What price stupidity? 20 bucks.
The most recent example seems to be down in Petersburg, Ky., where the Creation Museum opened on Monday. It costs adults 20 smackers to see exhibitions that purport to show that the earth is but 6,000 years old, that cavemen lived cheek by jowl with dinosaurs and that evolution is the devil's Sunday school because those pointy-headed atheist scientists don't accept the Book of Genesis as an accurate description of prehistory. The museum is run by "young earth creationists,'' the sort of folks who think the proponents of Intelligent Design are loosey-goosey liberals.
This is America. People have the right to believe anything they want, even nonsense. But I hope there isn't much of a market for this kind of malarkey. Maybe the place will go belly-up before too long. But I'm not holding my breath. The website for the new Creation Museum can be found at http://www.creationmuseum.org/
33 Comments:
This is Kentucky..where many family trees fork straight up..obviously not that stupid since people are actually paying the $20 admit fee..wonder what's in the gift shop? any ideas anyone?
dg wrote:
"wonder what's in the gift shop? any ideas anyone?"
Salvation? Or, rather, something that feels the way salvation should feel like... plus tax.
More on the Creation Museum here:
National Center for Science Education
Then there's the guy who ran "Dino Adventure Land" in Florida. He's been sentenced to 10 years in prison:
Doctor Dino
He's cut from the same mold as Ken Ham, the guy from the Creation Museum.
I suggest that it is more constructive to engage our fellow Christians in respectful dialogue than to laugh and jeer at their beliefs.
"I can no longer condemn or hate a brother [or sister] for whom I pray, no matter how much trouble he causes me. His face that hitherto may have been strange and intolerable to me is transformed through intercession into the countenance of a brother for whom Christ died."
Dietrich Boenhoeffer, Life Together
hey anon, lighten up pal..what in creation?
Hey, anonymous, what about "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth"?
I think Boenhoeffer's point was precisely that -- lighten up. Ridicule is both hostile and ineffective. Without getting into too much detail, the "eye for an eye" thing is neither a Christian attitude nor a forensic guideline. Yes, let's lighten up, so that we may enlighten.
'An eye for an eye' is Biblical. I thought that was supposed to be Christian, too.
And no, I won't be lightening up on those guys. They deserve everything that's thrown their way because they have no qualms about substituting their religion for real science and then telling everyone who disagrees with them that they're going to Hell, all the while sending their kids around to confront those who accept evolution with such thoughtful quips as, "Why do you hate God?"
And I disagree with you entirely: ridicule is a very effective weapon. You're not going to change any minds by smiling politely at your adversary.
The issue of evolution notwithstanding, why do you hate God, Ray?
"You have heard that it was said 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' but I say to you, offer no reisitance to one who is evil."
Matthew 5:38-39 New Testament, The New American Bible for Catholics
An eye for an eye is not Christian.
Margaret
"resistance"
Margaret
Ray hates hypocrisy, I think.
Margaret
"And I disagree with you entirely: ridicule is a very effective weapon. You're not going to change any minds by smiling politely at your adversary." -- Ray
I've have been fortunate to have come across many successful and well-adjusted adults in my day. None, Ray, share your views with respect to ridiculing others. Indeed, and in my experience, those who do share your views have, to the man, been bitter, petty, unaccomplished people who, for reasons perhaps only the shrinks can adequately explain, seek to bolster their justifiably and understandably low self-esteems by ridiculing others.
They are the sort of people who actually seek out opportunities to argue with and to insult others, and who draw some perverse pleasure in doing just that. Interestingly enough, and more often than not, they are the very same folks who, in their agony, curse the very God whose grace both created and sustains them. Moreover, at no time is their hostility more evident or virulent than when they encounter those who know the peace and serenity that only comes with faith in God. In short, and whether they can see past their jealousy and rage for long enough to realize it or not, they ridicule the very faith evident in others that they so desperately seek for themselves. (See the quotes below. Ask yourself why it is that Ray devotes so very much of his time to religious and faith related topics.)
The irony, of course, is that those who are of faith would never seek to change another's mind through "the weapon" that is ridicule. Far from it. Those who know God can't help but seek to draw others to Him whenever the opportunity presents itself. And in doing so, they most certainly don't use the club that is ridicule. Instead the faithful change hearts with reason, with prayer, by forgiving, by example, by reaching out to those in agony and, yes, by smiling at those with different viewpoints.
