimpse of evolution with their long-term studies of beak size among Galápagos finches. William R. Rice and George W. Salt achieved something similar in their lab, through an experiment involving 35 generations of the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster. Richard E. Lenski and his colleagues at Michigan State University have done it too, tracking 20,000 generations of evolution in the bacterium Escherichia coli. Such field studies and lab experiments document anagenesisâ??that is, slow evolutionary change within a single, unsplit lineage. With patience it can be seen, like the movement of a minute hand on a clock.


I used this as an example as it's one of the most succinct rundowns on the subject that I've come across...full article can be found at Was Darwin Wrong? @ National Geographic Magazine (http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/fulltext.html)


Btw, Jams, in regards to the Sherlock thing, are you sure you ain't thinking about Occam's Razor?

[jamstigator]

I was thinking of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Sherlock Holmes, but his was a paraphrase of Occam's Razor. Snippet via Wiki:

"The fictional friar, William of Baskerville, alludes both to the fictional sleuth Sherlock Holmes and to William of Ockham. The name itself is derived from William of Ockham and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's book The Hound of the Baskervilles. William of Ockham, who lived during the time of the novel, first put forward the principle known as "Ockham's Razor": often summarised as the dictum that one should always accept as most likely the simplest explanation that accounts for all the facts (a method used by William of Baskerville in the novel), similar to Sherlock Holmes' familiar assertion that when one has eliminated the impossible, whatever remains â?? however improbable â?? must be the truth."

I like the Sherlock Holmes quote the best, but they say basically the same thing, and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle obviously did get it from William of Ockham.

[BlueDevil]

I gotcha! :thumbsup:

[LegalizeTheGreen]

I wanna go to the museum and see Adam and Eve riding matching T-rex's! Who wants to take a field trip?!?!?!?!


seriously, this museum does make me sad for our country, but I doubt it is the impending "Hammer of Doom" decending towards our youth many posters make it seem.

Sure, it's kind of sad that religion is trying to use science to further it's own aims (what with being an organization that supposedly relies on faith alone), but there are worse things out there in the world, like the fact that our president is the kind of person that would visit this museum. I'm more worried about that then a handful of zealot parents taking their kids to visit it. I worry that our president says "The verdict is still out on evolution".
Worry about our children and our future, but lets worry about the present more.

[BlueDevil]

LegalizeTheGreen wrote:

Sure, it's kind of sad that religion is trying to use religious pseudo-science to further it's own aims

Fixed! ;)


I'm always amused by the typical creationist methodology involved in supporting their silliness. Start with the conclusion, then work backwards to find supporting data! How's that for a scientific method? :D

[jamstigator]

If anyone has noticed, God used to be the cause, in peoples' minds anyway, of one helluva lot of things, from meteors to disease, and just about everything else. As time went on and as we expanded our knowledge base, we realized that it wasn't God causing this or doing that. There are many questions still left unanswered; the universe is a complicated place. But I'm glad that instead of attributing everything unexplainable to God, there have been enlightened and intelligent people who have looked deeper for explanations. Had there not been such people, we'd all still be living in caves and shivering in fear at the sight of every meteor shower.

Every year and with every new discovery, 'God's domain' -- e.g., that which we cannot yet explain and which the superstitious therefore attribute to God -- continues to shrink.

If we could figure out faster-than-light travel and improve our telescope technology, we could lay to rest an enormous number of myths. First thing I'd look for is Jesus giving the speech on the mount, then I'd track him backwards in time to find his mother, then I'd track her backwards in time to find out who Jesus' father *really* was. I'm guessing it was either a local boy (sex out of wedlock), or Mary's father (incest). Either way, she had an obvious kickass motive to make up a 'little white lie': she didn't want to be ostracized from her community (or worse, stoned to death). I'd lie to keep from being executed too.

[BlueDevil]

I'm guessing it was either a local boy (sex out of wedlock), or Mary's father (incest). Either way, she had an obvious kickass motive to make up a 'little white lie': she didn't want to be ostracized from her community (or worse, stoned to death). I'd lie to keep from being executed too.

I had a professor, a one time hardcore Catholic, say that christianity was the most elaborate cover-up for an illegitimate birth in the history of the world. Even secular humanists like myself gasped at that, but it does bear a striking similarity to the notion of impregnated girls back in antiquity using excuses like "I met Pan in the forest!" when confronted by family and holymen about their growing abdomen.

