Fundamentalists desecrate the very idea of museums

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Newsweek article on YEC propaganda 'museum': (permalink).

Welcome [...] to the

Creation Museum

. Here, dozens of exhibits attempt to show the Bible as the literal truth and

the theory of evolution as unsupportable by science

. Creationists believe that the Garden of Eden did exist, that

the world is 6,000 years old

, that God created man and animals simultaneously, and that

the flood wiped out every living creature that wasn’t inside Noah’s Ark

.

[Emphasis mine]

How is this any better than North Korean museums' displays about how Kim il-Sun created the peninsula of Korea, or a Stalinist museum of the horrors of living in democratic nations? Is it any better than a KKK museum parading the idea that Africans are inferior to us and deserving of slavery?

 

The article mentions, among other things, caricatures of science; the belief that dragons may have been real only a few hundred years ago; and that the Bible should always be prioritized over science because 'humans are fallible'. A museum. I feel nauseated.

 

It's one thing to believe this nonsense privately. To spread it without knowledge of the subject is another. And to contaminate the public mind in this fashion is simply unforgivable. These people make a mockery of the very principle of museums and have a place alongside the propaganda-makers of East Germany's brainwashing machinery. And in the midst of this, they are the ones who feel oppressed. It's beyond arrogance to poison the minds of the gullible this way.

 

While I keep telling myself, and really believe, that it's impossible that the country will fall into a Dark Age of cultism, theocracy and oppression, sometimes I truly fear for the future of the United States of America - I don't find it completely impossible that it's the Christian Saudi-Arabia of tomorrow. The YECs attack not only evolution, an integral part of biology - they also strike at medicine, tolerance, freedom, science in general, and women's rights, to mention but a very few.

[Emperor Devon]

It's nothing short of nauseating, but it's hardly new. If "intelligent design" can't get stuck in public schools, something like this is inevitable.

 

Portraying total fiction and utter nonsense as absolute truth in a house of knowledge of all places is nothing short of desecration. It's an insult to science, intelligence, knowledge, and all highest virtues men can aspire to. It's barbaric. It's spitting upon what makes humans great. It is an insult to all the great minds throughout history and a salute to ignorance, stupidity, and faithlessness is mankind. I'd go so far as to call it an indirect hatred for humanity. If anything could be described as the personification of all that is evil in the world it is things like this.

 

My two Randist cents.

[Gargoyle King]

It's nothing short of nauseating, but it's hardly new. If "intelligent design" can't get stuck in public schools, something like this is inevitable.

 

Portraying total fiction and utter nonsense as absolute truth in a house of knowledge of all places is nothing short of desecration. It's an insult to science, intelligence, knowledge, and all highest virtues men can aspire to. It's barbaric. It's spitting upon what makes humans great. It is an insult to all the great minds throughout history and a salute to ignorance, stupidity, and faithlessness is mankind. I'd go so far as to call it an indirect hatred for humanity. If anything could be described as the personification of all that is evil in the world it is things like this.

 

My two Randist cents.

 

Whoa!! Slow down!!

I personally wouldn't go this far, i do agree however that it's an insult to science and common knowledge. If anything could be described as the personification of all that is evil in the world i'd have to say it's Bush (c'mon you can't deny there is something very mischevious about that man - i worry for the world every time he smiles, i think what is it now? First the Iraqi War and now World War 3 with Korea!)

[Emperor Devon]

Whoa!! Slow down!!

I personally wouldn't go this far,

 

I would.

 

If you look this casually, it may just seem stupid someone word portray nonsense as fact but nothing more.

 

But look for a moment at the deeper meanings of this. Science, knowledge, independence, intelligence, and all those other virtues were what brought man from scattered tribes living in caves to the advanced societies we live in today. Everything this advocates is the total opposite of that - to besmirch science in such a way as this "museum" does is a slap on the face to what made man what man is today, and harkens back to the Dark Ages where God was put above reason (and funnily enough, the same time when religion ruled the world).

 

It's monstrous. To desecrate science is to spit in the face of humanity. To advocate ignorance and stupidity in this manner is like saying "Back to the jungle! Back to savagery and barbarism! Down with intelligence and knowledge! Humans are worthless!"

 

i do agree however that it's an insult to science and common knowledge.

 

Which are the highest of virtues mankind can aspire to. Dismiss them as worthless and you dismiss humanity as worthless.

 

If anything could be described as the personification of all that is evil in the world i'd have to say it's Bush

 

Somewhat good intents, horrible results. What things like this symbolize is much worse.

