61
   

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Nov, 2009 11:28 am
FM can come in here an blow that crapola out of the water in short order, i have no doubt. Two things occurred to me immediately in reading this, though. For whatever one may allege about what Darwin believed, the theory of evolution has stood the test of time because it has been modified to account for the data, and has never been falsified. The core thesis that life on this planet has arisen into its complex forms by the action of natural selection stands firm. Modern scientists certainly don't hold that man "descended" from apes, but rather shares a common ancestor with the great apes. As for rejecting a theistic creation, unless and until reliable evidence for such an event is produced, it it the responsibility of science to reject it.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Nov, 2009 12:13 pm
@McGentrix,
Well Mac--effemm will declare it bullshit and Wiz will say that your writers had all been on the suds.

What struck me was the incredible narcissim of dismissing God on the basis of one's daughter having died. Daughters were dying like flies all over the world and plenty of them from the conditions which applied in the factories from which Darwin &Co drew their stipends.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Mon 9 Nov, 2009 12:16 pm
@McGentrix,
It was remiss of me Mac not to warn you that Settin'Aah-aah would declare it "crapola". Which, of course, validates the rest of his post.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Nov, 2009 12:55 pm
@Setanta,
Darwin never specifically states that man evolved from apes, which is not the only scientific, and just plain old everyday, lie in that Letterman's Top Ten list.

Comparing the physical organisms of a man and an ape does give a reason for Darwin to conclude "man is descended from a hairy, tailed quadruped, probably arboreal in its habits."

Immediately remind anybody of a recent discovery? Anybody caring to re-read about Ardi as it apparently hasn't sunk in, she was arboreal and was able to walk upright. There were modern evolutionary scientists who postulated that it was a chimpanzee-like creature which was our distant ancestor and the evidence pointed in that direction. Now it's apparent that, as Darwin also pointed out, we evolved alongside the apes. Now it's becoming clear that the split in species occurred much earlier than any chimpanzee-like mammals appeared on Earth.

The Creationuts and IDiots are always zeroing in on only Darwin as the evidence that evolution is wrong but it doesn't matter how many times this is pointed out. They are ignorant of what Setanta is referring to -- what has happened since Darwin in the field of evolutionary science. Science will continue to place anything theistic as not science but belief.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Nov, 2009 02:06 pm
Farmerman answered McGentrix on the ID thread:
farmerman wrote:

None of the above has ever been anything but strengthened. Darwin didnt have many things in his quiver but the overall theory is still the underpinning of developmental biology.

1. AS far as the "warm little pond" he had no primary geochemical models from which to work. Our greatly enhanced understanding of the paleoenvironmental conditions as reflected in stratigraphy all compare nicely with what happened to life at the same times that say, excess methane, oxygen activity or deep carbonates and Iron band formations occured. Certain protists today show the initial development of carbonate deposition , so it can be projected that similar species began evolving more and better deposition mechanisms and abilities to deposit shells. The thing is that . preCambrian life found in the last 15 years show that several species are just like later , but similr forms with shells. They all seem to be quite similar in morphology no matter when fossilized. AND the first shell bearing animals and notochord animals began in the proterozoic before the Ediacarn assemblages

2 nd 3 are the same and, 151 years of evidence has backed up what Darwin said waaaay beyond his expectations. NOT knowing (but expectin) is based upon scientific arm waving we all do it and Darwin proposed ways to prove what he didnt know.

4 He didnt have the intermediates thats true, but we do. Undeniably (with the exception of the Cretinists who want the world to believe that what appears to be ancestry is nothing more than a God gone wild. However, DArwin gives us a way to proive about what he thought in an entire chapter (That the new Creationist version has conveniently left out) Chapter 9 in edition 6 (I believe) THat IS--There are Gaps in the fossil records that we would have to fill by field exploration. HE WAS DEAD ON IN THAT. In the last 30 years or so,Weve had a chance to watch how the falsification process works for scientists to find these intermediate fossils in similar aged formations from around the world. Tiktaalic was such an example. More than just a "fishopod" specimen, The process by which he was discovered involved the use of similitude in age deposition for Geo Systems, series, and substages, wherein messrs SHUBIN and DEASCHLER went to a teeny are of Baffin Island where a relatively small outcrop of early continental/marine Devonian rocks were located. It took em 3 years but they found what they were suspecting would exist. NOW, to me thats deductive reasoning and using the old falsification process.

5 The limitis of variation are still based upon Millers rule that states that evoilution is merely using what youve got, and then to do something new with it. SIMPLE NO? All evidence including genetic holds that up as a glowing beacon of truth.

6 He didnt understand the Cambrian explosion and he said that it would affect his theory if and only if there was no explanation for what he called a sudden appearnace. The sudden appearnace of different forms took place from the top o the Cryogenian through the Ediacaran times or about 65 million years. Putting that into perspective, the Cambrian only lasted a total of about 54 million years, yet we dont bat an weyelash over the huge developments and evolutionary **** that happened during the CAmbrian . A rule of thum is that a changing atmosphere and continental shifting has always caused quicktime evolutionary events.

