posted
"Dismissing the possibility that it was Mary's genealogy by waving your hands saying that they wouldn't have cared about it seems to be as hubristic and trying to FORCE the Bible into saying what you want it to say as the idea that it it is Mary's genealogy. "
I apologize for not giving evidence this late at night. You assume I have no evidence because I give only my conclusion, or am I wrong in my assumption of your assumption. If my assumption is correct, then that's pretty bad form.
Anyway, I have reasons for it, and I can show you books, information, etc.
The question is... will you actually look at it, or just dismiss it right out of hand like so many people do, without even looking at it?
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I mean, why bother pointing out the truth. Nobody cares about truth, only their own fantasies. Only whatever makes them feel good. Gah, it's late, I'm depressed, and therefore I am despairing of humanity. Good night,
posted
I have been working with various churches over the past few months, so I picked up a "Religious" newspaper for some background work.
It was a supposedly local paper put together by the group that funded this museum.
80% of all the ads in the paper were for brand name hotels in the area offering group rates. In other words, some are using this as a money making opportunity more than an evangelical call.
The paper ran three articles, all lengthy. The first was about the museum.
The second was a critique of "Inherit The Wind"--the movie based off of the Scopes Monkey Trial. It was also a major critique of the Scopes Monkey Trial.
The third was a complaint against the ID movement. They were upset that it did not mention Jesus, talk about his role in history, creation, or science. In other words, ID is too liberal to be allowed in our schools, and only good old Christian beliefs should be there.
What is my biggest problem with this museum. "Thou Shall Not Bear False Witness" sums it up. While most of the people who work here and built this place are firm believers in what they do, some--those who fudge the numbers, edit the science, spin the facts, are bearing false witness. Not greatly, not is some villainous conspiracy, but in small little ways, perhaps mostly lieing to themselves, in order to prove what they believe is true.
"Thou shall not make for yourself an idol," Some think that this is stretching it, but to many people seem to make an Idol out of the Bible. They seem to be worshiping it instead of God. This museum is a shrine to one small part of a greater book that in itself is just part of their religious Tome which is in reality just a part of an even greater religious tradition.
Finally, some say that this attempt to fudge the line between faith and science is unimportant. What harm can be done?
Much.
The dangerous fringe of the Christian Fanatics will use places like this and faked science presented here to support their beliefs, and many of them are dangerous.
One that comes to mind is the belief that the Jews must retake Jerusalem at all costs, so that Biblical prophesy comes true. It is this belief that fuels much of the US foreign policy of not supporting Israel, but supporting Israels most fanatical religious extremists.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyone can believe what they want as far as I am concerned. The major reason I jumped into this fray, and mph seems to have picked up on it, is the absolutely horrendous accusations of lying and lack of real faith. As far as I am concerned from my exprience with the kind of people who would make and go to this museum, they are as serious in believing the scientific model of the Biblical Creationism as those who condemn its science. Most of all I find the kind of actions that these accusations against those who believe in Creationism as scientific hint at utterly reprehensible. With these kinds of "Big Brother don't like what you are doing with science," I am as fearful of those who are against this museum as I am many of the kinds of Christians who take the Bible too literally. There is a Christian Gitmo on the horizon.
Both sides of the issue seem to want to quash viewpoints rather than discuss things in an open and democratic way. If science is so perfect and true, shouldn't it stand on its own legs? I applaud those who write all the reasons evolution and other scientific ideas are considered true. As long as you stick with that then fine, no fears.
However, to question the faith and motives of those who disagree sounds more like childish bullying and intimidation. Worse, it sounds like my rights to think, believe, and express openly are threatened. I find it disheartening that those who claim Christians are trying to do this are now talking like they want to do that to them.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of the unfortunate side-effects of this museum - which in my mind is lumped right in with the ID movement - is that it serves to further set its adherents apart from the rest of the population.