I forget what text this was read out of, (it was read at a seminar) but I recall hearing something to the effect that Mary was knocked up by a Roman legionary named Panthera.

French women who slept with German soldiers during the occupation had their heads shaved when the Huns were expelled. There's little doubt in my mind that back in Mary's day her punishment for having sex with an unclean occupier would have indeed involved more rocks than scissors. ;)

Interesting conjecture anyway...

[natureisawesome]

All right Blue devil,

you posted an article and now here's one in return. Enjoy!

also see preliminary comment :

"Was Darwin wrong?" preliminary comments (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1026natgeoprelim.asp)

from National Geographic is wrong and so was Darwin (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1106ng.asp) :


National Geographic is wrong and so was Darwin
by Dr. Terry Mortenson, AiGâ??USA

6 November 2004

The 33-page cover story of the November issue of National Geographic asks the question, â??Was Darwin wrong?â?� The magazine surprised no one with their confident answer, â??No!â?� But scientifically informed and careful thinking readers will want to analyze the â??overwhelming evidenceâ?� (p. 4) before concluding that they are correct. We invite you to consider the following article as food for thought â?¦ there is another explanation!

National Geographic (hereafter simply NG) reflects on the fact that nearly half of Americans donâ??t believe in evolution, due in part to â??Scriptural literalismâ?� [really, itâ??s simply believing Godâ??s plain word] and the â??proselytizingâ?� work of young-earth creationist and intelligent design proponents (p. 6) [one might consider that NG is also proselytizing for their perspective]. They also suggest the disbelief is based on â??honest confusion and ignoranceâ?�; but given that the popular science magazines, the mass media and the educational establishment are controlled by evolutionists, it would seem that evolutionists have no one to blame but themselves for this alleged confusion and ignorance.

For instance, please consider that only about five years ago, NG promoted â??Archaeoraptorâ?� as â??proofâ?? that â??We can now say that birds are theropods just as confidently as we say that humans are mammals.â?�1 However, this turned out to be a hoaxâ??a Piltdown Birdâ??see Archaeoraptorâ??Phony â??featheredâ?� fossil. NG published an embarrassing recantation. However, it seems that their open honesty may have been shortlived.

The NG article begins with an attempt to refute the â??evolution is just a theoryâ?� claim. As we have attempted to show in many previous articles, this belief is simply not valid and we have long discouraged people from saying this very thingâ??see this section of our â??donâ??t useâ?� page. This section also points out that we should be very careful to not elevate evolution with a word like â??theory,â?� and put the â??amoeba-to-manâ?� conjecture on the same level as the theory of relativity and theories of electricity. Rather, these theories that NG confidently compares with evolution are based on repeatable observations in the present, while evolution is a claim about the unobserved past. See Naturalism, Origin and Operation Science.

The article says that â??two big ideas are at issue here: the historical phenomenon of the evolution of all species (descended from a common ancestor) and natural selection as â??the main mechanism causing that phenomenonâ??â?� (p. 8).

The fundamental points of debate: Information
To understand the following brief analysis of this article, we invite you to consider some important facts about life and the creationist view. All living things contain in their cells the DNA molecule that carries the information (genetic instructions) for making all aspects of that creature and all this information is in the first fertilized cell of each kind of creature. Amoeba DNA has no information for making hooves, hair, tails and eyes, but horse DNA does. Alligator DNA has no genetic information for producing feathers, hollow bones and one-way lung systems, but eagles do (as did Archaeopteryx). Some DNA information is common to many different kinds of creatures, but there are also differences.

So the key questions related to evolution are these. One, how did this information come into existence in the evolutionistâ??s supposed first living microscopic creature? And, second, how did the information in that â??simpleâ?� creature get changed and augmented to produce all the different kinds of plants and animals that we see living and in the fossil record?

The NG article doesnâ??t even attempt to address the first question, with good reason. As the world famous astrobiologist, Paul Davies, says:

It's a shame that there are precious few hard facts when it comes to the origin of life. We have a rough idea when it began on Earth, and some interesting theories about where, but the how part has everybody stumped. Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organised themselves into the first living cell.2

This is not surprising, given the problems with chemical evolution to explain lifeâ??s origin, and the key role of genetic information in the making of living creatures. Dr Werner Gitt is a leading German scientist and young-earth creationist who is an expert on information theory. In his powerful, tightly reasoned book, In the Beginning was Information, he argues, â??There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.â?�3

So the evolution hypothesis is in big trouble right from the beginning. But it gets worse, because, as creationists have repeatedly argued, and as we review below, natural selection and mutations (either alone or together) do not produce the increase of new genetic information needed to support the goo-to-you-via-the-zoo theory of evolution.

