Creationists, Now at your Local Planetarium

But all this does beg a little question. If there’s already a Museum of Creation, will someone build the Creation Planetarium next? And what exactly would this creationist version of astronomy be like?

If we are alone in the universe they'll have to throw away every statistics book ever written.

But all this does beg a little question. If there’s already a Museum of Creation, will someone build the Creation Planetarium next? And what exactly would this creationist version of astronomy be like?

I know it's nit-picking, but surely you mean raises the question?

Hey! Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, Redshift of Galaxies, _and_ Elemental Abundances!

Yeah, Ned Wright!

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm

No matter how many times we have to revisit this issue it becomes very disturbing. Why is the debate about various scientific theories being waged in high schools. The only thing creationist are doing is undermining students education, where university and college instructs have to spend time reteaching students what they should have learnt in high school. The reason that the board of education revisits standards is to improve the education of that jurisdictions students. People like Barbara Cargill should understand this or resign.

What form of creationist spin can possibly be applied to CMB and Cosmic Redshift? The closest thing I can possibly imagine is the YEC's taking up Shapely's position that the Milky Way is the entirety of the Universe, and thats been debunked since the 1920's.

What form of creationist spin can possibly be applied to CMB and Cosmic Redshift?

One thing creationists have had time to do, since they don't actually research anything, is to make a lot, and i do mean A LOT, of shit up:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c005.html

scroll down to "a New Creationist Cosmology", and recoil in horror at the abject stupidity, because it burns brighter than the brightest sun.

I suppose silly things like the law of conservation of energy shouldn't get in the way of the truth.

ryanl:
A simple combination of quote mining, making stuff up, and sciencey sounding technobabel. All the usual suspects (AIG, Walt Brown etc.) have their own special flavor of this particular burning stupid.

I'm all too familiar with that. School board personal in my area justified a "Teach the controversy argument" through citing specific examples in the past were scientists have been mistaken. The named example was how scientists once thought we could not travel faster than the speed of light, something NASA does everyday. apparently.

Ichthyic said: What form of creationist spin can possibly be applied to CMB and Cosmic Redshift? One thing creationists have had time to do, since they don't actually research anything, is to make a lot, and i do mean A LOT, of shit up: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c005.html scroll down to "a New Creationist Cosmology", and recoil in horror at the abject stupidity, because it burns brighter than the brightest sun.

The named example was how scientists once thought we could not travel faster than the speed of light, something NASA does everyday. apparently.

Whaaa? that's a new one on me. You have specifics on that? what on earth (pun intended) could they be interpreting as NASA bypassing basic physics on a daily basis?

That website is absolutely grotesque! It tells us that these con artists have no scruples whatsoever.

which of course, is exactly why I linked to it. These are the BEST of the "creationist cosmology" arguments.

Note how they continually utilize expressions that make it seem as though they are actually "scientifically" rejecting the more ludicrous notions (light was created "on the way to the eye"), as to make their less (??) ludicrous notions seemingly more palatable. For example, see the sections immediately proceeding the one I mentioned in the previous post.

It might surprise some that the credulous buy their arguments, but not myself, after seeing how they couch their arguments amidst an army of even bigger strawmen and red herrings.

someone without even a high-school level of education in physics might easily buy into the arguments presented there.

The stupid, it burns...

all of us.

http://www.wjct.org/online_video.html

About three-fourths of the way through the first segment on the video entitled "First Coast Forum -
Schools, Science, and the State"

rpenner said: But all this does beg a little question. If there’s already a Museum of Creation, will someone build the Creation Planetarium next? And what exactly would this creationist version of astronomy be like?

More like two-thirds through on the above video. The look on the face of the Professor sitting next to her is priceless.

Ichthyic said: The named example was how scientists once thought we could not travel faster than the speed of light, something NASA does everyday. apparently. Whaaa? that's a new one on me. You have specifics on that? what on earth (pun intended) could they be interpreting as NASA bypassing basic physics on a daily basis?

