Creation Museum

Mookie Baylock

http://www.creationmuseum.org/

As an anthropologist/museum curator this deeply offends me. What do all you kids think?

surferdude

What offends you? The general idea? I'm sure it's open to criticism but shouldn't you at least wait until you know what's in the museumand how it's set up.

Mookie Baylock

surferdude wrote:

What offends you? The general idea? I'm sure it's open to criticism but shouldn't you at least wait until you know what's in the museumand how it's set up.

This place is going to tell people that humans lived side by side with dinosaurs, that evolution is incorrect, and that the bible is a 100% word for word correct explanation of science and history. And small children are going to go there and believe it...

angelica

All levels of evolution are valid, including the "fundamentalist religion" worldview level. It's as valid as the "objective science" worldview. And beyond that we have the "existential worldview". Even higher in terms of human psychological developmental stages, we have the integrated stages, where one can harmonize with all the different existential views, while at the same time, understand hierachical and natural levels and views. When people are at this stage, they can understand subjective and objective views, in harmony, as they exist in the natural world and therefore are no longer in conflict with "what is", for example, an opposing view we don't want to accept.

This museum presents "A walk through history". Within history, we have facts, and information, and then we have the narrative that we use to weave the facts into our interpretations of the facts.

I think it's great that there is equal opportunity narration of the facts. I applaud and stand behind all individuals being empowered where they are on their evolutionary path. That's how we all support the evolution of others. I suggest we are all the more realistic aligning with evolution than when we demonize the opposition. Rather than demonize that which we don't understand, let's learn to resolve our sense of discord with the world and people around us, and then integrate it in our own worldviews.

gue_barium

angelica wrote:

All levels of evolution are valid, including the "fundamentalist religion" worldview level. It's as valid as the "objective science" worldview. And beyond that we have the "existential worldview". Even higher in terms of human psychological developmental stages, we have the integrated stages, where one can harmonize with all the different existential views, while at the same time, understand hierachical and natural levels and views. When people are at this stage, they can understand subjective and objective views, in harmony, as they exist in the natural world and therefore are no longer in conflict with "what is", for example, an opposing view we don't want to accept.

This museum presents "A walk through history". Within history, we have facts, and information, and then we have the narrative that we use to weave the facts into our interpretations of the facts.

I think it's great that there is equal opportunity narration of the facts. I applaud and stand behind all individuals being empowered where they are on their evolutionary path. That's how we all support the evolution of others. I suggest we are all the more realistic aligning with evolution than when we demonize the opposition. Rather than demonize that which we don't understand, let's learn to resolve our sense of discord with the world and people around us, and then integrate it in our own worldviews.

No they aren't : all levels of evolution.

Storytelling is valid. You seem to miss that point. Storytelling as fact is one thing, storytelling as entertainment is another. Kids know the difference.

angelica

gue_barium wrote:

No they aren't

Storytelling is valid. You seem to miss that point.

I'm actually saying storytelling IS valid. Narratives are used in our telling and retelling of "history" all the time. So if you agree, then it looks like we are both on the same page.


edit: note, people, that I answered gue's original post, before he edited it in hindsight, AFTER my response was posted.

gue_barium

angelica wrote:

I'm actually saying storytelling IS valid. Narratives are used in our telling and retelling of "history" all the time. So if you agree, then it looks like we are both on the same page.

To the extent that lies aren't told.

angelica

gue_barium wrote:

To the extent that lies aren't told.

Interpretation is subjective.

There are a few developmental worldviews that evolve past understanding blanket 3-dimensional objectivity. In such more "advanced" integrated worldviews, one learns to integrate vast interpersonal issues using interpretation. Within this context, all perceptions can be embraced and understood.

If a baby up to the age of 1 1/2 interprets, as it does, that it is one with it's mother, you may call that a lie. That is what I mean by "demonizing opposition"--you are showing your own judgment of what you don't understand, or what you cannot harmonize without demonizing. If you instead opt to understand why the baby views itself as one with it's mother, you can integrate "what is" and actually be realistic yourself.

sink

Mookie Baylock wrote:

http://www.creationmuseum.org/

As an anthropologist/museum curator this deeply offends me. What do all you kids think?

