Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Challenged by Creationists, Museums Answer Back
The New York Times ^ | 9/20/2005 | CORNELIA DEAN

Posted on 09/20/2005 7:02:45 AM PDT by 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.

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; US: Colorado; US: Nebraska; US: New York; US: North Carolina
KEYWORDS: creationuts; crevolist; crevorepublic; enoughalready; evobots; evonuts; museum
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 1,261-1,272 next last
To: Mark Felton
Evolutionists have no idea why inert molecules should ever feel "compelled" to reproduce at all. Why bother consuming energy to create copies of a string of molecules? What is the force that 'forces" this to happen?

Self-replicating molecules are fairly easy to produce. It's just basic chemistry.

61 posted on 09/20/2005 7:42:20 AM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: kpp_kpp

Then answer my original question - when do evolutionists MOB places where creationism is taught?


62 posted on 09/20/2005 7:43:26 AM PDT by DGray (http://nicanfhilidh.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: cryptical
Please, liberalism methods do not work on me. Funny I do not hear the civilized evolutionists have the same sort of reaction to the PETA crowd, the environmental wackouts, or the global warming fear mongers, when they mob, burn and destroy.
63 posted on 09/20/2005 7:43:54 AM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

I have a feeling they sought out this museum to harangue the staff. Every museum has its share of kook-visitors, pains in the asses who show up to complain about such things as idolatrous Catholic iconography, too many nudes, modern art, too many paintings by men, not enough art by women, art that is sexist, art that is homophobic, too much Eurocentric art, idolatrous Buddhist art.....ad nauseam


64 posted on 09/20/2005 7:44:23 AM PDT by macamadamia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan
... just pointing out that scientist are people and they have their dogmas ...

Why is it that when you want to insult someone you call them religious?

Or are you praising them for having faith. I can never get straight whether faith is a good thing or a bad thing.

65 posted on 09/20/2005 7:45:49 AM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
I have not accomplished your stature, my mind has not developed the ability to wall off the Creator from His creation.

Argh. I've seen this debate so many times, and it amazes me that the fundies cannot accept that some people - MANY people - believe that evolution is the process that the Creator used to create. Belief in evolution does not equate atheism. What is it about this that is so difficult to understand? You don't have to agree with it. Why can't you accept that it's what many people believe?

66 posted on 09/20/2005 7:46:34 AM PDT by DGray (http://nicanfhilidh.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan

Good argument, but I still say God created the Heavens and the Earth.


67 posted on 09/20/2005 7:46:33 AM PDT by shekkian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Mark Felton
Every hypothesis and theory is an act of faith.

Bzzzt! Wrong! "Faith" is believing in the unseen and unexperienced. Science accumulates data on the observable and testable.

Furthermore, the more science has advanced the more it has validated the Bible.

Your opinion, which you are indeed entitled to.

The next major advance in science was by Einstein who himself believes God must be behind everything. The greatest mind in quantum electro-dynamics, Feynman, also believed God must be behind physics because he could not believe how certain universal constants came to exist without Him.

One must define one's terms. Einstein was deliberately vague on his religious beliefs, as is Stephen Hawking. With regard to Sir Isaac Newton, one must consider the times in which he lived. So, did/do these men define "God" as a discreet celestial entity, or perhaps something altogether different? Go ahead and crawl into their minds. I'll wait for your answer.

68 posted on 09/20/2005 7:46:42 AM PDT by Aracelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Mark Felton
Every hypothesis and theory is an act of faith.

I feel a nasty wet feeling on my scalp. I hpothesize a seagull is flying overhead. Hey presto, a new religion is born.

Cosmology is in total disarray since the latest scientific dogma about the expanding universe has been totally destroyed by learning that galaxies are accelrating away from each other, not the reverse as the dogmatic science of our high school textbooks had previously taught us

Huh?

The expansion of the universe had been taught pretty much since Hubble. Could the problem be that you weren't paying attention to what they taught you?

The next major advance in science was by Einstein who himself believes God must be behind everything

Einstein specifically denied believing in a personal god. You're quote mining.

The greatest mind in quantum electro-dynamics, Feynman, also believed God must be behind physics because he could not believe how certain universal constants came to exist without Him.

The second lecture opens with an attack on religious fundamentalism, the root of so much evil over the ages. Feynman distinguishes between three levels of religious belief: metaphysical, which he dismisses because of the "incontestable certainty" that characterizes it; moral and ethical, which he perceives as important and having no scientific alternative, but like science, also in need of a concrete basis founded on ad hoc logic; and inspirational.. On the one hand, he says, science cannot rule out the existence of God; on the other, most men of science do not believe in Divine Providence as their eyes open to the enormous dimensions of the universe and the puny role that man - and perhaps life as a whole - plays in it

69 posted on 09/20/2005 7:47:27 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor (Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory - John Marburger, science advisor to George W. Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: macamadamia

"I have a feeling they sought out this museum to harangue the staff."

Yah think? I'm always amused by such behavior. There they are in a museum, surrounded by evidence of evolution, and they are haranguing some volunteer docent about creationism.

Surely there is a better, more scholarly, way to debate creationism v. evolution. I guess these folks haven't found that way, so they make fools of themselves.


