- You could start by paying attention to the answers. You might learn something.
One thing I have learned from this thread is that evolutionists love institutions that are funded by tax dollars. I wonder why that is?
Posted on 09/20/2005 7:02:45 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
ITHACA, N.Y. - Lenore Durkee, a retired biology professor, was volunteering as a docent at the Museum of the Earth here when she was confronted by a group of seven or eight people, creationists eager to challenge the museum exhibitions on evolution.
They peppered Dr. Durkee with questions about everything from techniques for dating fossils to the second law of thermodynamics, their queries coming so thick and fast that she found it hard to reply.
After about 45 minutes, "I told them I needed to take a break," she recalled. "My mouth was dry."
That encounter and others like it provided the impetus for a training session here in August. Dr. Durkee and scores of other volunteers and staff members from the museum and elsewhere crowded into a meeting room to hear advice from the museum director, Warren D. Allmon, on ways to deal with visitors who reject settled precepts of science on religious grounds.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
A hypotheses is a conjecture. You test it to find its truth. No faith there. A theory is an explanation for what has been observed, in all those hypotheses and tests. It is variable, changing to fit what has been observed. No faith there.
Furthermore, the more science has advanced the more it has validated the Bible.
Science has validated that the Earth is flat and immovable? Rabbits chew cud? Pi is 3?
Perhaps you weould like to lecture Sir Isaac about scientific processes and their obviation of Biblical truths?
Isaac couldn't explain some things about the orbits of the planets, and thought God did it. We later found out the scientific explanation. ID is purely "God of the Gaps" and doesn't belong in science. Take it to the philosophy class.
One thing I have learned from this thread is that evolutionists love institutions that are funded by tax dollars. I wonder why that is?
I am not defending nor criticizing what these folks did, but why do you think that asking a museum guide questions.......even multiple questions....... is inappropriate?
I think it's inappropriate because I don't believe that they were actually interested in the answers. It appears that they were challenging the museum's policies, and if that's your goal a docent is not the person to pick a fight with.
If they were really interested in learning, in expanding their bodies of knowledge, then the questions were appropriate. That sure doesn't seem to be the case, though.
Group A can successfully interbreed and produce fertile offspring with group B. Group B can produce fertile offspring with Group C. Group A, however, cannot interbreed with Group C.
How would classify Groups A, B and C?
Yes, him. It scares me that some classes use his site as a resource, because it's just going to repell many people, particularly religious ones, away from evolution, or from learning more about it. The creationists can hold up any of his postings as vindicating their stereotypes about evolutionists. They do a good job of making fun of him on Gene Expression, though :).
So anyone that disagrees with you is a liberal? Even if you are taking an irrational position?
"Rabbits chew cud? "
Hey, they don't chew their cud, but they sure eat their poop. Maybe those old guys missed that part, eh, and thought they were chewing their cud. I wonder what else they missed?
You, and others here made assumptions based on supposition of the motives and behavior of the questioners that are not backed up by fact, making your conclusions unprovable.
But I guess that's not unusual for you, eh? ;)
Few scientists will claim they know everything about anything, with absolute certainty, even about their own area of expertise. I believe another FR posting just mentioned someone proposing dinosaurs many/most/all had feathers. Does that mean the cable show was all wrong?
No, it just means there are some things yet to be discovered, which will usually produce speculation. A paleontologist/archeologist critiquing the show could probably ramble on endlessly about relative scale, colors, sounds made or not made, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. In the end, these subjects didn't make the cut for a palatible show, in the producer's mind. And his doctorate(s) was in what science?!
Do you believe that religion is a negative that diminishes a persons position?
Not necessarily. Many people take the Bible as evidence, but it isn't applicable in a scientific discussion of evolution.
I can just see that approach applied to the medical field: "The remedy is not to destroy the cancer that is eating away at your brain. The remedy is to fix it."
Again, the love evolutionsists have for publicly funded institutions is very telling.
Why do churches get tax exemptions, but this site does not?
Most don't - it's just that Creationists tend to use the guise of Intelligent Design to cloak Creationism in a scientific wrapper.
The problem with ID, is that it does in fact require a supernatural creator. If aliens seeded the life on earth, then who created the aliens. If life is too complex to arise by anything but Intelligent Design, then the ultimate designer would have to be supernatural.
Once again........supposition based on believing the NYTimes leftist version of what happened.
Not valid.
"Why do churches get tax exemptions, but this site does not?"
Hey! No fair!
Take a look at various books and articles written by people who started out as atheists and became Christians after investigating the evidence. They do exist. One of the keys to understanding this, in my opinion, is to understand that people constantly take leaps of faith that can never be absolutely proven about almost everything once they leave the relative certainty of cognito ergo sum.
Well, of course this is true. Haven't you ever "kicked around" an idea or two with your buddies before coming to a conclusion? It's what science is all about.
The problem is that school children often aren't taught to kick ideas around. They are taught speculative conclusions as if they are fact. It's not just in the areas of science. The same thing happens in history, literature, etc. A lot of the uncertainty and degree of speculation is hidden from students. One of the reasons that I support the mention of Intelligent Design in the classroom is that it exposes students to the idea of uncertainty in the sciences, something they rarely see unless they go on to a more detailed study of science. And as an added bonus, it might make science seem less settled, boring, and useless if students came to understand that there are still mysteries to uncover and theories to prove and disprove.
I don't quite understand how you can lump "speculation, guessing, assumptions" in with "dogma"...but it's your brain.
Merriam-Webster defines "dogma" as "something held as an established opinion" or "a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds". Dogma occurs when you base a position on speculation, guessing, and assumptions and then claim that it's authoritative and established as true. Science is dogmatic when it treats speculation as fact, which it does in the mainstream all too often (e.g., global warming, cold fusion, etc.).
It's certainly fair to claim that evolution is the "best guess" of science, but that's not how it's taught. A lot of children walk away with the assumption that it's proven fact. If you want me to point at the bigger problem, it's that schoolchildren are rarely thought to think and are often simply taught to repeat back what the teacher says or, to put it another way, obey. If schools did a better job of teaching children to assess the evidence on their own and make up their own minds, I think it would be less of an issue. But that's where I think Intelligent Design can play a role. It tells kids that certain things in life are unsettled and they'll need to figure out what they believe themselves.
If you would be asking a docent to do anything other than explain what the exhibit is supposed to show, your behvior would be rude.
You don't need to agree with the science behind it, you only need to agree that the explanation accords with the intent of the exhibit.
Subcontractor = demiurge?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.