7Homology has never been a big problem to evolutionary scientists. When a good idea shows up, sometimes many species glom onto it. like "flying mammals" or "sabretoothed marsupials". Its never been a problem , im fact its underpinned the effects that genetic information can preserve

8Human beans, like birds, didnt evovle from the next rung down, these species and families arose from common ancestors to both

9 The tree of life aint a tree, yeh its a bush, so what. Metaphors dont rule good science, they only confuse people who dont understand the concepts fully

10 I think he stated in his letters that he rejected a God because if God were an intelligent designer, he really fucked up (euphemism mine)

DArwin has given us probably one of the 5 top thoughts of the millenium. (SOme argue that its the best). His work has only been made stronger as new piles of evidence support what Darwin said and reject what the Biblical based folks say
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Nov, 2009 02:09 pm
@wandeljw,
I did Not, apparently It wasnt me cause there arent many spelling erors.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  2  
Reply Tue 10 Nov, 2009 10:00 am
A WVU student wrote this response to Carter's creationism lecture last week at the university.

Quote:
Creationism lecture full of inaccuracies
(By Jim Eakins, West Virginia University Student Newspaper, November 10, 2009)

I asked Dr. Carter a question about the percentage difference between humans and chimps.

His talk said 13.6 percent; the cited paper said 6.4 percent, which has yet to be verified.

I asked how he got to that number from those papers.

I noted that were I to turn in a paper with inaccurate citations, I would have received an extremely poor grade for that lab.

He told me he would send me an e-mail with how he got to that value.

The e-mail I received had no citation to a paper with that value, nor a derivation.

He said he got it from "the other papers in the article," and noted that the chimp genome is longer than a human’s.

That is not science.

First, the only way he could have gotten that number is if he used less than 1 percent of the genome to extrapolate to it.

Sorry, but under 1 percent values, you don’t get to make assumptions about 100 percent.

Second, he also failed to recognize differences in genome are not simply determined by length.

Third, after checking the other papers mentioned in the original citation, I still couldn’t find his number.

He claimed radiometric dating doesn’t work.

Seeing as experiments in relativistic physics match to the predictions to many decimal places utilizing the half-life equations in radiometric dating, I fear he is wrong here as well.

If radiometric dating doesn’t work, then your GPS, which uses the same process as relativity, would never have been made.

He used evolutionist equations when making a supercomputer to make a model of how many generations it would take to get to the population of the earth today.

He throws out the number 283 generations " no citation, no proof, no way to check the method, just taking it on his word.

He claims this many generations takes more than 6,000 years (the age he claims for the earth) and because of that, evolution is wrong.

The claim is since the data does not fit his hypothesis, the data is wrong.

Science is not done this way. If the data does not match your hypothesis, your hypothesis is incorrect.

If anything, the model shows that evolutionist hypotheses are accurate because of the long time period.

There were numerous other "scientific discrepancies" as he called them, but I have little room to go into them.

I have yet to receive a response regarding these inconsistencies.

Carter claimed that people laughed at Newton, and Einstein, and Galileo, so he must also be right.

They also laughed at Cosby, Foxworthy and Monty Python " but that doesn’t make them scientifically sound.

Carter used a wonderful scientific vocabulary and showed some facts that were true.

However, blinded by science jargon, he put up facts and figures with little truth to them, no way to verify them (or if he did, they were not accurate and considered fraudulent in the scientific community), nor accuracy to the science actually used.

This man performed a wonderful show, and is an outstanding example of how the public will believe almost anything that has numbers and graphs in it with no scientific proof.
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Nov, 2009 10:29 am
Looks to me like Dr. Carter is trying to emulate Glen Beck.
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Tue 10 Nov, 2009 10:55 am
@Lightwizard,
It's a gig Wiz. The Christmas lightshows won't change a dull and dark December day to something magical from a scientific point of view.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Nov, 2009 11:48 am
I wonder who could be responsible for those "dark and dreary days?" Light shows, be they LED or fiber optic (incandescent is now a gross energy waste), are not turned on during the day here, not even in Disneyland. Of course, the sun's out here so if you're having a dark and dreary day, it's all "his" fault -- "he" actually doesn't like you. My sister is coming down soon so the family can go to Disneyland at night now that it gets dark early. The night lighting there is part of the romance and it's a man made mood elevator without praying or taking a pill.
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Nov, 2009 01:16 pm
(Or two pints of whatever it is you drink).
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Nov, 2009 01:27 pm
@wandeljw,
I love it.

Do you remember that dumb circulating email about a defiant christian student putting the professor in his place about the existence of god?

Yeah, this is like that, only opposite in theme and reality: The student puts the Dr in place over his logicla fallacies and both the student and doctor are real in this case.

T
K
O
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Tue 10 Nov, 2009 01:52 pm
@Lightwizard,
Quote:
The night lighting there is part of the romance and it's a man made mood elevator without praying or taking a pill.


But it is praying. In fact it's a flippin' pilgramage. To a shrine dedicated to waste. And getting the kids into it as well. Shame on you. Associating in their little minds, so vulnerable as we know to the schemes of ******* adults, the useless consumption of fossil fuels with happy smiling faces and the Pavlovian ice-creams, candies and pop. Inside Disneyland the kids are unfree. Managed. Fucked up.

As an anti-IDer you should favour boozing and smoking and pills. They are man made, secular methods of mood enhancement which to a certain extent replace the religious ceremonials which seek the same effect. Uplift.

