PDA

View Full Version : Creationist Grand Canyon Guide Book in Use.



Chip
2004-Nov-20, 04:34 AM
What's next? "Earth is 6000 years old" at planetarium shows in the interest of "fairness"? :oops: National Parks, such as the Grand Canyon are falling victim to mumbo jumbo lectures and books. (This has the approval of the Bush administration.)

Welcome to the new dark ages (http://www.time.com/time/columnist/jaroff/article/0,9565,783829,00.html?cnn=yes)!

jrkeller
2004-Nov-20, 04:40 AM
I've never understood this garbage. I can't find anything in the Bible that says that the Earth is only 6000 years old.

Damburger
2004-Nov-20, 04:50 AM
It seems Americans are more and more choosing fundamentalist religion over science.

Not meaning to offend anyone, but I think the moon landing was the technological high water mark of the US. You can't expect to remain a modern, high-tech society when scientists are treated with hostility and mistrust by the general population.

November 2nd proved you aren't going to come to your collective senses any time soon :(

SciFi Chick
2004-Nov-20, 05:01 AM
It seems Americans are more and more choosing fundamentalist religion over science.

Not meaning to offend anyone, but I think the moon landing was the technological high water mark of the US. You can't expect to remain a modern, high-tech society when scientists are treated with hostility and mistrust by the general population.

November 2nd proved you aren't going to come to your collective senses any time soon :(

FYI - Those aren't the kind of comments you should make if your wish is not to offend people. :wink:

Cylinder
2004-Nov-20, 05:09 AM
In fairness to the article:


Indeed, PEER claims that the Bush Administration has already decided it will stand by its approval for the book and that hundreds more have been ordered.

Emphasis mine.

Gullible Jones
2004-Nov-20, 05:12 AM
I have one word:

Blech!

SciFi Chick
2004-Nov-20, 05:14 AM
So when are the Hindu creationist books going to hit the stands? I'm rather fond of their story, and after all, since the Grand Canyon is public land, it shouldn't be recognizing only one religion, correct?

ktesibios
2004-Nov-20, 05:15 AM
I've never understood this garbage. I can't find anything in the Bible that says that the Earth is only 6000 years old.

No, but others have (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/ussher.htm).

I can't follow Ussher's procedure as given in his own words, but I do know that I don't think I'd let him be the one to calculate how to divvy up the check at lunch. :wink:

Damburger
2004-Nov-20, 05:16 AM
FYI - Those aren't the kind of comments you should make if your wish is not to offend people. :wink:

Which part? The suggestion that science and technology in the US might be suffering due to religious fundamentalism, or that the reelection of Bush was a popular mandate for said fundamentalism?

If the Bush administration distance themselves from this book it will only be out of political expediency. Given that George W thinks he is getting direct instructions from the almighty (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A37944-2003Jun26?language=printer) I'm on fairly safe ground describing your government as a fundamentalist one.

SciFi Chick
2004-Nov-20, 05:19 AM
FYI - Those aren't the kind of comments you should make if your wish is not to offend people. :wink:

Which part? The suggestion that science and technology in the US might be suffering due to religious fundamentalism, or that the reelection of Bush was a popular mandate for said fundamentalism?

If the Bush administration distance themselves from this book it will only be out of political expediency. Given that George W thinks he is getting direct instructions from the almighty (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A37944-2003Jun26?language=printer) I'm on fairly safe ground describing your government as a fundamentalist one.

That may be, but you're on shaky ground here in a forum where the discussion of religion or politics is not welcome - stronly discouraged even - and often ends with threads being locked.

Not only that, the Bush administration is not our entire government, winning by a couple of million did NOT give him a mandate, and we certainly are not a fundamentalist nation just because we have some fundamentalists.

SciFi Chick
2004-Nov-20, 05:23 AM
And btw, I don't trust the hearsay you quoted regarding President Bush, especially coming from a militant Palestinian.

Damburger
2004-Nov-20, 05:38 AM
This is by its nature a discussion about religion and politics. Religious people are using political influence to attack science.

However, seeing as we aren't supposed to be talking religion/politics, I'll stop now.

SciFi Chick
2004-Nov-20, 05:41 AM
This is by its nature a discussion about religion and politics. Religious people are using political influence to attack science.

However, seeing as we aren't supposed to be talking religion/politics, I'll stop now.

If you would like to discuss it further, several of us discuss this type of thing at a place called FWIS (http://loresinger.com/FWIS/index.php) all the time. 8)

FYI - You're new, so I'll let ya know that we get away with discussing this type of thing as long as it remains in the realm of how creationism is not science. Stick to the science parts here, and you'll be fine.

Damburger
2004-Nov-20, 05:49 AM
This is by its nature a discussion about religion and politics. Religious people are using political influence to attack science.

However, seeing as we aren't supposed to be talking religion/politics, I'll stop now.

If you would like to discuss it further, several of us discuss this type of thing at a place called FWIS (http://loresinger.com/FWIS/index.php) all the time. 8)

FYI - You're new, so I'll let ya know that we get away with discussing this type of thing as long as it remains in the realm of how creationism is not science. Stick to the science parts here, and you'll be fine.

Thanks, I'll have a look.

From a purely scientific point of view, www.skepticsannotatedbible.com is a pretty good disection of Genesis.

Ut
2004-Nov-20, 05:57 AM
Creationism is not faux pas here because Creation Scientists try to use "scientific" methods or arguments to support their beliefs. Talking about political support for fundamentalist beliefs, and why those beliefs will be the downfall of civilization is a completely different matter.

Damburger
2004-Nov-20, 06:02 AM
Creationism is not faux pas here because Creation Scientists try to use "scientific" methods or arguments to support their beliefs. Talking about political support for fundamentalist beliefs, and why those beliefs will be the downfall of civilization is a completely different matter.

