Creation Museum

[Faithkeeper]

This might be an archived topic (I have no idea, it seems like a topic that might get brought up), but either way, here we go.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TME30pPBw58

I've been there, they definitely present everything as science.

#1 Should this be allowed to be presented as science in a museum?

#2 If so, should public schools be able to take field trips there?

#3 If yes to the first and no to the second, how can we justify that distinction?


This is not an anti-Christian/religion/even creationism thread. The fact of the matter is, creationism as a science has not received a positive consensus from the majority of the scientific community (like evolutionary theory has, or atomic theory, etc.). I suppose the question is: "If a scientific idea (we'll call it that) has not received a consensus from the scientific community, what stance do you hold as it relates to the three main points?"

I hope this makes sense, I'd really rather not have this turn into a religious thing, there are separate threads for that. If there were a string theory museum I knew of this thread could be about that as well. (To the best of my knowledge string theory has not received a scientific consensus [though it is the leading theory that explains what it does] yet they call it a scientific theory. It even has text books (Source).)

edit: lol @ this being my 666th post. I'm not trying to say anything, honest. I have beliefs, pm me about them if interested.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Interesting thread, Faithkeeper.

1. Yes, the museum should be able to have anything it wants in it. What bothers me is if its staff is imposing their beliefs on museum goers and acting against atheist people who view the museum. I.e. watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4ThvM9BKZU&feature=related (although to be fair it's from a biased perspective).

2. No. But there's no problem with private schools going there.

3. Separation of church and state. Christianity or any other religion should not be allowed to impose their opinions on public school children, as it may be offensive to children and parents of a different religion, especially if their religion states the world was created in a different way.

 

[RDK]

#1 Should this be allowed to be presented as science in a museum?

The museum can present itself as anything it pleases. That doesn't mean it's about science, which it clearly isn't. The important part is that it's not funded by tax money and it isn't shoved into the state-run school curriculum.

#2 If so, should public schools be able to take field trips there?

Not as part of a science course.

#3 If yes to the first and no to the second, how can we justify that distinction?

Like I said, the Creation Museum is a private enterprise. It's existence is a form of free speech, but that doesn't mean anyone has to take them seriously.

 

[Faithkeeper]

DA mode activated.

2. No. But there's no problem with private schools going there.

What's the difference?

3. Separation of church and state. Christianity or any other religion should not be allowed to impose their opinions on public school children, as it may be offensive to children and parents of a different religion, especially if their religion states the world was created in a different way.

That's the thing though. it doesn't present their stuff as religion. It presents as factual science. As in this is what the scientific method and research has brought us to, with the Bible and God not being used as "evidence." For example they say the Earth is, what 20,000 years old (I forget the number of their claim) citing the exponential decay of the Earth's magnetic field as an indicator of it being a young planet. They don't say "Jesus is real and this is what the Bible says." My interpretation is that they try to present everything in a manner in which is supposedly independent form religion, but coincidentally fits in with a single one rather well...

Whenever you want to say "church and state" pretend it's a string theory museum or a quantum loop gravity museum. I'd like to focus the debate around the premise that it's not a science that has reached a scientific consensus, rather that it's religious implications. If we focus on the latter there's not much room for debate.

The museum can present itself as anything it pleases. That doesn't mean it's about science, which it clearly isn't.

I think my earlier paragraph speaks to this. If you've been there as well and got a different impression, please share, it's been a couple years for me and I don't have the best memory.

Not as part of a science course.

Please elaborate. Shouldn't students be introduced to emerging scientific ideas? What if it were a string theory or quantum loop gravity museum? Neither of these theories have reached a scientific consensus. (to the best of my knowledge, I'm getting this info from "A complete idiot's guide to string theory", published a few years ago... plenty can happen in a few years. That and conversations with my genetic teacher who is just generally knowledgeable in the scientific world but obviously couldn't be up to date on every thing)

Like I said, the Creation Museum is a private enterprise. It's existence is a form of free speech, but that doesn't mean anyone has to take them seriously.

Can't say much to that.

[/DA mode]

 

[KrazyGlue]

What's the difference?

Well, public schools are run by the government, and they're not supposed to include anything in the curriculum that could be misconstrued as imposing a belief in God on any of the students, as that would violate separation of church and state. Private schools are not owned by the state and can have any religious affiliations they want.

That's the thing though. it doesn't present their stuff as religion. It presents as factual science. As in this is what the scientific method and research has brought us to, with the Bible and God not being used as "evidence." For example they say the Earth is, what 20,000 years old (I forget the number of their claim) citing the exponential decay of the Earth's magnetic field as an indicator of it being a young planet. They don't say "Jesus is real and this is what the Bible says." My interpretation is that they try to present everything in a manner in which is supposedly independent form religion, but coincidentally fits in with a single one rather well...