You are just angry because something of religious nature is going to open and provide a different standpoint from your own. If this was the other way around, a secular museum opening to counter religious beliefs, you would not have a problem I am sure. I am religious and although I may not agree with everything in the museum it still presents a different story for people to form their own beliefs. Which is exactly what most liberals do not seem to want (this is not a personal attack towards you, I do not know you but seeing as how what site we are on and your starting of this thread, call it a safe assumption), they are quick to criticize the right for being close minded but do not listen to their own advice when the shoe is on the other foot.

I do not believe that man walked with dinosaurs and that evolution seems to make sense for the most part and all of which does not contradict God; at least in my book. To have options presented in a sensible, quite relative I understand, fashion is what is great about this country. In fact, the seemingly recent attack on Christianity in this country makes me run to this cause though I might not care one way or the other normally. Respect the rights of others even if you disagree with them and especially if they are of religious nature. You are guilty of stereotypes just as much as others, even if you are of the liberal sort.

Now, I expect some scathing reply in which you show your ass as is typical of this board and in this section especially. I am sorry that we are not socialist like in your homeland, eh. Just kidding, that was a little too easy to resist.

angelica

sink wrote:

You are just angry because something of religious nature is going to open and provide a different standpoint from your own. If this was the other way around, a secular museum opening to counter religious beliefs, you would not have a problem I am sure. I am religious and although I may not agree with everything in the museum it still presents a different story for people to form their own beliefs. Which is exactly what most liberals do not seem to want (this is not a personal attack towards you, I do not know you but seeing as how what site we are on and your starting of this thread, call it a safe assumption), they are quick to criticize the right for being close minded but do not listen to their own advice when the shoe is on the other foot.

I do not believe that man walked with dinosaurs and that evolution seems to make sense for the most part and all of which does not contradict God; at least in my book. To have options presented in a sensible, quite relative I understand, fashion is what is great about this country. In fact, the seemingly recent attack on Christianity in this country makes me run to this cause though I might not care one way or the other normally. Respect the rights of others even if you disagree with them and especially if they are of religious nature. You are guilty of stereotypes just as much as others, even if you are of the liberal sort.

Now, I expect some scathing reply in which you show your ass as is typical of this board and in this section especially. I am sorry that we are not socialist like in your homeland, eh. Just kidding, that was a little too easy to resist.

Let me just say that if you receive a scathing reply, it's because you've packed this post full of assumptions and personal insults towards Mookie Baylock.

He didn't deserve that, because he merely stated his own opinion, without insulting anyone else's. While you've got some good points, your defensiveness has caused you to shoot first, and ask questions later.

catefrances

can someone please direct me to the dinosaurs in the bible.

angelica

catefrances wrote:

can someone please direct me to the dinosaurs in the bible.

They called them "angels" and they arrived on "chariots of fire" from the heavens.....or wait...maybe that was the aliens in the bible.........

Rushlimbo

...and Noah bringeth onto the ark animals two by two -- giraffes, gazelles, baboons, triceratops, and of course the stegosaurus.

sink

As I said, I was going out a limb a bit, but I would be willing to bet I am not far off. However, in the initial post, I believe, he stated what I thought was his belief of the situation. I did address the personal attack with the appropriate caveat though and said it was not a personal assault. But even you cannot deny the very anti-religious stance this place takes on most occasions. But, if I offended then I apologize. My statement was merely a view point on current politics and nothing more. There, that is something most liberals would not do, apologize that is. Sorry, I like the easy ones.

angelica

sink wrote:

As I said, I was going out a limb a bit, but I would be willing to bet I am not far off. However, in the initial post, I believe, he stated what I thought was his belief of the situation. I did address the personal attack with the appropriate caveat though and said it was not a personal assault. But even you cannot deny the very anti-religious stance this place takes on most occasions. But, if I offended then I apologize. My statement was merely a view point on current politics and nothing more. There, that is something most liberals would not do, apologize that is. Sorry, I like the easy ones.

