Atheists to protest grand opening at California creationist museum

[cbayer]

http://www.examiner.com/article/atheists-to-protest-grand-opening-at-california-creationist-museum

SEPTEMBER 27, 2012
BY: HUGH KRAMER



"The Last Supper" if dinosaurs shared the Earth with Man.
Credits: http://www.awakenthedawn.ca/


Saturday, Sept. 29th, will be a busy day for the YECs (Young Earth Creationists) who run the Creation and Earth History Museum near San Diego, CA. Not only are they celebrating the grand opening of two new exhibits, they will also be dealing with a demonstration against it by a group of skeptics and atheists.

Here's the museum's description of the exhibits:

The Tabernacle is a 2,015-square-foot expansion to the museum’s building that will feature a theater seating presentation on the Old Testament tabernacle. A narration given by Museum Owner Tom Cantor (a Messianic Jew) will be accompanied by directional light changes highlighting items such as a scaled replica of the Tabernacle, the Holy of Holies and the Ark of the Covenant, and priests in their religious garments using utensils of priestly service. The exhibit models one Cantor already has at a Scantibodies facility in Tecate, Mexico.

The Age of the Earth Cave will present rare minerals and data with explanations defending a young Earth view while dealing with today’s common dating methods such as carbon 14, radio isotopes, and helium argon processes. The 300-square-foot exhibit offers the experience of touring an underground cavern.

The young Earth view is that the world is less than 10,000 years old so you see there's a lot a skeptic (or anyone else with the slightest awareness of what mainstream science has to say about the matter) might want to protest.

But wait, there's more!

more at link

[DavidL]

1. Why aren't Christians and Jews and others there, too?

Protestation of the furtherance of ignorance and anti-intellectualism should be a cornerstone of any religion, I would say.

So why no Christians protesting this, again? Intellectual weakness, religious timidity, or just plain human cowardice?

For Christians, a man gave his life up on the cross for "those he forgave" for "they knew not what they did"

Followers of him seem too timid or afraid of offending those who know not what they are doing, afraid of offending, and do not protest this display of ignorance, instead leaving protests to be done by only the non-believers. The Christians of today either approve of this, or they are too afraid to protest.

Christians and Jews and other religious folks tend to love their religious beliefs more than they love the search for the truth.

But that's just how I feel about people who claim to be religious, when cowardice and ridicule of non-believers and of truth-seekers more typifies their actions.

[cbayer]

2. Why do you assume they are not? Do you have some preconceived notions

about christians and jews that would lead you to that conclusion? Like they are intellectually weak, religiously timid and cowards?

Your broad brush assumptions about religious people are no better than the fundamentalists assumptions about non-religious people.

[skepticscott]

3. You mean no better than your broad brush assumption

that anyone who is a creationist is also a "dumbass"?

And why do people here (you know who they are, if you're being honest with yourself) constantly try to imply that because organized groups of atheists don't engage in every progressive social and charitable movement, that there's something wrong in that regard with atheists in general?

More gross hypocrisy on your part. Seems to be a daily thing any more.

[HERVEPA]

27. Uh, creationists are dumbasses

[Raster]

28. All creationists are either ignorant or stupid. Their call.

There are NO athiests that are creationists. None.

[Oregonian]

8. Because your OP title said only "atheists"

Why else?

[cbayer]

4. Oops! They do.

Protests Planned for Grand Opening of Creation Museum (Cinncinnati)

The protestors, who are made up of non-Christians as well as Christians who do not favor literal interpretations of Genesis, have dubbed themselves Rally for Reason, and they feel that the new exhibit will create an unhealthy environment for children. The belief that evolution never existed and that the earth was made in six 24-hour days is not something that should be taught to children.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/protests-planned-for-grand-opening-of-creation-museum-27114/#1G6cg7BQKA7foiQ4.99


Protest Outside the Creation Museum (Kentucky)

It’ll be atheists, Christians, science advocates, and everyone else who sees this “museum” as a travesty against human knowledge.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/05/06/protest-outside-the-creation-museum/

Reports from San Diego are that a number of groups were going to protest, including atheists, agnostics, secularists, humanists and scientists, many of who may be religious people.

Bottom line is that your assumption is way off.