[Achilles]

Oh that. Yes, well, that's just one drop in the bucket my friend. Here are some of the other weapons of mass destruction that are being used in the war on reason:

 

Christian Colleges and Universities. Bob Jones University is arguably the flag ship of these institutions. Richard Dawkins has a very entertaining commentary on Liberty University, which can be found here (I recommend watching to the end. What he says might sound familiar ).

 

The Discovery Institute (specifically the Center for Science and Culture). This group had a hand in trying to get intelligent design (aka creationism) into the science curricula in Dover, Pennsylvania. Not to be deterred, they were also arguably behind a similar move in the state of Kansas. Keep in mind this esteemed group of scientists don't actually do any ID-specific research, nor to they publish any ID-specific papers. In fact it appears that all they do is try to circumvent the scientific process and indoctrinate young minds into their pseudo-science by getting their ideas into science curricula. Ken Miller, one of the scientists involved with the Dover trial has a very long (but very good) presentation on ID which can be found

.

 

There was one other thing I wanted to touch on, but I seem to have forgotten it. I'll edit this post later if it comes back to me.

 

EDIT: Of course it came back to me right after I posted.

 

The Templeton Prize. This prize is awarded to someone that "serves to stimulate this quest for deeper understanding and pioneering breakthroughs in religious concepts". It might be a red herring to point out that this honor comes complete with a $3 million cash bonus. Some might want to point out that there are similar prizes for science, but science is a legitimate exploratory endeavor, while religion is not.

 

Thanks for reading.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Richard Dawkins is always worth your time. He assaults another so-called 'museum' of in the Q&A session, advising the students of Liberty University to 'leave and enroll at a real university' [paraphrased].

 

I personally find that Dawkins is too rude in some cases (for example, his 'I keep a tally of the people walking out'-comment was uncalled for, in my eyes), but his ideas are solid as concrete.

[Achilles]

Indeed, he does a bit of an edge sometimes. If you haven't had an opportunity to see Sam Harris speak, I'd highly recommend doing so. Here's a clip that shows Harris at his most riled (and still manages to be a paragon of patience and grace). Of course, he has a strong Buddhist background, which Dawkins does not have

[SilentScope001]

Free speech is something that should be protected, regardless of what ideas a person like or hate. I am against censorship in all ways, both private and public, both internal and external. Internal censorship would be having a bias that makes you believe that one idea is wrong and then curisng that idea. Everyone has an internal censorship of some sort, but it should be destroyed, because it infringes on Free Speech.

 

What's the point of the 1st Amendment, after all, IF you do not have the Right to be Heard?

 

Yes, I say that tiny little spiel. Why? Because I object to ED calling for censorship of an idea, regardless of what Idea it actually is. You hate it, fine. But don't go and start calling people evil or such or that they deserve to have this museum be shut down. Otherwise, if we can shut down "ideas" because we hate them and that we believe/think/know they are "wrong", well...er...this means that we can shut down any other "ideas" as well, because we hate them and that we believe/think/know they are "wrong".

 

We might as well shut down ALL ideas we hate. Why not complete the cycle, and get rid of all opposing ideas? Because if we do so, then there is a chance that my Ideas would be destroyed with this last purge, and there is a chance your Ideas will be destroyed in the last purge. I think it would be better to keep things in flux, allow for everyone to have the right to speak their mind, and for everyone to keep an open mind to hear what other people are saying.

 

What does this mean in the ID/Creationism debate? I do not know, and I do not care. Teach it in school, teach it outside, sooner or later, if a person wants to learn ID, they'll learn it. What I do care is the offensive call to censor ID and prevent that Idea from spreading.

 

And I do believe in evolution, I feel it actually boosts my faith in religion. But that doesn't mean that we should censor other people's ideas.

[Jae Onasi]

It beats 'performance art'. Welcome to America, where you can have museums about Spam and assorted other...unusual things.

 

Aside from being ultra-fundamentalist in religious doctrine, the other non-religious programs at Liberty are pretty good, and the campus is in a beautiful part of the country. I did visit when I was in high school. There was a rule at the time (don't know if this is still the case) that the guys all had to wear ties to class and chapel. We saw one guy with what must have been 20 or 30 ties on, arranged very neatly 360 degrees around his neck. It was quite a statement.

 

Saying Dawkins has 'a bit of an edge' would be like a woman saying 'I'm a bit pregnant'.

[Achilles]

It beats 'performance art'. Welcome to America, where you can have museums about Spam and assorted other...unusual things.

