Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Society Of Vertebrate Paleontology Speaks Out On Creation Museum
ScienceDaily ^ | July 30, 2007

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy; US: Kentucky
KEYWORDS: creationism; creationmuseum; crevolist; evolution; fsmdidit; museum; paleontology
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-133 next last

1 posted on 07/29/2007 2:13:13 PM PDT by EveningStar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger; SubGeniusX

ping


2 posted on 07/29/2007 2:13:54 PM PDT by EveningStar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

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.


3 posted on 07/29/2007 2:18:56 PM PDT by brigadoon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar
Geez, if the creationists are so wacky, why not just ignore them. Of course that is never enough for these professional evos; they must stamp out every last vestige of the heresy of Intelligent Design, or their lucrative gig of fooling our school kids about darwinism might be up.
4 posted on 07/29/2007 2:23:27 PM PDT by razzle (Liberal Science: Experiments on unborn babies, man-made global warming, and darwinism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

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..


5 posted on 07/29/2007 2:31:12 PM PDT by svcw (There is no plan B.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar
Evolutionists feel that they are right. That's fine. But they also clearly feel that they cannot make a compelling case for their position. For a great many people, if they are presented with the views of the Evolutionists, and the views of the Creationists, many people will find that the Creationists seem more likely to be on the right path.

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.

6 posted on 07/29/2007 2:31:56 PM PDT by ClearCase_guy (Progressives like to keep doing the things that didn't work in the past.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar
I went to the exhibit for the first time yesterday.

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.

7 posted on 07/29/2007 2:32:50 PM PDT by joesbucks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: brigadoon
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.

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?

8 posted on 07/29/2007 2:38:32 PM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs; brigadoon

That’s pretty much what I saw too - no call for censorship.


9 posted on 07/29/2007 2:42:28 PM PDT by EveningStar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: brigadoon

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.


10 posted on 07/29/2007 2:45:20 PM PDT by ari-freedom (An expert is a person who avoids the small errors while sweeping on to the grand fallacy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: brigadoon

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.

11 posted on 07/29/2007 2:46:04 PM PDT by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ari-freedom
...most Americans just aint buying it...

Source?

12 posted on 07/29/2007 2:47:21 PM PDT by EveningStar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

The SVP is a buncha snooty-nosed @-holes.

Definitely a bunch of elitists in the world of paleontology.


13 posted on 07/29/2007 2:49:07 PM PDT by sauropod (Dorothy Parker, on Ernest Hemingway: “Deep down, he’s really superficial.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-06-07-evolution-poll-results_N.htm?csp=34


14 posted on 07/29/2007 2:49:48 PM PDT by ari-freedom (An expert is a person who avoids the small errors while sweeping on to the grand fallacy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

why are they so scared of free speech?


15 posted on 07/29/2007 2:55:11 PM PDT by balch3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: balch3

Who is scared of free speech?


16 posted on 07/29/2007 2:59:11 PM PDT by EveningStar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

the Darwinists.


17 posted on 07/29/2007 3:11:16 PM PDT by balch3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

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.


18 posted on 07/29/2007 3:13:50 PM PDT by brigadoon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: brigadoon

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?


19 posted on 07/29/2007 3:27:13 PM PDT by dwhole2th (''God gets you to the plate, but once you're there, you're on your own". Ted Williams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: brigadoon
Is this what has your knickers in a twist?

“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.

“That’s 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.

20 posted on 07/29/2007 3:33:42 PM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs

Lots of strawman arguments on this thread.


21 posted on 07/29/2007 3:37:18 PM PDT by EveningStar
[ Post Reply |