[okasha]

12. I'm ambivalent about this.

One one hand, I think it's ultimately beneficial tp allpw people to make asses of themselves in public, which is what the founders of this museum are doing. It's one of the side effects of the First Amendment. On the other hand, I think the notion that the "Young Earth" and other creationist dogmata in any way comprise biology or other science ought to be protested vigorously.

[cbayer]

14. I think there is potential harm in promoting this.

It basically sends a message that science is bunk, and that's dangerous for individuals and for the nation as a whole.

If evolution can be dismissed, so can global climate change, all the research on GLBT being a normal variant of sexuality, etc.

We, as a nation, are already behind in science and the statistics about those that embrace creationism are pretty alarming.

[AlbertCat]

54. tp allpw people to make asses of themselves in public,

Yeah.... as long as tax dollars aren't paying for it.

See KY.....

[okasha]

56. Do you have any evidence

of tax dollars paying for this museum?

[AlbertCat]

57. Do you have any evidence of tax dollars paying for this museum?

Did I say I did?

But if a religious group that is tax exempt paid for it....

Are they being taxed for the land? Building?

[cbayer]

59. It's owned and run by a 501(3)(c) corporation and will have the same

tax status as any other 501(3)(c)

[Oregonian]

7. Because try as they might to insist that Science & Religion go hand-in-hand

it's a lie. Nothing about religion is compatible with science. Deep down, they know this.

[Raster]

29. Religion is only compatible with religion.

There are NO gods.
There are NO demons.
There is NO heaven.
There is NO hell.
There is only our real, natural world all around us.
Religion is but myth and superstition.
Religious conviction hardens hearts.
Religious faith enslaves minds.

[Tigress DEM]

5. I think Creationists are going down a wrong path, but SO WHAT?

Tolerance people.

Don't let them teach it in schools as science, but if someone wants to have a viewpoint you consider highly irrational and beyond belief, don't go there and support it.

Protest it if you must, but don't demand that every other person become as intolerant as possible.

Sorry, Cbayer, I know you aren't the one out protesting. I'm not a creationist, but I am a Christian and open to the thought that there is more to the stories of creation than just words.

I think the museum is silly and about as scientific as the reading of bumps on a person's head was medicine. But I think if other people want to spend their money on folly, it's their own choice and none of my beeswax.

[cbayer]

6. My objection is that the facility continues to perpetuate creationism in

the face of scientific evidence and is at least partly aimed at children.

When you look at the US statistics concerning how many people believe in creationism, it is alarming. I think there is a case to be made that this has a larger impact on how our children perform in science.

People have the right to believe what they want, but if it impacts on the world I live in, then I have the right to object.

Take global warming denial as an example. Those that believe in creationism also tend to believe that there is not humanly caused global climate change. This is more than just letting them have their private beliefs. This impacts me, my children, my grandchildren.

I also preach tolerance, but I am not infinitely tolerant.

[humblebum]

10. "I also preach tolerance, but I am not infinitely tolerant." So then.

You are only tolerant to the point that they agree with you? People really are free to think and believe as they so choose. Anything resembling the thought police is dangerous to all.

[cbayer]

11. Not what I meant. What I meant is that I am tolerant of other POV's up to the

point that they infringe on or harm me, my rights or the rights of others.

Disagreement is totally acceptable.

[humblebum]

13. Agreed. My apologies. nt

[cbayer]

15. No need for apologies. I wasn't clear.

[Tigress DEM]

18. My focus is more keeping it out of the schools and being taught AS science.

As a philosophy, as an idea, as THEIR goofy museum - fine. They are grasping at straws and not using solid science.

I consider something like this in the same vein as I do the *ush Library. It isn't anywhere I'm going to go and I doubt there is one thing in it I'd find enriching or agreeable, but if it wastes their money so they can't use it to buy elections and it takes up their time so they might forget to vote, hey, far be it from me to keep them from their very important stuff.

When you say that statistically many people "believe" in "creationism" that may be a false bit of numbers. I don't suscribe to any of the current theories out there, but neither do I completely discount the possibility that an intelligent being could have created humans. I'm a Christian after all as is a majority of America. I don't think there is a shred of scientific proof, but science is not infalible nor is our current methodology the end all, be all.

