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...

[stormer]

“...you have already decided...”

If decision making is predicated on a fact-based examination of available information, yes, I have decided. And I, like most others, believe that those that do not share my beliefs, while not necessarily “stupid”, are wrong.

As far as the probabilities you mentioned, I can tell you that the probability of the first scenario you mentioned (planet perfect distance, etc.) is 1. In your second case (cards thrown off the building), the probability certainly approaches 0.

[jim35]

So you are equating the wind to the question of the origin of our species?

This is way beyond apples and oranges, more like apples and planets.

There are obvious physical mechanisms responsible for the weather (which, btw, we still can’t predict). The origin and diversity of life is one heck of a different question.

[CottShop]

[[OK, so are you saying a KIND is the same things as a species? If so then I’m not sure what all the fuss was about.]]

Nope not at all- That is far too general- as the link I provided will point out.

[[There are quite a few examples of new species in historical times. Your claim that a species will never become a new species is just wrong.]]

See my above reply. Of course there are new species- Microevolution is a wonderful design- macroevolution is a far different matter, and KINDS can’t become NEW KINDS

[[Are literally introducing an agent of some kind that kicks wandering organisms back into their KIND corral? That may be the weirdest thing I think I have ever heard.]]

Lol- the cop is figurative- not literal- the cop represents biological limitations- not some independant ‘agent’. I’m not sure if you’re being funny or sincerely misunderstand what I’m saying.

I said: **species, as we are fully aware, can only be altered just so far because there are protections inplace on several levels,**

You asked: [[Umm. No, we don’t know that. Care to give a single concrete example of this novel system?]]

Just one? Here’s a couple- directed breeding experiments, radiation on fruitflies which mimicked millions of years of mutations (short generational life of fruitflies coupled with massive mutation causing radiation)

[[So why do they allow us to introduce genes from, for example a bacteria into corn? It seems we were able to get past the biology traffic cop and the caps with very little trouble.]]

The caps are still inplace, symbiotic systems are factored into species tolorance caps (caps isn’t hte ideal term- I had the right one last night- but now can’t recall it- but ‘caps’ will do for now- ANd don’t play goober and ask “Redsox baseball caps?”) Some symbiotic organisms are infact vital to survival- but mind you, symbiotic relationships do nothing of moving one species KIND to another NEW KIND.

[[And for that matter, what is it? Is it corn KIND or bacteria KIND?]]

Symbiotic relationship of two KINDS

[CottShop]

There might be some evidence chimps can- but the evidence is very sketchy- what some would call emotional reasoning from chimps, (and perhaps other species as well) others call selfish motivated, self preserving activity that gives the appearance of selflessness.

[ndt]

"there is nothing about fossils that give “evidence” for evolution"

Their morphology, chronology and distribution are all as would be expected from common decent. "evolution is merely a convinient explantion for the differing fossils."

What exactly do you think a Theory is? "a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation."

So yes, the ToE is so darn convenient because it explains the evidence and makes testable predictions. How is that a bad thing?

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

In short, order from disorder happens on earth all the time.

My arguments deal with the universe as a closed system. Not the earth which is an open system.

I'm referring to "specified complexity" not "natural order" which is imposed by natural laws. You're conflating the two.

Within the confines of a random process the probability of "natural order" approachs 1. The probability of specified complexity approachs 0.

"Natural laws" can be liken to the infrastructure of a finely tuned universe designed by an intelligent architect.

[stormer]

“...no animal of which we are aware that engages in abstract reasoning...”

This a correct statement, however, humans simply are not equipped to exclude the possibility.

Do dogs dream of their masters?

[CottShop]

[[“Animals can’t conceive of God.”

I don’t know what animals can conceive.

“Humans evolved to believe in God...”

How can you support this statement other than through circular reasoning?]]

Yes it is circular philosphical reasoning with absolutely no scientific evidence to support the hypothesis. Folks like Dawkins have snidely suggested that there are genes that are rersponsible for subjective morality, and therefore, some stupid folks like us, concieved of a god in our minds, and what’s worse, according to Dawkins, is that this ignorant gene can be transmitted to other people through things like sneezing (I kid you not- he literally suggested this could happen).

There is a huge debate going on about morality and whether or not it is an objective universal morality or simply a subjective morality that arose from genes and causes delusions. The debate is nasty and vitriolic I assure you.

[jim35]

[If A (We exist) Then B (we were created). That is a non sequitur...]

Only if you are willing to dismiss the premise, out of hand. Which you apparently are. Or, if you control the definition of “created,” which you cannot hope to do, in any reasonable discussion.

[Because you can’t imagine how it could have “sprung up from random forces” you claim that it must be otherwise. You provide ZERO evidence to support your claim that it is “too complex...]

There is ample proof that life couldn’t have been a spontaneous occurrance, you just haven’t seen it. I can’t imagine why not. Look up abiogenesis, it will furnish some extremely good proof. My error was in assuming your knowledge was as complete as you seem to think it is.

Take another freshman course in philosophy, you could use a refresher.

[Coyoteman]

So you are equating the wind to the question of the origin of our species?

This is way beyond apples and oranges, more like apples and planets.

The discussion has been about the second law of thermodynamics, and how it "proves" evolution is impossible.

