The New Kentucky Creation Museum
How is this any different from teaching that Jews have horns and tails? That disagrees with science, too. Most of the cultists who buy into this stuff would not teach their children that Jews are literally horned and tailed, but they have no trouble with lying to them about other areas of science.
Perhaps I'm a bit incensed about this, but it seems to me that this stretches the boundaries of religious tolerance to the limits. It's simply morally wrong, and damaging to our society, to put these lies out as the truth.
We give so much respect to religion in our daily lives, that I think that we need to think a second time before accepting a religious viewpoint that encourages us to distrust science. I'm not an advocate of getting rid of religion, or limiting people's beliefs, although I do favor a Jeffersonian approach to literalism. But this is lying to children, something my atheist beliefs as well as my Christian upbringing tell me is beyond the pale.
Apparently that judgment is not found in the minds of some believers. Morally, this is no different from establishing a museum to show the blood guilt of the Jews.
"Sometimes I go around saying, 'Kommisar Paulson has seized the commanding heights of the economy!'" - Paul Krugman, asked if recent changes to banking are socialistic.
I would hate to think that anything is beyond me.
And everyone knows they don't have tails, but they do lay eggs.
This is the internet! In our natural environment, atheists run in packs and have dictionaries! --- JoeBeDurndurn
Aw, you missed the most ridiculous part:
"This may be fascinating, but this is nonsense," said Lawrence M. Krauss, a theoretical physicist at Case Western Reserve University and a vocal defender of evolutionary science. "It's fine for people to believe whatever they want. What's inappropriate is to then essentially lie and say science supports these notions."
and this:
For the record, mainstream scientists currently estimate the age of the Earth at about 4.5 billion years, but don't try telling that to Ken Ham, an Australian-born evangelist and former high school science teacher who heads Answers in Genesis.
You see, we here at MSNBC feel that journalistic ethics require us to remain impartial in this debate. The jury is still out on science. We believe that we should present both sides and let the reader decide.
"I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." As a California expatriate deep behind enemy lines, I find myself repeating this inwardly quite often.
While this does irritate me, I still believe that the truth speaks for itself and needs no defenders or advocates. The more these people go on record in direct contradiction of reality and what we can see and discover with our own senses and techniques, the easier it gets to expose their lies.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, The hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning,
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
Being backwards and ignorant is exactly the same as spreading hate?
Fedaykin98 wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:
I'd like to see how MSNBC covers the issue of whether Jews have horns and tails:
"Jews don't have horns and tails," said James Burke, a scientist and vocal proponent of the view that Jews are human beings without the devil's appendages.Although scientists are quick to point out that to date there has never been any conclusive evidence that Jews are physically different from Christians, a small, growing minority of Americans are quick to disagree. They note that the devil's mark is not something that scientific evidence can detect.
Tim O'Brien, the owner of museum the promotes the idea that Jews are actually physically different from Christians, points to such artifacts as a cloven hoof in a display case that he claims came from body of deceased Jewish male disinterred several months ago outside Jerusalem. He also notes that science has not yet proven that Jews do not have horns or tails.
"The purpose of the devil marking people," he said "Is to allow Satan's minions to leave them alone and target people who follow God. It would be natural for the devil to mark them in such a way that would allow them to escape detection. The horns and tails can vanish pretty easily."
O'Brien is not alone in this view. His blog, Jewsarethedevil.com, has a daily readership of over 1 million unique visitors, according to statistics compiled by Webtrak.net. Still, O'Brien's view remains very much in the minority.
Scientist Burke, for one, continues to assert the mainstream view that Jews are not evil. He also remains an outspoken critic of O'Brien and his followers. "I can't believe you're even asking me about this," he told a reporter.
Lying about the way the world is, is no different from lying about the way the world is. I just picked an example that was also based on religious belief, but that most people consider inflammatory. The question I raise is, why are incensed at the one, but not the other? Both involve lying about testable facts.
I take solace from the fact that most people today understand the falsehood of the Jewish horn and tails, even though some still subscribe to the blood libel. In America, however, most people believe evolution to be wrong - a mistake not qualitatively different from asserting other people have horns and tails.
