We are having a Creationist Anti-Science Fair here at the brain police and entries
will be accepted up until July 4, 2007! I will publish the results and you can vote on the winner! I think I can come up with some kind of appropriate prize by then!
Send me art work, your experiments, proposals, essays, what ever you think
will show the world that science is just a reality based conspiracy to deny the biblical
facts!
For example: Prove that women are anatomically designed to be subservient to men and don't deserve equal pay! Intelliigent design will show that they were designed to load washing machines and wash dishes and cook!
Or: Prove that Noah's Ark was possible by seeing how many gerbils you can pack into
into a small box and how long they can stay alive!
Whynot put a piece of carbon, assorted minerals and purified water into a sealed mason jar and leave it in the sunlight for a few weeks and pray that God doesn't decide to spontaneously start life in there to mess up your experiment.
These are just a few hints at the wide range of subjects out there waiting for your closed little minds to mold to your predestined conclusions!
Now, C'mon kids, I'm counting on you to make thebrainpolice Creationist Anti-Science Fair 2007 the biggest and best ever!
Entries can be sent to thebrainpolice email address:
18speed@gmail.com
33 comments:
Micro --why don't you write for a cooking magazine? you could, you know.
Can you believe I'm only an hour from the new Creation museum?
I could get some great ideas there.
Barb, thanks for complement, but I suspect you are trying to channel me into what youu might consider a safer pursuit!
OhDave, If you hadn't seen it, there is a preview of the Creationist Museum on this page...check out 8,000 Years B.C.!
Did I say that on this post? I thought I was commenting on your cheese blog, microdot.
I hope Oh Dave will visit the new museum and tell us what he thinks of it.
I'm sure we'll go with the grandchildren.
That's right destroy their little minds while they are still young!
Now, kids: let's play nice...
Also, a plug for Subcomandante Bob's take on intelligent design.
I'm a evolutionary creationist. I believe God set into motion evolution as part of his design for life in the universe. So I'm kind of torn on this issue.
About subcomandante bob's article:
Evolution is a theory.. Gravity is a proven physical law. There is strong evidence for evolution, but it is still just a theory and not a scientific law. And since the article is using the concept of gravity to support evolution, are we even sure what gravity is? What if it turns out that gravity isn't due to mass, but is due to matter expanding at a constant 1 G rate? Would that change our ideas of Newtonian mechanics?
I'm just trying to point out that people on both sides of this issue are emotionally tied to their dogmatism. For me, it's important to always keep an open mind.
o me, too! heh heh
I have always said if they can prove evolution, I will do as STeve does, and conclude that must have been god's design plan.
I just don't get why the God of miracles and resurrection would need Darwin's slow tedious method --and also I've read enough of the creationists' stuff to know they are appealing to science findings for their non-belief in Darwin--as much as to their Bible. They see plenty of evidence to doubt the evolutionary dogma hook lie and sinker.
gee i went to c.bob's and thought the article was really quoting Wells, making him look stupid. I hope no one else makes that mistake --
"I just don't get why the God of miracles and resurrection would need Darwin's slow tedious method -"
Play Simcity 2000.
What I mean by that is I believe that God probably enjoys the creation process. If that wasn't the case then the universe would probably be static. But the universe is dynamically changing every second.
Steve, when the word "theory" is used in science it's a little different than saying "hey I have this theory". Scientific theories and laws are accepted to be true by the scientific community. Conversely, gravity can also be considered a theory depending on how it's used. In the science world, no amount of validation can turn a theory into a law.
Steve, would I be correct in assuming that you believe that god was the force that created life from elements in the so called "primordial soup"?
Frankly, I have no problem with people and scientists who believe that. Every major evolutionary philospher and scientist has a variation of the exact mechanism that sparked life.
That is the confusion that strict creationists point to validate their faith based righteousness.
As long as we can assume that this process happened in real time and that it doesn't deny and try to alter the actual science of geology and biology to fit their strict interpretation of the bible.
The Creationist Museum puts forth a viewpoint that the earth is 10,000 years old. Dinosaurs and man coexisted at the same time. The fossil record has been totally misinterpreted. Neanderthal man did not exist...the list goes on.
This mind set actually attempts to prove that women were "functionally designed" by god to be subservient to men. I didn't make that up.
This deliberate attempt to force this deliberate ignorance on Americans through legislation and the abuse of political processes is a real clear danger to the intellectual future of America.
As for Barbs open mind...
heh, heh.......
I guess the difference is is that theories are not set in stone, they are constantly changine and evolving (hahaha). Any theory that scientists might believe to be true today could change over night and be proven false, or at least ammendable to knew found data. But anyway, the whole hierarchy of hypothesis > theory > law, is what is taught in school when you learn "the scientific method".
I had a chance to visit the Field Museum in Chicago last weekend. They had a whole wing devoted to evolution, from the beginning of life up to now. It was great. Even if you just look at the skeletal structures of ALL animals, you can see that they're basically the same....elongate this, move that a little. I personally feel that by man creating a "god" to explain our presence deminishes the beauty of the process that brought us to where we are. As for the scientific meaning of "theory", I posted something from Scientific American on our blog (Nookular Option) that covers this topic.