Creationists believe, based on the clear teaching of Genesis, that God supernaturally made different â??kindsâ?� of plants and animals during the first six literal days of history and that He endowed those creatures with the genetic information to produce enormous varieties within the original kinds but not the ability to change into a different kind. In case you are reading material like this for the first time, please read on and consider what is reviewed below. We believe this to be of vital importance in the overall discussion of life on this earth. Creation scientists (with PhDs earned at secular, evolution-dominated universities) are involved in ongoing scientific research to try to define the genetic boundaries of the original kinds, but most seem to agree that, generally speaking, the Genesis kinds are in most cases at the genus or family level, not the species level of modern taxonomic classification. See What is the Biblical creationist model? and Variation, information and the created kind.

So the contrast between evolution and creation is clear. Evolutionists believe in the tree of lifeâ??that all living things are descended from one common ancestor. That is, they believe in vertical change from one kind of creature to another. Creationists believe in the forest of lifeâ??horizontal variation within the original created kind, but not one kind changing into another. Which view really fits the scientific evidence?

Concerning natural selection, NG gets it wrong at the start when it says that â??Wallace and Darwin share the kudos for having discovered natural selectionâ?� (p. 8). Actually, a respected creationist British scientist, Edward Blyth, discussed the concept (without using the term) 25 years before Darwin published his famous book. Blyth attributed variation within the original created kinds to changes in environment or food supply.4 NG describes natural selection as the â??natural cullingâ?� of â??useless or negative variationsâ?� (p. 8), but this reveals the fatal flaw in Darwinâ??s theory. As creationists have continually pointed out, natural selection doesnâ??t create anything new, it only selects from the existing genetic information from which the varieties are produced. The result is either the preservation of some of that information in a variety well suited to a particular environment or the complete loss of some of the information through extinction of a variety. But what never results is the increase or creation of new genetic information.

NG misleads its readers and evades this information argument when it showcases losses of information as â??proofâ?� of goo-to-you evolution, which would involve massive increases of information. For example, NG asks, â??Why do certain species of flightless beetles have wings that never open?â?� (pp. 12â??13). We have long ago pointed out that such beetles did arise from beetles with fully functional wings because of a mutation that crippled the power of flight. But in some environments, such a mutation may be beneficial, i.e. benefiting the organism. For example, on a windy island, a beetle that flew into the air may be blown into the sea, while flightless ones will avoid that peril. But the bottom line is the beetle has lost something; this doesnâ??t explain how beetles or flight could have arisen in the first place. See Beetle bloopers: Even a defect can be an advantage sometimes, even though it results from a loss of genetic information.

The evidence for evolution is presented by NG in four categories: biogeography (the study of the geographical distribution of living creatures), paleontology (the study of fossils), embryology (the study of the development of embryos to birth) and morphology (the study of the shape and design of creatures). Darwin used all these arguments, and so do modern evolutionists.

Biogeography
Evolutionists say that only evolution can explain why there are certain creatures in one location, say kangaroos in Australia, but not in another location. However, Darwin claimed that evolution explained the pattern of life on fixed continents, while now evolution is supposed to explain the pattern of life on continents that moved apart from one big one. If evolution is so flexible that it can explain such mutually incompatible distributions, then it explains nothing at all.

Also, there are many puzzles to the observed distribution of living and fossil creatures. For example, kangaroos are not mainly in Australia â??because they evolved there.â?� And evolutionists have to admit that marsupials once lived in Europe, Asia and North America (in profusion in the latter), but now are largely absent (except for opossums in the Americas). Here is a revealing admission from two evolutionists:

Living marsupials are restricted to Australia and South America (which were part of the supercontinent Gondwana); North American opossums are recent immigrants to the continent. In contrast, metatherian fossils from the Late Cretaceous are exclusively from Eurasia and North America (which formed the supercontinent Laurasia). This geographical switch remains unexplained.5

But creationists contend that there are much better explanations of the biogeographic evidence, which flow from understanding the changes in climate and sea level after the global catastrophic Flood at the time of Noah and the fact that post-Flood people would have intentionally (and sometimes unknowingly) taken plants and animals to different parts of the world as they repopulated the earth. See Migration Q&A and chapter 1 of Woodmorrappeâ??s book, Studies in Flood Geology.

