Challenged by Creationists, Museums Answer Back

The New York Times ^ | 9/20/2005 | CORNELIA DEAN

[JohnnyZ]

The museum mobbers were not there to learn about evolution. They were there to keep the docent from presenting the material.

What material was the docent prevented from presenting?

If she's giving a presentation, I repeat: no questions until she's done, no problem. If "presenting the material" is answering questions, she was doing her job, answering questions.

There is no evidence to back up your hyperbole and fantasy: "nasty, disruptive, MOB, prevented".

Back to reality, bub.

[Junior]

I notice that creationists consider it a win if they can flood you with so many questions you lose track of where you are. It's almost as if they are not really looking for information, but for reassurance for their ideas.

[Right Wing Professor]

Kinda Biology 101, but Darwin observed 14 different "species" of finches which he believed came from one common ancestor. Today, we've observed 8 of those "species" mate with others and produce sterile offspring.

Kinda Biology 101, but if they mate and produce sterile offspring, there's no problem with their being species. Like lions and tigers, you know?

You have fosils, but you don't have anything that ties them to the apes

The fact that they look like apes might be a clue, no?

Are you serious? You give me a source that sites evening primrose as an example of a new species? That's the text book example of a mutation which is what de Vries is famous for! In fact, all of his "Observed Instances of Speciation " are either cases of polyploidy, non examples of speciation (suddenly morphological differences are speciation as in Stephanomeira or Mimulus) or behavioral isolation (Drosophila).

Yeah, if you close your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears, you don't have to see the counterevidence to your contention. I call this 'Proof by la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you".

Polyploidy is a difference in chromosome number; chromosome number differences are one of the major means of speciation (as, for example, with horses and donkeys; the occasional fertile mule is where the chromosome number problem got solved by attachment to another chromosome. And behavioral isolation is the major mechanism of isolation in many groups of animals - for example, birds.

So your dislike of evolution causes you to reject most of the isolating mechanisms of closely related species; basically, your irrational dislike of evolution causes you to reject a large chunk fo the rest of biology.

[sheltonmac]

Unless you're a libertarian who does not believe in any government role beyond law enforcement and the military, everyone agrees that education is a legitimate role of government.

First of all, there is no provision in the Constitution for the federal funding of education. Secondly, we have all seen what happens when different groups try to use public funds to push their ideas on the rest of the country.

I oppose evolution-only education in public (i.e., government) schools because I don't think I or anyone else should be forced to pay for it. On the other hand, I think the creationists who complain about it shouldn't be dumping their children into the cesspool of the government-run education system in the first place.

We must cultivate our own talent. This includes using scientific education, such as museums that can capture the imagination and excite children about science.

Sure, but let the market decide. Fighting for control over the public purse strings is the wrong approach. Who gets to decide what is and isn't "science"? As so many on this forum are fond of pointing out, evolution has nothing to do with studying the origin of life, the universe and everything. So who gets to decide what theories on that particular subject are to be included in a publicly funded museum?

The public funding of education in general is a socialist trap. It also fuels these never-ending debates between creationists and evolutionists. I don't mean to detract from the article that started this thread, but eliminating taxpayer dollars would help end many of the problems.

[kpp_kpp]

Your hyperbole here on this thread far exceeds any of that from the "creationists" views that have been presented.

And I say that from a completely neutral standpoint.

I myself am an antagonist. I enjoy questioning the weakest points of both sides of an argument (not just crevo), of a philosophy, of a science, of a religion, etc.

The attitude and attack of a response is just as (or more so) informative as the content of a response.

I'm against creationists who attack evolutionist's evidence (some evidence does exists); I'm against evoloutions who attack creationist's (IDer's) science (some science does exist, especially when you get into information theory, origins, dna replication processes, etc.) -- I'm not defending either side, I'm pro-rational discussion that says there are many unknowns.

[MineralMan]

"Over a billion people agree to the Nicene Creed as a basic standard of belief.

Among Catholics, there is a great deal of doctrine and a great many people who acknowledge it as true, plus many other beliefs that do not rise to the level of doctrine."

---

Yes, but the Nicene Creed is just part of a denomination's doctrine. The doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church contains far more than that Creed.

