Huge crowds extend Darwin exhibit in New York

Yahoo ^ | 3-22-06 | N/A

[Central Scrutiniser]

Huge crowds extend Darwin exhibit in New York

Wed Mar 22, 2:54 PM ET

NEW YORK (AFP) - A monumental Charles Darwin exhibition in New York has been extended by five months amid an overwhelming public response to what was touted as a scholarly rebuke to opponents of teaching evolution in US schools.

The American Museum of Natural History said Wednesday that nearly 200,000 people had visited "Darwin" since it opened three months ago.

Originally slated to close at the end of this month, the exhibition will now run through August 20, said museum spokesman Joshua Schnakenberg.

"Darwin" had opened amid furious debate in many school districts over the teaching of the 19th century naturalist's evolutionary theory and the first trial on the teaching of the God-centered alternative favoured by many religious groups, "intelligent design," or ID.

That trial, in Pennsylvania, ended in defeat for the evangelical right with the judge in the case decrying the "breathtaking inanity" of the school board in the town of Dover which backed the concept that nature is so complex it must be the work of a superior being.

"Our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom," the judge said in his ruling in December.

An early section of the New York exhibit is devoted to the question, "What is a Theory?" and seeks to clarify the distinction between scientific theories and non-scientific explanations about the origins and diversity of life.

"This is really for the schoolchildren of America. This is the evidence of evolution," said the exhibit's curator, Niles Eldridge.

In a Gallup poll released last October, 53 percent of American adults agreed with the statement that God created humans in their present form exactly the way the Bible describes it.

Thirty-one percent stood by the "intelligent design" stance, while only 12 percent said humans have evolved from other forms of life and "God has no part."

[Quark2005]

The taxpayers paid to get a science education, and instead they're getting pseudoscience.

That would be a tough case, I think. The Dover debacle amounted to a one minute statement read once a year in a science class - it would be difficult to make the case that this exercise costs the taxpayers anything significant.

I'm just glad that a conservative, religious judge made the final call (if a liberal or atheist judge had done so, the public perception of the result may have turned out quite differently).

[puroresu]

Don't worry. I made the same error in answering you! :-)

[AnnoyedOne]

Why should everyone else be required to change the meanings of words to accommodate your ignorance?

I was referring to the use of the word in my post that he objected to... or in other words, was rephrasing something I had earlier said. I never suggested that the scientific community change the meaning of any words. I suggest you back up and figure out what is being discussed in a thread before commenting on it. You merely make yourself appear stupid, otherwise.

[Virginia-American]

"Proof" as in "Proof of Quadratic Reciprocity" is only possible in math and logic.

"Proof" as in "beyond a reasonable doubt" or "proponderance of the evidence" is the best we can hope for in the real world. Things like germ theory, atomic theory, the theory of evolution, and so forth, are "proven" in this sense of the word.

[AnnoyedOne]

Such as worship services at MegaChurch?

Precisely so. Want another good example? Look how many attend football games as opposed to how many watch chess tournaments.

If you scroll back, you will find that I already addressed the level of my interest, or lack thereof, in church and religion. Perhaps the advice I gave to the other guy in my last post applies to you as well.

[CobaltBlue]

ID is a completely different debate than theistic evolution vs. non-theistic evolution.

ID is really creationism wearing a funny hat.

Seriously.

[AnnoyedOne]

You place a lot of weight in the words of wikipedia, which may or may not be correct as it is filled in by just about anyone who chooses to add to it (I think wikipedia has had some controversy lately over that very thing). Theories are not proven. LAWS are proven. Theories can, however, be tested, make predictions, and results repeated.

[js1138]

Remember that Behe said that his version of ID is compatible with a designer that's been dead for millions of years.

The ID espoused by Behe, Denton and several FReepers is almost indistinguishable from Deism. Set the clock in motion, and off it goes.

[Virginia-American]

I'm just glad that a conservative, religious judge made the final call

So am I.

The Dover debacle amounted to a one minute statement read once a year in a science class - it would be difficult to make the case that this exercise costs the taxpayers anything significant.

The fraud isn't the cost (heck, the "Pandas" books were donated), it's the misrepresentation. Singling out Evo as though it were less well-grounded that electromagnetism or geology or whatever.