Last time I checked, Spam isn't a lie being propagated as truth. One of these things is dangerous while the other is not.

 

Aside from being ultra-fundamentalist in religious doctrine, the other non-religious programs at Liberty are pretty good, and the campus is in a beautiful part of the country.

Like the science program that proclaims that dinosaurs were around 3000 years ago?

 

Saying Dawkins has 'a bit of an edge' would be like a woman saying 'I'm a bit pregnant'.

Rather than point out that I've watch dozens of speeches and interviews and have only seen him "lose it" a couple of times, I think I'll point out that the spokespeople for Christianity are not better and in most cases are far worse than Richard Dawkins. I'll take Dawkins over Falwell or Robertson anyday. Let's give objectivity a chance, eh? Pregnancy is an all-or-nothing proposition after all.

[Samuel Dravis]

The Creation Museum, which has so far funded its $26 million cost through private donations

I don't see a problem. If people go to it, then it's their responsibility. I don't care what they do with their time. "Dangerous" as religion may or may not be, no one can tell them they don't have the right to do as they like in this case.

[Achilles]

By itself, I don't see it as being anymore of a problem than any of the other indoctrination tools. As part of the whole, it's just another source of growing concern. If those groups that donated were really interested in furthering knowledge and understanding, I'm sure there are more than a few legitimate causes that $26 million could have gone towards. My 2 cents.

[stoffe]

If some people want to believe in these things then why not let them? People have different beliefs and feelings about many things that are not always logical and rational, but they believe it anyway. If people aren't allowed to have "dangerous" ideas do you really have freedom of expression/speech?

 

As long as it doesn't affect anyone else than those who choose to believe it then they should be allowed to do/think as they want. If they try to force it on everyone else then it's a different matter entirely, though that applies to other ideas as well. Forcing people to "believe" in religious doctrine at gunpoint isn't any worse then forcing people to "believe" in atheism at gunpoint.

 

It's one of the dilemmas of freedom of expression, that it must allow people with uncomfortable and "wrong/dangerous" ideas to hold them regardless. It's not really freedom of expression if you're only allowed to have ideas that have gotten the stamp of approval by some higher authority.

 

That does of course not grant these people freedom from having their ideas criticized by others who don't agree with them. The critics have the right to express their ideas as well, so long as they don't force the deviants to believe like them.

 

Just (some of) my thoughts on the subject.

[Darth InSidious]

Last time I checked, Spam isn't a lie being propagated as truth. One of these things is dangerous while the other is not.

 

A *lie*. That seems to imply that the theory or evolution is some kind of dogmatic truth, an absolute.

 

Intelligent design is simply a non-scientific alternative. I don't agree with it, I don't think it's likely, but I don't deny the possibility of it. On what rational grounds can it be denied? That it isn't scientific? It deals solely with noumena - how can science penetrate its claims? It can't.

 

You reaction is yet one more example of the religion of science, IMO

 

The language used here certainly sounds religious - 'desecrate', 'caricatures', 'nauseated', 'contaminate the public mind', 'mockery', ' mockery of the very principle of museums', 'beyond arrogance', 'house of knowledge', 'an insult to all the great minds throughout history', 'an insult to all the great minds throughout history', 'a salute to ignorance, stupidity, and faithlessness is mankind', 'indirect hatred for humanity', 'personification of all that is evil in the world', 'other virtues were what brought man from scattered tribes living in caves to the advanced societies we live in today',' besmirch science in such a way as this "museum" does is a slap on the face to what made man what man is today', 'It's monstrous. To desecrate science is to spit in the face of humanity','Which are the highest of virtues mankind can aspire to','the war on reason', 'lie being propagated as truth'...My, the Rationalist Inquisition is out in full force today...

 

harkens back to the Dark Ages where God was put above reason (and funnily enough, the same time when religion ruled the world).

I advise you to learn some history. The foundations of science and knowledge are in your 'Dark Ages', with minds. Your 'Dark Ages' were alive with writers, philosophers, and proto-scientists. The 'Dark Ages' in your understanding are a Protestant myth and about a century behind modern historical thought.

 

@Dagobahn: Would this be the 'Christian' Saudi Arabia where only Muslims can be citizens?

 

@ED: I am curious as to why the highest good is this Laputian quest for knowledge? What of compassion, mercy, tolerance, love?

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Freedom of speech is not absolute, nor should it be. A doctor cannot lie to a patient about his condition, regardless of freedom of speech. I'm sure there are people who don't like to hear that diabetes is more common among Asians, for example. Should they be allowed to become doctors and spew nonsense about how we're all equally likely to get diabetes? Should medicine be made 'politically correct' so that those of us who don't like life's harsh realities have a place to go to hear what they want to hear? Never.