Closely related species in an area, such as the thirteen species of finches in the Galápagos Islands that Darwin explored, have indeed arisen from a common ancestor. But finches changing into finches donâ??t tell us where finches came from in the first place. Rather, they are a classic example of sorting out genetic information, not generating new information, and far more quickly than evolutionists expected but just what the creation model predictedâ??see Darwinâ??s finches: Evidence supporting rapid post-Flood adaptation. Also, recent work shows that many of the changes are really the result of a built-in capacity to respond to cyclically changing climates. For example, while a drought resulted in a slight increase in beak size, the change was reversed when the rains returned.

This argument applies to the other NG examples of anoles, mole rats, ants, pigeons and fruit flies. Itâ??s also important to note that Darwinâ??s argument was against a compromising view similar to that of progressive creationists such as Hugh Ross: namely, that God created individual species where they are now living.

Contrary to what the NG article implies, informed creationists do indeed believe that new species can arise. But these are the result of the reshuffling or loss of the genetic information in the original created kinds. As explained earlier, creationist scientists do not believe that the original created â??kindsâ?� (mentioned in Genesis 1) are equivalent to the modern man-made taxonomic classification of â??species,â?� but more likely approximates the â??familyâ?� level. Much recent evidence has accumulated to show that speciation can happen rapidly, which has surprised evolutionists but fits perfectly with the Bibleâ??s teachingsâ??see Speedy species surprise.

Paleontology
NG leads readers to believe that Darwin thought the fossil record supported his theory. But actually he admitted more than once in his famous book6 that the fossil record is an embarrassment to his theory of descent from a common ancestor. He knew that if his theory was true, there should be countless numbers of transitional forms (e.g., 100% reptile, 75% reptile-25% bird, 50% reptile-50%bird, 25% reptile-75%bird, 100% bird and many transitional forms between each of those). Darwin attributed the lack of evidence to our ignorance of the fossil record. But today our museums are loaded with fossils and the missing links are still missing.

As the late Harvard evolutionary geologist, Stephen Gould, put it:

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.7

In a 1979 letter responding to the late creationist, Luther Sunderland, Colin Patterson, then Senior Palaeontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, concurred:

I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader? ... You say that I should at least â??show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.â?� I will lay it on the line â?? there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.8

Richard Dawkinsâ?? evolutionist disciple at Oxford University, Mark Ridley, is emphatic:

However, the gradual change of fossil species has never been part of the evidence for evolution. In the chapters on the fossil record in the Origin of Species Darwin showed that the record was useless for testing between evolution and special creation because it has great gaps in it. The same argument still applies. ... In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation.9 [emphasis in the original]

So I guess the folks at NG are not real evolutionists, or at least not very informed. They certainly offer nothing in this article to negate these statements. Incredibly, NG even admits that â??illuminating but spotty, the fossil record is like a film of evolution from which 999 out of every 1000 frames have been lost on the cutting-room floorâ?� (p. 25). So there you have it. Evolution is 99.9% imagination! NG quickly reassures us that â??dozens of intermediate formsâ?� have been found, but they only give two examples: horses and whales.

Creationists have exposed the flaws in the supposed horse evolution story for years. The story told by the fossils in South America is backwards compared to the story told by the fossils in North Americaâ??see Whatâ??s happened to the horse? Rather, the horse â??treeâ?� is really a bush, and comprises merely variants within the horse kind, and most likely a non-horse at the bottomâ??see The non-evolution of the horse: Special creation or evolved rock badger? and pages 189â??97 in Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No! A previous flawed attempt by NG (in 1981) to use horse fossils to support evolution is exposed in Horse find defies evolution.



