Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationism museum opens in Alberta
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 255 of 303 (405345)
06-12-2007 12:09 PM


Why we shouldn't celebrate
"This man was clearly poisoned!", says the creationist detective.
"How did you come to that conclusion?", says the coroner.
"People who are poisoned die, and this person is dead. People who are poisoned turn blue, and he has turned blue. The evidence points to poisoning."
"What about the gunshot wound to the head?"
"Seems to be some kind of very unique poison that causes bone damage"
"And the lack of any traces of poison?"
"Once again, a unique poisoning event, perhaps ordained by God."
The problem is these museums teach that confirmation bias is acceptable and to be encouraged. Let us look to Ken Ham's museum, one exhibit in particular can be found here.
Its title is 'Evidences of the Flood in Grand Canyon'. The first piece of evidence is that we find marine fossils in the top layer. This is classic confirmation bias. An abundance of Marine fossils are evidence that marine life once lived in this area, or were brought here after death. It is not evidence of a dry area being flooded since we'd expect to see flood debris and land fossils mixed into it. Which we don't. We find a certain grouping of marine fossils, not all marine life is in there - only certain marine life that coincides with other fossil deposits that science has dated to about 250 million years ago.
The next bit is about the Redwall limestone which also has lots of marine fossils. This is classic dishonesty since we see how conveniently they skipped a bit. Between the top layer and the Redwall layer is another layer - which suddenly has no marine fossils at all! They abruptly stop and are replaced by no fossils, but lots of other interesting things. Like raindrop indentations, spider and insect trails and so on. Even if the top layer was flood depositary, and if the layer below it is flood depositary, they cannot be the same flood. The marine fossils are of a different variety (read: era), and they are separated by what appears to be an extended period of desert like environment.
It is easy to go on: It mentions the Great Unconformity as evidence of massive erosion which we'd expect to see if lots of water were to be around. Yet it once again neglects to mention the land only artefacts that are sandwiched between marine only artefacts. It neglects that there isn't a single fish fossil until several layers of deposition above the Great Unconformity and even then the fresh fish are separated from the marine fish fossils. The fact that marine life might be on the eastern side of the layer and amphibians and land plants on another.
In other words - confirmation bias. It only presents pieces of evidence which alone are consistent with the preselected conclusion. It doesn't even do the patrons the honour of presenting all the evidence and discussing why certain pieces of evidence don't lead to the obvious conclusions. I went to a natural history museum and I remember the discussion about whether dinosaurs where warm blooded or not. The evidence or argumentation for the two positions were put forward and that was it. I saw plenty of 'some scientists think that this is because of...however others point to {evidence} and suggest another possibility....' - and we simply don't get that wealth of information at these kinds of museums.
We can see through the charade at the top of this post because we have experience in how to determine if someone has died and how they died. We can apply common sense in some cases without the need for specialised training - but we don't rely on common sense, if 5 experts all state that the man above was poisoned and then shot after he died, we'd accept that - because we trust that they have presented the evidence for this conclusion and the reasoning and it has not been refuted by their peers. These museums betray that trust in the name of God. We know that if a detectives reasoning is as poor as the detective above there is a problem since to us it is obvious that we need more evidence to be sure that the man was poisoned - especially in light of the bullet wound.
If a detective says to the press that a man was poisoned we believe him, because he is going to be held accountable for lying if he does - he'll lose his job. We rely on the methods for determining death and trust the experts who declare conclusions because their reputation and livelihood is on the line.
How can we trust these museums? Their livelihood relies on confirming the biblical account - if they don't do that, they are nothing. The subjects they talk about are not topics that the average layperson has any knowledge of at all - geology is not something humans have any grasp of. It is not covered in much detail at school - and the patrons of a creation museum are likely to be creationists, which means they are generally less educated (as education level increases, so does the tendency towards not being a creationist). So we take a group of people with a generally lower education level, who believe in the literal bible, and we feed them and their children a carefully selected burkha vision of evidence, gently spin it away from old earth and towards a young earth with a global flood (a spin which will be missed by those with little or no training in geology) - warn of the consequences of not believing (both life and afterlife consequences) - and we have ourselves a nice little propaganda machine.
Another issue I have with these kinds of things is that in one exhibit they'll present things as a human reason (or science) versus God's Word issue, then they'll attempt to use reason (or science) to demonstrate that God's Word is true. It's like they are covering all their bases. Don't believe in human reason, believe in God - but if that doesn't convince you let look at this evidence and apply reason to it to form conclusions.
