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...

[CottShop]

[[Ah, here’s the problem. You see in science, all the data is significant. You don’t get to cherry pick that which supports your hypothesis.]]

you most certainly do when there are problems with a particular data classification point. You will find that even the phylogenetic system ‘picks and chooses’ to their hearts content when it is warrented.

[CottShop]

Apparently you missed the following- so I’ll post again- nothing ‘religious’ about any of these PARTS of the classification system which make up a MAJORITY of the criteria in Baraminology. And where the scriptural KINDS fit the remaining scientific criteria- which they DO, they are included for obvious scientific reasons.

Hybridization. Historically Marsh and others have placed this criterion second only to the Bible; for if viable offspring could be obtained from a cross between two different forms, this would be definitive of their monobaraminic status. However, we realize today that the lack of known hybridization between two members from different populations of organisms does not necessarily by itself mean that they are unrelated. The hybridization criterion probably will retain validity, but it is being reconsidered in the light of modern genetics.

Ontogeny, namely the development of an individual from embryo to adult. Hartwig-Scherer (1998) suggested that comparative ontogeny followed hybridization in importance as a criterion for membership in a particular type.

Lineage. Is there evidence of a clear-cut lineage between and among either or both fossil and living forms.

Structure (morphology) and physiology (function). Structures may be macroscopic (large entities such as body organs), microscopic (small, and observed using magnification), and molecular (chemical) configurations.

Fossils in rock layers. These studies can include locations of fossil forms in the rock layers, and may entail considerations of Flood sediments.

Ecology. It is important to comprehend an organism’s niche, that is to say the region where it lives and how it interacts with the environment including other living things.

In order to determine baraminic distances among types of organisms it is important to utilize the most significant data. For instance, molecular studies with mitochondrial DNA and RNA were useful with some turtles, but the author questioned the baraminic utility of ecologic criterions (Robinson, 1997). In a baraminic study of human with non-human primates, the morphological (form) features such as teeth and bones as well as ecological characters including feeding and habitats were more valuable than chromosomal or molecular (hemoglobin and RNA) information (Robinson and Cavanaugh, 1998a). Also see Garcia-Pozuelo-Ramos, 1997; 1998; 1999. However, baraminic research on a broad spectrum of felids has revealed that ecological data were least reliable, and chromosomal data of low reliability, The morphological and molecular (protein and RNA) information were most important (Robinson and Cavanaugh, 1998b). For ongoing studies Cavanaugh (1999-2000) recently has emphasized that: “

[Coyoteman]

nothing ‘religious’ about any of these PARTS of the classification system which make up a MAJORITY of the criteria in Baraminology

Guidelines

Scripture claims (used in baraminology but not in discontinuity systematics). This has priority over all other considerations.

Its religion, not science. Give it up.

[AndyTheBear]

The most preposterous notion that H. sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history. (Robert Heinlein).

Good example.

Doesn't make sense does it. Which makes the objective observer suspect the premises Mr Heinlein asserts are incorrect. The thrust of the argument being simply an expression of open bigotry at the success of a different world view. The willful ignorance of Christian theology being self evident in Mr Heinlein's petulant misstatements about it.

Don't get me wrong, I do think Mr Heinlein was an excellent sci-fi/soft-porn author.

[AndyTheBear]

From the young-earth vs old earth page on that web site:

‘If you started with the Bible alone, without considering any outside influences whatsoever, could you ever come up with millions or billions of years of history for the Earth and universe?’ The answer from this scholar? ‘Absolutely not!’

Let’s be honest. Take out your Bible and look through it. You can’t find any hint at all for millions or billions of years.

This misses the point. As an old-world creationist I do not conclude that the world is millions of years old based on the Bible, but from outside of it. I also conclude that it is possible for people to build machines that fly, although the Bible did not tell me this either.

What I am looking for is a contradiction, not support. There is plenty of support for an old world in non-Biblical evidence.

[AndyTheBear]

In other words, they are admitting that they start outside the Bible to (re)interpret the Words of Scripture.

Everybody does this whether they admit it or not. Non-Biblical experience puts the Bible in context -- else it would not apply to our lives. Language itself is learned outside of the Bible, but is obviously a prerequisite to understanding it.

[CottShop]

Why don’t you make a ligitimate point for once instead of the same lame vague squacking points?

Give an example of why Baraminology isn’t scientific? Where does it fall apart Coyote? Where is the classification wrong? And please- don’t give us the ‘Waaaah, it’s got sumfin to do wiff the bible’ - What specifically, scientifically, is wrong with the classification of KINDS? Please do enlighten us all- And after you;’re done hunting down the obscure scientific problems that come with certain obscure species for which noone can agree on, I’ll point out the problems with Phylogenic method where noone can agree on certain obscure species either.

So, let’s hear it Coyote.

[CottShop]

[[How so? Dogs are much more successful then wolves. They have us humans running around catering to their needs by the millions. How is that inferior.]]

And so the silly little symantics game continues-

The Dog is genetically less pure, more prone to problems, and them ore hte dog is selectively bred, the more gentic problems crop up- any more questions?

[[This is not a surprise since you already admitted to accepting that evolution can produce all the diversity of an entire family (bacteria).]]

I did? Speaking for me now are ya?

[[That is another meaningless statement. There is nothing degraded between a wolf and coyote.]]

Oh really? See above explanation.

[[I don’t think you are an ignoramus, I think you are willfully ignoring the facts. You did it again by utterly ignoring my entire point about natural selection removing seriously deleterious mutations.]]