More like two-thirds through on the above video. The look on the face of the Professor sitting next to her is priceless.

"There are theories which men believed to be true, which were proven to be untrue. That you can go faster than the speed of light. We wouldn't have the space program, now, if that theory hadn't been disproven."

so she's not saying NASA is going faster than light, she's saying that somehow, if we hadn't DISPROVED that we could go faster than light, NASA wouldn't even exist.

WTF??

still, it was said by Patricia Weeks.

many here might recall that name...

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/01/ignorance-by-de.html

I had a long discussion with a High School biology/physics teacher from her county. He implied the demographic there is heavily biased toward her way of thinking and that any teachers who defied an "unspoken" anti-evolution rule there wouldn't last long. Needless to say, he also indicated that the science programs there are sub-par, at best.

Oh, nevermind, I watched the rest of the vid, and while she did say what I quoted above (I checked it 3 times), she really DID think that we now travel faster than the speed of light, and this is how NASA can get spacecraft to other planets.

*sigh*

I really didn't think anyone was that stupid. I gave her credit for being only dumb and confused, and I really shouldn't have.

She really IS that ignorant. She really does think that we proved ftl travel, and star trek is a drama/documentary.

WOW. Well, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that people who think the Flintstones was an animated documentary think the same of Star Trek.

must go take icepick and clean out ears now.

Thanks, though, I'm saving that vid for the next time her name comes up.

He implied the demographic there is heavily biased toward her way of thinking and that any teachers who defied an "unspoken" anti-evolution rule there wouldn't last long.

send a letter to the ACLU.

seriously.

Mike, help! I read that creo site and their "new creationist cosmology" on the time dilation effect and an edge to the Universe. I know it's nonsense, because I trust the people who say so, but I haven't got the knowledge to refute it myself, and I suspect that few people do. Is there some way of explaining the truth that makes sense to a math moron like me?

Here is another statement by her concerning evolution.
Note how she has been seated for the past 16 years.

First they came for the biologists but I was not a biologist....

The creos are going after neurobiology as well. Despite billions of dollars thrown into brain science, no one has been able to find the soul.

Not making a joke either. The idea that our brains are just organic computing devices and there is no spirit or mind running the synapses is upsetting to the usual suspects. Dualism has made a comeback in some circles after I can't even recall how many centuries.

Next up on their list are history and social sciences. Followed by geology, paleontology, archaeology, and of course, astronomy and biology.

Really, for the fundies to support their mythology, they will have to destroy most of modern education and our civilization. And they would wonder why 1-2 million people leave xianity every year if they weren't so damn busy wrecking everything.

Since this post is about creation astronomy, the creos also have rediscovered an old fact. The moon is a self illuminating object.

It says it right in Genesis. God put up two lights in the sky, the sun to illuminate the day, the moon to shine at night.

Which means that only atheists believe the moon is just a reflector of the sun's light. They're all going to hell for that.

Some of them get real upset at the moon reflector theory, which is just a theory after all.

Of course, the shining moon doesn't explain the phases of the moon or why it goes out for part of a month. Or why the astronauts on the moon didn't notice light coming out of the ground. I'm sure they have some sciencey technobabble to explain that.

Next up. The stars are just lights stuck on the dome over the world.

Geocentrism is making a comeback too although it never really went away. Still at 26% of the fundies.

He implied the demographic there is heavily biased toward her way of thinking and that any teachers who defied an “unspoken” anti-evolution rule there wouldn’t last long.

The teacher is an atheist or a yankee.

yeah! wait, wut?

don't the pretexts have to be legal in some fashion?

don’t the pretexts have to be legal in some fashion?

This is Texas and fundies we are talking about. Reality or legality doesn't matter

if that were the case, they wouldn't need pretexts though, right?