Irrespective of the current climate of the US (or anywhere else) - the basis of creationism is an ad hominem attack on the scientific community. People often see their religious leaders as being more moral than scientists, and erroneously believe this makes them more likely to be factually correct. Creationism is about religion trying to reassert its authority over peoples minds, which is an inherently political act.

Ut
2004-Nov-20, 06:05 AM
Creationism is not faux pas here because Creation Scientists try to use "scientific" methods or arguments to support their beliefs. Talking about political support for fundamentalist beliefs, and why those beliefs will be the downfall of civilization is a completely different matter.

Irrespective of the current climate of the US (or anywhere else) - the basis of creationism is an ad hominem attack on the scientific community. People often see their religious leaders as being more moral than scientists, and erroneously believe this makes them more likely to be factually correct. Creationism is about religion trying to reassert its authority over peoples minds, which is an inherently political act.

You obviously missed the point of my post.

We discuss creationists claims here because they try to use scientific studies to back their beliefs and opinions.

Period.

Anything else is explicidly frowned upon.

Damburger
2004-Nov-20, 06:37 AM
You obviously missed the point of my post.

We discuss creationists claims here because they try to use scientific studies to back their beliefs and opinions.

Period.

Anything else is explicidly frowned upon.

Fair enough.

Maybe someone this thread should be locked then, as from the start it had a political angle to it.

jrkeller
2004-Nov-20, 06:45 AM
I've never understood this garbage. I can't find anything in the Bible that says that the Earth is only 6000 years old.

No, but others have (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/ussher.htm).

I can't follow Ussher's procedure as given in his own words, but I do know that I don't think I'd let him be the one to calculate how to divvy up the check at lunch. :wink:


So we are to believe that a Catholic bishop who died over 450 years ago is correct. Funny, the Catholic church and others demominations accept evolution.

jrkeller
2004-Nov-20, 06:50 AM
Not meaning to offend anyone, but I think the moon landing was the technological high water mark of the US. You can't expect to remain a modern, high-tech society when scientists are treated with hostility and mistrust by the general population.


I've been doing hardcore research for close to twenty years now, and have never once been treated poorly, let alone with hostility. In fact most people once they learn what I do, think my job is pretty cool.

jrkeller
2004-Nov-20, 07:05 AM
November 2nd proved you aren't going to come to your collective senses any time soon :(

I like would like to go on about this topic, but I think it would get way too political.

ktesibios
2004-Nov-20, 07:15 AM
I've never understood this garbage. I can't find anything in the Bible that says that the Earth is only 6000 years old.

No, but others have (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/ussher.htm).

I can't follow Ussher's procedure as given in his own words, but I do know that I don't think I'd let him be the one to calculate how to divvy up the check at lunch. :wink:


So we are to believe that a Catholic bishop who died over 450 years ago is correct. Funny, the Catholic church and others demominations accept evolution.

Hey, I just thought that a link to some of the history of the 6,000 year claim might be of interest. :oops:

jrkeller
2004-Nov-20, 07:21 AM
I didn't mean that as a criticism of you or your post. I was trying to be sarcastic about the idea that the Earth is 600o years old.

Maksutov
2004-Nov-20, 08:05 AM
What's next? "Earth is 6000 years old" at planetarium shows in the interest of "fairness"? :oops: [edit]
They've been at something like this for some time in the fundamentalist colleges and universities. Let's look at Bob Jones University in Greeneville, SC. BJU was segregated until the early 80s and until recently (2000) banned interracial dating among its students.

Here's how it identifies itself in a banner on its home page:


The Opportunity Place

A liberal arts, nondenominational Christian university, BJU stands without apology for the old-time religion and the absolute authority of the Bible.
Here is the BJU University Creed:


Each day in chapel we recite the University Creed. It is a concise statement of the most important truths taught in God's Word.

I believe in the inspiration of the Bible (both the Old and the New Testaments); the creation of man by the direct act of God; the incarnation and virgin birth of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ; His identification as the Son of God; His vicarious atonement for the sins of mankind by the shedding of His blood on the cross; the resurrection of His body from the tomb; His power to save men from sin; the new birth through the regeneration by the Holy Spirit; and the gift of eternal life by the grace of God.
Here is the statement of purpose by Robert R. Taylor, Ph.D., Dean of the College of Arts and Science


The College of Arts and Science endeavors to provide a liberal arts education by teaching a person to be at home in the world of the mind and ideas; by helping him to understand and respond constructively to problems in the political, social, and economic arenas; by challenging him to bring discipline and order into his own life and that of a needy society; and by refining his ethical and aesthetic sensibilities. Based on the eternal foundation of God's Word, the touchstone of truth, it uniquely integrates faith and learning, teaching not only how to make a living but also how to live.
Finally we reach the Department of Physics and Engineering: Undergraduate Research in Astronomy


Under the direction of Professor Ron Samec, BJU students are actively doing research involving the study of eclipsing binary stars and have recently published a number of papers in this area.

Use the links below to view their recent paper and poster presented at the American Astronomical Society annual meeting in January, 2003.
So we're finally into real science? Not necessarily.

Here's the conclusion of that paper:


Acknowledgements[sic]: We wish to thank the American Astronomical Society for their continued support of our undergraduate research programs through their small research grants. Faulkner and Samec were visiting Astronomers, Cerro Tololo InterAmerican Observatory, National Optical Astronomical Observatories, which are operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc. under contract with the National Science Foundation. We sincerely appreciate the IRAF support given by the CTIO staff. We offer special thanks to Dr. Chris Smith and Sr. Hernan Tirado. Finally, I offer all praise to my Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ (R.G.S.).
There's a planetarium on campus. It's the Howell Memorial Planetarium which is located in the Science Building on campus.


Recently rennovated[sic], it is used for classes and public programs. The star projector is a Spitz Model A2, the dome is 9 meters (30 feet) and numerous slide and special-effects projectors make for a valuable learning resource. There is never a cloudy night in the planetarium!
However, the Howell Planetarium is administered under the aegis of the Department of Physics and Engineering.

