Museum is about religion, not science

Museum is about religion, not science

There are 139 comments on the The Indianapolis Star story from Jun 3, 2007, titled Museum is about religion, not science. In it, The Indianapolis Star reports that:

The questions raised by the new Creation Museum near Cincinnati are not scientific questions.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Indianapolis Star.

First Prev
of 7
Next Last

Since: Jun 07

Seattle, WA

#121 Jun 6, 2007
IndyStevie wrote:
<quoted text>
If creationists were using 'serious deductive reasoning', there would be no creationists.
ID/creationism does not, by any stretch of the imagination, embrace all of the scientific evidence. It identifies certain scientific information that fits the creationist agenda, intentionally and knowingly omits that which doesn't, and then pushes in as science. A lie of omission is still a lie.
Conversely, if evolutions were using 'serious deductive reasoning', there would be no evolutionists. Hey, at least it is poetic.
When you say "It [ID] identifies certain scientific information that fits the creationist agenda, intentionally and knowingly omits that which doesn't, and then pushes in as science. A lie of omission is still a lie." are you referring to Haekel's faked drawings? The embryo drawings were faked so that they fit into the theory of evolution. Then Haekel knowingly ommitted the earilier stages because they were very different from each other and did not show descent from a common ancestor?
Just as you say, a lie of omission is still a lie.

Since: Jun 07

Seattle, WA

#122 Jun 6, 2007
Bad monkey no banana wrote:
So if Intelligent Design by definition means that life is so complex that some deliberate design had to go into it – then who did the designing?
Great question.

“Down To Earth”

Since: Apr 07

Indianapolis

#123 Jun 6, 2007
swiswach wrote:
<quoted text>
Conversely, if evolutions were using 'serious deductive reasoning', there would be no evolutionists. Hey, at least it is poetic.
When you say "It [ID] identifies certain scientific information that fits the creationist agenda, intentionally and knowingly omits that which doesn't, and then pushes in as science. A lie of omission is still a lie." are you referring to Haekel's faked drawings? The embryo drawings were faked so that they fit into the theory of evolution. Then Haekel knowingly ommitted the earilier stages because they were very different from each other and did not show descent from a common ancestor?
Just as you say, a lie of omission is still a lie.
There have been forgeries, misrepresentations, and outright lies in science, of that there is no doubt and no reputable scientist would dispute the point. However, those hoaxes were perpetrated by individuals who felt that fame was more important than truth in scientific knowledge.

Creationists, on the other hand, are knowingly and willingly distorting knowledge to fit their agenda. It's not just one or two individuals that are guilty in this case. They do it as a community of conspirators and, unlike the scientific community, are unwilling to stand down when the hoax is exposed. It's indefensible from a moral standpoint, which is ironic, since their claims are in the name of Christianity.
Bad monkey no banana

Indianapolis, IN

#124 Jun 7, 2007
swiswach wrote:
<quoted text>
Great question.
I'm still waiting on an answer
Bad monkey no banana

Indianapolis, IN

#125 Jun 7, 2007
Still waiting – c’mon folks, this is your chance to gloat about how your science can answer all of the questions that academy can’t. If Intelligent Design dictates that all of the universe is an intricate creation with deliberate intent, then who did the designing? C’mon Doc, swiswach, Skewed view indeed, what is your answer?
Debby

Indianapolis, IN

#126 Jun 7, 2007
I'd like to know what kind of an incompetent designs a system where a 13-year-old gets cancer.
Bad monkey no banana

Indianapolis, IN

#127 Jun 7, 2007
Still waiting...
Bad monkey no banana

Indianapolis, IN

#128 Jun 8, 2007
Yeah – just as I thought. You don’t dare answer the question. By answering this question it will show beyond a shadow of a doubt that Intelligent Design is an extension of your religious beliefs and not fallible science. And it would end the debate / argument / farce.