At its base, organized religion is a very powerful means of creating firm boundaries which organize believers into a group of people set apart from non-believers. I think that in the modern world, people in like circumstances tend to have so much in common, that organized religion has become a less powerful boundary.
This type of intentional ignorance or misrepresentation of facts creates a new, very powerful boundary among people - something which I believe is very detrimental and frankly dangerously outdated in the modern world. In a tribal society, knowing who is with you and who is against you is very important. In today's world, we really need to all be on the same side in as much as possible. There isn't enough room to be at odds with one another, just for the sake of differentiation.
The ID movement, and this museum in particular, are attempting to create a subset of Christian followers who are willfully ignorant of the world around them, who clearly set themselves apart from people who value science and the increase of human knowledge. It's sad to me, at best, and a dangerous practice at worst.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Both sides of the issue seem to want to quash viewpoints rather than discuss things in an open and democratic way."
Are you suggesting me discussing in an open and democratic way with someone who denies the existence of, say, helicoptors? That is the intellectual equivalent here.
" If science is so perfect and true, shouldn't it stand on its own legs?"
It does, actually! If you actually LOOK, people would see it DOES stand on its own two feet. But most of those who disbelieve it have never actually looked at the evidence themselves, just read the imposters who claim it doesn't, all of which that I've read use faulty logic and many times outright lies.
" I applaud those who write all the reasons evolution and other scientific ideas are considered true. As long as you stick with that then fine, no fears."
Okay, I guess.
As for the museum? I've never said that it should be torn down. Let them.
What I'm against is the thing that caused the museum to be created in the first place. If people didn't believe, in this case, these lies, they would not build the museum. I'm attacking the lie, not the museum.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah. The reason nearly every scientist agrees that evolution is a fact is because it stands on its own two feet.
Unless one places virtually all scientists in the correct fields, of which there are many, all the millions of them, as all in on some conspiracy or lie, then... well! They actually DO know what they're talking about.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are you suggesting me discussing in an open and democratic way with someone who denies the existence of, say, helicoptors? That is the intellectual equivalent here.
That is a gross misrepresentation. There is a world of difference between denying the existance of a common physical object like the helicopter, which everybody can see and touch, and the veracity of the theory of evolution, which is not so tangible.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, it's not quite as extreme, I'll admit.
And in the case of evolution, we non-scientists DON'T get to see it as clearly as we say, see, a helicopter.
But the evidence is there and the evidence IS clear. It's not as tangible, but you CAN be shown actual evidence of, for example, speciation, species separating into different ones with slightly different traits and so forth. In addition, you can see evidence for "microevolution" and can see the effect of numerous changes over time. And you can see a whole bunch of other things, should one take the effort to look.
But you're right, it's much harder than seeing a helicoptor. I'll say this instead:
Should I discuss in an open and democratic way with someone who believes the earth is flat? Even that is still easier to prove against than evolution, though, because the evidence is easier to show in a way that is easily understood.
Regardless, when you see the evidence, and the other side refuses to even look at it (which they don't in this case) then what am I supposed to do? How is discussing it democratically, as if their factually erroneous belief actually has merit when it incontrovertably does not, as if it has not been proven to be totally false, anything more than a lie on my part?
Okay. I see a way. By starting with their beliefs, accepting they believe them, discussing it freely, but then showing evidence to the contrary. That's democratic and open, I guess, but in the end it still ends with them either admitting they were wrong (because the evidence for evolution IS incontrovertible) or refusing and continuing to live in subjectivist fantasyland. Why should I bother, when most of them will continue living in fantasyland, and have said as much, and will just ignore any proof?
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Okay. I see a way. By starting with their beliefs, accepting they believe them, discussing it freely, but then showing evidence to the contrary. That's democratic and open, I guess, but in the end it still ends with them either admitting they were wrong (because the evidence for evolution IS incontrovertible) or refusing and continuing to live in subjectivist fantasyland. Why should I bother, when most of them will continue living in fantasyland, and have said as much, and will just ignore any proof?"
