# Creationists in Museums. Two tier America ? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 20, 2005, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-in-museums-two-tier-america/322524 "2005-09-20T13:36:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2005, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-in-museums-two-tier-america/322524/21 "2005-09-20T19:25:26Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > I think this has been discussed before. This “assault on science” seems normal to me since science assaulted religion first. Understand I am not a religionist, nor do I believe in the Biblical creation. But neither do I believe evolution answers the question of where man came from. It is only a theory. It is that science has dictated their verson to be held as fact. Big mistake for science in general. Wait until the mainstream public realizes science has dictated there is no such thing as spirit. You asked the other day why you kept getting attacked. This is why. Several of these statements are lies. They have been shown to be lies, yet you repeat them. _Science_ has never assaulted religion. It just hasn’t. Individual scientists have challenged religion while many other scientists have found no conflict. The evolutionary process is a fact, and you have repeatedly ignored posts with citations to demonstrate that it is a fact. Beyond that, the word theory in “Theory of Evolution” is not used in the way that you insist on misusing it. This, too, you have had shown you on numerous occasions. Science has never dictated (or declared or speculated or otherwise suggested) that there is no such thing as spirit. Some individual scientists have expressed that as a personal belief _not supported by science_ and other scientists have expressed a belief in spirit, _while noting that science does not have the tools to address things outside the physical_. So, you wander into one more thread, posting three separate falsehoods in a single paragraph–falsehoods that many posters have demonstrated to you on numerous occasions that they are false–and then you will wonder why you are being “attacked.” ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2005, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-in-museums-two-tier-america/322524/22 "2005-09-20T19:32:20Z")
> [@Rashak Mani](#): > > I guess what irks me more is seeing that there is little common ground. That issues tend to be split in two and each side ignores the other. Not very up to date on the news, are you? There’s quite a lot of exchange between the two sides, often quite vituperative. Ignorance and pseudoscience can be quite stubborn, but educational sessions such as the ones you describe are a part of healthy debate. The more evolution is argued, the more its strengths become apparent, which is where this latest series of challenges by the “intelligent design” crowd will backfire. > [@](#): > > These kids certainly won’t be scientists… On the contrary, kids who are stimulated to ask questions are more likely to become scientists. The next dogma they challenge could be that of their faith. All of this uproar is part of a healthy society, as frustrating as dealing with tunnel-visioned fundamentalists is and has always been. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2005, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-in-museums-two-tier-america/322524/23 "2005-09-20T20:08:43Z")
> [@Captain Lance Murdoch](#): > > IIn that time a grand total of one creationist approached me. He was going off on the creationist fallacy that the sun must be young because things get smaller as they burn. I told him the sun is not on fire. Uhm, sir, I hate to have to be the one to tell you this, but, uhm, the sun is not “on fire”. 😃 That has to be one of the best, and funniest, responses to creationist nonsense I’ve heard. Nice job!! ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2005, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-in-museums-two-tier-america/322524/24 "2005-09-20T20:22:36Z")
> [@spoke-](#): > > 54% of Americans don’t believe humans evolved? I’d bet the number was 75% twenty years ago […] And you would lose your bet. A discussion of [survey results in 2001](http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/creation/evol-poll.htm) notes: > [@](#): > > Gallup has asked Americans several times over the last 20 years to choose between three statements that describe the origin and development of the human race. Generally speaking, the plurality of Americans have come down on the side of a creationist approach to human origins, while slightly fewer have agreed with a statement that reflects an evolutionary process guided by God, and only a small number have agreed with an evolutionary process in which God had no part. > > Most recently, in Gallup’s February 19-21 poll, 45% of respondents chose “God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so,” the statement that most closely describes biblical creationism. A slightly larger percentage, almost half, chose one of the two evolution-oriented statements: 37% selected “Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process” and 12% chose “Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process.” > > The public has not notably changed its opinion on this question since Gallup started asking it in 1982. So in fact, the percentage of the public that adheres to belief in recent creation of humankind without evolution was **not** significantly larger twenty years ago than it is today. Actually, that percentage now appears to be slightly **increasing**. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2005, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-in-museums-two-tier-america/322524/25 "2005-09-20T20:23:27Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > I think this has been discussed before. This “assault on science” seems normal to me since science assaulted religion first. Understand I am not a religionist, nor do I believe in the Biblical creation. But neither do I believe evolution answers the question of where man came from. It is only a theory. It is that science has dictated their verson to be held as fact. Big mistake for science in general. Wait until the mainstream public realizes science has dictated there is no such thing as spirit. That’s when the spiritualists will join in the fray. Over 90 percent of the population believe in the spiritual nature of man. And with good reason, millions of them have had spiritual experiences of one kind or another. Much of this is documented, and shows evidence of conscienceness existing after the death of the body. > > Now it is not bad to have differances of opinion, but it is bad when the sides start calling each other names. Look at the posts in this thread alone. Religion is protrayed as ignorance, and superstitution. That doesn’t win friends and influence people. My personal belief is that science is not in a good enough position to ridicule the religionists. They all have votes. Evolution is a fact proven as well as anything in science. The scientific arguements over evolution are about the details of how it works, not over it’s existence. It’s the core of modern biology, and important in medicine as well. Majority opinion means nothing in science. Religion is “protrayed as ignorance, and superstitution” because that is all it is. It is an empty shell of feel good delusions and excuses for tyranny. Science _is_ in a position to ridicule religion, because it is right and religion is wrong. Not to mention, science is useful, and religion is parasitic and destructive. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2005, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-in-museums-two-tier-america/322524/26 "2005-09-20T20:51:04Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > Religion is “protrayed as ignorance, and superstitution” because that is all it is. It is an empty shell of feel good delusions and excuses for tyranny. Science is in a position to ridicule religion, because it is right and religion is wrong. Not to mention, science is useful, and religion is parasitic and destructive. **lekatt** , please note that this is the opinion of one individual. Note also, that his opinion does not rely on _science_ for its conclusions. He makes assertions, just as you do. At this point, one significant difference between his _opinion_ and your is that **Der Trihs** has not interrupted a theological discussion to assert as fact false statements regarding actual religious beliefs. This is the difference between his post and yours. His opinion is expressed as opinion (however tightly he holds it) and he has posted only opinion, not claimed error as fact. I will note that when he claims that " Science is in a position to ridicule religion," he is overstepping the bounds of science, which is not, in fact, _as a discipline_ in any such position. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2005, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-in-museums-two-tier-america/322524/27 "2005-09-20T21:24:41Z")
> [@UncleBeer](#): > > You, however, do not use the word “theory” in the same manner as scientists. “Theory” has a very specific meaning in that world and some very specific condistions must be met before the term is employed. What I am trying to show you is the way religionists look at the theory of evolution, nothing more. > [@](#): > > The Dictionary says the scientific meaning of theory is: > > **5 :** a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena : _the wave theory of light_ You will notice no “fact” is mentioned. Light is also explained by the pulse theory. Religionists ask why their explanation can’t be considered as well. Since we really don’t know the truth of the matter. Religionists did not feel strongly about this until evolution was called fact and taught as fact in science classes. That is why they are objecting. Science needs to address themselves to the real reasons instead of just calling creation nonsense. This superiority attitude does not work. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2005, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-in-museums-two-tier-america/322524/28 "2005-09-20T21:25:41Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > So in fact, the percentage of the public that adheres to belief in recent creation of humankind without evolution was **not** significantly larger twenty years ago than it is today. Actually, that percentage now appears to be slightly **increasing**. Disappointing, but it appears you’re right. [The Harris Poll](http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=581) seems to bear this out, too. On the other hand, the Harris Poll seems to support my larger point, which is that the younger generation is more accepting of evolution. (I would argue that this is a result of TV and internet exposure to the evidence.) Among _all_ adults, only 38% believe that humans evolved from an earlier species. However, among 18-34-year-olds, 46% believe it. Among _all_ adults, only 46% believe apes and man have common ancestry. But among 18-34-year-olds, 57% believe it. Among _all_ adults, only 46% believe evolution is proven by the fossil record. But among 18-34-year-olds, 57% believe it. Call me an optimist, but I say evolution is winning the debate, _over time_. Just give it another generation or two. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2005, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-in-museums-two-tier-america/322524/29 "2005-09-20T21:37:21Z")
> [@yerba buena](#): > > The museums are much more respectful and much more tactful than I would be. > > (1) Science is based on observation. > (2) Science museums present science. > (3) Based on observation, the Earth is older than 6,000 years old. > > Young Earth Creationism has absolutely no place in a scientific setting, and, should anyone in my hypothetical scientific museum bring up some absurdity about how their holy book tells them the Earth was created such-and-such way, they would be immediately countered with the most vicious set of outrageous creation narratives from other cultures in order to prove the absurdity of their point. > > People who argue about Intelligent Design from a scientific setting (i.e. irreducible complexity) would be given a polite brush-off: “As a science museum, our goal is to make people aware of the facts, not to provide interpretation of the facts in one way or another.” > > I recognize the need for science museums to maintain solvency - that is, telling creationists to bug off is a sure way to end up on the Southern Baptist Convention’s blacklist. But should I ever encounter someone who insists on pushing religious views in a science museum, I will certainly give them a piece of my mind. Your treatment of creationists is guaranteed to widen the conflict of beliefs. However, it is a typical example of how creationists are treated in America. I am a believer in Intelligent Design because it makes sense and is logical, so I would get a polite brush-off. Well I guess that’s better than being kicked out the door. Thanks a lot. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2005, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-in-museums-two-tier-america/322524/30 "2005-09-20T21:42:38Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > What I am trying to show you is the way religionists look at the theory of evolution, nothing more. > > > [@](#): > > > > The Dictionary says the scientific meaning of theory is: > > > > 5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena : the wave theory of light > > You will notice no “fact” is mentioned. Light is also explained by the pulse theory. > > Religionists ask why their explanation can’t be considered as well. Since we really don’t know the truth of the matter. Religionists did not feel strongly about this until evolution was called fact and taught as fact in science classes. That is why they are objecting. > > Science needs to address themselves to the real reasons instead of just calling creation nonsense. This superiority attitude does not work. They don’t use the word “fact” because that’s just the language scientists use. Are you referring to the _very_ archaic theory proposed by Christiaan Huygens ? That’s what I got when I googled, and I serious doubt a theory from the 1600s qualifies as a good rival to modern theories. The religious explanations are not worth consideration. They explain nothing and have zero evidence; thay are simply not worthy contenders. > [@](#): > > Your treatment of creationists is guaranteed to widen the conflict of beliefs. However, it is a typical example of how creationists are treated in America. I am a believer in Intelligent Design because it makes sense and is logical, so I would get a polite brush-off. Well I guess that’s better than being kicked out the door. ID is just standard creationism without the guts to admit it. It explains nothing and is scientifically sterile. It doesn’t even qualify as a scientific theory, much less a worthy rival. It has no evidence, and can be neither proven nor falsified. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2005, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-in-museums-two-tier-america/322524/31 "2005-09-20T21:50:58Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > They don’t use the word “fact” because that’s just the language scientists use. > > Are you referring to the _very_ archaic theory proposed by Christiaan Huygens ? That’s what I got when I googled, and I serious doubt a theory from the 1600s qualifies as a good rival to modern theories. > > The religious explanations are not worth consideration. They explain nothing and have zero evidence; thay are simply not worthy contenders. > > ID is just standard creationism without the guts to admit it. It explains nothing and is scientifically sterile. It doesn’t even qualify as a scientific theory, much less a worthy rival. It has no evidence, and can be neither proven nor falsified. It doesn’t look to me that you are only giving your opinion, or beliefs, or what you think. I don’t see you using any of these words, as I do. Sounds to me like you are speaking authoritively for the scientific community. Or at least you are attemping to do that. In all good faith, I don’t see how anyone could support your findings. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2005, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-in-museums-two-tier-america/322524/32 "2005-09-20T22:16:54Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > It doesn’t look to me that you are only giving your opinion, or beliefs, or what you think. I don’t see you using any of these words, as I do. > > Sounds to me like you are speaking authoritively for the scientific community. Or at least you are attemping to do that. > > In all good faith, I don’t see how anyone could support your findings. I am not speaking for anyone but myself. I speak with such firmness on this subject because ID/creationism is so far away from scientifically respectable it’s a joke. We are not talking about an argument over the flatness of the universe or whether or not “memes” are a useful metaphor or whether or not homo sapians exterminated the Neaderthals; we’re talking about a position that was completely discredited decades before I was born. Believing in creationism is about as silly as believing in phlogiston or epicycles or perpetual motion. You can’t see why anyone would agree with me because you don’t know what you’re talking about. Even someone with a casual knowledge of the subject should know that the scientifc debate over the existence of evolution is dead, dead, dead and evolution won. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2005, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-in-museums-two-tier-america/322524/33 "2005-09-20T22:38:13Z")
> [@](#): > > What I am trying to show you is the way religionists look at the theory of evolution, nothing more. > > > [@](#): > > > > The Dictionary says the scientific meaning of theory is: > > > > 5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena : the wave theory of light > > You will notice no “fact” is mentioned. However, as has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions, there are two aspects to this discussion. The FACT is that evolution has occurred. There is no “theory” regarding _whether_ it has occurred. The evidence all points to it happening _and we have witnessed it occurring_. The THEORY addresses how that FACT occurred. The currently accepted theory of evolution is the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Natural Selection. That is the scientific theory–the HOW. It is a standard Creationist stunt (which you have bought into, despite repeated correction) that since scientists use the word THEORY when discussing HOW something happened, it must be “only” a theory THAT it happened. This is false. It is a misunderstanding of science and an abuse of language. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2005, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-in-museums-two-tier-america/322524/34 "2005-09-20T23:12:29Z")
