Does this explain the problem atheists have with ID & the Creation Museum?

Question

The Creation Museum is a hot topic today. With it, the pseudoscience that is Intelligent Design.

Some Christians love ID as it appears to be a scientific explanation for what is written in the bible.

There is a huge difference between a Christian who is a legitimate scientist and performs legitimate science in his/her chosen field of specialty and a Christian who attempts to validate and justify his/her own religious beliefs by selectively picking and choosing pseudoscientific theories.

ID is NOT good science.

I certainly don't mind religious people performing good science with a solid hypothesis with the intention of determining the truth. Hell, the father of modern genetics, Gregor Mendel, was a monk!

Our problem is when religious people fake science to justify their beliefs. It would be akin to Richard Dawkins rewriting The Selfish Gene using thou's and thy's and expecting it to be treated as a religious text supporting the selfish gene theory!

Your thoughts?

What I love most about the answers here is that the answer with the most thumbs up is from Phyllis who started her answer with "I'm not an atheist." These thumbs up (including the one I gave her) were probably mostly from atheists. Rational people can agree -- theist or not -- ID is bunk.

To Steve N, who suggests ID is a theory like any other. No, it isn't. Any "experiments" are cooked, and the point of the theory isn't to explain how it all happened, but to explain how you were right all along about how you said it happened. That is completely contrary to the scientific method! If I/we don't know what the ID theory is, you certainly don't know what science is.

Thanks to all who have answered!!

Answer 1

i'm not atheist, but i don't like the museum because it presents ridiculous myth as fact, and dumbs-down children.

it is harmful and dangerous.

Answer 2

I posted this in another thread concerning this museum, but it bears repeating, as it exposes a huge flaw in the logic of at least one exhibit in the museum:

I read that this "Creation Museum" claims that all animals were initially vegetarians, until Adam and Eve's sin. Ooookayyy...so why do animals have carnivorous teeth?? Either a)they started out as carnivores, hence the teeth; or b)after the Original Sin, some animals EVOLVED carnivorous teeth!! I'm quite certain the "Creation Museum" wasn't trying to imply that any kind of evolution or change ever took place; thus, this concept is easily refutable...it is likely that the other concepts are just as false as this claim.

I know literally-Bible-based Christians have a hard time understanding the subtleties of the Bible; but truly, the Bible is a much more amazing book than to only cater itself towards people who can only see what's presented...even moreso, especially as people have progressed and science has progressed, now we are called upon to look within the story to find the MEANING behind the words...

I don't know that Darwin's theory is 100% correct; I think there are some inexplicables, and some people have twisted his theory to try to claim that God had nothing to do with Creation, or then jump to the flawed logic that therefore God doesn't exist. Extremists on both sides, Evolution and Creationism, are all wrong. The answer lies somewhere in the middle...but not as ID claims, either; if ID was more accepting of Evolution as a process, then it could be a plausible theory. But anything that denies Science can't claim to be correct.

Peace.

Answer 3

I'm shocked at some of the comments in this threat. No one who says that evolution has been at a dead end recently can make any claim about being an educated adult.


ID is stupid. It is also an empty belief. Part of it is bad mathematics (weird ideas about complexity that have already been shown to be wrong). Part of it is wishful thinking (claiming that scientists will never answer certain questions, without good reasons why they won't--and many of the examples brought up have already been answered!).


I do science for a living at the moment, though I'm going back to grad school soon. When I do science, I put a lot of work into making my papers convincing based on evidence gathered in a laboratory. My ideas have to make sense. And when something turns out to be wrong, I don't just keep submitting the same wrong idea over and over again.

That's what makes me a scientist and ID proponents crackpots.

Answer 4

And one of the chief proponents of the "Big Bang" was a priest. And so on. It should go without saying - but it doesn't - that insofar as a religious person has done good science, his religion has had nothing to do with it. A bias in favor of (or against) a "biblical" - or any other - conclusion automatically invalidates research. Scientific method is all about impartiality.

Some "religious" people seem to believe that scientists are devoted to destroying Christianity. This is nothing new - Copernicus and Galileo got into trouble for contradicting Psalms on the immobility of the earth. But they had no religious agenda; they were only trying to simplify the work of astronomers. Again, when Darwin read the writing on the wall, he became the antichrist to millions of Christians who believed that their religion hinged on a literal interpretation of the Eden legend. The controversy has always started with the religious reaction to the conclusions of science, whenever those conclusions have appeared to gainsay Scripture.

Have scientists likewise gone awry by seeking out evidence to support a pet theory while ignoring evidence that doesn't jibe? Sure. It's human vanity to want to be "right," and human indolence to not want to go back to the drawing board. But at least science as an institution is opposed to dogmatism. At least scientists are trained not to cherry-pick data or fudge the numbers or otherwise to bias the results of their researches. At least when they do, and their bias is exposed, their work is justly decried by their colleagues.

The same can hardly be said of religion, which begins with a set of assumptions and works the argument backwards, as it were. But "religious" assumptions generally don't present valid problems for science. "Jesus is God" is untestable. "Jesus was a Jewish man who lived approximately 2,000 years ago in Judea under the Roman yoke" gives science a little more to chew on, but the lapse of centuries has made testing of these statements difficult if not impossible. But scientific investigation will focus on the historical records, the archaeological evidence, etc, and will reach conclusions based on systematic and unbiased analysis of the data. Of course, should these conclusions prove uncongenial to religion in any way, The Reaction is sure to follow.

Answer 5

Questions for you Fan Eri & others: take it like Scientists, please.