Here's a description of the Department's purpose:


The Department of Physics and Engineering is in the Division of Natural Sciences, College of Arts and Science. Its purpose is to prepare students for graduate study in the field, employment in industry, and full-time Christian service.
Haven't found any actual programs for the planetarium yet, but you can be darned sure "The Evolution of the Universe" isn't one of them!

Bob Jones University, just one out of hundreds. How do places such as this get accredited? Money?

Chip
2004-Nov-20, 10:17 AM
...Bob Jones University, just one out of hundreds. How do places such as this get accredited? Money?

I suppose they have a right to teach and believe whatever they want. Where I am offended is when the dogma and doctrines of creationism, (which is not a science,) are forced onto the legitimate secular scientific world as if it were somehow an equally valid (yet non-theoretic) belief. Faith might be comforting to some people, but faith is not always truth.

sarongsong
2004-Nov-20, 11:55 AM
...You can't expect to remain a modern, high-tech society when scientists are treated with hostility and mistrust by the general population...
Where the buck stops:
"In February this year the Union of Concerned Scientists published a statement by over 60 scientists including Nobel Laureates, National Medal of Science recipients, and other leading US researchers calling for end to scientific abuses by the administration of President George W. Bush...those many scientists have swelled the original 62 signatories to over 4000 which now include 48 Nobel Laureates...Now the UCS has released a followup to its original condemnation of the Bush administrations abuse of US science... "
http://tinyurl.com/5vq62

"Hello, I'm John Marburger, Science Advisor to the President and Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy..." (http://www.whitehouse.gov/ask/20031203.html)

Harvestar
2004-Nov-20, 12:51 PM
Not meaning to offend anyone, but I think the moon landing was the technological high water mark of the US. You can't expect to remain a modern, high-tech society when scientists are treated with hostility and mistrust by the general population.


I've been doing hardcore research for close to twenty years now, and have never once been treated poorly, let alone with hostility. In fact most people once they learn what I do, think my job is pretty cool.

Then you haven't experienced what other scientists (particularly evolutionary biologists) experience. A friend of mine got riduculed and berated for studying evolutionary biology - well and from the opposite side - for being Episcopalian. I also know someone who switched denominations to a more fundamentalist one and questioned being a geologist since his science was different from the views of his church.

Maksutov, while there may be issues with Bob Jones Univ. and I don't know the astronomers involved, I hardly think saying "Thank you Jesus" in a paper is evidence that they aren't doing scientific work. If you were going to say that, then you'd have to say that the Vatican Advanced Technology Telescope (which has a plaque saying "use this to the glory of God") can never be used for scientific study. I also know many astronomers who thanked God in their acknowledgements for their theses. This hardly makes them lesser astronomers.

As for the mission statement, I'd also bet you'd see similar statements at say, Notre Dame or Boston Univ. (among others) and there are highly regarded astronomers at each. In fact, I went to a conference for profs and grad students who teach or may want to teach at a Catholic university. There was talk of how to incorporate Catholic ideals into the university, the classroom, etc. Those of us in the sciences (including an astronomer nun) talked about ethically sound projects, thinking about funding sources, and treating students well. (not teaching creationism)

Anyway, there *is* a series of plaques at one of the overlooks of the Grand Canyon that have various Bible verses on them. "The heavens are telling the glory of God" type verses. I personally found them inspiring, but was surprised to see them there. (they were funded by a private group and yes, there was a stink over them being there) - but yes, I suppose this isn't the place to debate that aspect.

As for the book for sale at the visitor's center, aren't those usually run by private companies? Or am I mistaken? I've also heard about someone who bought a copy by mistake (she wanted a book with pretty pictures of the Grand Canyone and was looking quickly) and was very angry to see what she had when she got home. :( If they marked it more clearly, may be? (of course, I don't think it should be there at all! Any more than say, a Hoagland book should be at Kitt Peak's visitor center - though there is a book on Mithraism)

Jim
2004-Nov-20, 01:12 PM
Bob Jones University, just one out of hundreds. How do places such as this get accredited? Money?

BJU is not currently accredited. But it's working on it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Jones_University

jrkeller
2004-Nov-20, 02:08 PM
Not meaning to offend anyone, but I think the moon landing was the technological high water mark of the US. You can't expect to remain a modern, high-tech society when scientists are treated with hostility and mistrust by the general population.


I've been doing hardcore research for close to twenty years now, and have never once been treated poorly, let alone with hostility. In fact most people once they learn what I do, think my job is pretty cool.

Then you haven't experienced what other scientists (particularly evolutionary biologists) experience. A friend of mine got riduculed and berated for studying evolutionary biology - well and from the opposite side - for being Episcopalian. I also know someone who switched denominations to a more fundamentalist one and questioned being a geologist since his science was different from the views of his church.



I don't do research in areas that would probably put me in a position to interact with those types of people. The research work I do and have done is in the area of heat transfer and fluid mechanics.

crateris
2004-Nov-20, 02:49 PM
My wife picked up some books at a book fair one day. Among the books that she got for the kids was a book about dinosaurs (I forget the title, I'll post is when I get home to look at it). Upon perusing the book, I discovered that it was a creationist explanation of the dinosaur record. But it also turned into an "if you believe in evolution, you also believe in abortion, atheism, murder, homosexuality, etc." propaganda tool. All this from a book TARGETED AT KIDS!!

When I give planetarium programs, I have learned to be prepared for the fundamentalists and creationists that come to me after the show (and sometimes speak up during it) to point out how science (and I) have it wrong. They are not afraid to make a scene (heck, with god or allah on your side, why be afraid of anything?) publicly and are not easily brushed off. I certainly would not go to a church or other place of worship and spout off about how the bible was written in the 6th century and that the writers would flunk grade school science today!

