Challenged by Creationists, Museums Answer Back

The New York Times ^ | 9/20/2005 | CORNELIA DEAN

[Right Wing Professor]

ITHACA, N.Y. - Lenore Durkee, a retired biology professor, was volunteering as a docent at the Museum of the Earth here when she was confronted by a group of seven or eight people, creationists eager to challenge the museum exhibitions on evolution.

They peppered Dr. Durkee with questions about everything from techniques for dating fossils to the second law of thermodynamics, their queries coming so thick and fast that she found it hard to reply.

After about 45 minutes, "I told them I needed to take a break," she recalled. "My mouth was dry."

That encounter and others like it provided the impetus for a training session here in August. Dr. Durkee and scores of other volunteers and staff members from the museum and elsewhere crowded into a meeting room to hear advice from the museum director, Warren D. Allmon, on ways to deal with visitors who reject settled precepts of science on religious grounds.

[ohioWfan]

Sigh..............you don't know that these were 'hecklers.' You are assuming they are because of your personal bias.

If I find out that they were indeed being rude, then I will agree with you. But there is no evidence to support that claim...........only a leftist newspaper article presenting one side of the story.

I believe I am on-topic as well. Was there a reason you felt a need to defend yourself on that?

[general_re]

The origins of life are explained by basic Freshman Chemistry.

Your questions thus far are answered by basic freshman chemistry. For the origin of life, you may find it worthwhile to advance beyond that.

Ask your biology teacher if he agrees with your above statement.

I don't have a biology teacher - I finished school some time ago. Regardless, do you imagine that that statement you quote was intended as a denial of evolution?

[ohioWfan]

Already conceded this point.

Good to see you too. :)

[Quark2005]

Ghostbusters - a true classic of comedy

[sheltonmac]

When creationists disrupted the math classes I was teaching, they denied the other students the class time they were entitled to. Creationists, liberals, etc. ara just parts of the same mob

A disruptor is a disruptor. Personally, I would include any person who believes he has a right to my tax dollars for the propagation of beliefs with which I disagree (and even those with which I agree). Utilizing the force of government to that end is more disruptive than virtually anything else I can think of.

[From many - one.]

Wrong.

The docent simply explains the exhibits and answers questions pertaining to the exhibit; the college presentation explains a general subject and answers questions pertaining to to that.

[AmishDude]

Nancy Hopkins, professor of molecular biology.

[From many - one.]

Your patience does you credit. I suspect I would have strongly invited him to leave the tour if it offended him.

[general_re]

Okay, so scientists get to decide who qualifies as a scientist, and those scientists get to decide what qualifies as science. Why does that make them entitled to my tax dollars?

"B" is not a result of "A". "B" is basically a non-sequitur in the context of "A", actually.

[From many - one.]

Nice.

[Question_Assumptions]

That would be because ID advocates never say what it is they believe. I have been asking for over a month for an ID advocate to spell out what they would teach if they were in charge of schools.

I would have schools teach evolution as the current "best guess" of scientists but point out that (A) evolution does not necessarily preclude a role for divine intervention in the creation or development of life and (B) that evolutionary theory cannot always explain how things developed but assumes that it did. A good overview of what "theory" means, the scientific method, and how science works would also be a good subject for this class.

Saying there are gaps in scientific explanations is almost a tautaulogy. It's a pretty short lesson plan.

It's a reality that many students are not exposed to. I would say that at least one class should be spent on how science works. Intelligent Design and the possible role of religious creation theories in the creation or development of life should be part of that class.

And it doesn't suggest any research that isn't already being done. Filling gaps in knowledge is what science does.

Actually, it does. It suggests looking at living organisms for irreducible complexity and and trying to explain the evolution of specific biological systems and features rather than to simply assume that it happened. Even if such research didn't ultimately solve the issue, it would help further our understanding of how things work and relate to each other.

Design is a given. Natural selection is the designing agent. If you have a better candidate for the designer, please describe the characteristics of the designer.

The characteristics of the designer is pretty basic -- intelligence and planning. This is pretty integral to most of the analogies used by creationists including the watch and the turtle on a fence post. It doesn't need to get any more religious than that. Really.

What are the design objectives, the methods and processes by which new species are created?

The design objectives are the current life forms on Earth or possibly some future life form that doesn't exist yet. The methods and processes don't have to be known or even speculated on and could range from constant divine manipulation by an extra-dimensional entity that can observe and manipulate our universe to a planning and unfolding model where the entire universe was created to snap into a particular shape when it was done, in which case it would be indistinguishable from the scientific theory.

What's the point of mentioning it, then? Because it makes it clear to children that science and God are not necessarily incompatible. The whole reason why this is so controversial is that a lot of supporters of evolution take their argument a step further and argue that evolution disproves God or any divine agency. As such, science becomes the enemy of religion at a dogmatic level. If evolutionists could bear to allow the possibility of the hand of God in life on Earth, which is all ID really does, they could stop tying evolution to being anti-religious.

There was a classic Bloom County cartoon where Oliver talks about how the Big Bang started it all. Opus asks him, "So what existed before the Big Bang?" Oliver replies, "Yes, sir, a really Big Bang!" because that question can be answered. At that point, is it any more or less valid to see God's hand there than "no God"?

What kinds of evidence should we be looking for that would not be expected by or consistent with natural selection?

See above. Science should also engage the idea of probability and stop assuming that possibility == probability or certainty.

[MineralMan]

"Your patience does you credit. I suspect I would have strongly invited him to leave the tour if it offended him."

---

Nah. The docent's job, for no pay, is to lead the tourists around the facility and provide whatever explanations suit the occasion. Every docent I've ever known deals with idiots and their abusive or stupid comments on a regular basis. You just let them spew their ignorance and continue on. I love docents...they're amazing folks. I couldn't do it for long, I'm afraid, and didn't.

[DK Zimmerman]

Well, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it certainy appears that you don't want to teach folks (children or adults) anything until they can understand everything? So we begin public education (and allowing free access to animated "science") at what, 21 years of age?

I hope that's an incorrect read. But it leaves me puzzling over, what is your answer, if not the above?

[From many - one.]

Scientists also publish the "Journal of Irreproducible Results"

[MineralMan]

Thanks!

[Quark2005]

How exactly do creationists get their money's worth from publicly funded museums that only present one-sided explanations to their exhibits?

This seems to me to be equivalent to asking, "How do UFO enthusiasts get their money's worth from a visit to the publicly funded Smithsonian Air & Space Museum that refuse to acknowledge the existence of their theory"?

I agree with you that public funding does seem to be the crux of the problem, though.

[kpp_kpp]

what i find most humorous about this entire thread is that the article under discussion comes from the NYTimes. if it were a different topic and being discussed here (fr) it would be a given to question the information presented in the article as facts, just because of where it comes from.

but not so if it is an evo artical that makes creationists look a bit foolish... it must be true.

standard journalism goes out the window, the article presents no information on specific questions that were asked or who these people were, or if it may have been one large family, etc.

i'm not defending them AT ALL. i just find the whole "acceptance as fact" regardless of the still poor journalism of the NYTimes humorous.

[From many - one.]

Thanks.

I've been working on formulating this since I started posting on these threads. Insights welcome.

[From many - one.]

You know that's not an accurate representation of my post.

If you don't understand the exhibit ask the docent what it means.

If you don't agree with the exhibit ask the curator to deal with it.

If you don't like my post, don't misquote it; challenge it as it stands.

[Right Wing Professor]

Nancy Hopkins, professor of molecular biology.

...at MIT, not Harvard.