What do you call legitimate Science ? Do you include Ethics ? Do you think your Scientific beliefs are founded ? If so, what kind of Women's Scientist are you ? For example: you believe you can give Birth normally or are you one of those Scientist who would rather believe you cannot birth anymore ? No matter your religion in this instance.
On one Hand one criticises boogy Science, on the other, it seems normal to Sacrifice Bodies for the Sake of Science.
I cannot call myself a religious Person, but I am very skeptical of Scientific notions these days. I am perturbed at the lack of respect accorded to Human Bodies. Promises do not impress anymore. So, Fan Eri & others to quote your colleague: where is "good Science" ?
It looks to me it has become a Predatory Domain. Whether one believes in God or not. Of course, this ID is crazy, but so are scheduled C-sections and episiototos for First-time Mothers. Perhaps, you will join our Women call to be ALLOWED to have a Normal Birthing Category on Yahoo.(sigh!). At present, no Scientist has come forward to support our NORMAL Creation Rights.
I am tiring of theories trying to explain...and not solve.
Thanx Ari, as you know I am from the Arts & Humanities.
Just needed to probe humanly, a little.
Women are having a tough time in Obs & Gyn - just wanted to let you know. Sometimes, it seems we are in this silly Museum anyway.
Try, if you can to challenge your Scientists as often as possible. I try.
How come you aren't able to make them look ridiculous ? Surely, you have had to pass the same exams ? No ?
Let me explain: I have written Exams in my Life, from different universities - they had International equivalences. What puzzles me is that, for example, my English colleagues and myself had read the same books, more or less the same literary critics - we argued, and still do on modes, interpretation, theory, but nothing completely as disconnected as this. Same with other Disciplines. I have no idea if you have read the same Science Books, how one would do such a farce ? Please, ask yourself why ? Let me know: I haven't got the foggiest...

Answer 6

ID is a freakin' joke that the fanatics have tried to pull. They are trying to worm their way into science looking for loopholes in their followers intellect in order to deposit these insane, unrealsitic, and unscientific ideas. The religious fundamentalist mentality makes every effort to undermine real science and to cause conversion to their belief system which is just that, a belief system, and not science. Science is proven, religion is speculation and faith. Faith never did anything, elbow grease, science, and motivation is what gets things done. As for ID, just another farce by the freaks of nature.

Answer 7

I absolutely agree. There are good scientists that are Christian and I respect their work. But these bozos are not doing any true research and its all a joke, but with tragic side effects. Our children will never be able to compete in the world without a good solid education based on facts, not the twisting of scripture.

Answer 8

How can they hate someone so strongly they don't even believe in? It always amazes me at how much atheistic believers will go to suppress anything that will bring their beliefs into question. They have given up on scientific debates ( I have been to several) because they do so poorly and end-up looking foolish in the eyes of the general public. So they resort protests and hate speech. At the Creation Museum, I read their quotes and posters of the protesters and it shows me their ignorance and bigotry against God, Creation and those that believe that this world is by design. The most ridiculous was Ed Kagin and his ironically named "Free Inquiry Group" (F.I.G.) statements, "... is a form of child abuse and 'terrorism' that could plunge America into a new dark age."
Perhaps he would rather promulgate the notion to our children that we are products of chance & random processes and life has no purpose and no meaning, and that we are simply re-arranged pond scum with no more meaning that a blade of grass. Folks that in my opinion is a form of "child abuse". It it any wonder why children grow-up with a sense of hopelessness and fear. What F.I.G. fails to see and can't see because their anti-god philosophy will not consider that faith in a Creator God will provide hope and and foundation for our society. The Creation Museum should be a welcome site for true "Free Inquiry" into origins. I suggest, keep an open mind and check it out for yourself.

Answer 9

Oh my gosh...we ought to continually do this. we will ought to arise with a catalogue of inquiries to ask which will mess all of them up. they're going to probably kick us out when we ask something that makes them look like the idiots that they are. (although if we *are* fairly nice about it.) pattern question: "How come when we walked in the following, the first difficulty we were instructed become 'do not imagine, basically believe?' Why would you favor people to no longer imagine?" (I heard that that's actual the first difficulty you're instructed once you pass in...) Or: "How did kangaroos and koalas get each and every of how from Mount Ararat to Australia? Did they swim? and how come we do not come across a unmarried set of continues to be or fossils of both animal between Mount Ararat and Australia?"

Answer 10

Pseudoscience huh?

Reliable methods for detecting design exist and are employed in forensics, archeology, and data fraud analysis. These methods can easily be employed to detect design in biological systems.

When being interviewed by Tavis Smiley, Dr. Stephen Meyer said, “There are developments in some technical fields, complexity and information sciences, that actually enable us to distinguish the results of intelligence as a cause from natural processes. When we run those modes of analysis on the information in DNA, they kick out the answer, ‘Yeah, this was intelligently designed’ . . . There is actually a science of design detection and when you analyze life through the filters of that science, it shows that life was intelligently designed.”

The human brain makes the complex computer look like a child’s toy in comparison to complexity. Is it logical to believe that the brain designed the computer, but the brain is a product of time and chance?

The idea that given enough time, hydrogen turns into humans (by blind chance) is pseudoscience.

Answer 11

It's deeper than that.
Like older religions, Christianity is being chipped away by scientific discoveries.
Every year, more and more of the bible stories are found to be impossibilities.
Evolution is a huge blow to their belief system, and one of the biggest yet.
ID is just a last ditch attempt to maintain a tenuous grasp on belief.
Without it , the whole house of cards falls.