I simply think that at some point our science will evolve to the point where we have an answer one way or the other. Until then, my faith is my faith and science is science.

I believe that in battling the Creationists, we give some credence to their stance as victims. I say let them do what they will and let the flap die around them when people see it really isn't very intelligent. I'm MUCH more worried about it being taught in schools. I'd RATHER they had to go to some museum and pay to indulge in their ideas and not be allowed to add it to the school curriculums.

[cbayer]

25. I agree with the priorty of keeping it out of schools, particularly as a science.

But to me, *museum* has always been a rather serious word. Whether being taught in school or not, what if private schools take outings to this museum?

[QuantumOfPeace]

63. Climate denial is funded by secular interests

The "war on science" that really matters is coming from impersonal corporate interests.

The funding of confusion on climate change is coming from Big Oil, mostly. (I can't believe this goes unnoticed on DU! - should go without saying.)

The funding of confusion on nutrition science is coming from people who use cognitive science in a sophisticated way to dupe consumers.

There are one or two instances of someone really dumb saying something dumb about climate change from a "bibical" point of view. Surprise! They are Republicans (so far as I know).

[cbayer]

64. Excellent points, but having an ignorant populace, they are able to advance their cause(s).

Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who deny climate change from a religious POV. They are more likely to be Republicans, I agree.

Again, I think the solution lies in electing people who will stop schools from teaching bad *science* and, therefore, teaching our children that real science is somehow bogus.

The issue about nutrition, and supplements in particular, is sometimes debated in the health group, where the issue of bogus *science* is often challenged.

[Oregonian]

9. So, free speech for the YEC, but not for the rational?

That's your position?

[humblebum]

16. I seriously question your form of rationality. i choose to

characterize it as narrow-minded and extremely biased. (to put it nicely)

[Oregonian]

17. Shall I also be open to Hippos flying

In order to meet your impossibly hypocritical standard of "open-mindedness"? Which fairy tales must we accept and/or dispense with to be in your wheelhouse? Only the ones widely believed?

Argumentun ad populem was always my personal favorite among the deluded's arguments. Why discuss the substance, when we can count the votes?

[Tigress DEM]

19. Agreeing with someone's philosophy or wild ideas and protesting them are extremes.

Allowing that if someone wants to believe in flying hippos, it's no skin off your nose as long as they aren't teaching it as science or selling tickets to ride flying hippos (that aren't firmly attached to a carnival apparatus) to your children...... does NOT constitute agreement or endorsement of flying hippos.

Allowing that the belief is something that doesn't diminish you and thus requires no massive protest is different than really buying into it.

But again, in defense of science, flying hippos might make a cute fantasy novel, but should not be added to the science curriculum.

[Oregonian]

24. And now you're getting down to it

The Sacred Flying Hippo forbids sex before marriage, or oral sex, hence sodomy and adultery laws that even non-believers must adhere to.

The Sacred Flying Hippo forbids gays marrying, therefore all gays, whether hippo-following or not, must adhere to the hippo's edict.

The Sacred Flying Hippo has convinced millions to put "in hippo we trust" on the money, therefore anytime someone who devoutly, wholly, and stridently worships the Holy Floating Wildebeast pays for something here, he feels he is implicitly denying his Wildebeast even though he must make a living.

The Sacred Flying Hippo forbids alcohol on the sabbath, hence we close liquor stores on Sunday. (Or is it saturday? The hippo changed his mind around 300 AD).

The Sacred Flying Hippo is at odds with the Zooming Turtle, and thus Zooming Turtle followes shout "Turtle is great!" before blowing themselves up around a bunch of hippo followers (and even some turtle followers!) because they don't like the hippo.

The Sacred Flying Hippo insists that a giant hippo fashioned the earth out of rivermud and hippo scat in 17 hours, which is clearly at odds with the facts issued in secular science classes. Yet the Hippo devotees insist on a "let the kids decide" approach to hippo scat vs. evolution "debate", and set up publicly funded Sacred Flying Hippo museums all over the country, brainwashing ignorant children about the Hippo Scat theory.

Then, those children enter politics. And they vote on legislation, like the above.

So is the hippo "no skin off my nose"? Not really.