Which is one of the reasons Media is anti-religion. And it demonstrates just how mixed up you are on these matters.

I trust you are a global warming denier.



0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Tue 10 Nov, 2009 02:00 pm
@Diest TKO,
Odd how TK is practically jumping up and down with glee at the prospect of putting his tutors in their place. Education is posited on the usefulness of the elders teaching the kids and the respect in which they are held.

Very revealing TK. But you must realise that such attitudes rely on the tutors having little power. Have you not exercised your joys on the cops yet?
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Thu 12 Nov, 2009 07:15 am
Quote:
Scientists have always had it in for television. They think it’s all arty, arty, arty. Television is Gutenberg all over again. They come up with this marvellous invention, a printing press, and before you can say calculus, it’s running off Bibles and fairy tales. Scientists invent movies and radio and finally television, and do the men in white coats get a look-in? Of course not. The only boffins cast are mad and about to blow up the world, or there to give the hero a get-out-of-jail laser watch. Science on television has been left to Doctor Who and the annual children’s lecture from the Royal Institution. (Can we just take a moment to cringe in silence at the memory of the hysterical, hot-flush embarrassment that is the Royal Institution’s children’s lecture " the mega-enthusiasm of the scientists, with their pathetic experiments using a vacuum cleaner, a balloon, three pints of water and some bicarbonate of soda; and the audience made up entirely of children so nerdy they had to have bodyguards in the playground.) The only branches of science that do well on TV are zoology and paleontology, and they do very well indeed because they can be watched by toddlers.

Scientists never understand why the facts of life seem so much less engaging than the fiction of life. Art will always trump science because its primary purpose is to entertain and engage. But for science, that’s merely a by-product. We’ve just lived through a generation of writers, film-makers and artists who have tried to bring science in from the laboratory to marry it to art, but they have only really done it on art’s terms. Science is a plot device, a tension ratchet; we don’t care if its events are trimmed or rearranged, we don’t mind if it didn’t happen like that. The audience is never as interested in the facts as it is in the truth. But every so often science gets back into the ring and has another go at being arty. So last week, in the middle of the summer dead zone, we were offered The Cell. I watched with an open and inquisitive mind, yearning to be filled with the bright effervescence of pure science, and here was some chirpy Petri-dish-licker, waving his hands about before he’d gone half a sentence. I was getting severe flashbacks to the Royal Institution’s kiddy torture. He was way, way Tiggerish. There ought to be an enthusiasm button on the remote control so you can turn down the CBBC presenters. “I think the story of cells is the most exciting thing in the world,” he gushed. But we all knew it isn’t, really.

And here’s the problem with science on TV: scientists think it’s all a matter of presentation. They look at Jeremy Clarkson and say: “What’s he got that we haven’t? Punch lines and a glib facility. Now, if we had a glib facility instead of sounding like the automated ticket-booking line, we could make science just as interesting as driving in circles.” So we’re offered this young cheeky-chappie science bloke in a red shirt and a cheap suit, with his enthusiasm phaser on stun. He walked and he talked, he rode bikes, he ran upstairs and spun round and round, doing all that youth TV, perpetual-motion stuff, but he couldn’t escape from the central problem that the story of the cell is also the story of microscopes, and that looking down microscopes is not great telly. What you see is nothing compared with the screensaver you can get on your laptop.

He made the best of it, with his relentless keenness. The first sperm ever viewed through a microscope was, he assured us, not gathered in sinful solitude but after marital congress. “Not something I can claim for my own specimen,” he enthused with a jolly grin, waggling the jar at us. Okay, that’s way too much information. And then we had to look at his little wrigglers… Well, call me arty, but I think that’s just too intimate for a first episode. We’ve barely met, and already I am examining the man-fat tadpole. The story of cells actually is interesting, it’s simply not very exciting, and no amount of wishful thinking is going to make it so. The pop-explanatory delivery of fact actually detracts from the story. Science is never going to be Star Trek or James Bond. It shouldn’t be. The story of discovery and invention ought to leave us with different feelings from fiction. It is best served drier and quieter and duller. What it should be is engrossing. I think episode two will have to unfold breathlessly without me.


A.A. Gill. The Sunday Times.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Nov, 2009 09:38 am
@wandeljw,
wandeljw wrote:
I agree, spendius. The experts I quote appear unconcerned about cellular functioning and neurotic mental states. Let me say, however, I fully sympathize how this issue impacts you personally.

LMAO Smile Thanks Wand.
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Nov, 2009 09:54 am
Quote:
And On the Sixth Day, God Created Paleontologists
(By Linda Vaccariello, Cincinnati Magazine, November 2009 Issue)

THE 70 OR SO men and women gathered in the morning sun on the circular drive outside the University of Cincinnati’s Campus Recreation Center could be shooting a Teva commercial. Teva sandals have got to be the official footwear of America’s paleontologists, a group whose collective wardrobe also seems to favor sun hats and khaki in all its multifarious forms. The most colorful fashion statement is climbing up the calf of a pony-tailed young man in khaki shorts: a tattoo that looks kind of like a string of Christmas lights. On further inspection, it turns out to be a DNA helix, and inked in graceful letters below the design is one word: Evolve.