Whenever you want to say "church and state" pretend it's a string theory museum or a quantum loop gravity museum. I'd like to focus the debate around the premise that it's not a science that has reached a scientific consensus, rather that it's religious implications. If we focus on the latter there's not much room for debate.

The main concern is the use of God in their argument that evolution is false.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

That's the thing though. it doesn't present their stuff as religion. It presents as factual science. As in this is what the scientific method and research has brought us to, with the Bible and God not being used as "evidence." For example they say the Earth is, what 20,000 years old (I forget the number of their claim) citing the exponential decay of the Earth's magnetic field as an indicator of it being a young planet. They don't say "Jesus is real and this is what the Bible says." My interpretation is that they try to present everything in a manner in which is supposedly independent form religion, but coincidentally fits in with a single one rather well...

Well, it seems that they're trying to justify their faith, in a literal mythology. There has been no archaeological or geographical evidence for the worldwide flood, which they state as fact. Now that'd all be well and good if they weren't portraying it as hard science, because hard science relies heavily on testing one's hypotheses, to see if they match the evidence. It's obvious that they haven't done this, so many of their claims have been debunked and are at the very best unproven. This museum is lying, if they say what they're presenting as science.

I'm totally fine with them lying, but if they want to lie, they've got to be prepared to face the consequences of them being caught out. They've got to let people call them out, after all, it's in the name of free speech. I don't think they're doing this though, they only want free speech for those that they agree with....

Please elaborate. Shouldn't students be introduced to emerging scientific ideas? What if it were a string theory or quantum loop gravity museum? Neither of these theories have reached a scientific consensus. (to the best of my knowledge, I'm getting this info from "A complete idiot's guide to string theory", published a few years ago... plenty can happen in a few years. That and conversations with my genetic teacher who is just generally knowledgeable in the scientific world but obviously couldn't be up to date on every thing)

It's not a new field, creation science has been around for several thousand years, and it's slowly lost its scientific consensus over that time due to scientific progress. I'm saying that it's already reached it's scientific consensus back in the dark ages, and slowly lost it from there.

If a branch of science is dated, old, useless, and in hindsight unscientific it should be given the same treatment as other useless, old, dated, unscientific branches of science - shelved. Heck, we don't go around teaching our kids about phrenology.

It's fine to teach our students about new budding scientific theories, to keep them up with the times, but honestly, creation science isn't budding, and it isn't scientific.

If a legitimate branch of science doesn't have a positive consensus, but actually explains something, is scientific, and has a body of evidence in its favour, it is okay to teach to students. However, it should not be portrayed as gospel, absolute truth etc. because it doesn't have a positive consensus within the scientific community, it should be portrayed as an alternate view point, yet not necessarily correct.

 

[Faithkeeper]

DA is more fun than real life.

Well, public schools are run by the government, and they're not supposed to include anything in the curriculum that could be misconstrued as imposing a belief in God on any of the students, as that would violate separation of church and state. Private schools are not owned by the state and can have any religious affiliations they want.

The main concern is the use of God in their argument that evolution is false.

... wait a second... nah... well... actually... oh yes, I just posted about this.

Whenever you want to say "church and state" pretend it's a string theory museum or a quantum loop gravity museum. I'd like to focus the debate around the premise that it's not a science that has reached a scientific consensus, rather that it's religious implications. If we focus on the latter there's not much room for debate.

Not to mention there would be absolutely nothing wrong with teaching the existence of a deity in public schools if said deity were able to be scientifically quantifiable and such. If science proved there was a God, you don't have to go on about religion to say it's there. If high schools can have world religion class, a scientifically quantifiable and observed God would not be kept out of the classroom.

Well, it seems that they're trying to justify their faith, in a literal mythology. There has been no archaeological or geographical evidence for the worldwide flood, which they state as fact. Now that'd all be well and good if they weren't portraying it as hard science, because hard science relies heavily on testing one's hypotheses, to see if they match the evidence. It's obvious that they haven't done this, so many of their claims have been debunked and are at the very best unproven. This museum is lying, if they say what they're presenting as science.

Ok, so it can't be in schools because it is "at the very best unproven"... No scientific consensus- gotcha

It's not a new field, creation science has been around for several thousand years, and it's slowly lost its scientific consensus over that time due to scientific progress. I'm saying that it's already reached it's scientific consensus back in the dark ages, and slowly lost it from there.

Some aspects of it, agreed. But they keep bringing up new "evidence" so to lump everything they do in with what they were doing thousands, hundreds, or even just a few decades ago would be misrepresentation.

If a branch of science is dated, old, useless, and in hindsight unscientific it should be given the same treatment as other useless, old, dated, unscientific branches of science - shelved. Heck, we don't go around teaching our kids about phrenology.