 

Is it freedom of speech-protected for an ice cream company to advertise its products as sugar-free when in reality they are not? Would it be legal for tobacco producers to slap a 'non-addictive' label onto their cigarette packs? Certainly not.

 

When I visit a doctor's office, I expect to be able to ask questions about human anatomy without getting lies in return. The second I hear my doctor say something like 'AIDS is not a virus, but punishment for your sins', I walk out of there and report him to the proper authorities. When I visit a museum, I expect to learn about whatever the museum is dedicated to. It's the same thing.

 

A *lie*. That seems to imply that the theory or evolution is some kind of dogmatic truth, an absolute.

A scientific theory, such as the theory of gravity or atomic theory, is a model used to explain facts. It can very well be factual. The theories of evolution and atoms certainly are.

 

Otherwise, if we can shut down "ideas" because we hate them and that we believe/think/know they are "wrong", well...er...this means that we can shut down any other "ideas" as well, because we hate them and that we believe/think/know they are "wrong".

No. I hate nazism, but I perfectly well recognize that the ignorant swines have the right to spew their anti-Jewish, anti-homosexual, anti-freedom bigotry. It's not that the Creationists disagree with me that's the problem. It's that they build 'museums' and 'schools', sites of education and learning, to further those ideas. These two institutions should have a standard of accuracy, just like newspapers that can't lie about individuals without risking libel lawsuits.

 

Want to make a Creationism museum? Go ahead. Just be sure to inform the visitors that you do not claim a single one of your ideas is real, unless you actually can produce evidence to the contrary.

 

Intelligent design is simply a non-scientific alternative. I don't agree with it, I don't think it's likely, but I don't deny the possibility of it. On what rational grounds can it be denied? That it isn't scientific? It deals solely with noumena - how can science penetrate its claims? It can't.

That is because it, like the hypothesis that trolls are real, has brought forth no evidence whatsoever to support its claims. Few sane people today can honestly say they believe in trolls. Why? Because there's no evidence for them. All the mysteries that required trolls and other vættir (a collective term for all mysterious forest creatures in Norse woods - there were quite a few) have been solved. No one today claims we need to learn about curses from witches as an alternative to allergies, do we? We accept that when cows start itching, they're ill or allergic, and we need no 'alternative explanation' - certainly not a supernatural one with no evidence - to this fact.

 

You reaction is yet one more example of the religion of science, IMO:).

Science is not a religion. A religion is the belief that there is one or more supernatural lifeform, a god, in this universe. Science says nothing of the sort.

 

The language used here certainly sounds religious - 'desecrate', 'caricatures', 'nauseated', 'contaminate the public mind', 'mockery', ' mockery of the very principle of museums', 'beyond arrogance', 'house of knowledge', 'an insult to all the great minds throughout history', 'an insult to all the great minds throughout history', 'a salute to ignorance, stupidity, and faithlessness is mankind', 'indirect hatred for humanity', 'personification of all that is evil in the world', 'other virtues were what brought man from scattered tribes living in caves to the advanced societies we live in today',' besmirch science in such a way as this "museum" does is a slap on the face to what made man what man is today', 'It's monstrous. To desecrate science is to spit in the face of humanity','Which are the highest of virtues mankind can aspire to','the war on reason', 'lie being propagated as truth'...My, the Rationalist Inquisition is out in full force today...

Nonsense. You'd have to declare every single activity in the world a religion if you are to define 'religion' as 'something somebody has a strong interest in'.

 

If some people want to believe in these things then why not let them? People have different beliefs and feelings about many things that are not always logical and rational, but they believe it anyway. If people aren't allowed to have "dangerous" ideas do you really have freedom of expression/speech?

You can have all the dangerous ideas you want. Just don't put them in museums as facts, unless you can prove they are indeed factual.

[Darth InSidious]

A scientific theory, such as the theory of gravity or atomic theory, is a model used to explain facts. It can very well be factual. The theories of evolution and atoms certainly are.

Incorrect. It explains the evidence. 'Facts' are absolute, noumenal. Evidence is...observations. Observations are phenomenal. The phenomenal cannot be absolute, since we cannot tell whether it is also noumenal. Therefore, evidence does not equate to 'facts'.

