Skip to comments.Society Of Vertebrate Paleontology Speaks Out On Creation Museum
Posted on 07/29/2007 2:13:08 PM PDT by EveningStar
Professional paleontologists from around the world are concerned about the misrepresentation of science at the newly opened Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky. The Creation Museum has been marketed to the public as a reasoned, logical defence for young-earth creationism by Ken Ham, the President and CEO of Answers in Genesis, which runs the Creation Museum.
The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, a world-wide scientific and educational organization concerned with vertebrate paleontology, contends that the museum presents visitors with a view of earth history that has been scientifically disproven for over a century...
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencedaily.com ...
So I guess censorship in the name of science is acceptable. Whether or not one agrees with the premise of this museum, its founder has a right to advocate his position and present it to the public.
Private money....private museum.
You do have to wonder why these guys (scientists) are so unsure of their belief structure that the creation museum would scare them..
That doesn't necessarily mean that Creationists are right. Science is not a popularity contest. But it does point out why Evolutionists are so afraid the Creationists.
Personally, I find that I don't have enough faith to believe in Evolution.
It's a beautiful building and the grounds have been presented in a very appealing manner.
Some exhibits are animatronic. Other than the place was busier than flies on stink and navigating the exhibits was thus a pain, I was overall impressed. Due to a time contstraint, I was unable to see the plantarium exhibit.
Less impressed was the justification they used in the exhibits. There was a Disney like video (seats that rumble and spritzes of water when the appropriate action is seen on the screen)that had a young girl wondering about the purpose of life. The video was heavy on saying the secular worlds version of events had conflicts and was based on theories, yet they only referred to an apologetic way of looking at scripture to justify the theories of the Genesis believer. It was also heavy on dissing public education rather than telling how working in concert with public education, fuller and better explanations could support the fact of God in science.
There was another portion of the exhibit that had two palentologists working a find. The speaker was a believer. The other person was not. They had been schooled together and work many of the same digs. The believer simply said they came to different conclusion using the same set of facts because of where they set their beginning. Of course the believers was in a literal interpretation of Genesis.
The remainder of the exhibits contained a lot of claims of proof, yet they was a strong use of the word "could". While the secular world claims X happened, we believe it "could" be explained as Y. The canyons of the Mt. Saint Helens eruption was often cited to explain the Grand Canyon "could" have been formed in less than 10,000 years.
It was a exhibit to plant doubt of the secular and scientific view of the world rather than provide conclusive evidence of the biblical view.
I clicked on the link and read the full news release. There was nothing there about censorship. I also looked around the website of The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology to see if there was any additional information on the news release or a call for censorship that the news release omitted. There was none. Are you using some other source?
That’s pretty much what I saw too - no call for censorship.
it’s not censorship but despite evolution in all the public schools, museums and even subtle references in kiddie movies like Ice Age and Curious George, most Americans just aint buying it. And that really bothers them.
So I guess censorship in the name of science is acceptable.
I read the article and I see that you are the only person talking about censorship.
Whether or not one agrees with the premise of this museum, its founder has a right to advocate his position and present it to the public.
Yes he does. It's freedom of speech. Speech that the majority agrees with is already protected, It's speech that is in the minority that most needs first amendment protection. Of course, that has no bearing on whether the speech is honest or irrational. See tagline.
The SVP is a buncha snooty-nosed @-holes.
Definitely a bunch of elitists in the world of paleontology.
why are they so scared of free speech?
Who is scared of free speech?
When a spokesperson for a group of scientists claims that the Museum is a “danger” to the public discourse, the clear implication is that the museum should not be operating. Calling something as innocuous as a Creation musem a “danger” is an attempt to drive it beyond the the realm of acceptable discourse. The same type of verbiage is currently being employed by scientists in the Global Warming dispute, the most current example being the threatening letter sent from the EPA to a dissenter. The attempt by scientists, right or wrong, to place themselves above public scrutiny in the mode of a priesthood is the real danger. While I do not agree personally with the strict premise of the Creation Museum, this bit of americana has every right to exist without being call a danger to the public. The use of Political Correctness against the Museum is IMO a veiled call for censorship.
It represents a danger because it presents psuedoscience as real. Some people will actually believe what is presented as true science and that isn’t a good thing.
I can’t understand why fundamental Christians need to invent any sort of science. Why isn’t faith enough?
Most of us in the public view museums as places to get the latest information on scientific discovery. In this case, the Creation Museum is using the disguise of science museums and centers without including an iota of science inside, said Dr. Kristi Curry Rogers of the Science Museum of Minnesota.
Thats the real danger of such a place undermining the basic principles of science, eroding the public's confidence in science, and causing a general weakening of science education in the country, commented Dr. Glenn Storrs of the Cincinnati Museum Center.
Dr. Storrs didn't say it was a "'danger' to the public discourse," as you dishonestly posted, he said it was a danger to the public's understanding of science.
The attempt by scientists, right or wrong, to place themselves above public scrutiny in the mode of a priesthood is the real danger.
How is pointing out that the museum isn't scientific putting scientists "in the mode of a priesthood"?
