Americans are Flocking to a Hi-Tech Creation Museum Where Man and Dinosaurs Frolic Happily Together
Dinosaurs of all kinds abound here, from the stegosaurus silhouettes rearing atop the iron gates as you first reach the parking lot to the numerous and impressively convincing animatronic pterosaurs wagging their giant tails and chewing plastic cud inside. At America's newest public museum dedicated to exploring the origins of man and our planet, dinos are big box office, especially with kids.
Yet, there is something askew about the exhibits here and it doesn't take long to see. It's not just the "Thou shalt not touch" signs or the biblically named Noah's Café, offering respite for lunch. How about a stroll down the Trail of Life, first stop, the Garden of Eden with faux cypress trees and gurgling streams? Look, there are Adam and Eve taking a dip, and not far away another dinosaur lurks, and a lion too.
It's not just the presence of the naked pair, with niftily placed lily pads to cover their naughty bits, that seems barmy. Wouldn't they have been gobbled up by now, before they had the chance to do any eating themselves, say of the forbidden fruit? What were the designers of this place thinking?
Here is what. That Adam and Eve really did beget us and that before they sinned, all creatures were vegetarian, meaning dinosaurs were no more likely to eat them than butterflies. They were thinking also that man and dinosaurs lived at the same time. As you proceed on your walk, a few more surprises await. We are told how the world is no more than 6,000 years old and Noah's Flood created all the world's fossils as well as its topography as we know it (including the Grand Canyon, gouged by its ebbing waters). And yes, the Earth and the entire universe were indeed created in six momentous days.
The Museum of Natural History in New York this is not. Welcome, rather, to the Creation Museum, a $27m facility that opened in May -- to a veritable onslaught of enthusiastic visitors -- on a 49-acre site in northeast Kentucky close to Cincinnati. There is no shortage of references to Darwin, whose teachings about evolution most of us are familiar with and more comfortable accepting. But the clear purpose is to demolish not celebrate them. You get the idea of where you are also when you learn that the folk behind it are the founders of a fundamentalist Christian ministry called Answers in Genesis.
Theirs is a seductively simple, if controversial, thesis - that to solve the eternal conundrum of where we come from we need look no further than the first book of the Old Testament. And their contention here is that there is nothing scientists can throw at us -- in paleontology, geology or astronomy -- that will disprove this. Indeed, the point of the museum is to demonstrate that the more we consider the clues to our origins found by scientists -- and there are a dozen thoroughly respectable sounding ones on the museum's own staff -- the more they fit better with the Genesis version of creation than with Darwin's.
"We all have the same facts," explains one video in the museum showing two men working side by side to unearth a dinosaur fossil in the desert. One is a Darwinist, the other a creationist. "We are merely interpreting the facts differently, because we are coming from different starting points." No kidding.
The blurb on one exhibit bears the headline: "God's Word versus Human Reason". It's the latter you shouldn't trust. "The Bible is the word of God," explains Ken Ham, the museum's principle founder. The promotion of creationism has been his life since giving up teaching in Australia and he says he has no fear that one day evolutionary scientists will come up with something to shatter his young Earth beliefs. "I can stand boldly and tell you that that will never happen. They will never find something that will scientifically disprove what is the clear teaching in the Bible." Such conviction must be comforting.
Many of us will find the postulations of the museum and of Ham far too fantastic to take seriously. Nor would we be alone. About 50 protesters gathered outside its gates on opening day in May holding signs aloft excoriating Ham. He says the Ark was lifted by the flood a mere 4,500 years ago or thereabouts and dinosaurs were among the cargo. (Forget all you know about the massive creatures roaming the Earth 65 million years ago.) And if both the Bible and all other legends omit to mention dinosaurs living alongside humans, it is because the word was only invented 130 years ago. But myths are full of dragons. (One exhibit points to the depiction of a dragon on the Welsh flag.) Dragons and dinosaurs are but one.
But wait at least one second before dismissing Ham as a crackpot. For starters, his is about the slickest museum you are ever likely to visit. It has an interactive cinema that tells the creation story according to Genesis, with wind gusts in the auditorium, vibrating seats and squirts of water, as well as a state-of-the-art planetarium. Its animatronics are worthy of a world-class theme park. In fact, the principle designer also helped build exhibits for Universal Studios in Florida.
Something else impressive: the construction of the museum was funded entirely by private donations; it doesn't carry one dollar of debt.
In other words, in a country where the evolution-versus-creation debate is alive and raging, there are plenty of Americans ready to embrace Ham and support his museum. A recent Gallup poll in this country showed nearly 50 per cent of people accepting the notion that, "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so."
"The creationists have been very successful in persuading conservative Christians to abandon their non-literal interpretation of the Bible," notes Ronald Numbers, a professor at the University of Wisconsin who has written a book on the subject.
Ham says that the target for the museum was 250,000 visitors by the end of its first year. That was conservative. They are now on track to clock 150,000 people by the end of August, just three months after opening. On a recent Tuesday, a long queue had formed at its front entrance one hour before the posted opening time of 10am. Parents with children were there, coach trips and excited church groups. And judging by the variety of license plates in the car park, there were driving here from all across the country.
"It's a very comforting feeling to be here," admits Nancy Spivey, 65, who has driven all the way from North Carolina ' to visit the museum with her husband, Al, 65, a retired insurance executive. The couple consider themselves creationists and are thrilled to find such a "quality" place supporting their views. "A lot of so-called intelligent people think that if you believe in creationism you are not very bright, but you get away from that here," Nancy adds. "Everywhere else, we feel bullied and pushed around," says Al, noting that the evolutionary thesis of Darwin is the accepted wisdom in every other natural history museum in America, not to mention in its public schools and universities. For them, this is a sanctuary.
Visitors are likely first to follow the Trail of Life, taking them through what Ham calls the "Six Cs of history". The overarching theme of the museum, they are creation (Eden), corruption (that damned fruit of knowledge), catastrophe (the flood), confusion, Christ and the final C, consummation (the day of the apocalypse when the Lord starts again and gives us a new heaven and earth, free of suffering and death.)
Along the path there is a 40ft walk-through model of one section of the Ark as well as a dark and grimy-bricked back alley reminding us of the misery of sin. It includes a graffiti wall plastered with torn-up magazine covers tackling such "evils" as gay marriage, extra-marital sex and abortion. It's called the "Culture in Crisis" room and to any small child it would be pretty disturbing.
Ham, 55, who came to America 20 years ago but still has a faint Australian lilt in his voice, says the reaction of Al and Nancy is typical. "A lot of Christians have said that sort of thing. They are tired of being beat up in this nation and angry at losing battles over abortion, over the placing of the Ten Commandments in public places and about prayers in school. They see this as making a very bold public statement to our modern culture and to the world that the Bible is true and we can defend it."
His taste for confronting liberalism may have come from his father, a headmaster and Sunday school teacher who liked to say that anyone who believes the Bible had better believe all of it, the parting of the Red Sea and all. In 1974, a friend gave the younger Ham a book to read. Called The Genesis Flood, it was the first jolt that stayed with him through his years studying biology at university in Brisbane. "The more I talked to my professors, and the more I studied evolution, the more I could not believe in evolution as fact. Nothing that I learnt there convinced me to believe in Darwinian evolution," he recalls.
It wasn't until 1979 that Ham gave up a high-school teaching job in Queensland and founded a creationist publishing company in his home, Creation Science Education Media Services. A gifted salesman and speaker, he began making regular visits to the US to sell his books. Eventually, in 1987, he decided to become full time, attaching himself to the Institute of Creation Research (ICR), which remains active in San Diego. Never mind that he and his wife Marilyn (they have five children) were homesick. "I recognized that if you are going to make an impact on Christendom and on the world, Australia was not the place to do it from. Ultimately, America is the centre of Christian world and of the business world."
Making an impact is what drives Ham. Seven years after joining the ICR, he and a friend, Mark Looy, co-founded a sister creationist organization, Answers in Genesis, and decided it would be better located in the more populous eastern United States. Today, Answers in Genesis has its headquarters right behind the museum, employs a staff of about 300 people, generates a daily radio program hosted by Ham that goes out to more than 800 stations across the US and has a thriving book and magazine publishing arm.
A prophet may be a bit strong, but Ham has a way with words that has made him one of America's better-known speakers on the conservative Christian circuit. "Ken could talk about some hot-button social issues of the day and relate them to creation/evolution questions," Looy, also born in Australia and a self-confessed anglophile, says of his decision to join with him. The museum is their crown jewel and testament to their success in raising funds and support. Almost as impressive is how they have recruited so many credentialed scientists to support the endeavor, including Dr David Menton, who taught medical biology at the prestigious George Washington University in St Louis for 34 years.
"I came here because I think the evolutionary world is the very undoing of the gospel and is incompatible with biblical Christianity," Menton explains in his office in between giving talks to museum visitors about what he sees as the unbridgeable differences between the skulls of apes and humans. "I see young people going through the public schools where they are uncritically taught evolution and I see these kids getting bamboozled by teachers who for the most part don't know what they are talking about."
Ham says he is no extremist; he prefers "Conservative Christian". But he is far enough out there to be unflustered that hours before our conversation, Pope Benedict XVII, no less, had condemned the whole evolution vs creation debate. "This contrast is an absurdity," said the Pope, "because there are many scientific tests in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and enriches our understanding of life and being."
If anything Ham is puzzled. "I don't know why he would be saying that," he responds. It is not his position, he says, that anyone accepting evolution cannot be a Christian. Indeed, there are millions of Christians, sometimes called "theistic evolutionists", who surely consider themselves in that category. But ignoring Genesis cannot be taken lightly. In fact, it is downright dangerous.
"If you believe in millions of years of evolution and you didn't get it from the Bible, then you really do have to reinterpret Genesis, which means you are upending biblical authority," he explains. "If you are saying it really didn't happen like Genesis describes, how can you trust anything in the Bible?" Does this mean that a relaxed interpretation of parts of the Bible, Genesis included, might lead to the unraveling of Christian faith altogether? Ham likes the word "unravel". That is the point exactly. And, thereafter, the unraveling of society.
"Step back and look at the big picture. America is not as Christian as it used to be. The Ten Commandments are not where they should be, gay marriage is accepted more and more, abortion is being permitted. The big picture is that there is a loss of biblical authority in this nation and a much greater loss over in England and in Europe generally." That is the rot, as Ham sees it, which has to be reversed.
It is hard not to admire Ham at least for his persistence. He is tilting against a society that he says has been "evolutionized" by its government. Darwin's theories of evolution remain embraced by the overwhelming majority in the scientific establishment and remain standard to the curriculum of all America's public schools. He cannot market the museum to school groups lest he be sued by the American Civil Liberties Union, for meddling with the constitutional separation of church and state. And while he may not like it, others will continue to brand him an extremist.
On opening day, a group called DefCon (Defense of the Constitution) chartered a light plane that trailed a banner overheard quoting the Ninth Commandment, "Thou shalt not lie".
With the museum, however, he is tapping into a genuine argument that has simmered in America for a very long time, arguably since the so-called " Scopes Trial" of 1925, a landmark event on which the Creation Museum also lingers. John Scopes was a biology teacher in Dayton, Tennessee, who found himself charged with illegally teaching the theories of Darwin. Tennessee had that year passed a law forbidding the teaching of evolution in its schools. A standing-room only trial that drew world-wide attention, ended with the teacher's conviction. It was later overturned on a technicality, however.
Ham dearly wants to stop the "evolutionizing" that has been going on apace since the Scopes Trial before it is too late and the museum is his latest weapon. Impressive it most certainly is, but this visitor, at least, wonders whether it will in the end be a destination only for the converted. I found no one at the museum who was not already an adherent of Creationism, except, that is, for myself.
And what do I think, as a true skeptic, asks Glenn Herbert, who has come with his wife, three children and a niece, all the way from Philadelphia? Well, I don't buy any of it, is my reply, though politely put. Herbert, like Ham, is not to be discouraged. Though I have spent six hours in the museum, he urges I go through it all over again, "and maybe the hand of the Lord will reach down to you this time".