Wow, you are on to something. Not only that, but that is the only way I believe it should be done. At least if you actually want to discuss it in the first place. IF you actually did this I would have a lot more respect for your (or anyone else's) arguments. Otherwise your attitude that they are nothing more than talking about flat earth and black helocopters will end up the same way. The difference is that the last approach you gave will actually open up a lot more discussion because they won't feel as threatened by your hostility.
Will there still be many who don't read or come to the conclusion that evolution is true? Absolutely. Welcome to humanity. But, doors will have been opened (as even you state is possible) even if for a minor few.
Of course, I have not argued you are wrong about evolution as a highly probable truth. What I have argued about is when you treat them as "dangerous," and "stupid" and etc. it only makes them that much more entrenched and distrustful and make you the enemy of everything they stand for. when you express hatred and disrespect for their beliefs there is absolutely no reason for them to consider the evidence. Perception can be much more important than proof when it comes to acceptability and consideration.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"What I have argued about is when you treat them as "dangerous," and "stupid" and etc. it only makes them that much more entrenched and distrustful and make you the enemy of everything they stand for. when you express hatred and disrespect for their beliefs there is absolutely no reason for them to consider the evidence. Perception can be much more important than proof when it comes to acceptability and consideration. "
Unfortunately, they actually happen to be enemies of everything that I stand for.
Maybe I shouldn't go the "you're either with us or against us" Bush-esque route of evolutionary discussion. However, when I discuss it at all with those who disbelieve it, they react negatively regardless of what I do.
The ones I've met don't WANT to discuss it freely and openly with me.
Anyway, you say you'd respect my arguements more if I was acting differently.
However, the truth of my arguements has nothing to do with my personality, and therefor, using my personality as a basis for how to take the arguements is a logical fallacy. I forgot its name.
I know you are making a point and all, and I understand. I'm not saying you actually ARE using that fallacy. But many people unfortunately do. (Which annoys me even more, that they think personality has some bearing on evidence.)
However, being polite and friendly helps with that, I understand. And you're right, it basically is the only wat to discuss it with them. However, do I wish to discuss it with them? Would it actually have an effect? They normally ignore it regardless. Some of them even use disregarding facts as a proof of faith, as one person before mentioned. How do you discuss proof with someone who's value includes disregarding proof and facts on purpose to improve their faith?
Not saying everyone does that. Just... I'm skeptical. I guess I could give it a try. But they already assume me to be a jerk just by my mentioning it, in most places.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: kmboots, if you are asking why I argue one thing one time and another another? That is because I usually disagree with parts of both views.
No. I'm pointing out that very few people really take the Bible literally. Most people (who can afford it) have more than one coat (jacket, outer garment, and so forth). Very few of us take as literal the parts of the Bible that would actually make a difference.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Without the Oral Tanak, (the Talmud, right?) you may be right. However, we Christians do not consider them canon. So go figure. I'm only going about the christian side of things. I'm not dealing with Judaism, which admittedly interprets things in a different light, and disregards much that I hold dear.
It's the Oral Torah (or Oral Law) -- there ain't no such animal as the "Oral Tanach." And the Talmud is part of it, although it is far from its entirety. Of course you don't consider it canon. I was not arguing that you should. However, if you are going to make blanket statements, I am going to call you on them. Like this one:
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: The Hebrew people were crazy about genealogies. So they created a bunch of them, some true, some not accurate.
Please point out one inaccurate genealogy that is in the "Hebrew texts." Who was crazy about genealogies?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, I was referring more to the Jesus genealogies for shown inconsistencies. Different religion, dno't worry about it my Jewish friend. The people who wrote those books WERE Hebrews, though they, in your view, became heretics essentially. Still, they were Hebrews, if bad ones.
And the Hebrews WERE crazy for genealogies. They put tons of them in, and used tons of them. No insult there!