I approve of stickers in biology books, a la Cobb Co. Georgia, as long as they 1) are also in all the other science texts, and 2) include the names of all the responsible elected officials.

[AnnoyedOne]

ANY test result is consistent with the hypothosis "an all-powerful creator exists" and no test result can establish the hypothosis "an all-powerful creator doesn't exist,"

Who says the "creator" IS all powerful? Sure, some religious people.. but in the end, how can we know? For all we know, some "creator" kind of force existed once and is now dead. As I said earlier, perhaps that "Creator" is a different thing entirely... such as alien entities of some form. I love the arrogance of the scientific community, and how that particular church has you folks wrapped around it's finger. Sorry I commited heresy against your particular "church". You have merely proven my point about how science has itself become a religion, complete with professions of infallability. No dissenting views allowed or wanted, or they break out the stakes and light the fires. Except they are still at a loss to deal with how a universe expansion could be accelerating, violating all known laws of physics. Religion is being taught in schools.. they simply hide that fact by calling it "science".

[js1138]

Theories are not proven. LAWS are proven.

Neither are ever proven, and laws get superceded by more inclusive laws.

[AnnoyedOne]

His analogy is correct, those who are atheists do embrace Darwin in a like manner as judeo-christians embrace Moses.

Atheist does not automatically = supporter of the TOE, any more than Christian automatically = believer in Creationism

True, but the ones in each camp who do not do so are so few in number as to be almost non-existant. Not all serial killers are men either... but it turns out to be true with such regularity that it is usually quite predictable.

[AnnoyedOne]

The large crowds are generally drawn to things which require very little intellect

Like churches and religious masses?

Already asked and answered.

[js1138]

One of the big differences between ID and Darwinian evolution is that we can see evolution happening. All the processes necessary for evolution to work are readily observable and easily available for study.

Id proposes no processes, has no hypotheses.

[eleni121]

Darwinism belongs in museums...an interesting archane exhibit.

[AnnoyedOne]

Theories are not proven. LAWS are proven.

Neither are ever proven, and laws get superceded by more inclusive laws.

really? Take Newtons Laws of Thermodynamics, for instance. Originating with "An object at rest will tend to stay at rest, and an object in motion will continue to remain in motion, in a straight line, until acted upon by an outside force".. it has been added to and expanded, but that basic concept has NEVER been superceded. More inclusive means something was added to it.. but not that the original remains.. and remains factual. (I say factual since some here get all worked up about morality if I use the word "true". I wonder how they ever managed to take an examination where they had to give true or false answers.)

[Quark2005]

LAWS are proven.

Not true at all. Laws are parameterized. A law only holds if certain conditions (which are often not perfectly known), consistent with the framework of observation, are met. Newton's Laws were not ever proven, they were approximated from limited observations. The approximation of Newton's Laws doesn't work well for the very fast, very dense, very large or very small. (Curiously, of Newton's 3 laws, only the third is really a "law" in the scientific sense - the others are merely clever definitions used to declare what a "force" and "reference frame" is.)

Ohm's Law is an example of law that doesn't actually work at all for most substances. Laws are not "proven" at all.

[DoctorMichael]

"......The (intelligent) people have spoken........"

Pay no attention to this article that attempts to show public support for GODLESS EVOLUTION!!!!

Go here!!!!!!!!!!!!!...............

http://www.echoesofenoch.com/hollowearth.htm

The Earth is hollow!!!!!!!!!!!

I read it on the Internet therefore it must be true!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Bible says so too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!..........

Isa 40:22 "It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in."

.......and we all know that the Bible is the literal Word of God!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lets all get together and get this into our Godless Public School System as a viable alternative to what the Godless Geologists profess!!!!!!!!

Who's with me?

And now a word from the illustrious founder of the Hollow Earth Society:

[js1138]

Take Newtons Laws of Thermodynamics, for instance.

Would that be Newton's First Law of Thermodynamics, or his Second?

[AnnoyedOne]

Really? Well then I guess all study into evolution has ceased within the scientific community since they have it all figured out, and there are no holes or inconsistancies in their theory which require study. Readily observable and easily available for study? Well, then I wonder why millions of humans over the centuries never figured it out until Darwin. No wonder so many practically worship him as a god and will brook no dissenting ideas.