New Creation Museum to Open in Boise...

[-hanko]

I profess to be Christian and have been for quite a while.

Link below might be interesting. Be aware that the Boise Weekly is akin to the Berkeley Barb and that the writer, Bill Cope, is definitely far left and probably agnostic.

Some of the questions and answers may be of interest...

Link... http://www.boiseweekly.com/boise/mus...nt?oid=3147861

[Not a Cook]

Some of the questions and answers may be of interest...

How so? Unless I missed something, the Q&A are anything but serious. FYI - there is also the Creation and Earth History Museum by the Institute For Creation Research much closer to home (in Santee in San Diego County).

[mif_slim]

How so? Unless I missed something, the Q&A are anything but serious. FYI - there is also the Creation and Earth History Museum by the Institute For Creation Research much closer to home (in Santee in San Diego County).

Can you elaborate?

[Not a Cook]

Can you elaborate?

I was referring to the questions and satirical "answers" offered by the author of the article in the original link. I have a feeling Mr. Cope has very little familiarity with creation science research, and he belittles and dismisses creationists because he is ignorant when it comes to this topic.

Hopefully this Boise museum will be good (I'm not familiar with this Boise museum at all, so I can't say) but in attacking it as he did, Mr. Cope revealed himself to be an arrogant individual who demonstrated his own ignorance and lack of class.

[bigmike82]

May God strike you dead for your impertinent apostasy, you lowly evolutionary left wing chunk of Satanic Stardust.

Funniest part of the entire article.

[texan]

I was referring to the questions and satirical "answers" offered by the author of the article in the original link. I have a feeling Mr. Cope has very little familiarity with creation science research, and he belittles and dismisses creationists because he is ignorant when it comes to this topic.

Hopefully this Boise museum will be good (I'm not familiar with this Boise museum at all, so I can't say) but in attacking it as he did, Mr. Cope revealed himself to be an arrogant individual who demonstrated his own ignorance and lack of class.

With all due respect, there is no such thing as creation science research. Science doesn't deal in supernatural causality.

[mossy]

"You know... instead of having to wait around for the next gun show or monster truck rally"

so he is anti creation, gun and monster truck. whats wrong with monster trucks?

[Not a Cook]

With all due respect, there is no such thing as creation science research. Science doesn't deal in supernatural causality.

Actually, there is. One of many organizations which pursue creation science research is the Institute for Creation Research, commonly referred to as ICR. If you're not familiar with their work, you can find out a little more about them at www.icr.org. They have put together quite a few scholarly books, magazines, and other sources addressing this topic, and carry out ongoing research.

Science definitely concerns itself with causality. Why do you think it would not deal in supernatural causality? Just because science can't explain the supernatural does not mean that science ignores the supernatural or the effects thereof.

[texan]

Actually, there is. One of many organizations which pursue creation science research is the Institute for Creation Research, commonly referred to as ICR. If you're not familiar with their work, you can find out a little more about them at www.icr.org. They have put together quite a few scholarly books, magazines, and other sources addressing this topic, and carry out ongoing research.

Science definitely concerns itself with causality. Why do you think it would not deal in supernatural causality? Just because science can't explain the supernatural does not mean that science ignores the supernatural or the effects thereof.

Because the scientific method only deals in testable hypothesis. Observations and measurement deal with the natural world, what is testable about the supernatural?

I'm sure they conduct plenty of research, but it isn't really science if it's looking to establish supernatural causality. Usually the research papers I've read attempt to disprove some scientific theory rather than posit and support their own. From their site:

[Not a Cook]

Because the scientific method only deals in testable hypothesis. Observations and measurement deal with the natural world, what is testable about the supernatural?

I'm sure they conduct plenty of research, but it isn't really science if it's looking to establish supernatural causality. Usually the research papers I've read attempt to disprove some scientific theory rather than posit and support their own. From their site:

Reasoning based upon your first paragraph would preclude macro-evolutionary theories from the realm of science because they are not testable (they have been theorized, but never actually observed, and cannot be proven via testing with consistent, repeatable results). If you assume that science precludes consideration of supernatural causality, you must also preclude virtually all theories of causality as you can't observe the past directly. You form a hypothesis based upon observations, and then further refine that hypothesis through additional observation and testing. You don't make broad-brush assumptions about what to preclude because it may not fit your personal beliefs.

The work that ICR does is mutifaceted, and it is real science. Yes, they do test evolutionary theories and demonstrate how and explain why those theories contradict observed phenomena, other basic scientific laws and theories, and data from controlled testing. They also perform direct research in the natural sciences. They also point out unfounded assumptions that form the bases for many other theories, as well as demonstrate through observation and testing why many of those unfounded assumptions are incorrect. This is valuable scientific research.