© 2007 Independent News and Media Limited
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
193 Comments so far
Show AllTractorguy , another well thought out post. Clear thinking is the path to truth.
1RmSchlHse, your post (repeated several times) was unclear on whether you support creationism or evolution but I would like say that scientists are people searching for the truth while fundamentalists are people who pretend that they already know all the answers.
Lo, cycleguy stretched forth his hands and typed:
"let me ask you all a question: if God did not create man, where does our notion of right and wrong come from?"
Sure, I'll take a whack at that. I think it comes from shaped, learned, and reinforced interactions with others. In its broadest sense, the 'right' way of doing a thing is the way which tends to produce the most desired results. In the social subset of this, right conduct is that which is expected to elicit the desired approval of another, or of a collective. It is a moral impulse when the likely effects of our actions on the feelings of others are taken into consideration. And it becomes a moral system when such impulses are generalized into abstract rules and principles for conduct within a group. Being social creatures, our brains are adept at grasping and internalizing the social values of the group. The same can be seen in varying degrees with other social mammals. (Natural selection could have favored the survival of members of increasingly coherent and cooperative groups, and could have selected against individuals who acted in ways offensive to the group.)
Others will surely have different views, but that's a brief thumbnail of my working theory (subject to revision as soon as I find something better). If you would like to pick holes in it, knock yourself out.
However, if you want to propose the morality-from-God hypothesis as a rationally competitive model, I can tell you in advance a few of the issues you'll need to address.
1) Morality existed and still exists in all pre-Christian and non-Christian cultures. So did these other people, even the worshippers after other gods, get their moral sense from your god too? If you say no, then doesn't that mean there can be other sources of morality? If you say yes, then how do you know it was your god who gave them their morality, and not their god who gave you yours?
2) Are there cultural and regional differences in human morals, or do all humans have the same basic moral sense on all the important points? If they're different, did God supply all the different versions? (If he did--why did he supply different versions? If he didn't--where did the other versions come from? And what commends the God version over all the rest?) If they're the same, why are there competing religions killing each other over the right way to behave?
3) In fact, let's look at Christianity alone. What is the "Christian" view on the morality of war, slavery, capital punishment, abortion, homosexuality, interracial marriage, communism, pollution, wealth, drugs, sex out of wedlock, polygamy, incest, child beatings, and so forth? If Christian morals all come from the same God, there should be unanimous Christian agreement on such issues, right? So is there?
4) Do you think morals came to us through God, or from God? In other words, did he inform us of an independent standard of goodness, or did he create the very standard of goodness itself? If he is the messenger of an independent standard, then where did it come from, and how do we know we could not have accessed it by some other means? If he is the creator of the standard of goodness, could he have equally chosen some different set of rules? Are they the result of totally arbitrary divine fiat, or did God have constraints in the choosing of the rules? And if God is the author of the very standard of goodness, then what does it mean when one says "God is good"? Is that not merely saying "God approves of himself"?
5) By what means did our morals come from God? Did they arrive via the Forbidden Fruit? If so, then doesn't that mean it was contrary to God's wishes that we have morals? Or is our moral sense more like a built-in compass guiding our actions? If so, is this compass actually strong enough to influence our behavior? If yes, why couldn't it have been made strong enough that we would always choose good? If no, what's it good for? Or do we receive our morals externally, in the form of God's commands? If so, why obey? Fear of punishment? Desire for reward? That would just be compliant behavior motivated by naked self interest--not what we normally think of as moral conduct. And are these commands unambiguous? Didn't the Inquisitors, Crusaders and witch burners believe they were obeying God? Were they mistaken? Is it possible to be mistaken about what God is commanding? If so, why did God choose to set it up that way? (Or did he have no choice?) And how do you determine when you are mistaken about what he wants?
6) Is the God model for morality testable? Is it something that humans could establish to be false if it is indeed false? If so, how? If not--if we have no way of knowing if it is false--how can we have any confidence in it? How would that be any better than a "just so" story?
That, of course, is just a small piece of the project, for if you want to set up a rational argument for the God model of morality, it will need, as its foundation, a rational argument for God. And in the long history of all the myriad gods humans have worshipped, no-one has ever successfully mounted such an argument for any god.
If your desired destination is God, only the path of faith leads there. The path of reason will take you somewhere else entirely.
wow! why such hateful and bitter responses? not all christians are in the same camp as Ham. but let me ask you all a question: if God did not create man, where does our notion of right and wrong come from? what makes right right and wrong wrong? how did truth and beauty "evolve" to the concepts we now understand them to be? if science believes it can explain the origin of man, then it must explain the origin of our general moral code.
heh. The fundies better hope there is no truth to this quote: "It is an insult to God to believe in God. For on the one hand it is to suppose that he has perpetrated acts of incalculable cruelty. On the other hand, it is to suppose that he has perversely given his human creatures an instrument—their intellect—which must inevitably lead them, if they are dispassionate and honest, to deny his existence. It is tempting to conclude that if he exists, it is the atheists and agnostics that he loves best, among those with any pretensions to education. For they are the ones who have taken him most seriously." -Galen Strawson http://www.bartleby.com/66/45/56645.html
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,"
Romans 1:22
It would appear to a logical man we certainly waste the resources at our avail.
We bitch, moan, complain, accuse, derogatate, slander, defame, &c, &c, &c.
What miniscule, picayune, podunk labors we select to which to apply our eternal souls and faculties.
'twould seem more synergistically pregnant to use our individual lives, our alloted time and energy, to answer some age old Questions, such as:
1. Where did I come from?
2. What am I doing here?
3. What is to be my end?
If those Questions arent resonating in our conscious awareness yet today, in this our age, we are of all men most miserable and despicable, being the first generation in human history to have no message of hope to pass on to our posterity as a legacy and heritage.
I for one dont care to have my kids, grand and great, come spit on my grave after I'm gone to my just reward, because I was too self deluded to take time to ask myself a few simple Questions, and too numb to consider "What--or Who!--is Truth?",
assuming I knew it all just because I spent a few years in GOOPES (Govt Owned and Operated Public Education Synagogues/Seminaries), or allowed myself to be spoonfed programmed news by the talking heads on the tellie every evening.
Besides, the effort to know Truth is so great, and introspection has its own challenges, for nobody likes to admit he's wrong. But if the deceived knew they were deceived they wouldnt be deceived....
"...we did tell thee in Egypt, saying Let us alone, that we may serve the Egyptians..." Exodus 14:12
"Would to God we had died by the hand of the Lord in the land of Egypt, when we...did eat bread to the full..."
Exodus 16:3
"We remember the fish, which we did eat in Egypt freely; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlick." Numbers 11:5
In the above verses, the people whom Moses led out of Egypt wanted to return to Egypt where they had "happy days--full bellies".
Of course they didnt mention the 400 years of abject slavery they'd had to endure....
A little closer to home, and more recently, the framers of our country said in "...the unanimous declaration":
"...and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed..."
Or even: "DONT ROCK THE BOAT!
And we do recall the ending, right?:
"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
Today, about all us So Veddy Patriotic 'Murkins can offer up in our pusillanimous muelings is:
"Do You Honor a Golden (insert YOUR state nickname) Card?"
--
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free,
It expects what never was and never will be.
.... Thomas Jefferson
Thanks for dialoguing!
kenn 1RmSchlHse
21 August 2007 AD
Quote: "Some here blame Fundamentalists for the problem of violence or whatever and thus would like to see them eliminated–if not totally then from making a significant contribution to society."
Quite to the contrary, some here are questioning whether fundamentalists are capable of making a contribution to society be it significant or otherwise. If the creationists would refrain from murdering all who disagree with them, most of us would have no problems whatsoever with their belief system. It is the principle that if their opinions relating to human or universal origin contradict ours then it is reasonable and even Godly to exterminate them that most of us take exception with.
Personally, I think that if a group is united under the guise of religion or spirituality, they should use that collective will to make the world a better place in which to live.
Sadly, fundy views are so rigid that they cannot accept or understand that all other spiritual humans worship the same unknown entity and it's the love and compassion that Jesus taught that will bring us all together. Rather than accept that many different opinions exist as to the name and address of God, fundies prefer to state matter of factually that Jesus is from a single parent, white, authoritarian family, who lives in the sky and God made the first two humans, by which the entire human population was incestually begat. The debate over science and logic is really a lesson on how this can be percieved as so hard to believe by many. Why did God need Mary at all when he made Adam and Eve from scratch? Why mess with Joseph like that?
But the real issue for me is that given the numbers and organization and voice the Christian Church has in the US, why doesn't it support the poor and weak and meek, prostitutes and all? Instead of the elite and oppressive. Clearly all fundies can understand this is what Jesus taught.
So in my mind, it's the simplicity in which they view the world that allows them to support policy that conflicts with their core beliefs. As W would say, inuthawerds...The wealthy oppressors who sell you your christian product really have only pain and suffering to offer, but you keep buying it. Some of us think it's because you have accepted the Bible literally and therefor need not waste time thinking or looking for the truth.
Peace, empathy, love, good....
War, intolerance, hate, bad....
It's killing many people these days.
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,"
Romans 1:22
It would appear to a logical man we certainly waste the resources at our avail.
We bitch, moan, complain, accuse, derogatate, slander, defame, &c, &c, &c.
What miniscule, picayune, podunk labors we select to which to apply our eternal souls and faculties.
'twould seem more synergistically pregnant to use our individual lives, our alloted time and energy, to answer some age old Questions, such as:
1. Where did I come from?
2. What am I doing here?
3. What is to be my end?
If those Questions arent resonating in our conscious awareness yet today, in this our age, we are of all men most miserable and despicable, being the first generation in human history to have no message of hope to pass on to our posterity as a legacy and heritage.
I for one dont care to have my kids, grand and great, come spit on my grave after I'm gone to my just reward, because I was so self deluded to take time to ask myself a few simple Questions, and too numb to consider "what is Truth?",
assuming I knew it all.
Besides, the effort to know Truth is so great, and introspection has its own challenges, for nobody likes to admit he's wrong. But if the deceived knew they were deceived they wouldnt be deceived....
"...we did tell thee in Egypt, saying Let us alone, that we may serve the Egyptians..." Exodus 14:12
"Would to God we had died by the hand of the Lord in the land of Egypt, when we...did eat bread to the full..."
Exodus 16:3
"We remember the fish, which we did eat in Egypt freely; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlick." Numbers 11:5
In the above verses, the people whom Moses led out of Egypt wanted to return to Egypt where they had "happy days--full bellies".
Of course they didnt mention the 400 years of abject slavery they'd had to endure....
A little closer to home, and more recently, the framers of our country said in "...the unanimous declaration":
"...and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed..."
Or even: "DONT ROCK THE BOAT!
And we do recall the ending, right?:
"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
Today, about all us So Veddy Patriotic 'Murkins can offer up in our pusillanimous muelings is:
"Do You Honor a Golden (insert YOUR state nickname) Card?"
--
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free,
It expects what never was and never will be.
.... Thomas Jefferson
Thanks for dialoguing!
kenn 1RmSchlHse
21 August 2007 AD
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,"
Romans 1:22
It would appear to a logical man we certainly waste the resources at our avail.
We bitch, moan, complain, accuse, derogatate, slander, defame, &c, &c, &c.
What miniscule, picayune, podunk labors we select to which to apply our eternal souls and faculties.
'twould seem more synergistically pregnant to use our individual lives, our alloted time and energy, to answer some age old Questions, such as:
1. Where did I come from?
2. What am I doing here?
3. What is to be my end?
If those Questions arent resonating in our conscious awareness yet today, in this our age, we are of all men most miserable and despicable, being the first generation in human history to have no message of hope to pass on to our posterity as a legacy and heritage.
I for one dont care to have my kids, grand and great, come spit on my grave after I'm gone to my just reward, because I was so self deluded to take time to ask myself a few simple Questions, and too numb to consider "what is Truth?",
assuming I knew it all.
Besides the effort to know Truth is so great, and introspection has its own challenges, for nobody likes to admit he's wrong.
But if the deceived knew they were deceived they wouldnt be deceived....