 

That is because it, like the hypothesis that trolls are real, has brought forth no evidence whatsoever to support its claims. Few sane people today can honestly say they believe in trolls. Why? Because there's no evidence for them. All the mysteries that required trolls and other vættir (a collective term for all mysterious forest creatures in Norse woods - there were quite a few) have been solved. No one today claims we need to learn about curses from witches as an alternative to allergies, do we? We accept that when cows start itching, they're ill or allergic, and we need no 'alternative explanation' - certainly not a supernatural one with no evidence - to this fact.

You cannot give evidence for the noumenal, though. Since ID deals solely with the noumenal, and not the phenomenal, in fact placing both in contradiction, it cannot be scientifically proven, and in fact debunks science altogether - it bypasses science as irrelevant.

Science is not a religion. A religion is the belief that there is one or more supernatural lifeform, a god, in this universe. Science says nothing of the sort.

I disagree. A religion is a collection of (usually absolute) dogmas first and foremost. Which is what you have turned science into.

Nonsense. You'd have to declare every single activity in the world a religion if you are to define 'religion' as 'something somebody has a strong interest in'.

That is all very religious language, however. If I were to replace 'museum', 'science', 'knowledge' and 'reason' in these phrases with 'God', 'divinity' et al., you would say that it is just a few religious nuts getting hot under the collar over nothing.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

I disagree. A religion is a collection of (usually absolute) dogmas first and foremost. Which is what you have turned science into.

Not at all. Religion is the belief in a supernatural deity. It is almost always hostile to change, but that is in no way what defines it.

 

And as a side note, science is not hostile to change at all, neither am I.

 

That is all very religious language, however. If I were to replace 'museum', 'science', 'knowledge' and 'reason' in these phrases with 'God', 'divinity' et al., you would say that it is just a few religious nuts getting hot under the collar over nothing.

I think you're failing to understand the implications of the religious fundamentalists gaining more and more control in the world's only superpower, a nation responsible for roughly 50% of the world's research. Already, we've got people opposing abortion, homosexuality and stem cell research for religious reasons. Back in the days of the Wright brothers, the work to invent aircraft was discouraged by many fundamentalists who interpreted it as against the will of God. When the fork was introduced to Scandinavia, religious people refused to use it because... [drumroll] ...the Bible never mentions Jesus eating with a similar tool.

 

Religious fundamentalism, by definition, impedes progress and freedom.

[stoffe]

Already, we've got people opposing abortion, homosexuality and stem cell research for religious reasons. Back in the days of the Wright brothers, the work to invent aircraft was discouraged by many fundamentalists who interpreted it as against the will of God. When the fork was introduced to Scandinavia, religious people refused to use it because... [drumroll] ...the Bible never mentions Jesus eating with a similar tool.

 

And yet today both forks and aircraft are standard, even though the religious institutions had much more power back then (and religion played a larger part in most people's everyday life). This would indicate that just because a group of people with strong convictions scream loud it doesn't necessarily mean that the rest of humanity listen to them and do as they say.

 

I'd like to think that the same would be true today in the more secular western world; that scientists will continue to work towards what they believe in even if religious fundamentalists are ideologically opposed to their work and ideas. Without the need to silence those fundamentalists to enable progress. Prove them wrong and provide counter arguments to their claims rather than prevent them from saying what they believe in.

[Achilles]

If some people want to believe in these things then why not let them? People have different beliefs and feelings about many things that are not always logical and rational, but they believe it anyway. If people aren't allowed to have "dangerous" ideas do you really have freedom of expression/speech?

I won't presume to speak for anyone else here. I'm not advocating that they shouldn't be permitted to have such a museum, or that their right to free speech/expression should be suspended. I don't believe I've said anything here that suggests that.

 

As long as it doesn't affect anyone else than those who choose to believe it then they should be allowed to do/think as they want.

Absolutely. It is a shame that so many resources are going into something that will do nothing to progress knowledge and understanding (which is the whole point of a museum, imho).

 

If they try to force it on everyone else then it's a different matter entirely, though that applies to other ideas as well.

Like children that are not allowed to make a choice regarding what their parents expose them to? Dawkins makes a case that religious indoctrination is a form of child abuse and I'm inclined to agree with him.

 

Forcing people to "believe" in religious doctrine at gunpoint isn't any worse then forcing people to "believe" in atheism at gunpoint.

Agreed. Luckily, I don't know of anyone that advocates atheism at gunpoint. Those regimes that have in the past have much bigger problems than atheism though.

 

It's one of the dilemmas of freedom of expression, that it must allow people with uncomfortable and "wrong/dangerous" ideas to hold them regardless. It's not really freedom of expression if you're only allowed to have ideas that have gotten the stamp of approval by some higher authority.