Dave Luckett said: Mike, help! I read that creo site and their "new creationist cosmology" on the time dilation effect and an edge to the Universe. I know it's nonsense, because I trust the people who say so, but I haven't got the knowledge to refute it myself, and I suspect that few people do. Is there some way of explaining the truth that makes sense to a math moron like me?

Ah, so. It's like that dickhead Sal and his Newtonian particle physics. I knew that was wrong, and I had an inkling why, but general relativity has always defeated me. I'm still scratching my head over the fact that it doesn't matter whether you're going towards or away from a beam of light, it approaches you at the same speed. But at least I know it's a fact.

Well I don't know where the centre of the universe is but, apparently, the centre of the stupid universe is located somewhere in the heart of Texas.

Ichthyic said: What form of creationist spin can possibly be applied to CMB and Cosmic Redshift? One thing creationists have had time to do, since they don't actually research anything, is to make a lot, and i do mean A LOT, of shit up: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c005.html scroll down to "a New Creationist Cosmology", and recoil in horror at the abject stupidity, because it burns brighter than the brightest sun.

Dave lovell said:

Ichthyic said: What form of creationist spin can possibly be applied to CMB and Cosmic Redshift? One thing creationists have had time to do, since they don't actually research anything, is to make a lot, and i do mean A LOT, of shit up: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c005.html scroll down to "a New Creationist Cosmology", and recoil in horror at the abject stupidity, because it burns brighter than the brightest sun.

That article seems to be steering dangerously close to the conclusion that the first six days might have appeared as long as 14 billion years if timed with one of our clocks!

Here are at least two creation planetariums, one at a Florida christian college, one at the creation museum.

http://www.pcci.edu/StudentLife/Facilities/Planetarium.html

http://www.creationmuseum.org/plan-your-visit/theater-presentations

If you’re a creationist, astrobiology is probably your nightmare.

This is actually good news.

It's one thing to try to get evolution banned in school.

Rightly or wrongly, evolution has always had the patina of controversy, and defending evolution requires understanding some evidence that's not widely taught or intuitively obvious, so most lay people don't bristle at evolution attacks.

On the other hand, for most people, physics just is.

It has a much wider support base, if only for the reason that most adults went through high schools comfortable with the framework that physics and astrophysics were arcane but settled territory.

As far as the average guy is concerned, he might not understand a lick of it, but the eggheads are probably right. E does equal MC squared. The Earth is round, it does go around the sun. Science can predict eclipses, spot extraterrestrial planets and hurl rovers onto Mars.

Microphysics versus Macrophysics is not an argument that's going to get traction.

In most peoples minds, vocal astrophysics deniers are going to be put into the tinfoil-hat file with people who talk about Atlantis.

If the evolution denial movement hitches their wagon to people who look this stupid, so much the better.

This is one case where the friends of my enemy are my friends.

You got that right. The average schmoe like me, if told of the Michelson-Morley experiment, tends to go "Huh? That can't be right!"

Who was the egghead who remarked that the Universe is not only stranger than we think, it's stranger than we can think? I bumble along, knowing how little I know and being grateful to, well, someone, that there are people who know a lot more. I have actually associated with some of them here and elsewhere. Amazingly, most of them will tell you that there's plenty they don't know, either, though the urge to find out is strong among them. Even more amazing, they are not contemptuous of honestly confessed ignorance.

As a result, I am wary of people who are sure that they know already.

James F said:

But all this does beg a little question. If there’s already a Museum of Creation, will someone build the Creation Planetarium next? And what exactly would this creationist version of astronomy be like?

Here you are, Greg. Of course, it's tolerable to watch only because the Darwin Finches are giving it their expletive-peppered MST3K take on it.

Dave Luckett said: Who was the egghead who remarked that the Universe is not only stranger than we think, it's stranger than we can think?

For the last time, "beg" a question means to sidestep it or avoid it. It does not mean raise or inspire a question, both of which are perfectly good words. Next time it will be detention.