I don't know enough about the genealogies in the Hebrew texts at the moment to give anything anyway.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you mean early Christians, then why not say that to begin with?
I would agree that genealogies are important biblically -- and halachically. I wouldn't choose "crazy" as a descriptor, but *shrug* no biggie.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The ones I've met don't WANT to discuss it freely and openly with me.
Anyway, you say you'd respect my arguements more if I was acting differently.
However, the truth of my arguements has nothing to do with my personality, and therefor, using my personality as a basis for how to take the arguements is a logical fallacy. I forgot its name."
I know what you are talking about here and agree. Proof is in the details and not the person. However, once you go into the "your with us or against us" routine, as you said, then my experience is that all thinking ends and it really does become personal. I know, I know . . . counter-intuitive and all that.
What do you do if someone doesn't WANT to discuss it freely and openly? Umm . . . no protestation is going to change that. Perhaps you will have to just let it go or get used to heated arguments that go nowhere.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
i find that discussing the bible's validity, evoltions validity, creation's validity is usually moot. Nobody i've meet has had something of a objective viewpoint on the subject, so the bias usually leads directly to debasing the persons character rather than the arguements they make.
When talking about evolution v ID/Creation you simply have too braod a spectrum to cover. In my sciences ive taken i have had evolutionists/creationists/christian evolutionists as professors. Aparantly there is ground that the beliefs can co-exist (or at least not destroy each other). But when it is something this big it is hard to "Prove" anything.
Ex. KoM is (particle physicist?) a scientist and may have knowledge in a given area that another scientist, or layman would not know how to refute. Even if a person were to accept his evidecne of an area as fact it would be just as foolish to let one area of resolution determine the entire spectra of science as it would to discredit it. Who knows, perhaps there will somehow, someway be a time and a place where people can debate things, point-counter point and then see how the evidence stacks up. I personally have had a hard time reading about the Creation v Evolution "debate" because all the arguements i read are biased, only half engage the other arguement, and very seldom offer tangible proofs as answers. The "intellctual" answers or the ability to come to terms with something without facts has always bothered be when the people are supposed to be debating about facts.
Debating over the validity of the bible is almost as hard. There are too many ways to logicise the discrepancies. There are too many facts missing and nobody was around at the creation of the original manuscripts to judge reason and intent.
In a way i wish there was a way of doing this and not having the debate break down into bouts of accusations and ad hominem. It would make one heck of a read.
Posts: 467 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
of course if anyone were interested i would love to give the whole debate thing a try, would just have to realise that my biblical studies/scientific background is very general to an average college education so i would need time to overview points and seek explinations.
of course it would be hard to have a thread about that i guess, since theres no way to block the people who would post just to make trouble.
Posts: 467 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
And in the end, what would be the standard, what would be enough to prove it one way or another, is another question?
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's painting with a pretty broad brush, Ecthalion. I think websites like talk.origins do a great job of "offering tangible proofs" (or at least as close to proof as one ever gets in science) without resorting to personal attacks. And I would argue that most of the evolution debates that we've had on Hatrack have been cordial, at least for the most part.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah... I read two posts in the beginning, and now I've posted without reading the entire conversation. Sorry if this has already been discussed but...
What's wrong with people creating a museum about something they believe in? To the rest of the world they're deluded, but it's their right to build a museum based upon what could be viewed as a somewhat ridiculous concept.
And also. Every dollar you spend is a dollar that could go to a charitable cause. You could easily give up 'frivilities' such as the internet, a tv or computer, or a college education (Assuming you haven't got one yet) so that you can give the money to a charitable cause. Had the premise of the museum been more reasonable, I doubt anybody here would have had a problem with spending 27 million dollars for it. It's silliness, really.
I personally wouldn't go to the 'creation' museum anymore than I would go to a museum about evolution. Both are theories I view as ridiculous, and the whole topic of humanity's origins is a bit of a bore to me. I have trouble reading about them in fantasy and sci-fi books, much less having to 'learn' about them in real life.
