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.

[b_sharp]

"Your worst nightmare.

All my wives are dreams come true.

[Mark Felton]

[I had to take a break. I am now seized up on my couch totally fatigued and thought i'd type a response back on my pocket pc, instead of getting up to go to the big one.]

"Whether or not you want to infer the presence of an intelligent designer in these gaps is a matter of faith, not science."

Lets be very clear. Gaps in knowledge do not infer "God". I do not believe in God because of what I don't know, or can't explain.

I believe in God because of what I do know.

(I presume you are a physicist?)

[Just mythoughts]

"With all that. I like to major on the majors and minor on the minors. God id not half as interested in what we believe about creation as He is about whether or not we accept Jesus."

I cannot totally agree. What we are told in and about the creation is foundation for the rest of the story. One cannot ignore that the Bible is The Adam's story, his generations and those other peoples he and his generations came into contact with, all pointing to the flesh body of Christ.

Now as one follows the story there are continuous attempts made to distort and destroy that seed line, that says a whole lot about flesh and points and why what is said about the creation important to understand. One such interesting account is about Judah and his activities in carrying forth the seed line.

Also consider what we are told when The Adam was created/formed what his body contained. Remember we are told Let US make man in OUR image. Yet no such description is given to account for these US and OUR, in Genesis. The Adam is said to have been placed into a deep sleep and something removed to create woman. So would this not indicate that the original Adam prior to this operation formed in the image of God contained the masculine and feminine, giving a glimpse of the Creator?

We are told there are two days of creation and science/DNA gives the evidence. There is no way all peoples came from The Adam and Eve.

Man and woman are told they are to be as one, a unit to make a whole.

There is more we are told in Genesis.

[donh]

DEJA VU? all over again? What the heck?

[PatrickHenry]

I'm not going to start another thread over this, but I thought you should know that there may be a coordinated effort to attack evolution in museums everywhere. Here's an article about the identical problem in Kansas (of all places):
Evolution teaching debate makes its way into Kansas history museums.

[Preachin']

"I cannot totally agree. What we are told in and about the creation is foundation for the rest of the story."

I am sure I've made enough of an argument that you know the creation story is important to me.

I agree that science is a major issue, and the creation story enhances the opportunity to discuss it.

The point is that sometimes we get so caught up in trivial arguments, that we don't have time to love people.

1 Timothy 6

20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

2 Timothy 2

16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

....

My thought is that until people know they are sinners, all the Biblical science in the world is futile.

[Elsie]

To which "God", out of the thousands of deity constructs worshipped throughout human history do you refer, why would it take "mental contortions" to lack belief in that particular deity and not any others and why does it not require "mental contortions" to lack belief in all others?

Which candidate, out of dozens on the slate, do YOU figure out to vote for at election time?

[Elsie]

Isn't human intelligence wonderful? We all get to examine thing for ourselves and make decisions.

Indeed; and I can state that my way of looking at things have changed over my lifetime, and I suspect that it can for others as well.

[Elsie]

Look at my tagline.

Redundantly, it appears redundant.....

[Just mythoughts]

"My thought is that until people know they are sinners, all the Biblical science in the world is futile."

Well you may consider the creation about vain babbling, however, I see very few creationists actually willing to accept what is instructed in Genesis. Guess one could say, unless and until what is said about the Who, What, Where, When and the Why given in Genesis, one would not know whom their loved is directed toward.

[Elsie]

No, and he hasn't commented on Darwin either. Unless you think you speak for him?

 

The Bible has already 'spoken' on people similar to Darwin, so I would suppose that 'God' has commented on him......

 

 

Charles Darwin (1809-1882)

"By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported,—and that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become,—that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us,—that the Gospels cannot be proven to have been written simultaneously with the events,—that they differ in many important details, far too important, as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eye witnesses;—by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation. The fact that many fake religions have spread over large portions of the earth like wildfire had some weight with me. But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure of this, for I can remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans, and manuscripts being discovered at Pompeii or elsewhere, which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct."

( Charles Darwin in his Autobiography of Charles Darwin, Dover Publications, 1992, p. 62. )

---

"I think that generally (& more & more as I grow older), but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind."

( Quoted from Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1991, p. 636. )

 

Colossians 1:23
But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation—if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.

 

1 Timothy 4:1The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith .......

 

Hebrews 3:12
See to it, brothers, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God.

Hebrews 12:25
See to it that you do not refuse him who speaks. If they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, how much less will we, if we turn away from him who warns us from heaven?

[Preachin']

"Well you may consider the creation about vain babbling, however, I see very few creationists actually willing to accept what is instructed in Genesis. Guess one could say, unless and until what is said about the Who, What, Where, When and the Why given in Genesis, one would not know whom their loved is directed toward."

