Letters to the Editor
-
RealName, keep the jokes coming.
Really, no one has ever heard that one. What else do you have?
-
Creation museum is partiotic!
Creation museum is not a joke. It is an important tool of teaching patriotic Americanism. The ones, who believe in creation as it is shown, would also believe that WTC7 collapses with the free fall speed, all four corner simultaneously, because of fire or because the gravity around the building has been miraculously increased five times. They would believe that the group who stole antrax from government lab couldn’t be found for six years. They would not ask question why the voting machines have to track records. It is all God’s will. They will cheer our freedoms, democratization of these Middle Eastern savages, and the biggest GULAG we created for our own citizen, and our biblical moral values.
Personally, I liked that Eden. It is as clean as a nice shopping mall and I like their hairdresser salon. I also enjoy the idea that Adam and Eve spend they time in the ponds, like hippos. But why didn't God invented a decent bra for Eve?
-
I want a tinfoil hat museum
Right next to the Bigfoot monument around the corner from the Black Helicopter repair yard.
Cue Theremin sound.
-
The Creation(of an uneducated idea 6000yrs ago)Museum
I have been slightly depressed since I heard about the opening of this place. How sad and unfortunate for all the children duped into believing such unfounded nonsense. And how sad for their futures. Only in America could such a waste of resources go so unscathed. How is it that the media isn't discrediting it immediately? Are we that afraid of the christians and their man-written book of unchecked ideas? We have to stop them from destroying the minds and futures of these children(if an adult buys into it, they're probably too far gone). These kids go to museums to learn. How will they then go about ther world with such backwards, small-minded ideas? Their undoubtable unchristianlike pride will force them to stand up for these ideas, not to consider actual science, and look just silly. How sad for them. I don't care about the "adults" who dare to buy into it because their minds cannot comprehend that actual science, and their unfortunate upbringing states the unscientific bible as law.(it's a 6000 year old collection of moral stories, for Christs' sake!) But the shaping of our children should be of our gravest concerns. Please, Mr. Media, your future depends on it too. Think about it, if you dare.
-
Genesis is not self-consistent when interpreted literally
How do those who claim Genesis should be interpreted literally resolve the inconsistencies between the different chapters?
In Chapter 1, man is created after the plants and animals, whereas in Chapter 2, man is created before them. I like to think this was done deliberately in order to discourage literal interpretation.
-
Thomas Theobald
Those who invested millions in their theme park probably have the right belief: It takes money to make money.
-
Progress...
Hey, It's a sign of progress that they didn't make Eve blonde and blue-eyed!
-
All this 'evidence' to PROVE their Faith?
Once again fundies have lost to science and as usual they have NO CLUE...
-
Church of England likes ID
Just for the folks who think this is a silly discussion, here's a link to today's Guardian. The Church of England wants Intelligent Design taught in English schools. Just so you know this isn't just about America.
http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,2093476,00.html
This blog on the Creation Museum is one of the funniest, most numerous and somewhat enlightening discussions I've seen in a long time.
Proves that sex, politics and religion are the best subjects to talk about!
-
Desert Son, those who can do teach
My reference to those who have studied art but can not make a living in the arts going into teaching was not meant as a derisive shot. There are numerous reasons why people fail to make a living in the arts and talent, skill, and knowledge are probably the least important. As a physics major who has opted to make my career in the arts, I am probably exacerbating the problem myself, though I am also painfully aware that talent alone does not determine success or failure in the rarefied air of the Arts.
That being said, my real complaint is pedagogical compounded by administrative concerns.
My pedagogical argument I've already made, that science is taught backwards from the macroscopic to the microscopic, and that mathematics and science education is far more concerned with taxonomic memorization and tables. The administrative concern is tied to this as those who administer schools are more likely than not to be people who were not drawn to science, and for whom the elegant beauty of mathematics and science remains a mystery. Since they have themselves shied away from the sciences there is little impetus on their part to believe in or implement a pedagogical change.
At the heart of the problem is an inherent misunderstanding of math and science. Think of the number of people in the world who say "I can't do math" or "I just don't think scientifically" and how many teachers accept such a ludicrous notion. We don't accept such a statement with regard to language or history and we shouldn't accept it in regard to math and science. We keep the failed model for education because those who are educating have never been given a better model, and accept the notion of scientific mystery, something people trained in the sciences simply don't do.
Science is at its heart the simplest of subjects. Nothing is moved without a mover, nothing acts without a reaction. I don't think our world is doomed, because clearly enough young people make it to the higher grades and are granted insight into the true nature of science, but the majority of student for whom science is left as a mystery is truly a tragedy in our country.
-
A Cretin Museum is a fine idea
It provides Cretinists with a gathering place to discuss and confirm their collective belief in Cretinism.
-
ELYDOG, of course the COE likes ID
I mean, that's sort of the whole point of religion, that the universe was designed and wasn't happenstance.
Interestingly enough science makes no statement contrary to this notion. Science is just the mechanics; questions of purpose in those mechanics are for philosophers.
In that, ID perhaps does deserve a place in schools, in a philosophy course. But ID isn't creationism, and that is something to be clear about.
ID is the philosophical notion that the inherent complexity of the universe and the missing points in our knowledge of its origins implies something which has influenced the universe to come to its current point with a tool using, self aware, and aware beyond self animal, capable of asking philosophical questions.
Every person who believes in any sentient super force in the universe believes in ID. One can easily accept all current scientific thought from the age of the universe to the origin of the species and never once contradict the notion of such an intention in the universe. As I myself believe in a clock work universe, I fully believe that the outcome we see for the universe is the only possible outcome that could have occurred given the amount and placement of the matter and energy that existed at the start of the universe.
Creationism, which is what this museum is espousing, is a very different notion. One can believe in any super force and believe in ID, Creationism requires belief in only one possible super force and belief in only one interpretation of that super force’s message to its creation.
Creationism has never been a strongly held notion among actual scholars of religion. Williams Jennings Bryant did not argue for either a young earth or the world in six days during the famous trial, and even during the renaissance the Pope's objections to Galileo were more based on his flawed mathematics than his rejection of literal biblical explanations.
It is likely that the COE, like the RC, wishes to make sure people know that they accept our knowledge of physical laws with the caveat that their God is responsible for the authorship of those physical laws. This is a relatively benign philosophy in our modern age, and not one deserving of concern beyond philosophers. What the Creationists argue is far more dangerous and divisive, fortunately it is not particularly compelling the more one researches.
In truth this museum may do much more to undo the Creationist philosophy than bolster it. Historically speaking, people who studied the bible reject this simplistic notion of creation. As such as people come to study the legend of Genesis they are likely to be struck by the many flaws in this visual presentation of a broken philosophy.
Isn’t ironic, don’t ya think?