Whether or not the flood happened, regardless of the existence of the Abrahamic deity, and without consideration to the age of the earth...we should not be celebrating museums or schools or anything that encourages doublethink and evidence denial (through ignorance) at the level we see at these museums.

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by simple, posted 06-12-2007 12:44 PM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 263 of 303 (405365)
06-12-2007 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by simple
06-12-2007 12:44 PM


Re: Why we shouldn't celebrate
As I said in last post, I do not agree with flood geology.
It doesn't matter. Even if there was a viable and consistent flood geology out there - what they are teaching the client base is bad thinking skills (if you think badly you will be rewarded, if you think like this, you can help save humanity from teen pregnancy, drugs and hell).
Well, they are selling their beliefs the best way they know how. They know deep down they are right, and I agree, and so does the bible, they are very very right! But, where they mess up is with the science business.
Right - which is why these creation museums are bad. If you want to have a museum of creationist belief, that's fine. If you want to have an amusement arcade with dioramas of scenes from genesis that's fine. If you want to confuse people with pseudoscience and nonsense - that is not fine and an opening of a business that makes money from peddling dishonesty is not to be celebrated.
'Selling their beliefs' is no defence for immoral or reprehensible behaviour as you should well know. Let us look to the Islamic propagandists for an obvious and extreme example.
Hey, if the resurrection that is actually in the museum is 'off topic' by special mod decree, I guess your dead man tales are too.
The topic is about the celebration of the opening of creation museums and the hope that more will open. I used an analogy to explain easily why I do not think there is cause to celebrate when propaganda and confirmation bias is peddled for cash - even if one happens to agree with the conclusions of the propaganda in question.
The reverence for the natural only increases as people immerse in it, and omit all else. The mistakes of the mueum pale in copmparison to the mistakes of the supernatural omitters.
One cannot appeal to the natural world for evidence of one's chosen supernatural mythology and at the same time, reject evidence in the natural world that suggest contrary conclusions. By all means discuss the supernatural be it vampires and dragons, to ghosts, djinn and deities and do so in a museum - but playing on people's trust of 'science sounding stuff' to either convince them or deepen their convictions is inconsistent and dishonest.
I once went to a museum of the paranormal, and walked out shortly afterwards because they were clearly only showing one side of the story and presenting supposed physical evidence of paranormal activity. I decry that museum just like I decry the creation museum.
Whether it is a mistake or not to omit the supernatural is irrelevant. Natural history museums are about natural history and proclaim that quite clearly, they don't appeal to certain elements of supernatural lore whilst selectively ignoring other elements of supernatural lore (imagine if they took a Bible quote out of context to disprove the bible and strengthen belief in evolution for example) anymore than a supernatural history museum should be taking physical and natural evidence out of context of other physical and natural evidence.
You know, many creationists have different idea, and theories, and models, and maybe some mix and matching, etc. I doubt that people swallow evything as gospel there. I don't.
Of course many creationists have different ideas. There are thousands of creation mythologies and enough vagaries in most (if not all) that a thousand permutations of each one can be thought up whilst remaining true to the original mythology. That is not relevant to the complaint that they mix and match their epistemology, or that they seem to be 'covering their bases' with regards to convincing people of the truth of things. Don't use reason - use god's word is fine, but then to say 'if we use reason we can confirm god's word' is blatantly inconsistent. It is essentially promoting doublethink - believing two contradictory things at the same time without even realising it.
But, see you seem to miss the all important point in the whole thing here. That is that the evidences of a non science kind are even more important, whether unbelievers see them or not!
I agree - the only evidences that should count in a museum with a religious bias is faith and the documentation of prophets and holymen (and perhaps the living proclamations of certain holymen etc etc). We should not celebrate the opening of pseudo-scientific untruths - we should fight against such nonsense for reasons I hope we can agree on. I wouldn't celebrate the opening of a creation museum that did not discuss science at all (and just discussed the supernatural beliefs), but I wouldn't have a problem with it either. People do believe in creation, and if they want to congregate, display their beliefs and discuss it and even charge for the privilege. Go for it as far as I am concerned - enjoy yourself. There are plenty of churches with this purpose already.