I definitely understand the anti-religious sentiments are angry, judgmental and skewed. When such people truly understand, they will show it with understanding. And yet, a person's honest opinion is fair. I respect Mookie's opinion--not one of us is perfect, and yet we still have opinions that I see the value in sharing. Ultimately, when we really respect each other's opinions and views, we will show it with respect, and without the need to make the other person "wrong". Within the spirit of respect, then real change and evolution takes place.

At the same time, it looks like you are not exactly "understanding" of liberals either. Peace to you, though, for your open communication and willingness to talk about this.

sink

I try to understand liberals, but it proves very difficult for such extreme ideas, from either side of the spectrum. I think my main point for all of this is the contradiction. You are smart and well-read if you believe science but if you are religious you are dumb and likely a redneck. Which, again, is a very common theme on this board. But I am not angry and as you can tell, do not post here often at all. In fact, this is the first time I logged in since last December. Getting angry at people who I disagree with is a waste of time and energy. Frustrating yes, angry, no.

angelica

sink wrote:

I try to understand liberals, but it proves very difficult for such extreme ideas, from either side of the spectrum. I think my main point for all of this is the contradiction. You are smart and well-read if you believe science but if you are religious you are dumb and likely a redneck. Which, again, is a very common theme on this board. But I am not angry and as you can tell, do not post here often at all. In fact, this is the first time I logged in since last December. Getting angry at people who I disagree with is a waste of time and energy. Frustrating yes, angry, no.

I completely agree about the contradiction and that many science oriented types also demonize what they don't understand, just like religious people do. And they are blind to their own contradictions, which ironically is exactly what they complain about with religious folks. And I completely agree that it gets VERY frustrating! And it IS a common theme on this board!

Rushlimbo

sink wrote:

I try to understand liberals, but it proves very difficult for such extreme ideas, from either side of the spectrum. You are smart and well-read if you believe science but if you are religious you are dumb and likely a redneck.

Kudos !! Very true. I like your thinking young man !

know1

I've read about this museum and it sounds ridiculous to me.

RainDog

angelica wrote:

All levels of evolution are valid, including the "fundamentalist religion" worldview level. It's as valid as the "objective science" worldview. And beyond that we have the "existential worldview". Even higher in terms of human psychological developmental stages, we have the integrated stages, where one can harmonize with all the different existential views, while at the same time, understand hierachical and natural levels and views. When people are at this stage, they can understand subjective and objective views, in harmony, as they exist in the natural world and therefore are no longer in conflict with "what is", for example, an opposing view we don't want to accept.

This museum presents "A walk through history". Within history, we have facts, and information, and then we have the narrative that we use to weave the facts into our interpretations of the facts.

I think it's great that there is equal opportunity narration of the facts. I applaud and stand behind all individuals being empowered where they are on their evolutionary path. That's how we all support the evolution of others. I suggest we are all the more realistic aligning with evolution than when we demonize the opposition. Rather than demonize that which we don't understand, let's learn to resolve our sense of discord with the world and people around us, and then integrate it in our own worldviews.

This is a great approach for most things; but an open approach doesn't change the fact that the earth is more than 10,000 years old, no matter how you narrate the tale. Science must utilize external evidence and hold it above any internal narrative a scientist brings to the research. When you begin with an internal narrative that you will not deviate from, even when shown the possibility that the source of your narrative doesn't necessarily dovetail with narrative itself, then what you are doing is writing a fairy tale. Which is fine - only don't call it a museum. "The Giant Diorama of Divine Dispensations" would be a more honest name for this building.


"There are no honorable bargains involving exchange of qualitative merchandise like souls for quantitative merchandise like time and money."
-William S. Burroughs "Words of Advice for Young People."

.

Scubascott

know1 wrote:

I've read about this museum and it sounds ridiculous to me.

Me too. Glad we found something we can agree on.

I don't understand the motives of these people. They seemed determined to undermine the education of an entire generation of americans. First the ID in schools ruckus, and now this.