As utterly crappy as creationism is, it will not be the reason we stop searching for extraterrestrial life. It wasn't creationists who pushed to end the Apollo Program so we could "spend the money on problems here on earth." It wasn't creationists who persuaded Barack Obama to throttle back the return to the moon (not that I ever had any real hope it would ever happen.) It wasn't creationists who opposed observatories on Mauna Kea and Mount Graham, or destroyed the discovery site of Kennewick Man, then tried their utmost to give it to tribes who had no historical connection to it. It wasn't creationists who tried to stop the Cassini mission because of its plutonium power source.

Dave lovell said: That article seems to be steering dangerously close to the conclusion that the first six days might have appeared as long as 14 billion years if timed with one of our clocks!

Steve Dutch said: For the last time...

It's pretty easy to make the existence of multiple intelligent species in the universe, or the existence of only one intelligent species, fit with Christian theology- whether or not one is a Literal Creationist. I don't see the Literal Creationist efforts hurting substantially SETI efforts. If and when intelligent and non-intelligent extra-solar life is found, it will fit in with current theologies because current theologies are not invested in the non-existence of that life, as, for example, is the case with Literal Creationist beliefs about the origins of life.

But I think it good to remember that it is not scientific to posit that there *is* extra-Terran life out there. Carl Sandburg was wrong. At the time, there was not a huge probability of life out there- at the time, we didn't even know of any extra-solar planets. Now that we do, and now that we have more recently found extra-solar planets in the habitable zone, the odds are substantially higher that there is life on other planets. But we still haven't found any evidence of this at all. We should continue to be conservative in our predictions and judgments, until we have the evidence, lest we commit the same sins as the Literal Creationists in creating what we want to be there. And it could easily be that there is plenty of life out there- and none but us is remotely intelligent. For all we know Gould was right and intelligence evolving was just a fluke.

But all this does beg a little question. If there’s already a Museum of Creation, will someone build the Creation Planetarium next? And what exactly would this creationist version of astronomy be like?

cw said: If we are alone in the universe they'll have to throw away every statistics book ever written.

Jedidiah Palosaari said: It's pretty easy to make the existence of multiple intelligent species in the universe, or the existence of only one intelligent species, fit with Christian theology- whether or not one is a Literal Creationist. I don't see the Literal Creationist efforts hurting substantially SETI efforts. If and when intelligent and non-intelligent extra-solar life is found, it will fit in with current theologies because current theologies are not invested in the non-existence of that life, as, for example, is the case with Literal Creationist beliefs about the origins of life. But I think it good to remember that it is not scientific to posit that there *is* extra-Terran life out there. Carl Sandburg was wrong. At the time, there was not a huge probability of life out there- at the time, we didn't even know of any extra-solar planets. Now that we do, and now that we have more recently found extra-solar planets in the habitable zone, the odds are substantially higher that there is life on other planets. But we still haven't found any evidence of this at all. We should continue to be conservative in our predictions and judgments, until we have the evidence, lest we commit the same sins as the Literal Creationists in creating what we want to be there. And it could easily be that there is plenty of life out there- and none but us is remotely intelligent. For all we know Gould was right and intelligence evolving was just a fluke.

It must be true, he said it three times. :-)

If [the stars] be inhabited, what a scope for folly; if they be not inhabited, what a waste of space. – Thomas Carlyle

Jedidiah Palosaari said: It's pretty easy to make the existence of multiple intelligent species in the universe, or the existence of only one intelligent species, fit with Christian theology- whether or not one is a Literal Creationist. I don't see the Literal Creationist efforts hurting substantially SETI efforts.

As I understand the OP, the astrobiologists worry that Creationism will cause a brain drain, since a Creationist would make a really really bad SETI researcher: he would have no rational basis on which to distinguish a 'likely' place for life from an 'unlikely' place. "Why restrict yourselves to planets in a habitable zone? The IPU could create life anywhere."