But say people started to try to bring phrenology back. They tweaked their original claims to make it fit some science. Suppose they argued that the occipital lobe controlled sight because its area is right where your eyes would have developed if they had developed on your other side of your head and ... idk, I'm no phrenologist. :D But anyway, we can sit here and tear apart their stuff, but can we really call it "dated, old, ... , unscientific?" Let me tell you, there are some intelligent people who are very good at justifying their beliefs, and have done a far better job of making things seem very scientific than I have off the top of my head.

It's fine to teach our students about new budding scientific theories, to keep them up with the times, but honestly, creation science isn't budding, and it isn't scientific.

Wait. you said we couldn't teach creation because it hasn't reached a scientific consensus, you know, "at very best unproven." Now we can? But not creationism? Because you say it isn't science. It isn't science? Define science. Webster seems to think it is a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study Are you denying that creation science is systematized or that it isn't being studied? They've got evidence out the wazoo. Their facts are straight, it's just the logic they use to connect the dots that I find questionable. But finding something questionable doesn't prove much. I find quantum loop gravity questionable and I only understand the basic concept. My opinion is worthless.

If a legitimate branch of science doesn't have a positive consensus, but actually explains something, is scientific, and has a body of evidence in its favour, it is okay to teach to students.

If a legitimate branch of science doesn't have a positive consensus Webster on legitimate:being exactly as purposed : neither spurious nor false If we can't reach a scientific consensus on something, we certainly cannot confirm it is not false (we can be wrong even in scientific consensus). Therefore to apply the word "legitimate" to a scientific theory or idea that hasn't even reached a scientific consensus is self-contradictory.
but actually explains something, Check
is scientific, Check
and has a body of evidence in its favor, Evidence, check
So we can teach it in schools now, right?

However, it should not be portrayed as gospel, absolute truth etc. because it doesn't have a positive consensus within the scientific community, it should be portrayed as an alternate view point, yet not necessarily correct.

No science should be portrayed as gospel or absolute truth, scientists must constantly have humility and question their own theories to ensure their validity.

Deal. This is what every creationist wants, for them to teach that stuff right next to evolution.

 

[GoldShadow]

but actually explains something, Check
is scientific, Check
and has a body of evidence in its favor, Evidence, check
So we can teach it in schools now, right?

Unfortunately for creation "science", it does not have a body of evidence in its favor.

 

[Faithkeeper]

Unfortunately for creation "science", it does not have a body of evidence in its favor.

kryptonite. That was too easy.

Spoiler

Even my DA mode won't let me try to claim this is untrue. Like they have stuff... but I wouldn't feel right posting it because I don't buy it. Anybody care to try that out?

Anyway, so it comes down to the lack of scientific consensus via lack of evidence that would prevent kids from taking field trips to a creation museum. So would this same reasoning apply to a string theory/quantum loop gravity/(any scientific idea or theory without scientific consensus) museum?

 

[GoldShadow]

Anyway, so it comes down to the lack of scientific consensus via lack of evidence that would prevent kids from taking field trips to a creation museum. So would this same reasoning apply to a string theory/quantum loop gravity/(any scientific idea or theory without scientific consensus) museum?

lol at the idea of a string theory or quantum loop museum

Interesting question, though. I definitely don't think this reasoning would apply to such an institution for one big reason:

Concepts like string theory might not have a lot of evidence to support them (yet), as far as I know, but they a) explain some natural and physical phenomena, b) are at least mathematically or physically possible and c) are being studied so as to refine/prove/disprove them.

On the other hand, creation 'science' actively has massive amounts of evidence against it whereas evidence in support of things like string theory is, at worst, "neutral" and at best, favorable.

 

[Faithkeeper]

lol at the idea of a string theory or quantum loop museum

I chuckled.

And there's a fair few schools I think would be taking field trips to them any way. Do colleges even take field trips?

Interesting question, though. I definitely don't think this reasoning would apply to such an institution for one big reason:

Concepts like string theory might not have a lot of evidence to support them (yet), as far as I know, but they a) explain some natural and physical phenomena, b) are at least mathematically or physically possible and c) are being studied so as to refine/prove/disprove them.

On the other hand, creation 'science' actively has massive amounts of evidence against it whereas evidence in support of things like string theory is, at worst, "neutral" and at best, favorable.

I definitely see your point, it just makes one judge this type of issue on a case by case basis, it'd be easier to just throw a blanket conclusion over the issue.

 

[Crimson King]

Here's the problem with the Creationist Museum: they don't trust or believe in science that opposes their belief.

I've seen one video (I think it was Religulous), and the psychopath who runs the place indoctrinated children to ask scientists "How do you know?" by doing repeat training. The problem with this mentality that scientists are untrustworthy because they are probably atheists or anti-religious is that it'll cause these children to question ANY science and thus only rely on religion.