"...we did tell thee in Egypt, saying Let us alone, that we may serve the Egyptians..." Exodus 14:12
"Would to God we had dies by the hand of the Lord in the land of Egypt, when we...did eat bread to the full..."
Exodus 16:3
"We remember the fish, which we did eat in Egypt freely; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlick." Numbers 11:5
In the above verses, the people whom Moses out of Egypt wanted to return to Egypt where they had "happy days".
Of course they didnt remember the 400 years of abject slavery they'd had to endure....
A little closer to home, and more recently, the framers of our country said in "...the unanimous declaration":
"...and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed..."
Or even: "DONT ROCK THE BOAT!
And we do recall the ending, right?:
"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
Today all us So Veddy Patriotic 'Murkins can offer up in our pusillanimous muelings is:
"Do You Honor a Golden Buckeye Card?"
--
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free,
It expects what never was and never will be.
.... Thomas Jefferson
Thanks for dialoguing!
kenn 1RmSchlHse
21 August 2007 AD
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,"
Romans 1:22
It would appear to a logical man we certainly waste the resources at our avail.
We bitch, moan, complain, accuse, derogatate, slander, defame, &c, &c, &c.
What miniscule, picayune, podunk labors we select to which to apply our eternal souls and faculties.
'twould seem more synergistically pregnant to use our individual lives, our alloted time and energy, to answer some age old Questions, such as:
1. Where did I come from?
2. What am I doing here?
3. What is to be my end?
If those Questions arent resonating in our conscious awareness yet today, in this our age, we are of all men most miserable and despicable, being the first generation in human history to have no message of hope to pass on to our posterity as a legacy and heritage.
While claiming to be living in this most advanced civilization....
I for one dont care to have my kids, grand and great, come spit on my grave after I'm gone to my just reward, because I was so self deluded to take time to ask myself a few simple Questions, and too numb to consider "what is Truth?",
assuming I knew it all.
Besides the effort to know Truth is so great, and introspection has its own challenges, for nobody likes to admit he's wrong.
But if the deceived knew they were deceived they wouldnt be deceived....
"...we did tell thee in Egypt, saying Let us alone, that we may serve the Egyptians..." Exodus 14:12
"Would to God we had dies by the hand of the Lord in the land of Egypt, when we...did eat bread to the full..."
Exodus 16:3
"We remember the fish, which we did eat in Egypt freely; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlick." Numbers 11:5
In the above verses, the people whom Moses out of Egypt wanted to return to Egypt where they had "happy days".
Of course they didnt remember the 400 years of abject slavery they'd had to endure....
A little closer to home, and more recently, the framers of our country said in "...the unanimous declaration":
"...and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed..."
Or even: "DONT ROCK THE BOAT!
And we do recall the ending, right?:
"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
Today all us So Veddy Patriotic 'Murkins can offer up in our pusillanimous muelings is:
"Do You Honor a Golden Buckeye Card?"
--
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free,
It expects what never was and never will be.
.... Thomas Jefferson
Thanks for dialoguing!
kenn 1RmSchlHse
21 August 2007 AD
spedteacher,
I guess earth is the real creation museum which means that the museum we have been talking about is an attempt to build a way-back machine.
I'm confused. Excuse my ignorance, but if one is a creationist, isn't earth the real creation museum? Or is earth just the interactive killer app?
Very, very interesting conversations. Hope all will end with agreeing to disagree. What I find to be refreshing is, there were no nasty remarks or attacks upon any for being idiots, or words such as stupid, morons, etc. A very pleasant debate.
On the UFO subject, to believe they exist, it is better if one has seen one, one where there is no logical explination, except it is not an aircraft from this planet. The enormous sized one I observed for several minutes, was at an altitude of less than two thousand feet, it shaded half of the flight line. Few within my hearing range said more than a few words, we were awe struck. I never discussed what we witnessed with any of my crew after it departed either, then or later. We were all shaken and for about an hour, we acted sort of like zombies. I cannot explain that either, but it is how it was. Maybe we aren't supposed to know everything,___ I sure as hell don't.
To Hopeforthefuture,
Kem and your reaction to the not obscure but technical examination of the logic that lies behind the debate between evolution and creation makes my point. You would like to lump all Creationists into one mold and that mold is not very complimentary. You would like to say that the right choice is so obvious that to choose Creationism is a "disease." And it seems that you would like to describe Creationists in a way that they could in no other ways besides their views of Creation could not benefit you.
At the same time, you could not understand a technical problem in the logic of using the concept of evolution to describe the beginning of life or the emergence of human life. Perhaps the evolution-creation argument is deeper than you give it credit for and thus your negative generalizations about Creationists are unwarranted.
If you want to know how Creationists are being mistreated look at the ways you and some others here have made negative generalizations about them. Then look at how their view is treated in the general public. Again, some Creationists are just as guilty in how they have treated Evolutionists. But what you have done is to take your own actions for granted while you take exception at the actions of others.
To Tractorguy:
HUGE kudos to you. An excellent and very true post.
To caday5:
I had the same reaction to your deliberately obscure and convoluted post that Kem had, as in "What the heck is this guy babbling about ?". Writing nonsense in an obscure way doesn't change the reality that it is still nonsense. You simply try to confuse people so they don't know what to make of you but there is no substance there. Creationism is a disease because it requires the person to hum to himself and scream "I can't hear you." many times when someone shows him any evidence about anything he chooses to believe in that disproves his beliefs. To believe in a 6 day creation and a 6,000 year old world where dinosaurs and humans coexisted requires a level of delusion that is clinically pathological. To believe that one must disregard physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, geology and pretty much the entirety of science. Science is surely wrong in some parts of what are the current frontiers of science (that is why they are called the frontiers of science) but the evidence against creationism is well established science that is very far from the frontiers. Just to highlight the absurdity of fundamentalist beliefs let's talk about Noah's ark. A worldwide flood would have killed off animals (AND PLANTS TOO) from all continents, not just from the Middeleeast where Noah supposedly existed. Did the australian kangaroos hop all the way from Australia to be saved in the ark ? What about say the tapirs of the Amazonian rain forest ? Did they swim across the Atlantic to be "saved" by the ark ? A worldwide flood would have mixed the salt water from the oceans with the fresh water from the rivers. Freshwater fishes don't survive in saltwater so did the ark include freshwater aquariums too ? Most living animal species are insects and many would have gone extinct in such a flood, did the ark also include a section for the insects? Many plants would also have gone extinct, did the ark have a botany section ? To fit all this in such a small ark requires far more space than is realistic for the dimensions of the ark , so did the ark come equiped with some ultra advanced tesseract like technology such that the internal volume of the ark was far larger than the external size ? That Noah must have been a really smart guy.
The world faces many problems and their solution must start with a reality based look at the problems. The denial of reality , in great measure by current day fundamentalists, has led the world to do nothing against global warming. Several decades ago fundamentalists were the first to attack the book Silent Spring since they believed that the Earth is here only to be exploited by humans and that people should be heedless as to the damage they were doing to the very web of life that supports our own species. A scientists LOOKS for the answers, a fundamentalist claims he already knows everthing so he doesn't bother looking. The world cannot tolerate more stupidity from our species. We have worn out the safety margins of the resources of our world and still fundamentalists attack family planning and by doing so ensuring that there will be even more of us to hasten the collapse of the world's ecosystems. Do you wonder why I consider them a disease ?
You also said that supposedly in the past creationists had tried to shut out people who belive in evolution but it's not just the absurd Scopes monkey trial from the 1920's. What about the bunch of states that have very recently tried to shove creationism into school science classes ? You don't see scientists going into churches to teach science although perhaps we should do so since fundamentalists respect no boundaries for anybody else and yet they demand shoe licking reverence from all others to their unsubstantiated beliefs.
And it's not just about legalities. In the time of Galileo Galilei (who was sentenced to lifelong house arrest for simply saying that The Earth goes around the Sun , not the other way around) one of his colleagues was tortured and then burned to death at the stake just for talking about astronomy. And this is just one example many other scientists were tortured and killed by the church many times in many different centuries. And it's not just in previous centuries, if a male doctor in the middleeast is seeing a female patient he can't see any part of her body and must depend on her verbal description to try to guess what ails her.
You said "Creationists should not complain about the treatment they are getting until they apologize for their past sins.". Exactly what bad treatment are creationists receiving ? Is it simply being told they are wrong and shown the evidence ? They are the ones barging into schools to force others to repeat their beliefs yet no one is barging into their churches to talk about science. Creationists of today are doing the same thing they did back in Galileo's time ie claiming that simply being told they are wrong and shown the evidence is somehow an attack upon them. caday5 not only must creationists apologize for the sins of the past they should apologize for their current sins which are the same ones they have committed century after century. They have learned nothing. They are doing today EXACTLY what they did in Galileo's time.
Creationists must first heal themselves and open their eyes for the first time in their lives to reality so they can learn and become part of the solution instead of part of the problem. For people who claim to have the self proclaimed right to force others to live according to their unsubstantiated beliefs they should first apply to themselves what Jesus said when he said "don't point at the speck of sawdust in someone else's eye until you have taken out the log in your own".
Caday5 spoke thusly:
"I will list a couple of quotes that perhaps you can describe how they are wrong. They describe the difference between a Christian view of the world and a non-Christian view.
Quote #1
Both have presuppositions about the nature of reality:
a. The Christian presupposes the triune God and his redemptive plan for the universe as set forth once for all in Scripture."
Often true, but some Christian sects rejected the doctrine of the Trinity.
"b. The non-Christian presupposes a dialectic between "chance" and "regularity," the former accounting for the origin of matter and life, the latter accounting for the current success of the scientific enterprise."
Not even close. There are thousands of mystical and religious models of existence which are non-Christian.
I suspect the original author was trying to characterize non-supernaturalists. And I suppose there may be some who would agree with that, but I don't know of any. I sure don't. I'll say yes to regularity (ie. the notion that that which exists exists with properties) but I'll say chance (true randomness) may not exist. And even if it does, it will necessarily be unprovable as such.
"Quote #2
Both claim that their position is "rational.""
Here's a quote back at you:
"There is on earth among all dangers no more dangerous thing than a richly endowed and adroit reason, especially if she enters into spiritual matters which concern the soul and God. For it is more possible to teach an ass to read than to blind such a reason and lead it right; for reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees it must put out of sight, and wish to know nothing but the word of God." -- Martin Luther
The basis of Christian belief is faith, not reason. Those who think otherwise are just fooling themselves. Or they are creating novel definitions of "reason".
As for Van Til's supposed dilemma for the non-supernaturalist regarding how to explains the universe, I'll just cut to the chase and reject from the outset that the universe needs explaining. In fact, I understand that explanations are inherently contextual by nature, so I don't see how there even can be an explanation for all that is, because to do so requires going beyond all that is--at which point the explanation becomes meaningless.
Many Christian apologists will try to assert (without support) that everything needs have an explanation, and then they posit the existence of something beyond existence (as if that has any meaning). Then they call it God, and say that explains it. But if everything needs have an explanation, then it remains for them to explain God. If they counter that God needs no explanation, then that demolishes their assertion that everything needs have an explanation, and the whole God trip was unnecessary.
But none of this has anything to do with evolution, and it sure doesn't salvage Creationism. The only way Fundy Creationism (YEC) could be true is if God is a cosmic deceiver, arranging all the evidence to tell a false story. And if that's what Fundies want to teach their kiddies, fine by me. Just so long as they leave tax dollars and public schools out of it.
caday5,
Any time you have people who embrace conflicting values, there will be the perception that those across the divide have a superior attitude. I've seen it from both sides and I don't think there is a solution. So I listen to the criticism and decide whether it has merit, independent of the way it was expressed.
"Some here blame Fundamentalists for the problem of violence or whatever and thus would like to see them eliminated"
I don't think they are being blamed for the problem of violence itself, but they have a clear record in opposition to science, and in support of capital punishment, militarism, social repression, and intrusion into governance. And while I would consider it a blessing if they were Raptured off the planet, I have no real interest in seeing them eliminated or converted. I would just like to make sure their sectarian policy goals receive no support from the State and no official favor over competing perspectives.
