Media Coverage of the AIG Creation Museum

Um, the anonymity of the poster and the *'s may indicate some posting problems. If there are references missing I hope to see them eventually,

PC2:

There are many models of science, and no one is particular good and covering.

The axiomatic view of the post isn't the best IMO, in reality the process iterates back and forth. But predictions to be tested comes from theory.

The only thing your examples (which are loaded with factual errors) show is that a sufficiently vague dogmatic text can be interpreted post facto, or failing that in cases ("complexity in DNA code", "mutation rate") you just make shit up.

We can come up with a similar list of dogmatic 'predictions' that you don't acknowledge. That, in the sense of science, would be failed predictions. Not that failed predictions in themselves are bad, you just chuck the theory and ... Oops.

But the bottom line is that it is easy to see for anyone with a minimum of knowledge of how science works that you are confusing the above sense of prediction from theory with your idea of the necessity of preordained dogma to interpret as soon as you know what you want it to say.

Repetitive thread-hijacking effort and responses have been shifted to the Bathroom Wall. Trying to re-hijack will be grounds for permanent removal of posting privileges.

Well, it seems like there's already some comedy on this thread that I'd rather not indulge in.

But regarding the new museum: perhaps it's about time that people of faith have a location to congregate, reflect upon their faith, and even discuss its teachings. Isn't it great that this physical building was built just for that? In fact, they could even assign one day every week where they all met inside and celebrated their faith.
Other than that, I can't think of a good reason why this church (ehem, museum) should be built.

Oh, and seeing as we're into comedy and science, check out
Sin Trek

Repetitive thread-hijacking effort and responses have been shifted to the Bathroom Wall. Trying to re-hijack will be grounds for permanent removal of posting privileges.

Well, it seems like there's already some comedy on this thread that I'd rather not indulge in.

But regarding the new museum: perhaps it's about time that people of faith have a location to congregate, reflect upon their faith, and even discuss its teachings. Isn't it great that this physical building was built just for that? In fact, they could even assign one day every week where they all met inside and celebrated their faith.
Other than that, I can't think of a good reason why this church (ehem, museum) should be built.

Oh, and seeing as we're into comedy and science, check out
Sin Trek

That does raise an interesting question. Does anyone know what the tax status of this institution is? Have they filed for tax exempt status claiming to be a church or nonprofit organization? At almost twenty dollars per admission that last one might be a hard sell. Of course if they do not claim to be a church they might have to pay taxes like everyone else. At least then some of the money might go toward real education.

The article about this museum in our local newspaper was not very critical of the distortions of science and religion that are being promulgated there. And the reports I saw on TV were still doing the "balanced" shtick.

There definitely needs to be a major increase in the efforts by the professional scientific societies to get good materials into the hands of the public. When one considers the kind of money the Discovery Institute and other fundamentalist organizations pour into their propaganda (all propaganda, no research), and when we also consider the planning and strategic maneuvering they do to exploit public attention, we in the science community aren't thinking strategically enough about public education.

If the members of the scientific community are concerned enough about the damage being done, I wonder if they would consider an increase in their membership dues that would be allocated to public relations and education. I think each society will have to consider expanding their outreach to the public in order to deal with the preemptive war the fundamentalists have declared on science. Much of our research funding comes from the public, and it is only fair that the public gets a fair and unbiased account of what that money is accomplishing.

Observing the expenses and the efforts of the fundamentalists are willing to put into their campaigns should give the scientific organizations some estimate of what this is likely to cost each member of each society.

I would be willing to pay extra membership dues for these purposes. How about others?

From all of the pictures I have seen the place looks beautiful, but from the content I have a good idea about how it smells.

The article about this museum in our local newspaper was not very critical of the distortions of science and religion that are being promulgated there.And the reports I saw on TV were still doing the "balanced" shtick.

Imagine that! News organizations seeking to practice balance and fairness in their reporting of this issue.

Imagine that! News organizations seeking to practice balance and fairness in their reporting of this issue. Hope that doesn't bother the members of the evolutionist community too much. :)

— FL

I wonder if they would consider an increase in their membership dues that would be allocated to public relations and education.

...an obvious choice would be to submit the idea to NCSE, and see if they would run with it (if they aren't already doing something similar).

"I wonder if they would consider an increase in their membership dues that would be allocated to public relations and education."

AAAS already has such a feature - Project 2061, I think it's called. Focussed on formal pre-college education, but it's science education.

Check the headline at the Ironic Times:
CREATION MUSEUM GOES BANKRUPT IN SIX DAYS

AAAS already has such a feature - Project 2061, I think it's called. Focussed on formal pre-college education, but it's science education.

don't forget that the television coverage is a brief moment in the sun for this dire folly. you'll probably never see it mentioned on television again but, just like Hovind's pissy Homer-Simpsonesque papiermache dino park, writers will decide it's worth a Twainish article from time to time, and these articles will be overwhelmingly intelligent and scornful. Most who know of it at all will know of it as something silly. Maybe it's the new Heritage USA.

I wish one of the scientists had suggested that if people visit Ken Ham's museum, they should stop off at Big Lick State Park to give God equal time. Christians have a choice of Ham's version of the world at the Creation Museum, or God's version at Big Lick, which arguably was created directly by God (most Christians would say so).

The contrast between the Hollywood version of natural history Ham shows and real natural history should be highlighted as often as possible.

Imagine that! News organizations seeking to practice balance and fairness in their reporting of this issue.

Local newspapers had the most thorough coverage of all the viewpoints and events. Reports ranged from economic impact, a report on the rally, views of scientists, breaking news on the museum opening and its construction, and editorials from both sides of the creationism controversy. Most articles correctly reported that scientists are concerned that this will have negative impact on schoolchildren and that the displays aren't scientific.