Top left: Gingerichâ??s first reconstruction12
Bottom left: what he had actually found12
Top right: more complete skeleton13
Bottom right: more reasonable reconstruction14

As for whale evolution, NG refers to the work of paleontologist Philip Gingerich. It discusses his research on Pakicetus (â??whale from Pakistanâ?�), but doesnâ??t reveal the real story. In 1994 Gingerich claimed Pakicetus was a creature â??perfectly intermediateâ?� between a land animal and a whale.10 The fossil evidence at the time only consisted of parts of the skull, yet Gingerichâ??s artist drew the creature swimming in the ocean with front legs like a land animal but the mouth and a rear end looking like a sea creature as it was trying to eat fish. But by 2001 more fossils had been found11 and it was concluded that Pakicetus was â??no more amphibious than a tapir.â?�13 Yet NG misleadingly tells us that Gingerich â??discovered Pakicetus, a terrestrial mammalâ?� (p. 31). Thatâ??s not what he called it when he discovered it and wrote about it in the scientific literature!

NG goes on to say that Gingerich now believes that whales are related to antelope based on a â??single piece of fossilâ?� found in 2000. It was part of the anklebone of a â??new species of whale,â?� they said. But later they found the other part and realized that it was â??an anklebone, from a four-legged whale.â?� Hold on! When was the last time you saw a â??four-legged whaleâ?�? Evolutionists are playing language games to call the fins and tail of a whale â??legs.â?� But if, as NG says, the fossil â??closely resembledâ?� the anklebone in artiodactyls (hoofed land animals, such as antelopes), then how on earth could this â??single piece of fossil evidenceâ?� be interpreted as being in any way related to whales? In evolution theory, imagination is king! NG says at this point â??this is how science is supposed to workâ?� (p. 31). Really?

For more refutation of the supposed fossil evidence for evolution, readers should consult Darwinâ??s Enigma, Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No! and chapter 5 of Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics.

Embryology and Morphology
Similarity of shape or design can just as well, if not more so, point to a common designer, rather than a common ancestor. Roller skates, bikes, cars, trucks, busses and trains all have wheels, but one is not the ancestor of the other. They are similar because intelligent human designers have all thought that wheels are a good way to move things on land. So too living creatures that share the same planet and are interdependently linked in a complex ecosystem will have many similarities and those which live in very similar environments on earth (e.g., in water or air or on land) will share even more similarities. Our infinitely wise Creator is smarter than all the engineers put together. Good designs can be, and are, easily modified for different applications.

But when we take into account the differences in creatures that share common features, the common ancestor argument becomes even more unbelievable. For example, humans and frogs have five digits on their hands, but the developmental patterns in them are vastly different. In humans the fingers develop by programmed cell death in between the digits, whereas in frogs it is by outward growth as cells divide. See more detailed discussion of this in the sixth chapter of Refuting Evolution 2.

As for embryos, the development is programmed by the information in the DNA molecule in the fertilized egg. So again the question is where did this information come from for the different kinds of plants and animals? It didnâ??t come from time and chance and the laws of nature. And we must never lose sight of the evolutionists continued use of Ernst Haeckelâ??s fraudulent drawingsâ??see Ernst Haeckel: Evangelist for evolution and apostle of deceit and Fraud rediscovered. Yet, like Darwin and many science textbooks15 and evolutionist books for laymen,16 NG endorses embryonic recapitulation (p. 13).

NG claims vestigial characteristics or organs as proof of evolution. These are aspects of the body that are claimed to be useless leftovers from our animal ancestry. There are two problems with this argument. One, the loss of function (through the loss of genetic information) cannot be evidence of the ascendance from a lowly kind of creature up to a higher form (which would require an increase of information). Secondly, nearly all of the 180 â??vestigial organsâ?� in man cited by evolutionists as proof of evolution at the turn of the 20th century are now known (because of medical research) to have at least one function. See Chapter 7 of Refuting Evolution 2 and Vestigial Organs Are Fully Functional. In fact, NG ludicrously uses male nipples as proof of evolution (pp. 12â??13)â??do they think males evolved from a race entirely comprised of breasted-female humans? For an answer, see Male nipples prove evolution? (reply to a skeptic).

NG makes a big deal about plants, animals, bacteria and viruses changing to resist herbicides, insecticides and antibiotics. In fact, the article says that â??thereâ??s no better or more immediate evidence supporting the Darwinian theory than this process of forced transformation among our inimical germsâ?� (p. 21).