[AlbertCat]

55. narrow-minded and extremely biased.

It's narrow minded to consider and trust the latest scientific discoveries....


but open minded to continue to believe ancient superstitions with no basis in facts.


It's EXTREMELY bias to reject the same science you also use every day to better your life... the same method that brought you antibiotics, the internal combustion engine, electric lights, safe food, the computer you are on now.... is the same method that tells us about evolution and climate change.


The disingenuousness is evident when religionists try to clothe their outdated and absurd arguments in scientific-like language using scientific-like "proofs" to support their notions. Why make up science when there's real science to be had? They coulda spent their (our?) money and time on a real science museum and therefore benefitted everyone, not set them back 6000 years.


Your statement is called "projection" The overly religious are certainly the closed minded ones. Plus the new age baloney is extremely bias against anything mainstream in science.

[humblebum]

80. When the atheistic argument is based generally on the logical positivist POV,

then it is by its own admission narrowly-focused by automatically eliminating any consideration of anything that cannot be empirically evaluated. Extremely narrow-minded and in some cases extremely bigoted.

[AlbertCat]

81. the logical positivist POV,

You assume that's the only POV that the subject of your retort ever had.

Many.... almost all... are brought up in a religious atmosphere, and tried it.

I used to love Tarot and witchcraft in high school. But I outgrew it..... because it simply doesn't work. But it was fun and a "social" thing, an emotional thing. Like standard religions, it can't hold a candle to science. It never explained anything. It never solved anything. Eventually unsatisfying.


Most "logical positivist" as you put it, have been to many places and had many previous POVs. Changing the POV proves open mindedness. Believing things handed down to children for centuries, even when they've been debunked, is not open minded. No matter how good it feels.

[humblebum]

82. You don't even have a clue. nt

[AlbertCat]

83. You don't even have a clue.

About what?

I suppose you've had some amazing experience that moved you deeply and I and no one not "spiritual" could "have a clue" about it.

Yeah yeah....

Here's a clue: Everyone (including me and logical positivist) think that things that happen to them are special. But most things that happen are not so special as far as the Universe is concerned. It's usually a local specialness.... and with so called "spiritual" events, VERY local and personal. That's nice. Enjoy your emotional high! But don't think it should be universal or anything. We all have similar experiences because our brains are all made with human DNA... not because they are significant.

Don't worry! There will be may logical positivists around to help keep us from slipping back into a time when magic and superstition ruled the day and everyone relied on the supernatural: the Dark Ages.

[cleanhippie]

84. That's one of humblebums standard answers when he has nothing left to support his bullshit.

"Uh huh" and "yeah right" are also staples in his repertoire.

[trotsky]

22. Apparently.

Creationists get their museum, but non-creationists should shut up and not protest it.

[QuantumOfPeace]

20. Why don't atheists approach this problem like a scientist would?

Last edited Tue Oct 2, 2012, 09:23 AM - Edit history (1)

I wonder why so many do not.

Clearly, shouting, "There is no god. There is evolution!" is NOT going to create change.

Open question: what would?

[cbayer]

26. Excellent question. This needs to be challenged at a legislative and school board level.

Welcome to DU and to the Religion group.

[QuantumOfPeace]

60. What would a scientist do to assess the situation?

Thanks for the welcome.

That seems more like a solution than a scientific inquiry.

One has to understand the problem, first. Why are people interested in thinking of the world as created? What is their point, inside a god-based ethics? Other questions, too.

[cbayer]

61. By proposing a theory about what has caused the problem and then using that data

to change it.

The problem as I see it is that too many Americans believe in creationism and deny evolution.

My theory would be that school boards and legislatures compound and exacerbate this problem by passing laws or rules that force schools to teach creationism as a science.

The data I have seen, which is admittedly not enormous, that in areas where school boards and legislatures make this rules/laws, there is an increased belief in creationism.

So, you are correct. I am jumping to the solution, but I think that is where to focus the effort if we want to change it.

[QuantumOfPeace]

71. Teach both

Could you teach evolution as science and creationism as a foundation for ethics?

Could "the problem" be that too many want to smash the one with the other, rather than try to let them coexist?