The crowd is here at UC for the 2009 North American Paleontological Convention. They’ve come to this quadrennial academic orgy of panel discussions and research presentations to listen as their colleagues hold forth on “Cenozoic Climatic Forcing on Algal Cell Size” and “The Role of Phenotypic Plasticity in the Interpretation of Stratophenetic Patterns in the Paleozoic.” They’ve also come, many of them, because Cincinnati"that is, southwest Ohio, southeast Indiana, and northern Kentucky"is a very big deal in their line of work. This is where American paleontology was born in 1807, when Thomas Jefferson dispatched frontiersman William Clark to collect mastodon bones at Big Bone Lick, teasing out the prehistoric treasures from the rolling land above the Ohio River. This is where riverbeds and road cuts offer easy access to fossils of critters"trilobites, crinoids, chain coral, brachiopods"that were part of the lively soup that formed a vast, shallow sea across our land some 450 million years ago. This is where those fossils are so abundant and so distinctive that the Upper Ordovician period in North America has come to be known as “the Cincinnatian.”

As it happens, this is also where an organization called Answers in Genesis has staked its claim. Since opening its doors in 2007, AIG’s Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, has made the case that Earth and its fossilized remains are substantially younger than these paleontologists would have you believe. So, the paleontologists assembled here today are passing up a chance to examine the strata of the famous “Cincinnati Arch” near Louisville or go fossil-hunting in some spectacular Indiana quarries"ordinarily hot tickets for the pick-ax and hardhat set"for a field trip to the museum. They are scientists, after all, trained to deal with factual evidence; they want to see it for themselves.

When the buses pull up, Arnold I. Miller, a professor of paleontology at UC, gathers the group together. For years, the genial 52-year-old Miller (Arnie to his colleagues, and it fits him) has been working on the gazillion details that go into the kind of conference that brings hundreds of big brains"and their research, PowerPoint presentations, and egos"to campus for a week. A day spent shepherding a small brigade of his colleagues to a museum wouldn’t seem to be especially daunting. Still, Miller is apprehensive. Motioning people close enough to hear, he explains the reason for the trip. “The only intention,” he says, “is to give you a chance to tour the museum and understand how paleontology is portrayed and to give you the opportunity to understand what Young Earth Creationism is. That’s fundamentally what we’re doing.”

There’s laughter"fundamentalism, get it?"and Miller seems to relax. But he wasn’t trying to make a joke. He wants his colleagues to get why this place has drawn more than 800,000 visitors since it opened; an in-the-flesh exposure to what the Creation Museum is teaching about science"and about scientists. He’s not taking his colleagues there so that they can laugh at it. He’s taking them so that they can’t dismiss it.

BACK IN 2005, as he and the organizing committee began to talk about what to include in the program, Miller realized the 2009 conference would have built-in import: It would coincide with the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species"the book that became the foundation of modern evolutionary theory"and the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth.

When I visited Miller in his office early in the summer, it was just days before conferees were to arrive and he was wrapping up last minute details. There were canvas swag bags to be stuffed with sample tubes of sun block (UV damage is an occupational hazard) and reusable drink cups (to keep attendees from discarding countless planet-clogging bottles), and he was tweaking the schedule for the umpteenth time because some attendees from China had cancelled, deterred by stories of North America’s H1N1 flu (so the update on “Sino-U.S. Cooperation on Critical Transitions in Earth History” would have to wait). Nonetheless, the slate of sessions, panel discussions, and presentations was impressive. More than 500 people from 26 countries were registered"luminaries such as Jack Horner of the Museum of the Rockies, who discovered the first dinosaur eggs in the Western Hemisphere, and Doug Erwin, a senior scientist and curator at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History"plus faculty from colleges and universities, researchers, exhibitors, and grad students. Miller had even been able to work out a visa and funding for a student from Madagascar. “A personal triumph,” he said. But despite his best efforts, politics had trumped science and several Iranian scholars were denied visas.

Science, of course, has never been immune to politics (ask anyone involved in stem cell research). But paleontologists are not generally known for being on the front lines of the kind of sociopolitical battles that fall under the general headline of “culture wars.” Perhaps that’s because the focus of their research are fossils that are hundreds of millions of years old. Maybe it’s easy to take the long view of things when your mind is occupied by the prehistoric, even when the here-and-now involves vocal fisticuffs over the validity of the very scientific theory your work is based on. For whatever reason, when it comes to the Evolution v. Creationism battle, “We tend to ignore the debate,” Miller told me. “Especially those of us on college campuses.” But the conference would include people who don’t ignore the debate. There would be a plenary session called “Evolution and Society,” with panelists like Ken Miller, the Brown University biologist who wrote Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul, and Eugenie Scott, director of the National Council for Science Education, whose efforts to keep evolution in the public school curriculum won her a place in Scientific American’s 10 notable leaders in 2009"a group that includes President Obama and Bill Gates.

You would not peg Arnie Miller as a debater. He has the kind of galvanizing enthusiasm about his subject that’s more about doing than arguing. But he believes that paleontologists should know what creationists are saying about science. Which is how the North American Paleontological Convention in “The Year of Darwin” came to include a trip to the Creation Museum.