But in each cited example we have a certain kind of creature changing into another variety of that same kind of creature. One flu strain changing into another flu strain, or one staph bacterium changing into a different staph bacterium, or one variety of house fly turning into another variety of house fly is not an explanation of where the information to make the flu, staph or house fly came from in the first place. And we always find that the change is actually going in the opposite direction to what evolution requiresâ??see The evolution trainâ??s a-cominâ?? (Sorry, a-goinâ??â??in the wrong direction).

But how does this variation occur? Prominent evolutionist, Francisco Ayala tell us:

Insect resistance to a pesticide was first reported in 1947 for the Housefly (Musca domestica) with respect to DDT. Since then resistance to one or more pesticides has been reported in at least 225 species of insects and other arthropods. The genetic variants required for resistance to the most diverse kinds of pesticides were apparently present in every one of the populations exposed to these man-made compounds.17

Research shows that the same can apply to antibiotic resistance.

Scientists at the University of Alberta have revived bacteria from members of the historic Franklin expedition who mysteriously perished in the Arctic nearly 150 years ago. Not only are the six strains of bacteria almost certainly the oldest ever revived, says medical microbiologist Dr. Kinga Kowalewska-Grochowska, three of them also happen to be resistant to antibiotics. In this case, the antibiotics clindamycin and cefoxitin, both of which were developed more than a century after the men died, were among those used.18

But many times the changes are due to mutations, which are copying mistakes in the DNA molecule in the process of reproduction. What NG doesnâ??t tell the readers is that mutations result in a loss of genetic information in the creature. Most mutations are deleterious, if not fatal, to the organism. It is not on the way up (evolving), but on the way down (devolving). Sometimes, the mutation does improve the chance of survival, but it always involves a loss of genetic information.

For example, the bacterium, Helicobacter pylori, is troublesome to humans, but doctors can destroy it with an antibiotic. After the patient takes the antibiotic, it is absorbed through the cell wall of the bacterium. It has the genetic information to make an enzyme which reacts with the antibiotic converting it into a poison, killing the bacterium. But due to a mutation, some H. pylori cannot make the enzyme and so cannot convert the antibiotic and so do not die but reproduce, giving the patient and doctor a new problem. The mutant survived through a loss of information, which is not a process that will eventually lead to an increase of information to change a bacterium over millions of years into a biologist.

As Dr. Lee Spetner, a Jewish scientist and expert on mutations, has stated in his excellent book, Not by Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution, pp. 159â??60:

But all these mutations reduce the information in the gene by making a protein less specific. They add no information and they add no new molecular capability. Indeed, all mutations studied destroy information. None of them can serve as an example of a mutation that can lead to the large changes of macroevolution. ... Whoever thinks macroevolution can be made by mutations that lose information is like the merchant who lost a little money on every sale but thought he could make it up on volume.

So much for mutations being any help to the evolutionist. Just like natural selection, they donâ??t produce the new genetic information that the theory requires. But like natural selection, mutations fit perfectly with what the Bible teaches. They are the result of the curse of God on creation when Adam and Eve sinned (Genesis 3:20, Romans 8:20â??22).

NG is simply â??hurling elephantsâ?� at their readers when it says that additional evidence for evolution comes from â??population genetics, biochemistry, molecular biology, and ... genomicsâ?� (p. 20). Readers will see the insurmountable problems for evolution from biochemistry in Michael Beheâ??s (Ph.D. university biochemist) Darwinâ??s Black Box. For an agnostic, university molecular biologistâ??s strictly scientific evaluation of evolution, see Michael Dentonâ??s Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (particularly chapter 10).

Darwinism and religion
NG wraps things up by asserting that â??no one needs to, and no one should, accept evolution merely as a matter of faithâ?� (p. 8). But that is precisely what most of the world, including most scientists (who are just laymen outside their own field of expertise), have done. Evolution is believed because it appears to be scientific due to â??smoke and mirrorsâ?� arguments and because it gives people an excuse for not submitting to their Creator. As Romans 1:18â??20 says, people suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

But what is Darwinâ??s theoryâ??s relationship to religion? Certainly, a person can believe in a vaguely defined â??religionâ?� and in evolution at the same time (see Is evolution â??anti-religionâ?�? It depends). NG claims the compatibility of evolution with papal pronouncements and Roman Catholic dogma (p. 6). However, as far as the likes of NG are concerned, when the Pope says you can believe in evolution, heâ??s an enlightened religious leader who should be heeded. But when he speaks on the sanctity of human life from conception and marriage, and thus opposes abortion and homosexual behavior, then heâ??s just an old bigot who should keep his religion to himself.