> [@Captain Lance Murdoch](#): > > IIn that time a grand total of one creationist approached me. He was going off on the creationist fallacy that the sun must be young because things get smaller as they burn. I told him the sun is not on fire. Uhm, sir, I hate to have to be the one to tell you this, but, uhm, the sun is not “on fire”. 😃 That has to be one of the best, and funniest, responses to creationist nonsense I’ve heard. Nice job!! ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2005, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-in-museums-two-tier-america/322524/35 "2005-09-21T00:25:52Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > I am not speaking for anyone but myself. I speak with such firmness on this subject because ID/creationism is so far away from scientifically respectable it’s a joke. We are not talking about an argument over the flatness of the universe or whether or not “memes” are a useful metaphor or whether or not homo sapians exterminated the Neaderthals; we’re talking about a position that was completely discredited decades before I was born. Believing in creationism is about as silly as believing in phlogiston or epicycles or perpetual motion. > > You can’t see why anyone would agree with me because you don’t know what you’re talking about. Even someone with a casual knowledge of the subject should know that the scientifc debate over the existence of evolution is dead, dead, dead and evolution won. I will disagree with you here. The debate has only begun, and the more you try to bully, ridicule, and belittle people who hold religion sacred, the more they will vote against everything you believe in. Good Luck. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2005, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-in-museums-two-tier-america/322524/36 "2005-09-21T00:41:29Z")
We’re voting on scientific validity? Why couldn’t we do this before I took physics? ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2005, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-in-museums-two-tier-america/322524/37 "2005-09-21T00:49:08Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > However, as has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions, there are two aspects to this discussion. > > The FACT is that evolution has occurred. There is no “theory” regarding _whether_ it has occurred. The evidence all points to it happening _and we have witnessed it occurring_. > > The THEORY addresses how that FACT occurred. The currently accepted theory of evolution is the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Natural Selection. That is the scientific theory–the HOW. > > It is a standard Creationist stunt (which you have bought into, despite repeated correction) that since scientists use the word THEORY when discussing HOW something happened, it must be “only” a theory THAT it happened. This is false. It is a misunderstanding of science and an abuse of language. There is no proof of the evolution of man from the start to the present and never will be. You are taking a small part of knowledge and expanding it to cover things unknown to science. No one knows how man came into being, no one was there to witness it, and even if there were, science would label the testimony anecdotal, and tell the experiencer they were mistaken, lying, or hallucinating. You can’t find the truth by bully the opposition into believing as you do. Truth will always surface, truth will always win. Try using cites to illustrate your opinions. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2005, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-in-museums-two-tier-america/322524/38 "2005-09-21T01:04:20Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > I will disagree with you here. The debate has only begun, and the more you try to bully, ridicule, and belittle people who hold religion sacred, the more they will vote against everything you believe in. Good Luck. I said “scientific debate”, not “popular debate”. Thanks to America’s combination of religious zealotry and poor scientific education the popular debate is still going. Reality, however, is not a popularity contest; neither is science. You and those like you are wrong; from a rational, factual viewpoint there is only one side to this arguement. I fully expect the religious to disagree with me; judging from history it is the nature of religion to be on the wrong side of the facts. You people were wrong about geocentrism, and none of your censorship, threats, torture and murder made you right. Creationism is the same; you are wrong, and nothing you will change that. Your opinion doesn’t matter, because _this is not a matter of opinion_. > [@lekatt](#): > > There is no proof of the evolution of man from the start to the present and never will be. You are taking a small part of knowledge and expanding it to cover things unknown to science. No one knows how man came into being, no one was there to witness it, and even if there were, science would label the testimony anecdotal, and tell the experiencer they were mistaken, lying, or hallucinating. You can’t find the truth by bully the opposition into believing as you do. Truth will always surface, truth will always win. > > Try using cites to illustrate your opinions. There is an enormous amount of proof, ranging from fossils to genetics to anatomy. Science has not labeled the evidence “ancedotal”; it put it in museums. Are you really asking **tomndebb** to cite _an entire science_ ? There is _no_ proof for creationism; science has not “dismissed” the evidence because none exists to dismiss. **lekatt** , you are the one making wild, unsubstantiated claims, not us. If you want to be taken seriously, produce some evidence you are right. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2005, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-in-museums-two-tier-america/322524/39 "2005-09-21T01:08:01Z")