It is this evidence denial, by reason of spiritual awareness deprivation, and inability to avail oneself of all the evidences, therefore, that is the far far far far far greater crime against humanity.
So you should not celebrate these base museums then. You should decry their idolatry and dishonesty, even if the result is good - the means do not necessarily justify it. You should encourage people to go to church, and for other large places of congregation to discuss or display the supernatural beliefs about creation to be built rather than Mamon serving monstrosities such as these museums.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by simple, posted 06-12-2007 12:44 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by simple, posted 06-12-2007 2:06 PM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 272 of 303 (405394)
06-12-2007 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by simple
06-12-2007 2:06 PM


Re: Why we shouldn't celebrate
I didn't see the pregnancy and hell exhibit.
Maybe next time. I can find a few examples at Ken Ham's museum:
here we talk about abstinence, the pill and abortion. And here we have homosexual issues put up right next to murders. Reports confirm the teen pregnancy angle. The hell thing is more or less blatant hither and thither. At Ken Ham's museum he pits reason versus God's word, with the implication that relying on reason and evidence is going against God's word and we all know what happens to those that go against God's word.
To be dishonest, they would need to not believe what they say.
Actually, not so. Omitting data to the extent I described is dishonest. Are you suggesting half truths aren't dishonest?
So, they are honestly mistaken in some areas of science, but right in the big picture, as supported by the bible. They have enough besides mere science going for them to warrant them being basically right in the general claims of the bible. You have enough going against you, besides mere science, to warrant you being wrong in your basic claims, as I see it. I vote for them.
They are not mistaken in science - the science has been explained to them many many times and they choose to ignore what scientists say about the science and the thousands of refutations that have poured out in recent decades. They are ignoring the evidence that refutes them because it refutes them - they are not unaware of that evidence.
They might be right in the basic claims of the Bible and I am not questioning that. Then again - when did the Bible make claims about the Grand Canyon?
My only claims are that they are making selective appeals to nature, as it suits them, then hiding behind the supernatural when it it suits them. It is intellectually dishonest behaviour, and we shouldn't be encouraging the kind of muddled chimerical (and inconsistent) thinking they are encouraging. I wonder what is going against my basic claims?
You can agree with their message - but also agree that they shouldn't be dishonest when spreading that message. There is no need to have a 'either with them or against them' mentality.
Well, neither can one appeal, then to the natural world for evidence against one's chosen supernatural mythology and at the same time, reject evidence in the supernatural world that suggest contrary conclusions.
Agreed. One shouldn't reject ANY evidence in the supernatural world be it Allah, or Vishnu, Brahma, Ghouls, Domovoi or Thantifaxath. Nor should we reject ANY evidence for myths. However we'd be dishonest if we attempted to prove the tunnels of set using the structure of sodium crystals or the truth of the Egyptian creation story by pointing to the fertility of the Nile's banks
By the same token, if one believes that the creation also involved the supernatural, only showing one side of the story and presenting supposed physical evidence only for creation needs to be decryed. And so I do.
Why? Naturalism might be wrong, but it is not intellectually dishonest if one is consistent with the way you apply the rules of knowledge collection. I can understand why you would openly state you think that a natural history museum is wrong - but why decry it? I decry attempts to use natural science to disprove the conclusions of science - because it is as inane as it sounds, yet the uneducated, the trusty, the gullible fall for it and I decry profiteering from doing it.
It is this inconsistency that I am talking about - the denial of the conclusions of science on the one hand, but the using a masquerade of the methodology of science to lend credibility to one's claims. They call it pseudo-science for a reason.
Well, the natural they feel was involved, so they have to try and include it somehow. After all, Adam lived on this earth.
Obviously when one is using supernatural explanations to explain prehistorical natural earth, you're going to run into problems. However there is a solution that would not cause too much issue. Simply believe that the earth was created 6,000 years ago - that there was a global flood and accept that the physical evidence cannot confirm this belief and don't try because you end up having to ignore certain physical evidence with no justification for doing so (other than the circular/special pleading reasons often put forward).
If all you want to do is say 'I believe X', then I might think you foolish, and I might argue against you (it becomes a matter of competing philosophies) - but it is a thousand miles away from lying to people about what the evidence in the Grand Canyon suggests.