Scientists come from all sorts of backgrounds, including everything from atheists, to agnostics, to deists, to pagans, to Hindus, to Buddhists, to Humanists, to Jains, to Muslims, to Jews, to Christians, etc. All of them make certain assumptions based on their preconceived beliefs. Many folks today think that science must preclude all consideration of the supernatural because it is a basic assumption of many atheistic and agnostic scientists that the supernatural does not exist and may therefore be safely precluded from consideration. However, it is a bad (and amazingly arrogant) assumption. Thankfully, many of the "giants" of science were men of faith who made no such arrogant assumptions.

One of the most basic errors made by those who choose to ignore ICR's work is assuming that things are constant, or "things are as they have always been". For instance, atheistic scientists have concluded that it took millions of years for the Grand Canyon to be carved by the Colorado River based upon its observed historic flow rates. However, ICR's research has shown how observed floods (and computer-modeled floods) demonstrate that carving of such a great canyon can occur AMAZINGLY quickly. Atheistic scientists, by precluding the consideration of a biblical flood, assume a timeline that they cannot support by any means other than circular reasoning. Atheistic scientists assume the Colorado carved the Canyon at its current flow rate, which must have taken millions of years. Other scientists who do not preclude the supernatural are open to the very obvious possibility that the Grand Canyon need not have been carved by the observed historic flow rate of the Colorado, and thus do not conclude that the Grand Canyon must have existed for untold eons. The conclusions are vastly different due to the differing assumptions. If you preclude consideration of the supernatural, you are making an unfounded assumption (unless you can PROVE the supernatural does not exist).

[Not a Cook]

"You know... instead of having to wait around for the next gun show or monster truck rally"

so he is anti creation, gun and monster truck. whats wrong with monster trucks?

Bingo. I believe in the literal day-by-day Genesis account of creation, enjoy exercising my 2a rights, and still get a kick out monster trucks (although I have seldom seen them since I was a kid).

Sounds like Mr. Cope is missing out; he doesn't seem to be able to enjoy some of life's most simple pleasures (like reading the Bible, a day at the range, or watching machines crunch stuff). Sounds like a boring guy.

[Full Clip]

With all due respect, there is no such thing as creation science research. Science doesn't deal in supernatural causality.

Nicely put.

[Hoshnasi]

If it's a similar young earth museum brought to you by Ken Ham, I can't wait to see the dinosaur riding exhibit.

[texan]

Reasoning based upon your first paragraph would preclude macro-evolutionary theories from the realm of science because they are not testable (they have been theorized, but never actually observed, and cannot be proven via testing with consistent, repeatable results). If you assume that science precludes consideration of supernatural causality, you must also preclude virtually all theories of causality as you can't observe the past directly. You form a hypothesis based upon observations, and then further refine that hypothesis through additional observation and testing. You don't make broad-brush assumptions about what to preclude because it may not fit your personal beliefs.

The work that ICR does is mutifaceted, and it is real science. Yes, they do test evolutionary theories and demonstrate how and explain why those theories contradict observed phenomena, other basic scientific laws and theories, and data from controlled testing. They also perform direct research in the natural sciences. They also point out unfounded assumptions that form the bases for many other theories, as well as demonstrate through observation and testing why many of those unfounded assumptions are incorrect. This is valuable scientific research.

Scientists come from all sorts of backgrounds, including everything from atheists, to agnostics, to deists, to pagans, to Hindus, to Buddhists, to Humanists, to Jains, to Muslims, to Jews, to Christians, etc. All of them make certain assumptions based on their preconceived beliefs. Many folks today think that science must preclude all consideration of the supernatural because it is a basic assumption of many atheistic and agnostic scientists that the supernatural does not exist and may therefore be safely precluded from consideration. However, it is a bad (and amazingly arrogant) assumption. Thankfully, many of the "giants" of science were men of faith who made no such arrogant assumptions.

One of the most basic errors made by those who choose to ignore ICR's work is assuming that things are constant, or "things are as they have always been". For instance, atheistic scientists have concluded that it took millions of years for the Grand Canyon to be carved by the Colorado River based upon its observed historic flow rates. However, ICR's research has shown how observed floods (and computer-modeled floods) demonstrate that carving of such a great canyon can occur AMAZINGLY quickly. Atheistic scientists, by precluding the consideration of a biblical flood, assume a timeline that they cannot support by any means other than circular reasoning. Atheistic scientists assume the Colorado carved the Canyon at its current flow rate, which must have taken millions of years. Other scientists who do not preclude the supernatural are open to the very obvious possibility that the Grand Canyon need not have been carved by the observed historic flow rate of the Colorado, and thus do not conclude that the Grand Canyon must have existed for untold eons. The conclusions are vastly different due to the differing assumptions. If you preclude consideration of the supernatural, you are making an unfounded assumption (unless you can PROVE the supernatural does not exist).

Theories which explain the how and why of natural phenomenon don't need to be directly observed to establish their validity. Indeed inferences made from observations lead to inductive conclusions, this is how much of our scientific understanding actually occurs. This is, for example, how Darwin first came up with his theory of natural selection.