"Sometimes I go around saying, 'Kommisar Paulson has seized the commanding heights of the economy!'" - Paul Krugman, asked if recent changes to banking are socialistic.
Well, to be fair, it's a lot harder to see evolution than it is to see that Jewish people have no horns and tails. With a Jewish person, you can just look. You can't directly see things evolve, you have to determine that they did through other evidence. That requires a little learning and some thought.
So of course a majority of Americans don't believe in it.
So, by your reasoning, telling your kids that there's a Santa Claus is the moral equivalent of teaching them Jews are evil and have horns and a tail. I'm honestly surprised at you, Robear.
Fedaykin98 wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:
Article says it is privately funded. As long as they don't get any other tax breaks than a regular business can't say I see any right to complain. I don't like it, but if there is no support it will go out of business.
Essentially, yes. While one act might not be as repugnant as the other, they are both taking advantage of your position of trust to teach your children politically or socially convenient falsehoods. The same could be said of lying to your child about how babies are made.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, The hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning,
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
Well, one major difference there is that it's just for fun, and that you know perfectly well you're going to tell your kids the truth eventually. It's just a game we play because it's fun, not out of some intention to deceive.
This is different; this is propaganda.
Sure, if you take that kind of a hard line. I think you understand where I was taking the point, and it was not to a discussion of white lies to preserve pleasurable parts of childhood. I'm surprised that you'd draw that conclusion.
I'm assuming you are aware that there is a spectrum of evil, and lying to millions about the way the world works is different from trying to make your children happy for one more year's festival season. Geez man.
"Sometimes I go around saying, 'Kommisar Paulson has seized the commanding heights of the economy!'" - Paul Krugman, asked if recent changes to banking are socialistic.
I can't get irritated about people who want to reject evolution so long as they don't try to bring that stuff into the schools or pretend it's a matter of science rather than pure faith. These guys seem to want to brand their view as more scientific than it is, but if they want to build a private museum to push their beliefs, what can do you but hope the administration doesn't give them a grant to expand it?
We can speak out as stridently as they do against the "War on Christianity", atheism destroying America and the like. These guys get a pass for all sorts of nutbar stuff, like blaming hurricanes on gays, they rewrite science textbooks, and they dominate the discussion, to the point that reasonable people believe that simply calling their actions into question is an indictment of all religion.
People whose business is lying to others should be called on it. This is not a philosophical question about what's a lie, it's not a blanket indictment of religious moderates, it's a wake-up call to say we've put up with extremists for long enough, and we need to think about what they are doing, the scale of it and it's intent, before they convert so many people that it becomes the norm.
For once I agree with Johnny - it's dangerous to be too tolerant.
"Sometimes I go around saying, 'Kommisar Paulson has seized the commanding heights of the economy!'" - Paul Krugman, asked if recent changes to banking are socialistic.
Uh, yeah. The spectrum of evil, as you call it, is exactly my point. Spreading ignorance is bad, but less likely to have a negative effect on multiple lives compared to teaching hate. You're the one who said all lying is morally equivalent.
Fedaykin98 wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:
At what point does spreading ignorance become teaching hate for people who aren't ignorant?
How is this any different than a church, Robear? A church teaches creationism. I fail to see how this "stretches the boundaries of religious tolerance to the limits" any more than all religion does that. Noodle knows, I certainly understand your exasperation with the persistence of creationist nonsense like the <10,000 year earth and such, but I don't get why this particular example has struck you as worse than any other. It was built and is operated privately and teaches exactly what the Church does. They have every right to spend their own money to spread their beliefs.
This will convince no-one; the only kids who are taken to this are kids who are being taught this crap already. I think the biggest tragedy in this is the number of good specimens that could go towards real education.
This is certainly another brick in the Evangelical wall between Christians and reason, but I don't see how this is a particularly shocking brick, in and of itself.
As far as I know, you're allowed to slap the word "museum" on whatever you want; there is no regulatory body making sure that it really is a museum, doing museum-y things. I guess my only real beef with this would be if the US government gives allowances to museums and such, as certain provinces in Canada do, and if this is receiving such benefits. If so, I think that's wrong, as any such benefits are designed to help institutions of learning, a category into which this clearly does not fall.
