You've seriously gotta be kidding me - A "Creation" museum?

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by RACooper

Right got this emailed to me through facebook from folks doing their Anthro PhD.

Genesis of a theory evolves into museum

rest at:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...wcreationism28

Are the poll results at the end of the article serious? Do that many American's seriously believe in Creationism or "Creation Science"? and is it true (as reported by the CBC) that 3 of the 10 Republican candidates are Creationists who reject Evolution?

Creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive to many people. I read a pretty good book one time about a merger of the two, including breaking down of evolution into macro and micro categories, I'll try and remember what it was. Unfortunately, those who don't believe in the exact version of evolution that the modern scientific community advocates are labeled idiots or zealots or ignorant. Is it pretty stupid to think the world is 3000 years old and that everything is the same now as it was in the beginning? Sure. Is it idiotic to question very shaky theories about the origin of Earth or species-level evolution, while retaining some belief in a religious version of creation? I certainly don't think so. I get really annoyed at people who scoff at Christians for questioning origin theories, especially when those scoffing couldn't explain anything about their beliefs.

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Is it idiotic to question very shaky theories about the origin of Earth or species-level evolution, while retaining some belief in a religious version of creation? I certainly don't think so. I get really annoyed at people who scoff at Christians for questioning origin theories, especially when those scoffing couldn't explain anything about their beliefs.

One, I need to understand why you think the theories are "shaky"? There was a discussion on GC ~1-2 years ago regarding this very issue.

People can believe what they want. But Christian theories cannot be tested by the scientific method. Whereas, evolution can be successfully tested and the tests are repeatable [sp?].

Origin of the species occurs by "natural selection" that is controled by several mechanisms: one being mutation. The rate of mutation occuring in the entire human genome occurs 1 per 1000 centiMorgan (cM)--which is 1 megabases of DNA, the genetic material. In a given population, as designated by geography, the variations within the genome in some areas are similar and others are diverse. The more diverse, the older the population based on Bayesian statistics and population genetics.

Christians that choose to have these strong beliefs are fine. However, they cannot be angry at those who know and think scientifically when their strong beliefs are debunked by strong data and mathematics.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

One, I need to understand why you think the theories are "shaky"? There was a discussion on GC ~1-2 years ago regarding this very issue.

People can believe what they want. But Christian theories cannot be tested by the scientific method. Whereas, evolution can be successfully tested and the tests are repeatable [sp?].

Origin of the species occurs by "natural selection" that is controled by several mechanisms: one being mutation. The rate of mutation occuring in the entire human genome occurs 1 per 1000 centiMorgan (cM)--which is 1 megabases of DNA, the genetic material. In a given population, as designated by geography, the variations within the genome in some areas are similar and others are diverse. The more diverse, the older the population based on Bayesian statistics and population genetics.

Christians that choose to have these strong beliefs are fine. However, they cannot be angry at those who know and think scientifically when their strong beliefs are debunked by strong data and mathematics.

I think some Christians are angry, just at the proposition of advocating the theory. These people frustrate me. However, I think a substantial portion of the population simply dislikes the attitude of the modern scientific community. History has shown, and will continue to show, that science itself is evolutionary. I think this warrants a bit of caution when proclaiming truth. I'm not saying the theories are going to be entirely different a century from now, but I certainly wouldn't be surprised to find that they've been augmented to a level making some current factual assertions look foolish. Religion aside, I know a lot of people with logic-based reasoning that have trouble getting their mind around currently advocated origin theories. I'm one of them. Thus, it gets a bit annoying to have a community saying "you're a %#$@!^% idiot if you question this." I guess I'm just reluctant, in almost any matter, to assert that "we know" something, especially in such a haughty manner.

I personally believe in evolution, at least on some levels. I'm not a science-oriented person, so I don't really have overwhelming faith that I'll ever get a grip on the information at a level sufficient to make informed decisions for myself. As a Christian, I believe in some form of creation as well, but I wouldn't have a problem if the modern theories were spot on. I'm certainly not a person who has a problem with teachers explaining evolution and the theories involved in the classroom. I don't even care if ID or Creationism or whatever isn't taught beside it, though I do think it should be mentioned that there is some opposition. As I said, my biggest concern is the hostility towards those who question or believe differently. I know you said Christians can believe what they want, but that doesn't mean people will let them do so without affront. Hell, the candidates reluctant to raise their hand at the GOP debate got absolutely slaughtered in the media (I also haven't seen similar questions asked to democrats). This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. Does it really make a difference? Does a reluctance to believe fully in evolution make an otherwise intelligent person unfit for leadership?