“It would be a good thing if we weren’t so insulated,” Miller told me. Sure, there was some squeamishness about putting it on the program; there had been complaints that it would give the creationists publicity. But organizers had gone ahead with it anyhow. “It’s important for my colleagues to understand what Young Earth Creationism is,” he added. And not just the technical aspects of what the faithful believe. He wanted his scientific brethren to understand “the depth of the message.” Which is, fundamentally, this: The world is deep in sin. And those men and women slathered in sunscreen, chipping away at rocks in quarries, and throwing around terms like “Middle Triassic” and “Late Devonian”"those people? They’re part of the problem.

A PETTING ZOO?” Gwen Daley, an assistant professor of geology at Winthrop University in Rock Hill, South Carolina, notes cheerfully as the bus makes the turn into the drive of the Creation Museum. “I love this place already!”

There are a few chuckles, but it’s obvious that some of the travelers are a bit surprised at what’s before them: Landscaping that rivals Eden itself; a huge parking lot filling up faster than Walmart on Black Friday; security guards directing traffic; and families queuing in front of a huge, sleek, handsome institution that might have been at home in any major city but is, in fact, tucked on a rural road in Kentucky.

Bonnie, a museum employee, greets the group outside the soaring portico and tells them about the day’s special events and “awesome speakers,” including, according to the printed schedule, Bodie Hodge, a mechanical engineer, who will talk about “Dinosaurs, Dragons, and the Bible.” Then she sends the paleontologists off with a cheerful, “God bless you guys!” and they are left to explore on their own.

Or as on-their-own as is possible, given that they’re being dogged by multiple members of the media. In addition to local press and broadcasters, The New York Times has sent science writer Kenneth Chang, and reporters from the Associated Press and the AFP"an international wire service"are on the story. Miller and his organizers might have been a touch tentative about including this trip in the schedule, but the university wasn’t shy about publicizing it. And the museum itself has been masterful at getting exposure. Its opening in 2007 was covered by everyone from The Washington Post to the New Zealand Herald, and Time dubbed it one of the 10 biggest religion stories of the year. So bands of roving reporters and photographers are nothing new here. But for all the media presence, the paleontologists are quickly swallowed up in the tide of families, senior citizens, and fresh-faced Christian teens also looking to get schooled, Young Earther"style. In fact, at first the paleontologists are only distinguished from the rest of the crowd by their conference nametags and the details they pause to study. Near the entrance, an animatronic girl with a • CONTINUED ON PAGE 125 dinosaur (Young Earth creationism teaches that dinosaurs and humans coexisted) gets little more than a smirk from most of them. But Ron Parsley, a professor in Tulane University’s School of Science and Engineering, hovers with interest over a fossil display case that the museum’s non-academic visitors seem to give short shrift. “That’s a pretty good crinoid,” he says with sincere admiration.

The areas of the museum are set up to take visitors through the “Seven Cs in God’s Eternal Plan”"Creation, Corruption, Catastrophe, Confusion, Christ, the Cross, and Consummation. But the trip is more lively than the ecclesiastical language would suggest. It starts in the Grand Canyon"or at least in a display area with a sign that, stylistically, is a dead ringer for the National Park Service’s lettering. The museum takes up the question of how the canyon was formed, noting that science says it was shaped by eons of erosion. But the display suggests a more rapid scenario, pointing out that when Mt. St. Helens erupted in 1980, canyons were formed virtually overnight.

Here, too, is the “Joe and Ken” video: actors portraying two scientists on a dig, rooting out dinosaur bones. “Where Ken sees millions of years,” says Joe, “I see a different story.” The story Joe sees"and the story that the museum is built to tell"is that the bones Joe and Ken are studying were buried in a flood 4,300 years ago, a catastrophic event on a planet that was little more than a thousand years old at the time; a God-created disaster that laid waste to living things and deposited the entire fossil record in one fell swoop, like icing on a cake. “We all know the same facts,” Joe says. “We just interpret the facts differently because of our different starting points.” The starting point for Joe being, of course, Genesis.

There’s an easy live-and-let-live quality about the way that Joe explains this disparity, as if different interpretations of the age of Earth (evolutionary science estimates 4.5 billion years while the Creation Museum puts it closer to 6,000 years) and the origins of fossil evidence are minor disagreements among inquisitive minds. Perhaps this is because AIG regards the age of Earth as subordinate to a larger concern. “I want to make it very clear that we don’t want to be known primarily as ‘young-Earth creationists,’” AIG president Ken Ham wrote in a newsletter back in 1998. “Believing in a relatively ‘young Earth’...is a consequence of accepting the authority of the Word of God as an infallible revelation from our omniscient Creator.” What Ken and Joe represent is trumpeted in the next display: “Human Reason versus God’s Word.”

One visitor from the conference quickly sums up the gist of the message: “Reason is evil.” Then she moves on. But it’s not so easy for Peter Dodson to shrug off. Dodson’s a vertebrate paleontologist"“a dinosaur guy,” he says"at the University of Pennsylvania. He’s also a Christian and, even setting aside science, this message stings. “Human reason versus God’s word"as if those are incompatible,” he says with frustration. “In Christianity, reason is highly prized. It’s amazing that people think they’re praising God by being ignorant.”

Dodson came here because he knew about the Creation Museum and he wanted to see it for himself. “It’s field work,” he quips. His reaction is similar to many of his colleagues: the scientific information presented is pretty much what he expected, ranging from misleading to downright inaccurate. The surprise is the presentation. “They did a nice job,” he says.

It’s not pejorative to describe the Creation Museum as slick. It should be slick; the two-year-old, $27 million museum has incorporated the latest technology and exhibit design ideas. And nearly everything has a way of engaging children.

I observe this first-hand in the “Walk Through Biblical History,” a dramatic, temple-like corridor where a mother is intent on steering a couple of tow-headed boys through the crowd. But the youngest is transfixed by the life-like figures that line the hall and determined to get his full measure of spiritual enlightenment.

“Who’s that guy,” he demands as his mom tugs him past a silver-bearded figure clutching a scroll.

“Isaiah.”

“Who’s him?”

“Moses.”

“Who’s that one?”

“King David.”

“Where’s Indiana Jones?”

ANYONE WITH EVEN a passing exposure to Christian theology understands that there are a lot of different attitudes toward evolution among the faithful; what’s less obvious is why it’s such a litmus test for some. An obvious answer"the Inherit the Wind/Scopes Monkey Trial answer"is: Because the Bible says that God created man in His own image. So, some say, to accept Darwin’s theory of evolution is to discard something very basic and profound about the nature of man and about mankind’s unique place in God’s creation.

But at the Creation Museum, the answer is more basic still, and it’s found at the end of a dark, graffiti-scarred alley that leads to a world where the Bible’s word has been abandoned. There’s a video of a teen worrying over a pregnancy test; another of boys looking at on-line porn; a third of parents listening to a “liberal” sermon while their son, sitting in the pew next to them, fiddles with a cell phone. And at the center of it all is the destructive force that has brought all these woes to modern life, symbolized in the form of a huge wrecking ball slamming into the side of a church. A label on the ball says “millions of years.”

This, Arnie Miller has told me, was the real sticking point for him the first time he visited the museum; this is the “depth of the message” that he wants his colleagues to understand. “The idea that if you accept the view of evolution, you’re undermining the church,” he says. “That’s the one part of the museum that truly offends me: that we are evil.”

That’s not the point at all, says Terry Mortenson, a researcher and speaker at the Creation Museum, when I talk with him after the paleontologists’ visit. “The evolutionists who say that are not being very observant,” he insists. According to Mortenson, the push to accept evolution and the “old earth” notion that it depends on was first promulgated in the late 19th century by those with an anti-church worldview. The museum explains this history in a display that precedes the wrecking ball"an exhibit that includes an exploration of the evangelical movement in the U.S. and the Scopes trial. That century-old fight “was a worldview conflict,” he says, not a battle between science and the church. So...the wrecking ball? “Once the church accepted the ‘millions of years’ idea, it destroyed the authority of the Bible,” he explains. “It’s not an issue of people against people; it’s about ideas.” And the idea of evolution, Mortenson says, is “philosophy masquerading as science.”

The paleontologists have been the largest group of scientists to visit, as far as Mortenson is aware. Purdue University once brought a contingent of grad students, and researchers from M.I.T. came to do a survey of visitors"a project that was done with the museum’s blessing and cooperation. Otherwise, when scientists have come, they’ve done so on their own, as individuals. Mortenson knows that some have taken the museum’s message personally. “Some have said to me, ‘You’re demonizing science,’” he relates.

Not so, says Mortenson. If you’re really paying attention, it is sin that’s getting the blame: “[It’s] human rebellion against the Creator that has produced all the evil.” Those who say otherwise, he adds, “are driven by an anti-Biblical agenda.”

BUT BEFORE SIN there was paradise"and in the exhibit called “God Plants a Garden,” visitors come to know what was lost because of humankind’s cosmic disobedience. The Creation Museum’s Eden is a place of miracles, where maple trees and tropical plants thrive together in the same soil and climate; where lambs, apes, and bighorn sheep graze together with dinosaurs; where there is no death and all living things are vegetarian. And where Adam’s beard is trimmed and Eve’s hair tumbles over her nubile nakedness with enough modesty that even the young Mennonite mother in front of me is not embarrassed. In less talented hands, sculpted museum figures can look like re-purposed department store dummies. These are done with real artistry. Of course, it’s paradise, and paradise inspires perfection.

But it can’t last. God’s word is questioned and evil arrives, ushering in snakes with venom and the pain of childbirth. After the fall of Adam and Eve, there’s disease, meat-eating, aging, and death. When we leave the First Couple, Adam is laboring, Eve is pregnant, and everyone looks worse for wear. One thread running throughout the museum is its creators’ efforts to anticipate and answer the questions of Doubting Thomases. Nowhere is that clearer than the ark room, replete with construction details regarding Noah’s ship, including the use of trunnels (tree nails) to join the huge timbers and a description of the Greek method of shaping a hull from edge-joined planking.

The interior storage for Noah’s animal cargo, depicted in a miniature diorama, is more speculative, since it’s hard to grasp in miniature an ark large enough to hold two of every living thing, including"yes"dinosaurs. But like the flood itself (demonstrated on a video that’s available for purchase in the museum’s bookstore), Noah’s rescue of dinosaurs is presented as a fait accompli.

By positing that dinosaurs existed alongside Adam and Eve, the museum has found what you might call a Jurassic perk: kids love dinosaurs, and parents love to think that their kids are learning science when they’re being entertained by dinosaurs. Dino exhibits have been blockbuster attractions for conventional museums for years, and Answers in Genesis has embraced the giant lizards, too, by simply moving the Dawn of Dinosaurs from science’s accepted date of 230 million years ago to coincide with the dawn of everything else in the Young Earth cosmogony. You see dinosaur images on everything connected to the Creation Museum: on highway billboards, at the entrance, throughout the museum, and on the T-shirts, games, and books in the gift shop. Even Jesus doesn’t get that kind of billing.

Which bothers Mark Terry, when I catch up to him at the “Dinosaur Den” display. Terry’s one of the conference speakers, a secondary school science instructor who co-founded the private Northwest School in Seattle two decades ago. He has just come out of a viewing of The Last Adam"the museum’s film about Jesus. “Why not that as the core” of the museum’s message, he says pointedly.

He allows that the museum has some “beautiful bones,” but what the museum has done with its resources is bad science. And, he adds, “I think it’s horrible theology.”

Looking over the exhibits in the Dinosaur Den, we learn that the flood killed all the dinosaurs except for the ones on Noah’s ark. “But their days were numbered,” the signage explains ominously. What happened? Here, the museum makes a rare admission of uncertainty. But it does present a tantalizing possibility: “Dragons could have been dinosaurs,” the sign says.

That’s right. Evolution is only a theory. But God’s Truth is supported by...dragons.

“I’VE HEARD IT all before,” says Winthrop University’s Gwen Daley as we eat lunch in one of the museum’s outdoor picnic pavilions. She’s dismayed by the museum’s message. “But it was very well funded,” she admits.

“It’s so beautiful,” says Patricia Princehouse, a faculty member at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, looking across the lovely hillside gardens. “It’s insidious, really. It seems criminal to lead kids into a situation where they have to choose between science and God.” Princehouse, a Dayton native and Harvard PhD, helped found the lobbying group Ohio Citizens for Science and she’s involved in efforts to make sure that evolution continues to be taught in schools. Like a number of the conference attendees that I’ve talked to, she offers me her own faith perspective. “In the Catholic tradition,” she says, “you know God through His word and His works. This [Young Earth creationism] discounts His works.”

Just when I’m beginning to think that paleontology is like a foxhole (i.e. according to the battlefield canard, there are no atheists there), I catch up with Jason Rosenhouse. Actually, Rosenhouse isn’t a paleontologist; he’s a math prof at James Madison University in Virginia. But he’s a vocal opponent of the teaching of creationism and intelligent design and is a contributor to an evolution blog called “The Panda’s Thumb.” He’s also an atheist.

A couple of years ago, when he was first learning all that he could about creationists and creationism, he sat in on a speech given by Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis. Afterward, he cornered Ham in a hallway and, “I was telling him why everything he was saying was wrong,” Rosenhouse explains. “He said I was very arrogant. And I said, ‘No, arrogant is standing in front of an audience and pretending you know anything about science.’”

But, Rosenhouse admits, he was arrogant back then. These days, he has a more wry attitude toward the object of his, well, objections. This is his fourth visit to the Creation Museum, he announces pleasantly"a frequency that suggests that, in his own way, Rosenhouse is fascinated.

Arnie Miller had told me earlier that his hope for the day was that his colleagues would be struck by the sheer number of people at the museum. He wanted them to grasp the fact that people from all over"not just Kentuckians, not just Midwesterners, not just families in minivans"do come and do believe. And as his group of fellow paleontologists wait for the buses to arrive for the return trip to campus, he takes a walk around the parking lot and counts the number of different state license plates. “Thirty-five on one summer day,” he says.

Miller hopes the visit will help others understand, as he says, “the power of the message, how well it’s being presented, and how many people are responding.” He’d like to motivate his colleagues to get involved when issues such as intelligent design come up in secondary schools. “And,” he says, “I’d like them to think about how to convey our message in a way that’s not condescending, not overbearing, not alienating.”

It’s an approach that Rosenhouse seems to have embraced. Waiting for the bus at the end of the visit, I mention to Rosenhouse and the National Council for Science Education’s Eugenie Scott that I saw him in one exhibit room patiently discussing something"fruit fly evolution?"with a couple of older teens. It looked to me like the teens were itching for a debate. Rosenhouse explains that an Associated Press reporter had been interviewing him about the museum’s “misleading claims,” the teens overheard the conversation, and came over to question him. They weren’t being confrontational, he says. “It was all very polite.”

“Did you make any headway?” asks Scott as our bus wheezes to a stop.

“Not a dent,” he says.
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Thu 12 Nov, 2009 12:05 pm
@wandeljw,
Linda can write a bit. A pleasant change.

Even scientists love theme parks. Sufficient it seems to lend a hand at publicising them. Still--it's a day out.

