The Creationist Museum

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Hubertus' timestamp='1339994865' post='2445703']
The Flood.
[/quote]

I heard that too - someone said that the "canopy crashed down" - but according to Genesis, the canopy did not come crashing down, but instead the floodgates closed, so they would be wrong.

[Hubertus]

[quote name='Norseman82' timestamp='1340071159' post='2446090']
I heard that too - someone said that the "canopy crashed down" - but according to Genesis, the canopy did not come crashing down, but instead the floodgates closed, so they would be wrong.
[/quote] Yeah.. A note to the people who support the canopy idea: this is what the Jews were actually talking about,

[img]http://www.internetmonk.com/wp-content/uploads/hebrew_conception_of_the_universe2.jpg[/img]

^ The entire universe.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1340054782' post='2446003']
A
What the hell is that supposed to mean?
[/quote]
My point is that compared with all the other stupid ideas out there (and I would include materialistic Darwinism among them), "Creationism" is pretty harmless.

Yet the virulent outrage being poured on it here exceeds that given even to things like Marxism.

Waste of hate.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' timestamp='1340066812' post='2446066']
They aren't compatible to old school Southern Baptists, Mark. At least not the ones I knew/know, though I'm fully aware that Baptists are far from being monolithic.
[/quote]
I understand what you mean. Where I live we are a bit insular from those things. Oz is a greatly secular country and so we seem more tolerant of differing religious idea's which we consider preferable to atheism, although there are some who are very hardcore in their denominations. Most friction is usually theism/non theism although the dreaded Muslim problems are on the rise. I was puzzled awhile back because we had a visit from one of my wife's school friends who is a Filipino pastor from Canada. We chatted away about religion, but when I asked his denomination he didn't answer and seemed very cautious the whole time. Possibly because I told him I was a catechist of sorts, but then I suppose he wasn't aware that there are many who would consider Australian Catholics as not being Catholic. I'm quite proud of the fact that we have a Muslim working in IT at our Catholic school, his sister on a visit attended Mass minus head scarf and it all seems to work fine.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1340144273' post='2446453']
My point is that compared with all the other stupid ideas out there (and I would include materialistic Darwinism among them), "Creationism" is pretty harmless.

Yet the virulent outrage being poured on it here exceeds that given even to things like Marxism.

Waste of hate.
[/quote]
Virulent outrage and hate? NEIN! The Marxism thing does not compute. Strikes me as innuendo rather than a meaningful point.

About creationism being harmless, I don't agree. The history of creationism in this country and the pitiful state of science education and literacy constitute harm, for starters. The fact that there are other stupid ideas out there is irrelevant, this is a thread about creationism. Nobody said that it's the only idiotic thing, or the worst. It is something that is apparently close to home for some on here. Just maybe Marxism is just a bit more abstract and less visceral. Although I honestly haven't detected the alleged hatred and virulent outrage. Part of the fun of forum communications I guess...


edit: because apparently I can't type

Edited June 19, 2012 by Laudate_Dominum

[KnightofChrist]

Some peoples words do seem on the virulent outrage side just because some creationists have a museum, big whoop, I don't agree with them but I wouldn't agree that it was a "Horrible piece of garbage" or think of it as "Sick and degrading" nor would I joke about 'terrorizing who was responsible for the museum'.

There is also a underlying sense of snobbery mockery. They are idiotic, they are closed minded, they are just anti-science, they just care about doctrine, God did it, (whatever it is) so that's all that matters. I don't believe those generalities can be applied to all who could be labeled "creationist" because they believe that some intelligent being was the cause of the creation of the universe. Be they christians or whatever.

All that troubles me but not beyond the point of making more than one post about it. I just wanted to point out I see what Soc is saying, there appears to be at least some wasted hate'n.

Edited June 20, 2012 by KnightofChrist

[Groo the Wanderer]

[img]http://www.lolsaints.com/sites/lolsaints.com/files/saints-images/2009/00029-battleship-catherine-of-sienna.jpg[/img]

play nice boys

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1340153409' post='2446499']

play nice boys
[/quote]
I got the impression that any outrage was not directed at people who stubbornly adhere to full on creationism, but those who try to push it onto the general public who are very gullible and impressionable. I agree with LD that trying to force ignorance and non sense onto people and especially impressionable children is dangerous and sick. I haven't seen anything in this thread aimed at those who see that full creationism is so profoundly stupid that they just have to move away, but will only go as far as absolutely necessary to satisfy their reason. As several posters including myself have admitted to some form of creationism and still do. I'm pretty sure that LD and Arch Cat as well as myself are searching for that theory of everything where science MUST be included as well as theology!