Edited by Modulous, : finishing a sentence

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by simple, posted 06-12-2007 2:06 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by molbiogirl, posted 06-12-2007 5:27 PM Modulous has not replied
 Message 284 by simple, posted 06-13-2007 1:06 AM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 289 of 303 (405471)
06-13-2007 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 284 by simple
06-13-2007 1:06 AM


Re: Why we shouldn't celebrate
We disagree. I assume they are honest.
Assuming someone is honest is not what I asked. I asked if telling deliberate half truths is dishonest. I'm surprised that anyone thinks that omitting evidence they know puts their spin about the natural world into question can be construed as honest. Still, if it really is a case that you are determined to believe they are honest, you aren't going to listen to me are you?
They are not mistaken in science - the science has been explained to them many many times and they choose to ignore what scientists say about the science and the thousands of refutations that have poured out in recent decades.
I don't believe you.
That could be even worse - imagine if the most outspoken name in Flood Geology has not checked his geology against that which geologists think - wouldn't that be the most dishonest thing you could think of? He'd be just making this crap up and calling it science. Anyway - nobody is forcing you to believe that Ken Ham, the head of Answers in Genesis, has been exposed to the many rebuttals to his pseudoscience. If you don't believe it - and you don't want to investigate it further then you are free to draw whatever conclusions you like from a man that doesn't check his conclusions with other experts.
You know mine.
The claims I refer to are the young earth. The Grand Canyon would be their take on how it 'must' have happened.
The Grand Canyon doesn't explain how the flood happened (hopefully!). Someone pointed out that the age of the earth couldn't be 6,000 years old because that wouldn't give the Colorado river enough time to cut through and form the Grand Canyon. Ever since YECs have been saying that the flood caused the Canyon.
Either way - the Bible is silent on the issue so why do they need to talk about it with pseudo-science?
Since more than the natural was at work, it is only natural to use more than the natural. You, naturally, would be of the nature to disagree.
And picking and choosing which things are explained naturally and which are not - depending on whether it agrees with your conclusion is intellectually dishonest. Teaching others to do so is teaching sloppy thinking. Confirmation bias is not good investigation technique, and I thought you had agreed with this?
You see no need. Others see a war of the spirit of good versus evil, the forces of hell, and the forces of heaven, battling for the hearts and minds of men.
So you think its OK to tell half truths for God? What about lies for the Holy Spirit? Murder for Mary? Theft for Jesus? If it furthers the cultural wars in your favour, you would celebrate it? Excuse me if I don't hold a high opinion of such crassness.
One should use wisdom in the viewing of the evidences, natural and supernatural.
ALL the evidence don't forget. The kind of thing these creation museums don't do - they suppress certain evidences as I pointed out earlier.
They use what has been used against the truth of the bible, the best way they know how.
Right - which is insane. Why spend time defending a supernatural myth with dishonest applications of methodological naturalism? It is foggy thinking at best.
I don't {run into problems}
I am describing those very problems. You agreed that the science behind flood geology etc is questionable. I was using 'you' as second person plural.
They can't do that {Simply believe that the earth was created 6,000 years ago}. The flood happened on this earth only thousands of years ago.
Why can't they simply believe that the flood happened on this earth only thousands of years ago?
They feel that science is wrong, and explain it as best they can. I do not think there is a sinister conspiracy.
But why bother? It isn't necessary. Non-scientists using science sounding stuff to try and show that scientists have got science wrong??? Why not just say 'We don't accept the conclusions reached by natural science?' - trying to show that those conclusions are invalid within the framework of science by ignoring the majority of the physical evidence is not explaining how they feel that science is wrong - it is trying to convince others to distrust the authority that is science in favour of the authority that is them.
Choose a knowledge gaining method and stick with it. Don't try and use a little bit of naturalistic methodology as it suits one (ie when the conclusions can be made to sound like they agree with one's supernatural myth of choice) since that is sloppy thinking and learning. When they do it knowing they are ignoring important evidence, that they are providing inconsistent thinking styles, and teaching misleading information...we should not be celebrating.
One thing that confused me was that you said you disagreed with flood geology - but then you say that if it brainwashes wins hearts and minds then you celebrate it. Personally I find that reprehensible and hope to convince you eventually that this is so. If they want to spread that they believe the earth is only 6,000 years old then so be it - that's their belief. They shouldn't hijack the trust in scientific authority to gain a footing in the cultural battle unless they believe there is a NEED for underhand tactics.
Perhaps there is a need for these tactics - but it doesn't stop them from being intellectually lazy, dishonest and intellectually dangerous.
