Creationism Museum, Dinosaurs and Man Play Side by Side...

Generic_Dave

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6216788.stm

I was on the BBC website earlier and notice this piece about a creationism museum opening near Cincinnati. It proposes to offer the "alternative" view that the world was created in 7 days, 10,000 years ago. I find the entire idea offensive and deluded, it made me glad I was Irish, but then I watched Richard Dawkins on the Late Late Show on Friday, (I saw it on RichardDawkins.net but I assume it's on YouTube aswell), and from the reception his ideas got from the audience was mindboggling. I was just wondering, given that religiousity is apparently on the rise among European Christians (teh Anglician Church recently said it needed to become more involved in politics, and alot of recent election in Europe have centered on "moral issues" which to me looks like code for "religious values"), what opinions people have one way or the other on a creationism museum.

Also I found the idea of Cave-children playing with baby T-Rex's so amusing I just had to share the article.

Bottle_of_Smoke

on the way out you get a talking to if you haven't realised their dinosaurs are a test from god/

Dades

Generic_Dave wrote:

then I watched Richard Dawkins on the Late Late Show on Friday, (I saw it on RichardDawkins.net but I assume it's on YouTube aswell), and from the reception his ideas got from the audience was mindboggling.

In case you're interested there's a large thread about it (and a few tangents) here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055026583

But yeah, I don't know whether to laugh or cry about the museum.

Beruthiel

The Atheist wrote:

But yeah, I don't know whether to laugh or cry about the museum.

both

GuanYin

Are you sure it isn't in Kentucky? There is a huge one there, 25 millions worth I believe (I'll try findd a link and edit it).

Not surprised about Dawkins. I read his stuff, I agree with most of his writings, but I think his attitude is poor.

Dawkins, like many skeptics, often takes no evidence as equal to evidence against. Much of his attack on faith basd system (especially in his latest book) is both needless and pointless. Apart from anything else, it offers forth a certain level or arrogance by the science community that should not exist (not if we're supposed to be unbiased observers).

That said, I doubt these were the reasons Dawkins got poor receptions.

Sand

I find the entire idea offensive and deluded, it made me glad I was Irish, but then I watched Richard Dawkins on the Late Late Show on Friday, (I saw it on RichardDawkins.net but I assume it's on YouTube aswell), and from the reception his ideas got from the audience was mindboggling. I was just wondering, given that religiousity is apparently on the rise among European Christians

Incidentially I cam across this article earlier today, a poll carried out in January this year in Britian - only 49% or so of British respondents accepted that evolution was the most likely explanation of how we came to be. I think the difference may not be beliefs but that American churches are extremely religiously active in recent decades [up to the 60s or so they took the line that everyone else could go to hell, now theyre out to mould the US into a crhtistian nation] and are financially very powerful - along with an army of activists.

Just from my own impressions Id reckon Islamic groups are the most politically active religious groups in Europe, but it mightnt be long before Christian churches in Europe follow the example of the US and Islamic groups and attempt to seriously build electoral power for their views.

Dawkins, like many skeptics, often takes no evidence as equal to evidence against. Much of his attack on faith basd system (especially in his latest book) is both needless and pointless. Apart from anything else, it offers forth a certain level or arrogance by the science community that should not exist (not if we're supposed to be unbiased observers).

I think Dawkins simply has little patience for what he perceives as dangerous nonsense. I would have said that Dawkins, as a scientist, would take no evidence as equal to no evidence for. Faith groups take lack of evidence as "prove us wrong -prove there is no God", which wouldnt stand up on Boards.ie, where if you put forward a statement the onus is on you to prove it right, not for everyone else to prove it wrong.

His attitude might be aggressive, but then hes facing extremely powerful lobby groups so if he wasnt aggressive he would have given up long ago.

PoleStar

Sand wrote:

Faith groups take lack of evidence as "prove us wrong -prove there is no God", which wouldnt stand up on Boards.ie, where if you put forward a statement the onus is on you to prove it right, not for everyone else to prove it wrong.

Nicely said! I just had to reply to agree! So often we hear arguments such as, "how do you explain the origin of the universe" or "why is there something there as opposed to nothing". When the enquiring scientific mind or atheist has no answer, those religious our there are quick to reply "ha, you can't explain it, therefore there must be a god and that is proof".

