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

Skip to comments.

Science Museums Adapt in Struggle against Creationist Revisionism
Scientific American ^ | July 12, 2007 | Elizabeth Landau

Posted on 07/14/2007 10:33:34 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 621-633 next last
To: aliquando
The two schools of thought are not as incompatible as many on both sides think.

You're right. It's like getting the Hatfields and McCoys into the same room.

121 posted on 07/14/2007 2:08:02 PM PDT by Donald Rumsfeld Fan (NY Times: "fake but accurate")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ndt

No,it’s not adherence to the scientific method that’s the issue. It’s adherence to the ToE. I’ve seen frevo non-scientists tell creationist scientists that they don’t even know what a theory is because they don’t accept the ToE.

Anytime someone points out a scientist whose a creationist, the knee jerk reaction is *but he’s not a REAL scientist*.

A non-scientists passing judgment on a scientist simply because of their view on the ToE. How would the non-scientist even know what HE was talking about?


122 posted on 07/14/2007 2:08:55 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: metmom

You think you know but you haven’t a clue... kind of like edumaction...

I teach science kid... and now you know.


123 posted on 07/14/2007 2:15:19 PM PDT by Porterville (I'm an American. If you hate Americans, I hope our enemies destroy you. I will pray for my soul.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: aliquando
Life defies thermodynamics, as you pointed out.

To a certain extent you are correct.

However, life requires directed energy to survive. Directed by information contained within the organism. Once this directed process is interrupted the second law reasserts itself and we become compost as the second law dictates.

Without intervention the second law always gets its way in the end.

124 posted on 07/14/2007 2:18:16 PM PDT by Donald Rumsfeld Fan (NY Times: "fake but accurate")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; spirited irish; Diamond; cornelis; ndt; metmom; MHGinTN; ...
p.s.: That Aldous Huxley remark really does amaze me. In effect, he is absolutely refusing to be a man; he is throwing away with both hands everything that constitutes him as a human being.

A further refinement of what I said last time: Not only does he hold his ancestors in contempt, but also his descendents (if any). For the fruition of his evident ideological commitment appears to be such as would absolutely deny them any opportunity of living in liberty, as free men. Any reader interested in the details of how this “new paradigm” plays out is invited to read C. S. Lewis’ The Abolition of Man.

To provide context, what is being gotten rid of is something along these lines:

At the level of common sense, it is evident that human beings have experiences other than sensory perceptions, and it is equally evident that philosophers like Plato and Aristotle explored reality on the basis of experiences far removed from perception. The Socratic “Look and see if this is not the case” does not invite one to survey public opinion but asks one to descend into the psyche, that is, to search reflective consciousness. Moreover, it is evident that the primary nonsensory modes of experience address dimensions of human existence superior in rank and worth to those sensory perception does: experiences of the good, beautiful, and just, of love, friendship, and truth, of all human virtue and vice, and of divine reality. Apperceptive experience is distinguishable from sensory perception and a philosophical science of substance from a natural science of phenomena. Experience of “things” is modeled on the subject-object dichotomy of perception in which the consciousness attends the object of cognition. But such a model of experience and knowing is ultimately insufficient to explain the operations of consciousness with respect to the nonphenomenal reality men approach in moral, aesthetic, and religious experience. Inasmuch as such nonsensory experiences are constitutive of what is distinctive about human experience itself – and of what is most precious to mankind – a purported science of man unable to take account of them is egregiously defective. [Ellis Sandoz, ed., “Editor’s Introduction,” in Collective Works of Eric Voegelin, Vol. 12, 1990; p. xx.]

It goes without saying that an ethical model that places its ultimate value on sexual freedom and “political innovation” has little use for understandings of this nature. Hence the necessity of “ending history,” of erasing the past, in order to advance such propositions.

Well, my two cents, FWIW.

125 posted on 07/14/2007 2:20:36 PM PDT by betty boop ("Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -- A. Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Porterville
I teach science kid... and now you know.