I couldn't agree more. I think you'll find that I advocate a cultural shift to atheism based on this very principle. People should be allowed to believe in whatever they want, within reason (unless you want to advocate for pedophiles, etc). It would be nice though if we lived in a society where superstition wasn't necessary.

 

That does of course not grant these people freedom from having their ideas criticized by others who don't agree with them. The critics have the right to express their ideas as well, so long as they don't force the deviants to believe like them.

Exactly.

 

Just (some of) my thoughts on the subject.

Thanks for sharing them

 

A *lie*. That seems to imply that the theory or evolution is some kind of dogmatic truth, an absolute.

That would be a false dichotomy. Exposing religion as a lie does not automatically make evolution the default winner, just as debunking evolution would not make religion the default winner. Religion can be a lie all by itself and evolution can be debunked all by itself and a 3rd option we haven't even considered might be the true "winner".

 

Luckily, all the evidence just happens to support the theory of evolution, so I am confident in it's accuracy...until I have good cause to think other wise.

 

Your emphasis on the word "theory" demonstrates that you do not understand the significance of the term within the study of science. I can only assume that you are incorrectly confusing it with what those familiar with science would call a hypothesis. I would suggest that you spend some time researching the subject a little more (specifically the difference between a hypothesis and a theory), as it might aid you in some of these discussions. I hope that helps.

 

Intelligent design is simply a non-scientific alternative.

Emphasis on "non-scientific". A non-scientific alternative to science. Lovely.

 

I don't agree with it, I don't think it's likely, but I don't deny the possibility of it. On what rational grounds can it be denied? That it isn't scientific?

Luckily, the study of science requires that we are skeptical until we have evidence. Anything is possible until it can be discounted. Since ID has yet to produce a testable hypothesis (by its advocate's own admission), it hasn't even taken the first step toward being taken seriously. Hence all the hub-bub about keeping it out of science classrooms.

 

It deals solely with noumena - how can science penetrate its claims? It can't.

Correct. Which is why it's not science and most likely never will be.

 

You reaction is yet one more example of the religion of science, IMO

I would have to know what you were referencing specifically in order to reply. In the mean time: this is not an argument.

 

The language used here certainly sounds religious - 'desecrate', 'caricatures', 'nauseated', 'contaminate the public mind', 'mockery', ' mockery of the very principle of museums', 'beyond arrogance', 'house of knowledge', 'an insult to all the great minds throughout history', 'an insult to all the great minds throughout history', 'a salute to ignorance, stupidity, and faithlessness is mankind', 'indirect hatred for humanity', 'personification of all that is evil in the world', 'other virtues were what brought man from scattered tribes living in caves to the advanced societies we live in today',' besmirch science in such a way as this "museum" does is a slap on the face to what made man what man is today', 'It's monstrous. To desecrate science is to spit in the face of humanity','Which are the highest of virtues mankind can aspire to','the war on reason', 'lie being propagated as truth'...My, the Rationalist Inquisition is out in full force today...

You are, of course, welcome to your opinions, however please don't confuse them with the truth. Thanks in advance.

 

Incorrect. It explains the evidence. 'Facts' are absolute, noumenal. Evidence is...observations. Observations are phenomenal. The phenomenal cannot be absolute, since we cannot tell whether it is also noumenal. Therefore, evidence does not equate to 'facts'.

As I have already pointed out in another thread, this argument belies your lack of understanding regarding science. Fact is the foundation of science. Scientific theory is superior to facts because fact just exist while theories offer explanations about facts. I again implore you to spend some time learning about the basics of science before commenting further.

 

You cannot give evidence for the noumenal, though. Since ID deals solely with the noumenal, and not the phenomenal, in fact placing both in contradiction

No contradiction. Being noumenal, it immediately takes itself out of the game. If it weren't for the fact that ID advocates were trying to sneak it into science curricula, I promise you that the scientific community would be perfect happy to just ignore it.

 

it cannot be scientifically proven, and in fact debunks science altogether - it bypasses science as irrelevant.

LOL. It does no such thing. I recommend studying this a bit further, sir.

 

I disagree. A religion is a collection of (usually absolute) dogmas first and foremost. Which is what you have turned science into.

There is no dogma in science. Where there is dogma, it's not science. It really is that simple.

 

That is all very religious language, however. If I were to replace 'museum', 'science', 'knowledge' and 'reason' in these phrases with 'God', 'divinity' et al., you would say that it is just a few religious nuts getting hot under the collar over nothing.