"PEACE ON EARTH. GOOD WILL TO MEN. PUBLIC SHELTER. ADMISSION 50¢"
I wonder if next year we'll be seeing controversey on the news that some school district wants to take a field trip to this place to present a "balanced" view against their field trip to a natural history museum. That would be going too far.
Oh, and I didn't think this was worth its own thread, but I found it funny in a Nelson Ha-Ha sort of way:
Creation "science" indeed.
"PEACE ON EARTH. GOOD WILL TO MEN. PUBLIC SHELTER. ADMISSION 50¢"
I guarantee that kid did not come up with that idea himself. Indoctrination FTW.
....Does he even know what a stalactite is? More importantly, did he actually use all three exclamation points in the title of his project?
Quote:
XBL Tag: Prederick
Once again, I feel truly honored and fortunate to live in a country where we're all so comfortable and safe that THIS kind of bullsh*t constitutes a legitimate concern.
By the way, I dispoved evolution too. Scientists say that glaciers move real slow-like, but I flicked an ice-cube across my kitchen floor and it went fast.
NOTE: This is not a doodle bug.
Spore
Funken, that was the funniest damn spoof of our "news" media I've read in ages. THANK YOU.
HE IS THE MESSIAH!!
However, he is no match to our Podunk who is known to create entire new universes in his toilet bowl.
Xbox Live tag Gorilla800lbs
I think Robear is going a bit overboard on this one. While I do personally find it disgusting, its not something that isnt already out there being taught/preached.
I wonder if the law should mandate that religious teachings be held in a overtly religious structure. I think this could deal with what I think is the heart of Robear's discomfort, that religion is being promoted in a museum.
Of course the problem with that is we have religion being taught in private schools.
Should or can this be limited to religion contrary to scientific knowledge? Can we limit this by property zoning?
Would it make a difference if they were forced to call the rename the museum to a church or temple?
Being fangoriously devoured by a gelatinous monster.
I'm a little dismayed no one's linked to the Onion article to the effect of "Creationism Museum Buys 5,000 year old T-Rex Skeleton".
RIP ChronicNecrosis
An evolution denier's museum to go along with the evolution denier's Grand Canyon tours. I weep for the intellect of this nation.
This is the internet! In our natural environment, atheists run in packs and have dictionaries! --- JoeBeDurndurn
I agree with the majority of opinion here. As long as this museum is not funded by government money, used in public classroom instruction, and is completely privately funded, I can't see what the big fuss is about. This museum will be around for a few years, but eventually fail due to lack of funding and interest.
Comparing this to Jews and horns is a huge stretch and not a valid comparison at all. I think most of us agree there's room for debate in the specifics about creationism/evolution/whatever and comparing that to hateful, malicious, damnable lies is not valid.
For the record, as a Christian, I believe this museum is just a waste of time and effort. To try and prove God's work with "scientific" evidence is ridiculous and opens up debate like this which only hurts the message of the Gospel. I'll be glad when they close their doors, as both a Christian and a Kentucky resident.
XBox Live: Bassmasa2
Speaking for myself, I don't really think there's room for meaningful debate about creationism. Aside from the fact that, with all due respect to believers, I find the idea ridiculous, it's hard to debate when one side's only argument is, "God says so." Naturally the theory of evolution isn't perfect, but it's constantly getting closer. Creationism, being totally unsupported by science and therefore impossible to collect data upon or modify based on facts, is a static "theory." How do you argue for or against that which is both baseless and unchanging? If someone insists that the sky is lime green, the argument is really limited to, "no, no it's not."
NOTE: This is not a doodle bug.
Spore
I don't want to re-hash this, but at some point, something (or Someone) had to get it all started. Everyone has their theory/belief, but at some point, a beginning had to take place. I say it's God. Assuming for a minute that God does not exist and science will eventually figure everything out (I realize it's not perfect and don't hold that against anything), where did the very first atoms of the very first elements come from? Something cannot be created out of nothing. So, at some level, creationism is very much debatable, even if we're not talking about the Earth being 10,000 years old.
XBox Live: Bassmasa2