[Groo the Wanderer]

[img]http://chzderp.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/hurr-durr-derp-face-transderpers-llamas-in-disguyz.jpg[/img]

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1340160121' post='2446567']

[/quote]
Better change yer password Groo. By all the llamas I think a troll has hacked yer account.

[img]http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lfasd7Pwan1qdk4b2o1_500.jpg[/img]

[Ice_nine]

I have a problem with protestant heresies being proliferated, yes, including their views on the Bible. Is that ecumenical of me? No, but I like Truth. This creation museum in itself is not heresy per se, but Protestantism is (I'm not saying all Protestants are manifest heretics or anything so no one jump down my throat plz) but the solas and such that these folks tend to propagate cheapen religion to a point where it makes me so sad. I think the cognitive dissonance of these ideas cause a lot of people to lose whatever faith they have because secular culture is more appealing than what (they perceive) to be a shallow religiosity.

Soc, I must say, for someone who is usually super conservative and traditional, I'm puzzled by your willingness or unconcern of the protestant infiltration of Catholic culture (maybe not to the point where you hold hands during the Our Father ). It's just a trend I've noticed. Maybe because you agree with the politics of this particular demographic you don't see such a pressing problem?

I concede I could be wrong in my armchair psychology, or even in my observation, but for someone who has been a part (if only for a brief while) of the creationist-fundamentalist culture and seeing the type of people it tends to churn out (unreasonable folks who can't engage in debate or dialogue and jaded people who feel like they've been brainwashed/lied to and end up losing their faith) I think it's a problem that's really worth addressing.

I'm kind of rambling. Point is that Truth and honesty are important. Sure some people get a little trigger-happy when certain subjects are brought up. You mention communism . . . I don't think there's a serious threat of communism infiltrating religion (as it is, as you well know and have said many many times, is directly opposed to it) so I don't get all jumpy when it's brought up. Communism doesn't hijack Christianity and masquerade itself as the only acceptable Christian worldview, because I really, really, really have a problem with that. Because mostly what it's doing, at least from what I see, is churning out swaths of atheists who start thinking they're smart because they can very easily topple this particular belief system and so they cross off the whole of Christianity as debunked and defeated off of their list of "religious myths."

And I think (or hope) the talk of violence was simply hyperbole and jest.

[mortify]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1340020317' post='2445750']
I can't afford to play the creationism whac-a-mole game today but I will respond a bit briefly.[/quote]
Ty LD, glad you can spare some time from your busy schedule


[quote]
Natural science does not explore the supernatural (i.e., pragmatic methodological naturalism). You insist on conflating science and atheism; this is a mistake. The neo-Darwinian paradigm is one part of our toolkit for interrogating nature and building an understanding of how nature operates, but it does not comprise an all-encompassing worldview (even people like Rosenberg and Dennett admit plenty of views/beliefs that are not reducible to neo-Darwinism).
[/quote]

A lot of this is you putting words in my mouth, but perhaps I was not clear in my earlier points. I understand fully well the limitations of natural science, it would be foolish to think it could delve into anything supernatural as it can only touch the empiracle. My point was that neo-Darwinism reflects a materialist and naturalist worldview and it is really the only explanation that can be offered. The mistake you make is to use science synonymously with neo-Darwinism. There is a lot of speculation, and even wild imagination, surrounding the interpretation of how one species evolved into another. We start to realize that we're looking at a thousand piece puzzle set, but we only have a handful of pieces. How sure can we be that the image we base on a few pieces is accurate? We cannot. And so what if I disagree with the image that is being proposed? Perhaps a third theory, one unrelated to evolution or creationism is waiting to be discovered.