[OneTimeSBX]

i was raised a Christian. i was read the Bible and taught to read the Bible. i wasnt there for the beginning. neither was anybody else here today. so basically, it is what it is. i believe in the whole "on this day ____, the next day ____..."

in my OPINION, if you consider yourself a Christian, and read the Bible, and believe what is in the Bible, there is no other way. Maybe it was a bang! it could even have happened with a big bang! like i said, i wasnt there so i go by the only written documentation of it. true, it doesnt go into specifics, but who am i to judge? i just believe what i was taught, and lets face it, whats wrong with that? id rather be told in the end i was right and not held accountable for it, than to have believed wrong and suffer the consequences...

[Taualumna]

Originally Posted by OneTimeSBX

i was raised a Christian. i was read the Bible and taught to read the Bible. i wasnt there for the beginning. neither was anybody else here today. so basically, it is what it is. i believe in the whole "on this day ____, the next day ____..."

in my OPINION, if you consider yourself a Christian, and read the Bible, and believe what is in the Bible, there is no other way. Maybe it was a bang! it could even have happened with a big bang! like i said, i wasnt there so i go by the only written documentation of it. true, it doesnt go into specifics, but who am i to judge? i just believe what i was taught, and lets face it, whats wrong with that? id rather be told in the end i was right and not held accountable for it, than to have believed wrong and suffer the consequences...

But if you look very closely at the Bible, you'll actually see two creation stories. One where it ends with "and man and woman did He create..." (or something to that extent) and then it goes into Adam and Eve. Which one should we go with? Are we supposed to mix it up, like what's done when kids put on the Christmas Pageant?

[Drolefille]

We discussed this in one of my college theology classes (Jesuit University, although not necessarily Jesuit theology). The more formal one, which I believe is first, is actually a Jewish hymn that post dates the rest of the Bible. The more casual one (the one that includes the tree) doesn't post date it, but reads to me almost like an Anansi story. God makes everyone, God says you can eat of any tree except this one, then puts tree in garden. (WHY WOULD YOU PUT THE TREE THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE?) Wacky antics ensue.

Anyway, to me that story was told to explain why bad things happen, why there is sin in the world, why others attack their clan. There's no definitive answer to this, although my teacher agreed with this interpretation.

I refuse to accept an interpretation that necessarily lowers God's abilities to a level at which we can completely comprehend them. God is much bigger than that.

[adpiucf]

[RACooper]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Religion aside, I know a lot of people with logic-based reasoning that have trouble getting their mind around currently advocated origin theories. I'm one of them. Thus, it gets a bit annoying to have a community saying "you're a %#$@!^% idiot if you question this." I guess I'm just reluctant, in almost any matter, to assert that "we know" something, especially in such a haughty manner.

As AKA said earlier I'd like to know what you mean specifically by 'shaky'.

Personally I have no problem with people who question or challenge Evolution (or any scientific theory/knowledge),and if anything I encourage or look forward to these questions and challenges; but it has to be on solid scientific grounds, not on ideology - one I'll happily debate with or read up on... the other I'll pretty mush dismiss as a "%#$!^% idiot".

Now as for people with "logic-based reasoning" having trouble getting their minds around the current theories regarding Evolution or universe creation models I'd love to have that explained in more detail since I'm at a loss to understand why.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by RACooper

As AKA said earlier I'd like to know what you mean specifically by 'shaky'.

Personally I have no problem with people who question or challenge Evolution (or any scientific theory/knowledge),and if anything I encourage or look forward to these questions and challenges; but it has to be on solid scientific grounds, not on ideology - one I'll happily debate with or read up on... the other I'll pretty mush dismiss as a "%#$!^% idiot".

Now as for people with "logic-based reasoning" having trouble getting their minds around the current theories regarding Evolution or universe creation models I'd love to have that explained in more detail since I'm at a loss to understand why.

There has been controversy regarding evolution for years, obviously. As I recall, archaeological evidence has been found faulty, misrepresented, etc. Also, despite a more recent trend of accepting the big bang theory throughout the scientific community, there has been a lot of discussion over the years over inconsistencies and problems that people within the community have with it. As I've stated, this stuff is over my head, so I can't refute people's contentions nor say they're accurate. My point is that the theories haven't seemed, at least on a pedestrian level, to be rock solid. Thus, my point is that for people who perhaps haven't seen the evidence, don't understand, etc., I think its a bit ridiculous for them to just discard their beliefs in favor of what someone like you tells them to believe.