I'm afraid that the ones who WOULD push their beliefs and values ARE emboldened by Bush's victory and we are going to see a lot more creationism being forced into our educational system and onto our kids. And they certainly don't care who THEY offend.

C.

zebo-the-fat
2004-Nov-20, 03:44 PM
I suppose it won't be long until US planetariums are re-programmed to show the 'crystal spheres' :o

sarongsong
2004-Nov-20, 08:55 PM
...As for the book for sale at the visitor's center, aren't those usually run by private companies? Or am I mistaken?...
The non-profit Grand Canyon Association (http://www.grandcanyon.org/aboutus.asp) supplies the GC NPS Visitor Center books and publications, however they (normally) must be approved by the National Park Service. Profits from the sales go to the NPS. However, this instance is not 'normal'.
From this thread's opening link:
"... when Grand Canyon National Park superintendent Joe Alston attempted to block the sale of Vail's book at canyon bookstores, he was overruled by NPS headquarters, which announced that a high-level policy review of the matter would be launched and a decision made by February, 2004. So far, no official decision has been announced..."

Tha_Pig
2004-Nov-21, 02:36 AM
I have only one thing to say to creationists... READ MY BUMPER STICKER!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v259/Tha_Pig/evolution.jpg

gethen
2004-Nov-22, 01:48 PM
At a park called Dinosaur Adventure Land, run by creationists near Pensacola, Florida, visitors are informed that man coexisted with dinosaurs.
Which would make The Flintstones reality television.

SciFi Chick
2004-Nov-22, 02:24 PM
At a park called Dinosaur Adventure Land, run by creationists near Pensacola, Florida, visitors are informed that man coexisted with dinosaurs.
Which would make The Flintstones reality television.

Carl Baugh really does believe that.

George
2004-Nov-22, 10:27 PM
My wife picked up some books at a book fair one day. Among the books that she got for the kids was a book about dinosaurs (I forget the title, I'll post is when I get home to look at it). Upon perusing the book, I discovered that it was a creationist explanation of the dinosaur record. But it also turned into an "if you believe in evolution, you also believe in abortion, atheism, murder, homosexuality, etc." propaganda tool. All this from a book TARGETED AT KIDS!!
Sorry you get this junk. :-? We all want to be "important" but some people become "impotent" (at best) instead. :wink:



When I give planetarium programs, I have learned to be prepared for the fundamentalists and creationists that come to me after the show (and sometimes speak up during it) to point out how science (and I) have it wrong. They are not afraid to make a scene (heck, with god or allah on your side, why be afraid of anything?) publicly and are not easily brushed off. I certainly would not go to a church or other place of worship and spout off about how the bible was written in the 6th century and that the writers would flunk grade school science today!
No doubt, they believe they are proving their love for God by standing up for him. Seeking the truth is more to His service and interest. Scientists are more likely to get the blessing (but this point is too religious for here). Arguing with them probably will do no good as they just want to "stand up and be counted for God". However, only if you must, you can ask them if most Christians feel this way. I don't and, I believe, most don't. At least one literal view of creation is very compatible with science, it doesn't happen to match the fundamentalist literal view. The fundamentalist attraction is their claim to take the Bible literally, therefore they are right and all others are wrong. Simple but a very powerful approach to bible believers. Not fair to scientists or any one interested in truth. If they were, they would come around here more often and discuss astronomical points. There last visit was unfruitful, IIRC.


I'm afraid that the ones who WOULD push their beliefs and values ARE emboldened by Bush's victory and we are going to see a lot more creationism being forced into our educational system and onto our kids. And they certainly don't care who THEY offend.
C.
I don't know if Bush is considered a fundamentalist supporter. Of course, as President, he isn't gonna try to prove they are wrong. Does anyone know his true view of fundamentalism or, at least, evolution? #-o

George
2004-Nov-22, 11:42 PM
ABC news is coming on with a story about the Grand Canyon.

I wonder what it will be. #-o

George
2004-Nov-23, 12:13 AM
Chip, they may be following you. :)

6 pm news with Peter Jennings showed the Lincolin Memorial and the Grand Canyon as parks reconsidering presenations.

crateris
2004-Nov-23, 03:47 AM
I found the book. The title is "The Great Dinosaur Mystery Solved." The author is Ken Ham.

It tells all about the "real" fossil record and makes a lot of the "behemoth" of the bible. There is other hay made about dinosaurs and man living together until the great flood.

I can handle that stuff.

But then the book launches into "How to become a christian" and outlines that, if you don't take the bible literally in respect to "creation" and such, then you also believe in homosexuality, you have no moral base, you believe in euthanasia, family break-up, yada, yada,yada.

As I said before, this book is aimed at 5th or 6th graders, maybe a little earlier. And the cover does not give any clues as to the contents.

Once my wife found out about the contents, she instructed me to throw it away. I kept is to use as an example of how the fundamentalists try to brainwash children by distorting the historic (and prehistoric) past and how they weave religious bias into their teachings.

C.

BoredHugeKrill
2004-Nov-23, 04:55 AM
I found the book. The title is "The Great Dinosaur Mystery Solved." The author is Ken Ham.

It tells all about the "real" fossil record and makes a lot of the "behemoth" of the bible. There is other hay made about dinosaurs and man living together until the great flood.

I can handle that stuff.

But then the book launches into "How to become a christian" and outlines that, if you don't take the bible literally in respect to "creation" and such, then you also believe in homosexuality, you have no moral base, you believe in euthanasia, family break-up, yada, yada,yada.

As I said before, this book is aimed at 5th or 6th graders, maybe a little earlier. And the cover does not give any clues as to the contents.

Once my wife found out about the contents, she instructed me to throw it away. I kept is to use as an example of how the fundamentalists try to brainwash children by distorting the historic (and prehistoric) past and how they weave religious bias into their teachings.

C.