 

[RDK]

I chuckled.

And there's a fair few schools I think would be taking field trips to them any way. Do colleges even take field trips?



I definitely see your point, it just makes one judge this type of issue on a case by case basis, it'd be easier to just throw a blanket conclusion over the issue.

The blanket conclusion is that any pseudo-scientific venture, be it creationism, intelligent design, flat-earthism, etc. should not and will not be funded by any sort of public institution.

I don't understand how string theory or quantum mechanics are in any way relatable to creationism.

Creationism makes no testable predictions. It has brought about zero advancement in any given field of science. It's useless to anybody who doesn't happen to have a religious or political agenda.

 

[Dre89]

The biggest problem with creationism is that it's backed only by Protestant fundamentalists, whose interpretation of the Bible has no backing behind it either.

Creationist evolution I think is a different story. Creationist evolution is a Catholic theory which suggests that macroevolution isn't true, but God did create different creatures at different times, and allowed them to adapt or microevolve from there.

Now the only reason why I mention this theory, or think this theory has any merit is because of the Genesis story. For those of you who don't know, Catholicism doesn't interpret the Genesis stroy literally, so it doesn't believe the world was created in literally seven days.

This is what you get if you compare the Genesis story to evolution theory:

Genesis
Land and sea-"sea monsters"-birds-mammals-humans

Evolution
Land and sea-fish-reptiles-birds-mammals-humans (they come later on after the first humans).

So interestingly, it can be argued that the Genesis story was telling us something science took alot longer to discover.

Also Bob, the 'flood' is an interesting one. In Protestant fundamentalism, it has issues because it assumes the flood encompassed the entire world.

In Catholicism, the flood is considered to only be local, and they have actually apparently found evidence of a flood at the place.

Also, even though I'm not a theist, I'm not sure a I agree with the spearation of the Church and the State. Countries like Australia were founded on Christian values and laws. I don't think it's fair that all these unrgateful seculars take the good from it, then try to abolish that unity so to benefit the way they want to live their life.

Seculars are always complaining that theist movements are invading their way of life, but it's the other way around, the theists were here first and now its the seculars imposing on their laws.

 

[RDK]

Also, even though I'm not a theist, I'm not sure a I agree with the spearation of the Church and the State. Countries like Australia were founded on Christian values and laws. I don't think it's fair that all these unrgateful seculars take the good from it, then try to abolish that unity so to benefit the way they want to live their life.

Seculars are always complaining that theist movements are invading their way of life, but it's the other way around, the theists were here first and now its the seculars imposing on their laws.

So I guess instead of imposing separation of church and state, which is fair to everybody, we should just allow a religious government to intrude in the lives of everyone else who happens to not be religious.

How dare people strive to live their life the way they want to!

 

[KrazyGlue]

Not to mention there would be absolutely nothing wrong with teaching the existence of a deity in public schools if said deity were able to be scientifically quantifiable and such. If science proved there was a God, you don't have to go on about religion to say it's there. If high schools can have world religion class, a scientifically quantifiable and observed God would not be kept out of the classroom.

Well, we don't teach outdated, unproven science either. There's no "Alchemy 101: Find the Elixir of Longevity" class. And since we don't have any proof of God's existence, that shouldn't be involved in public schools either.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Ok, so it can't be in schools because it is "at the very best unproven"... No scientific consensus- gotcha

And at the very worst a total crock of ****. I mean a worldwide flood? C'mon! The age of the Earth being 6000 years old, in the face of all the overwhelming scientific evidence. It's hasn't won a scientific consensus, because it's insane!

Some aspects of it, agreed. But they keep bringing up new "evidence" so to lump everything they do in with what they were doing thousands, hundreds, or even just a few decades ago would be misrepresentation.

Like what? What new "evidence"? There's far more contradictory evidence that's been around for 100s of years.

But say people started to try to bring phrenology back. They tweaked their original claims to make it fit some science. Suppose they argued that the occipital lobe controlled sight because its area is right where your eyes would have developed if they had developed on your other side of your head and ... idk, I'm no phrenologist. :D But anyway, we can sit here and tear apart their stuff, but can we really call it "dated, old, ... , unscientific?" Let me tell you, there are some intelligent people who are very good at justifying their beliefs, and have done a far better job of making things seem very scientific than I have off the top of my head.

They're not tweaking their claims to fit the evidence. They're interpreting the bible as literal fact, and the bible hasn't changed.

Furthermore, the contradictory evidence is massive, they're not tweaking their claims to fit it, they're just denying that such evidence exists. That is unscientific.

Wait. you said we couldn't teach creation because it hasn't reached a scientific consensus, you know, "at very best unproven."

Very funny, stop quote mining me...

Now we can? But not creationism? Because you say it isn't science. It isn't science? Define science. Webster seems to think it is a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study Are you denying that creation science is systematized or that it isn't being studied?