Ironic, then , that the astrobiologists appear to be ignoring the beneficial effects of selection: people who are intellectually capable of believing in literal creationism would make really bad researchers anyway. As long as creationists are less likely to choose a career in astrobiology, then the promoting of creationism is improving the pool from which astrobiologists are drawn.

Perhaps teaching ID in schools is a good idea after all -- we just fail any student dumb enough to buy into it. Call it the "Ben Stein solution".

DNAJock said: Call it the "Ben Stein solution".

Jedidiah Palosaari said: But I think it good to remember that it is not scientific to posit that there *is* extra-Terran life out there.

fnxtr said: It must be true, he said it three times. :-)

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said:

Jedidiah Palosaari said: But I think it good to remember that it is not scientific to posit that there *is* extra-Terran life out there.

I'm not sure what you mean. It is perfectly good science to propose the hypothesis for testing, and in fact it is the best hypothesis considering the observations. for example, the rapidity with which abiogenesis happened on Earth constrains the fraction of suitable planets that have life to at least 13 % (at 95 % confidence).

Steve Dutch said: For the last time, "beg" a question means to sidestep it or avoid it. It does not mean raise or inspire a question, both of which are perfectly good words. Next time it will be detention.

Midnight Rambler said:

Steve Dutch said: For the last time, "beg" a question means to sidestep it or avoid it. It does not mean raise or inspire a question, both of which are perfectly good words. Next time it will be detention.

I think you're the third person I've seen say this in the last month, yet in 35 years I've never seen "beg the question" used in this supposedly correct way. Maybe that's how it was originally, but it isn't anymore.

From Common Errors in English begs the question: An argument that improperly assumes as true the very point the speaker is trying to argue for is said in formal logic to “beg the question.” Here is an example of a question-begging argument: “This painting is trash because it is obviously worthless.” The speaker is simply asserting the worthlessness of the work, not presenting any evidence to demonstrate that this is in fact the case. Since we never use “begs” with this odd meaning (“to improperly take for granted”) in any other phrase, most people now suppose the phrase implies something quite different: that the argument demands that a question about it be asked—raises the question. Although using the expression in its original sense is now rare, using it in the newer sense will cause irritation among traditionalists.

I remember one Christian fundamentalist who claimed that intelligent extraterrestrial alien civilizations cannot exist.

The reason, he said, is that God so loved Earth that He sent His only begotten Son to Earth to redeem us from our sins. Therefore God has no more Sons left to send to other planets to redeem aliens from their sins. Therefore, aliens do not exist.

Creationist astronomy is thriving at http://www.bethlehemstar.net/ A beautifully produced, and thus seductive, movie full of crap.

And if anyone has the stamina (mine is ebbing) I could use some help on this topic at http://wow-really.blogspot.com/2006/11/your-dna-would-reach-moon.html.

The post was about DNA but was hijacked by a bright and bamboozled believer proclaiming he has the answer to everything thanks to the movie.

sinz54 said: I remember one Christian fundamentalist who claimed that intelligent extraterrestrial alien civilizations cannot exist. The reason, he said, is that God so loved Earth that He sent His only begotten Son to Earth to redeem us from our sins. Therefore God has no more Sons left to send to other planets to redeem aliens from their sins. Therefore, aliens do not exist.

The reason, he said, is that God so loved Earth that He sent His only begotten Son to Earth to redeem us from our sins. Therefore God has no more Sons left to send to other planets to redeem aliens from their sins. Therefore, aliens do not exist.

sinz54 said: I remember one Christian fundamentalist who claimed that intelligent extraterrestrial alien civilizations cannot exist. The reason, he said, is that God so loved Earth that He sent His only begotten Son to Earth to redeem us from our sins. Therefore God has no more Sons left to send to other planets to redeem aliens from their sins. Therefore, aliens do not exist.

Therefore God has no more Sons left to send to other planets to redeem aliens from their sins. Therefore, aliens do not exist.