A couple of years or so back, my son (who would have been in 2nd or 3rd grade then*), got into an argument with another boy at school. My son was then very much "into" dinosaurs, along with many kids his age. He could identify by name (and spell correctly) at least a couple of dozen different species of dinosaurs, tell you how big they were, which period they lived in, where fossils had been found and so on, and was adamant that he was going to be a paleontologist when he grew up. I'm sure many parents with kids of that age will recognize the picture...**

The boy that he got into an argument with scolded him for suggesting that dinosaurs had ever existed. He informed him that any fossils he might have seen were fakes, put in the ground by "bad people" inspired by the devil to confuse mankind.

This isn't a view I find commonly around here, but finding it just once was scary enough. Finding it in a young child was doubly scary.

Regards
Krill

*translation for non-Americans: he would have been about 7 at the time
**and yes, my daughter, who is now 6, is following the same pattern :-)

Tobin Dax
2004-Nov-23, 05:21 AM
You're right, Krill. I don't know if I ever heard anyone back home make such claims, but I'm aware of them for some reason.

I remember that one of my friends in High School (Silverton, surrounded by Mennonites(sp?") and other such YEC-types) was *very* upset to have to learn about evolution in biology class. He didn't want to have anything to do with it and didn't even try to learn the material for the test. Now, I never got into debates about dinosaurs with these friends (actually, I don't remember even bothering to argue the BB, etc, with them), but I wouldn't put it past a few of them to believe that. But I'm still amazed that such intelligent people can be this close-minded about some topics (hypocitical though that may be).

Maksutov
2004-Nov-23, 05:59 AM
"Of course, as the debates over issues like vaccination and environmental policy have shown, scientific evidence doesn’t sway committed ideologues."

- Ronald Bailey at Reason On-line

BoredHugeKrill
2004-Nov-23, 08:26 AM
this issue just hit the mainstream press:

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=273668&page=1

Regards
Krill

mid
2004-Nov-23, 11:01 AM
But it also turned into an "if you believe in evolution, you also believe in abortion, atheism, murder, homosexuality, etc." propaganda tool.

I believe evolution happens. I also believe abortion, atheism, murder and homosexuality happen. So I guess they're right after all.

This is another example of the real problem I have with creationists; they seem to be under the impression that they get to choose their own facts, based on what sounds nicest. They don't want to be related to the rest of the animal kingdom, so they choose not to be.

mid
2004-Nov-23, 11:08 AM
I don't know if Bush is considered a fundamentalist supporter. Of course, as President, he isn't gonna try to prove they are wrong. Does anyone know his true view of fundamentalism or, at least, evolution? #-o

He seems to be sincere enough in his "Christian Values", but at the same time its obvious that on the one hand, the fundamentalists who really care one way outnumber the likes of (some of) us that take so much offence they would change their votes in the other direction. Most people on the 'anti' side of the fence don't regard it as an important enough issue. So a cynic could argue it either way.

Glom
2004-Nov-23, 11:54 AM
Is it so wrong to be atheist? I think we're an oppressed minority.

Science is the enemy of a lot of groups because science isn't open to negotiation. Science is science. There is no Christian science or Muslim science of left wing science of right wing science. There is only science. This makes it very inconvenient for political and religious fundamentalists because it has the annoying property of not necessarily agreeing with what they want to espouse.

A scientist of conviction is one who will follow the evidence with logic to arrive at a conclusion. He will question that conclusion, retest that conclusion and possibly change that conclusion at a moment's notice if the evidence warrants it. On the other hand a politician of conviction or a religious person will stick rigidly and unwaveringly to their predetermined conclusions regardless of what facts are placed before them. In this way, science is fundamentally incompatible with religion and politics.

Maksutov
2004-Nov-23, 12:27 PM
Is it so wrong to be atheist? I think we're an oppressed minority.

Science is the enemy of a lot of groups because science isn't open to negotiation. Science is science. There is no Christian science or Muslim science of left wing science of right wing science. There is only science. This makes it very inconvenient for political and religious fundamentalists because it has the annoying property of not necessarily agreeing with what they want to espouse.

A scientist of conviction is one who will follow the evidence with logic to arrive at a conclusion. He will question that conclusion, retest that conclusion and possibly change that conclusion at a moment's notice if the evidence warrants it. On the other hand a politician of conviction or a religious person will stick rigidly and unwaveringly to their predetermined conclusions regardless of what facts are placed before them. In this way, science is fundamentally incompatible with religion and politics.
Well put, Glom.

I've run into this personally for years. It's like there's some boundary over which the latter two minds cannot/will not cross, no matter what the facts are. We're not the only ones to notice this.


There is apparently some connection between dissatisfaction with oneself and proneness to credulity. The urge to escape our real self is also an urge to escape the rational and the obvious. The refusal to see ourselves as we are develops a distaste for facts and cold logic. There is no hope for the frustrated in the actual and the possible. Salvation can come to them only from the miraculous, which seeps through a crack in the iron wall of inexorable reality. They asked to be deceived.

Our senses don't deceive us: our judgment does.

Nothing is so easy as to deceive oneself; for what we wish, we readily believe.

A doctrine insulates the devout not only against the realities around them but also against their own selves. The fanatical believer is not conscious of his envy, malice, pettiness and dishonesty. There is a wall of words between his consciousness and his real self.

Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion -- several of them.
He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn't straight.
He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother's path to happiness and heaven…
The higher animals have no religion. And we are told that they are going to be left out in the Hereafter.
I wonder why? It seems questionable taste... (from The Lowest Animal essay, 1897)
We've been an oppressed minority ever since man figured out how to think, and then questioned the local witch doctor.

George
2004-Nov-23, 02:21 PM
Is it so wrong to be atheist? I think we're an oppressed minority.
:roll: Uh oh, I sense a strategy brewing. :)


Science is the enemy of a lot of groups because science isn't open to negotiation. Science is science. There is no Christian science or Muslim science of left wing science of right wing science. There is only science. This makes it very inconvenient for political and religious fundamentalists because it has the annoying property of not necessarily agreeing with what they want to espouse.