As for logic-based people...Where did it all come from? As AKA stated (I think), some people ask why, as opposed to "how". I think a lot of people have trouble with the concept that everything we know of happened by chance. For me, and a lot of other people I know, I just can't wrap my mind around the idea that everything just fell into place. Maybe I'm just not well schooled in science or gifted with a scientific mind, but I just can't look around, look at how things function, etc...and think "what a coincidence that all this came together like it did."

I agree that those challenging evolution or whatever should do so on a scientific level. Then again, I don't think it makes someone an idiot to go "that just doesn't make sense to me".

[Tom Earp]

And God created Heaven and Earth in six days and rested the seventh!

How long was each day?

Did God just make Adam and Eve and the fearful serpent? There had to be othere things outside the Garden?

Where did all of these huge bones come from?

How big is the Univers and are there others similar to us?

I do not have a clue as I do not think anyone else does either as we were not there nor was Einstine! He was just a johnny come lately to it all!

Heck, he did not know how to run a clothes washer!

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by Tom Earp

And God created Heaven and Earth in six days and rested the seventh!

How long was each day?

Did God just make Adam and Eve and the fearful serpent? There had to be othere things outside the Garden?

Where did all of these huge bones come from?

How big is the Univers and are there others similar to us?

I do not have a clue as I do not think anyone else does either as we were not there nor was Einstine! He was just a johnny come lately to it all!

Heck, he did not know how to run a clothes washer!

I hope a fearful serpent eats your face.........soon.

[RACooper]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

As for logic-based people...Where did it all come from? As AKA stated (I think), some people ask why, as opposed to "how". I think a lot of people have trouble with the concept that everything we know of happened by chance. For me, and a lot of other people I know, I just can't wrap my mind around the idea that everything just fell into place. Maybe I'm just not well schooled in science or gifted with a scientific mind, but I just can't look around, look at how things function, etc...and think "what a coincidence that all this came together like it did."

You'd be hard pressed to find any of the "hardcore" Evolutionary Biologists or Paeleoanthropologists that give any stock to 'chance' - they tend to be very "cause and effect" people (remember Einstien's quote about God not rolling dice?) - where everything has a reason and origin, be it biological, enivromental, geological, astronomical, chemical, botanical, ecological, etc. It's one of the things that drives science really... Hence the whole "how" question that is always asked ("why" being much more of a grey area - at least in the philosphical sense) in any of these fields - what lead to any particular point or change? how did the evolutionary 'tree' develop? how did Homo Sapien spread? how did/are enviromental pressures influence adaptive changes? It's like a snowball effect really, the more you look into it the more you keep looking to seek further answers or clarify conclusions that have been reached.

I agree that those challenging evolution or whatever should do so on a scientific level. Then again, I don't think it makes someone an idiot to go "that just doesn't make sense to me".

In general I agree - but if the person doesn't at least attempt to make some sense of it, then I'd say they are an idiot... but then again I'd say that of anyone who doesn't try and at least expand their knowledge or understanding.

[AKA_Monet]

First: The April 9th issue of Newsweek has a very interesting article on religion vs. atheism which includes a discussion on creationism vs. evolution by two well known proponents on each time.

Originally Posted by shinerbock

However, I think a substantial portion of the population simply dislikes the attitude of the modern scientific community. History has shown, and will continue to show, that science itself is evolutionary. I think this warrants a bit of caution when proclaiming truth. I'm not saying the theories are going to be entirely different a century from now, but I certainly wouldn't be surprised to find that they've been augmented to a level making some current factual assertions look foolish. Religion aside, I know a lot of people with logic-based reasoning that have trouble getting their mind around currently advocated origin theories. I'm one of them. Thus, it gets a bit annoying to have a community saying "you're a %#$@!^% idiot if you question this." I guess I'm just reluctant, in almost any matter, to assert that "we know" something, especially in such a haughty manner.

I know my professor I work for who is ethnically Jewish, but an avowed atheist stated how angry he would get if someone came to him regarding "creationism". He said that anyone that states things should be arrested. Ironically, I just hope he never gets very, very sick... And at the rate he is going, that might happen...

Interesting you say that science itself evolves. Yes, it does. One answers one question, there is always another question to answer... That is why science is the enigmatic puzzle that it is. It is what drives us scientists.