People get saved because they find out they are sinners and that Christ died to forgive them.

Creationism is an important element of Christianity, but is vain babbling if it really does nothing but lead to argument within the body of Christ.

We have fish to catch, and the devil uses every opportunity he can to keep us from the mission field. This is simply one of them.

With a pure heart, many Christians differ on creation (namely, the length of the days). Some just believe what others tell them, others search it out.

In the end, all that matters is that Jesus came to right our wrongs.

The main thing is to let the main thing (Jesus) be the main thing.

Many in the church spend a lifetime studying creation, but forget to tell the world that Jesus is the "Beginning and the End" and "The First and the Last" because He was the Creator.

Without boring people with details, we need to point out John 1 to people and let the Holy Spirit do His job. I think of John 1 as the "Extended Genesis". Don't consider it odd that the Book of John begins with "In the Beginning", which is where the Biblical name Genesis is derived.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

I meant actually spoken. Not what someone says God said in a book which was written by people.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thank you very much! That's exactly what I was looking for.

[Elsie]

The falsity of the Bible probably isn't the conclusion that Elsie would like us to draw.

I'm sorry; I didn't write it; but I think most CAN read it!

---

2 Peter 3:15-17

¹⁵Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. ¹⁶He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

    ¹⁷Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position.

---

 

The question is:

 

Who is the ignorant here?  Elsie, or someone else?

---

---

2 Corinthians 1:12-14 

    ¹²Now this is our boast: Our conscience testifies that we have conducted ourselves in the world, and especially in our relations with you, in the holiness and sincerity that are from God. We have done so not according to worldly wisdom but according to God's grace. ¹³For we do not write you anything you cannot read or understand. And I hope that, ¹⁴as you have understood us in part, you will come to understand fully that you can boast of us just as we will boast of you in the day of the Lord Jesus.

 

1 Corinthians 2:14
The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

[Just mythoughts]

It is not one bit odd that John starts out with In the Beginning, rather it is instructive to understand exactly what is given in Genesis to fully understand the rest of the book John penned.

Christ said Let no man deceive you, well if one takes careful study about who all the "man" encompasses planted throughout the Word and one cannot ignore that is speaks to a spiritual man as well as flesh physical man.

Christ also said there would be wars and rumors of wars .... FEAR YE NOT, well if one is not to be fearful regarding wars then does not common sense say the opposite of WAR, Peace, Peace, Peace, is the subject??? Christ is said to be coming back with a double edge sword for a harvest, not hardly a description of Peace Peace Peace.

We are told to prepare for a spiritual war, not one of flesh and blood, yet the instruction is given to flesh man.

We are even told to love less (yes I know some man decided to use the word "hate" here) our own flesh and blood. That is a plenty powerful message when one bases a religion on love.

No where in the whole of the Bible when the flesh man was following the instruction given does the Heavenly Father ever allow a replacement theory for what He HIMSELF declared He did or wanted done. That in and of itself should cause the creationists community to consider what it is about Genesis they are WRONG about.

[Right Wing Professor]

Thanks, donh.

[Dimensio]

Which candidate, out of dozens on the slate, do YOU figure out to vote for at election time?

False analogy.

[Question_Assumptions]

There is no foolproof test for alien life. We have been examining martian chemistry for twenty years or so and still don't know exactly what to look for.

Given your demands for mathematical models and prediction, then according to the criteria you demand for ID, it seems like the search for life on Mars isn't science, is it? And if you think it is, then why is the search for life on Mars science but the search for traces of Intelligent Design not science?

[Question_Assumptions]

If you have a well constructed model that produces the kinds of outcomes you are investigating, and if that model closely mimics naturally occurring behavior, then it's a pretty good candidate.

A candidate for what?

If you wish to compete in this arena, you need to produce a competing model that better mimics the natural phenomenon.

The alternate model is that some sort of intelligence played a role in the creation and/or development of life on Earth. That's the hypothesis. (Before we go around in a circle on this, please address the specific points I raised in my 1,000 nickels all heads up example -- specifically, if you came upon a pile of exactly 1,000 nickels all face up, would you assume the pile was natural or created? Please answer that question.)

The theory predicts that such an intelligence could leave traces in features of living organisms that cannot be explained away naturally. (Bnd before we go around in a circle on that point, consider the points I made about drawing distinctions between natural and created in many other fields of science.)

That they haven't found such evidence yet does not mean that ID is not science, any more than the fact that they haven't found traces of past or present life on Mars and aren't quite sure what to look for yet means that looking for life on Mars isn't science. Personally, I think it's wishful thinking and a waste of money but I wouldn't cliam that it's not a legitimate subject to investigate or that doing so isn't science.