"That is intolerance and that was the intolerance that pre-Nazi Germany had for the Jews."
Oh right. One of the largest, richest, and most powerful denominations in the U.S. is being persecuted by us mean old secularists. Somehow, I can't get too worked up over it. But I tell you what, if I ever see Fundies getting herded into ghettos and gas chambers here, I'll definitely object.
But in case you still don't get it, have you seen anyone going after the Amish here? Their beliefs are every bit as far out as Fundy beliefs, but they have the good manners not to try to enlist the power of the state to force them onto others. That's the crucial difference.
"the intolerance is not from fundamentalism itself but from faults that can be seen in all kinds of people. Intolerance, violence, domination, and such are human qualities, not qualities of any particular group."
Eh... no. I'll go so far as to grant that Christianity is malleable enough to encompass factions both good and bad, but some movements are definitely worse than others, and the current incarnation of U.S. Fundyism has either attracted the worst people, or brought out the worst in people. Whatever the case, in matters of peace and social justice, they have earned their bad reputation by their works every bit as much as the Quakers have earned their good reputation by theirs.
"So the question to you is can you work with Fundamentalists who want to work for peace and justice?"
If theirs is the sort of justice where guilt can be acquired by inheritance or geography, where the innocent can be sacrificed for the guilty, and where eternal torture is deemed a fitting punishment for failing to flatter a being who was not in the least harmed by that...probably not. That would be a conception of justice wholly incompatible with my own.
Kem Patrick, I am ofcourse willing to believe people who claim they have seen UFO's saw exactly that. I believe that on their words even without evidence. They have seen something they couldn't bring home, they couldn't identify. But without evidence to the contrary the observed phenomena should not be assumed of a supernatural or extraterrestrial nature if only to statisfy Occam's rule. And most of the time they are rather easily explained and often much to the chagrin of the observers who remain unconvinced and try to hold on to their new found exclusivity. In some instances matters are not so clear. But if your claims are extraordinary (and intelligent extraterrestrial life, even if forever separated by unbridgable distances and impossible to communicate with, I think we can agree would be a little bit more than just extraordinary) then also your evidence should be.
Likewise I am also willing to believe people who think they've seen ghosts, likewise not all of them are lunatics and likewise I want to see real evidence before I start believing in ghosts. I personally know people who think they have seen UFO's, several actually, and I know two who think they have seen ghosts. I don't think they are insane or particularly gullible, I think their brains played tricks on them in situations that allowed that. As you will study it, you will find that the human brain has that capacity. What I don't think, what never even entered my mind as possibility is that they saw real ghosts.
Likewise much of christian beliefs, being born of virgins, walking on water, splitting seas in a chasing scene, a complete planet's biosphere packed on a wooden boat ever entered my mind as possible, I mean ever. But now this museum supposes ancient man regularly fondled velociraptors, I am beginning to doubt, that maybe it might all be true a after all.
And Angels do exist, but they are human and live in the eye of the beholder exclusively I found.
What?
Hopeforthefuture,
By how you describe Creationists, not just negatively but monolithically as well, are you not acting like how you described tolerancenow's behavior?
Since you have such a low view of creationist, I will list a couple of quotes that perhaps you can describe how they are wrong. They describe the difference between a Christian view of the world and a non-Christian view.
Quote #1
Both have presuppositions about the nature of reality:
a. The Christian presupposes the triune God and his redemptive plan for the universe as set forth once for all in Scripture.
b. The non-Christian presupposes a dialectic between "chance" and "regularity," the former accounting for the origin of matter and life, the latter accounting for the current success of the scientific enterprise.
Quote #2
Both claim that their position is "rational."
a. The Christian does so by claiming not only that his position is self-consistent but that he can explain both the seemingly "inexplicable" amenability of fact to logic and the necessity and usefulness of rationality itself in terms of Scripture.
b. The non-Christian may or may not make this same claim. If he does, the Christian maintains that he cannot make it good. If the non-Christian attempts to account for the amenability of fact to logic in terms of the ultimate rationality of the cosmos, then he will be crippled when it comes to explaining the "evolution" of men and things. If he attempts to do so in terms of pure "chance" and ultimate "irrationality" as being the well out of which both rational man and a rationally amenable world sprang, then we shall point out that such an explanation is in fact no explanation at all and that it destroys predication.
The quotes are from fundamentalist apologist Cornelius Van Til. To me it doesn't matter if you agree with him or not. My point in quoting him is that I believe that you might find it a challenge to answer the problem he has highlighted regarding a scientific view that does not include God.
Finally, certainly Creationists from the past treated Evolutionists unfairly in trying to shut them out. Now the roles have been reversed. Creationists should not complain about the treatment they are getting until they apologize for their past sins. On the other hand, evolutionists need to realize that abusing power leads others to be abusive when they have the opportunity.
Creationists and evolutionists should disagree in ways that do not prevent them from working together on important matters that are not related to their debate on the origin of life.
I've known several angels, they didn't fly saucers, but one drove a jet black 49 Merc convert with a Contineltal kit. A blond angel,__ smart too. That was a long time ago; hi-test was 18 cents a gallon and the drive-in theatre was a buck.___ Those were the days.
The vast majority of the comments here have been excellent and some have in fact been enlightening and beautiful. One of the exceptions is the person who misleadingly calls himself tolerancenow for he is the very opposite of tolerance.
The people who scream that they WILL NOT believe in evolution have not learned a very basic thing I learned back in elementary school when the teacher asked us "children, what is the differrence between an opinion and a fact ?"". Of course, we learned that an opinion is like saying the color green is more beautiful than the color yellow. Someone else can think differently and his belief is just as valid as my own. Facts on the other hand are the fundamental bedrock that is common to ALL PEOPLE. For example 2 + 3 = 5 it doen't matter whether you like it or not, it is a fundamental reality of the Universe. So are other facts such as the law of gravity, Maxwell's laws of electromagnetism , relativity etc. We may develop more exact theories in the future like when Einstein's theory of relativity proved to be applicable in a wider range than Newton's theory of gravity but that is simply one of the strengths of science, ie the fact that scientists are willing to be proved wrong. Creationists on the other hand are like small children throwing a tantrum simply to get their own way and when asked to prove what they are saying they claim "you must believe us because we say so". This is the argument of a small child, not an adult. They are unwilling to be proven wrong and that is their weakness. By the way in science it is quite often true that even when a theory is proven wrong it is still used like in the example I gave about Newton's gravity and Einstein's relativity. It turns out that relativity gives predictions that are substantially different from what Newton's equations predict only for very extreme conditions such as speeds close to the speed of light or a gravitational field far more intense than the Sun's (such as a neutron star or black hole) and since neither of those conditions is true in our solar system NASA engineers still use Newton's equations to calculate space probe trajectories instead of relativity (the equations are far simpler that way and the results are basically the same).
Creationists must be fought since they want to drag us back to the world of fear and ignorance that defined the Dark Ages. The world simply cannot allow these simpleminded people to be used by their manipulative leaders. If one is a primitive caveman one can be stupid ( like going to war with someone else) and our species will likely survive it. When one is a technologically advanced species going to war can very easily lead to our extinction. These misguided people must not be ignored for what they are doing is a cancer on the fabric of civilization itself. The simple folk must be educated and the leaders who manipulate them fought and discredited as the frauds they are. Civilization and our species are at stake.
This phrase by one of the posters "there is mystery and awe that any of us should be here at all, tapping at our keyboards, having this discussion" I found to be very beautiful. All living beings ,and human beings in particular, are a miracle. There is a science fiction book I read a long time ago that had the story of a nascent God just being born in a spaceless and timeless void. He was all powerful but knew nothing for he was a just born infant. He did not know what to do with his power until mortal visitors from another Universe accidentally entered this void and gave this baby God a look into their minds and souls. From the scientist he received knowledge on how the physical laws of the Universe must be set up so that the Universe would function (ie not collapse on itself or devolve into chaos). From the doctor he received love for all living beings and the desire to take away pain and bring happiness to all. From the leader he received the courage and will to go forth and act upon the gifts he was given by the scientist and the doctor. The baby God thanked his mortal teachers for all he had been given but said that there was still so much he did not know. After some discussion they found the answer together. The baby God would divide much of his essence into every living thing that would populate the Universe he was about to create (just a little for plants and non sentient animals and a lot for each sentient being). This way he would learn from all the mistakes and all the discoveries and all the joys and all the sorrows. This baby Creator would learn from his own creations. The mortal visitors left the spaceless timeless void and the baby God said "Let There Be LIGHT !!".
I have found this story to be a very beautiful one for in it there is a small piece of God in each and every one of us. We are all holy, all life is sacred and to harm someone is to harm a piece of myself for we are all one. Although this is a science fiction story I would wish that most so called religions had at least some portion of the enlightenment in this story. Nearly all religions have become clouds of darkness that confuse people into harming each other for in almost all organized religions there is an INSIDER and an OUTSIDER and the outsider is always treated as an enemy. We must grow up as a species. I have found only one or two churches that specifically say that they accept all scientific knowledge and that they will not tell their people not to think. We need more of this.
A great science fiction book I can recommend is Spock's World by Diane Duane (you can get it used for less than a dollar at Amazon). It portrays the entire history of the fictional world of Vulcan right from the age of cavemen to the Middle Ages to the beginning of the space and nuclear age (equivalent to our current time in real life) to the development of practical faster than light star travel. In it they say that Vulcans have an innate psionic (ie psychic) sense of the existence of God (their name for God was the Other). They can't communicate with the intelligence that created the Universe but they feel his presence yet they did not become religious zealots because back in their cavemen era the Sun went through a minor nova that was enough to burn away nearly all the vegetation and reduced the entire planet to a desert. These early Vulcans fought savagely for survival in their devastated world and learned to fear anyone they met since they were competition for what little water and food could be found. They felt betrayed by the Other for why did he bring pain and untimely death that brought about the terrible violence that followed ? They raged at the Other for millennia. Vulcans had always had a latent gift for psychic abilities and the evolutionary struggle for survival led to a single male child that was born with the psychic gift to find places very deep in the earth were water could still be found in abundance. From the children this boy eventually sired this gift became commonplace and Vulcans finally were able to form large groups and the long process of civilization began. They were still at war with one another and for many centuries spilled rivers of their green copper based blood upon the sands of their world. When they developed nuclear weapons they used it upon one another and nearly drove themselves to extinction several times. Finally the first antimatter bomb was developed and tested on the moon Tkhut and it blew away a large part of the moon. A man called Surak saw this destruction and thought "I am looking at the end of our world for our species will not survive the next war with such weapons". In despair he went out alone into the desert to meditate. After some time he called out with his mind and asked the Other or any who could listen what he could do to save his world. Suddenly it seemed that the world itself had answered him for it seemed that a literal mountain had surged from the ground before him and he thought "Is this my death come to greet me ? Can my people not be saved ?". This was a great massive living creature whose biochemistry was based on silicon instead of carbon (thus it's rocky appearance) and its kind roamed the subsurface of the deserts of Vulcan. Its species was still unknown to the Vulcans. The great creature looked upon Surak and rose high into the air and a thunderous song rang into the air and Surak psychically felt that the creature recognized his existence and exulted with JOY. JOY at the differences of life between creatures, JOY at the things they had in common !! Then the creature dived back into the earth and was gone. Surak felt that the cause of war was the fear of others and that fear could be banished with joy at the differences between people and he developed a philosophy of logic by which Vulcans would still feel emotions but would not be ruled by them. He told people "Fear not the others you meet. Do not kill for the spear in another's heart is the spear in your own". He became a peacemaker for many years. He taught his philosophy until the day he was killed but his followers kept his work alive and Vulcan , for the first time in their history, knew peace.
There is much more to the book and I have simply paraphrased the parts I remember from the first half of the book. The second half of the book deals with the present (I'm not sure but their present may be the 23rd or 24th century) when a small percentage of bigoted (anti humans and really anti any other non Vulcan species) Vulcans manipulate the politics of Vulcan to get the planet to secede from the United Federation of Planets. I assure you, you MUST read the part of the book where the doctor (McCoy) speaks to the planet against secession. It's one of the best pieces of writing I've ever read.