Hey - if they won't come to Jesus through the Truth, how about we mangle some other epistimology to help them come to Jesus? Completely justified. And if that doesn't work - we'll tell you that the other epistimology shouldn't be trusted anyway. And if that doesn't work, we'll appeal to consequences such as abortion, murder and gay marriage.
And even if we don't change any hearts and minds - perhaps we can make some good money off of people who agreed with our conclusions before seeing the museum, and those who don't want to speak out about the dishonesty because we are at {cultural} war (such as yourself).
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by simple, posted 06-13-2007 1:06 AM simple has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 296 of 303 (405519)
06-13-2007 11:15 AM


The culture wars
Here we have a perfect example of how the culture wars are fought on the ground level. Keys does not agree with flood geology is against the ideas of confirmation bias and ignoring evidence. However - if it either succeeds in convincing the ignorant or increasing the conviction of the gullible then it is to be supported. As keys put it in Message 284:
keys writes:
...a war of the spirit of good versus evil, the forces of hell, and the forces of heaven, battling for the hearts and minds of men.
As long as the goal is to undermine naturalism, materialism, atheism or any other -ism that they are opposed to they will celebrate it - even if they don't condone or agree with everything that is said or the methodology of the undermining. Sure - some creationists might not celebrate it, but enough do to allow these places to be viable businesses.
Since the creationists are fixed on the idea of undercutting the philosophies that came out of the enlightenment and the age of reason they will engage in their own confirmation bias. They will take from these museums not the parts they deep down think might be dishonest, but the parts which confirmed what they already believed.
Perhaps it is simply that genesis should be literal, perhaps it is to confirm their distrust in the authority of science to tell us how the world was formed, or perhaps it is to confirm their fears (the moral decline of society). It all plays well into the persecution complex that some people crave and find in creationism.
They start with the view that genesis is true. They have to contend with the simple fact that science has succeeded in demonstrating many phenomena that were once ascribed supernatural causes as actually having material causes. And they believe their creation story is the last battle that must be won. If they lose this battle materialism wins and therefore atheism wins and therefore morality declines. The solution is to use pseudo-science to convince those that respect the authority of the 'institution' of science that their respect is ill placed. It is a great tactic because even non-creationists can be quick to remind anyone that brings up a scientific fact that once science told us that {whatever turned out to be false}.
These museums prey on the confirmation bias that is inherent in all people. People want to have their beliefs confirmed so they only look at that evidence which seems to confirm this belief and ignore that evidence which seems to falsify it. They profit from this piece of simple piece of psychology.
The worst trick is to use scientific looking methodology to sew doubt about the conclusions of scientific methodology. It seems inane to some people, but the confirmation bias can go a long way towards helping overlooking this madness. These people don't want to think that not all of the evidence is being presented here, because that would be equivalent to questioning their faith - and these museums are perfect places to display a small amount of evidence, each time concluding it demonstrates the flood or a young earth or what have you, and then finishing with the implication that there is lots of evidence for the flood or young earth.
And these are the most honest cases. Certain museums will present evidence that isn't even evidence, Baugh comes to mind here: Modern artefacts cemented into old layers proves the young earth. There are others like the claimed evidence for human/dinosaur interaction.
The non-presentation of vital evidence isn't a problem to those that generally attend - they come to the museums to reaffirm their faith not to examine all of the evidence or even to learn particularly. Sometimes they come to learn, to learn how to refute those pesky atheists or pagans or moderates. Sometimes it is to teach their kids that their cultural creation myth really is true.
We shouldn't therefore be surprised when someone celebrates the opening of these places, even if they do peddle half truths. They get the job done as it were, and getting the job done is the important thing here - not communicating truths.
Plenty of people of course would not celebrate, they would even decry it and creationists should not be surprised at this. Many people actually believe we should not use pseudo-science to prop up ancient myths...even if those myths are true. That we should not spread information through deceit and mind tricks - that is propaganda and it can be dangerous.
The only defence is to make refutations of their nonsense as public and as prolific as possible. We should make our refutations as rationally as possible but we should be passionate. It must be something that people read, so that the information can spread and hopefully...one day perhaps...we can help make propaganda palaces an unviable business. Creation museums should be as celebrated as Moon Landing hoax museums or Holocaust Denial museums.

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by jar, posted 06-13-2007 11:22 AM Modulous has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024