Creationists gone wild
Well, this was only a matter of time:
Challenged by Creationists, Museums Answer BackITHACA, N.Y. - Lenore Durkee, a retired biology professor, was volunteering as a docent at the Museum of the Earth here when she was confronted by a group of seven or eight people, creationists eager to challenge the museum exhibitions on evolution.
They peppered Dr. Durkee with questions about everything from techniques for dating fossils to the second law of thermodynamics, their queries coming so thick and fast that she found it hard to reply.
After about 45 minutes, "I told them I needed to take a break," she recalled. "My mouth was dry."
That encounter and others like it provided the impetus for a training session here in August. Dr. Durkee and scores of other volunteers and staff members from the museum and elsewhere crowded into a meeting room to hear advice from the museum director, Warren D. Allmon, on ways to deal with visitors who reject settled precepts of science on religious grounds.
Similar efforts are under way or planned around the country as science museums and other institutions struggle to contend with challenges to the theory of evolution that they say are growing common and sometimes aggressive.
One company, called B.C. Tours "because we are biblically correct," even offers escorted visits to the Denver Museum of Science and Nature. Participants hear creationists' explanations for the exhibitions.
So officials like Judy Diamond, curator of public programs at the University of Nebraska State Museum in Lincoln, are trying to meet such challenges head-on.
Dr. Diamond is working on evolution exhibitions financed by the National Science Foundation that will go on long-term display at six museums of natural history from Minnesota to Texas. The program includes training for docents and staff members.
"The goal is to understand the controversies, so that people are better able to handle them as they come up," she said. "Museums, as a field, have recognized we need to take a more proactive role in evolution education."
Maybe it's because I'm mean-spirited, but I think that training docents better isn't exactly what I was looking for in a head-on response.
Instead, we should gather people together, go to the churches that are participating in this stupidity, and challenge them to their face on doctrinal matters that conflict with settled precepts of science, or that are internally inconsistent.
Possible subjects (and yes, some of these are low-hanging fruit):
- Adam and Eve. We're all descended from them? Who did Cain marry, then? Why aren't we all inbred?
- Lot. Sleeps with his daughters. This is the one good man saved from Sodom?
- Leviticus. So, what's with the meat and cheese in the after-church casserole?
I'm sure y'all can come up with other examples. Who's with me? As Miz Becky likes to say, "oh, it's ON."
rfkj, on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 at 2:39 PM:
Most of Leviticus is an easy, easy target. You're familiar, of course, with godhatesshrimp.com.
I'm in favor of an even more direct approach. Let's tail the loonies to museums. We can start with saying "*cough*idiot*cough" and move on to saying "Shut the hell up, dumbass."
Sarah, on Thursday, September 22, 2005 at 10:41 AM:
Argh! Why are we lending credibility to their arguments?? Creationists and "Intelligent Design" share the top spot on Sarah's Big (and we're talking BIG) List of Pet Peeves. (I am thinking of turning it into a VH1 special, but I digress.) And for so many reasons, not the least of which is the fact that apparently only a Judeo-Christian version of "God" is capable of "intelligent design", since that's the only acceptable-to-teach-in-a-public-school alternative to Evolution, according to these delusionals. Closely followed by the fact that evolution is not a theory, but an observable fact. They always gloss over that point.
I am all for the discussion of alternatives to natural selection (e.g. punctuated equilibrium) being taught in a biology class...that's what science is all about. But if they insist on forcing non-scientific conjecture to be taught in my classroom, they shouldn't complain when I replace their copies of the New Book of Praise with articles from Nature.
rfkj, on Thursday, September 22, 2005 at 6:37 PM:
I've got some! "If the design of human beings is so intelligent, explain why giving birth is so godawfully painful."
"If the design of human beings is so intelligent, please explain why we're not 100% efficient in processing food."
"If etc. etc., explain the appendix."
"Who designs an elimination organ that doubles as a reproductive organ?"
The real problem, of course, is that we can do this until we're blue in the face and it's not gonna do a lick of good. All the counterquestioning and scientific evidence in the world isn't going to change the fact that for these people, the only theory (and I use the term loosely) that requires no proof is their own. All they need to say is "I believe it because it is in the Bible and that is all I need to know." For them, that's a sufficient proof.
Okay, okay, and the other real problem is that they're deliberately distorting the English language. The word "theory" has a meaning in science that is utterly different from its meaning in the humanities. In the sciences, theories are solid conclusions derived from observable facts, n'est ce pas? In humanities, theories are conjectures: the theory, for example, that Lincoln was gay is supported by...what exactly?
I agree with Sarah that we shouldn't even give these people an argument, because it just means we think they're worth debating. That's why I think we should just tail them and tell them to shut the hell up.