2005/05/23

Inherit The Fart
More on the impulse in America that brings about Monkey Trials. Pleiades sent in this article, which originates from the Observer.

The razor-toothed Tyrannosaurus rex, jaws agape, loomed ominously over the gentle Thescelosaurus, looking for plants to eat. Admiring the museum diorama were old and young visitors, listening on headphones to a stentorian voice describing the primeval scene.

But the Museum of Earth History is a museum with a controversial difference. To one side, peering through the bushes, are Adam and Eve. The display is not an image of the Cretaceous. It is Paradise. 'They lived together without fear, for there was no death yet,' the voice intoned about Man and Dinosaur.

Nestling deep in the Ozark mountains of Arkansas, in the heart of America's Bible Belt, this is the first dinosaur museum to take a creationist perspective. Already thousands of people have flocked to its top-quality exhibits which mix high science with fundamentalist theology that few serious scientists accept.

The museum is riding a wave of creationist influence in America. Creationism, which holds that the Earth is just a few thousand years old and the biblical account of Genesis is fact, is central to a rash of furious arguments across America. From school boards in Kansas to elections in Pennsylvania, the 'debate' between creationism and evolution has become a political hot potato. Even as America's scientists make advances in palaeontology, astronomy and physics that appear to disprove creationism, Gallup surveys have shown that about 45 per cent of Americans believe the Earth was created by God within the past 10,000 years.

It is not just creationism either. Last week NBC's Dateline current affairsprogramme, equivalent to the BBC's Newsnight, investigated miracles. It concluded some could be real. It is hard to imagine Jeremy Paxman taking this stance.

That wellspring of popular belief, and the political clout that comes with it, is the inspiration behind the museum. It is not interested in debating with mainstream science. It simply wants to represent the view of a significant slice of America. 'We want people to see that finally they have something that addresses their beliefs, to show that we do have a voice,' said Thomas Sharp, business director of Creation Truth, the religious group that co-founded the museum. No expense was spared. The fossil casts, which range from a Triceratops skull to an 18ft-long Albertosaurus (a relative to T. rex), could easily grace London's Natural History Museum. Plans for a much bigger museum in Dallas are advanced. 'We would love to open in the United Kingdom if the right partner showed up,' Sharp said.

The museum forms part of a Bible-based theme park in Eureka Springs; the car park is full of cars and coaches from all over the country. To enter the museum is to explore a surrealistic parallel world. Biblical quotes appear on displays. The first has dinosaurs, alongside Adam and Eve, living in harmony. The ferociously fanged T. rex is likely to be a vegetarian. Then comes the Fall of Man and an ugly world where dinosaurs prey on each other and the first extinctions occur. The destruction of the dinosaurs is explained, not by a comet striking the Earth 65 million years ago, but by the Flood.

This, the museum says, wiped out most of the dinosaurs still alive and created the Grand Canyon and huge layers of sedimentary rock seen around the world.

Some dinosaurs survived on Noah's ark. One poster explains that Noah would have chosen juvenile dinosaurs to save space. An illustration shows two green sauropods in the ark alongside more conventional elephants and lions. The final exhibit depicts the Ice Age, where the last dinosaurs existed with woolly mammoths until the cold and hunting by cavemen caused them to die out. Scientists dismiss such claims as on a par with believing in Atlantis. Yet the museum is unlikely to be seen as a major threat to mainstream science. It was put in the heart of an area where Christian attractions are a mainstay of the local economy.

It was built in co-operation with the 'New Holy Land' theme park which re-created the biblical Middle East in the Ozarks. A huge statue of Christ, the largest in North America, looms over Eureka Springs. The site is the setting for The Great Passion Play, where each night in a 4,500-strong arena the last days of Christ are acted out.

The play has attracted more than 7.2 million people. But creationism is seeking to become more influential in other parts of the country. In Kansas the state school board recently held public hearings on the validity of evolution and the teaching of 'Intelligent Design' (ID) in classrooms. The hearings were boycotted by scientists who believed they were rigged against evolutionists.

The theory of ID holds that the world is so complex it must have been created, and has been dubbed 'creationism lite' by its critics. Kansas is now expected to recommend schools to include ID-friendly material in its science courses this summer.

