Holy Ignorance
This morning’s Washington Post has an article titled “In Evolution Debate, Creationists Are Breaking New Ground” about a new $25 million ‘Creation Museum‘ that is being built near Cincinnati to promote the view of biblical creation of the Earth vs. Evolution.
Some tidbits…
“It holds that the world and the universe are but 6,000 years old and that baby dinosaurs rode in Noah’s ark.”
—
“But by any measure, Young Earth Creationism – which holds that the Bible is the literal word of God and that He created the universe in seven days – has a more powerful hold on the beliefs of Americans than evolutionary theory or intelligent design. That grip grows stronger by the year.
Polls taken last year showed that 45 percent of Americans believe that God created humans in their present form 10,000 years ago (or less) and that man shares no common ancestor with the ape. Only 26 percent believe in the central tenet of evolution, that all life descended from a single ancestor.
Another poll showed that 65 percent of Americans want creationism taught alongside evolution.”
—
“But often, scientists say, the creationist bottom line is a through-the-looking-glass version of science. The scientific method of theory, experiment and assumptions upended does not apply. Ask Ham if he could accept evidence that conflicts with his reading of Genesis – proof, say, that a fossil is more than 6,000 years old – and he shakes his head.”
—
“Ham is ambivalent on the question of intelligent design. He admires the movement’s founders and applauds their battles. But he is skeptical of creationists who see intelligent design as a battering ram that might smash down the constitutional doors and allow the Bible back into schools.
They are not a Christian movement, they are not about the Bible,” he says in his spacious corner office at the museum. “It’s not even against evolution, not really, because they don’t tell you what that intelligence is. It could open a door for Muslim belief, for Hindus, for New Age.
We are telling you unashamedly that the word of the Bible is the way.”
—
I support everybody’s right to believe whatever they want, but it’s often painful to endure their efforts to spread their ignorance and religious intolerance.
for further reading:
Ministry uses dinosaurs to dispute evolution
Cincinnati Enquirer, 5/22/05
<p>I support everybody’s right to believe whatever they want, but it’s often painful to endure their efforts to spread their ignorance and religious intolerance.</p><p>Man, you are so right! The humanists are so pervading and attacking the culture with their intolerance and ignorance of the truth.</p><p>Okay, so maybe that’s not actually what you meant. But it’s true. Creation scientists aren’t the intolerant ones because we want creation science and evolution hypothesis taught side-by-side in government schools. But if evolution is such a "proven fact" as major proponents enforce, then why are they so afraid of allowing alternate views?</p>
<p>I do accept evolution as a "proven fact". And I do accept your right to believe what you want, it amounts to accepting your right to be wrong.</p><p>Should I accept an alternate view of the solution to ‘1 + 1 = 2’ to be taught to my children in school? Or an alternate history that denies a historical fact? Just so that we can make them fit more nicely with your faith? </p><p>How many alternates will we need to have one that fits each faith? Only one according to Ham in the article, who dismissed ‘Intelligent Design’ because "It could open a door for Muslim belief, for Hindus, for New Age". Who is the intolerant one here?</p><p>The most telling excerpt from the Post article was Ham’s admission that he could not accept ANY scientific evidence that contradicts his belief in the bible as absolute fact. This is not science, it’s fantasy. </p><p>You can create your beliefs first, and mold your facts to fit them, that is your faith. I prefer the scientific method to discover truth, rather than relying on the fears and superstitions handed down by the cavemen ancestors from which we evolved.</p>
<p>The most telling excerpt from the Post article was Ham’s admission that he could not accept ANY scientific evidence that contradicts his belief in the bible as absolute fact. This is not science, it’s fantasy.</p><p>At least he admits it. Evolution scientists hold this same sort of bias—they refuse to accept any evidence contrary to their presupposed belief in evolution. Soft tissue found in fossilized bones? "That can’t mean the bones are young because it doesn’t fit with evolution’s millions of years!" But to a creation scientist, it fits perfectly with what we’ve been saying all along.</p><p>You can create your beliefs first, and mold your facts to fit them, that is your faith. I prefer the scientific method to discover truth, rather than relying on the fears and superstitions handed down by the cavemen ancestors from which we evolved.</p><p>I openly admit that I start with a belief that we have a written account of history, and that all properly interpretated evidence will support it. Evolutionists also start with beliefs about the past.</p><p>What is the scientific method? It’s using our five senses to observe and then develope theories and predictions to test against processes. This is operational science, which is quite reliable except when applied to the past because we can’t observe the past, only remnants of it and make assumptions about the past (unless, of course, we have a trustworthy record of the past, which creation scientists claim).</p>
<p>Oh MY GOD… I can’t comment on the religious stuff of risk that I might be wrong and get up there only to say… woops, My bad.</p><p>But I will add evolution is alive and well, I got really wasted the other weekend… I learned from my mistake, I wont get that way again. Evolution!</p>
<p>Daniel,</p><p>Got another Washington Post article you may find interesting to read:</p><p>New Analyses Bolster Central Tenets of Evolution Theory<br>Washington Post, 9/26/05</p><p>What would you say is the ‘proper interpretation’ of this science to make it fit your pre-determined beliefs?</p>
<p>A thoughtful reply:</p><p><a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/1012wash_post.asp" rel="nofollow">http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/1012wash_post.asp</a></p>
<p>ihave a comment about the proof that the earth in more than six thousand years old fosil dateing is done through carbon dateing in carbon dateing the asumption is made that carbon deteriates at a constant rate regardless of enviromental cercomstances carbon dateing has only been studied and used at the most a couple hundred years there is no way of proveing that carbon don’t deterate faster after say a thousand years or so it will take a thousand years of study to find out oviously this is a little hard to do considering the age of carbon dating they base that carbon deteriates at a constant rate forever on maybe a hundred years (i dout it has been closely monitored that long)of research for a moment asume that carbon dose deterate at a contant rate what about the enviramont the fosile is in doese it not matter if the fosile was submerged in water or out in the sun for say a couple thosand years is this not going to afect the rate that cabon deteriates in an object this requires a lot of faith the enviroment seems to afect everything but not carbon? i don’t believe there has been enough research on carbon dateing to accept it lets check in a couple thousand years</p>
<p>Literlism is a trap. The earth is clearly very very old. Its been said, "Objective reality pitted against religious faith is of no consequence." Its rhetoric vs reality. i see no conflict between natural selection and scripture.</p><p>LK</p>
<p>The argumant that carbon dating may be misleading is close to the argumant that gravalty may not exist because ballons flot.</p><p>I.E. because ballons floot we may all be tricked into beleving we are hald on the earth by gravalty, therefore there is no that gravitaly exists.</p>
<p>belief: it is false to think that we chose our beliefs. try this experiment – choose how to belief that 2+2 =5 – does it work – no! This is because we gain infromation thro learning – this then evoloves our beliefs. </p><p>We often then express what we belive thro some sort of socal expersion i.e. Christanity or Muslam or what ever.</p><p>The biggest difference between Religon (and all the other occult, superstition, and the like) is they are a matter of pure belief and therefore more or less equal where as science is a process which any person can test if they wish.</p><p>So what if the predominat religion is muslam or christion, they both come from the same 1st book</p>