The problem is that all the while you piss and moan about how all the legitimate sciences are wrong and can’t answer the hard questions of who, what, when, where and how. But when you are called out and confronted with the hard question of “Then who did the designing” you suddenly turn wishy washy – you don’t dare acknowledge God in the answer. It would prove your science depends too much on religious faith and not empirical data or research.
Dr Robert O Adair

Staten Island, NY

#129 Jun 8, 2007
Inystevie, you don't know the difference between a syllogism and sycophant. All knowledge is based on faith. It is typical of evolutionists to resort to selective evidence, irrational arguments, outright lies and just plain fraud like most of your primitive men. The only ones for which there was "sufficient evidence" turned out to be modern men like cro-magnons. As far as believing ancient ideas, on the one hand "Truth is always true.", on the other hand your Sophism was fully documented by Plato 2,500 years ago. It was just as false then as it is now. Psycologism is a substitute for serious thought. Maybe you didn't have a teddy bear? If your myth is so scientific, why do try aevery way possible to silence criticism? Ah well what can I expect from an ape?
Dan of Seymour

Springfield, IL

#130 Jun 9, 2007
..A lot of discourse and debate about an issue that seems cut and dried to me. If the Bible says it happened, then it did. Case closed. Good enough for me.

Since: Jun 07

Seattle, WA

#131 Jun 9, 2007
Bad monkey no banana wrote:
Yeah – just as I thought. You don’t dare answer the question. By answering this question it will show beyond a shadow of a doubt that Intelligent Design is an extension of your religious beliefs and not fallible science. And it would end the debate / argument / farce.
The problem is that all the while you piss and moan about how all the legitimate sciences are wrong and can’t answer the hard questions of who, what, when, where and how. But when you are called out and confronted with the hard question of “Then who did the designing” you suddenly turn wishy washy – you don’t dare acknowledge God in the answer. It would prove your science depends too much on religious faith and not empirical data or research.
I have a life. I get on these forums from time to time to have some fun in debates, but I don't live on them as apparently you do. Evolution vs ID does not dominate my life, but just something interesting to pass the time. As for WHO did the designing, my reply was a sincere way of saying that you had a good question, rather than simply accusing ID people of forcing religion into the schools. Are you embarrased when I say that your question was good?
In answer to it, my definition of "intelligent design" is simply that a higher intelligence than human designed and built the human being. It is of utmost arrogance that we think we are the highest intelligence in the universe. Let me posit a possibility: an alien lives in the earth and is monitoring his/her creation. This alien has a much higher intelligence, but is not a diety, and is the one who created and designed the human. Another is that an alien (Romulin, Vulcan?) designed the race, lost interest and disappeared to another galaxy to do something else. In either case, it does not have to be "God" that did it. Another possibility is that an omnipotent being who has lived thru all the ages and is not limited to our space/time continuum, that we refer to as "God" is another possibility.

If I found a pocketwatch in a forest with no idea of who the manufacturer was, would you call me a weirdo if I said that the watch did not evolve over millions and millions of years, but instead was designed by an intelligent human? Or is the pocketwatch empirical evidence of pocketwatch evolution?

I am just wondering, do you have a life or something else to do besides sit on these somewhat amusing debates??

Since: Jun 07

Seattle, WA

#132 Jun 9, 2007
Debby wrote:
I'd like to know what kind of an incompetent designs a system where a 13-year-old gets cancer.
Hi Debby: how do you know it was the designer rather than the operator? If a Boeing airplane crashed in the Atlantic, would you say it was the designer who was incompetent because there was in fact a flaw that developed over time in the aircraft or maybe that they missed their scheduled maintenance.
I was an electrical engineer for many years and got out of it because of the constant condemnation towards the engineering profession in the government. I did design systems and all of them had flaws, but I don't think that designing an imperfect system suggested that I was incompetent.