[quote]The old argument from incredulity. Here's an analogy: Without an understanding of developmental biology one might suppose that the idea of a few cells developing into a complete and vastly complex human being was ridiculous. The human body can be built up molecule by molecule through natural processes? I can't imagine how, therefore, it can't possibly be so.[/quote]

It's not that it's difficult to imagine but that it's literally unexplanable by the mechanism proposed by neo-Darwinism. Look at any system within the human body and undoubtedly you will find incredible complexity. The heart is just one marvelous organ and it's conduction system is mind blowing. Myocardial cells, unlike the cells in your bicepts for example, never tire and if they did you'd be dead. The valves in your heart go in one direction, prevening back flow of blood. Valves are also found in the veins of your legs where they help propell blood back into your heart but not in your arteries where they would inhibit blood flow. There is so much to be said about this one organ system but there is simply not enough time. What is clear is that each part works perfectly towards it's end, which in this case is the facilitation of oxygenated blood throughout our body. Could all these aspects have fallen into place over a period of time? According to the naturalist worldview they can and must have, and that it did so through evolution. Keep in mind though that evolution is a blind process, natural selection can only weed out negative mutations but it can't guide evolution. And so the valves that are in our viens but not in are arteries are to be regarded as happy accidents that have helped our species survive. At least, that is what neo-Darwinism would have us believe. For me the totality of all these "happy accidents" is simply too astronomical to make a natural mechanism a reasonable explanation. There *must* be some intelligence behind all of this, and according to the fifth way outlined by St Thomas, this intelligence is what we call God.

[quote]Okay, it's a somewhat poor analogy (although in principle I think one could say that anything that can develop can have evolved), but the point is that yes, there is something incredible about biological evolution; however, I would say that the evidence is overwhelming and there is really no good reason to doubt the core of evolutionary theory, but I will grant that it takes some education to understand the science, it's not self-evident. And sure, there are plenty of historical minutia that are not understood, and there are legitimate debates about the processes of evolution, and specific interpretations of the forensic record of evolution; but this does not represent a challenge to core of evolutionary theory-- namely the interrelatedness of life via common ancestry and descent with modification. (Indeed, rather than challenging the fact of evolution these discussions are completed based upon it.)[/quote]

But if we can't reasonable propose a mechanism by which one species evolves into another, how can we begin to specualte about all species sharing a common ancestor?

[quote]Okay, taking evolution from a populations/gene pools pov and a biology 101 modern synthesis slogan such as "change in allele frequency over time as a function of differential survival and reproduction," then in what sense is evolution non-random and in some sense productive? I'd say it's partly a kind of optimization heuristic. We might say it's the algorithm behind the branching and diversification of populations - in a nutshell. Okay, big deal?

I don't agree with you about the heart. This is an example of an "argument from the gaps," which is the [i]modus operandi[/i] of creationism. You're saying, "current biology does not completely explain such-and-such, therefore, it's a miracle;" this is a mind-boggling [i]non sequitur[/i].[/quote]

Isn't it equally an arguments from the gaps to believe science will one day explain it?


[quote]But I'll play along for a second: I've not researched heart evolution or anything, but I'm quite sure that there are simpler heart designs and precedents among extant taxa for the multi-chambered vertebrate heart, and that these precedents accord with phylogenetics, et cetera. The claim that the heart can't possibly have evolved strikes me as rather weak wishful thinking. And this is really the major problem I have with creationism: Intellectually honest people do not pre-decide what the answer to a scientific question is and then pontificate about it with no requirement for evidence. There is a mountain of evidence leading us to suppose that the vertebrate heart evolved along with the rest of the body, and there is some insight into the specific historical way in which this occurred (probably much more than I am aware, not being an expert). Simply deciding in advance that it was a miracle, end of discussion, is the opposite of science, it's oppressive dogmatism. Why not actually explore the question using the best available evidence and methodologies? If the creationist attitude were our basis for understanding reality the following research would not exist [spoiler]
[url="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060930094021.htm"]Hearts Or Tails? Genetics Of Multi-Chambered Heart Evolution[/url]
[url="http://genesdev.cshlp.org/content/20/19/2728.full"]FGF signaling delineates the cardiac progenitor field in the simple chordate, Ciona intestinalis[/url]
[url="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090902133629.htm"]First Genetic Link Between Reptile And Human Heart Evolution Found[/url][/spoiler] and we would literally have no understanding of the heart and its evolution and development. We'd be content to say "God did it!" to everything and leave it at that. What a disgrace that would be, and what an insult to God. Scientific inquiry is one of the most noble pursuits that humanity can undertake. Please don't reduce it to a petty culture war. (And if there is something truly inexplicable and miraculous about the heart it is precisely the process of systematic observation, experimentation, and scientific discourse that will uncover this, not baseless wishful thinking. If you think this is a legitimate question then by all means, support scientific thinking if you'd like a legitimate answer.)[/quote]
You've already accepted the premise that the human heart has evolved, and so the quest in discovering the means of it's evolution a valid persuit. But I personally began to question the presmise of natural evoluton when I took a course in human physiology, so I'm much more skeptical of a presumed evolution of an organ system. The basic gist of what you link is that originally there was a "heart tube" which evolved into a dual chamber, and then that dual chamber evolved into a triple or quadruple chamber heart. Throw in a several million years and it almost sounds reasonable, eh? The problem is you have to look at each organ [i]holistically[/i]. Each cardiac system that we see in other species is appropriate for that species, and they have remained the same for millions of years without change precisely because they are so well suited. A minute change in this system would be dramatic, since you can't affect the part without affecting the whole. It's really no easy matter to evolve a heart, and it's rather absurd to think it happened by blind chance.