It makes you wonder whether these people who say that the economy is tanking know what they are talking about.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Nov, 2009 12:27 pm
It looks to me like there are a lot of people out of work who have plenty of ready cash back-up, didn't attack their investments in panic and are going to Disneyland -- it's jam packed especially after summer vacation season. Of course, I didn't interview anyone, so I don't know how many in the crowd were scientists. Perhaps it those who as for the formula of an entree at the Blue Bayou (it's alongside the boat channel entry to Pirates).

With these theme parks going up with Creationism as a theme, can anyone imagine a Darwin World or Three Flags Evolution Mountain? Yikes!
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Nov, 2009 12:37 pm


From Rutgers University Press:

Why Evolution Works (and Creationism Fails)

Why Evolution Works (and Creationism Fails)

Price: $21.95

Authors: Matt Young and Paul K Strode
Subject: Science
Paper ISBN: 978-0-8135-4550-9
Cloth ISBN: 978-0-8135-4549-3
Pages: 224 pages
Publication Date: June 2009

Praise for Why Evolution Works (and Creationism Fails)

"Why Evolution Works (and Creationism Fails) delivers on the promise of its title. Deploying a host of fascinating examples, Young and Strode provide a lucid and lively introduction to the successes of evolution and the failures of creationism." "Glenn Branch, National Center for Science Education

"Of similar books I have seen on this subject, this one is the best. Its discussions of evolution and refutation of creationism are clear, concise, and powerful. Matt Young and Paul Strode offer a unique, introductory-level book for students, scientists, or anyone who is open to thinking about the topic.""Alan D. Gishlick, Gustavus Adolphus College

“In this superb overview, Young and Strode tackle the most vexing issues in the public’s understanding of biological evolution and earth history. With clear, readable text, Young and Strode detail requisite concepts while providing a conversational response to creationists’ objections to evolution, which are frequently based on profound misunderstandings of how science works. Young and Strode provide a thorough explanation of the concept of biological fitness, showing that evolution, hardly random, is a process of interaction between organisms and the environment. They also take a good look at creationism, using the publications of prominent believers to show that it’s a movement divided against itself. Much of this work developed from Strode’s teaching experience, and it may be the best book yet written for teaching citizens what science really does, and what religion really is in relation.""Publishers Weekly, starred review

Description:

Why Evolution Works (and Creationism Fails) is an impassioned argument in favor of science"primarily the theory of evolution"and against creationism. Why impassioned? Should not scientists be dispassionate in their work? “Perhaps,” write the authors, “but it is impossible to remain neutral when our most successful scientific theories are under attack, for religious and other reasons, by laypeople and even some scientists who willfully distort scientific findings and use them for their own purposes.”

Focusing on what other books omit, how science works and how pseudoscience works, Matt Young and Paul K. Strode demonstrate the futility of “scientific” creationism. They debunk the notion of intelligent design and other arguments that show evolution could not have produced life in its present form.

Concluding with a frank discussion of science and religion, Why Evolution Works (and Creationism Fails) argues that science by no means excludes religion, though it ought tocast doubt on certain religious claims that are contrary to known scientific fact.

Link: http://rutgerspress.rutgers.edu/acatalog/Why_Evolution_Works.html?gclid=CJ3IsLaLhp4CFQgtawodDQUUqQ

Why Intelligent Design Fails

Subtitle: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism

Author: Matt Young, Taner Edis
Subject: Science/Evolution
Paper ISBN 0-8135-3872-6
Cloth ISBN 0-8135-3433-X
Pages: 240, 256 pp. figures and tables

Praise for Why Intelligent Design Fails

"This book is a readable and devastating scientific analysis of intelligent design creationism. . . . Unlike ID's proponents, these authors have done the real science that deflates the claims of intelligent design. Their work deserves the respect of everyone with a say in what is taught in public school science classes."--Barbara Forrest, co-author of Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design

"A terrific book that explores, fairly and openly, whether proponents of ID have any scientifically valid gadgets in their toolbox at all . . . Accessibly written throughout and an invaluable aid to teachers and scientists."--Kevin Padian, professor and curator, University of California, Berkeley, and president, National Center for Science Education

Description:

Is Darwinian evolution established fact, or a dogma ready to be overtaken by "intelligent design"? This is the debate raging in courtrooms and classrooms across the country.

Why Intelligent Design Fails assembles a team of physicists, biologists, computer scientists, mathematicians, and archaeologists to examine intelligent design from a scientific perspective. They consistently find grandiose claims without merit.

Contributors take intelligent design's two most famous claims--irreducible complexity and information-based arguments--and show that neither challenges Darwinian evolution. They also discuss thermodynamics and self-organization; the ways human design is actually identified in fields such as forensic archaeology; how research in machine intelligence indicates that intelligence itself is the product of chance and necessity; and cosmological fine-tuning arguments.

Intelligent design turns out to be a scientific mistake, but a mistake whose details highlight the amazing power of Darwinian thinking and the wonders of a complex world without design.

About the Author:

Matt Young is senior lecturer at the Colorado School of Mines and a former physicist with the National Institute of Standards and Technology. He is the author of No Sense of Obligation: Science and Religion in an Impersonal Universe and two other books. Taner Edis is an associate professor of physics at Truman State University in Kirksville, Missouri, and the author of The Ghost in the Universe: God in Light of Modern Science.

Link: http://rutgerspress.rutgers.edu/acatalog/____1147.html
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 06/17/2025 at 10:05:04