Learning how something works though direct observation is only a part of the scientific method, for instance we would have very little understanding of subatomic particles if it weren't for inference. The idea that macro-evolution can't be a valid theory because you can't sit and directly watch it occur is a ludicrous assertion... you can't sit and directly observe many well understood scientific facts occur. If the time scale something occurs on is larger than the opportunity to observe it do you think no scientific theory can be forwarded to explain it?

Further, you're going about science backwards if you require someone to disprove the existence of something before rejecting the hypothesis. You don't assume anything unless you can in some way observe a phenomenon or describe the irrefutable effects of it, that's why science doesn't deal with supernatural causality. Observation of our natural world reveals natural causality. Note that I'm not arguing against the existence of supernatural causality, I'm simply stating that science isn't the methodology to describe it. You don't need faith in something if you can literally watch it in all it's irrefutable glory right in front of you.

I'm all for scientific research and improving our understanding of the world. I'm all for respecting personal faith and the expressions of that faith, in fact I find the topic fascinating and worthy of serious discussion. This includes creationist museums which forward unscientific views of Earth's biological and geological past, even the occasionally odd astronomical assertion. But let's not cross our wires here and start saying that real science is being done which purports to support supernatural hypothesis until someone is able to offer that up for perusal. What's being done instead is attempting to disprove scientific theories which don't fit into the literal narrative of Genesis through research chasing preconceived conclusions.

From a logical perspective, starting with a conclusion and seeking out only information which supports it isn't likely to produce reliable results. And it certainly isn't scientific.

[Not a Cook]

Theories which explain the how and why of natural phenomenon don't need to be directly observed to establish their validity. Indeed inferences made from observations lead to inductive conclusions, this is how much of our scientific understanding actually occurs. This is, for example, how Darwin first came up with his theory of natural selection.

Learning how something works though direct observation is only a part of the scientific method, for instance we would have very little understanding of subatomic particles if it weren't for inference. The idea that macro-evolution can't be a valid theory because you can't sit and directly watch it occur is a ludicrous assertion... you can't sit and directly observe many well understood scientific facts occur. If the time scale something occurs on is larger than the opportunity to observe it do you think no scientific theory can be forwarded to explain it?

Further, you're going about science backwards if you require someone to disprove the existence of something before rejecting the hypothesis. You don't assume anything unless you can in some way observe a phenomenon or describe the irrefutable effects of it, that's why science doesn't deal with supernatural causality. Observation of our natural world reveals natural causality. Note that I'm not arguing against the existence of supernatural causality, I'm simply stating that science isn't the methodology to describe it. You don't need faith in something if you can literally watch it in all it's irrefutable glory right in front of you.

I'm all for scientific research and improving our understanding of the world. I'm all for respecting personal faith and the expressions of that faith, in fact I find the topic fascinating and worthy of serious discussion. This includes creationist museums which forward unscientific views of Earth's biological and geological past, even the occasionally odd astronomical assertion. But let's not cross our wires here and start saying that real science is being done which purports to support supernatural hypothesis until someone is able to that up for perusal. What's being done instead is attempting to disprove scientific theories which don't fit into the literal narrative of Genesis through research chasing preconceived conclusions.

From a logical perspective, starting with a conclusion and seeking out only information which supports it isn't likely to produce reliable results. And it certainly isn't scientific.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not intimately familiar with ICR's research. I'd suggest doing a review of "the tip of the iceburg" of some of ICR's technical papers here: http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=...ch&f_typeID=12. Yes, that is real scientific research. The topics vary, some do deal quite a bit with "matters of faith", but many do not. You may choose to discount their work, but it is scientific research nevertheless.

I don't think you entirely understood my previous post. History demonstrates many of the "great scientists" were strong men of faith who believed the Scriptures and did not preclude the supernatural. You assume that scientific research must preclude the supernatural, which will necessarily color your conclusions. If you really want to thoroughly investigate anything using the scientific method, you must not start with unproven assumptions as your conclusions may hinge on the validity of those unproven assumptions. If you preclude all consideration of the supernatural from your scientific endeavors, you are actually making a huge assumption and many "scientific conclusions" become dependent upon circular reasoning. Real scientific investigation must be more free - free to follow the rabbit hole, however deep it may go. Toss out all assumptions, look at the observable phenomena, compile data, develop a hypothesis, control for other variables and test, then refine/reject/strengthen the hypothesis and repeat. Just don't start with ANY unproven assumptions, or else you run the risk of wasting your time and energy.

My point regarding macro-evolutionary theories was that, if you preclude all supernatural consideration from your investigations, the same reasoning would cause you to also preclude many other popularly believed theories, including those of macro-evolution. Regarding particle theory and subatomic particles: yes, they are observable, and it is based upon our observations of subatomic particles'behavior that theories are continually being refined, rejected, and proposed. Colliders are expensive, and they're built specifically for such studies because they allow for such investigations. It's kind of like what Christ mentioned: you can't see the wind, but you see the effects of the wind.