What demons to criticize another's "unearthly" beliefs. Keep up the good work.
Dude, this is a place of science and scholarship. We are all welcome--nay, encouraged--to criticize
intellectual dishonesty, which is what so-called "creation science" is. I attended a debate between a "creation scientist" and a real scientist. The C.S. was not retarded or uneducated. He had very meticulously combed through the fossil record and selected a group of fossils which, by themselves, appeared to prove his point. He had very meticulously reviewed the papers written by students at third-rate (generally unaccredited) Christian universities and selected a group that were articulately written but based on invalid premises taught in the classes. By so doing he made his argument appear respectable to children and people with little education.
This is disingenuousness at its worst; intellectual dishonesty of the most frightening scope. The people who lead the "creation science" movement know the truth and do not actually "believe" their own bullshit. They are simply pandering to the modestly educated, intellectually unambitious, un-cosmopolitan rubes who comprise a high percentage of the religious fundamentalist community, telling them what they want to hear and reinforcing their faith in a false ideology in order to maintain their own power, status and (of course) wealth.
They're in exactly the same class as the charlatan "faith healers" who use stage magic and psychology to appear to perform miracles--and who also get rich from it.
Have you ever gone to a living museum that has people dressed in the clothes of a period in history; Quakers in Pennsylvania. Besides wearing dated clothing they practice crafts using old fashion hand tools without batteries or wire; wow! These places help people to get a feel for what it was like in the past, with many people preserving that past.
After visiting such a place, do the liberals band together to try to shut it down since modern people don't wear those clothes anymore.
You're practicing a little disingenuousness of your own there, young feller, and you're not getting away with it. The historical museums
do not claim that their exhibits represent modern scenes. They clearly identify them as
snapshots from bygone eras. They are not trying to deceive anyone, and in fact with their signage they take great pains to make sure that no one is deceived by an honest misunderstanding or their own naivete. The curators of the C.S. museum do just the opposite: exploit the gullibility of a largely rural, modestly educated, non-intellectually oriented demographic by presenting their exhibits as
truth.
Liberals are so predictable . . . .
Which doesn't make them very different from everybody else. And besides, the people who unremarkably accept the validity of evolution--including the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury and many other religious leaders--are hardly all liberals.
. . . . the atheists are so insecure due to irrationality.
Since evolution is a canonical scientific theory and science is the epitome of rationality, even if for the sake of argument we accept your generalization that all people who accept evolution are atheists (momentarily ignoring the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury, etc.), their acceptance of evolution can hardly be attributed to irrationality.
And on the contrary, the dogma of fundamentalist Christianity, which is the domain from which "creation science" springs, is based largely on irrationality: ignoring evidence and instead maintaining an unreasoned faith in things for which there is not a shred of evidence.
Therefore, in accordance with the scientific method, I have peer-reviewed your assertion that atheists are irrational, and claim to have falsified it.
You have two choices: explain why you think I may be wrong, or admit defeat and
never again repeat this preposterous assertion on SciForums.
A Creationism museum, to me, is a museum of early human theory. It was among the first theories of evolution and the universe that humans ever created.
But
that is not how it is presented. Biblical creation is not presented as an expired legend. It is presented as a fact.
It would be like going into a 15th century museum of early science. We don't try to shut it down because we don't use leaches anymore. It is preserved as a reminder of where we came from, so we can know we are heading. Many people have an affinity for that time and work hard to recreate it so all can see what it was like.
You're deliberately skipping over the point. A museum of fifteenth-century life presents life
as it actually was in the fifteenth century, to the best of our historical knowledge. The Creation Museum in Kentucky displays tableaux of imaginary scenarios that
never existed, yet insists that they are historically accurate. It is not presented as entertainment, fiction, or a "history" of discredited theories of evolution.
This is an enormous difference, and it is the whole point of this thread.
Keep up the good work.