In Pennsylvania, the issue dominated an election in the town of Dover after the school board decided to include mention of ID in its science classes. A vote last week between anti-evolution and pro-evolution candidates ended in an electoral tie. Creationism has found one high-level voice. President George Bush famously proclaimed: 'The jury is still out on evolution.' A CBS survey late last year showed that 45 per cent of Bush voters wanted creationism taught in schools instead of evolution, compared to 24 per cent of voters for John Kerry. 'Under the Bush presidency, we are clearly able to get a lot more done,' Sharp said.

The Museum of Earth History may be the first dinosaur museum of its kind. It is not likely to be the last.


It's so stupid it's breathtaking. 45% of Americans polled. 45!!!!!
Meanwhile, the latest creationist argument is this:

Recent studies in information theory have come up with some astounding conclusions—namely, that information cannot be considered in the same category
as matter and energy. It's true that matter or energy can carry information, but they are not the same as information itself.

For instance, a book such as Homer's Iliad contains information, but is the physical book itself information? No, the materials of the book—the paper, ink and glue contain the contents, but they are only a means of transporting it.

If the information in the book was spoken aloud, written in chalk or electronically reproduced in a computer, the information does not suffer qualitatively from the means of transporting it. "In fact the content of the message," says professor Phillip Johnson, "is independent of the physical makeup of the medium" (Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, 1997, p. 71).

The same principle is found in the genetic code. The DNA molecule carries the genetic language, but the language itself is independent of its carrier. The same genetic information can be written in a book, stored in a compact disk or sent over the Internet, and yet the quality or content of the message has not changed by changing the means of conveying it.

As George Williams puts it: "The gene is a package of information, not an object. The pattern of base pairs in a DNA molecule specifies the gene. But the DNA molecule is the medium, it's not the message" (quoted by Johnson, p. 70).


IOW, there's too much information in DNA. Even Bill Gates says so (like, he's an expert on the issue because he's a gazllionaire). Therefore, only God could have coded DNA in the first place...
What's really funny is they cite a book with a title like 'Defeating Darwinism' as if it's so authoritative. I mean, the just title screams 'CRANK!!!!!'

Clearly these people cannot comprehend what they read. It's amazing they get through the Bible in the first place. *ugh* Maybe that's the problem.

- Art Neuro

1 comment:

Art Neuro said...

I'd like to cut to the chase for you regarding ID.

The so-called irreducible complexity presupposes that nature somehow distinguishes between what is simple and complex. The scientific and also philisophical question to that point is, "Complex/simple compared to what?"
There's no basis for comparison to be making any claims like complexity, let alone 'irreducible' complexities.

The eye gets brought up a lot in the Intelligent Design/'irreducible complexity' argument. Well, it turns out the eye evloved many times over in many different ways so the notion that the human eye is so complex and could not have simply evolved is a piece of categorical malarkey.

If indeed the solution for the challenge of decoding light signal can be as diverse as the eye of a bee to the eye of a crustacian to the eye of the snail to the eye of the fish (which is the path ours happens to have come from) then surely, there's enough in nature to say, look, why didn't this intelligent designer (god) have to design all these different solutions to the same problem?

Indeed, why are there so many different creatures that fill different niches? Why can't there be simply one creature to fill the big ocean predator niche? Why does God need all the different species of sharks, let alone a killer whale as well? How 'rational' is that if indeed we are arguing 'inteligent design'?

Well, it may well be God's 'cunning plan' to have as many big ocean predators as he can conjure up for a mysterious purpose; or the easier explanation using Occam's razor to simpy say, 'evoultion'.

What really bugs me in all of this is that they keep on pushing the barrow of what they WANT to believe in so hard and object when people tell them they're flat out wrong; bringing out God/faith as their back up.

Not believing in Evolution is one thing; it's a bit like not believeing in Universal Gravitation. It's an odd choice to make, but what the heck. It doesn't hurt anybody not to believe in everything.

To then believe in Creationism as opposed to Evolution is another thing entirely: it's a matter of faith and it's not science. Well I won't argue faith with people, but I will say this, when they choose creationism over evolution, they might be a good man of faith, but thy're a horrible scientist, so please don't come and argue creationsim with psuedo-science. It's insulting. It really is. It's like Kang in the Simsons saying, "Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons"
For them to then say evolution is wrong *because* creationism is right is a willful application of stupidity the like which we should really consign to history. Like witch-hunts, it's downright medieval.

Blog Archive