Maksutov presents it nicely, I simply say "people believe what they want to believe".


A scientist of conviction is one who will follow the evidence with logic to arrive at a conclusion. He will question that conclusion, retest that conclusion and possibly change that conclusion at a moment's notice if the evidence warrants it.
In the good "spirit of science", this is nicely stated. It is an important distinction and one we all wish certain segements of religion would take note. In fairness, however, scientists are people too. A static universe had an iron grip on nearly all scientists, Einstein got the fuzzy quantum theory ball rolling but was certain "uncertainty" was wrong, Hoyle never gave in to BB theory (I think), etc. I am being a bit pedantic here to keep the human factor as an active variable.

Which seeks to "know the truth" more today - science or religion? On the surface, science seems to be ahead. YEC and others will cast that impression due to their mission goals. Hopefully, most religion is still more interested in Truth. I know too little of religion to speak as a whole.


On the other hand a politician of conviction or a religious person will stick rigidly and unwaveringly to their predetermined conclusions regardless of what facts are placed before them. In this way, science is fundamentally incompatible with religion and politics.
I still like the "overlap zone" idea, where scientific fact cast a shadow on a specific religious issue. This is a small zone as most religions are not very specific on science issues.

The age of the Grand Canyon, for example, is all based on the, likely, excessive literal definiton of day = 24 hrs. If "day" really means a time period of any length, then the Canyon does not need help from "The Flood".

You seem to be saying - "you can't confuse them with facts". If applied to certain groups, I agree. :-?

Cylinder
2004-Nov-23, 02:55 PM
Which seeks to "know the truth" more today - science or religion? On the surface, science seems to be ahead. YEC and others will cast that impression due to their mission goals. Hopefully, most religion is still more interested in Truth.

IMO, the majority of both groups tend to let each exist in their own respective sphere. Science, by definition, cannot disprove religion. Religion, by definition, cannot make scientific assertions. For every YEC I can point to a self-proclaimed scientist with the mistaken belief that BB theory explains how the universe came to be.

The only truth that I can make out it is the development of the scientific method is one of the greatest achievements of mankind - and a very recent invention. Equally as impressive to me is the ties to the ancient past carried forward by religion. The Truth is that without that singular human necessity to ask "Why?", we would have neither.

Glom
2004-Nov-23, 03:38 PM
In fairness, however, scientists are people too.

Yes, which is why I spoke of scientists of conviction where they don't allow their own prejudices and biases to cloud their judgement.

crateris
2004-Nov-23, 04:39 PM
George wrote (and I'm not critizing him);



The age of the Grand Canyon, for example, is all based on the, likely, excessive literal definiton of day = 24 hrs. If "day" really means a time period of any
length, then the Canyon does not need help from "The Flood".


It's funny how those who take things so literally can also give that much latitude to fit their version of the truth. A day in the fundamentalist view can vary from a 24 hour day to whatever it takes to fit the "creation" scheme.

C.

George
2004-Nov-24, 01:23 AM
In fairness, however, scientists are people too.

Yes, which is why I spoke of scientists of conviction where they don't allow their own prejudices and biases to cloud their judgement.

You might be stating the "prime directive" of science, a foundation to truth ascertation. Hopefully, religion and science will lift it high.

Makgraf
2004-Nov-24, 01:58 AM
But it also turned into an "if you believe in evolution, you also believe in abortion, atheism, murder, homosexuality, etc." propaganda tool.

I believe evolution happens. I also believe abortion, atheism, murder and homosexuality happen. So I guess they're right after all.
Exactly. One of the problems with people like that is the conflation of belief in with approval of. I think part of that comes from the world view, not many people believe that the scriptures are the literal word of God and also believe that they are evil and immoral. I believe in evolution, but I don't approve of it. I think it would be much nicer to have a cosmos arranged by a wise and benevolent god, who rewards goodness in an "afterlife" as opposed to a meaningless system that arrises from randomness and condemns the weak (or at least their DNA) to death. But the facts point to evolution being why we're here. At the same time I have no particular attachment to evolution, were a better theory to come along I'd have hesistation about believing in it.


There is no Christian science
Run for it guys, your cover's been blown! (http://www.tfccs.com/index.jhtml;jsessionid=DXNUCDAYKEFJBKGL4L2SFEQ) :)


You might be stating the "prime directive" of science, a foundation to truth ascertation. Hopefully, religion and science will lift it high.
I guess some of the big problems we're had with some of these politicized scientific debates have been because some scientists have treated their "prime directive" with as much respect as Starfleet does.

Chip
2004-Nov-24, 03:02 AM
...I think it would be much nicer to have a cosmos arranged by a wise and benevolent god, who rewards goodness in an "afterlife" as opposed to a meaningless system that arises from randomness and condemns the weak (or at least their DNA) to death. But the facts point to evolution being why we're here...

One small quibble: :wink: We actually don't know if "evolution" is "meaningless." Evolutionary theories do not address "meaning" per se. Some religious folks who are not "fundamentalists," upon considering the scientific fact that the calcium in our bones atomically originates in supernovas, (and therefore we are all "brothers and sisters of the stars,") will find such a fact to be quite inspiring - without the need for an old fashioned deity on a throne making judgments.

A "wise and benevolent god, who rewards goodness in an afterlife" also presents some moral problems as human goodness for some might be human badness for others. But fortunately, this lies outside the course of this board.

If the Grand Canyon book were titled "Myths, Folktales and Legends of the Grand Canyon" it might be acceptable. (It should then include Native American legends about the Canyon.) And a real science book should also be found in the gift shop. But the fundamentalist book is presented as if it were a science text, with unproven Biblical creationism presented as if it were fact. That is highly deceitful.

sarongsong
2004-Nov-24, 03:24 AM
...And a real science book should also be found in the gift shop...
Has is it been established whether the book in question was sold at an official Grand Canyon Park Service Visitor Center, or was it a Park concession-run gift shop? There is a difference. Delaware North (NewYork) is the Park's concessionaire.