Even more disturbing is the idea that secular scientists believe one thing, and scientists of faith another. The vast majority of Christian and Jewish scientists in the US support evolution.

It is fortunate that there is so much Bathroom Wall to accommodate the troll traffic.

BTW, Tony, your comment is not deleted, it is here.

Anyone have links to the newspaper coverage?

Btw, slightly off-topic but thought this was amusing:

http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/i_believe_in_evolution_except

I had my eighth letter defending evolution and exposing the fraud of creationism published in the Louisville Courier-Journal. The letter was in response to an Op-Ed by Martin Cothran of the Family Foundation of Kentucky. Cothran probably used Jonathan Wells' Icons of Evolution as his source on Haeckel's embryos and peppered moths. The edited version of my letter omitted my refutation of the embryo arguments and my naming of the state senators from Texas and Georgia. The link to the published letter (third letter, labeled 'Anti-Science Mindset') can be found here: http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070531/OPINION02/705310365/1016/OPINION. Since the Courier-Journal link will disappear after 7 days, here is the text of the published letter:

'Anti-science mindset'
In his May 28 article, Martin Cothran of The Family Foundation of Kentucky repeated two common but false creationist charges and accused Lawrence Krauss and other scientists of possessing "alarmist and dogmatic intolerance."

It is, however, the creationists who demonstrate dogmatic intolerance.

Cothran's first error was in describing textbooks as being the scientist's "professional backyard." The true backyard of scientists is peer-reviewed scientific journals. Textbooks are produced by publishing companies that do not follow the same peer review procedures.

Cothran cast doubt on moth coloration evolution by noting a problem with one experiment in one location. What Cothran did not tell you is that there have been dozens of experiments on multiple continents published in peer-reviewed journals that all show moth and butterfly melanism is affected by bird predation....

Cothran's charges of "dogmatic intolerance" should be made against Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis.

In the March 2002 issue of its magazine, Creation, Answers in Genesis admitted, "We accept the Bible's propositions as true without proof, i.e., as axioms or presuppositions."

Any organization or individual that accepts any belief without the need for proof or evidence is not practicing science.

Why are Krauss and other scientists alarmed, and why don't they want to expose kids to every idea in a science classroom?

Recently, state legislators in Texas and Georgia proposed that their states teach children that the earth does not move. They based their beliefs that Darwin and Copernicus are both wrong on a literal interpretation of the Bible, using the Web site www.fixedearth.com.

Attacks on heliocentricity and evolution come from the same anti-science mindset demonstrated by Cothran.

EDWIN HENSLEY

Louisville 40241

If you believe in macro evolution go to http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/index.html
and see if you can answer these evidences against it.

If you believe in macro evolution go to http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/index.html
and see if you can answer these evidences against it.

If you believe in macro evolution go to http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/index.html
and see if you can answer these evidences against it.

Joseph -

been there, done that:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

when you're done with that, why don't you try and see just how many of AIG's other bits of BS have already also been refuted multiple times:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html

it's fun! you get to play the match game, and see if you can match the entire AIG list of claims against it.

bet you can.

No need. Walt Brown is perfectly capable of refuting himself.

Joseph of the triple post: you need to get out more if you find any of that compelling in the least. All of those claims and more are dealt with at TalkOrigins. Make a sincere effort to understand the actual evidence with an open mind, and then come back and tell us you believe the Hydroplate Theory[sic].

Not to get too paranoid, but do you suppose the creationists are deliberately opening a second front with this Creation Museum, just to take media attention away from intelligent design? Particularly now that intelligent design's cover has been blown by the Discovery Institute's and all the Christian media's firestorm of condemnation of Iowa State University's tenure system. They're all claiming religious discrimination against Dr. Gonzalez because he believed in something they've been saying all along has nothing to do with religion. Gotta go read the Wedge Project document again and see how this would fit in with their strategy.

Re "Gotta go read the Wedge Project document again and see how this would fit in with their strategy."

Maybe it's:
1) Reinforce the faith of the believers, and
2) Get the nonbelievers so aggravated that they give up and leave.

Henry

If you believe in evolution answer these questions from Dr. Brown
on his website
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/index.html

It's under the life sciences section. Just keep going til the next page until you come up them.

He also has another theory for the formation of the earth that answers more questions than plate tetonics does and lists several predictions based on it.

I'll take that as you can't prove it wrong. I've read all that jargon before. Studied it many times at my universitiy. It don't add up.
Thanks though.

and sorry about the extra postings, they were accidental.

After reading more of your comments,I understand that ya'll see this as a battle as Christianity vs Science. Well that's wrong, I am not the spokesman of all, but I can speak for myself and other Christians I know and we embrace science, if it's done scientifically. Evolution is not completely science, it requires a lot of faith to be able to accept it all. That's fine if that's what you want to believe, but don't pass it along as science. What most people seem to forget is that this nation is founded by Christians and that a lot of the scientific discoveries from the past were made by Christians. So dont view this as a battle but as an opportunity to learn from each other. That's basically what science is. People also assume that since we're Christians, we're closed minded, which is an ignorant assumption. I believed in evolution once and took it as fact. But as I began educating myself more on the subject, the less factual it became. Some things made sense yes, but there are too many holes to be ignored. Buti will quit here because I know my comments will be taken as stupid, ignorant, or closed minded. But I challenge you to take another look at the facts, you be open minded.

Joseph dissembled thusly: After reading more of your comments,I understand that ya'll see this as a battle as Christianity vs Science.