We need some kind of Surak style religion where logic is respected and emotions are felt and enjoyed when good (like love, empathy, compassion and friendship) and bad emotions (like hatred, envy and fear) are acknowledged but not acted upon (they are felt and then released). As for lust it is part of what brings people together and can lead to love so I consider it a very good thing, bring it on !!
The world can be a great place, let's make it so !
PS To Anita Linker, I loved your post on the different museums you proposed. It was great !
PS To Kem: I may not believe in exactly what you proposed but I have similar thoughts. Angels could be simply a more advanced species and UFOS could simply be their ships. I certainly consider the Universe to be far too large for us to be the only planet with sentient life. I do think that there may be a God. Certainly science does not speak about it one way or the other. What I truly hate is the unthinking ignorance spread by organized religion. The job of religion should be to pull people together yet all they have done (with maybe the exception just one or two exceptional churches who respect logic and facts) throughout histoy is pull people apart and cause wars.
Take care
kind regards
hopeforthefuture
Tractorguy,
That would not be by my logic but by your reading. I don't mind criticism of Fundamentalism provided that it is not done from some superior attitude. Some here blame Fundamentalists for the problem of violence or whatever and thus would like to see them eliminated--if not totally then from making a significant contribution to society. That is intolerance and that was the intolerance that pre-Nazi Germany had for the Jews. For some here, Christian Fundamentalists are their scapegoat.
Fundamentalists certainly have their sins and have tried to practice intolerance on others. And we should be called on that when that happens. But the intolerance is not from fundamentalism itself but from faults that can be seen in all kinds of people. Intolerance, violence, domination, and such are human qualities, not qualities of any particular group.
So the question to you is can you work with Fundamentalists who want to work for peace and justice?
Thou shalt not bear false witness*, Rev. Deb!
*I'm PRETTY sure that's down towards the bottom somewhere.
To whomever wrote the article -- there's no reference to lying in the Ten Commandments.
when we come to terms with our ignorance, that will will be a step towards civility.
OEBI WAN___ neat code name there Oebi. It's fine to doubt, it is better than fine. We should however, give SOME credence to many, very credible witnesses, pilots, astronauts, even President Carter, who saw one very similar to the type I saw. He officially reported his sighting, as have several astronauts and hundreds of intelligent and rational pilots. As a USAF flight crew member, my commanders always advised me to never see a UFO.___ I never did.
Back to the main issue here. Siouxrose and Someone, I think your posts are excellent, as are many, many others. I like the humerous comments best. The humor stops when these right winger evangelicals do have a great deal of control over our elections. They do,___ and it's dangerous.
I love how everyone yaks about "free speech" and "God Bless America" when it applies to the beliefs of Christian fundamentalists. If everyone gets to build a museum dedicated to their own beliefs, in the name of free speech, how about some of these:
The Native American Museum: Native Americans believe that there is no hierarchy of living things with humans at the top. Humans (and no status is given to one human over another) are part of the web of life, which they share with all living creatures. No living creature is inherently superior to another. A well-known Native American quote says that human beings protect the environment because "whatever people do to the web of life, we do to ourselves." Animals, such as coyotes and eagles, were revered and even given credit for creating new native tribes.
The Old Religion/Pagan Museum: Throughout the ages, and far outdating the patriarchal religions, "wise women" quietly healed their families, friends, and neighbors with herbs from the earth. They were carrying on the priestly legacy of the Great Goddess, who loved her children and was devoted to healing them. The four seasons of the year were widely celebrated and human links with nature were reaffirmed. Today these great festivals have been co-opted, reduced, and transformed into Halloween, Easter, and Christmas. A feminist herstorical museum would be included, because feminists are direct descendants of these wise "witches."
The Athiest/Humanist museum: There is no god, only life, to which all humans have an obligation. We love, create, heal, and comfort, not because we'll be punished in hell or rewarded in heaven, but because it is a part of being human. We are free-thinkers. We have a right to free speech and do not have to pray to a "personal daddy." to be happy and productive. Ethics aren't the property of any religion. We treat each other well because we are human.
The Buddhist Museum: Millions on earth pray to Quan Yin, the female deity who brings hope and comfort to all who are in pain. She embodies love and acceptance. But the primary focus of Buddhism is really on meditation and self-awareness, not on any god.
The Lesbian/Gay Museum: The productive lives of gay couples, and gay people's historical achievements are on display. There would be a "youth room" to educate and encourage gay young people. From Stonewall to the fight for marriage equality today, all would be included.
It would be ideal for all of these museums to form a circle around the so-called "Creation Museum."
But that won't happen anytime soon. Why? Because there really is a lack of free speech in this country. Only the fundamentalists get any.
If speech is a commodity belonging to the power-mad ruling elite, to bestow at their pleasure only on the military and Christian fundamentalists, then it is not free speech.
Don't wait for "big daddy" to magnanimously offer you free speech. Reach out and grab it as your human birthright.
Down with "Creationists" and up with real creativity.
SPHNE; I agree with you. Of course my wonderful wife of 51 years thinks that I'm a nut to post my opinions here and wishes I would get back to my other writings. I enjoy this blogging at Common Dreams though, have learned a great deal and have made some friends, whom I will likely never meet. Wish we all could someday.
I thank you for not blaming people like me for doubting UFO nonsense, Kem Patrick.
But there is a difference between reality and living in a bad science-fiction novel I think. That however seems to me to be preferably to living in a dusty old bunch of incoherent texts about a jealous and violent reinvention of a Ba'al like tribal Deity.
By the way there is thing called evidence when observing phytoplankton everybody, provided you are not blind, can see even with the naked eye through the coloration of the water. You can look it up, you can go find it, lay it under the microscope and so one, because it is there.
UFO's however are lacking that feature, the seem to present themselves to people who want to see them and then vanish without a trace of evidence.
Or they leave "evidence" in the form of blurry photo's pieces of "mysterious" aluminium or toppled trees. I won't go into the crop circles because that's just embarrassing.
Yet another distraction in the three-ring circus that has become the United States.. I'd be a bit more worried about stopping the SPP/NAU than this museum for half-wits.
DOLL, I have never told the entire story, nor will I ever do so here. I have related it to a very few friends and relatives, and a couple who had suffered the loss of a child and were unable to deal wih their loss.
As to my belief in Hell, yes I do believe that. I do not believe it is planet Earth, I do believe it is another planet, perhaps as many as three seperate planets that may be in the Milky Way Galaxy. I also beleive Mars was once a sister planet of Earth and MAY have been Eden. Much of the past history of the Universal War, the settling of the Milky Way Galaxy and the history of Earth millions of years ago has been lost. Most of Earth's history has been passed down through the ages by word of mouth and some has been written, the Dea Sea Scrools for instance, the Koran and the Bible for examples. Only a few truths are in the writings, most of the truth in Genesis has been lost or mangled by a variety of writers.
Humanity that we know, were cast out of the Paradise planets, our souls allowed to be born here on Earth, to live a decent life and redeem ourselves, or to continue to follow the ways of the evil ones, that is our perogitive. There is much more to it than that, but space here would prevent me from writing what I believe may be how it happened and what may occur in the future. Naturally, those are MY personal beliefs and are less worthy than a hill of beans. We all have our thoughts and wonders. Maybe I wonder more than average.
For those who do not believe in UFOs, it is clear that you have never had the opportuity to observe one close up for several minutes. Until you do, I do not blame you one bit for doubting. I have much doubt about the Roswell Incident and many other famous sightings. There are some sightings that I have no doubt about, especially the huge UFO I observed for several minutes, as the half mile long UFO hovered over an isolated air force base flight line, in broad daylight, on a clear coudless day. The sighting was witnessed by several hundred highly experienced airmen, who also watched it zip off into the atmosphere and blink out in about three seconds. It wasn't an aircraft from this planet. The sighting was never reported to the press or public either. Have you UFO doubters ever seen a phytoplankton? They exist. Just an example, of because we do not see somethng, does not mean it doesn't exist.
This is not a question of belief and non-belief. It is a question of science and non-science.
We have a reasoning intellect, and we should use it. We have a spiritual heart, and we should use it. As Albert Einstein once observed, "Science without religion is lame. And religion without science is blind."
All philosophy seeks to understand the truth: our origins, our essential being, our place within the cosmos. Religion is one aspect of philosophical thinking and yearning, specifically with regards to questions of ultimate origin, design and purpose. Science is a sub-domain of philosophy, focusing on what can be observed, measured, quantified and repeated empirically.
How people interpret and apply scientific understanding is no different than how they interpret and apply religious understanding. Usually, it is based on cultural circumstances and narrow aims. However, based on accumulated experience, scientific and religious understanding are constantly changing.
Change is often, if not inherently, unnerving. In any given era, traditional religionists and scientists will try to maintain a cohesive narrative in their respective fields of human understanding. This is good, to a degree, otherwise our realm of knowledge and action would be relegated to "anything goes."
Specifically with regards to religious fundamentalism, I think this is the essential complaint and challenge of biological evolutionary theory. (There is not, for example, a similar outrage regarding astronomical or geological evolution.) Religious fundamentalists worry that if humans are no better than animals in their origins or desires, what are the implications for our society?
Historically, our villages used to be the center of the world. Our planet used to be considered the center of the universe. And so on. It is the last conceit of human beings that we are the center of the biosphere. Some people have a hard time wrapping their imagination around the prospect that all life on earth has a common beginning.
There are a lot of misconceptions about what evolution means. I hear them everyday, even from educated secularists. Let's be clear. Humans did not evolve from monkeys. We are contemporaries with all other extant life on the planet. Evolution is not random. Given environmental conditions, biological change happens inevitably, according to physical and chemical laws, and building upon what is already there. Over billions of years, the seemingly impossible becomes possible.
Perhaps the greatest failure of understanding, though, on both sides of the argument, is that of intentionality. Evolutionary theory does not imply nor negate the possibility of a purposeful universe, one in which the Creator shapes celestial and biological events to house The Greatest Story Ever Told. The fact is, scientists have not yet been able to gauge whether events are directional over the long haul of cosmic history, or if everything is just willy nilly. Yet even though science can not speak meaningfully about such questions, there is mystery and awe that any of us should be here at all, tapping at our keyboards, having this discussion.
To conclude -- though the heart has its reasons which reason does not understand -- an attack on reason, of any stripe, should be a concern. Our world needs common sense, and compassion, as much as anything. For a clear discussion of why creationism is not science, I respectfully recommend this two-hour talk by Ken Miller:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg
May we all find peace in our hearts and work to foster peace among our relations: seen and unseen.
caday5
Okay, so what you are saying is that I sound like this uber-patriot Eagle group (never heard of them before) because they are intolerant and have a desire to dominate. I presume this mischaracterization was intended to provoke or upset me, but all I see is another instance where you are simply in error.
It appears you also mistook Kem Patrick for a non-Christian. (You know, if you were looking for a non-Christian, you could have asked the guy in this thread who explicitly identified himself as an Ex-Christian.)
From your note to Kem:
"What I see in some is an eliminationist attitude that we saw in Germany prior to Nazi Germany. Now if you must eliminate a whole group in order to achieve peace, how different are you from any other intolerant group whose fighting you object to?"
Are you seriously saying you can't see the difference between opposing a mindset and killing people? When I became an Ex-Christian, yes, technically, there was one less Christian in the world, but no-one was actually eliminated! By your reasoning, Evangelical Fundies would also be like Nazi's for trying to reduce the number of Non-Christians in the world. In fact, it would apply with more force to them, because here, the goal is merely to eliminate a misguided mindset from the sphere of public policy.
And in your post to Marc:
"Hitler was in no sense a Christian."
Similarly, there are plenty of self-described Christians who would say that you are not a true Christian. Christians have been flinging this accusation at other Christians for as long as there have been Christians.
"Rather, he was a firm believer in natural selection."
As if that disqualifies someone from being a Christian.
However, you were on firmer ground when you proposed that Christianity was not solely to blame for the holocaust (and presumably by extension, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the witch trials, the burning of heretics, pogroms, slavery, the near genocide of New World natives, the Dark Ages, etc. etc.). I would agree with that. Christianity is a totally adaptable tool--with no intrinsic moral direction--which can be used in support of any cause, good or bad, helpful or hurtful. Christianity itself is deserving of neither blame nor praise.