Ah, science is more than just systemised knowledge. It relies on the scientific method to reach such knowledge. Basically, what is required is:

First observe nature and look around for a phenomenon that is of yet unexplained (or explained inadequately). Then you've suggest an explanation, a hypothesis, this explanation must be falsifiable and make predictions. After this, you've got to test the explanation and the predictions it produces against observations and experiments. Then you've got to improve the explanation to fit with the facts better. This process then repeats and repeats and repeats to keep up with the facts.

Creationism has entirely skipped the testing and improvement stages of the scientific method and claims it's reached absolute truth. By circumventing the scientific method, it's unscientific.

They've got evidence out the wazoo.

What evidence? Where? I can't see any!

Their facts are straight, it's just the logic they use to connect the dots that I find questionable. But finding something questionable doesn't prove much. I find quantum loop gravity questionable and I only understand the basic concept. My opinion is worthless.

Their facts are most definitely not straight, and their logic is thoroughly flawed.

If a legitimate branch of science doesn't have a positive consensus Webster on legitimate:being exactly as purposed : neither spurious nor false If we can't reach a scientific consensus on something, we certainly cannot confirm it is not false (we can be wrong even in scientific consensus).

Ah, yeah but your twisting things a bit here aren't you? See, I'm talking legitimate as in, follows the scientific method, and has little to no contradictory evidence, and some evidence in it's favour. Wait, does anyone else notice that this looks like the exact opposite of creation science.

Therefore to apply the word "legitimate" to a scientific theory or idea that hasn't even reached a scientific consensus is self-contradictory.
but actually explains something, Check
is scientific, Check
and has a body of evidence in its favor, Evidence, check
So we can teach it in schools now, right?

Funnily enough, your wrong on all points there... Creationism is just like saying "Goddidit", it explains nothing. It is unscientific and has NO evidence in it's favour over evolution.

No science should be portrayed as gospel or absolute truth, scientists must constantly have humility and question their own theories to ensure their validity.

But that's what creationism is portrayed as, absolute truth, because it follows the bible.

Deal. This is what every creationist wants, for them to teach that stuff right next to evolution.

Sorry, no deal, creationism isn't a scientific theory and doesn't deserve a place in classrooms outside religious education, if that even exists.

And really, stop quote mining me

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Also Bob, the 'flood' is an interesting one. In Protestant fundamentalism, it has issues because it assumes the flood encompassed the entire world.

In Catholicism, the flood is considered to only be local, and they have actually apparently found evidence of a flood at the place.

Yeah, there have been plenty of local floods. Just saying...

 

[Dre89]

Unity of the Church and State doesn't mean everyone is forced to be religious. There would still be diversity and acceptance of other beliefs.

Theists don't try to impose laws which comprimise people's skepticism, it's the seculars who try to impose laws which comprimise the ability to be religious.

Unity of Church and state would just mean you are granted freedom to be as secular as you like as long as you don't attempt to undermine religious laws and principles.

Secular states prevent people from being religious or upholding their principles.

If anyone has imposed on anyone, it's the seculars. The seculars, who have reaped the benefits of Catholic institution, have come in and legalised abortion, prostitution (In Australia it's still legal I'm pretty sure), pornography etc.

Things like abortion, which Christians consider to be the killing of a child, are not ok to just come in and change.

The Church was there first. Look at all the nations which weren't founded on Christianity and the problems they have at the moment. You owe your privellage to Christian foundation, yet you want to keep that privellage yet undermine the values of the institution which gave you that privellage.

 

[Faithkeeper]

Very funny, stop quote mining me...

And really, stop quote mining me

This is the only bit I have a problem with, I've already explained why I wont go post a bunch of creation science "evidence." But anyway, it's only quote mining if I use it out of context. Quote mining is looking through large amounts of material for quotes that can be taken out of context or otherwise distorted. You used that as a reason for why public schools shouldn't take field trips to creation museums. You then, however, would not let this rule apply to other forms of "science," and I merely pointed out the inconsistency in your argument. Basically... You say Subject A is wrong for Reason A. Subjects B and C are ok. Reason A still applies to Subjects B and C. I state this and get accused of quote mining. Nice. But no need to get upset. Just don't say anything that you wouldn't want me to hold you to, just qualify the statement or ignore the point and bring up the contradictory evidence like GoldShadow did and you repeated in your later post.

 

[RDK]

Faithkeeper, creationist logic isn't the only thing that's flawed. Most of the time they refrain from saying anything concrete involving "facts" because every time they do they're called out on it. Instead they like to twist what other people have said and nitpick on details of other people's research.

However when they do happen to argue about facts they're almost always wrong anyway. Take a trip to AIG if you still don't believe me.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

 

[Faithkeeper]

DA mode activated.
...
[/DA mode]

DA is more fun than real life.