But even the NGâ??s premise can be debated. There are Roman Catholics who donâ??t believe evolution or millions of years is compatible with their faith (or true science). For example, most of the scientists in the video Evolution ... Fact or Belief? and in the geology video Experiments in Stratification are Catholic. But the real issue is whether the theory of millions of years of evolution is compatible with the Creatorâ??s Word, the Bible. For two centuries, young-earth creationists have shown clearly that it is not. See The Great Turning Point, Refuting Compromise, Creation and Change, and these articles: Two histories of death, Two world-views in conflict and The god of an old earth.

Conclusion
NG is wrong that scientific evidence proves goo-to-you-via-the-zoo evolution. The evidence has never supported Darwinâ??s theory, which is why an increasing number of Ph.D. scientists and well-informed laymen and students are rejecting what they have been taught (brainwashed) in schools, museums, TV science programs and in National Geographic all their lives.

Darwin was partially right about natural selection explaining the origin of species. But because he didnâ??t pay attention to the Bible (but rather rejected it because of his rebellion against his Creator), he didnâ??t understand that speciation is simply the God-designed way for the original supernaturally created kinds to produce wonderful variety and perpetuate themselves in the changing environments of a sin-cursed world that would be radically changed by a global year-long Flood at the time of Noah.

The Bible fits the facts, which explains why an increasing number of Ph.D. scientists are creationistsâ??see In Six Days, On the Seventh Day, The Genesis Files and our website section Creation scientists and other biographies of interest. Evolution doesnâ??t agree with the scientific evidence. It cannot stand careful scrutiny, which is why evolutionists have to use political and academic power and legal intimidation to keep criticisms of evolution out of public schools. In fact, the atheistic anti-creationist Eugenie Scott tacitly admitted that if students were presented such criticisms, they might end up not believing it!

In my opinion, using creation and evolution as topics for critical-thinking exercises in primary and secondary schools is virtually guaranteed to confuse students about evolution and may lead them to reject one of the major themes in science.19

It is sad to see that Philip Gingerich is an evolutionist, and not a Bible-believing Christian, today because his church didnâ??t teach him correctly. He said, â??I grew up in a conservative church in the Midwest and was not taught anything about evolution. The subject was clearly skirted.â?� (p. 31)

Churches that donâ??t equip their youth and adults to deal with the myth of evolution are likely to see them deceived by articles like this one in NG and many of them will drift away from the truth of Godâ??s Word.

[natureisawesome]

blue devil said:


I'm always amused by the typical creationist methodology involved in supporting their silliness. Start with the conclusion, then work backwards to find supporting data! How's that for a scientific method?

That's actually how evolutionists work too, but creationists presuppositions and convictions are based upon what they see and observe in the outside world, whereas there is no evidence to logically convict evolutionists of their presuppositions of evolution, besides their corrupt heart and minds.

[BlueDevil]

All right Blue devil,

you posted an article and now here's one in return. Enjoy!


If laughter equates to enjoyment, rest assured I'm enjoying it!
So, no thoughts of your own, you're content to quote someone who insists scientific evidence exists to support a literal Genesis? Oh wait, you're one of those YECs too right? Nevermind...

Stephen Gould is likely spinning in his grave from having a poser and spinmeister like Mortenson using his name. The man is the perfect example of the kind of religious pseudo-science I referred to earlier. He's been smacked down by real scientists more times than I can recall. In fact, I'm surprised you have the balls to cite him!


If this is the best you can do as a rebuttal, yeesh.... :wtf:

[BlueDevil]

That's actually how evolutionists work too, but creationists presuppositions and convictions are based upon what they see and observe in the outside world, whereas there is no evidence to logically convict evolutionists of their presuppositions of evolution, besides their corrupt heart and minds.


Wrong bucko! You YECs do not practice science and you do not carry out legitimate research, anyone with a shred of scientific integrity knows this so spare me the bullshit - "evolutionists" are not the ones attempting to bend a discipline until it aligns with the religious text of their choice. Talk about projecting! You denigrate science in a vain attempt to preserve that which is close to your heart. It's disgusting. :mad:

Ok, I'm not going to waste anymore time or bandwidth on your kind of cognitively dissonant zealotry. Have a nice night! :jointsmile:

[natureisawesome]

I'm done too, if a phd. doesn't convince you that someone is a 'real' scientist what will. Of course evolutionists talk bad about him, but I'm not sure what you mean when you say he's been smacked down so many times.