But your most insightful observation was how Creationists promote (so-called) social Darwinism while evolutionists oppose it. But to clear up your confusion, to use a descriptive theory as a social prescription is a wholly irrational misapplication of theory--something a scientific evolutionist would understand. And if there is such a thing as social evolution, there is much to suggest that there is a large competitive advantage to cooperation.
Piggyback on Fist:
"What color are Adam and Eve in this exhibit?"
And do they have navels?
--------
There are, at a minimum, trillions of galaxies.
And the diameter of our galaxy is to the diameter of the sun as the diameter of the sun is to the diameter of a mustard seed.
pass the ammunition.
"But when liberals are overly negative and condescending, it stops up the ears of my fellow fundamentalists."
The opposite is true, even more so.
Who is more overly negative towards the other, liberals at fundies or fundies against liberals?
www.near-death.com/experiences/reincarnation04.html
******************* a snippit.
As I saw forever, I came to a realm in which there is a point where we pass all knowledge and begin creating the next fractal, the next level. We have that power to create as we explore. And that is God expanding itself through us.
Since my return I have experienced the light spontaneously, and I have learned how to get to that space almost any time in my meditation. Each one of you can do this. You do not have to die to do this. It is within your equipment; you are wired for it already.
The body is the most magnificent light being there is. The body is a universe of incredible light. Spirit is not pushing us to dissolve this body. That is not what is happening. Stop trying to become God; God is becoming you. Here.
The mind is like a child running around the universe, demanding this and thinking it created the world. But I ask the mind:
"What did your mother have to do with this?"
That is the next level of spiritual awareness. Oh! My mother! All of a sudden you give up the ego, because you are not the only soul in the universe.
One of my questions to the light was, "What is heaven?"
I was given a tour of all the heavens that have been created: the Nirvanas, the Happy Hunting Grounds, all of them. I went through them. These are thought form creations that we have created. We don't really go to heaven; we are reprocessed. But whatever we created, we leave a part of ourselves there. It is real, but it is not all of the soul.
I saw the Christian heaven. We expect it to be a beautiful place, and you stand in front of the throne, worshipping forever. I tried it. It is boring! This is all we are going to do? It is childlike. I do not mean to offend anyone. Some heavens are very interesting, and some are very boring. I found the ancient ones to be more interesting, like the Native American ones, the Happy Hunting Grounds. The Egyptians have fantastic ones. It goes on and on. There are so many of them. In each of them there is a fractal that is your particular interpretation, unless you are part of the group soul that believes in only the God of a particular religion. Then you are very close, in the same ball park together. But even then, each is a little bit different. That is a part of yourself that you leave there. Death is about life, not about heaven.
I asked God, "What is the best religion on the planet? Which one is right?"
And Godhead said, with great love, "I don't care."
That was incredible grace. What that meant was that we are the caring beings here.
The Ultimate Godhead of all the stars tells us, "It does not matter what religion you are."
They come and they go, they change. Buddhism has not been here forever, Catholicism has not been here forever, and they are all about to become more enlightened. More light is coming into all systems now. There is going to be a reformation in spirituality that is going to be just as dramatic as the Protestant Reformation. There will be lots of people fighting about it, one religion against the next, believing that only they are right.
Everyone thinks they own God, the religions and philosophies, especially the religions, because they form big organizations around their philosophy. When Godhead said, "I don't care," I immediately understood that it is for us to care about. It is important, because we are the caring beings. It matters to us and that is where it is important. What you have is the energy equation in spirituality. Ultimate Godhead does not care if you are Protestant, Buddhist, or whatever. It is all a blooming facet of the whole. I wish that all religions would realize it and let each other be. It is not the end of each religion, but we are talking about the same God. Live and let live. Each has a different view. And it all adds up to the Big Picture; it is all important.
********************************
There is nowhere God or the SPIRIT is NOT, folks.
Religions and the books of religions and the MAN-made creeds and dogmas and all that are just like fingers pointing to "The Moon," but they are not "The Moon."
GOD/SPIRIT is an Experience, for which there are no words. IT IS.
... spiritual toddlers go to the Creation Museum in droves ... for more evidence ...
IT IS ... no evidence needed.
I've always thot for somebody to claim "There is NO God", or "God doesnt exist", must indicate they believe they have access to some higher knowledge than the rest of us have.
If you make such a claim, one mite logically think YOU are claiming to be God, since only God could possibly be omnipotent, omniprescient, and omnipresent.
(At least that's the only God I'd want to serve & worship!)
Otherwise, if you stand somewhere and claim "There is NO God", how do you know He isnt across the earth from you, and you simply havent discovered Him....yet?
Or p'r'aps that's why we 'Murkins are bombing Iraq....
well, no; we're bombing Iraq and looking at Iran and Syria, cause Israel tells us to;
or else....
It amazes me that lots of the folks who dont believe in God, think Israel is "God's chosen people".
And if the charge of "Anti-Semitism" is legitimate, prithee, just what IS "Semitism", anyhow? And why do the 'Jews' act like they have a monopoly on it, when a lot of Arabs, Egyptians, and some people in Meigs County oHIo, are also Semitic??
In the midst of such sheer silliness, it's good to know we are all in agreement that our mo-'swon'erful U.S.
government is busily spending our posterity's futures by going $3 billion deeper in debt every day just to finance a war wherein we're killing women, children, and old men.
I'm sure the 1 million or so Iraqi people we've murdered thus far certainly DO believe in evolution--they're seeing it firsthand. We call it 'DEMOCRACY', as we export it down on their innocent, defenseless heads.
Y'all know what is really the most weirdest thing??
I'll bet most of you are products of the GOOPES
(Government Owned & Operated Public Education Synagogues/Seminaries), whatever country you mite be in.
I know I am, and I'm still working at shedding the indoctrinal detritus I picked up during my 12 year hiatus in America's primary prison system.
Finally, if there's no God as you all claim to have proven to your own satisfaction, why do you care if some folks think there IS a God.
If, as your ilk claim, man is basically good, and getting better alla time, what's to worry?
It's my belief this is indeed,the most remarkable, exciting, challenging, rewarding, inspiring, fulfilling, and yet scientifically and technologically superfluous age man has yet to live in.
Of the 155 comments posted to this site, I will most readily appologise to one and all if there's a dozen, or even one or two, who can logically and pointedly expound his paradigm of life to me.
"...Come, let us reason together..."
thanks for dialoguing, eh?!
kenn
Tractorguy,
> TrisagionSeraph
> I imagine the main reason this article is here is
> because Commondreams highlights issues of political
> importance to progressives and people who want to see
> secular policy grounded in a reality-based perspective.
> And this particular strain of virulent, regressive
> religionism is mounting a full-on faith-based assault
> on science, education, and public policy.
> It bears watching.
Thank you for responding. Is the "reality-based perspective" in which you wish to see public policy grounded Darwinism? One can't help but shudder, realizing what horrific consequences the twentieth century drew from this perspective. Are the social views that follow from Darwinism really where you folks want to go?:
"A most important obstacle in civilised countries to an increase in the number of men of a superior class has been strongly insisted on by Mr. Greg and Mr. Galton, namely, the fact that the very poor and reckless, who are often degraded by vice, almost invariably marry early, whilst the careful and frugal, who are generally otherwise
virtuous, marry late in life, so that they may be able to support themselves and their children in comfort." (Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, Chapter 5,
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man/chapter_05.html)
Why are the vocal Darwinians participating in this discussion hanging out at a forum that promotes peace? Have they, unlike their master, sequestered their politics from their conception of how the world works?
Ofcourse Shane, I agree, there are some really weird UFO people out there and it's an as evidence-free affair as the more established religions are, but I know of no country where it is impossible to get elected if you openly admit you don't believe in UFO's. So in that sense christianity certainly is worse than UFO nonsense.
Fear, it is the backbone of all dominant religions. It is the reason why we have fundamentalism. It is the reason why we have terrorism. There is even fear written in the comments when referring to this article. But, I am sure that if you take a look at around yourself right now there is nothing to fear at all.
Governments and dominant religions use fear to control the masses. America is in shambles because of these unfounded fears. Our current war was based on fear of a possible attack, not an actual attack. The conquest of Iraq is based on the fear of not controlling the oil. We would all be better of if we weren't so afraid of each other or what might happen in the future.
Take heed in the phrase that "There is nothing to fear, but fear itself." In time the museum will close its doors and be turned into an all you can eat diner serving chicken fried steak with biscuits and gravy. One thing is for certain, Americans do not have a fear of food.
I am amazed that so many people do not realize what is happening before our very eyes. The beginnings of theocracy in America. This is no idle threat. It is taking root now and all democrats who pander to religion are fools.
This is exactly what the Fundamentalist Muslims think like (such as the Taliban and Al`Qaeda). Scary to think that there are so many Christian "Taliban" in this country.
The Genesis Creation Museum is freak-show entertainment, on par with the UFO Museum in Roswell, NM. Great fun and worth the admission price!
However, Fundamentalist Christians and a far, far greater threat to EVERY society on the planet than UFO believers.
In the event that Jesus did see what these imbeciles have done and what they teach and do to children, I think the scene in the Temple where he goes off on the money changers would be tame compared to what he would do and say now.
The thing that always blew my mind about the fundamentally retarded believers was how science in essence proves the existance of something of a source from which we all eminate and which is in all things. Sounds pretty much like God to me, for lack of a better term. So if quantum mechanics shows how there is a common energy wave form in all things, and the molecular motion of rocks is audible if proper tools are used to measure that... Once these people realize that, maybe then they'll finally come to realize that if God created everything then everything is from God... including science!!
It would take me a few hours on a Monday morning to outline how science and God coexist easily with no threat to anyone's spiritual beliefs. But hey, what do I know. I still think Jesus' message was about peace love and acceptance. These numbnuts think it was a scene out of "Lost in SPace" from the 50's and 60's where a robot got stuck on "Crush, Kill, Destroy!!"... those who may think slightly different than you do.
No se Nada
In all of my study of the Bible, courtesy of the Lutheran Church in my largely misspent youth, I never ran across the words "tyrannosaurus," "stegosaurus" or "raptor" in the Old or New Testament.
This is why I belong to ffrf ( Freedom From Religion Foundation). If you want to connect with others that think and really understand things try http://ffrf.org/
I read some where that 49-53 % of Americans believe this. That is very scary.
There are a lot of ideas out there today. Try reading Sitchin, Velikovsky, or look up Nibiru Planet X.
Yohocoma,
I didn't see any put downs in your note. We respectfully disagree on some matters.
My only point with regards to fundamentalists is that they are not a monolithic group. There are fundamentalists who mindlessly follow orders. Yet, one of the schools that most challenged me to think for myself was a fundamentalist seminary.
Certainly when I go on protests, I am with Quakers, Unitarians, Spiritualists, and Atheists. I am reminded that I need to listen to those who are different. But my religious beliefs are fundamentalist.
Currently, I see some of my fellow flaming fundamentalist friends both withdrawing from the world and yet trying to control it as well. They withdraw by taking their kids out of public school. They attempt to control by their voting records. They could benefit by listening to liberals and deciding what they can benefit from and what to discard. But when liberals are overly negative and condescending, it stops up the ears of my fellow fundamentalists.
caday5,
Rather than keep identifying with "Christian fundamentalists", maybe you should align yourself with the Quakers, who are Christians who walk the walk of peace. Or better yet, carve out your own intellectual and spiritual place in the world and drop the religious labels completely.
Saying that American religious fundamentalism is not a causative factor for intolerance just because you feel you're a counterexample, is ignoring the body of evidence and the good probabilistic argument to be made. Now you're in the position of having to argue that all those other intolerant fundamentalists are not "true" fundamentalists in the sense that you believe you are. But maybe you're not fundamentalist in the exact same way that they are.