[CottShop]

[[This a correct statement, however, humans simply are not equipped to exclude the possibility.

Do dogs dream of their masters?]]

Perhaps- and most likely yes, but what drives their dreams? selfish self preservation motivations? Folks call dogs slefless and obedient- but they are anything but- their drive to bond is self centered although it certainly gives the appearance of being selfless. Even stories of dogs rescuing hteir ‘masters’ is nothign more than a dog doing so for it’s alpha pack leader who controls self-centered motivations in other members for an equally self-centered, self-preservation motivation. A pack can hunt food better, and is generally better for the survival of individuals within that same group. This topic gets pretty involved, and the reasonings do indeed go in circles- but it’s fun to explore it some somethimes.

[CottShop]

Hey- you seem to have couple of other lines of discussion going on- so if you’d like to concentrate on the others, that’s ok and we can pick this up later after the other discussions have run their course?

[CottShop]

too many interesting topics going on at once in this thread- But I’ll continue our discussion if you want as well- either way-

[hosepipe]

[.. Do dogs dream of their masters? ..]

Dogs do appear to dream..
What are dreams?...

I propose dreams are an activity to keep "a spirit" busy while a "body" sleeps.. Do animals have "spirits" like humans do?.. Is "dreaming" evidence of a spiritual "world"/ paradigm/ realm/ dimension?..

I say YES.. There could also be levels/kinds/spiecies of spirits.. Earthly life could be a "test" of those spirits.. proveing them for yet some future "tasks"..

WoW... YET another interesting novel UNwritten..

[stormer]

“...genes that are rersponsible for subjective morality...”

There are numerous examples of animals engaging in altruistic behavior in order to support their immediate kin. African bee-eaters, if unable to find mates or if their clutches are destroyed, seek out relatives (in a specific order) and provide themselves as rearing partners for their relative’s offspring. The level of commitment to this behavior is directly proportional to the amount of genetic material they share with the relative. In other words, behavior developed to ensure the passing of one’s own genetic material can lead to cooperative behavior, which ultimately lays the foundation for moral and social codes in human society.

[CottShop]

[[There are numerous examples of animals engaging in altruistic behavior in order to support their immediate kin.]]

Not really- they are opinionated interpretations of the evidence, and the opposite interpretations have ligitimate points as well

[[African bee-eaters, if unable to find mates or if their clutches are destroyed, seek out relatives (in a specific order) and provide themselves as rearing partners for their relative’s offspring.]]

This is nothing more than code driven behavior (Which I might add some humanists contend all behavior is code driven- but they have no evidence to bakc this statement up, nor can they effectively counter the rebuttles)

[[In other words, behavior developed to ensure the passing of one’s own genetic material can lead to cooperative behavior, which ultimately lays the foundation for moral and social codes in human society.]]

At first glance, this makes it seem like bees reason in a sense- which isn’t supported and infact the counter evidence is more compelling that the action is not reasoning but rather hard coded and doesn’t represent subjective reasoning for social inferences, nor for morality behaviour based on an objective moral code

[hosepipe]

[.. Humans evolved to believe in God...” / How can you support this statement other than through circular reasoning? ..]

That is, if humans evolved from more primitive lifeforms even ultimatlly from a "chemical soup".. THEN humans evolved to believed in God..

UNless humans did not evolve at all but were MADE that way..

Whther made that way or thru evolution humans pretty much universally believe in some form "of GOD".. Where lesser forms of life DO NOT..

[CottShop]

[[I propose dreams are an activity to keep “a spirit” busy while a “body” sleeps.. Do animals have “spirits” like humans do?.. Is “dreaming” evidence of a spiritual “world”/ paradigm/ realm/ dimension?..]]

Big problem with this- dreams are activities of the mind, and hte mind isn’t responsible for the spirit’s health

[stormer]

The strength of the wolf is the pack and the strength of the pack is the wolf. How does this differ from humanity and how does it run counter to Dawkin’s position?

[jim35]

Some very interesting observations you make here, edsheppa. A diverse mix of the accepted, the somewhat accepted, and the “kinda out there,” all in one post.

Of course, when it comes to cosmology, “kinda out there” is about as good as it gets in some areas, so no complaints here.

As for the last one, about species acheiving suitability through random processes... Well, it just doesn’t make much sense. Yes, I know the arguments, and I’ve seen the evidence, but it just doesn’t wash. It’s interesting, especially the nylon-eating bacteria, but this is on a very small scale, and shouldn’t really be used as a universal solution to a very difficult problem. Also, this begs the question of how the organism knows how to make changes in it’s own genes. I know I don’t know how to make changes in mine, so it must be either random, which, well let’s face it, the odds against some random mutation serendipitously making bacteria eat nylon, just when they really need to, are so much against it as to make it a practical impossibility.

So, what makes these changes? Is it guided? Is it the organism doing it to itself? Are gene-splicing viruses zipping around, looking for organisms in trouble? Do all organisms have these serendipitous genes already, just waiting for some nylon episode to confront them?

And if you, or more aptly science, don’t have an answer to these questions, then shouldn’t we at least consider the possibility that there is a guiding hand behind all life? It not only answers these questions, but it seems to be the only logical answer possible.