You obviously missed hte entire point which DID concider and answer the removal issue- so careful who you’re calling ‘willfully ignorant’

[[How would you even start? There is nothing in Baraminology that provides a rule for how to apply it.]]

Really? huh- you musta missed that link I posted then

[[You pretend to respond and instead just repeat the same flawed argument.]]

Who’s doing what now?

[edsheppa]

Give an example of why Baraminology isn’t scientific?

It is not a scientific theory because it is not predictive but it is also not a scientific scheme of classification because there is no underlying scientific theory to justify it.

[Coyoteman]

What specifically, scientifically, is wrong with the classification of KINDS?

"Kinds" is "created kinds." Bible literalists believe in "kinds" because the bible uses that term. There is no other reason to even consider the "kinds" approach to taxonomy.

As for the specific problems science has with "kinds" you should look back 150+ years. The early taxonomists could have used "kinds" in their taxonomies if that was a productive line of reasoning. I presume some of them tried that approach first.

Why didn't they follow that approach? Probably because it led nowhere. The biblical approach didn't work as science, so scientists invented their own approach. Its not perfect, but it works better than "kinds" or scientists wouldn't still be using it.

This is kind of like the idea of a global flood about 4350 years ago. If one didn't know what was in the bible, a researcher would never come up with such a preposterous idea from worldwide geology, hydrology, and sedimentology.

[CottShop]

[[It is not a scientific theory because it is not predictive but it is also not a scientific scheme of classification because there is no underlying scientific theory to justify it.]]

Since when does theory play into this? Theory of what? They don’t predict? Oh really? Because the predictions about which species class will have which features is supported by the evidence- it is every bit as predictive as the phylogentic system. And Since when does a scientific fact backed by evidence need theory? KINDS has plenty of scientific evidentiary support. Sorry- your statemnt isn’t ture.

[CottShop]

[[”Kinds” is “created kinds.” Bible literalists believe in “kinds” because the bible uses that term. There is no other reason to even consider the “kinds” approach to taxonomy]]

I asked you to give scientific reasons and evidences showing KINDS isn’t a ligitimate classification pursuit. You’ve failed to do so and instead have argued an opinion

[CottShop]

[[This is kind of like the idea of a global flood about 4350 years ago. If one didn’t know what was in the bible, a researcher would never come up with such a preposterous idea from worldwide geology, hydrology, and sedimentology.]]

And that is nonsense- there is plenty of evidneeces which might indicate world wide flood- the simple fact that not all would agree, and that some make excuses to wave away the evidneces is not sufficient to undermine the evidences that are observed

[CottShop]

The purpose of baraminology is to discover the boundaries of the created kind or holobaramin.

Baraminology predicts that we should see major unrelatedness, or discontinuity, among various taxa

Next objection?

[Coyoteman]

This is kind of like the idea of a global flood about 4350 years ago. If one didn’t know what was in the bible, a researcher would never come up with such a preposterous idea from worldwide geology, hydrology, and sedimentology.

And that is nonsense- there is plenty of evidneeces which might indicate world wide flood- the simple fact that not all would agree, and that some make excuses to wave away the evidneces is not sufficient to undermine the evidences that are observed

What culture's scientists, not exposed to the bible, have postulated that there was a global flood about 4350 years ago?

China? Japan? Korea? India? Egypt? Anywhere?

Does it not strike you as odd that scientists around the world don't postulate a global flood about 4350 years ago? It is only bible literalists who do so.

Perhaps you should admit that its a religious belief, rather than a scientific finding.

[CottShop]

[[What culture’s scientists, not exposed to the bible, have postulated that there was a global flood about 4350 years ago?]]

Well gee coyote- I’m not sure there- Didn’t know that not being exposed to hte bible was a criteria for objectively discovering evidence for a flood- gosh- ya got us there big fella! Evidently, if anyone has been exposed ot hte bible, they can’t be a true scientist in your mind, if they dissagree with you= amazing. The ‘rules of science’ must have a secretive claus hidden away somewhere that only you know about?

[CottShop]

[[Does it not strike you as odd that scientists around the world don’t postulate a global flood about 4350 years ago?]]

And you know this how? Been calling everyone who practices science have ya? You made the difinitive statement no scientist ever would conclude- you must have been aweful busy getting everyon’es opinion on the matterr

[ROTB]

>What I am looking for is a contradiction, not support.
>There is plenty of support for an old world in non-
>Biblical evidence.

Just as Adam and Eve were created fully mature, so was the universe. Is it not possible for God to have created the universe fully mature(as if billions of years old, with light from stars hundreds of light years away visible on day 7), if he created Adam and Eve (grown man and woman) fully mature, though only a day old?

Check out http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2004/08/ and ask yourself if God, who created the universe, could create everything in 6 days, and create light between something 13 billion light years away, and us, so that it is visible roughly 6000 years into creation?

So basically, we can see it 6000 years after it was made, though it should have taken 13 billion years for the light to get here. Couldn’t God do that?

[ROTB]

Just Google up “fossil graveyard”.

Animals could only be buried together en masse and fossilized simultaneously if they were buried in mud in a global flood.

[mitch5501]

"In our time, the wrecking ball of nihilism is literally destroying human souls and minds... not to mention a decent future for the human race."

Nah...this is an age of enlightenment,an age where science has feed us from ignorance of the past,it's the Bible beleivers who are trying to drag us back to the dark ages. < /s >