I'll say a little prayer for you tonight, Ray.
A couple of my favorite "Ray Quotes":
"Okay, let me explain what I'm doing here. I've spent hundreds of hours in blogs, debate forums and chatrooms arguing with people over their beliefs. I've pushed and prodded just to see what would happen. No matter what their belief or who they are, I've argued with them." -- Ray (March 21, 2007 on this blog site)
"Reading the Bible without the blinders of 'feel-good' expectations can only yield one answer: God is a horrendous SOB bent on torturing, maiming and killing people for his own pleasure. So why would anyone wonder why such things as this [The Virginia Tech Massacre] mass murder happen?" -- Ray (April 17, 2007 on this blog site)
oh boy, now we have papinian back on this site using another blog name...either that, or "pat" belongs to his cult..creeeepy...
Well, it's not exactly creepy. Ridicule is not the best means of having a discussion or dialog... and those were Ray's quotes. I remember them well.
Margaret
anonymous wrote:
"The issue of evolution notwithstanding, why do you hate God, Ray?"
Why do you hate Bigfoot?
"pat" wrote:
"I've have been fortunate to have come across many successful and well-adjusted adults in my day. None, Ray, share your views with respect to ridiculing others."
Papinian! You're back!
Why?
You'll have to excuse me if I don't believe your testimony about other people not sharing my views about ridiculing people, papy. After all, you're the guy who supplied us with links to web sites you didn't even bother to read yourself and which turned out to say exactly the opposite of what you thought they said.
Also, you've done your share of ridiculing so let's not pretend that your even true to your own words, okay?
And I'll not waste any more time responding to your pointless post except to say that I said the things you've quoted and I'm quite happy with what I said.
P.S. Have you committed a DGU since you disappeared?
BTW, paps, do you really spend your time saving quotes from other people? Don't you see the irony in quoting me about my online time spent debating while you do this?
ray, what's a DGU?
Funny you guys should be batting this back and forth -- My "Only Human'' column this coming Friday is about my take on the uses and abuses of ridicule.
"ray, what's a DGU?"
A Defensive Gun Use. It dates back to when Papinian/Papist/Pat/Whatever-He-Calls-Himself-Next took the discussion about the VT shootings on a tangent and tried to argue that most gun uses were for self defense rather than in the commission of a crime. But his links (which he apparently forgot to read before he posted them here) indicated exactly the opposite. That's when he disappeared.
MR:
"My "Only Human'' column this coming Friday is about my take on the uses and abuses of ridicule."
I think there are times when it is appropriate and when it isn't. If it's self-serving, it's not appropriate. But if it's used as a way to get through someone's stubborn defenses when nothing else will, it's appropriate. People like Papinian, who are arrogant, self-interested and generally unwilling to listen to your views, need that the jab to the ribs. If nothing else, it can alert them to the fact that they're not listening. In a forum like this, it can be of tactical use, considering that there are lurkers who don't post but read the posts of others. A bit of ridicule puts things in perspective for them.
Of course, in the case of Papinian, it's just fun because it's so easy.
nananananana..looking forward to your ridicule article like a (fill in the blank)...
"Papinian! You're back! Why?" -- Ray
Maybe I just missed you, Ray. How about a hug?
"You'll have to excuse me if I don't believe your testimony about other people not sharing my views about ridiculing people, papy. After all, you're the guy who supplied us with links to web sites you didn't even bother to read yourself and which turned out to say exactly the opposite of what you thought they said." -- Ray
That you would engage in revisionist history, Ray, does not surprise me in the least. After all, and as Heraclitus once remarked, "a man's character is his fate." That you would do so in a way that can be easily verified by any interested party is, well, just plain idiotic. (For those that are interested, Ray is, I assume, referring to another blog thread. Please see the "Where Was God?" blog that was started by Reverend Riley on April 17 of this year. You will be pleased to know, Ray, that I have, after many weeks of tending to an ongoing crisis in my wife's family, responded to your last posts on that thread. I thank you for your patience.)
Despite what Ray has written above, I most certainly did read the links that I posted previously on this blog site. Those links corroborate the claims that I have made.
papinian wrote:
"You will be pleased to know, Ray, that I have, after many weeks of tending to an ongoing crisis in my wife's family, responded to your last posts on that thread."
But before he left, he said:
"Ray, I read your posts and I very much look forward to responding to them sometime tomorrow. Right now, however, my wife and I are in the middle of hosting a backyard birthday party for an 8 year-old."
Papinian/Papist/Pat/Whatever wrote:
"Despite what Ray has written above, I most certainly did read the links that I posted previously on this blog site. Those links corroborate the claims that I have made."
But here's what the paper in the link supplied by Papinian had to say:
"The NSPOF based estimate of millions of DGUs [defensive gun uses] each year greatly exaggerates the true number, as do other estimates based on similar surveys. Much debated is whether the widespread ownership of firearms deters crime or makes it more deadly—or perhaps both—but the DGU estimates are not informative in this regard."
Now that doesn't sound like it corroborates his claim, does it? It's the exact opposite.
What's the matter, Ray. You're not content getting embarrassed on one thread, you need to get embarrassed on a second one now?
I would urge interested readers to read the entire Where Was God When The Shooting Started? thread, which Reverend Riley started on April 17, 2007 of this year.
On that thread I referenced two academic studies involving DGU's. The first study by Kleck & Gertz found, among other things, the following:
"These estimates appear in the first two columns. They indicate that each year in the U.S. there are about 2.2 to 2.5 million DGUs of all types by civilians against humans, with about 1.5 to 1.9 million of the incidents involving use of handguns."
A link to that particular study follows:
Armed Resistance to Crime:
The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun
On that same thread, and on April 21, 2007 (11:12 AM), I wrote the following:
"Incidentally, the United States Department of Justice also conducted a similar study in 1994. Using a smaller sample than did Kleck and Gertz, the DOJ determined that there are some 1.5 million DGUs (defensive gun usages) in the United States each year."
I then provided a link to the NSPOF study referenced above. I'll provide it again here:
Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership And Use Of Firearms
On Page 9 of the link provided above, which Ray also quotes, you will see the following:
"A somewhat more conservative NSPOF estimate is shown in the column of Exhibit 7 that reflects the application of the criteria used by Kleck and Gertz to identify "genuine" defensive gun uses ... Applying those restrictions leaves 19 NSPOF respondents (0.8% of the sample), representing 1.5 million defensive users. This estimate is directly comparable to the well known estimate of Kleck & Gertz, shown in the last column of Exhibit 7.
Once again, Ray, the links I provided corroborate the claims that I have made.
Let's read it again:
""The NSPOF based estimate of millions of DGUs [defensive gun uses] each year greatly exaggerates the true number, as do other estimates based on similar surveys. Much debated is whether the widespread ownership of firearms deters crime or makes it more deadly—or perhaps both—but the DGU estimates are not informative in this regard."
I swear, it's as if there is no longer a standard as far as logical arguement/discussion goes. Ridiculous thoughts/ideas deserve to be ridiculed. When said thoughts are connected to a belief system, I tend to give some leighway...
However, when religious thought transgresses its own boundaries into attempts at science, it's going to be held up to a scientific standard. Not having any standard low enough to evaluate creationism scientifically, it deserves ridicule when a museum is devoted to it.
The absolute democracy of ideas that you think should prevail is the reason youtube bloggers are taking over news analysts and why, for whatever godforsaken reason, Paris Hilton is deemed newsworthy to such an extreme.
I'll stay out of your church if you would please stay out of my scientific community.
To return to the original topic, I'm surprised that Mike Riley, a minister, thinks it's okay to ridicule Christians' beliefs when it comes to creation. Believing in creation doesn't make you a stupid, ignorant person.
People forget that evolution is still only a THEORY, not a fact, not "real science." The devil is enjoying how it has caused division among Christians and destroyed faith in some.
gravity is still a "theory." Your argument holds no water. Don't scienc-ify a religious belief and expose it for being baseless
el wrote:
"People forget that evolution is still only a THEORY, not a fact, not "real science."
It's as real as any other piece of science. And OF COURSE it's a theory. It's supposed to be. It's the highest goal of science to build theories. Here are a few other examples of scientific theories:
The Heliocentric Theory - the theory that the Sun is at the center of the Solar System.
The Atomic Theory - the theory that matter is made of atoms.
The Cell Theory - the theory that life is composed of individual cells.
The Germ Theory of Disease, the Theory of Gravity, etc.
These are ALL scientific theories. Now, will you question these things because they're "just theories"? Would you deny their factual nature?
Sorry but the mantra of "it's just a theory" exposes a sad case of scientific illiteracy.
Post a Comment
<< Home