No wonder you have such a low opinion of education.

126 posted on 07/14/2007 2:28:42 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Second law of thermodynamics says that all tends toward disorder—that entropy is constantly increasing.

Sure, if everything were steam engines. The law is much more general than that.

I have to spend $6000 this month on lowering my house's entrophy. Dry rot.


127 posted on 07/14/2007 2:35:27 PM PDT by Donald Rumsfeld Fan (NY Times: "fake but accurate")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: metmom
"No,it’s not adherence to the scientific method that’s the issue."

It really is. I'll show you. Provide evidence and we can discuss it.

"I’ve seen frevo non-scientists tell creationist scientists that they don’t even know what a theory is because they don’t accept the ToE."

No, it's the "it's just a THEORY" line that is thrown out which shows a total lack of understanding about science. Unless you can express it as a formula, a Theory is the top of the stack, the best of the best. It's a GOOD thing to be a theory.

"Anytime someone points out a scientist whose a creationist, the knee jerk reaction is *but he’s not a REAL scientist*."

A scientist is judged by his work. As there is a near total lack of work event attempting to support YEC, OEC or ID I can't imagine who you are talking about.

"How would the non-scientist even know what HE was talking about?"

You've had numerous scientists here and you (personally) told them all they were wrong. So, what exactly is your background metmom?

And for the record, I'm still waiting for your evidence or prediction.
128 posted on 07/14/2007 2:36:32 PM PDT by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Porterville

Hey, at least I can read.

That is debatable.

You can throw around insults but nothing you have posted has shown any sign of intelligence.


129 posted on 07/14/2007 2:37:19 PM PDT by Dmitry Vukicevich (Have I become a minority yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
49,000 visitors since June at $20 a pop is hardly a waste of money.

The Darwin Exhibit at the Field Museum of Natural History is averaging twice that.

130 posted on 07/14/2007 2:41:16 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: pacelvi
What’s more complicated.. DNA or Microsoft code?

Which crashes more frequently?

131 posted on 07/14/2007 2:43:01 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: metmom

I know that I have read a few testimonies from biologists that have renounced their belief in Evo and now are firmly in the creationist camp. Their reason for their conversion was that the more they kept digging the more the evidence pointed to an Intelligent Creator.

I wish I could find those testimonies.


132 posted on 07/14/2007 2:44:37 PM PDT by Dmitry Vukicevich (No one in my family tree was ever a monkey!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: ndt

[”Because those who discovered the evidence... come to a conclusion 180 degrees from jim, who I assume has little actualy training in the field.”]

Actualy(sic), I do have significant training in “the field,” if you are referring to the biological sciences. I have 2 separate degrees in the biological sciences, a B.S. in nursing, and another in medical technology, with minors in chemistry and history.

And those who discovered the evidence, can you, number one, point with certainty to their beliefs? And number two, would it matter? And number three, would it make them right about God?

It never ceases to amaze me how quickly evolutionists jump to conclusions about those who oppose their opinions, but it does say something about the thought processes of such secular cheerleaders. Their minds are made up, and the facts aren’t about to get in their way.


133 posted on 07/14/2007 2:48:47 PM PDT by jim35 ("...when the lion and the lamb lie down together, ...we'd better damn sure be the lion")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: ndt
No, the frevo told the creationist scientist that they didn't know what a theory was because of the stand on the ToE.

"How would the non-scientist even know what HE was talking about?"

You didn't answer the question.

You've had numerous scientists here and you (personally) told them all they were wrong.

Oh I have? ALL of them? Please provide the evidence.

So, what exactly is your background metmom?

BA in Meteorology, which you knew already because I've made no secret of it. I also have some college level biology.

And for the record, I'm still waiting for your evidence or prediction.

It's up to the person setting forth the theory to establish what it is that will falsify it. That would be Darwin's responsibility. Or are you going to change the rules of the game?

134 posted on 07/14/2007 2:50:37 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Know It All

[The real problem is that until recently, men (and women) of God were required to also be men of science. Nowadays, you can become a “pastor” just by having a bad haircut and the ability to say “Lord” in three syllables. ]

Not entirely accurate. There have always been lay-preachers, as far back as religion goes. Some have been great, and some total wackos. Much like in every scientific field.

I do agree, however, that science and religion are entirely compatible, at least as far as Christianity goes. I can’t speak for other religions.


135 posted on 07/14/2007 2:54:37 PM PDT by jim35 ("...when the lion and the lamb lie down together, ...we'd better damn sure be the lion")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Theo

Who said anything about Theistic Evolution? (Except you.)

First of all, there are two accounts of creation in Genesis, and they conflict. Reconciling them with science is pointless, however, because it is not the job of spiritual truth to reconcile itself with natural observations nor is is the job of natural science to reconcile itself with theological mysteries. A functioning faith must have both a systematic cosmology and a systematic theology, but these two things do not have to be the same.

I think that Jesus will object to you calling God a liar. God may have created the world in six days six thousand years ago — heck, He may have created it yesterday — but He sure went to a lot of trouble making it look billions of years old. God may have created species in their current form, but he sure went to a lot of trouble to create a fossil record that documents changes over millions of years.

(Also see 215, 1063, 2465, 2466)

In the Bible, and in Isaiah particularly, we see the fact that "God is Truth" hammered home. "Amen" means "it is truth" and is sometimes translated as "verily." Light from stars billions of light years away is currently reaching our planet. There are countless fossils documenting the truth of the ToE. Amen.

136 posted on 07/14/2007 2:55:33 PM PDT by Mr. Know It All (Term Limits: Stop us before we vote again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Dmitry Vukicevich

There are some threads about that on FR and any of the evos who have been in these debates for more than a couple months know that.

It would seem pretty obvious to the casual observer that order and complexity are indicators of intelligence and design, but I guess that you have to be educated into NOT believing that.

You’d think that Newton and Einstein believing that the universe showed evidence of a creator and design would be good enough, but I guess some think they know better than them.


137 posted on 07/14/2007 2:59:28 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: DocCincy
Second law of thermodynamics says that all tends toward disorder—that entropy is constantly increasing. Evolution flat-out contradicts science!

Do you even have a clue what you're talking about here? When you get a spare moment, go outside and take a look at that big yellow ball up in the sky and then explain what thermodynamics and entropy have to do with evolution. Don't stare too long though, The truth might blind you!

138 posted on 07/14/2007 2:59:30 PM PDT by shuckmaster (The only purpose of the news is to fill the space around the advertisements.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: jim35
"Actualy(sic), I do have significant training in “the field,”"

I'm a forester by training (biology, genetics, soil science etc) and programmer by occupation with a number of years working in bioinformatics (although not currently)

So we should be able to have a productive discussion.

"And those who discovered the evidence, can you, number one, point with certainty to their beliefs?"

To whom do you refer? Modern or historical? Our conversation has gone from ancient Greece to modern times.

Actually it's rather moot. Their internal beliefs are irrelevant. It is their published hypotheses, theories, laws we need to be discussing.

"It never ceases to amaze me how quickly evolutionists jump to conclusions about those who oppose their opinions"

What assumption? That you may not know the field? You provided not a single bit of evidence to suggest you did. You pointed to historical "giants of science" as supportive of your position. That an appeal to authority and not only unscientific, it's not even good argument style.

You say you have training, I'll take you at your word, so lets talk about your evidence.

BTW I'll be gone for a couple hours so take your time.
139 posted on 07/14/2007 3:00:06 PM PDT by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: jim35
I do agree, however, that science and religion are entirely compatible, at least as far as Christianity goes.

Newton comes to mind.

140 posted on 07/14/2007 3:00:43 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 621-633 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