> [@](#): > > There is no proof of the evolution of man from the start to the present and never will be. And here, you change the subject–another dishonest move. Throughout the last dozens of months, you have constantly claimed that evolution was a “theory” not a fact and that no one had ever seen evolution occurring, despite the fact that you have been provided ample evidence that it has been observed and that it has been proven. Now, you suddenly change the topic to claim that no one has “proven” that _man_ has evolved. Regardless whether we have “proof” that man has evolved, your earlier claims were untrue. Now, you are simply changing the topic to shift the argument away from your previous falsehoods. Actually, we have more than ample evidence that man has evolved, but none of those pieces of evidence will fit your unscientific notion of “proof” that requires the testimony of a witness. If your only real claim is that we have not witnessed the evolution of humanity, then why did you not say _that_ instead of the lies you have continued to post over the course of the last couple of years? > [@](#): > > You can’t find the truth by bully the opposition into believing as you do. Truth will always surface, truth will always win. You are right that no one finds the truth by bullying anyone–which is why I treat believers in Creationism with respect–as long as they do not lie during the discussions. It is also the true that truth will eventually win out, which is why the Darwinian/Neo-Darwinian Theory of Natural Selection has slowly gained the consensus of the overwhelming majority of biological scientists, despite constant attempts to overthrow it in its first 80 years and periodic challenges since that time. It is why scientists from every culture and society have come to accept its validity, despite the efforts of a few people among some religions to deny the evidence. ---
**Author:** ![yerba\_buena](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/7ea924/32.png) [@yerba\_buena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yerba_buena)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2005, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-in-museums-two-tier-america/322524/40 "2005-09-21T01:10:04Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > Your treatment of creationists is guaranteed to widen the conflict of beliefs. However, it is a typical example of how creationists are treated in America. I am a believer in Intelligent Design because it makes sense and is logical, so I would get a polite brush-off. Well I guess that’s better than being kicked out the door. Your treatment of science is guaranteed to perpetuate scientific ignorance among Christians. However, it is a typical example of how creationists are treating others in America. I have no problem, _a priori_, with creationism (Old-Earth, Young-Earth) or Intelligent Design. The reason I have no problems with those is because they are religious beliefs. However, just because they may be true does not mean they belong in a science museum. Religious truths are not subject to scientific explanation - **science** is based on **observation** (you provide instructions to repeat the experiment and your peers judge the validity of your claims), while **religion** is based in **revelation** (the Bible is not repeated, nor is anyone God’s equal to judge the validity of his claims). I do not reject creationism or ID on the basis of its religious claims - as a matter of fact, I’m a theist and believe God had some hand (active or inactive) in bringing us here. I reject creationism or ID _in a scientific setting_ because quite simply, there is not a shred of evidence to support them scientifically – **nor should there be**. Like most creationists, you misinterpret “creation has no place in the science classroom” for some vitriolic attack on creationism itself. In reality, I am doing nothing of the sort (although I’m sure some people are). The [dictionary](http://www.m-w.com/) definition of theory is as follows: > [@Meriam Webster](#): > > 1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another > 2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION > 3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art > 4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action \ b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances – often used in the phrase in theory \ > 5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena \ > 6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject To your credit, you have selected the explanation that best fits with scientific usage (as opposed to many others who choose definition #2). However, you notice that the reason why this general principle is offered is to explain phenomena - e.g. facts. A scientific theory is not a fact because a scientific theory encompasses many facts. The theory of evolution does not rely on one piece of evidence. As a matter of fact, people have put together lists of [Evidences of Macroevolution](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/). Evolution is most certainly not a fact – evolution is a scientific theory that pulls together many different facts. > [@lekatt](#): > > There is no proof of the evolution of man from the start to the present and never will be. You are taking a small part of knowledge and expanding it to cover things unknown to science. No one knows how man came into being, no one was there to witness it, and even if there were, science would label the testimony anecdotal, and tell the experiencer they were mistaken, lying, or hallucinating. Again, a fundamental misunderstand of evolution comes through. The concept of [evolution](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution) is different from the concept of [abiogenesis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis). Likewise (even though you didn’t mention it), [Big Bang theory](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang) has nothing to do with evolution, either. The link I provided in my last paragraph includes 29 evidences (note the plural – these are independent pieces of evidence) that life on Earth came from a common ancestor. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-in-museums-two-tier-america/322524.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-in-museums-two-tier-america/322524.md?page=3)