I'm certainly not a person who has a problem with teachers explaining evolution and the theories involved in the classroom. I don't even care if ID or Creationism or whatever isn't taught beside it, though I do think it should be mentioned that there is some opposition. As I said, my biggest concern is the hostility towards those who question or believe differently. I know you said Christians can believe what they want, but that doesn't mean people will let them do so without affront. Hell, the candidates reluctant to raise their hand at the GOP debate got absolutely slaughtered in the media (I also haven't seen similar questions asked to democrats). This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. Does it really make a difference? Does a reluctance to believe fully in evolution make an otherwise intelligent person unfit for leadership?

All people are questioned on their "moral barometers". I think it unfair to make a litmus test of a candidate's personal past. But, I am not naive to think that those ideas factor for votes.

IMHO, a lot of people have lost their "faith" in US... That is how we are hurting, generally. It has started showing up in the major medical journals: Science, Nature, JAMA and NEJM.

Well, like I stated somewhere on GC, when I start to teach some basic concepts in biology, I have to teach the concept about DG or the Gibbs free energy requirement for reactions. It is involved in the calculations of the Laws of Thermodynamics. Without these laws we cannot discuss how and why cells divide. These concepts are in place, provable my mathematics and repetitively tested to suggest that these are taking place.

All humans are evolving. But evolutionary time is millions of years. What will we be millions of years later? Probably nothing because we will become extinct...

One thing is certain, you were born on Earth and you will die... Everyone has had it happen to them who is alive today. Whatever happens before and afterward, I have not a clue. And although I would love to think there is more, and I am not fine with being worm feed. But, that's just me...

[AlexMack]

When Darwin wrote his theory, he assumed that the fossil record would prove what he'd written. For years and years it didn't but now we're finding creatures that agree with the theory. A lot of creationists smirked for years because we didn't have those vital missing links and now they're showing up.

My dad is a strong christian and a man of science. I like his version of fixing creationism and evolution in his mind, it makes sense (because he doesn't take the bible story literally). He believes that Adam and Eve may have been the first self-aware, intelligent humans, not the first humans period.

I'm not saying it's wrong to be into creationism, but I do think it's wrong to try and shove science aside in order to teach that doctrine. If you are a christian, it's totally feasible for evolution and creationism to co-exist. If you saw the documentary Jesus Camp, it is so frustrating to see one of the mothers homeschooling her kids and basically brainwashing fundamentalist tripe into them. One of the kids watches a video that claims that the earth is only 6,000 years old. Not five minutes later, the mother prompts her child to say (I'm not kidding, if you haven't seen this yet, go watch it!), "science doesn't prove anything."

I still have trouble seeing why people insist that ID be taught in school alongside evolution. ID is a judeo-christian belief, not a scientic theory that's been recreated in a controlled environment with more and more evidence being discovered to support it.

Believe it all you want, but stop trying to toss aside evolution for a religious doctrine.

Was I redundant? I feel like I was redundant. I didn't get enough sleep last night.

[AKA_Monet]

Interesting that this article should pop up on my email notifications:

Communicating Science...

Science 1 June 2007:
Vol. 316. no. 5829, p. 1286
DOI: 10.1126/science.1141343
Prev | Table of Contents | Next

Books
COMMUNICATING SCIENCE:
Because Science Matters
Barbara Kline Pope*


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Scientist's Guide to Talking with the Media
Practical Advice from the Union of Concerned Scientists
by Richard Hayes and Daniel Grossman
Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ, 2006. 228 pp. Paper, $18.95. ISBN 9780813538587.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recently, I was sitting with my five-year-old son on a dingy yellow leather chair in the uncomfortable quiet of our dermatologist's vast waiting room. As I was whisper-reading a Magic School Bus book to him, I heard the words, "Well, I can sort of believe in evolution…" Immediately looking up, I saw a woman in her mid-30s with an open book on her lap. She was relating her opinion to a retiring elderly man seated beside her. I listened intently, hoping for a lively discussion about a topic that is occupying much of my time these days. She continued, "but I just can't see that the big bang really happened."

Most of us are familiar with the dismal state of science literacy. Basic science concepts and facts escape many people. A majority of Americans say that they do not accept the validity of some of the most established scientific theories--as witnessed on that visit to the doctor. And perhaps the most important feature of the woeful state of public understanding of science is the average American's lack of a firm grasp of the process of science itself (1).