While I do not agree personally with the strict premise of the Creation Museum, this bit of americana has every right to exist without being call[sic] a danger to the public. The use of Political Correctness against the Museum is IMO a veiled call for censorship.
Pardon me if I find your dislcaimer about not personally agreeing with the strict premise of the Creation Museum difficult to believe. If the Museum has freedom of speech (and it does), why doesn't The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology? Does "free speech" run in only one direction? You position is incoherent: you don't agree with the museum, but you don't want it criticized. And to avoid that, you'd censor the speech of those who would. And those whom you'd censor are the scientists who've spent their lives studying the subject ostensibly covered by the museum.
They aren't the censors, potential or real. You are.
Lots of strawman arguments on this thread.
ok stop trying to censor each other and just shut up.
You are so correct. However, the premises that the young earthers maintain are based on a lack of understanding of scripture. If they were to read Bereshit in Hebrew (Genesis), then they would understand how far off the mark they are. For a fact, the sun was not created until the 4th day, so there must have been a different recollection of time for the first 3 days...There is no doubt in my mind that G-d created the world in just the same manner in which he stated. However, the reconking of time might have been a little different than what the young earthers state. They would have you believe that the only translation that is corect is the KJV. However, there have been at least 87—which is correct? Read it in Hebrew, then you will understand.
Creationists have absolutely no problem with snakes with limbs. See genesis. I’d like to see some pictures of their fossils. I’d also like to see at least one picture of one of those “abundant dinosaurs with feathers”, that are not fully functional birds. Don’t give me a bird with claws and teeth, but a reptile with feathers please! Thanks for your help-should be pretty easy with the “abundant” fossils.
Gotta love this. Starts out with “Professional...”. To me that means paid to provide their opinions and their opinions better agree with those of the scientific community.
I cant understand why fundamental Christians need to invent any sort of science. Why isnt faith enough?
They can't combat the science, so they frequently resort to misrepresentation, quote mining, and outright falsehoods.
The transcript of the Dover trial, especially the testimony of some of the witnesses, showed this clearly. Behe, finally under oath, had to admit that ID was not science; he admitted that if the definition of science was changed enough to admit ID then astrology was also "science." Other witnesses were caught lying under oath! Its all in the transcript.
the Dover trial was nothing but judicial activism run amuck.
Translation: creationists lost.
And the point is what ?
so there must have been a different recollection of time for the first 3 days ...
There was evening and morning ... a first day. ... There was evening and morning ... a second day. There was evening and morning ... a third day. There was evening and morning ... a forth day.
Different recollection of time?
Sounds like the same thing over and over again to me. I see nothing in the text to suggest that the first 3 days were special as far as time goes.
One doesn’t need faith all one has to do is examine the evidence.
Would this be the same trial in which one of the lead witnesses placed astrology and ID on the same level of validity?
How long was a day?
Yes. It should be noted that the witness who did this was pro-ID.
You have grossly misstated our position. The issues is not about the KJV...I personally prefer studying the Hebrew text. The young earth position is in no way tied to the KJV.
BTW - a number of reputable Hebrew scholars hold to interpreting yom as 24 hour days. And that includes non-creationist scholars.
Bottom line - I have read the Hebrew, and I have consulted others who read Hewbrew...and we disagree with you.
LOL. Ken Ham does have quite a money maker on his hands. I have no idea whether you paid to enter or not, but just the act of attracting lots of people brings money. Just the T-shirt business must be huge.
which scholars are you talking about. a day is one morning and one evening, period. If we wish to discuss it further, we can get in to it. You get your Torah and I will get mine. But pray that you want to know the TRUTH, and you will accept it.
except how we recon time is by solar days...kind of upsets the apple cart. The light that was mentioned on the first day had to be the Shikenah Glory.
Christians don’t need to invent a science, but it is fun to try and figure out how God, our Father, did His work. And being more artistic minded, I like to look for His point of view behind everything He made. What really cracks me up is after God destroys all this and creates the new combo heaven and earth, where we live with Him and there is no night (I’m sad about the stars), everything we know now, principles, physics, etc., will all be worthless. Everything will be different. Jesus appeared from nowhere after He rose from the dead and walked on water and changed water into wine before He died. We don’t have a grasp of all we can do now, let alone know what it will be when we live with God. Its fun to think about. Its good to think about. Like being in love.
“BTW - a number of reputable Hebrew scholars hold to interpreting yom as 24 hour days. And that includes non-creationist scholars.” ~ LiteKeeper
The Framework Hypothesis is a literary understanding of the 6 days of creation. I learned it from Meredith Kline while @GCTS and from the OT department there as well.It underscores the poetic nature of the writing and even defines it as a form of Hebraic poetry that highlights the nature and character of God in creation. In the framework there are days of creating and days of filling. Day one goes with day 4, day 2 with day 5, day 3 with day 6. And all is balanced out.