Faithkeeper, creationist logic isn't the only thing that's flawed. Most of the time they refrain from saying anything concrete involving "facts" because every time they do they're called out on it. Instead they like to twist what other people have said and nitpick on details of other people's research.

However when they do happen to argue about facts they're almost always wrong anyway. Take a trip to AIG if you still don't believe me.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

I'm with you the whole way... DA stands for Devil's Advocate.
I thought it might be an interesting topic, and I surely couldn't count on anyone taking that viewpoint, so I did. Playing the Devil's Advocate is fun. But at some point, you get torn up...

 

[GoldShadow]

Playing the Devil's Advocate is fun. But at some point, you get torn up...

""If you stare into the Abyss long enough the Abyss stares back at you."
-Nietzsche

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

This is the only bit I have a problem with, I've already explained why I wont go post a bunch of creation science "evidence." But anyway, it's only quote mining if I use it out of context. Quote mining is looking through large amounts of material for quotes that can be taken out of context or otherwise distorted.

I believe you did distort what I said. In the correct context, I said something like, it's bullocks, it has been debunked, and at the very best it's unproven. You seem to be saying that I've said it's at the very best unproven and doesn't reflect the scientific consensus. Big difference.

You used that as a reason for why public schools shouldn't take field trips to creation museums. You then, however, would not let this rule apply to other forms of "science," and I merely pointed out the inconsistency in your argument. Basically... You say Subject A is wrong for Reason A. Subjects B and C are ok. Reason A still applies to Subjects B and C. I state this and get accused of quote mining. Nice.

Well, Reason A which happens to be that, "it's rubbish, unscientific, throughly debunked, doesn't agree with the facts, doesn't explain anything and is useless." applies to creation "science". It doesn't apply to string theory or quantum loop gravity.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

Here's the problem with the Creationist Museum: they don't trust or believe in science that opposes their belief.

I've seen one video (I think it was Religulous), and the psychopath who runs the place indoctrinated children to ask scientists "How do you know?" by doing repeat training. The problem with this mentality that scientists are untrustworthy because they are probably atheists or anti-religious is that it'll cause these children to question ANY science and thus only rely on religion.

This right here.

Btw CK, it was Religulous that had the clip.

Someone really needs to explain to me though: Since when does an interest (or sometimes love) for science=lack of religion/heresy? Because many a site like AIG and many folks on YT sure make it that way. =\

Oh, and Dre got his pink name. Congrats, I guess...

 

[RDK]

Someone really needs to explain to me though: Since when does an interest (or sometimes love) for science=lack of religion/heresy? Because many a site like AIG and many folks on YT sure make it that way. =\

A lot of ID'ers try to paint secular humanists / evolutionists / atheists as some sort of evil cult with Darwin as its apostle. That way they can create the illusion that it's faith vs. faith, religion vs. religion (the One True Religion).

If "evolutionists" are no different than Buddhists or Muslims, than theological arguments can be made against them instead of having to deal with the science directly.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Kazoo, I agree that it's sad that a love of science seemingly "requires" a lack of religion these days. Which shouldn't be true. Science and religion can certainly go hand in hand at least in most branches of science/religion.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

A lot of ID'ers try to paint secular humanists / evolutionists / atheists as some sort of evil cult with Darwin as its apostle. That way they can create the illusion that it's faith vs. faith, religion vs. religion (the One True Religion).

If "evolutionists" are no different than Buddhists or Muslims, than theological arguments can be made against them instead of having to deal with the science directly.

This I know, but it doesn't make it any less academically dishonest.

How can people still lie about this even with all that we know about it.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Theists don't try to impose laws which comprimise people's skepticism, it's the seculars who try to impose laws which comprimise the ability to be religious.

I think you've got this almost entirely wrong. It's not us seculars who go around threatening people with death if the religious pop their heads up and suggest that god may exist. People get death threats for suggesting god doesn't exist in some southern states in the USA.

Honestly, I don't believe us seculars are that intolerant.

Unity of Church and state would just mean you are granted freedom to be as secular as you like as long as you don't attempt to undermine religious laws and principles.

Like going to church every sunday... Or praying to Jesus every meal... Or something ludicrous like that.

Secular states prevent people from being religious or upholding their principles.

Wanna bet? The USA supports separation of church and state. It in no way inhibits one's ability to be religious. In fact I think this sort of thing is protected in the bill of rights...

If anyone has imposed on anyone, it's the seculars. The seculars, who have reaped the benefits of Catholic institution, have come in and legalised abortion, prostitution (In Australia it's still legal I'm pretty sure), pornography etc.

Well, it's not like we're forcing you to abort every child you conceive, or watch pornography or hire prostitutes. We think it's just better if those things are legalised for various reasons.