Posts: 438 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"What's wrong with people creating a museum about something they believe in? "
Nothing is wrong with it, except for the following few points:
They are spreading misinformation. They are pretending to be something they aren't (scientific). Their belief is factually incorrect. They have opened this museum in order to promote a particular world view which many people believe is incompatible with peaceful co-existence with other world views.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: That's painting with a pretty broad brush, Ecthalion. I think websites like talk.origins do a great job of "offering tangible proofs" (or at least as close to proof as one ever gets in science) without resorting to personal attacks. And I would argue that most of the evolution debates that we've had on Hatrack have been cordial, at least for the most part.
most of the debates ive seen on here have digressed into name calling usually by the second page. I know it is very broad idea. I personally wouldnt know where to start such a debate or what rules to debate by.
quote:And in the end, what would be the standard, what would be enough to prove it one way or another, is another question?
I doubt that anything would be "proven" as far as the word means. im just tired of everytime i see a claim, i hear how it is irrefutable, yet theres at least one person that can creat an arguement against it. and then there may be somone else that can create an agruement against his idea and so on and so forth. And usually by the second or third disagreement its down to namecalling.
I guess i just have to live long enough to see areas to a conclusion before ill ever get that though.
Posts: 467 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:They have opened this museum in order to promote a particular world view which many people believe is incompatible with peaceful co-existence with other world views.
At the thunderdome, two worldviews enter, one worldview leaves.
My worldview can beat up your worldview. Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "What's wrong with people creating a museum about something they believe in? "
Nothing is wrong with it, except for the following few points:
They are spreading misinformation.
As I believe that evolution, as it stands, is misinformation, I'm afraid I don't see your point. Also, people deserve to be misinformed, IMO, if they walk into a museum and believe everything they see. Since I doubt that this is much of a problem, I don't see the spreading of misimformation as harmful. Perhaps if the curaters waved a gun in your face and threatened to kill you if you didn't 'convert', I would find fault with them.
quote: Their belief is factually incorrect.
People don't have the right to believe in something that is considered incorrect by other people? I realize that a vast majority of people don't buy into creationism, but still, they still have the right to promote their beliefs. Maybe if they believed they were wrong, but spread the information anyway, fully knowing that the information they were spreading was incorrect, I would have a problem. But that's not the case.
quote: They have opened this museum in order to promote a particular world view which many people believe is incompatible with peaceful co-existence with other world views.
??? There's a leap.
*Edited for quotie thingies.* *Edited again for unclear antecedents* *Again for spelling and grammatical errors*
Posts: 438 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: They have opened this museum in order to promote a particular world view which many people believe is incompatible with peaceful co-existence with other world views.
??? There's a leap.
which part? that they're promoting a certain world view? Or that that world view is incompatible with other world views?
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The part where it's incompatible with peaceful coexistence with other world views, I'm guessing.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I do have an odd desire to punch in the face the people who made the museum, so there's some truth to it Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
But seriously. I don't see how it will interfere with the co-existence of world-views.
And I don't see how we could call the current co-existence of world-views peaceful.
And I don't know many people who believe that creationism is disrupting the abundant harmony in the World.
Posts: 438 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
If we demand the elimination of one group over the other in order to avoid non-peaceful coexistence, we'd better give Western civilization back to the creationists. After all, they had it first.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: If we demand the elimination of one group over the other in order to avoid non-peaceful coexistence, we'd better give Western civilization back to the creationists. After all, they had it first.
This man speaks the truth.
It was 1st ammendment advocates who protected evolution during its fledgling days. It would be gross hypocrisy for evolution to obtain a commanding majority in society and then silence its' opponents.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:They have opened this museum in order to promote a particular world view which many people believe is incompatible with peaceful co-existence with other world views.
At the thunderdome, two worldviews enter, one worldview leaves.