In any case, I maintain that people who accept some parts of the bible literally, even just the parts about a man walking on the water, resurrecting, or being the son of a sky deity, are that much further separated from reality and from being effective problem-solvers in the world. Sorry if that's a putdown to you. The consequences of these beliefs, and the many others demanded by the bible, often have negative, counterproductive effects in modern society.
A museum devoted to the Jewish way of interpreting the origins of life that has since been proven scientifically inaccurate. Such a waste of space.
These people are like little kids who have been told that there is no Santa Claus. They are desperate to believe.
Sad.
Thank you, Kem Patrick, for that touching story about your son. It would seem that from what you wrote following it, that you believe in hell, all right - and we are there now. Maybe.
I do not believe in either creation "science" or evolution. I do not believe in creation science because it isn't science at all. The scientist asks the question: "How did we get here?" The creationist responds with "who did it" That is no answer. It is an evasion of the question.
The evolutionists believe that we all came from the same primordal goo. Well, they have the "how" down pat, but there is really no evidence of this being true - in fact, there is much evidence against it being true.
Saying this, I must agree that there is evolution (more like leaps than gradual) within a species. After all, we breed dogs, don't we. There is good evidence of this - but it does not prove cross species evolution.
I do not think that science has advanced to the point that it can answer the question, "how". But, I suspect that if and when it does, it will involve something like the zero point field or some other yet unknown field.
In the book, "The Bible Code" by Jeffrey Satinover, in the back in an appendix and as a footnote at that, Satinover reveals that ancient Jewish mystics were convinced that the universe is 15 billion years old. They got this number, and a number of other bits of modern science right by an in depth reading of Genesis. The key here is that they did not read it for it's surface meaning but looked for the deeper truths hidden in the text.
This is where the fundies get it wrong. There is no depth, only the surface reading that they believe.
Hey Dover,
According to the bible after Cain slew Abel he was banished to the Land of Nod, somewhere east of Eden, where presumably he married and procreated. So I guess that even though we are all related to Adam and Eve, we are from the folks in Nod. My question has always been, If Adam and Eve were the first people, where the hell did the folks in Nod come from?
+++++++++++++++++++++++
I would imagine Kentucky.
Since those with higher I.Q. and the higher educated are less fertile in this world, and the inverse is the opposite, the Global I.Q. is going down exponentially and this phenomenon will only get worse.
I must state at the outset that I believe in Ham-- in fact, I believe in the trinity of Ham, Pork, and Bacon.
That aside, the Creation Museum is something Ned Flanders would operate in an episode of "The Simpsons"; it exists to comfort the fundies afflicted by the pervasive scorn and derision of the rational and enlightened. It has no more profundity or gravitas than the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
But at least it's self-contained and makes no million-year-old bones about what it is. I'm much more offended and concerned about Christian fundamentalist fables being stocked in US Park Service bookstores.
(See http://www.religioustolerance.org/grandcanyon.htm)
And related undue deference to fundamentalist views in venues where scientific natural history ought to prevail: http://thejournal.com/articles/21076
"...[F]or example, a docent at Grand Canyon National Park who is asked by an inquisitive child how old the Grand Canyon is could answer that, based on geologic evidence, we can conclude the chasm was carved out by the Colorado River roughly 5 million years ago. Instead, park officials are instructed not to comment on the canyon's age. Why? Because the National Park Service is deferring to the wishes of religious fundamentalists who believe the Grand Canyon was created by a flood, as described in the Bible's account of Noah's life, only a few thousand years ago."
I was refering to your earlier post about the aleins etc.
Kem Patrick, as crazy as it may sound to every rational person out there I have had reasons to believe lately that you are really on to something. I am serious.
Mom4peace, don't they offer a discount for AARPs or military?
To quote a song from Frank Zappa: Dumb all over.
God wrote this book (Bible) here and in the book it says god made us to be just like him.
So, if we're dumb then god is dumb and maybe even a little ugly on the side. (FZ) "You are what you is".
God and religion are the biggest and most profitable scams the world has ever known.
MOM4PEACE: Thank you mom for answering the first question that popped into my head when I read this article. That question was, what do these hollier than thou "Christians" charge to enter their "museum" and are there other little money making attractions once they have the suckers in the building?
Now that you have answered the question for me, I really do wonder if Jim Baker works there; do they happen to have a hee-haw band that plays there too? Do they hand out Bush bumper stickers?__ Oh no, those are $4.98.
wow. overwhelmed by the variety and clarity on this issue. clearly, without a set of hermaneutics, the bible doesnt make any sense... it is essential to take it in the context of its time. OBVIOUSLY the world was not created in 6 days... but i do believe in a divine presence, its a little comforting to think of some larger being as having a hand in creation or something. the rest of it?? humankind have made some pretty awful decisions based on its interpretations of holy books. but the ignorant dooofi who are paying money to visit this 'museum' deserve to be fleeced.
"All this the world well knows; yet none knows well...To shun the heaven that leads men to this hell."
Great thought, Walt . . .
The Christian writers that I respect most deeply (those that wouldn't neccessarily call themselves "Christian writers") continue to make this same point: that if our religion or spirituality is primarily an expression of faith then why are we trying to hijack science in an attempt to "Prove" it's validity. Absurd.
"Don't drink the Kool-Aid."
Dear Friends,
Religion as science [sic] is really for those with the weakest spiritual constitutions and the most fragile and tentative of religious convictions. This is proven by the fact that they are incessantly requiring that the spiritual dimension (i.e. God's existence) must be literally PROVEN to them. They must "touch" it in some concrete manner in order to believe in it. Ironically, these people (and basically all of this Fundamentalist stripe) are always on the edge of non-belief. Theirs is a terribly shaky faith (no faith at all), because they are always looking for its validation from of all places the Material World!! (I never got that). Furthermore, they are incessently trying to prove the validity of their "faith" by imposing it on others.
Any earnest, religious person will tell you that you can NEVER prove any of this and that in fact the foundation of all religions is something called FAITH – the setting aside of the personal ego and the acceptance of a higher order. It is the "unknowable truth" - what is beyond this world, what came before it, what comes after – that religion tackles.
Accepting your religion on Faith is what, in the Christian tradition anyhow, earned you the state of grace – which was a key to salvation. The Fundamentalists have rewritten this script and say "Not at all, the only thing that earns you grace is the unequivocal acceptance of Jesus Christ as the only true God." Something I think he didn't even believe btw. I once asked a friend who in conversation revealed to me that she was a Fundamentalist if this meant Jews and Mulims would never "be saved" or "see God." "Of course they wouldn't" she replied without hesitation, "unless they accepted Jesus."
There's a Stepford quality to all this, a kind of mutual reinforcement that requires that they keep repeating these "truths" to one another (and to us) and eventually build Temples to Irreason like this thing in Kentucky. It's Virtual Kool-Aid that takes away all that you fear and fear we should always remember, is what drives fundamentalism. Fear of Technology. Fear of the Future. Fear of Death. Fear of Women. Fear of the Unknown. Fear of God, even.
They are terrified by the notion of doubt, of uncertainty and ultimately the kind of Faith in God that Aquinas spoke of, the kind that can only be aquired through hard work and confronting doubt and if it is finally worked out, ultimately unshakeable. But it can never be proven.
Which really comes to the ultimate irony of a "Creation Science Museum" or any scientific artifact designed to prove the existence of God, or the creation story of a particular religion. The one thing about science they forget is that it is itself an evolutionary "work in progress." The very "holes" in the theory they take advantage of with such concepts as creationism, is its greatest strength -- that is, it is always "in review" and under re-examination and therefore always in flux. A moral system can't be "in flux", otherwise it becomes relativistic (the other thing they profess to hate).
Doubt is at the foundation of science, as Faith is at the foundation of religion and the very notion of a permanent, unchangeable fact has no place in science. So for doubt to serve a useful purpose the concept it is tresting must be flexible and adaptable to new data and experitmentation.
So what if there is some new discovery that essentially disproves some fundamental thesis put forth in this 27 million dollar enterprise? What if some "principle" they put forth is irrefutably proven to be wrong ... by science? Will that mean God does NOT exist?
In hundreds of years, what remains of this place will be a cultural mystery ... like Stonehenge. People will look at it and ask "What were they thinking? Was it religion? Or science? Whatever happened to these people?"
It's pure folly ... but that does not mean it's not dangerous.
Hey fist,
Great question!! My guess is that Adam and Eve are white, just like Ham and most of his followers!!!
Here's the deal . . . Ham doesn't know his ancient Eastern languages well enough because if he did, he'd know that in the Hebrew, the word that is most often translated "day" is a word that can also mean "epoch" or "era." That said, it's entirely inappropriate to conclude that the ancient writers and editors of Genesis intended to communicate a literal six day creation. In fact, they weren't even speaking scientifically, they were speaking theolgocially. Ham is blind to the truth.
What color are Adam and Eve in this exhibit? ... (snicker)
remember, democrats vote on november 7.
republicans on november 8
Why can't both points of view be somewhat true? I'm not particularly religious, but I do believe in God….and at the same time I believe we did indeed evolve from some primordial goop, from a single cell to what we are today, and we continue to evolve every day.
I don't pretend to know the answers, but I have what's been described to me as the "clockmaker" view of God. Rather than creating mankind in an instant, God created the physical laws we see in the universe. Within these laws, the big bang took place, evolution happens, organisms change, and eventually mankind was born. Think of him a winding the clock, sitting back and just letting events take place.
In a sense I beleive there was a "creation", but not a creation in the "give me six days and we're done" literal sense.
Just my 2 cents.
This is one attraction in Kentucky I will make a point of missing!!!!!!!!
Marc,
There is no excuse for much of Christian history--the violence, domination and intolerance. The question is whether that history stems from its faith or contradicts it. I think the latter, some think the former. Your reference to Constatine is somewhat correct. It is Chomsky who notes that it was then that Christianity changed from a pacifist religion to a religion of the sword.
But perhaps Nazi Germany presents us with an interesting problem. The conditions that allowed for the Holocaust were present for centuries and were the responsibility of the Church including Martin Luther. Everything that Hitler did to the Jews, with the exception of extermination, was first proposed by Luther. It is a history that we in the Church either ignore or minimize. The German attitude that there needed to be an elimination of the Jews significantly existed in the 19th century let alone in the 1930's.
However, Hitler was in no sense a Christian. Rather, he was a firm believer in natural selection. This allowed him to exalt the German people and to dehumanize Jews all based on ancestry. The combination of religious and secular based hatred helped contribute to the Holocaust.
The contradiction I see is this: most Creationists and followers of Intelligent Design promote Social Darwinism. At the same time, many who adhere to Evolution to explain mankind's existence are vehemently opposed to its social implications.
The latter is puzzling because if all we are is physical and all there is in this life is the here and now, why should one be opposed to Social Darwinism or care about others? Indeed some might choose to but aren't others just as free to not care? For Hitler, adhering to Natural Selection not only provided a reason not to care about others, but provided a reason to hate.
Perhaps this teaches us that violence and domination is a human attribute, not something that is learned from religion or from secularism.
General admission:
Adult (13-59 yrs) $19.95
Senior (60 yrs & up) $14.95
Children (5-12 yrs) $9.95
Children (under 5 yrs) Free
Planetarium (w/ admission) $5.00
Planetarium alone $6.00
Mindless (year-round passes available)
Gifts in Kind
Professional Services—You might be able to provide free or discounted professional services through your business or your own professional skills to help build the museum, because, dang, the public is beginning to catch on to us.
Materials/Supplies—non-cash gifts such as museum-quality exhibit items, needed building materials, office furnishings, etc. For example, one company donated pallet racking for warehouse storage, saving the ministry thousands of dollars that can go directly into our cash-lined pockets!
Volunteer—help the museum in a hands-on way! You don't necessarily need to have a professional skill to get involved in the museum project! That's right, because volunteers NEVER need to be paid. And that's more money for our cash-lined pockets!
Monetary Gifts
Cash Donation—a one-time gift toward the museum. Help us reach our Capital Campaign goal of $25 million for a debt-free Creation Museum! Yes, debt-free! It's important that you assist us in working our way up the chain to the top 1%. You know, George W. Bush's 'base'. We don't pay taxes, so you will!