BoredHugeKrill
2004-Nov-24, 03:33 AM
George wrote (and I'm not critizing him);



The age of the Grand Canyon, for example, is all based on the, likely, excessive literal definiton of day = 24 hrs. If "day" really means a time period of any
length, then the Canyon does not need help from "The Flood".


It's funny how those who take things so literally can also give that much latitude to fit their version of the truth. A day in the fundamentalist view can vary from a 24 hour day to whatever it takes to fit the "creation" scheme.

C.
(my emphasis)

but then, since according to Genesis, God didn't actually create the Sun until the fourth day, surely a day must be 23 hours 56 minutes and 4 seconds? [-(

<cough>

sorry, couldn't resist... :P

Regards
Krill

Tobin Dax
2004-Nov-24, 04:35 AM
lol, Krill.

George
2004-Nov-24, 04:46 PM
You might be stating the "prime directive" of science, a foundation to truth ascertation. Hopefully, religion and science will lift it high.
I guess some of the big problems we're had with some of these politicized scientific debates have been because some scientists have treated their "prime directive" with as much respect as Starfleet does.
You've noticed, huh? :) Just what is with all those other folks. :) The human equation is pretty colorful and not always pretty, regretfully. :-?

George
2004-Nov-24, 04:56 PM
George wrote (and I'm not critizing him);

The age of the Grand Canyon, for example, is all based on the, likely, excessive literal definiton of day = 24 hrs. If "day" really means a time period of any
length, then the Canyon does not need help from "The Flood".

It's funny how those who take things so literally can also give that much latitude to fit their version of the truth. A day in the fundamentalist view can vary from a 24 hour day to whatever it takes to fit the "creation" scheme.
C.
(my emphasis)

but then, since according to Genesis, God didn't actually create the Sun until the fourth day, surely a day must be 23 hours 56 minutes and 4 seconds? [-(

Who knows what it was back 4.5 billion years ago before the moon-making impact? I'm on your side. :) Day can mean daytime which is about 1/2 a day. There are numerous verses in the Bible which show the day to not be about 24 hours. What if "day" described the time the author witnessed the event? It gets too theological and not astronomical from here, however, so I will not go there.



<cough>
Have some chocolate.... cough inhibitor (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=369938&highlight=chocolate#369938) =D> [Biggest news of the week, IMO] :)


sorry, couldn't resist... :P
Thanks. :)

sarongsong
2004-Nov-25, 03:31 AM
Here's Amazon's book blurb (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0890513732/ref=dp_item-information_0/104-0322160-4039920?%5Fencoding=UTF8&n=283155&s=books&v=glance ), and more on the bronze plaques (http://www.beverlylahayeinstitute.org/articledisplay.asp?id=4385&department=BLI&category id=femfacts):
"First they were up. Then they came down. Then they went back up. But will they come down again? For 33 years, three bronze Scripture plaques have hung at the South Rim of the Grand Canyon..."

beskeptical
2004-Nov-25, 06:36 AM
So when are the Hindu creationist books going to hit the stands? I'm rather fond of their story, and after all, since the Grand Canyon is public land, it shouldn't be recognizing only one religion, correct?You know, you may just be on to something here. Perhaps instead of presenting scientific evidence debunking these religious claims, we should present other religious views and challenge Bible literalists to debunk those claims.


"When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."


Stephen Roberts

sarongsong
2004-Nov-25, 08:16 AM
Yea! beskeptical is back! =D>
The NPS Grand Canyon Website (http://www2.nature.nps.gov/geology/parks/grca/):
"...How old is the canyon itself?
The early history and evolution of the Colorado River (of which Grand Canyon is only a part) is the most complex aspect of Grand Canyon geology and far beyond our scope here. We do know, however, that the erosion which has shaped the canyon has occurred only in the past five to six million years---only yesterday, considering the age of the rocks through which the Canyon is carved..."

harlequin
2004-Nov-26, 09:49 PM
...And a real science book should also be found in the gift shop...
Has is it been established whether the book in question was sold at an official Grand Canyon Park Service Visitor Center, or was it a Park concession-run gift shop? There is a difference. Delaware North (NewYork) is the Park's concessionaire.

I visited the Canyon earlier this month. The Vale book is in the visitor's center of the Park. I also found it in some other park stores (there are a bunch of park stores).

crateris
2004-Nov-26, 10:02 PM
So when are the Hindu creationist books going to hit the stands? I'm rather fond of their story, and after all, since the Grand Canyon is public land, it shouldn't be recognizing only one religion, correct?You know, you may just be on to something here. Perhaps instead of presenting scientific evidence debunking these religious claims, we should present other religious views and challenge Bible literalists to debunk those claims.


"When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."


Stephen Roberts

I totally agree with bringing up other versions of "creation". There are so many one could mention. The Hindu, the Native American, Easter Island, etc.

Each one of the "creation" stories was or is believed as factual by the devotees of that particular persuasion. I believe that those who promote the bible's version of creation should embrace the spirit of all the other 'creation" myths.

Why can't they understand that the theory of evolution is a universal explanation of the very processes that govern the development of earth (and the universe) and ultimately, themselves?

I just LOVE that quote at the end. It says exactly what I would love to say to those who would try to "save" me.

C.

BTW, I feel I was born right the FIRST time, don't need to go through that again!

beskeptical
2004-Nov-27, 04:26 AM
Yea! beskeptical is back! =D>
Well that's sweet of you to notice but I wasn't really gone, just not able to post as often.

Flu shots are almost done now, things are getting back to normal. I still have a few left and am trying to get them out to the most at risk fire and police folks.