[cbayer]

72. They are in complete conflict. You can not embrace evolution and believe that the earth is

6,000 years old.

[QuantumOfPeace]

77. On a practical basis

I disagree.

"Creationists" have a specific set of concerns that someone with an unbiased mind and inquiry can discover. This is in evidence because they are NOT against ALL science, just this one.

Also, they are not asking that evolution NOT be taught, are they?

This leads me to believe/hope that things could be done, as I intimated.

[cbayer]

78. Are you a creationist?

What are the specific set of concerns that creationists have?

Many are asking that evolution not be taught and they are trying to have creationism taught as a science, which it clearly is not.

[trotsky]

30. Hi.

Could you please point out exactly where the protestors are reported as "shouting 'There is no god. There is evolution!'"?

Thanks!

[QuantumOfPeace]

34. Strictly, the only thing an atheist can say is "there is no god".

...and I presume people object to creationism because they believe evolution is a better understanding.

[trotsky]

37. Thank you for admitting your quote was fabricated. n/t

[QuantumOfPeace]

42. what constitutes "atheist protest" in fact

I suspect people were smart enough, generally, to know what I meant...because the protest, um, hasn't actually occurred yet.

Anyway, it seems a good challenge you've brought up. I hope the media cover it so we do have some idea what constitutes "atheist protest" in fact.

[trotsky]

46. There's no challenge. You made up a quote.

Dishonesty is not an admirable trait.

[QuantumOfPeace]

49. It was CLEARLY figurative - media should give quotes from "atheist protest" not press release

...and anyone can see why upfront and even more clearly in the subsequent notes.

I do hope we get some accurate coverage from the media. I mean real stuff, stuff people say off hand, not some canned media release from Atheism-R-Us or whatever.

All factual assessments of what constitutes modern "atheist protest" of such type.

[trotsky]

51. No, it wasn't CLEARLY figurative. You made it appear like it was an actual quote.

It was dishonest, and intended to make a group of people look bad so you could appear superior to them. You're still doing it now.

[QuantumOfPeace]

62. Is "atheist protest" just cheap atheism publicity?

Without a scientific basis and no obvious hope to change anything by saying "There is no god. There is evolution" in "protest" seems like a ....

What is "atheist protest" anyway? Afterall, atheism is just a non belief in any deities.

[trotsky]

65. Quote fabricated. Thanks for playing. n/t

[QuantumOfPeace]

66. How can you fabricate a quote from an event that hasn't occured yet? LOL

silly

[trotsky]

67. It's OK, I've seen your hatred for atheists now and I understand.

You're not worth the mouse clicks.

[QuantumOfPeace]

69. Those dastardly creationists!

Incidentally, have you met any of them for dinner, lately?

[Leontius]

68. It's and tried and true tactic of a certain group of people

here one will paint you as a liar and another will use that in a different thread then another will pick it up and post it again until the original slur is lost and it becomes the 'truth' they need to use.

[QuantumOfPeace]

70. No hate, just the truth

no liar, no painting, no slurring, no talking about other people like this from me!

That would be you and trotsky, so far.

Plus two other atheists, maybe three or four, who have directly insulted my intelligence, in the few short days that I've come to DU.

[trotsky]

73. Do you think that gang violence is the result of atheistic ethics and choices?

Be careful who you ally yourself with. You might regret it.

[Leontius]

74. No I do not and a warning about how some people like to use certain methods

is not an alliance just a warning. Based on the few posts of this guy that I've read I don't think we share many points of agreement and since the warning was wasted my mistake won't be repeated with him.

[trotsky]

75. I'm sure he appreciates your help! n/t

[Leontius]

79. Yep I could tell he did.

Seems to think we both called him dishonest and lying then grouped both of us and three or four others as atheist. Like I said make a mistake learn from it.

[QuantumOfPeace]

76. I certainly didn't enjoy "the gang's" blasphemy day

if that's what you mean.

[bowens43]

52. Nothing will convince the true believer that their idiocy is idocy...

science is the devils work.....

[Dorian Gray]

21. Will people actually go to such a museum?

Whenever I read of openings like this, I'm flummoxed.

[cbayer]

33. They are all over the country.

On a road trip last year, we considered stopping at one just for fun, but decided not to.

