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...

[edsheppa]

So are you fazed by your own ignorance

Yes. When I am not knowledgeable about a subject I either don't post about it or, if it interests me, post questions or learn about the subject first.

[hosepipe]

[.. Photons carry momentum and energy but not mass. Mass has something to do with inertia, so does momentum. But there is that photon ignoring one part selectively. What is going on? ..]

I don't know.. I don't like photons.. they are way too slow.. universally speaking.. They are completely unsuited to the size of this universe.. or a galaxy even.. Something is going on with photons.. I think God slows them down/inhibits them for some reason.. Why I don't know..

Maybe there be "dark photons" that can move much faster?..
You know, some attribute of the dark energy/matter paradigm..

[MHGinTN]

Thank you for the link. Informative.

As you know, I've used the notion of a wall inside a room, a wall that is one boundary of the room, and related our spcetime to the wall and the room to the volumetric spacetime we do not have access to but as a boundary wall we are a part of. A being of our brane/wall would not sense a being of greater spacetime volume except where that being intersected our brane/wall. In my book, that's the explanation I use in discussing the Daniel Chptr 5 handwriting incident. One could just as easily use the notion of a sphere as our brane and the tube for which the sphere represents the end of the tube, or a cube and the trunk for which the cube is the end of the trunk, it's just a matter of temporal reference frame.

[MHGinTN]

What if the photon we perceive is the spacetime location where a temporally greater thing that is actual light (as in the stuff God made the universe with) intersects our spacetime brane (our 4D if you like)? Could the wave form be a planar temporal manifestation of this ‘light’, the particle be a linear temporal form of this ‘light’ and there is a greater, volumetric temporal form of this ‘light’ which our spacetime limitation has only the ‘intersecting’ essence we can measure and experience?

[AndyTheBear]

Yes. When I am not knowledgeable about a subject I either don't post about it or, if it interests me, post questions or learn about the subject first.

Sounds like a good rule, but I think I would have trouble following it. There is no subject that I don't have at least some ignorance about. Paradoxically as I learn more about a subject it usually reveals to me that I was more ignorant about it then I had realized. So at what point am I qualified to post an opinion or an assertion? For myself I try to at least acknowledge my level of ignorance as honestly as possible and I try to convey at least something of value, whether it be based on logic, wit, knowledge, or some other quality.

Also the motivation behind such a rule seems to discount that imagination is often more important then knowledge.

[Alamo-Girl]

The real question is why a heavier and a lighter body respond exactly the same to a gravitational field while they respond differently to a directly applied force.

With regard to the heavier and lighter objects, weight is not related to the point I was making because weight is relative to gravity or geometry of space/time whereas invariant mass or rest mass or intrinsic mass or unobserved mass applies to the object itself.

A twelve pound cannonball in space, for instance, is weightless – but it has an inertial mass which is to say that it cannot accelerate until a force is applied to it. The greater the inertial mass, the less acceleration for the same amount of force. This is proportional.

The equivalence principle, OTOH, derives from the Newtonian notion that all objects fall with the same acceleration and thus how fast an object accelerates (inertial mass) and gravitational mass are the same. Therefore, falling towards gravity, indentations in the geometry of space/time (general relativity) and velocity are equivalent. There is not an applied force in this sense.

This NASA article has an interesting discussion of the equivalence principle, including new tests envisioned to look for small differences in the equivalence principle which may help substantiate string theory.

And, of course, relativistic mass or observed mass or apparent mass of the object increases as it accelerates, approaching the speed of light. Or to put it another way, relativity shows us that the inertia of a body increases when the energy of the body increases.

[Alamo-Girl]

Photons carry momentum and energy but not mass. Mass has something to do with inertia, so does momentum. But there is that photon ignoring one part selectively. What is going on?

LOLOL! It's like the photon is wearing a flashing neon sign - "look at me, I'm important!"

[Alamo-Girl]

As you know, I've used the notion of a wall inside a room, a wall that is one boundary of the room, and related our spcetime to the wall and the room to the volumetric spacetime we do not have access to but as a boundary wall we are a part of. A being of our brane/wall would not sense a being of greater spacetime volume except where that being intersected our brane/wall.

Indeed. Your speculations are quite compelling!

[CottShop]

[[He asked for an explanation of how something that’s predictive isn’t a prediction. One trivial way to discern the difference, and the one I pointed out, is that they have different grammatical roles but I doubt CottShop was aware of this. I think his posts that you didn’t bother to read make that clear. For example, when I previously used the word “predictive,” his reply used the word “predictable.” In his very next post, he changed from “predictable” to “prediction.”]]

are you always this anal?

The model of Baraminology is predictive,

When one uses Baraminology, one can predict discontinuity.

