Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Creationism Museum To Open Next Summer

kdawson posted more than 8 years ago | from the example-of-intelligent-design dept.


Aloriel writes to point out a story in the Guardian (UK) about the opening next year of the first Creationism museum in Kentucky, just over the Ohio border. From the article: "The Creation Museum — motto: 'Prepare to Believe!' — will be the first institution in the world whose contents, with the exception of a few turtles swimming in an artificial pond, are entirely fake. It is dedicated to the proposition that the account of the creation of the world in the Book of Genesis is completely correct... The museum is costing $25 million and all but $3 million has already been raised from private donations." A lot of that money is going into the animatronic dinosaurs, which are pictured as coexisting with modern humans before the Fall. According to the article, up to 50 million Americans believe this. The museum has a Web presence in the Answersingenesis.org site.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

A tourist attraction? (5, Funny)

lecithin (745575) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947012)

"Aloriel writes to point out a story in the Guardian (UK) about the opening next year of the first Creationism museum in Kentucky, just over the Ohio border."

I am writing abou the closing next year of the first Creationism museum in Kentucky, just over the Ohio border.

Does first post count as a 'scoop'?

Karl Marx was right. (sigh) (3, Insightful)

reporter (666905) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947230)

This museum devoted to creationism causes me to recall a bit of insight by Karl Marx. He once said, "Religion ... is the opium of the people." [quotationspage.com]

The opium that is creationism is some damned powerful stuff.

What is a Nerd to do? (5, Funny)

arcite (661011) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947244)

First they made the Sex museum and now there's going to be a Creationist museum? When will they finally make one we nerds can identify with? I can only visit the Smithsonian Apple exhibit so many times. :sigh:

We need more truth, less humanistic claptrap! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16947024)

Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history

RANCHO SANTA FE, CALIF. - In recent months, a spate of atheist books have argued that religion represents, as "End of Faith" author Sam Harris puts it, "the most potent source of human conflict, past and present."

Columnist Robert Kuttner gives the familiar litany. "The Crusades slaughtered millions in the name of Jesus. The Inquisition brought the torture and murder of millions more. After Martin Luther, Christians did bloody battle with other Christians for another three centuries."

In his bestseller "The God Delusion," Richard Dawkins contends that most of the world's recent conflicts - in the Middle East, in the Balkans, in Northern Ireland, in
Kashmir, and in Sri Lanka - show the vitality of religion's murderous impulse.

The problem with this critique is that it exaggerates the crimes attributed to religion, while ignoring the greater crimes of secular fanaticism. The best example of religious persecution in America is the Salem witch trials. How many people were killed in those trials? Thousands? Hundreds? Actually, fewer than 25. Yet the event still haunts the liberal imagination.

It is strange to witness the passion with which some secular figures rail against the misdeeds of the Crusaders and Inquisitors more than 500 years ago. The number sentenced to death by the Spanish Inquisition appears to be about 10,000. Some historians contend that an additional 100,000 died in jail due to malnutrition or illness.

These figures are tragic, and of course population levels were much lower at the time. But even so, they are minuscule compared with the death tolls produced by the atheist despotisms of the 20th century. In the name of creating their version of a religion-free utopia, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong produced the kind of mass slaughter that no Inquisitor could possibly match. Collectively these atheist tyrants murdered more than 100 million people.

Moreover, many of the conflicts that are counted as "religious wars" were not fought over religion. They were mainly fought over rival claims to territory and power. Can the wars between England and France be called religious wars because the English were Protestants and the French were Catholics? Hardly.

The same is true today. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not, at its core, a religious one. It arises out of a dispute over self-determination and land. Hamas and the extreme orthodox parties in
Israel may advance theological claims - "God gave us this land" and so forth - but the conflict would remain essentially the same even without these religious motives. Ethnic rivalry, not religion, is the source of the tension in Northern Ireland and the Balkans.

p>Yet today's atheists insist on making religion the culprit. Consider Mr. Harris's analysis of the conflict in Sri Lanka. "While the motivations of the Tamil Tigers are not explicitly religious," he informs us, "they are Hindus who undoubtedly believe many improbable things about the nature of life and death." In other words, while the Tigers see themselves as combatants in a secular political struggle, Harris detects a religious motive because these people happen to be Hindu and surely there must be some underlying religious craziness that explains their fanaticism.

Harris can go on forever in this vein. Seeking to exonerate secularism and atheism from the horrors perpetrated in their name, he argues that Stalinism and Maoism were in reality "little more than a political religion." As for Nazism, "while the hatred of Jews in Germany expressed itself in a predominantly secular way, it was a direct inheritance from medieval Christianity." Indeed, "The holocaust marked the culmination of ... two thousand years of Christian fulminating against the Jews."

One finds the same inanities in Mr. Dawkins's work. Don't be fooled by this rhetorical legerdemain. Dawkins and Harris cannot explain why, if Nazism was directly descended from medieval Christianity, medieval Christianity did not produce a Hitler. How can a self-proclaimed atheist ideology, advanced by Hitler as a repudiation of Christianity, be a "culmination" of 2,000 years of Christianity? Dawkins and Harris are employing a transparent sleight of hand that holds Christianity responsible for the crimes committed in its name, while exonerating secularism and atheism for the greater crimes committed in their name.

Religious fanatics have done things that are impossible to defend, and some of them, mostly in the Muslim world, are still performing horrors in the name of their creed. But if religion sometimes disposes people to self-righteousness and absolutism, it also provides a moral code that condemns the slaughter of innocents. In particular, the moral teachings of Jesus provide no support for - indeed they stand as a stern rebuke to - the historical injustices perpetrated in the name of Christianity.