70 posted on 09/20/2005 7:47:42 AM PDT by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
Please, liberalism methods do not work on me. Funny I do not hear the civilized evolutionists have the same sort of reaction to the PETA crowd, the environmental wackouts, or the global warming fear mongers, when they mob, burn and destroy.

You are so far removed from reality that it's frightening.

71 posted on 09/20/2005 7:47:51 AM PDT by DGray (http://nicanfhilidh.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: DGray

trample = discuss, question, challenge, refute

and vice versa


72 posted on 09/20/2005 7:48:05 AM PDT by kpp_kpp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: wallcrawlr
"Do students have a right to hear all the scientific evidence in a science class...?

There, fixed.

73 posted on 09/20/2005 7:48:57 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: shekkian

"Good argument, but I still say God created the Heavens and the Earth."

No problem. The Theory of Evolution says nothing about either subject. You'd have to go visit the cosmologists about that topic. Evolution scientists only address speciation. Cosmology isn't their thing.

It's a common mistake.


74 posted on 09/20/2005 7:49:20 AM PDT by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Aracelis
Religion is taught as dogma.

Not always true. I've also seen it taught as observation, evidence, and testing of hypotheses.

Science relies on observation, evidence, and testing of hypotheses. A very clear distinction.

It also relies on a lot of speculation and there are uncertainties and controversies that often never get mention in the mainstream media that cloud the line between knowing and speculating. I've watched more than a few shows on the various cable documentary channels that show recreations of dinosaurs and other creatures using impressive computer graphics that give the impression that we know everything about these animals. In reality, the entire reconstruction is based on a few bone fragments that someone could hold in one hand and a whole lot of speculation about not only how the animal looked but how it behaved. In fact, science is built on even more fundamental yet unproven assumptions (e.g., the repeatability of experiments) that can encourage a researcher to ignore evidence that points in a direction that's different from the conventional wisdom on a matter that's considered settled.

In theory, science is about observation, evidence, and testing of hypotheses. Fair enough. But in practice, there is a whole lot of speculation, guessing, assumptions, and, well, dogma. And there are plenty of scientists who shift from testing their hypotheses to advocating them and it's unfortunately not uncommon to find scientists who should know better building arguments on logical fallacies because they've shifted from testing their hypotheses to defending their hypotheses in much the same way that they complain the creationists do.

75 posted on 09/20/2005 7:49:24 AM PDT by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan
The problem is not Genesis. It is the pre-conceived agenda people read into the Bible to reach YEC and other stuff that is simply NOT IN THE BIBLE.

I agree, with the reservation that much of what we have today in Scripture concerning Creation is allegory.

76 posted on 09/20/2005 7:50:08 AM PDT by Aracelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: DGray

CHRIST!!!!!! He cannot be the PEFECT flesh if the story of evolution is.


77 posted on 09/20/2005 7:50:11 AM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
..... 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."

Am I the only one who sees this behavior for what it is? This is a group of people intentionally entering a museum for the purpose of disrupting the presentation of scientific information that the disruptors find offensive. They aren't there to learn anything, and they surely aren't there to change the mind of the retired biologist.

What these cretins are doing is tantamount to a biology professor walking into the disruptor's church and tossing a turd in the Holy Water.

The proper response to these people is to throw them out of the museum, and arrest them for trespassing if they return. If they want to preach their insane version of science, let them build their own museum.... or better still, let them spew it in their church, from whence this abomination of science came.

78 posted on 09/20/2005 7:51:35 AM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DGray; kpp_kpp
when do evolutionists MOB places where creationism is taught?

I don't know a whole lot of creationists, but we had Michael Behe come to my college and speak on intelligent design. A whole bunch of evolutionists showed up and asked him questions -- behavior you obviously consider MOBBING.

79 posted on 09/20/2005 7:52:44 AM PDT by JohnnyZ (I'm marrying a woman before they make gay marriage mandatory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac
Surely even the evolutionists on this forum can agree that this is a waste of our tax dollars. If anything, we should all be against the evolution of big government.

Unless you're a libertarian who does not believe in any government role beyond law enforcement and the military, everyone agrees that education is a legitimate role of government. Public education is supposed to help ensure all the voting citizens out there are well-informed and have a proper understanding of our system of government. It is also important that the public has a good understanding of basic science, since so many issues today involve scientific matters. (E.g., nuclear power; stem-cell research.) So it is only reasonable that science museums, which play a significant role in educating the public, should be supported by the NSF (whose mission is to support scientific research as well as science education).

The NSF and the large government role in scientific research and education are an outgrowth of WWII. In WWII we discovered how tremendously important science was to our national security (in the Manhattan Project, the B-29 project, and cryptanalysis). After WWII, Vannevar Bush wrote a famous report, "Science: The Endless Frontier" that predicted the modern world we now live in, and outlined the role of government to get there. On October 4, 1957, Sputnik reinforced the importance of the United States maintaining scientific and technical superiority. It is no less important that the US maintain scientific superiority today. Science education is a critical part of this equation: Currently, we are importing a large fraction of our scientific talent. This cannot go on forever since China and India are now developing to the point where it is more attractive for their talent to return home. We must cultivate our own talent. This includes using scientific education, such as museums that can capture the imagination and excite children about science.

80 posted on 09/20/2005 7:53:09 AM PDT by megatherium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 1,261-1,272 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson