Science Museums Adapt in Struggle against Creationist Revisionism

Scientific American ^ | July 12, 2007 | Elizabeth Landau

[GodGunsGuts]

Madonna and Bon Jovi are no match for Hawaiian flies when it comes to karaoke hits at the University of Nebraska State Museum in Lincoln. In a popular exhibit activity, visitors attempt to mimic the unique courtship calls of different species of Hawaiian Drosophila, a group of 800 different flies that may have evolved from a single species.

Fly karaoke is part of "Explore Evolution," a permanent exhibit currently at Nebraska and five other museums in the Midwest and Southwest...that explores evolutionary concepts in new ways. Such an activity is a far cry from the traditional way science museums have presented evolution, which usually included charts called phylogenies depicting ancestral relationships or a static set of fossils arranged chronologically. "Explore Evolution'' has those, too—and then some, because museum curators came to realize that they needed better ways to counter growing attacks on their integrity.

...

Under pressure from these kinds of groups, the Kansas State Board of Education in 2005 approved a curriculum that allowed the public schools to include completely unfounded challenges to the theory of evolution.

In an effort to make their case to the public, creationists raised $26 million in private donations to build the 50,000-square-foot Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky., which opened in late May. The institution presents the biblical history of the universe. Visitors learn that biblically, dinosaurs are best explained as creatures that roamed Earth with humans. In its first month of existence, the museum drew over 49,000 visitors, according to its Web site.

"Explore Evolution," funded by a $2.8 million grant from the National Science Foundation, is one of many recent efforts by science museums to counter such resistance to evolution...

[Constantine XIII]

The thing is that the Earth isn’t a closed system. It is constantly receiving vast quantities of input energy from the Sun, which plants use to grow, which animals eat—a process that has carried on since the beginning of life on Earth.

However, the total amount of matter organized and energy concentrated by the biosphere is pretty minuscule compared to the total heat output of the Sun, so the second law and evolution don’t really collide. On the larger scale, entropy still wins out big time.

[RFC_Gal]

Nice to see you still haven’t changed your greeting style in the past 12 or so months.

[RFC_Gal]

“But, But, the sun shining on it should keep it from rotting, since the sun prevents entropy.”

That is a deliberate mischaracterization of what they original poster meant and you know it.

Doesn’t your religion state that the spreading of falsehoods isn’t to be done by followers of said religion?

[gcruse]

” the Earth isn’t a closed system.”

You are absolutely right. In the final analysis, entropy gets us all. But until the universe dies of heat death, systems will show decreased entropy as they are fed energy from outside.

The smugness of creationists citing the second law of thermodynamics as proof against evolution is hilarious.
Unfortunately, it also shows the damage being done by the Enlightenment’s delayed arrival in America.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

You need to talk to the abiogenesis folks about this one. They are still working out the details.

The theory of evolution begins where they leave off.

The ID people are making a lot of headway with the "information must come first argument". I try to stay informed and have yet to hear a good argument against that assertion. A lot of hand waving and "just so stories", but nothing you can hang your hat on.

To argue that "specified complex design" precedes "blueprints" defies logic.

[BuckeyeForever]

Wow, your long list of contradictions between the Bible and evolution is quite compelling. How anyone can look at those contradictions and still believe in the Bible is amazing. Yet apparently some people still do. It’s sad, isn’t it?

[CottShop]

[[You provide ZERO evidence to support your claim that it is “too complex”, you just wave your hand and pronounce it so]]

The evidnece to support that claim is seen in 150 years worth of exploring the issue and coming up empty with an answer

[[ToE does not cover the origin on life]]

Actually yeah it does, what it doesn’t put much effort into is how that origin was sparked. Evolution is the study of higher and higher taxonomy- this includes the very first form all the way to present day species

[[”Life is too complex to have simply sprung up from random forces”]]

It’s actually a very good argument and one thta is used in science all the time to determine if objects that are discovered have a designer or not. As you know, natural forces can shape natural objects so that they rawly resemble manmade structures, but noone would mistake a column of rock for the empire state building- The Empire building is much too complex to have randomly been formed by nature- it has the classic tell-tale signs of design

[[What hypothesis are you trying to argue against that says life arose from “a random process” and what is your evidence that this is impossible]]

What is your objective evidence that it could arise from random process?

[CottShop]

coyote said [[You need to talk to the abiogenesis folks about this one. They are still working out the details.]]

And hten says [[You can have magic, superstition, wishful thinking, old wives tales, folklore, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, omens, public opinion, astromancy, spells, Ouija boards, anecdotes, Da Vinci codes, tarot cards, sorcery, seances, sore bunions, black cats, divine revelation, table tipping, witch doctors, crystals and crystal balls, numerology, divination, faith healing, miracles, palm reading, the unguessable verdict of history, tea leaves, new age mumbo-jumbo, hoodoo, voodoo and all that other weird stuff.]]

And I say, Nah- you folks keep those things- wouldn’t want ot take away the foundations of evolution by taking htose practices from you folk

[CottShop]

[[My original question was posed to a specific poster who made specific claims and at this point my question has been takes so out of context that your not even talking about my “philosophical argument”.]]

We’re practicing to become secular scientists- don’t rain on our parade.

[CottShop]

[[Yet apparently some people still do. It’s sad, isn’t it?]]

Yes buckey- so very sad- after all, We’ve so much to lose in life because of it, and so much to lose after life for believing in God- oh wait- no we don’t- so what’s your basic gripe again? Why the obsession with what Christians beleive? Why the constant footstomping? Oh that’s right- God won’t perform miracles on demand for you because you insist His word says what it doesn’t- but alas, keep the fire stoked Buckeye, keep obsessing- it’ll come to such a fruitful ending.

[CottShop]

[[The smugness of creationists citing the second law of thermodynamics as proof against evolution is hilarious.]]

Nope- no smugness in that thar statement Mr. St. Humbleman- nope- none whatsoever- nothign to see here- move right along

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

In a closed universe, your argument would assume that there would need to be hand waving in order to make oil. Unless you realize that the universe has not existed for infinitely long and that the oil will not last infinitely long.

The "handwaving" metaphor refers to ad hoc explantions that are unconvincing. Similar to the epicycles used to justify the earth centered solar system in Galileo's time.

In the case of the closed universe and the second law the "handwaving" refers to the assertion that the second law is not violated because temporal and isolated areas are not really closed (at least in the short term) and therefore do not violate the second law.

I have yet to see oil created by the wave of one's hands. 8>)

[ndt]

"The evidnece to support that claim is seen in 150 years worth of exploring the issue and coming up empty with an answer"

Are you claiming lack of evidence (which is utterly false) is evidence?

"Actually yeah it does, what it doesn’t put much effort into is how that origin was sparked."

Actually, no it doesn't.

"It’s actually a very good argument and one thta is used in science all the time to determine if objects that are discovered have a designer or not."

What scientific process are you referring too. The closest I can think of would be something like Seti and it's not complexity they are looking at but simplicity. Extreme complexity would be indistinguishable from static, an intelligent signal is generally simpler than the surrounding noise.

One could say that it is simplicity that is the hallmark of intelligence.

"What is your objective evidence that it could arise from random process?"

I don't recall bringing up The Origin of Life, that was the posters choice and I chose to oblige him.

[CottShop]

[[There are many cases of speciation in recorded history. Culex molestus is a new species of mosquito that has evolved in modern times from Culex pipiens and is specifically adapted to the London Underground and plants commonly produce new species via polyploidy.

So if your not talking about species (and your not), what are you talking about?]]

Are you suggesting that new subspecies = new KINDS? (Oh yes, I know, I know, you’ll complain “What is KINDS exactly) Loss of information has never resulted in a species moving beyond anything but it’s own KIND- no record of it happening, no examples, no experiments to point to- nothing- we can argue symantics all day long and go round for round, but at hte end of the day- evolution can’t produce one single evidentiary example showing a KIND moving beyond it’s own KIND. We’re all well aware that speciation happens and that species can vary greatly- adaption is a wonderfully marvelous fact- but macroevolution on the other hand is nothing more than aN unsubstantiated, unproven hypothesis

[CottShop]

[[Are you claiming lack of evidence (which is utterly false) is evidence?]]

It is a strong indication- funny, you folk use indications all the tiem to make the case for evolution, yet when a strong indication is used to support the fact that something might be unreasonable, all of a sudden it’s not ‘precise enough’ or ‘scientific enough’?

[[Actually, no it doesn’t.]]

Yeah it does- it HAS to if it’s going ot argue everythign has a natural explanation- we’ve been rouind and round this merrygoround of symantics many many times- the ONLY evolution hypothesis that doesn’t have to explain the first ‘species’ forward are those who claim God or some entity supernaturally made completed species- Every other hypothesis relies on a completely natural explanation for the beginnings of life.

[[What scientific process are you referring too.]]

Plenty, scientific forensics, geology, medical etc. many fields look for design because design is an intergral part of their study to determine outcomes.

[ndt]

"Are you suggesting that new subspecies = new KINDS?"

No.

"Oh yes, I know, I know, you’ll complain “What is KINDS exactly"

That's not complaining, unless you want to define your words then intelligent conversation is impossible. Using words that have no meaning is called babbling.

"evolution can’t produce one single evidentiary example showing a KIND moving beyond it’s own KIND"

You're babbling. Define your words or you make no sense. You might as well say one garphalsnap never becomes a different garphalsnap.

"We’re all well aware that speciation happens and that species can vary greatly"

Since you appear to accept all the basic mechanics of evolution, then you need to propose a process that stops evolution from crossing he genus barrier.

Otherwise it's like saying you can put one foot in front of the other and walk down the street, but it impossibles to cross town. What stops it?

[185JHP]

Truth BUMP

[CottShop]

[[”What is your objective evidence that it could arise from random process?”

I don’t recall bringing up The Origin of Life, that was the posters choice and I chose to oblige him.]]

Oh but you did bring it up by putting an onus on him that you yourself are unwilling to tackle. The evo model states that it is possible, yet offers no evidnece to show that it is- a simple statement of faith will suffice evidently, yet when it comes to opposing hypothesis that state that what we know from biology and mathematics, makes random processes moving a species higher and higher outside hteir own kinds, we’re immediately put to the task of having to prove it? I’ll answer for him, or in addition to him- Mathematics and biology are the the evidences that it is impossible. Biological investigations have shown quite clear that the only way for NEW infromation, which is needed to move a species beyond it’;s own KIND, if for lateral gene transference to transfere the needed new information from one species KIND to another dissimiliar KIND. The individual species specific gene codes are incapable of creating new organs and systems because hte instructions simply are not present, nor can any alterations create combinations of instructions that could produce non species specific organs or systems- We know it is a biological fact that species can lose organs, lose instructions, and can even, within species specific parameters to the instructions alter information already present, but nothing other than a literal lateral gene transference can introduce NEW non species specific organ/system instructions.

Not that I should have even bothered to respond to that question when your side ducks the same challenge, but there ya go.

[ndt]

"Yeah it does- it HAS to if it’s going ot argue everythign has a natural explanation"

The ToE does not argue that "everythign has a natural explanation". It argues that living organisms of different species share common ancestors and that the different species are the result of natural selection working on inherent variations within population.

That's pretty much it, the rest are details.

"this merrygoround of symantics"

It's not a marry go round, you just don't understand what you think you understand. I assume people keep pointing that out to you so you've heard this before.

"the ONLY evolution hypothesis that doesn’t have to explain the first ‘species’ forward are those who claim God or some entity supernaturally made completed species"

The ToE needs to explain the Origin of Life no more then Atomic Theory needs to explain the big bang. You are trying to broaden the ToE beyond what it ever was intended to cover and in so doing, you end up arguing against the wrong thing.

"Plenty, scientific forensics, geology, medical etc. many fields look for design because design is an intergral part of their study to determine outcomes."

Really? Give me an example of a geologist looking for intelligent design by looking for complexity. I can see where an archaeologist might look for intelligent design in topography but he would be looking for simplicity, like straight lines, not complexity.