Baraminoly clasifications predict discontinuity.

Because the model of Baraminology is predictive, One can make a prediction.

Do you always get attack someone’s character when you can’t prove Bariminoly is predictive after you state that it isn’t? You feel better now big guy?

[hosepipe]

[.. It's like the photon is wearing a flashing neon sign - "look at me, I'm important!" ..]

The little bastiches are indeed, "ITS ALL ABOUT ME". I hate em..
"Look at ME.. I don't have to behave NORMALLY."
And besides that look at slow I am(they say).. A light YEAR.. Pulllleeese..

[hosepipe]

[.. What if the photon we perceive is the spacetime location where a temporally greater thing that is actual light (as in the stuff God made the universe with) intersects our spacetime brane ..]

I don't know that God used light to make anything.. in any brane..
Theres something fishy about photons.. I havn't put my finger on what yet..
But I'm working on it.. photons come from another dimension, probably..
They are totally out of place here.. they don't behave themselves..

[edsheppa]

Do you always get attack someone’s character when you can’t prove Bariminoly is predictive after you state that it isn’t?

Words to ponder.

The model of Baraminology is predictive,

So you said. You even had a claimed prediction. But you have yet to back it up. I'll give you another chance. Here is what you said is a prediction of this scheme.

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

And here is what I said.

Please explain this prediction. Tell me the theory behind this and the logical argument that follows from that theory whose conclusion is "we should see major unrelatedness, or discontinuity, among various taxa." You'll also have to be more specific about what constitues "major unrelatedness, or discontinuity, among various taxa."

So, can you back up your claim or not? I'm betting you can't.

[CottShop]

[[So, can you back up your claim or not? I’m betting you can’t.]]

You lose- pay up.

Baraminology has ALREADY backed it up Ed- go check it out for yourself if you don’t beleive me. The onus isn’t on me to ‘back up the claim’ because Baraminolgy makes the claim and backs it up with facts. There are major discontinuity among taxa- period. You may subjectively dissagree with the findings, which I’m sure you will no doubt, but your dissagreement is of no concern where the science is concerned. Should you dissagree, your dissagreement will be based on nothign more than assumptions which can not be backed up scientifically-

And Ed- No amount of maligning of my character as a result of your obsessivenss with Grammar is going to change that- but, if it makes you feel better about yourself at the end of the day to do so, then by golly and go right ahead and do so. If you feels I’m ignant acus of my Gramar, and it makes you feel just that much more superior to points it out to me, then have at it, wouldn’t want you feeling bad about yourself Ed- not that you would, being perfect and all. Was I spozed to use a comma there Ed?

[CottShop]

[[Words to ponder]]

Oh I pondered it Ed- for about a 1/2 second, and quite frankly, I couldn’t give two figs about obsessing {is that one or two s’s? and is it a { or an ( that should be used?) over grammar (is that one or two m’s?) and Here’s the conclusion I came to:

fi yuo cna raed tihs, yuo hvae a sgtrane mnid too. Cna yuo raed tihs? Olny
55 plepoe out of 100 can.
i cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The
phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde
Uinervtisy, it dseno’t mtaetr in waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are, the
olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit
pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whotuit a
pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by
istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Azanmig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot
slpeling was ipmorantt!

Granted Ed, My Gaff was more than a mere spelling mistake, but gloating over a mistake on someone’s part is unbecoming Ed.

Lighten up on the dictionary Dorkism Ed. School’s over- it’s ok to relax in an informal climate.

Words to ponder

[csense]

I'm not so sure that the key is the first and last letter, although I agree it plays a very important role. I had no problem reading the text, but interestingly, I interpreted the word "research" for researcher since it was precede by the indefinite article "a," and fit the syntax better.

If my peripheral vision had spied the word "paper" immediately after the word "research," then the syntax would made sense as is. I think that gives you a clue as to what else is going on and why we can read it. For lack of a better term, I think it's anticipation of the familiar.

Try the same thing with words that are not so common and I'll bet that it will look like the gibberish that it is.

[HiTech RedNeck]

This utilitarian argument is an old, discredited red herring.

You’d be surprised to find that ardent creationists as a group have a firmer grasp of the “rest” of science than their average countrymen.

[csense]

...or, if the indefinite article “a” was absent from the text would “research” have made sense.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Old Earth Creationists would differ on that number.

[MEGoody]

Yeah. SEVERELY downhill.

You are right, public schools HAVE gone severely downhill since then.

[RightWhale]

The ‘why’ in science is a result of the dogmatic procedure of science. The scientist will formulate his picture of reality, which is his intent, and then collect data. Reversing the procedure is a sure way to get old without geting anywhere.