Creationism in Our National Parks

eSkeptic ^ | 1-10-07 | Donald Prothero

[driftdiver]

"Well that too."

Not to be offensive but IMHO thats because many people won't accept something as true unless their personal belief standards are met. As if it whether or not we individually accept something as true has any bearing on it being factual.

[Elsie]

Who does??

[Elsie]

Let's toss a Holy Hand Grenade into this thread...

[wideawake]

So, basically they are arguing that the government should enact a astrcit program of censorship in national parks.

I beleive that is intended, as the ACLU would say, to have a "chilling effect on free speech."

[Non-Sequitur]

Not to be offensive but IMHO thats because many people won't accept something as true unless their personal belief standards are met.

Probably.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

“In order to avoid offending religious fundamentalists, our National Park Service is under orders to suspend its belief in geology,” said PEER Director Jeff Ruch. “It is disconcerting that the official position of a national park as to the geologic age of the Grand Canyon is ‘no comment.’”

[ChessExpert]

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER)

Just what we need, another advocacy group with a nice name. As names go, you just can't beat the American Civil Liberty Union (ACLU). These people aren't elected, or appointed. They aren't asking to manage their own property. Such groups often make demands on how others manage property, public or private. As public employees, I think they should simply do what they are told, and payed, to do. This kind of public advocacy from employees should provide a basis for dismissal.

[Tax-chick]

... (the) equivalent of Yellowstone National Park selling a book entitled Geysers of Old Faithful: Nostrils of Satan.”

It's interesting that they don't realize how insane they sound. I guess they only talk to one another (like liberals), and everyone says, "Uh-huh, yeah, you're right!" to each other.

[driftdiver]

"It's interesting that they don't realize how insane they sound. I guess they only talk to one another (like liberals), and everyone says, "Uh-huh, yeah, you're right!" to each other."

Irony is great. If they don't believe in Creation then how come they believe in Satan?

[Tax-chick]

If they don't believe in Creation, why do they care about "the Environment"? Greenie-Marxists are always claiming that "the Environment" is sacred and should be protected for some reason ... but why, if they don't believe it's an expression of God?

To me, it seems that the obvious materialist position would be that the earth's resources are here strictly for our utility, consistent with our perception of our interests.

[driftdiver]

"Greenie-Marxists are always claiming that "the Environment" is sacred and should be protected for some reason ... but why, if they don't believe it's an expression of God?"

IMO, its because they worship themselves first and then the 'environment'. The idea that God is greater than them is the most offensive thing possible.

[Tax-chick]

Almost as if they consider the "Environment" an extension of themselves ...

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

• Geology- all surface rock shows evidence of having been submerged. The Creationism explanation is the Flood--obviously. The Macroevolution explanation is that the continental plates are subducting, and have been doing so for eons. This subduction, being based below the ocean, would expose new rock to ocean water.
• Astronomy- for a long time, you had one there, specifically how stars, galaxies are thousands and millions/billions of lightyears away, respectively, could be viewed from Earth. But now there is the Creationist model including white holes (a theoretical counterpart to theoretical black holes) and gravitation's affect on time.
• Genetics-- all DNA in creatures is extremely complex, and works in ways that man has yet to fully discover. To declare any DNA unilaterally as junk DNA is something that should not be done--especially at this stage in human research. Humans are genetically very close to chimpanzees (and other "great" apes). Humans also are genetically half bananas. Also, DNA can produce various proteins. The amount of uniquely human DNA make proteins--and in utero brain parts--that chimpanzees and co. do not have.
• radiometric dating- how can you be sure about the accuracy of a dating technique for millions of years. It isn't as though you can start an experiment and in millions of years see whether your experiment (dating) panned out correctly.

  Will get back later, have to go. As usual, your respectful disagreement is appreciated.

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

• biology- the complexity of organisms, and the fact that a lot of the hypothetical missing links would not survive the natural selection process. Animals do choose the fastest, strongest, etc. as mates, but abnormal freaks are usually shunned. Furthermore, animals such as lizards with feathers that are incapable of flight (or dinosaurs with feathers--including flying dinosaurs) would expend more energy producing practically useless feathers, especially until flight feathers "evolve."
• paleontology- the fossil record shows a bunch of dead animals, some in layers of strata, some not. For the strata ones (for which dating and the long ages would be your point), the radiometry and geology bullets could be reviewed again, along with the fact that many animal fossils have been found in strata in which they would have either been extinct or wouldn't have yet evolved--according to the Macroevolutionary viewpoint. Furthermore, some tree fossils have been shown to cross several strata, supposedly millions of years apart. Currently, some trees can last over one thousand years, but not millions.

  And some more, stating how in "current" science, Creationists and Macroevolutionists are, for the most part, in agreement.

  • Geology: C/M both agree on current geological processes, such as underwater mudslides, earthquakes, plate tectonics, etc. And for some things which are still iffy, both C/M (Creationists and Macroevolutionists) have components for and against. Archaeology is largely in agreement, though that only goes back some thousands of years.
  • Astronomy: C/M both are interested in the exploration of space, and the study of it. M could be trying to look for extraterrestrials. A C USA would probably not fund SETI. However, a M USA might not approve space colonization if they think that Earthlings will destroy foreign life (because life is almost everywhere on Earth--connected environment, so it isn't that surprising--they expect life on almost any planet with the constituent components for life--a loooooooong stretch). As C don't expect foreign life to exist, or any such life to originally have come from Earth (a sort of opposite way panspermia), a C USA would be more probable to start colonization. Both agree on star and galaxy structures (obviously not on star and galaxy formation), though there is disagreement on the internal workings of stars in the most common M and C models. The M one, of course, has nuclear fusion of hydrogen sort of circulating or coiling around in what would be the mantle if the Sun was the Earth. The C one has nuclear fusion, but as the hydrogen turns to helium it just crunches down, rather than circulates. Both M and C agree on the maps and features of the other planets, moons, comets, asteroids, etc. including Mars (and what appears to be evidence of liquid water) and Titan (promoted as an "early Earth" by M.
  • Genetics: for a large part, C and M agree on DNA; there is, as mentioned, disagreement over so-called junk DNA.
  • Radiometric dating: is not about "current" science, and of course there is huge disagreement of the accuracy of long-scale dating methods.
  • biology: M and C agree on practically everything in biology except, again, origins and junk DNA.
  • Paleontology: not fully "current" science, but both C and M agree to the animals in the fossils, if not when they lived.

    Yes, some Creationists (not necessarily the Creationists on this thread--haven't read all the comments) do have extreme views--which are not the views of the mainstream. In fact, some credible C sources (respect: there are credible C sources) do state that those pseudoscience Creationists (again, respect and they're only a tiny amount of Creationists) are supporting faulty science and--as you've pointed out--doing little to help the cause.

    In turn, there have been M who have used Macroevolution to explain why one people group (race) is above another, and why--if one is going to become extinct through natural selection--they should help it along (think Belgians in the Congo). Then there are the hunted down and stuffed Australian aborigines, the Nazis, etc.

    Both sides have crazy people who represent their views on origins in a bad light.

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

The italics were supposed to cut off after mainstream.

[shield]

LOL...isn't that the truth.

[ChessExpert]

I enjoyed reading your summation. Thanks.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Apparently this was a hoax.

Lane caught short (MSM liar nailed)

Perhaps Dr. Donald R. Prothero should be a bit more skeptical

[xcamel]

good.. the story was a bit "rich" all things considered.

[UpAllNight]

--The Macroevolution explanation is that the continental plates are subducting, and have been doing so for eons. --

Macroevolution explains NOTHING about continental plates.