Atheist hubris
The crimes of atheism have generally been perpetrated through a hubristic ideology that sees man, not God, as the creator of values. Using the latest techniques of science and technology, man seeks to displace God and create a secular utopia here on earth. Of course if some people - the Jews, the landowners, the unfit, or the handicapped - have to be eliminated in order to achieve this utopia, this is a price the atheist tyrants and their apologists have shown themselves quite willing to pay. Thus they confirm the truth of Fyodor Dostoyevsky's dictum, "If God is not, everything is permitted."

Whatever the motives for atheist bloodthirstiness, the indisputable fact is that all the religions of the world put together have in 2,000 years not managed to kill as many people as have been killed in the name of atheism in the past few decades.

It's time to abandon the mindlessly repeated mantra that religious belief has been the greatest source of human conflict and violence. Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history.

* Dinesh D'Souza is the Rishwain Fellow at the Hoover Institution. His new book, "The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11," will be published in January.

Re:We need more truth, less humanistic claptrap! (5, Insightful)

Ardanwen (746930) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947074)

Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history
I always thought it were power-hungry / big-ego bastards that killed, in the name of [insert favorite excuse here]. I'm quite sure that most of these bastards had/have a religion, so while I agree with your point that religion has been used and abused to murder in its name, that does not mean that the opposite of religion (atheism) is the true cause, nor does the above rant gives any argument why and how atheism leads to mass murder.

Re:We need more truth, less humanistic claptrap! (4, Funny)

Umbral Blot (737704) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947118)

Plus you know those 9-11 terrorists. Totally motivated by atheism. *snort*

Re:We need more truth, less humanistic claptrap! (5, Insightful)

OakLEE (91103) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947282)

Yah, and atheists are such saints:
Religious Persecution in Soviet Russia [wikipedia.org]
The Killing Fields of Cambodia [wikipedia.org]

People can be motivated to kill by just about any ideology, religious or otherwise.

Re:We need more truth, less humanistic claptrap! (1)

giorgiofr (887762) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947180)

Well, some of those guys had a religion, other ones did not, either way it did not play a big role unless as a tool to manipulate the masses.
Anyway I don't understand why people in the civilized world still make such a big deal about religion nowadays. Just pick yours if you want one, or do without - it's not like it really changes anything: I still have to meet people whose religious beliefs play an important role in their lives. Sure, rituals and all the small things... but nothing life-changing. Unless we're talking about zealots, but I don't see any around here (= the aforementioned civilized world).
There must be something about religion in the USA, because you're always arguing over it.

Re:We need more truth, less humanistic claptrap! (1, Insightful)

Patrik_AKA_RedX (624423) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947212)

Authority is the root excuse for murder. Religion and commanding officers are all forms of authority. And those who are following it don't consider themselves responsible for their actions since they are only following orders. And those wielding authority don't either, since they're only giving orders and aren't doing anything themselves.

Summary:religion is a great excuse for not being responsible for your own actions.

Re:We need more truth, less humanistic claptrap! (1)

rucs_hack (784150) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947326)

the cause is neither religion nor atheism. The cause is not being tolerant of people who are different from you. Sometimes this is caused by genuine concerns (even if unjustified ones), but most often its caused by powermongers whipping people up into a frenzy so as to establish a 'new order' where they will be in charge.

The first rule of establishing a dictatorship is to define an enemy for people to hate, thus helping them convince themselves that the privations at home are worth it, if the wider goal of 'safety from [insert enemy here] is to be acheived'.

Re:We need more truth, less humanistic claptrap! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16947084)

Hmm. I think you are probably just trolling but...

Stalinism, Nazism, and Mao's Communism were religions. They were religions centred on the worship of a perfect God-like figure: Stalin, Hitler, Chairman Mao. Why do I think this?

  • Absolute belief in the leader was required for all subjects (like a theocracy)
  • The punishment for thoughtcrime (heresy) involved torture, imprisonment and death (like the Spanish Inquisition).
  • A promised land of plenty (a workers paradise, lebensraum, or heaven) was just around the corner for the people that did what the leader wanted.
  • Any failure to reach this promised land was the fault of the people, not the leader (just as continued suffering in the world is due to our continuing to sin).
These regimes were not atheistic. They were more like the later days of the Roman Empire, in which the emperor deified himself, or like Egypt, where the pharoah was believed to be a god.

Religion achieves many good things, but total conviction can be very dangerous. It can drive good people to true evil.

Re:We need more truth, less humanistic claptrap! (1)

Sqwubbsy (723014) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947266)

While these leaders used religious symbolism and pomp to further their cause, they were decidedly antireligious or at least areligious.
Some points:

** It was not that belief was required but the flow of knowledge controlled. Germans thought Americans bloodthirsty savages, much like, well, modern Germans and the North Koreans.
** The vast majority of those killed were not imprisoned 'like the Spanish Inquisition'. Look at the number of Ukranians who died in their fields under Stalin.
** While each of those mentioned did have some 'perfect state' to which they would ascend things typically got worse which would point out the importance of point one.
** The fault usually lay with some enemy not the people. For Hitler it was the Juden. For North Korea, it is America. Same with Islam.

I think the key here is less about religion and more about the facets of totalitarianism. Christianity got most of this out of its system during the War of Spanish Succession and Glorious Revolution. Islam and Secular Humanism have not come to the realization that the philosophy does not cure fanaticism and take a holier than thou approach towards Christians, not realizing that the humility that Christians display could be of some value.
Of course, this doesn't account for the Luddites that think creation happened by the book. The lengths to which folks go is frightening. But at least they don't worship a rock and blow people up.

Re:We need more truth, less humanistic claptrap! (2, Insightful)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947310)

Oh my god! Except for the whole, ya know, spirituality aspect, you're 100% correct! Shit, I wonder what else you can play this game with..

Apple sauce, coca-cola and honey are all types of beer. Why do I think this?
  • They're liquids.
  • People enjoy their taste.
  • You can buy them in stores.
  • They often come in glass containers.

What a revelation! See how I did that? I just set aside the key features of beer (it's brown, it gets you drunk, etc) and all of a sudden everything is just like beer! Wow!

Re:We need more truth, less humanistic claptrap! (1, Insightful)

masklinn (823351) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947226)

Failed for the following reasons:
  • Hitler was not an atheist, he paid a lot of lip service to christian faith, considered himself a christian, and drew upon the 2000 years or christian's hatred for jews. And a lot of german officers at the time (most of them, in fact) were christians. Should also be mentioned the good ol' SS belt buckle motto "Gott mit Uns" (God With Us)
  • Stalin's and Zedong's crimes were not caused by atheism, the issue there was the building of a personality cult (not completely unlike religion, very much like religions in fact, since they had absolute belief in the Leader (god), punishment for not believing in the Truth of the Party and thoughtcrimes (heresy), an ultimate land of plenty / worker's paradise / utopia (heaven?), and an utter failure to reach any of the professed goals (still no rapture?)) which secular religions could cause problems with, hence the systematic hunting of secular religions and religious persons. The same things happen in Korth Korea where the leader and his father are semi-deified.
  • medieval Christianity did not produce a Hitler

    Have you considered that they didn't have the means to do it? And that low-scale slaughter were widespread at the time? Witch hunts, jews killings, various pogroms, ... were not that rare, and no one cared.

  • it also provides a moral code that condemns the slaughter of innocents

    Unless you're reading the Ancient Testament, that is, since most of it is about slaughtering everyone who doesn't believe in your own god, and sacrificing even your family members (by burning them, none the less) if your God asks you to...

I'd go (4, Funny)

Jason1729 (561790) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947026)

From the linked site it sounds like it's a great place to go for a laugh.

Re:I'd go (1)

JPriest (547211) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947082)

If want a good chuckle, you don't need to go much further than Genisis [skepticsan...dbible.com] .

Re:I'd go (1)

Jason1729 (561790) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947146)

Genesis might be funny, but the Creationism Museum's "Eyeless fish in caves" explaination is hilarious.

It fairly accurately describes natural selection but then explains that doesn't conflict with creationism because it's a "downhill" change. Something is evolving away.

wtf (4, Insightful)

joshetc (955226) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947362)

A lot of that money is going into the animatronic dinosaurs, which are pictured as coexisting with modern humans before the Fall

Let me start by saying I am an athiest. Now, about this. I have read The Bible several times and do not remember hearing anything about our ancestors playing around with dinosaurs?

Re:I'd go (0)

Shisha (145964) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947122)

We Europeans are so clever compared to the stupid redneck Bush voting Americans. Let's go and laugh at them. Bull....! Each culture cherishes notions that have no basis in reality. I wonder how many people in Europe would respond positively to the question: "Karl Marx's theory of class struggle and his economic theories of production were basically correct." I bet the answer would be "a lot". Perhaps more than the number of Americans believing in creationism. Just check who was voted as the most important philosopher ever by the BBC audience.

Re:I'd go (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16947130)

Karl Marx was largely right. The only mistake is he goes against human nature.

Re:I'd go (1)

PinkyDead (862370) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947206)

Karl Marx could also be proven wrong - which makes communism a lot more scientific than creationism.

Re:I'd go (1)

professionalfurryele (877225) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947256)

The same could be said about Jesus' personal economics. If everyone did as the Bible instructs with reguard to wealth the economy would collaspe. Does that mean that the statement:
"Jesus moral and sociopolitical ideology, and his ideas on assistance of the poor was on the whole correct"
Of course I would dispute most of the teaching attributed to Jesus actually being Jesus, but putting that aside for one second. So do you see the difference between the European and American attitude? In Europe, you wont find that much support for a communist state, but we don't demonise someone just because some of their ideas were wrong. However, do not mistake mild mannered tolerance of differing ideas for a willingness to put up with some communist government taking our freedoms.
Besides which your last comment is misleading. I'm going to assume that Mr Marx won the poll you refer to since you do not reference it, and I cant find it. You will notice that importance does not necessarily imply that a person was correct. Regan was an important President, but Reganomics is obviously wrong. Thatcher likewise (although in Thatchers defense she was less wrong). You don't have to be right to be important.

Re:I'd go (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947354)

> "Karl Marx's theory of class struggle and his economic theories of production were basically correct."

You don't have to be a communist to recognize the sense he spoke about capitalism and class struggle.

Informative? (1)

OakLEE (91103) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947134)

OK I'm sorry but since when is a snide comment stating an opinion considered informative?

Informative [answers.com] , adj. Serving to inform; providing or disclosing information; instructive.

Mod it Funny, Insightful, Flamebait, whatever, but please Mod it correctly people.

NO! Don't link. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16947032)

Don't link to them. Don't give them the oxygen of publicity, of recognition.

Young Earth Creationism is fraud, pure and simple. By any sensible test, the world's age is far greater than 6000 years. People never co-existed with dinosaurs. If you would disregard all the evidence, you might as well believe the world was created 5 minutes ago by a spaghetti monster.

Re:NO! Don't link. (2, Funny)

TheRealSync (701599) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947062)

Don't you dare disregard my beliefs. Indeed the world *was* created 5 minutes ago by a spaghetti monster!!!!!

Re:NO! Don't link. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16947106)

You can't totally disprove that it wasn't, so you must accept that it is true.

Besides everyone knows deep down that the FSM is real, he has the whole world in his noodly appendages.

Re:NO! Don't link. (5, Insightful)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947312)

Don't link to them. Don't give them the oxygen of publicity, of recognition.

This is what they are trying to do to science and evolution theory.

Instead of trying to censor them, how about widely publicizing them and doing an unbiased (as much as possible hehe) critique of what they are trying to convince people is the world.

Would you rather be naturally immune to an illness, or live in a plastic bubble protecting yourself from it. It's the age of information. The bubble can't survive, so you should.

Re:NO! Don't link. (1)

OakLEE (91103) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947328)

Yes, because the best way to deal with something is to sweep it under the rug and pretend it doesn't exist. That strategy sure worked in the Middle East after WWII. No troubles there.

Re:NO! Don't link. (4, Interesting)

drgonzo59 (747139) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947358)

Most Christians would also regard these people as crazy. The Bible was not meant to be a science textbook, and it was never meant to be read literally. A simple reading of the early church fathers (2nd century or perhaps a little later) would reveal this fact. In other words the Fundamentalists claim that they know better what the Bible means than the people who wrote and selected the books to include in it. Even side-stepping the whole "God exists -- God doesn't exist" issue, and just re-framing this in terms of a Christian perspective, they will still be wrong.

More Creation Museums, please (1)

Valacosa (863657) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947042)


If it's true because it's a story that has been passed down for generations and people believe it, I guess all of these [magictails.com] are true too.

Who wants to help me open an Inuit Creation museum?

Re:More Creation Museums, please (4, Insightful)

giorgiofr (887762) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947108)

I strongly hope you're joking and have terrible taste. First of all, there's BOUND to be an Inuit Creation museum somewhere, and if I ever find one in my travels I'll definitely visit it. Similarly, Australian Aboriginals' museums can be found down under, I've visited them and have taken tours describing the Dreamtime etc.
Yet if you were to joke about them you'd be labeled a bigoted fascist or some such utter crap. The main difference between this Creationist Museum and the ones I mentioned is that the religion this one is based on is alive and well, while the other ones are, how to say, fringe? Niche religions?
Sometimes I wonder why an atheist alwasy has to defend Christianity by attacks of idiots like you. It must be because I like freedom. Including their freedom to build their museum. You know what, you can build yours, too. Though I doubt anyone will find it interesting.

Re:More Creation Museums, please (1)

Valacosa (863657) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947168)

The main difference between this Creationist Museum and the ones I mentioned is that the religion this one is based on is alive and well, while the other ones are, how to say, fringe? Niche religions?
And you think that's irrelevant because...? See, here's the difference: Christianity has clout. If I actually did open an Inuit Creation museum as I suggested (or Huron, or Babylonian, etc.), it would be seen as quaint at least and an educational experience in mythology at most. I suspect the same is true of the Australian Aboriginals' museums to which you refer. But that's not what this group of Christians is up to. They're not trying to build "an educational experience in mythology", they're trying to pass their creation myth off as fact. Therein lies the difference.
It must be because I like freedom.
As it so happens, I like freedom too.
Yet if you were to joke about them you'd be labeled a bigoted fascist or some such utter crap.
See? That's why I like freedom. I see others doing something patently stupid, and I exercise my freedom to make fun of them.

Re:More Creation Museums, please (1)

RuBLed (995686) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947210)

Caution on the freedom thing, everything in it is always vice-versa.

Re:More Creation Museums, please (1)

giorgiofr (887762) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947276)

You seem to think that the Aboriginals themselves regard their religion as a mythology and not as *facts*. It is not so. And anyway, an experience in what a huge group of people believe is inherently educational.
It looks to me like you are afraid that people might actually believe them. Well, go on, exercise your freedom to make fun of them. That's very... mature.

Re:More Creation Museums, please (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16947278)

That's not the difference at all. Nobody cares about a museum of Christian beliefs. That's not what this is. Creationism purports to be some sort of Scientific view of the Earth's history. if any Inuit went around espousing his myths as the scientific truth he'd be laughed at also.

Fortunately they are likely to have more sense than some others I could mention, and be able recognize the difference between a metaphorical myth with a rich cultural history on one side, and the real world on the other.

And you like freedom, but not apparently the freedom to laugh at other's attempts to spread lies, because lies is what Creationism is. What's more many of the people who "believe" it know damn well that is lies, it just happens to be lies that support their position and their philosophy.

Little Red Riding Hood (0, Offtopic)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947046)

When I think of people like this, I immediately get the mental picture of Little Red Riding Hood being pulled out of the bloddy belly of the wolf. It's amazing that she made it down the gullet of the wolf without much injury, but always more fascinating how the woodsman's axe was able to kill the wolf without also injuring Red Riding Hood.

Of course it's fake (4, Funny)

serutan (259622) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947052)

This wouldn't even fool my 3rd level Magic User.
And he'll pretty much believe anything I tell him.

"Theologians ... no dinosaurs in the Bible" (5, Interesting)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947058)

The book of Job describes a creature called a 'behemoth' whose description can be interpreted as that of a dinosaur.

Re:"Theologians ... no dinosaurs in the Bible" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16947138)

Or a hundred other things, or a metaphor. That's kind of the problem with trying to read religious texts as absolute truth. Case in point, the entire book of Revelations which most scholars agree is one big metaphor in the form of 'disaster epic' writing common at the time, and not the literal description of the End Times that most people think it is. (IIRC it's actually supporting some churches, telling them to endure the persecution they're currently experiencing because they'll win in the end etc.)

Judge for yourself (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947148)

Please take a look at the passage and try to figure out what it is describing.

http://www.bartleby.com/108/18/40.html [bartleby.com]

It's a metaphor, you dipshit (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16947194)

How about this: Learn Hebrew then read the original Jewish passages instead of the mistranslated out-of-context crap. Even the most orthodox Jew, with very few exceptions, will tell you that EVEN THEY KNOW IT'S METAPHOR, and it's THEIR CULTURAL DOCUMENTS. It figures that Christianity, a religion designed by committee, would hijack the original purpose for their own use, and it still continues to this very day.

Re:It's a metaphor, you dipshit (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947248)

What's the metaphor? It seems like a straightforward description of an animal to me.

I can understand that much of the Bible is metaphorical. However you'll have to do better than call me names to argue that this simple description is actually a metaphor. What's it a metaphor about?

Re:It's a metaphor, you dipshit (1)

CowboyBob500 (580695) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947324)

You can also read that passage as a poetic description of a volcano, or any number of things. Read some Milton or Dante and you'll find that their style is somewhat similar. Yet you'd have a hard time convincing anybody that any of their stuff is literal truth.


Re:"Theologians ... no dinosaurs in the Bible" (2, Insightful)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947152)

Or any large animal... how handy

Re:"Theologians ... no dinosaurs in the Bible" (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947166)

I'm not trying to argue that there are dinosaurs in the bible, but I encourage you to name any animal that you can think of that matches the description in the linked passages.

http://www.bartleby.com/108/18/40.html [bartleby.com]

It's always the 'tail like a cedar' that disqualifies most guesses.

Re:"Theologians ... no dinosaurs in the Bible" (1)

15Bit (940730) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947204)

The Book of Jobs? I think he's talking about Steve Ballmer...

Wonderfull (1)

PrayingWolf (818869) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947060)

Great work.
I expect this will help bring up a new generation of scientist that are not fixated on ways to change observations to reflect theories but rather change theories to reflect observations.
All theories are welcome, but observations should be considered objectively.
Way to go!

Re:Wonderfull (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16947288)

What I really don't understand is there must be an intelligence divide in America, there clearly are many intelligent reasoned people but also there are so many people who can not understand (or maybe accept) what is blazingly obvious. I have been told that Americans were a particularily religous lot but not to the point where it baffles belief.

Where did they get all that money, are there really that many Americans who go to church because here in the UK I don't know any one who goes.

So, $3 million is from taxpayers then? (1, Interesting)

Kris_J (10111) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947068)

How any public money can go into something so farcical is beyond me. Well, not quite beyond me, but seriously depressing -- even though it isn't actually my public money.

I'm just glad I live in Australia, where education is valued [news.com.au] .

Re:So, $3 million is from taxpayers then? (-1, Redundant)

RLiegh (247921) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947096)

While I can't speak for all americans, I can tell you that I, for one, am getting pretty damned sick of you people over in europe critisizing us for every little thing. It's not like you're any freeer under in the EU than we are, thank you very much.

geographically challenged (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16947120)


Satirically challenged (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16947150)


Re:geographically challenged (1)

Andy_R (114137) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947322)

Australia IS under the EU, just check any Globe. Damn flat earthers....

Re:So, $3 million is from taxpayers then? (1)

mlk (18543) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947184)

Europe [google.com]

Australia [google.com]

Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 3.8).

Re:So, $3 million is from taxpayers then? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16947272)

Americans are almost as well-known for their grasp of irony as they are their knowledge of geography. Almost.

Re:So, $3 million is from taxpayers then? (1)

Valacosa (863657) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947114)

The museum is costing $25m (£13m) and all but $3m has already been raised from private donations.
I read that to mean that there's currently a $3 deficit, not that the government shelled out $3 million for this. As theocratic as some claim the current administration to be (or as much as it actually is), there's no way they'd ever go this far - there'd be too much hell to pay.

Re:So, $3 million is from taxpayers then? (0, Flamebait)

XorNand (517466) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947142)

Hmmm? There's nothing in the article to indicate that the balance is being picked up by taxpayers. I think a more likely scenario is that they're still working on finding another $3M in donations.

The real question is, if Jesus were to drop on by, would he approve of $25M being spent on religious idolism? Or would he have prefered that money spent maybe saving the lives of a few thousand people in a third-world country? But consistency has never been one of organizaed religion's strong points.

This is just the tip of the iceberg (2, Insightful)

javilon (99157) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947070)

Some people understand religion in one way and some people in another, but most of the religious beliefs are in contradiction with science.

In modern science you not only have evolution, you also have biologically inspired sociology, computational neuroscience and a number of other disciplines that you just cannot understand if you believe in a human soul. The more progress in this areas of study, the more problems you have trying to match this knowledge with religious faith.

Even the soft religious beliefs like "there must be something different about humans" are being challenged. We are just animals, no soul.

Re:This is just the tip of the iceberg (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16947156)

Some people understand religion in one way and some people in another, but most of the religious beliefs are in contradiction with science.

Can you justify this? No anecdotes please.

It might help if you clearly define a scientific observation and a scientific theory before you proceed. Anything that is not observable has nothing to do with science and therefore cannot be contradicted by science. Statements like God created the world in 6 days are obviously contradictory. But statements about having a soul are not. Nor is the existence of a God contradictory. Imagine a computer simulation of a world. You don't have to implement the same physical laws as exist in your (in fact you can simplify things if you wish and place maximum limits--i.e. quantum theory and relativity). If intelligent life (effectively AI) formed in your world, they would think the computer programmer was a God--and they would be right.

Re:This is just the tip of the iceberg (1)

eraserewind (446891) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947316)

You mean it's not in my appendix?!

Tough Turd Choice: (-1, Offtopic)

Cordath (581672) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947072)

a) Great-Great-Great-Great-...-Great-grandfather pelted other animals with his own turd.
b) Great-Great-Great-Great-...-Great-grandfather stepped in some dino-turd, lost his balance, fell in and finally suffocated.

I'm guessing this new museum isn't going to try to depict our ancestors dealing with adversity in the pre-fall era, such as being surrounded by a herd of triceratops during Flu season... Now *that*'s a flash flood!

Re:Tough Turd Choice: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16947360)

Score: -2, Retarded.

We all know cavemen coexisted with donosaurs (4, Funny)

91degrees (207121) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947078)

And a lot of the women looked like Raquel Welch.

A revelation! (1)

arcite (661011) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947280)

That finally explains my good looks. ;)

eeeeeek! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16947086)


Tagged this as 'ohhdear' (4, Insightful)

Pecisk (688001) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947094)

People will take long ways to create illusion around them that something they believe in actually exists or have existed. Poor people, still linger to last leftovers of "belief".

Why I tagged this "ohhdear"? I believe in God, however, I don't think it has anything to do with Bible or this physical world. People simply can't believe something that doesn't not exist or at least have some evidence of it. People don't believe in God and Jesus because they want to be good, they want to feel good, just be a part of system of believe. They want to feel safe.

Jesus said love your enemies and forgive them. We don't. Jesus said don't kill and don't seek revenge (well, not directly, but...). We don't.

We don't want to believe. Creationism is just a "feeling-good-because-we-are-so-many-so-stupid" way of confirming that we are not wrong. That everything Bible says is true, because priest said so...and if they are wrong, religion and my belief should be wrong too, right? So it simply can't be.

Human is so weak when it comes down to reality and how we are selective to it.

Will the museum include creationists? (4, Funny)

lotusleaf (928941) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947116)

"You ever notice how people who believe in creationism look really unevolved?" - Bill Hicks [wikiquote.org]

Hi-diddly-ho (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16947140)

what a yolly place to spend the weekend, diddly-so !

A please to slashdotters... (3, Insightful)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947164)

(Oh great, here goes that karma I built up. Oh well...)

Could we please just skip the redundant parts of the conversations that sping up 100% of the time when we have creationism vs. non-creationism discussions? The arcs of conversation are so predictable that you could just rehash them from the /. archive with a Python script, and no one would know the difference.

Some topics that I now view as complete noise (since we've hashed them over to death 400 times):
- how stupid Christians are
- how much /.'ers {loath | fear} {a theocracy | George Bush | anti-abortion activists}.
- details about why creationists are wrong.


Seriously, I don't even know why we kick these articles around more than once every 5 years. Because clearly they don't stimulate any new thoughts in us /.'ers.

Re:A please to slashdotters... (1)

BenjyD (316700) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947220)

It's the same for almost every topic on Slashdot, sometimes I wonder why they bother putting news stories at all and don't just put debate titles. Any mobile phone story turns into an "I just want a simple phone" argument etc.

Re:A please to slashdotters... (1)

altoz (653655) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947262)


Isn't that the case with a lot of articles here? The same arguments do come up again and again, slightly modified to fit whatever the article mentions.

Actually (3, Insightful)

tkrotchko (124118) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947352)

I'm surprised that people here are so upset about it.

Here's a religious group exercising their freedom of religion and freedom of speech. They're building a museum with their own money to build an edifice to their beliefs. So what. The worst that you can say is they're exercising the freedoms that most people admire.

You may not agree with it, but heck, I don't agree completely with anybody on everything.

I think perhaps people need to be more tolerant, and that goes both ways.

Eh... (0, Redundant)

Kenoli (934612) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947174)

This offends me. What the hell is wrong with people?

Argh! Get this straight (4, Insightful)

XorNand (517466) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947178)

From the article:
But if you believe in the Bible, why do you need to seek scientific credibility, and why are Creationists so reluctant to put their theories to peer review, I ask?

"I would give the same answer as [prominent atheist, Richard] Dawkins. He believes there is no God and nothing you could say would convince him otherwise. You are dealing with an origins issue. If you don't have the information, you cannot be sure. Nothing contradicts the Bible's account of the origins."
Why do theists continually shift the burden of proof back to athiests? If I were to insist that a teapot orbited the Sun (an analogy used by Dawkins), I would have to *prove* this to other people before they'd believe me. Why does religion get a free pass when telling me there's an invisiable man in the sky?

4000 years of history (3, Insightful)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947236)

Basically, for about 4000 years, Man has believed that there are beings greater than Human. In fact, the belief is that these beings created humans and the world and the universe. They, for 4000 years, called these beings god or gods or God.

In the past couple hundred years, a few uppity atheists like yourself suddenly come along and demand proof of the existence of these beings. The reason the demand for proof is shoved back in your face by theists is that there is a long history of belief in these beings. The proof of historical "that's the way it was"ness.

If you want to disprove these beings, it's up to you to disprove. You'll never be able to get the theists to roll up their sleeves and get in the mud with you. They can point at Descartes or Aquinas or any number of philosophers who over the millenia have discoursed about these greater beings. Do you have any tangible position to argue from besides smugness?

Re:Argh! Get this straight (1)

skammie (802503) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947250)

Because of that great argument stopper they use. "It's a matter of faith." It sucks when they get flustered when presented with the facts they resort to how much faith they have. Then they point out how "lost" you really are.

This is a blatent religious Troll (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947188)

It's about time they opened up a museum showing the truth.

It's quite clear that there's a consipracy amongst godless scientists to cover up the clear existence of God, and to disprove the clear evidence in the bible that the animals were created, and then man was created. And after man, God created the animals. It says so in the bible, so it must be true. and if the bible is false, then how did the eye evolve? And what are all those fossils doing at the tops of mountains?

I hope they disprove other heretics such as Keplar, who believed the earth went round the sun, when a simple observation of the sun rising, and any rational interpretation of the bible will prov that the opposite is true.

I read it wrong (5, Funny)

belmolis (702863) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947190)

When I first saw this, I thought: "Great! Creationism is declining so rapidly that we need a museum to teach about this primitive superstition." No such luck.

That figures, really (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16947192)

There's a reason why Genesis is the first chapter of the Bible: it's a dumbf*ck-test = if you believe this sh*t, then the rest of the book is easy, and if you don't believe it, then the outrageousness will shut you up anyway coz you can't argue against irrationality.

No wonder it's such a wonderful tool for believers to use. Gods are drama-queens and people are suckers for a good soap-opera.

Why such hostility? (5, Insightful)

OakLEE (91103) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947198)

Ok, so let me get this straight. A bunch of Bible-thumpers raises private money to build a museum to depict scenes out of the Flintstones, and everyone here is bitching about how these people should be shut up. The 1st Amendment separates church and state, but it also protects freedom of speech. These people aren't directly inciting violence or rebellion They're not spouting libelous falsehoods. Let them be.

Re:Why such hostility? (3, Insightful)

belmolis (702863) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947340)

I don't think that they should be forcibly shut down, nor do other posters seem to me to be taking that position. I hope that they will come to their senses, or that it will fail economically, but I wouldn't dream of censorship.

Why are we unhappy about it? Because it isn't innocuous as you suggest. Promotions like this are part of a broader effort to convert as many people as possible to fundamentalist Christianity and to get it into the schools where children can be brainwashed with it. Creationism is a bad influence in its own right since it promotes irrationality and an anti-scientific worldview. Furthermore, insofar as Creationism promotes fundamentalist Christianity, which I consider an evil and harmful doctrine, it is all the more undesirable for it to spread.

Oh dear (1)

MullerMn (526350) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947224)

A lot of that money is going into the animatronic dinosaurs, which are pictured as coexisting with modern humans before the Fall. According to the article, up to 50 million Americans believe this.

Is The Flintstones screened as a documentary in the US?

I have to say, (1)

Lex-Man82 (994679) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947232)

I thought this was open already. It's been covered by the British press a number of times.

As an Athisest I find this story quite amsuing and while I would love to use it to poke fun at America I know a worrying number of people here in England who aboultly beilve in this stuff.

Sadly there are idiots everywhere.

the abridged guided tour (5, Funny)

rucs_hack (784150) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947238)

Ladies and gentlemen, if you'll just follow me.

This first exhibit shows god with his little bag of mysteries. He is shown placing dinosaur bones in the rocks because even god likes a good laugh.

And further on we have another aspect of God. This is god in his aspect of 'having to make all the animals himself because he is too stupid to create a universe that can do this shit on its own'.

Now we have a stuffed monkey. You will see that the monkey, while superficially similar is not at all related to man. This is proved by the fact that the monkey is holding a placard stating that god made him as part of a batch job, 4103 years ago, on a tuesday. Further you will see that the stuffed Man we have next to him is also holding a placard, and this states definatelly that god made him the previous wednesday as part of an entirely different batch of wonders. This disparity, proved by our scientifically validated placards, is all the proof any sensible person should need.

Lastly we have the flood exhibit. This exhibit houses a model earth, three feet in diameter, and shows what it would look like covered in water. As you can see only the tip of mount arrarat is visible, even though it isn't the highest peak in the world. This is because it was a very curvy mysterious flood. If you look closely you will see one tiny wooden boat near arrarat which contains a pair of every species on the planet, their diverse ecological requirements and foods, all neatly seperated to stop them eating each other. Next to this model you will see the explanation of where the water went, and how, when the entire world was engulfed in a flood of sufficient depth to kill everything living, a boat made of wood was able to survive. As you can clearly see, that notice says 'shut up and go away, heretical unbeleiver'.

This concludes the tour, please give us loads of money as you leave.

The 50 million... (1)

StoatBringer (552938) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947240)

The 50 million Americans who believe this nonsense, are they
a) Aged eight or less?
b) Extremely poorly educated?
c) Wilfully ignorant?

because I can't think of any other reasons for thinking that Genesis, Noah's Flood etc. are anything but mythology.

Re:The 50 million... (1)

rucs_hack (784150) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947252)

a) alas they start that way
b) nope, well educated, but blinkered against science by neccesity, which has frightening ramifications for america's scientific future.
c) yes, sadly so.

Re:The 50 million... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16947350)

I am no religious fanatic, but I do beleive that "Noah's Flood" has happended. I do not belive it covered the whole planet, but the world as it was know to a majority of the on-lookers/sufferes.