Take the concept of transubstantiation. While it is part of Roman Catholic doctrine, a discussion I had with two priests demonstrated to me that not even two priests shared the same understanding of transubstantiation. One believed it as a literal thing; the other a symbolic thing. They disagreed, yet both were comfortable with their priesthood.

I had a similar conversation with two Presbyterian scholars, but regarding predestination. They could not have been farther apart in their understanding of that doctrine, yet both were teaching in a Presbyterian seminary.

I did not suggest that Christians disagree with some basic parts of Christian doctrine. The devil, as they say, is in the details, and denominationalism comes from disagreement on points of doctrine which are often so small as to be almost invisible. Yet, such tiny disagreements are enough for new denominations to form, each believing that is has the true knowledge and understanding.

You are mistaken in your understanding of my "circle of friends." It's far less limited than you suspect.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[macamadamia]

Thanks for that quote. Your Feynman quote definitely seems to contradict the earlier quote, LOL. The earlier quote attributed to Feynman posted by Mark Felton immediately struck me as flat out false.

[shuckmaster]

These jerks are no better than left-wing "activists" in their approach, and these tactics will not do anything to further their cause.

Stick around and follow this thread. You'll be amazed at how many of them are right here on FR

[Right Wing Professor]

You mean they were actually being asked questions and forced to defend their positions by visitors who were knowledgeable enough to ask

You misspelled 'primed with a set of stock questions that have been answered 100 times before, and were being used for harassment purposes.'

Hope this helps.

[MeanWestTexan]

"Why is it that when you want to insult someone you call them religious?"

I have never done that.

Go read Post 57 and apologize.

[Right Wing Professor]

First of all, there is no provision in the Constitution for the federal funding of education

Tell that to Mr. Bush.

[1L]

>> After about 45 minutes, "I told them I needed to take a break"<<

After 5 minutes with me, he would have left.

[Just mythoughts]

Post #148. I know there is suppose to be a rule about pinging other posters whey they are being discussed but some are more equal than the rest.

[MeanWestTexan]

"CHRIST!!!!!! He cannot be the PEFECT flesh if the story of evolution is."

I respectfully disagree.

[atlaw]

To tell you why Christ does not fit into the TOE would require of discussion of what exactly is Written in the Bible.

Precisely. What exactly is written in the Bible that precludes a Christian from accepting the theory of evolution as the best current explanation for biological diversification? Enlighten me.

Not exactly a common acceptable Book for the evolutionists. . . .But hey the evolutionists does not believe as is their God given right.

My goodness. This again. Three questions:

(1) Is it your contention that my acceptance of the scientific validity of the theory of evolution and the reality of the evidence supporting it necessarily precludes me from being a Christian?

(2) Is it your contention that my acceptance of the scientific validity of the theory of evolution and the reality of the evidence supporting it has condemned me to hell?

(3) Is it your contention that my knowledge of the Bible and my acceptance of it as the word of God has been somehow negated or eliminated as a result of my further acceptance of the scientific validity of the theory of evolution and the reality of the evidence supporting it?

[Just mythoughts]

As is your right, but I know what the real creation story says so I am on a solid foundation.

[ohioWfan]

First of all, this is an article from the NY Times. One cannot depend on its veracity.

Secondly, only one point of view is presented (gee.....what a surprise from the leftist Times)..........and it is the docent's opinion, and not those who were questioning her.

We have four adult children. All six of us are strong Creationists, and well educated.........and we have done a lot of traveling and visiting of museums and National Parks.

In those museums and National Parks, we have read and heard a whole lot of evolutionist propaganda, stated as fact.

Should we all decide to ask the guide questions, we would not be 'mobbing' her or him. We (all six of us) would be asking legitimate questions and seeking legitimate answers........and there would be nothing inappropriate in doing so.

But I wouldn't be at all surprised if the guide needed a drink of water afterwards. :)

[MeanWestTexan]

"but I still say God created the Heavens and the Earth."

Me, too. Science is merely describing the mechanics of HOW He did what He did.

[js1138]

What Feynman actually said was more like this:

God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand. Now, when you finally discover how something works, you get some laws which you're taking away from God; you don't need him anymore. But you need him for the other mysteries.