I don't think I could maintain any decorum.

[Dorian Gray]

50. I can't imagine. Luckily, I've never seen one in my travels.

That they are popping up now rather than 50 years ago is sort of weird.

[ButterflyBlood]

23. This seems likely to result in the Streisand Effect

Better to just ignore that joke place.

[frylock]

31. this place isn't too far from where i live..

they have an awesome 20' t-rex right out front. you can't miss it.

[cbayer]

32. A t-rex?? Now that right there is worth a stop.

[longship]

35. Unless it's hungry...

I like what PZ Myers did at Ken Ham's museum in KY. He took a group of people there and were respectful, but had fun. Then, they ridiculed it in their blogs.

PZ insisted that if you wanted to attend that disruptions would not be appropriate. From all the reports it came off well, with more than a little gentle poking fun at the silliness, but nothing overtly disruptive.

[cbayer]

39. I'm glad that he took that position.

I think poking a little fun sends the right message. There is no need to be hostile.

[frylock]

44. it is quite the sight to behold!

there are several lesser dinosaurs included in the "exhibit" as well. you can see it from the freeway right over there by the drive-in theater!

[cbayer]

45. I'm going to put this on the list for our road trip this spring.

We love to go to odd places and use roadsideamerica.com to guide us to some of the oddest.

They list a number of creationist museums, but we have not yet visited one. I think this one is going to be a must see.

[ChillZilla]

36. This says a lot more about the atheists than the creationists

Let them have their museum, who cares? If people think it's bunk then so be it.

As it is, by protesting what you're saying is that "I'm right, you're wrong and you shouldn't even be entitled to espouse a believe other than that which I, who possess all knowledge and wisdom, know to be true, you friggin butt-wipe-turd-faces".

Just coming off like a bunch of jerks. Get over yourself.

And also, for not believing in God, you sure do spend a lot of time chasing him around...

[okasha]

38. It's kind of like the Fundies'

fascination with gay sex.

[cbayer]

40. The issue for me is the denial of science and the impact that has on kids.

I'm not sure if you are directing your other comments to me or to the author of the piece or someone else.

[okasha]

41. It looks to me

as if this nested wrong and that the reply is to "someone else." The member has only 6 posts and possibly hasn't got the knack of the reply process yet.

[ButterflyBlood]

48. The problem is protesting it isn't going to change that

If anything it'll just give more publicity and attention to this joke misinformation factory.

[Mariana]

43. Please read further in the thread.

There are believers of various religious affiliations protesting this as well.

This post says a lot more about you than the atheists (and the other protesters). Let them have their protest, who cares? If people think it's bunk then so be it.

[longship]

47. Well, in this case, they *are* wrong.

Science as a discipline cannot say what is right, But it can say what is wrong, and it can do so while simultaneously stating the precision. Science is not a belief; it is a methodology.

But I agree with you that it does no good to protest this. Instead, it should be ridiculed, relentlessly.

[AlbertCat]

58. This says a lot more about the atheists than the creationists

Yes, that they are not liars and charlatans.

You do realize the "museum" supposedly is...

"dealing with today’s common dating methods such as carbon 14, radio isotopes, and helium argon processes."

They made the challenge. Atheists are answering the challenge.

[Lint Head]

53. I did a spit take after reading this at the link.

Peter: “Hey Jesus, what’s up?”

Jesus: “Come closer, Peter.”

Peter walks around the fire and crouches next to Jesus: “What is it, Lord?”

Jesus: “Come right in close, Peter, this is only for you.”

Peter shifts his weight and kneels at Jesus’ side, moving so his head is close to Jesus’ head.

Jesus puts his arm around Peter, and “PppfffferrrrrRRrrrrt!” lets a huge fart rip.

Peter: “Je-SUS!”

Jesus tightens his arm around Peter so He can’t escape.

Peter: “Nooooo! No!” Nooo!” Jesus and Peter are rolling around on the ground, Peter trying to escape, Jesus trying not to let him go.

Jesus laughing hysterically : “I’m sorry Peter! I’m sorry! ” more hysterical laughing ”It was that old woman’s cooking, I tell you! I’ve had gas all day! That’s why I walked way ahead of you guys!”