Remember: This Religion is based on stories, and stories tend to go haywire after some time and retelling...


Complete Misinterpretation (4, Insightful)

drgonzo59 (747139) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947260)

This is ridiculous -- and this coming from an Christian and a scientist. There is nothing in the Bible about evolution, either in support of, or against it. The Bible was never meant to be a history/geology/physics/biology textbook, it is a book about faith and the relationship between God and man. These people are wrong not just from the point of view of an atheist but even as far as the Church history is concerned -- i.e. other Christians regard them as "nutty".

The problem with Fundamentalists is that they interpret the Bible literally. If it is written to forgive 70 times 7, they will probably start counting the number of times they forgive someone and when they reach 490, they'll probably say -- "that's it, the Bible says to stop". Ever since the books of the Bible were written, it was understood (see the writings of early Church fathers -- around II century) that a lot of the stuff was symbolic and typological. In other words the people who wrote the Bible, thousands of years ago, chose which books to include and which to not include, along with their contemporaries who interpreted and wrote about the interpretation of the scriptures, would _never_ agree with a literal interpretation.

Instead of spending $25 million on the museum, these people could feed and cloth a huge number of children from the developing countries, they could donate it towards AIDS research. To me that would be a more convincing witness to a Christian life than building a museum with animatronic dinosaurs...

I live in Southern Ohio, I would go out protesting against this museum along with anyone else who wishes to do so.

The whole thing is rather baffling (1)

spineboy (22918) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947264)

Museums tend to show things - paintings in art museums, science displays in science museums. I'm just puzzled at what they will show in this museum. Will it just be like a giant diorama depicting scenes from the Bible, or will it have "scientific" evidence of creationism.
The website has some videos that contain arguments against some of the common criticisms of creationalism - i.e. evolutionary criticisms of the eye -Why is the retina facing the wrong way, etc.

Truthiness (0, Troll)

owlnation (858981) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947294)

Excellent! A whole museum dedicated to Truthiness. I hope it's Wikiality page reflects just how truthy it really is.

For far too long now, museums have bored children with dry facts. It's about time we got them excited with far more exciting things that really sound true.

After all there's no way we want children to want to grow to be scientists - they're like terrorists...

What about the Australian Aboriginals (1)

EEPROMS (889169) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947296)

Technically this is a racist belief system if you look at it from the view point of an Australian aboriginal, it denies the fact that they have lived in Australia now for over 50,000 years. Then you have simple things like pictures from the hubble telescope [chron.com] showing objects over "12 billion light years away", now lets think now, if something is 12 Billions light years away it took 6,000 years for the light to get here, riiiiight, believe that and I will happily sell you some prime time swamp land.

Animatronic dinosaurs (1)

Bent Mind (853241) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947298)

A lot of that money is going into the animatronic dinosaurs, which are pictured as coexisting with modern humans before the Fall.

I thought the dogma was that dinosaur bones were placed by the devil to confuse and ensnare us. I guess the dogma is evolving. As for the $25 million, the amount of money that the average person is willing to part with to support their 'feel-good' fantasies has always amazed me when compared to the amount they are willing to give to prove or disprove those fantasies using objective science.

mod 3own (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16947304)

don't be afraid one or the other Join GNAA (GAY Distribution make distribution make 4 previously is mired in an has brought upon move forward, in eternity...Romeo watershed essay, maggot, vomit, shit over a quality continues to lose Worthwhile. It's suuport GNAA, stupid. To the contaminated while you all is to let and Michael Smith diseases. The lost its earlier Goals. It's when coming a piss may disturb other networking test.

Remember not to ask stupid questions (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16947308)

Such as "If Cain and Abel where Adam & Eve's only sons, and Abel was killed, then who did Cain mate with to continue the human species?"

Not the first (1)

giafly (926567) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947320)

the first institution in the world whose contents, with the exception of a few turtles swimming in an artificial pond, are entirely fake.
Nice trolling in the original post, but this museum [sptimes.com] was built a couple of years earlier. Probably there are thousands of fake institutions across the world, given how many powerful people such as Stalin [talkorigins.org] have believed in pseudo-sciences such as Lamarckism [wikipedia.org] down the years.

hahahahaha (1)

cucucu (953756) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947334)

T. rex--the real king of the beasts. That's the terror that Adam's sin unleashed! You'll run into this monster lurking near Adam and Eve. How's this possible? Find out soon!

That's what you can read if you go to the answer is in genesis site, click "Museum walk-through" and click number 19. The other numbers are not less hilarious. Good entertainment.

So this is what they call science? If their faith is so strong, why must it be confirmed by science? It would be much more harmonious with their beliefs if they just declared their faith above science.

Evolution, no thanks. Think about it.... (1)

sonicattack (554038) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947336)

What would you prefer to be?

1) The intelligent creation of an omnipotent being -- or
2) The retarded offspring of five monkeys having butt-sex with a fish-squirrel.

There you go.

Ha-ha (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16947346)

I always hated it when Americans were in Bavaria on the Oktoberfest and said "Wow, I have been in Germany.", afterwards.

Now I can go visit this great museum and say "Wow, I have been in America.", afterwards.

Muahahahaha... I could crap my pants...

Umm, no, there's already a museum for that (1)

beammeup4 (1030590) | more than 8 years ago | (#16947348)

I just wanted to point out that there's already a museum dedicated to furthering creationism: http://icr.org/discover/index/discover_museum/ [icr.org]
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?