Monthly Answers Partner —Set up an automatic monthly withdrawal from your checking account or credit card. Right on, brothers and sisters! Tithe your measly, little paychecks to our museum. Screw your family and their futures. Trust us. Would we lie to you?
Planned Giving—You can give a gift of stock, securities, or real estate. Or you can set up a charitable remainder trust (CRT), gift annuity, or estate plan to benefit the Creation Museum and save you tax dollars! Call John Pence, Director of Planned Giving, at 800-350-3232, ext. 483 to discuss these and other strategic giving options!
Indeed, give us your all....Your ticket straight to Heaven's Gate, met there by dinosaurs at the right and left hand sides of Jesus Christ, himself.
Amen, brothers and sisters. Hallelujah.
'The blurb on one exhibit bears the headline: "God's Word versus Human Reason". It's the latter you shouldn't trust.'
Right. Who do you believe: Me or your lying eyes and logic?
Phew! A lot of comments on this issue. I won't say much, except my usual quote said on other posts.
Ignorance is not bliss, it is unforgivable! When the vast majority let a small minority do the thinking for them, tyranny and oppression takes over.
These closed-minded Christian fundalmentalist creationists have no understanding of what the Christed One taught, but keep going back to the Old Testament stories. They are no better than the Afghan Taliban, the German Nazis, the KKK, or any other cult/religious sect that capitalizes on intolerance.
These so-called Christian ministers are the vanguard for the capitalist/fascist ruling class, and are successfully building an army of fanatical non-thinkers to do the dirty work. Just use the nouns, God, or Christian, and the ignorant will submit themselves to these dangerous charlatans. Look what they are doing in the U.S. Armed Forces!
The real ruling class uses the evangelicals and fundamentalists as a guise to do their dirty work. It's part of the slimy Grover Norquist plan to eliminate government except for the military and police force.
With a deteriorating infrastucture in this country, a continuing assualt on all hard-won social programs, demonizing teachers in public schools, breaking labor unions that gave us a "middle class", denouncing science for their version of "the history of creation", and other items I'll leave out for brevity, the uneducated and ignorant masses are a godsend for the "policy-makers".
How about the Golden Rule! Or, Live and Let Live!
SIOUXROSE: A cousin of mine told me about three tiny islands off the coast of Venezuela (the ABC islands). About two years ago, on whatever the name of the "B" island is, there were four Americans , and now, 32,000 American expatriates fed up with our system, have moved to the island.
I wonder if you or any other Common Dreams readers heard of this place.
All religions in the beginning were merely an attempt by early man to explain nature. All religions in the present are the biggest perpetuation of fraud on mankind, they prevent people fom thinking logically.
While religions have always attempted to dominate the masses with fear of eternal damnation, their primary focus has been to obtain wealth. Constantine declared Jesus a diety so that he could proclaim the Empire and it's appointed clergymen his agents and social advisors. For a mere 10% you too could get an appointment and have your prayers answered.
As the Roman Empire carried on with it's oppressive and brutal form of government, the followers of the philosopher Jesus, needed to be quieted. The "church" began ( read re-translated, re-wrote, added a new testament) to emphasize belief and faith and the concept of forgiveness so that their own sins could be tolerated and accepted by it's victims. But perhaps more importantly, non-believers began to be chastised, stoned, beaten and killed. Soon even non-believers professed to have "faith". Followers of Christ's teachings professed to believe the divine nature of the Empire's declaration to avoid harm. To make this more palitable or easier to feign, the concept of the fallible, imperfect, sinning man has evolved (woops, grown). It was not necessary, and of course still isn't, to live a virtous life, as long as you declared your allegiance to Christianity, and thus to the Emporer.
Soon, citizens, torn by the hypocrisy of their own naiveity and surrender, discovered that they could control their family members with the very same false hope and fear with which they had been controlled. And so it remains.
Rather than have introspective thought relating to their own existence, and role in society or family, fundamentalists prefer to pretend that they know the answers and thus never have to consider them again. While sacrificing their own thoughts, morals, individuality and sanity, familial patriarchs found that they could use the same fear of hellfire tactics to control their own clans. From this stems incest, child abuse, submissive women with no equal rights, drug abuse, suicide, homocide, homosexuality, etc. etc., all in the name of God. But to the intellectually and morally challenged, it must be an acceptable trade off, my freedom of thought and existence for my subordinate familiy's. One added little perk might be that if it all is actually true, Heaven awaits with gold paved streets and 72 virgins.
But today the charade has become much more complicated, in that the atrocities being carried out by the creators of religion (government) are further and further from Christ like. Also, that the manipulation of children has become increasingly difficult as the human brain evolves and rejects the notions that spirituality is to be governed by head of the household, elected officials, alter boy fucking priests or anyone else.
So the "church" is indeed in a battle of ideas. Their basic weapon is the ignorance of it's flock. To perpetuate stupidity, and thus control, they have infiltrated schools and homes, airwaves and marketplaces.
This museum is simply a profit maker in the end, but also serves to perpetuate the fairytale. How many are still being fooled and how many lie to their peers to avoid being stoned is anyone's guess, but the numbers are frightening.
I fully support any idiot's right to believe in or worship whatever they desire. But when that blind acceptance gets millions killed and destroys the planet, I must take exception.
The danger in eating from the tree of knowledge was not to be taken literally. It doesn't mean that you should remain stupid. It infers that upon learning of your inevitable demise, you will lose your minds and begin creating alternate realities...
God save us, from your folowers...
Being a Canadian, this whole "debate" of evolution vs. creationism, seems very strange and dated. Most people (except pockets here and there) take this "issue" as personal beliefs and really don't give a shit what the other people are thinking. If you need a break from it all, take a vacation in Canada, give your head a good shake, and relax. All that said, I can't wait to see this "museum". The Iraq thing has got me feeling a bit down in the dumps and I need a good chuckle.
http://talkorigins.org/ is an invaluable source for anyone wanting to know more about evolution and learn how to rebut creationist nonsense.
There is a creationist attempt at a come back at http://www.trueorigin.org/ but see which site contains links to the other view and which doesn't. Which side/site is afraid of real science?
When you look back and reaize that dinosaur theories by and large were started over drunken gin and scotch parties in ivory towers in England in the 1800's, this creation ideation has as much credibility. What is fascinating is that the evidence of flooding causing changes is in the same proof as evolution, but at least with flooding there is historical documentation and observation. Possibly sober, which is more than the evolution theory can say. By the way, when did feminized liberals become so insistent they control evrybody else's thoughts? What will the feminized liberals do when they find out their peaceful, non-discriminatory muslim friends believe the same thing?
This makes school so much easier. We don't have to study DNA, anthropological science, or genetics anymore.
We just say "Jesus did it."
Wow that really simplifies things. Now we'll have 0% academic attrition in science. What a great idea!
Hey Dover,
According to the bible after Cain slew Abel he was banished to the Land of Nod, somewhere east of Eden, where presumably he married and procreated. So I guess that even though we are all related to Adam and Eve, we are from the folks in Nod. My question has always been, If Adam and Eve were the first people, where the hell did the folks in Nod come from?
Only in Amurikkka.
GLENBOB your post 19th letter from jim
thanks for the laughs. that made me double up over my computer!!!
all this religion/creation/ gobbledegook was created by mankind to keep the masses down.
yes, watch the movie zeitgeist. it explains all..............
just a few thoughts.
I wonder how many moneychangers Jesus would be kicking out of this Shrine?
And I wonder if we all will be charged admission at the Pearly Gates?
The closest thing I can get to "Believing" the creation theory is what a christian friend once told me about it (not word for word, as it was 4 years ago.) Gods days are not the same as ours as he created our days. He is a tad on the immortal side and can have days that last years, 1000's and such. We however are stuck on the mortal coil so he made us smaller days. a day for him can be a billion of our years, and his 6 days was really all time from earths creation. dinosaurs lived and died before he got around to sticking us humans down here.
I don't run by this theory, but at least it takes into account some degree of scientific fact and does not totally ignore carbonating of fossils! It makes me think my friend had her head screwed one at least a little bit tight!
But she avoided any preaching of gay marriages and abortion to me, knowing it would result in me ignoring her. Is this museum TRYING to traumatize Children? because thats what that "Wall" will do, I doubt many kids that see that will ever forget it and may grow up very violent to the people portrayed on it.
Thankyou museum guy, For creating another generation of possibly violent, if not insultive kids to go after people who had done no wrong, and making them blind against actually fact.
the bible was not written by God. It was written by Men. As was Science. But at least science has evidence, The Bible is just a book of things men wrote down with no fact behind them.
How sad it must be to believe that one's life is without significance unless it's under personal, direct supervision of the creator of everything; to believe that one's life & love are somehow devoid of either if they aren't the top of the food chain, or that it's miserable if it isn't made just for them.
It's a blow to our ego when we discover that our parents were more interested in sex than in our personality when we were conceived.
There's a poignancy, I think, in the pope's plaint that everyone should know that he or she is a planned creature loved by God, rather than an offshoot of an exuberant, but unconscious universe.
I would rather the universe not be worried about me, and would be disappointed in a divinity that could conceive of nothing better than a sockpuppet theatre with live puppets.
The creationists are right: if science is right, then their books are just wrong, and there's no overseer, uncle, or bon papa looking out for them & waiting to hug them everlastingly in a bright & pretty place.
Science presents us with a vertiginous picture in which our whole species is only a small swirling bit of realities which we can only perceive through pictures & symbols. The creaitonists are children screaing that they'll fall off if they go to the top of the building; that the sea is going to swallow them if they wade in.
Tractorguy,
I encountered the Gathering of Eagles when we were protesting Cheney at West Point. I battled them on their boards regarding their celebration of violence and I am finding here that they do not have a monopoly on intolerance and the desire to dominate.
Kem,
Very simple reasons why I asked you the question. Your reaction to what I was saying is the first reason. Second, the theological objections to the scientific view spills over to other areas such as philosophical and logical problems. The quote shows that the issue being debated is complicated rather than so simple that only idiots would take one side.
From the reaction I am getting here, those who are working for peace from a secular scientific view are proving themselves to be no different in showing intollerance than the fundamentalists they are reacting to. J.K. has the best note on this subject and using his terms, what we see here is a battle between religious fundamentalists vs fundamental materialists.
What I see in some is an eliminationist attitude that we saw in Germany prior to Nazi Germany. Now if you must eliminate a whole group in order to achieve peace, how different are you from any other intolerant group whose fighting you object to?
As I was trying to get a minister friend of mine to accept an approach by Chomsky, he refused because secular people are trying to shove evolution down his throat. Doesn't this spell out the problem we have in changing the policies of our country where a significant number of those people are religious conservatives?
What both sides need to work together for peace is to realize where post-modernism applies and where it doesn't. Otherwise both sides can simultaneously complain that there is no peace while working to keep the fight going. Knowing where post-modernism applies allows us to work together on things we can agree on and knowing where post-modernism does not apply allows us to remain true to our beliefs--both materialistic and spiritual.
Ho Hum. Yawn. So much about nothing. We think, therefore we create. We create God as an entity outside ourselves, therefore we submit to our created thoughts of a being greater than ourselves, and the rules he therefore makes for us. We submit to a being greater than ourselves, and therefore we commit acts due to these beliefs. War in the name of my God. Ho Hum. Meanwhile, the planet goes down the tubes.
I would've thought that the words of Hjalti:
"Vilkat goð geyja: grey Þykkjumk Freya"
would settle the issue of Evolution vs Creationism, it's so clear!
Anyway, it's clear that the world was created by Ymir growing a male and a female from his armpits, and Odin, a descendant, killing him and making the world from his body ...
After that, Mithra ... no, wait, I'm getting confused here ... Herakles incurred Hera's enmity ... no, wait, still getting wires crossed ... Ishtar, stark naked, murdered everybody in the temple, and tied their heads to her belt ... no, wasn't that Vishnu killing a bull and stretching its hide to cover the universe as it was?
"Vilkat goð geyja: grey Þykkjumk Freya"
Now that is a solid piece of truth. You can't go wrong with thinking blasphemous thoughts about Freya ... or Herakles or Ishtar for that matter.