It seems interesting that you see fit to mock such language while seeking to claim it as your own. If you can fashion a list of "official religious outbursts" and the demonstrate how the contributors to this thread have unwittingly committed some form of copyright violation, I'm sure that each of us will be more than happy to offer an apology for the trespass.

 

And yet today both forks and aircraft are standard, even though the religious institutions had much more power back then (and religion played a larger part in most people's everyday life). This would indicate that just because a group of people with strong convictions scream loud it doesn't necessarily mean that the rest of humanity listen to them and do as they say.

I don't think there is any evidence that shows that religion was more prevalent then than it is today. Most survey data that I've seen would seem to indicate that religiosity (in the U.S. at least) has been pretty steady for most of the last century. This might seems like case for "atheist alarmism" but when you consider religiosity as function of progress, the more sophisticated that our society becomes the more absurd superstition is.

 

As DE points out, the U.S. seems poised on the edge of a theocracy. Considering how much power the U.S. government wields throughout the world, it would seem to be in everyone's best interest if we prevent the fundies from completely taking over. At least that's my opinion.

 

I'd like to think that the same would be true today in the more secular western world; that scientists will continue to work towards what they believe in even if religious fundamentalists are ideologically opposed to their work and ideas.

The only "secular western world" I'm aware of is Europe and Canada

 

The problem in the U.S. is that the gov't has seen fit to begin limiting which kinds of scientific research are allowed. So it's not a matter of live and let live.

 

Without the need to silence those fundamentalists to enable progress. Prove them wrong and provide counter arguments to their claims rather than prevent them from saying what they believe in.

Again, I think the "silence the fundamentalist" argument might be something of a red herring. No one is calling for rounding up all the fundies and pushing them off a cliff. It seems much more like a call to reason. At least from where I'm standing.

 

Thanks again.

[JediMaster12]

Welcome [...] to the Creation Museum. Here, dozens of exhibits attempt to show the Bible as the literal truth and the theory of evolution as unsupportable by science. Creationists believe that the Garden of Eden did exist, that the world is 6,000 years old, that God created man and animals simultaneously, and that the flood wiped out every living creature that wasn’t inside Noah’s Ark. [Emphasis mine]

What you have shown is nothing short of the most ridiculous thing I ever heard of. The idea of showing that evolution is unsupportable by science? Completely dumb and pure nonsense. The world is not 6,000 years old and geological evidence points that out. Everything in the Bible is not literal.

 

I am for freedom of expression but as I believe someone pointed out there are limits to that but what I know is the limit to the letter of the law meaning words that incite violence are a crime of itself.

 

Dawkins makes a case that religious indoctrination is a form of child abuse and I'm inclined to agree with him.

How is this abuse? Is this one of those trapizes that depends on point of view? The way how you make it seem to me is something that is as ridiculous as the parent worry craze of playground equipment.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

I disagree it's child abuse, but I do believe that it's morally wrong to indoctrinate a kid into religion before it's old enough to think for itself. As people such as Dawkins have pointed out, it's just as wrong as indoctrinating them into supporting a certain political ideology.

 

Little children are too young to understand politics - doesn't it follow from that that they're also too young to understand huge questions such as 'where do we come from'? Why is it OK to take an infant to church, teach it to pray, and call it a 'Catholic child', but frowned upon to take it to demonstrations, tell it Scandinavia is Heaven because of socialism, and call it a 'Norwegian Labour Party child'?

[SilentScope001]

Little children are too young to understand politics - doesn't it follow from that that they're also too young to understand huge questions such as 'where do we come from'? Why is it OK to take an infant to church, teach it to pray, and call it a 'Catholic child', but frowned upon to take it to demonstrations, tell it Scandinavia is Heaven because of socialism, and call it a 'Norwegian Labour Party child'?

 

Isn't for me. Do what you wish, even for politics.

 

Indoctration is part of every child's education. All childern have to be indoctrined to believe that 2+2=4, for instance. Of course, this is because the child is dumb, and needs to know that 2+2=4, because a long time of research has 'concluded' that 2+2=4, and the child should trust these authorites becuase they are smart and intelligent, yadda, yadda, yadda.

 

"Why does 2+2=4?"

 

"Because it does. Now shut up and your homework."

 

Though letting the child question for himself what is right and wrong, if those authorities are correct, I'm okay with. Let the child choose wheter he want to accept the indoctration or if he wants to throw away that nonsense of God and 2+2=4 into the trash bin. But first, just indoctrine him with the information he needs, and then, later on, let him choose.