Things like abortion, which Christians consider to be the killing of a child, are not ok to just come in and change.

Are you honestly sure all Christians agree with you on that? I know a number of Christians who would beg to differ.

The Church was there first. Look at all the nations which weren't founded on Christianity and the problems they have at the moment.

Name a few.

You owe your privellage to Christian foundation, yet you want to keep that privellage yet undermine the values of the institution which gave you that privellage.

We don't owe anything. Modern science has given us more than the Church ever will. If anything, they owe us atheists (I want to be a scientist, but I'm not one yet) a little bit of respect, the respect that we haven't ever really had.

 

[Dre89]

I think you've got this almost entirely wrong. It's not us seculars who go around threatening people with death if the religious pop their heads up and suggest that god may exist. People get death threats for suggesting god doesn't exist in some southern states in the USA.

Firstly, I said the Church, referring only to Catholicism, because it was the founding law of our countries. Therefore, people who threaten death aren't in line with the Church, the Church doesn't condone that. The Church allows people spiritual freedom as long as they don't conflict with the Chruch's principles, which is fair enough ocnsidering you owe your privellage to its foundations.

Honestly, I don't believe us seculars are that intolerant.

Yes they are, seclar people try to remove religion as an authority, and comprimise the ability to be religious. That is totally unjustified when the religion was there first.

Like going to church every sunday... Or praying to Jesus every meal... Or something ludicrous like that.

You don't have to do that. Besides, even if I had to do that, it's not too much to ask considering it's them who gave me the privellage of living in a safe and developed society.

Wanna bet? The USA supports separation of church and state. It in no way inhibits one's ability to be religious. In fact I think this sort of thing is protected in the bill of rights...


Well, it's not like we're forcing you to abort every child you conceive, or watch pornography or hire prostitutes. We think it's just better if those things are legalised for various reasons.

So if it's ok for you to kill babies, it should be ok for Muslim extremists to kill opposers to the religion, because as you say, we can't impose on each other's ideas, and if you're killing innocent babies, it should be ok for thiests to kill sinners then.

Are you honestly sure all Christians agree with you on that? I know a number of Christians who would beg to differ.

It doesn't matter, the Church was there first, and the Catholic Church is strictly against abortion, So yes the Catholics consider it killing a baby.

Name a few.

The Middle east, Africa, China, India, just to name a few places.

We don't owe anything. Modern science has given us more than the Church ever will. If anything, they owe us atheists (I want to be a scientist, but I'm not one yet) a little bit of respect, the respect that we haven't ever really had.

Lol what? Are you totally unaware that the entirety of western civilisation for the last two thousand years was Christian? All your privellage is a result of Christian institution.

The fact that you can even go to university to study science and various anti-religious subjects is owed to the Church, because it was the Church that invented universities. Universities were an adaption from monasteries, which were the first institutions of tertiary education in western civilisation aside from the ancient Greek Academy, which funnily enough, nurtured Aristotle, who in turn actually invented science.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Firstly, I said the Church, referring only to Catholicism, because it was the founding law of our countries. Therefore, people who threaten death aren't in line with the Church, the Church doesn't condone that. The Church allows people spiritual freedom as long as they don't conflict with the Chruch's principles, which is fair enough ocnsidering you owe your privellage to its foundations.

Well, the church used to. Definately. Just look back about 600-700 years.

Yes they are, seclar people try to remove religion as an authority, and comprimise the ability to be religious. That is totally unjustified when the religion was there first.

Explain how secular people compromise the ability of one to be religious. I dont' go around saying that you can't be religious. Nobody does. It's the religous who say that one can't be an athiest.

You don't have to do that. Besides, even if I had to do that, it's not too much to ask considering it's them who gave me the privellage of living in a safe and developed society.

Lets take a journey back into the Middle Ages. The chruch ran the place then. Science was squashed and any dissent was punished horribly. If we hadn't ditched these church teachings, we would still be stuck in the Middle Ages.

So if it's ok for you to kill babies, it should be ok for Muslim extremists to kill opposers to the religion, because as you say, we can't impose on each other's ideas, and if you're killing innocent babies, it should be ok for thiests to kill sinners then.

What? You're joking. Abortion doesn't kill babies, it kills foetuses, which aren't yet people. It's morally justified for a number of reasons as well. Also, abortion is different from killing adults, because most foetuses cannot feel anywhere near as much pain as a grown adult can.

It doesn't matter, the Church was there first, and the Catholic Church is strictly against abortion, So yes the Catholics consider it killing a baby.

I'm not entirely sure about that. I don't think all Catholics take that stance.

The Middle east, Africa, China, India, just to name a few places.

Ah, the Middle East is covered in religious fundamentalism. Atheism is not the cause of the problems there.