Lurker
2004-Nov-27, 07:07 AM
I probably get pretty close to the edge here, but what concerns me in addition to the science is the apparent establishment of a national religion. So where does this leave someone like me who is of the pagan persuasion. I become deeply concerned that at some point I may face discrimination because of my beliefs. It is quite disturbing!!

Maksutov
2004-Nov-27, 07:48 AM
I probably get pretty close to the edge here, but what concerns me in addition to the science is the apparent establishment of a national religion. So where does this leave someone like me who is of the pagan persuasion. I become deeply concerned that at some point I may face discrimination because of my beliefs. It is quite disturbing!!
Consider yourself one of the lucky ones who hasn't yet been discriminated against because of their non-national religion beliefs or lack thereof. :-?

harlequin
2004-Dec-01, 04:19 AM
Since "evolution quotes (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html)" is a common argument for creationists, I might add that the Talk.Origins Archive (http://www.talkorigins.org/) has a new file on how creationists falsely use quotes on the subject of geology to argue that the earth is not old: Quote Mine Project: Geologic Column Quotes (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part5.html).

Meteora
2004-Dec-01, 07:55 AM
Since "evolution quotes (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html)" is a common argument for creationists, ....

You know... it was this sort of thing (quote mining) that first caused me to question the validity of Young-Earth Creationism (yes, I'm a former YEC). Since I work in a scientific field myself, I have some idea how scientists discuss things. So, it struck me as incredible (not believable) that all those evolutionists would be saying the things attributed to them.

Richard of Chelmsford
2004-Dec-01, 10:33 AM
At a park called Dinosaur Adventure Land, run by creationists near Pensacola, Florida, visitors are informed that man coexisted with dinosaurs.
Which would make The Flintstones reality television.

Carl Baugh really does believe that.

Hello SciFi and other posters.

Sorry I haven't had time to read this thread in full so my points may have already been raised.

Yes, generally I think we need to stick to the rules of avoiding religion if we can..the point being that if, for arguments sake, religion os wrong as it may be, we can still indulge in it if we so wish..after all, America and Britain and other places are free countries..if we say that people can't be religious then we'll end up like the Soviet union, that was.

Also, creationism from a scientific point of view may seem crackpot, but if any aspect of it turned out to be factual then it would be assimilated into the realm of science, then would be acceptable to all of us.

An illustration to show how this may happen could be to raise the topic of Astrology.

Bunkum, most of us would say, probably rightly.

But one aspect of it could have it's roots in factuality..that being that a baby born in May (Gemini??) would have a more acute sensitivity to the smell of flowers..perhaps..or of warmth and comfort, that a baby born (like my wife) in December (Capricorn.)

Which may affect his or her attitude to life.

Lastly to SciFi..

( :oops: :oops: Blush..simper..)

I saw your photo on the BABB photo site, SciFi. I must say it's a really lovely picture..if I was young, single, rich, handsome, charming, intelligent, educated and living in Virginia I would come knocking with a bunch of flowers and a box of Belgian chocolates.

(Oh what a flarcher of women!! 8-[ )

mid
2004-Dec-01, 10:36 AM
(Oh what a flarcher of women!! 8-[ )

Why do I get the distinct impression I don't want to know what "Flarching" means?

Maksutov
2004-Dec-01, 10:52 AM
[edit]Also, creationism from a scientific point of view may seem crackpot, but if any aspect of it turned out to be factual then it would be assimilated into the realm of science, then would be acceptable to all of us.
No, all aspects of it would have to be factual for that to happen. Any speculation that is flawed in one part doesn't even make it to theory status.


An illustration to show how this may happen could be to raise the topic of Astrology.

Bunkum, most of us would say, probably rightly.

But one aspect of it could have it's roots in factuality..that being that a baby born in May (Gemini??) would have a more acute sensitivity to the smell of flowers..perhaps..or of warmth and comfort, that a baby born (like my wife) in December (Capricorn.)
Please, this was done to death in the ATM thread started by ghzcpu. Jung was old hat, and continues to be so.

crateris
2004-Dec-01, 05:57 PM
I would submit that astrology is bunkum as a whole and the genetics play a lot bigger role than any imaginary "sign" that one may be born "under".

C.

Richard of Chelmsford
2004-Dec-01, 09:48 PM
All right you two.

Keep your hair on.

It was only a passing comment. :evil:

Richard of Chelmsford
2004-Dec-01, 09:49 PM
(Oh what a flarcher of women!! 8-[ )

Why do I get the distinct impression I don't want to know what "Flarching" means?

It just means grovellingly over-flattering.

Richard of Chelmsford
2004-Dec-01, 09:56 PM
No, all aspects of it would have to be factual for that to happen. Any speculation that is flawed in one part doesn't even make it to theory status.



Don't get me wrong Matsutov, I'm not a creationist at all, but then, neither am I an educated scientists which leaves me open to making obvious blunders.

But, as a layman, it seems to me that there is a world of difference about how creationists say the Universe came into being, and the way scientists say it came into being.

And yet there seems one identical factor (?). That the Universe was somehow created at a point in time back from now, from nothing.

Which, unless that is a blunder brought about by lack of knowledge, is a contradiction of your observation. :-?

Zachary
2004-Dec-01, 10:16 PM
No, all aspects of it would have to be factual for that to happen. Any speculation that is flawed in one part doesn't even make it to theory status.



Don't get me wrong Matsutov, I'm not a creationist at all, but then, neither am I an educated scientists which leaves me open to making obvious blunders.

But, as a layman, it seems to me that there is a world of difference about how creationists say the Universe came into being, and the way scientists say it came into being.

And yet there seems one identical factor (?). That the Universe was somehow created at a point in time back from now, from nothing.

Which, unless that is a blunder brought about by lack of knowledge, is a contradiction of your observation. :-?

Just an ignorant layman here, but isn't it possible to create something out of nothing? (quantum uncertainty principle or something like that? :-? )