[quote]
"It is a tragedy that some the most vocal Christians lead others to believe that Christianity and rationality are incompatible."
[/quote]

So because some Christians are skeptical of a theory they are no longer rational? Perhaps the theory is what is irratonal.

Edited June 20, 2012 by mortify

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1340158229' post='2446542']
I got the impression that any outrage was not directed at people who stubbornly adhere to full on creationism, but those who try to push it onto the general public who are very gullible and impressionable. I agree with LD that trying to force ignorance and non sense onto people and especially impressionable children is dangerous and sick. I haven't seen anything in this thread aimed at those who see that full creationism is so profoundly stupid that they just have to move away, but will only go as far as absolutely necessary to satisfy their reason. As several posters including myself have admitted to some form of creationism and still do. I'm pretty sure that LD and Arch Cat as well as myself are searching for that theory of everything where science MUST be included as well as theology!
[/quote]

I don't see it as dangerous or sick, simply misguided. It is far easier to lead someone from the YEC to actual science than someone brought up without any religion or stuffed with atheistic leanings.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1340169903' post='2446622']
A lot of this is you putting words in my mouth, but perhaps I was not clear in my earlier points. I understand fully well the limitations of natural science, it would be foolish to think it could delve into anything supernatural as it can only touch the empiracle. My point was that neo-Darwinism reflects a materialist and naturalist worldview and it is really the only explanation that can be offered. The mistake you make is to use science synonymously with neo-Darwinism. There is a lot of speculation, and even wild imagination, surrounding the interpretation of how one species evolved into another. We start to realize that we're looking at a thousand piece puzzle set, but we only have a handful of pieces. How sure can we be that the image we base on a few pieces is accurate? We cannot. And so what if I disagree with the image that is being proposed? Perhaps a third theory, one unrelated to evolution or creationism is waiting to be discovered.[/quote]
1. What words have I put into your mouth? 2. Science can test many supernatural/paranormal claims, but that's probably a tangent. 3. Neo-Darwinism (which is NOT the totality modern evolutionary biology) is basically descriptive and reflects a materialist/naturalist worldview in the same way that genetics and organic chemistry do so. Just as accepting the science of genetics, or particle physics does not imply a commitment to a materialistic-atheistic worldview, neither does acceptance of that which the science of evolutionary biology has discovered about the natural world. As was my point before, you're conflating science and metaphysics. 4. Speculation and wild imagination? That's pretty vague. A third theory? You must be vastly unaware of how successful evolutionary theory is and how advanced it has become.

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1340169903' post='2446622']It's not that it's difficult to imagine but that it's literally unexplanable by the mechanism proposed by neo-Darwinism. Look at any system within the human body and undoubtedly you will find incredible complexity. The heart is just one marvelous organ and it's conduction system is mind blowing. Myocardial cells, unlike the cells in your bicepts for example, never tire and if they did you'd be dead. The valves in your heart go in one direction, prevening back flow of blood. Valves are also found in the veins of your legs where they help propell blood back into your heart but not in your arteries where they would inhibit blood flow. There is so much to be said about this one organ system but there is simply not enough time. What is clear is that each part works perfectly towards it's end, which in this case is the facilitation of oxygenated blood throughout our body. Could all these aspects have fallen into place over a period of time? According to the naturalist worldview they can and must have, and that it did so through evolution. Keep in mind though that evolution is a blind process, natural selection can only weed out negative mutations but it can't guide evolution. And so the valves that are in our viens but not in are arteries are to be regarded as happy accidents that have helped our species survive. At least, that is what neo-Darwinism would have us believe. For me the totality of all these "happy accidents" is simply too astronomical to make a natural mechanism a reasonable explanation. There *must* be some intelligence behind all of this, and according to the fifth way outlined by St Thomas, this intelligence is what we call God.[/quote]
Evolutionary theory is more than early-mid 20th century "neo-Darwinism." Perhaps you could share your understanding of evolutionary biology and explain what you mean exactly. I don't want to put words into your mouth or anything. Your heart claim seems to be a variation on an old creationist theme. "The bombardier beetle can't have evolved because its butt chemistry is irreducibly complex." "The eye can't have evolved because what can you do with half an eye? It's too complex and amesome to have evolved." And so on. These assertions fail over and over again. This is the creationist wac-a-mole game I was referring to earlier. I'd like to think that you're simply curious and looking for genuine understanding.