Africa is in trouble for a number of reasons. They were exploited quite a while ago, and to some extent they're still recovering. Those wonderful Christian nations of western civilisation exploited them, I guess those Christian values were really showing there weren't they?

Also, the AIDS epidemic which is pretty big in Africa at the moment, is exacerbated by the Catholic Church's policy against contraception. Which is apparently evil, despite the fact that not using it could result in death.

Also, China is doing fine, look at the level of economic growth their experiencing! The fastest growing major economy in the world!

India is doing pretty well as well. Their experiencing levels of economic growth we can only be jealous of.

Lol what? Are you totally unaware that the entirety of western civilisation for the last two thousand years was Christian? All your privellage is a result of Christian institution.

Honestly, I believe it's down to the fact that we ditched the Catholic Institution as a major authority. The Renaissance made what we have now possible.

The fact that you can even go to university to study science and various anti-religious subjects is owed to the Church, because it was the Church that invented universities. Universities were an adaption from monasteries, which were the first institutions of tertiary education in western civilisation aside from the ancient Greek Academy, which funnily enough, nurtured Aristotle, who in turn actually invented science.

Sure, the church made the first universities. It still doesn't take away from the fact that they withheld scientific advancement for several hundred years.

And the ancient Greek Academy was not a Catholic Church institution.

 

[blazedaces]

The fact that you can even go to university to study science and various anti-religious subjects is owed to the Church, because it was the Church that invented universities. Universities were an adaption from monasteries, which were the first institutions of tertiary education in western civilisation aside from the ancient Greek Academy, which funnily enough, nurtured Aristotle, who in turn actually invented science.

If the greeks first invented it why do we owe the church anything? The church's adaptation from Plato's model of the University changed things such that at the top was "theology", the most important subject everything lead towards (Plato said it was the ability to create your own original ideas)...

And it was implemented mostly during what we today call "the dark ages"...

Not to mention there were similar institutions created in Eastern civilization earlier than that even...

-blazed

 

[Crimson King]

Dre., US was founded on the belief that religion in government was bad (see Britain before they left). Thomas Jefferson (a probable atheist) was extremely against any religion being utilized by the state, either in favor of or in opposition.

Your arguments for Christianity also ignore that Christianity wasn't oppsed to using its Iron Fist when it controlled the Roman Empire. Look up the Crusades. Finally, Christianity (all sects) preach about conversion as an important thing. Because of this, missionaries are sent to developing countries exposing them to Western diseases and violence if they are reluctant to convert.

 

[Aesir]

The church didn't create science, the church was influential in it because during the dark ages universities would try to explain occurrences and would often cite gods divine influence. So many students would actually go out and study these occurrences trying to duplicate them through trial and error. I wouldn't say they created it but they were definitely influential in the creation of the scientific method.

To add on what CK said about the separation of church and state, we have that in place to protect both parties. Our founders ( a collection of Christians, deists and non believers) thought that meshing the two would be a mistake. We don't want religion dictating policy, we also don't want Government dictating acceptable religious practices.

 

[blazedaces]

Not to mention the original pilgrims who came to the "new world" came here to escape religious persecution because they believed in a different church than the one the King at the time dictated all must follow...

-blazed

 

[adumbrodeus]

The pilgrims were world-class hypocrites btw.

And Jefferson was a deist.



Why is this becoming a separation of church and state topic?

 

[Faithkeeper]

Why is this becoming a separation of church and state topic?

Because it's exactly what I didn't want for this thread.

And because I ran out of Devil's advocate gas and the thread moved in a new direction.

 

[Crimson King]

Jefferson was barely a deist. A lot of early writings (the gospels he wrote that took out all mysticism) were more atheistic. He had bouts where he recognized a god too, but most of his professional interaction came as ear atheistic because he hated religion.

 

[Aesir]

The pilgrims were world-class hypocrites btw.

And Jefferson was a deist.



Why is this becoming a separation of church and state topic?

This topic was bound to become an argument on the separation of church and state.

Though I think Jefferson like most people who get older become more susceptible to the belief in god. Then again later in life he also was politically active, I mean look it Lincoln he really only made references to god when he was running for office.

 

[Dre89]

I admit I kinda got tangled in my words when I accidently implied that the Church was responsible for science.

Still though, Catholic philosophers like ST. Aquinas and ST. Augustine were responsible for reconclining Greek thought with Christian theology in the western world (Greek thought being were science came from).

But no, the Church's adaption of the Academy did not prioritise theolgy. The Academy prioritised philosophy, the monasteries prioritised theology, but then universities, which are also a Church invention promtoed all studies.

And CK I never said the Church didn't apply an iron fist. Any wrongdoing or corruption by the Church was the fault of the people inside it (who the Church never calimed were infallible), not its Faith and Morals doctrine (which is considered infallbile, and has never been changed for the bad, the one Pope who tried to died just before he could).