You posted a 33 page article and you expect me to post a rebuttal all on my own? Of course I could that stuff is basic but it's just too long. Btw, it totally blowed holes in the entire National Geographicarticle despite you character assasination.

I feel comfortable with what I posted and it's up to other readers to use thier common sense or lack of. Night.

[BlueDevil]

It occurred to me awhile ago whilst breaking in my new Volcano that on a topic most basically about geology, we've haven't heard from any actual geologists! Surely a professional in the field counts this forum among their bookmarks! Who knows, maybe someone here has their very own Randy Marsh a la Southpark.

I would love to know not only his or her personal feelings on the thread topic, but also:

-What is in their experience the general attitude towards nature's ultimate website of truth, Answersingenesis.org.
-What do they think of the AiG Statement of Faith, that being "No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."
-How would one equate the above with The Scientific Method?
-Does having a BA in mathematics and a Phd in History of Geology make Terry Mortenson an active, practicing scientist on the cutting edge of current day geology?
-Difference in fields aside, based on accomplishments is Mortenson in the same class as someone like Douglas Futuyma?
-Does it matter that Mortenson is not a member of the History of Science Society (America's peer society) and hasn't published anything in any of the world's acknowledged historical journals?
-Does it matter that the only peer review he partakes in comes from other Young Earth Creationists?


Inquiring minds want to know. I'm not a geologist, and I'm damn sure natureboy here isn't either - so please, if there's a pro in the house, by all means sound off!
Regardless of your personal feelings on creationism, it would be great if we could get some industry insight into the merits of the geology that supposedly supports it.

TIA!

[jamstigator]

Did you see that article recently talking about the imminent creation of artificial life? Looks fascinating, human beings creating new lifeforms themselves (for assorted purposes, mostly industrial). Apparently, most of the problems are close to being solved, starting with a membrane to hold the DNA information. They said that once they've created the life, they're going to let evolution do the hard work and fine tune the organisms for them, since we aren't yet smart enough to do what evolution does, selecting the most robust individuals for species propogation and survival, but the actual creation of basic life, we *are* smart enough for that.

Another interesting thing is that while standard DNA is comprised of four chemicals, they're talking about adding an addition eight to the artificial life's DNA, for twelve total, which would greatly increase the information-storing capability of the DNA. Heck, if we can do that, that exceeds what's already been done, by nature or God or whatever. Maybe our form of life, with four-chemical DNA, was created by some alien race passing through. Maybe *we* are artificial life, also, in other words. I've seen no proof to contradict this. Seen nothing to support it either, but hey.

Nice to see that scientists are actively using evolution as a tool in the lab, even as the less educated members of our society are denying the very existence of same.

[LegalizeTheGreen]

rofl, the sad thing is it isn't even the "less educated". Hell, our president denies evolution and he is the leader of this country.

[jdmarcus59]

Unless they start sending people to my door asking me to come to the museum, I've no beef.

I like your responce,there does not have to be so much hatred:thumbsup:

[JD1stTimer]

Lol, eight base pairs.. WTF? Like every living thing doesn't offer enough complexity for our corporations to exploit?

[DreadConches]

If you are talking about the same attempt as I am Jamstigator, then they are not using DNA. The articles I read said that a team is trying to create a basic organism using something other than DNA, RNA or anything used by natural organisms.

And nature, why is it that if people do not see why Creationism is so "TOTALLY TRUE" they are either ignorant or stupid?
Caution:not actual nature quote.

[jamstigator]

Here's the (short) article relating to artificial life:

Wired News - AP News (http://news.wired.com/dynamic/stories/A/ARTIFICIAL_LIFE?SITE=WIRE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT)

And here's the quote about the 'brains' of the proposed new lifeforms:

"Szostak is also optimistic about the next step - getting nucleotides, the building blocks of DNA, to form a working genetic system."

So maybe it will be 'real' DNA, and maybe it won't. I'd think using actual DNA (e.g., the nucleotides, standard double-helix model) as the blueprint to get started might make things easier on them, but I'm not a genetic scientist, so I don't really know. 'Working genetic system' is a lot more characters than DNA though, and I'm lazy. ;)