I find this all too frequent chain of thought quite trying on my usually patient little brain! How can absence of knowledge or a lack of proof be taken to prove the existence of god or God! God I wish my own science work was like this, "ha can't disprove my theory hey? well it must be true, i am right, so there!" It would be so much easier that way!

And btw I do apologise if it appears I have gone off topic!!

Some of the replies on that Dawkins interview were astonishing

"how can you explain all the hope in the world without religion" or something along those lines: I found this lady most insulting to my atheistic mind. Reading between the lines I must be a very doom and gloom type person. Which for me is actually the opposite. As someone who feels that this life is it and (although I have to say I cant be sure) there probably is nothing after, I am more all the likely to enjoy life and live it to the full!

"how do you eplain the increase in suicide" (hinting at the reduced religious attendances). OMG has she not consulted the latest figures on the increasing rates of substance abuse, the urbanisation of society etc which can account for this.

Anyhow, Im rambling........................

Sam Vimes

PoleStar wrote:

Nicely said! I just had to reply to agree! So often we hear arguments such as, "how do you explain the origin of the universe" or "why is there something there as opposed to nothing". When the enquiring scientific mind or atheist has no answer, those religious our there are quick to reply "ha, you can't explain it, therefore there must be a god and that is proof".

I find this all too frequent chain of thought quite trying on my usually patient little brain! How can absence of knowledge or a lack of proof be taken to prove the existence of god or God! God I wish my own science work was like this, "ha can't disprove my theory hey? well it must be true, i am right, so there!" It would be so much easier that way!

dawkins response to this is of course the celestial teapot

Hobbes

sand wrote:

which wouldnt stand up on Boards.ie, where if you put forward a statement the onus is on you to prove it right, not for everyone else to prove it wrong.

It is not just boards.ie. This is a general scientific concept called Negative Proof.

One thing that got me on creationism is that different groups aren't consistent either. For example some say Dinosaurs lived the same time as humans, no mention of how they died out. Others give the Noah bit to as how they died out and some say the fossils were just seeded by god to screw with our head.

seamus

Hobbes wrote:

One thing that got me on creationism is that different groups aren't consistent either. For example some say Dinosaurs lived the same time as humans, no mention of how they died out. Others give the Noah bit to as how they died out and some say the fossils were just seeded by god to screw with our head.

Indeed, I had thought that fundamental creationists believe that the very fact that there were no Dinosaurs mentioned in the Bible is evidence enough that they didn't exist, and that fossils are there to "test our faith". In other words, that belief in dinosaurs is tantamount to heresy.
Then you get these loonies who say, "Nah, dinosaurs existed alright. And at the same time as humans".

Some choice quotes

"I'm a pathologist... When I was studying genetics, it just seemed to me that if I consider one single cell to contain all the information I have to form me - I just don't see how that could evolve."

I'm a computer scientist...when I was reading about jet engines on howstuffworks.com.....

"It's foundational. If you can't believe Genesis, then why believe any other part of the Bible?

"You can't pick and choose, you can't say this part is right, and this part is wrong,"

This is one theme which seems to pop up time and time again when dealing with fundamentalist Christians. They seem to think that everyone else in fact does believe in the Bible. There doesn't seem to be any room for those people who'd say, "The bible is a whole load of crap", or , "Who said anything about believing the bible". IMO, when dealing with someone who believe in the absoluteness of anything (especially a document written, translated and heavily altered by humans), you just have no hope of getting through to them.

bonkey

PoleStar wrote:

those religious our there are quick to reply "ha, you can't explain it, therefore there must be a god and that is proof".

The God of The Gaps.


When people invoke the god of the Gaps, they should be asked what their attitude would be if, in some number of years, science came up with the explanation that is missing today. Ask whether or not they would then take this as proof that God didn't exist?

If they say yes, then point out that exactly the same position has been taken time and time and time again by the faithful regarding various things that the best science of the day could not explain. The outcome has been the same also, time after time after time: science comes up with an explanation, and a new Gap is found for God to retreat to.

"how can you explain all the hope in the world without religion" or something along those lines:

If I were Dawkins and someone asked me that question, I would simply respond that I was insulted they believed me to be without hopes and dreams and ask how they believed I was driven to do what I did if I lived without such hopes and dreams.

As for children playing with dinosaurs....it requires a belief in a meddling God - A God who would make a world to look exactly like it had origins other than those it actually had. Yes, there is the "sent to test us" response, but the followup can always be "but how do you know its your God, and that the Bible isn't just another misleading test whic you've clearly failed".