My worldview can beat up your worldview.
I've got the death sentence on twelve systems!
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:It would be gross hypocrisy for evolution to obtain a commanding majority in society and then silence its' opponents.
Could someone show me where this idea that people want to forcibly silence/eliminate creationists is coming from? From what I can see, this has been touched on by the people having problems with creationism only when they say that this is explicitly not what they are saying.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think we should forcibly silence them. I'd much prefer the "constant mocking of their beliefs & subversion of their children through education" approach.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It would be gross hypocrisy for evolution to obtain a commanding majority in society and then silence its' opponents.
Could someone show me where this idea that people want to forcibly silence/eliminate creationists is coming from? From what I can see, this has been touched on by the people having problems with creationism only when they say that this is explicitly not what they are saying.
Oh I dunno Paul's comments about the museum presenting a world view that is incompatable with peaceful coexistance struck me as being akin to saying, "Ideas that cannot peacefully coexist with others need to be snuffed out." But hey I could just be reading him wrong.
Also it seemed like in the first page people were saying, "Creationist museums masquerading as science ought not to be allowed to open."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheHumanTarget: I don't think we should forcibly silence them. I'd much prefer the "constant mocking of their beliefs & subversion of their children through education" approach.
posted
Attitudes of "constant mocking of their beliefs & subversion of their children" fosters an environment where people feel the need to remove their children from public schools into insular private schools or home schooling, which increases the demand for institutions such as this creationist museum.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Oh I dunno Paul's comments about the museum presenting a world view that is incompatable with peaceful coexistance struck me as being akin to saying, "Ideas that cannot peacefully coexist with others need to be snuffed out." But hey I could just be reading him wrong.
In this particular case, I sort of agree with that thought. However, the method of snuffing out, for me, would not involve forcibly doing anything to them(edit: assuming we don't get into a situation where the conservative christians form a military organization bent on the eradication of those who believe otherwise), but rather defeating it through education and through the marketplace of ideas.
quote:Also it seemed like in the first page people were saying, "Creationist museums masquerading as science ought not to be allowed to open."
I looked over the first page and I see no indication of anyone saying. I did, however, see people specifically saying that they weren't saying this. Could you point out the statements that you are basing this on?
---
There is a terribly important difference between saying that someone is wrong, irresponsible, or even dishonest with what they are saying and saying that they not be allowed to say it.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Attitudes of "constant mocking of their beliefs & subversion of their children" fosters an environment where people feel the need to remove their children from public schools into insular private schools or home schooling, which increases the demand for institutions such as this creationist museum.
I don't necessarily think that this is the truism you treat it as. Children don't necessarily mold into what their parents try to make them. It is entirely possible that creationists taking steps like this is going to result in more children rejecting their parents beliefs and thus reducing the demand for creationist things.
---
I've a completely unsupported theory that one of the main reasons that the West had an Enlightenment and the Islamic world didn't is that the people in charge of the state and church in Europe were significantly worse (or at least more visibly so) than in Islamic countries. I think the same principles may apply here.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think what is most startling about this 'museum' is that it takes the world back hundreds of years scientifically and past hundreds of scientists, perhaps thousands who worked on this topic even though it flew in the face of everything they believed.
From the time that Galileo first realised that the moon was covered in mountains and valleys and thus the "heavenly sphere" was not perfect- and Brahe's reaffirmation of this fact, humans have slowly been investigating the reality and history of their world.
Many of them were devoutly religious. They were most of them good scientists, rejecting and accepting their beliefs and theories depending on what they saw.
Much later, comparative anatomists began to realise that many creatures shared common features and could be arranged by them. They realised there were complex creatures and simple creatures.
One of these, Lemarck proposed his 'path' or 'order' of animals, essentially proposing the first concept of evolution. Mendel laid the ground work for the transmission of forms from parent to child.
