Texas “Creation Museum” selling prized mastodon skull to stay afloat.
A Texas museum that teaches creationism is counting on the auction of a prehistoric mastodon skull to stave off extinction.
The founder and curator of the Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum, which rejects evolution and claims that man and dinosaurs coexisted, said it will close unless the Volkswagen-sized skull finds a generous bidder.
Now, I know I shouldn’t laugh, he put his life’s work into this, really, and I should feel compassion for him…
Oh, fuck that!
The guy devoted his life to trying to shill an unscientific, unproven LIE whose only purpose is to try to make people follow HIS brand of HIS particular religion.
Screw that, he got exactly what he deserved.
Hmmm… would be a nice addition to a real museum, but by buying it, you would help them…
Let’s go steal it <.<
unscientific, unproven LIE
Something which is unscientific and unproven still isn’t a lie until it’s proven to be a lie. The funny thing about creationism is that, as unlikely as it sounds, it’s still possible, and in fact it’s impossible to prove it isn’t true.
Belief is a powerful thing. People who believe aren’t bad people; they’re not trying to deliberately mislead the masses. This person truly thinks that he is the one with the truth and everyone else is mistaken. I wouldn’t give him anything but pity.
That’s as may be, but if you say “Creationism belongs in science class,” you’re either wrong or lying.
That’s an opinion, not a fact, so that also can’t be a lie. Whether you’re wrong depends on the opinions of those around you. Most people who know the facts would disagree with that statement, but that still doesn’t make it a lie.
In that case, saying that trees are plants or that the Earth rotates around the sun are also opinions, not a facts. This then breaks down into philosophy and the <i>who are we?</i> questions start coming in
No. Deciding whether or not a particular subject belongs in a particular class is an opinion, based on your own understanding of what should happen in that class. Maybe biology class should include aspects of chemistry, who knows? Your other examples are observable, verifiable phenomena, and in another category entirely.
“Plants” are classifications arbitrarily created by man, with certain limitations that include some objects and include others. In the same manner is “science” limited such that it cannot include creationism. A “science” class cannot include something that is not science. Unless you’re arguing that a class doesn’t have to teach the subject it’s named after? In that case, I guess we must embrace the fact that it’s someone’s <i>opinion</i> that embroidery does not belong in Calculus II?
I say Ninjas vs Tanks belongs in any history class that takes itself seriously
No. But it doesn’t say anywhere that science class is forbidden from including discussion on other matters. History class might include some geography. Drama might include literature. There are related topics that nevertheless may be discussed. Yes, it is an opinion that embroidery doesn’t belong in calculus class; it may be a majority opinion, but it’s still an opinion and not a fact.
For the record, chemistry is discussed in biology. However, the comparison between biology and creationism being equivalent to comparing biology and chemistry is very wrong.
I do agree with Cid about how “The funny thing about creationism is that, as unlikely as it sounds, it’s still possible, and in fact it’s impossible to prove it isn’t true. Belief is a powerful thing”. That in itself goes against what you said in later posts saying that you could make the opinion it belongs in science classes for the simple reason that those 2 statements contradict each other. Note I’m not saying YOU believed that, so don’t misinterpret me, just that those are contradictory statements.
I think that with all that’s happening politically, it becomes hard not to discuss creationism in science classes for historical reasons. What I believe is that scientific community hasn’t done enough to stand up for itself and fight back fraudulent claims and accusations. I think its important to educate the public. When you take a science class, they bullshit you about the scientific method and all that but don’t explain what it means. If you just want to discuss the scientific method, it becomes very easy to explain how creationism is not science. Right there, right at the start, you nip the problem at the bud, by properly defining the terms.
I hate to disagree with you, Cid, but every individual isn’t writing the rules of “science.” Science isn’t just a linguistic or philosophical concept. Science is a particular organization of real, concrete institutions. By that I mean everything from the corps of Ph.D. holders down to the actual buildings they work in. Unless you’re part of that organization, you don’t even have a say in the question of what this thing science is.
If you go to Catholic school, in theology class you’re going to have the Church’s idea of what Catholicism is handed down from above (excepting, of course, the Jesuits). It’s the same way with science, really.
I’ve been a little disingenuous here, I’m afraid, and a little naughty. 8p
I never said that creationism is a science.
I simply said that it very well may belong in science class. Sinistral apparently agrees with me.
Now, if you would have said that the claim “creationism is a science” is a lie, I’d find it hard-pressed to disagree with that.
Alright, move along people, no philosophy here, only semantics. Nothing to see! Go back to your day jobs!
I want to emphasize that my idea of why creationism should be discussed in a science class doesn’t equate to it being taught in a science class. I hate to bring the argument back to semantics, but the point has to do with what information you want to convey.
If you discuss creationism, it doesn’t mean you’re teaching it. When people commonly talk about teaching creationism, they mean that it should be taught as an alternative to evolutionary biology in a half-assed attempt to discredit its premise. This differs from my point that what constitutes and does not constitute as appropriate material to be taught in science. If people want to know why creationism isn’t taught in their biology class because they’re uninformed or confused, then its the duty of the educational system to untangle the knots and set the it all straight. Hiding everything behind taboos and hand waving doesn’t help anyone.
I understand all that, which is why I said that it may “belong in science class” - not necesarily that it should be “taught as science”.
And I concede that my semantics were slightly off, and allow me to ammend my previous statement to it should not be taught in science class…
And by the way, including it in science class doesn’t necessarily mean drilling into people’s heads the fact that it is wrong. That’s something which frankly I don’t want to see, precisely because it can’t be proven. To be scientifically honest, the teacher would have to say that creationism is possible but entirely unproven, and that the evidence is against it.
There’s also two parts to creationism - the idea that the world was created at all, and the idea that it was created only a few thousand years ago. There is much evidence against the latter (though it’s still possible) but very little against the former, and anyone saying that science proves that either of them aren’t true isn’t being honest.
There actually no evidence for or against creationism, because it’s not science. The teachers should just mention how it is not a science and point out how to register for a philosophy class