It shows that Good is not only creatively spontaneous but also does things with order. It asserts that the creation narrative is not a scientific explanation but a literary one that has more to do with the nature of God than with giving a historic account of creation. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=10570
· ‘To rebut the literalist interpretation of the Genesis creation week propounded by the young-earth theorists is a central concern of this article. At the same time, the exegetical evidence adduced also refutes the harmonistic day-age view. The conclusion is that as far as the time frame is concerned, with respect to both the duration and sequence of events, the scientist is left free of biblical constraints in hypothesizing about cosmic origins.’[Kline, M.G., Space and Time in the Genesis Cosmogony, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 48:2, 1996] Meredith Kline is a leading advocate of the ‘framework hypothesis
In note 47, Kline says:
‘In this article I have advocated an interpretation of biblical cosmogony according to which Scripture is open to the current scientific view of a very old universe and, in that respect, does not discountenance the theory of the evolutionary origin of man.’ In an unedited draft of this paper, Kline wrote: ‘... Certainly, Genesis indicates that there were steps or stages. The debate is over the time duration of each step ... To be sure, the word “Yom” or “day” is almost always used to refer to a 24-hour period so the prima facie indication would be the same in Genesis ... My concern here is that the literary structure may indicate something else ...’
· Henri Blocher, another leading Framework proponent, wrote: ‘This hypothesis overcomes a number of problems that plagued the commentators [including] the confrontation with the scientific vision of the most distant past.’ [Blocher, H., In the Beginning, IVP, p. 50, 1984.]
· ‘We have to admit here that the exegetical basis of the creationists is strong. ... In spite of the careful biblical and scientific research that has accumulated in support of the creationists’ view, there are problems that make the theory wrong to most (including many evangelical) scientists. ... Data from various disciplines point to a very old earth and even older universe...’ [Boice, J. M., Genesis: An Expositional Commentary, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, 1:57-62, 1982.] James Montgomery Boice (1938-2000), a staunch defender of Biblical inerrancy.
· Bruce K. Waltke, leading Hebrew and Old Testament Scholar: ‘The days of creation may also pose difficulties for a strict historical account. Contemporary scientists almost unanimously discount the possibility of creation in one week, and we cannot summarily discount the evidence of the earth sciences.’ [Waltke, B.K. and Fredricks, C.J., Genesis: A Commentary, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, p. 77, 2001]
· ‘It is of course admitted that, taking this account [Genesis] by itself, it would be most natural to understand the word [day] in its ordinary sense; but if that sense brings the Mosaic account into conflict with facts [millions of years], and another sense avoids such conflict, then it is obligatory on us to adopt that other.’ ~ [Hodge, C., Systematic Theology, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI, USA, pp. 570-571, 1997. ] Charles Hodge (1797-1878) was a systematic theologian at Princeton seminary, who wrote many books and articles defending the truths of Christianity, including biblical inerrancy
· ‘..confessedly, it would not have been as readily deduced from the Genesis text had it not been for the evidences advanced by secular science.’ [Payne, J.B., The Theology of the Older Testament, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, p. 136, 1972.] J. Barton Payne (1922-1979), Presbyterian Old Testament scholar.
· ‘From a superficial reading, the impression received is that the entire creative process took place in six twenty-four hour days. If this was the true intent of the Hebrew author this seems to run counter to modern scientific research, which indicated that the planet earth was created several billion years ago ... the more recently expanded knowledge of nuclear physics has brought into play another type of evidence which seems to confirm the great antiquity of the Earth, that is, the decay of radioactive minerals.’ [Archer, G.L., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, Moody, Chicago, p. 187, 1985.] Gleason Archer, Hebrew scholar and staunch defender of biblical inerrancy
I think the Framework Hypothesis has been discredited rather thoroughly. Too late to make a defense right now...perhaps tomorrow.
I think you've reasoned yourself into a paradox here.
If God can not express time, before that which represents it, is created...then how can you attribute to God, the establishment of the rules of motion, for those things.
G-d recons time very well, since he created it. It is when why try to understand things in our perspective that we have trouble grasping His reality. The paradox is in our inability to see from more than just our own perspective.
Pretty much the same idea as the “Global Warming” presentation which wound up in the Supreme Court.
Say what you want but no Young Earth Creationist ever tried to outlaw my automobile.
Someone finally woke up the biologists.
“Why isnt faith enough?”
Because the Bible states in many places God created the earth and even tells us how He did it. If our faith is based on the Bible and the Bible is wrong about creation, our faith is flawed. I’ve listened to a few sermons by Ken Ham and he lays out why creation is important to the fundamental doctrine of sin and redemption.
If you’re really asking the question, “Why isn’t faith enough?” You should check out Ken Ham’s sermons. You can get them here: sermonaudio.com Search by speaker and you’ll find his stuff. Sorry I can’t post a direct link.
I can’t find the part about ‘how’ He created, all I can find is *that He created.
For me it is not important *how He created.....I look to science for those facts.
Faith requires us to not need scientific proof, while science requires that we do not just believe. Believing is for religion, fact is for science. Religion gets messed up when facts are needed for faith and science gets messed up when belief is held too closely in contradiction with facts.
I do not believe that God gave us our ability to learn about the physical universe to confound us, but rather He gave us the ability to learn so we could serve Him better. Knowledge of the physical universe in no way removes us from God, it brings us closer because we learn how great He is.
The very meaning of faith rejects the need for hard physical facts. It means to trust without proof.
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.