What do you think mutations actually do? What is a random mutation, in your understanding? How do you think evolution operates?

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1340169903' post='2446622']But if we can't reasonable propose a mechanism by which one species evolves into another, how can we begin to specualte about all species sharing a common ancestor?[/quote]
Are you living in the 1800's? The modes of speciation are understood and all have been observed.

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1340169903' post='2446622']Isn't it equally an arguments from the gaps to believe science will one day explain it?[/quote]
I think it already does; at least to a large extent. But pretending for a second that such a thing were not at all understood, would it be a mere argument from the gaps to suppose that an evolutionary explanation may be plausible or in fact highly likely? Not at all. The repeated successes of evolutionary theory, the many proximate phenomena that are understood by evolutionary theory, and so on, would make it a reasonable view. Also, it would be a call to further research and exploration, whereas an argument "from the gaps" depends upon a gap in knowledge and evaporates when that gap is understood.

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1340169903' post='2446622']You've already accepted the premise that the human heart has evolved, and so the quest in discovering the means of it's evolution a valid persuit. But I personally began to question the presmise of natural evoluton when I took a course in human physiology, so I'm much more skeptical of a presumed evolution of an organ system. The basic gist of what you link is that originally there was a "heart tube" which evolved into a dual chamber, and then that dual chamber evolved into a triple or quadruple chamber heart. Throw in a several million years and it almost sounds reasonable, eh? The problem is you have to look at each organ [i]holistically[/i]. Each cardiac system that we see in other species is appropriate for that species, and they have remained the same for millions of years without change precisely because they are so well suited. A minute change in this system would be dramatic, since you can't affect the part without affecting the whole. It's really no easy matter to evolve a heart, and it's rather absurd to think it happened by blind chance.[/quote]
Yeah, I accept that common descent is a well established scientific fact. That's hardly a wacky premise. (And I'm convinced that it is ignorance and misinformation that leads some to think otherwise.) Discovering the specifics of how, say, the mammalian heart evolved involves a different set of questions. Sitting back in your armchair and conjuring an irreducible complexity argument does not equal knowledge and understanding. Do you really think that the evolution of the vertebrate heart is an inexplicable mystery?

Considering the mountain of evidence we have for the evolution of tetrapods from fish, and mammals from earlier tetrapods, etc., yes: it is perfectly valid to suppose that the heart was around during this process and changed over time "holistically" with the rest of the body. Do you think appealing to the supernatural is more reasonable? The heart is literally a miracle?

I find it odd that you imply that you read and understood the links I provided. We actually do have an understanding of the pathways by which tiny changes in regulatory expression could have led to the multi-chambered vertebrate heart. This isn't a mystery crying out for supernatural explanation; and even if we were utterly ignorant of its specifics, this would not be a challenge to the foundations of evolutionary theory. I think my first post to you is even more applicable now that I've heard you respond.

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1340169903' post='2446622']So because some Christians are skeptical of a theory they are no longer rational? Perhaps the theory is what is irratonal.[/quote]
There's nothing wrong with being skeptical about anything. What's irrational is when people who clearly don't know anything about the topic presume to pontificate about it and spread misinformation.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1340200777' post='2446677']
I don't see it as dangerous or sick, simply misguided. [/quote]
Without generalizing, I have to say that some individual creationist propagandists do in fact make my skin crawl. They're up there with various other charlatans and con artists. But yeah, the average YEC on the street is likely just ignorant and misguided. Sad story.