On the other hand --maybe man did NOT create a god to explain our presence. Maybe God made man and predicted in Isaiah 53 --a suffering servant who would be "wounded for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities." And then Jesus came and fulfilled that prophecy. And no one human wrote this story ...
Sorry Barb, but whenever you quote from the bible you lose me.
No, that's YOUR loss, Chris. But I don't want to lose you --OR see you lost.
Again --maybe man did not create God as you think. Maybe God did create man.
And if so, could He not also communicate with us --
and maybe He does love us enough to make us immortal.
I didn't quote the bible here.
Maybe the reason organ systems and skeletal systems are so similar, isn't so much an example of common ancestry vis a vis evolution, but could be the creators design for the most efficiant biological systems for the earths unique environmental properties such as gravity, temperature, ect...
What makes more sense, that all life on Earth comes from a common ancestor through the scientific process of evolution, or that a "creator" is pulling the strings?
Barb, maybe Zeus created man
I think in the comments left here as well as my own replies, this point is clear. The main and really the only dispute that I have with hard line creationists is the games they play with semantics and fudging scientific facts to promote their strict biblical interpretion of the worlds creation.
It is the interpretation of a really small group of motivated zealots who are trying militantly to push this through legislation and propagandistic techniques.
The exact mechanism with which life began is a matter os speculation and theory. To myself, I believe it very rational and likely that life arose out of extremely fortuitous lucky for us, circumstances of the right chemicals, the right place and the right amount of time.
Theists believe that the missing ingredient is the force of a supreme being to set these things into motion. Even Darwin existed in an age in which the speculation that god did not have a hand in this was almost unthinkable.
This is not the problem!
The problem is the confederacy of dunces who try to tell us that this all happened 10,000 years ago! They will go to any length to convince us that all creatures existed at the same time, intelligently designed and the fossil record is faulty and misinterpreted.
The entire donkey carriage of ridiculaous dogma must be over turned and ridiculed. There is no room for this kind of demented backwards infantile idiocy in a world that wants to exist long enough to see the future!
I really believe that there is something terribly wrong with the psyche of America to let this nonsense take root. A sort of brutal infantilism as it were.
What sparked this random order of chemicals into life? Who or what sparked the big bang? Why is the universe accelerating apart, when it should be collapsing due to gravity? What is the nature of dark energy and dark matter?
It could all very well be just random chance. To me, it's all just too perfect to be left to probabilities alone.
I guess my beliefs are more philosophy vs hard science. And I suppose that that is the point of contention - philosophy trying to impose it's will on science. I believe that it should be the other way around. Science refining and defining philosophy. That's why I think that exegesis, the strict and literal interpretation of the bible... or other religios / philosophical works, does disservice to the beliefs of that philosophical / religious system, because it is too inflexible and doesn't allow for new facts, human growth in understanding of the universe, ect... I mean, do we worship an unchanging robot set on loop, or do we worship a dynamic living God who mirrors the dynamic universe he/she created.
(sorry, my post directed at both sides)
Your criticism and ideas are perfectly rational to me. I have absolutely no problem with your believe that there is a god who created and controls the universe.
It is yours and many other peoples attempt to explain the universe, imagine the unimaginable....
It is another way of looking at reality.
As long as we are looking at reality and not trying to deny it and the rights of others to look at reality.
The creationist and ID scientists are all willing to look at the evidence. But the atheistic speculations of Darwinists are no more scientifically grounded than the Biblical prescriptions of creationists. Both sides have assumptions. And right now, it's the orthodox darwinists who are guarding their sacred cow from any SCIENTIFIC challenges in education.
Krikey Barb, I have nothing to reply to that comment. So totally ass backwards from reality!
I really am begoinning to believe that you live on a different planet with such totally "nyah, nyah" brainless unreal statements like the post above.
Reality doesn't work for you so you have to invent your own and then acttually have the lack of self awareness to post it hee and expect anyone tto accept it as fact!
Listen, I've been reading a lot of stuff by your "open minded" biblical interpretive "scientists" and I do not see any tolerance as these mental neandertals gather the wagons in a frantic defense.
I'm going to start featuring actual dogma from these sites now because of you! You are going to get to read the ignorant crap they are stuffing in childrens heads. You are becoming like an overgrown child who can't accept there is no Santa Claus and is obsessively defensive in protecting your ignorance!
Good points Steve. It just shows how much more is to be learned. I think it would be arrogant of humans to think we could figure out all of the intricacies of the universe in the short time that man has been around. I believe the old adage that religion is a way to fill in the gaps that science has not yet filled in.
Barb, you indeed have great courage. Those are some truly radical beliefs. To take ideas that are widely accepted in the scientific field, and to believe the exact opposite is a gift. Bravo.
Holy Irrational Ideas! Your Anti-Science Fair is bringing in some amazing entries, Microdot!
Post a Comment