Cuvier, despite being a creationist and arguing against Lemarck's theories (due to gaps in the fossil record etc.), his work with the development of creatures eventually became important to evolutionary theory.
Charles Lyell's work on the geology of the Earth was hugely influential. He promosed the hypothesis of uniformity, suggesting that the actions we observe to day on the earth in the natural world are the same as those that have always been unfolding- and if they can explain what we can see looking back over the geological (and later, biological) record of the earth, we should not need to invent further ideas.
At the same time in astronomy, scientists were discovering the true size and nature of the universe. In chemistry, the opposite end of the scale was being investigated.
Thomas Malthus, now thought of darkly as the father of eugenics, was instrumental in his work to do with the populations of creatures and the habitat available for them. Malthus was not the first to think about population. Adam Smith had similar ideas: "When food increases, men will multiply like rats."
Charles Darwin, a catastrophist (creationist) when he boarded the Beagle, took a copy of Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology with him. On his journey around the world he observed many of the phenomena Lyell described, thus finding evidence to support Lyell's claims.
for much of his journey, Darwin was a creationist: "It seems a not very improbably conjection that the want of animals may be owing to none having been created since this country was raised from the sea."
At the same time, though, Darwin was observing phenomena that seemed to lead to another hypothesis in the biological as well as the geological world. The finches he saw on the Galapagos Islands seemed to be not only different from those living on the mainland but with beaks designed specifically to consume certain types of food.
He did not return an evolutionist. It was not until he returned that he read Malthus' work on populations and realised that creatures unsuited to their environment would die out.
It was not a snap decision. Darwin spent years sorting through the data he recovered from his journey, comparing it with the ideas of Lyell and Malthus.
At the same time, another scientist, Alfred Wallace, who had also travelled the world widely and made many observations. He applied Lyell's theories to what he had seen in the biology of animals and plants on the Indonesian Islands.
Wallace sent a letter to Darwin who even yet had published nothing on the topic of evolution but was rumoured to be leaning that way.
Hurriedly, Darwin collated his work to present to the Linnean Society (bearing the name of another great scientist) in July of 1858. A year later, he published his book, selling all 1250 copies on the first day. It was over fifteen years since he had returned from his journey on the Beagle.
This is hardly the end of the story, or even until this point, the complete story. So many scientists, philosophers and thinkers (both evolutionists and creationists) were instrumental in refining the idea of evolution we have today it is impossible to trace all the links between them.
It is important to remember, in all, that literally thousands of scientists with thousands of world views came up with this idea. It wasn't just one man with one set of data. When we teach evolution, we are teaching the scientific culmination of hundreds of years of thought, investigation, skepticism, religiousness and philosophy; conflicting, agreeing, and eventually and slowly emerging as one idea. What resulted is not a badly thought out theory, it is a concept based on a huge amount of scientific thought and evidence.
To build this museum as a viable scientific evidence is a slap in the face of all these thousands of thinkers who carefully considered the evidence, who battled with others and with themselves to come to a viable conclusion.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr S: "This isn't an issue of letting people believe what they want, it is presenting a distorted and un(scientifically)justified account of history to children. This is ID all over again. If religous types want to teach their children about faith and the traditions of their religion, fine. But they should not be allowed to confuse children with falsities presented as scientific fact. "
"What's more, there's a fine line between freedom of thought and speech, and outright lying and misinformation."
"We have the freedom to think and say whatever we want. Lying and making up facts however is fraud."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I did miss the first quote. I agree that this fits what you said. The other two, not so much.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squicky -- I don't know what "truism" you're reading from my post, but it's not something that's there. I don't know what you think you're responding to, but you did not understand my post.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
And the Talmud is part of it, although it is far from its entirety. Of course you don't consider it canon. I was not arguing that you should. However, if you are going to make blanket statements, I am going to call you on them. Like this one:![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Please point out one inaccurate genealogy that is in the "Hebrew texts." Who was crazy about genealogies?
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