[Achilles]

How is this abuse? Is this one of those trapizes that depends on point of view? The way how you make it seem to me is something that is as ridiculous as the parent worry craze of playground equipment.

There's a psychological and an intellectual component.

 

As DE points out above, children are too young to grasp some things, including how to differentiate fact from fiction. Considering the prevalence of religions that teach the doctrine that we are all damned and salvation is for only the most devout, I think it's sufficient to say that these parents are promoting a culture of fear. From my perspective, parents are supposed to protect their children from people that want to terrorize them, not assist or do it themselves.

 

Before someone accuses me of being extreme by characterizing it as "terror":

Main Entry: ter·ror·ize

Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"Iz

Function: transitive verb

Inflected Form(s): -ized; -iz·ing

1 : to fill with terror or anxiety : SCARE

2 : to coerce by threat or violence

and

Main Entry: ter·ror

Pronunciation: 'ter-&r, 'te-r&r

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French terrour, from Latin terror, from terrEre to frighten; akin to Greek trein to be afraid, flee, tremein to tremble -- more at TREMBLE

1 : a state of intense fear

2 a : one that inspires fear : SCOURGE b : a frightening aspect <the terrors of invasion> c : a cause of anxiety : WORRY d : an appalling person or thing; especially : BRAT

3 : REIGN OF TERROR

4 : violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands <insurrection and revolutionary terror>

 

We acknowledge that the point of terrorism is to manipulate behavior with fear, but sometimes we fail to recognize such behavior when its part of our culture.

 

Secondly, there is the intellectual aspect. I'm not sure if I should characterize it as neglect or malfeasance. Similar to how many states have begun to remove children from their homes because the parents put their children at serious health risks by allowing them to become clinically obese, I think that teaching children to reject reason should be seen as neglect. I'm not saying that every parent should be forced to certain levels of intellectualism or risk losing their children, but those parents that purposely (intentionally, etc) teach their children not to think rationally, should be considered unfit (I had to turn Jesus Camp off when I saw what constituted "home schooling" for some people).

 

And regarding playground equipment, you watch a child's head bounce off a sidewalk and then accuse parents of being "safety-mongers". Yes, kids are supposed to fall down and skin their knees etc, but some toys (including playground equipment) are truly dangerous.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Indoctration is part of every child's education. All children have to be indoctrinated to believe that 2+2=4, for instance.

Of course. Children need to be taught about facts of life. Indoctrination into politics and mythologies, though, the kid can perfectly well do without.

 

Of course, this is because the child is dumb, and needs to know that 2+2=4, because a long time of research has 'concluded' that 2+2=4, and the child should trust these authorities because they are smart and intelligent, yadda, yadda, yadda.

I have to wonder if you're really attacking something else than the teaching of basic mathematics here.

 

Though letting the child question for himself what is right and wrong, if those authorities are correct, I'm okay with. Let the child choose wheter he want to accept the indoctration or if he wants to throw away that nonsense of God and 2+2=4 into the trash bin. But first, just indoctrine him with the information he needs, and then, later on, let him choose.

Are you seriously saying that it's OK to tell a 5-year old kid about God and then expect him to 'think for himself'? Two problems:

1. Very many parents and schools are very inefficient when it comes to 'teaching both sides'. When I went to elementary school, the authorities had this idea that kids should be turned into Christians at school in mandatory Christianity Classes. It was also mandatory to attend church. And you know what? You can't have that and at the same time go, 'well, you don't have to believe it'.
   
2. Children do not think for themselves.

And regarding playground equipment, you watch a child's head bounce off a sidewalk and then accuse parents of being "safety-mongers". Yes, kids are supposed to fall down and skin their knees etc, but some toys (including playground equipment) are truly dangerous.

True. Safety is a bigger concern now than when I was a kid, but that does not mean it's irrational. Falling off a swing that's moving at full speed is serious for a litte six year old, so I'd say that if she and her friends are made to wear helmets, I won't shed a tear.

 

Let the kids be safe, is what I have to say.

[Achilles]

Children do not think for themselves.

My turn to disagree (but only partially)

 

It has been my experience that children are extremely analytical and quite capable of thinking for themselves (as evidenced by the question that all parents dread: "why?"). Unfortunately they are equally terrible at interpreting what they take in. They rely on adults to provide context which makes indoctrination particularly egregious. This is where I do agree. Taking a child's natural curiosity and systematically replacing it with dogma (in other words, teaching them not to think for themselves) is not something anyone should be proud of. It is our duty to teach children how to think, not what to think.