A higher intelligence might have designed the human being, but if we did not maintain it correctly and it gets cancer, why are we blaming the designer?
Markus

Livonia, MI

#133 Jun 10, 2007
swiswach wrote:
<quoted text>
If I found a pocketwatch in a forest...
How do you know it was a "pocketwatch"? Could it be because you had seen other pocket watches and you knew that pocket watches are made in a factory in Taiwan?
Debby

Indianapolis, IN

#134 Jun 10, 2007
swiswach wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi Debby: how do you know it was the designer rather than the operator?
A higher intelligence might have designed the human being, but if we did not maintain it correctly and it gets cancer, why are we blaming the designer?
THIRTEEN. YEARS. OLD. She has not had time to "not maintain herself correctly." She's grown up in a family that values exercise and healthy eating. Her mom's fanatical about fresh fruits and vegetables.

Face it, your "designer" is incompetent. Or he's a sadist. Or he doesn't exist.
Jeffrey

Mexico, Mexico

#135 Jun 11, 2007
Fortunately, the scientific credibility of the United States does not depend on these psuedoinstitutions. Even most of Christianity accepts scientific fact.

I wonder if the flat earth museum will be next door?
DanV

United States

#136 Jun 11, 2007
Thank you, Sister Patricia!

Your reasoning is worthy of Socrates (who, by the way, along with Confucius came up with the "Love thy enemy" concept 350 years prior to Christ).

However, one serious question:
Why don't people pay attention to serious biblical, textual or anthropological scholars? I have read some Karen Armstrong, Bart Erhman, John Boswell, Morton Smith. The one thing that scholars (as well as theologians) agree upon: the Bible WAS EDITED. It was put together over a period of 1000 years. Parts were revised, taken out and put back in centuries afterward. Few people today study any of the Apocrypha and these were books that ALMOST made it as canon.(And for millenialists: Revelations was added AFTER canon was established by Athanasius). Biblical iliteracy is crushingly abysmal. And many of the people attending the Creation Museum could not recite the Ten Commandments if they tried.

I would love to sontinue some form of dialogue with you. Please feel free to visit me at my blog: http://thedevilanddanvojir.blogspot.com
And agin,- thank you!
Bad monkey no banana

Indianapolis, IN

#137 Jun 12, 2007
swiswach wrote:
<quoted text>
I have a life. I get on these forums from time to time to have some fun in debates, but I don't live on them as apparently you do. Evolution vs ID does not dominate my life, but just something interesting to pass the time. As for WHO did the designing, my reply was a sincere way of saying that you had a good question, rather than simply accusing ID people of forcing religion into the schools. Are you embarrased when I say that your question was good?
In answer to it, my definition of "intelligent design" is simply that a higher intelligence than human designed and built the human being. It is of utmost arrogance that we think we are the highest intelligence in the universe. Let me posit a possibility: an alien lives in the earth and is monitoring his/her creation. This alien has a much higher intelligence, but is not a diety, and is the one who created and designed the human. Another is that an alien (Romulin, Vulcan?) designed the race, lost interest and disappeared to another galaxy to do something else. In either case, it does not have to be "God" that did it. Another possibility is that an omnipotent being who has lived thru all the ages and is not limited to our space/time continuum, that we refer to as "God" is another possibility.
If I found a pocketwatch in a forest with no idea of who the manufacturer was, would you call me a weirdo if I said that the watch did not evolve over millions and millions of years, but instead was designed by an intelligent human? Or is the pocketwatch empirical evidence of pocketwatch evolution?
I am just wondering, do you have a life or something else to do besides sit on these somewhat amusing debates??
You still didn't answer my question
love it

Dayton, OH

#138 Sep 11, 2010
The creation museum is a awesome place!
ccrider

Owensboro, KY

#139 Oct 2, 2010
love it wrote:<<The creation museum is a awesome place! >>

I agree.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 7
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Petersburg Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Disgusting 12 hr Deadhead 1
cookies Jul 26 still waiting 1
Blocked Jul 25 Ex bo 1
Waiting on your call Jul 23 Wilmas buddy 1
Song 4 you Jul 17 Missing you wanti... 3
How mad are you Jul 16 Park boy 1
Horny Housewives (Feb '14) Jul 15 Jake 2

Petersburg Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Petersburg Mortgages