The Smithsonian opened their Hall of Human Origins exhibit five years ago. It’s an intricate explanation of human evolution that was specifically designed to counter the nonsense at the “Creation Museum.” About a hundred evolutionary biologists and paleontologists collaborated on the plan for the exhibit.
Unfortunately, religious groups have engaged in a predictably ignorant attempt to counter this educational outreach program. A member of a strident Christian organization called “Interfaith Moral Action” has suggested that evolution needs to be subject to a vote, rather than the procedures of solid science, by asserting that “This is our national museum” and that it’s a “disgrace and a shame” that the evolution exhibit has not been “taken down” in response to Christian objections.
In a typical creationist tactic, these anti-science fanatics have a “petition” which they claim is signed by “three dozen scientists.” Just like with all the creationist petitions, it turns out that the few identifiable scientists among the signers are not biologists, and are scientists in totally unrelated fields who happen to also have anti-evolution religious beliefs. Over 99% of the signers are just anonymous people from the Internet. No explanation of how good science is conducted by petition is provided.
There is also an attempt by people with no scientific background to dispute the facts of the matter, including one of the anti-evolution websites linking back to another article on the same site as its only citation for the claim that evolution is a “relatively new theory based in speculation.” No links to scientific journals or other real evidence are included.
As usual, there is also the “Hitler supported evolution!” style non-sequitur throwing, where we’re supposed to discount proven scientific facts based on the real or imagined support of “bad people” for those facts. In all, every typical creationist canard is being used by these religious freaks to try to keep solid science from being taught to the public.
I think that educating the public on the facts of human evolution is a worthy goal for a science museum, and Christians whose religious beliefs can’t handle reality need to re-examine their own beliefs, not lobby to make the rest of us stupid. I assume this message board agrees.
[Inigo Montoya] I do not think that article means what you think it does [/iInigo Montoya]
Quoting from your cite, it’s clear that the protesters aren’t against the Smithsonian exhibit on evolution, but on zillionaire David Koch being on the Smithsonian’s Board:
It’s kinda hard to miss this point, since it’s in the headline:
Pretty clearly we don’t have a case of fundamentalists protesting evolution, but of folks who think that the Koch-funded exhibit pushes a “global warming ain’t so bad” interpretation of human origins.
So is the OP being satirical, or deliberately misleading? Or didn’t it read the article carefully?
I assume he is being satirical in with the goal of proving liberal hypocrisy. by claiming that since we are against people protesting good science, we need to be against people protesting bad science.
The thing is that if properly done this exhibit could explain clearly why global warming is such a big concern. If the exhibit ended by saying
“The gradually shifting of the climate over thousands of years, put a great deal of pressure on our early ancestors such that only those who could adapt to this change could survive while the rest perished. Currently climate change that used to occur over thousands of years is happening over decades. Given the profound effect the gradual change had on the survival of our ancestors one can only imagine how much more dangerous a situation we face today.”
But with Koch in charge I kind of imagine that it will be more along the lines of.
“Climate change happened before and only made us better, so there is nothing to worry about.”
It is just an attempt at a big dog whistle that was noticed by humans. It is coming from climate change deniers that have run out of ideas and reach for the Godwin, the tactic includes the accusation that people that look at science are like religious fanatics or are religious fanatics.
Of course, like Tim Minchin replied to woo woo proponent Storm it is a bullshit point to make.
[QUOTE]
***Storm:*** "You're so sure of your position
But you're just closed-minded
I think you'll find
Your faith in science and tests
Is just as blind
As the faith of any fundamentalist"
***Tim: ***“Hmm that’s a good point, let me think for a bit…
Oh wait, my mistake, that’s absolute bullshit!
Science adjusts its views based on what’s observed
Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.”
[/QUOTE]
When the OP calls them “these religious freaks to try to keep solid science from being taught to the public.” the OP is just a follower of Storm’s woo woo and bullshit climate change denier talking points.
As Rationalwiki tells it the OP has a lousy narrative to follow:
I came into this thread without reading the thread starter’s name. Then I read the OP’s name and wondered, “wow, did he actually make a good thread?” And then I read the rest of the thread.
Koch is not “in charge.” His foundation merely provided the funding for an exhibit that was created by biologists. You are falling into the same trap as the Christian fanatics demanding that the exhibit be “taken down.”
This is exactly the “well, Hitler supported evolution!” nonsense. Science is either true or not true. Whether bad people agree with it, or what social consequences it has, does not change whether a fact of physical reality is true or not.
It’s particularly galling for Greenpeace to be protesting anything on the grounds of climate change, since the main reason we have climate change is Greenpeace and its ideological fellow-travelers shrieking down the transition to a fully nuclear energy economy. It’s like if the American Nazi Party protested that an exhibit was funded by Holocaust deniers.
I guess a lot of people around here agree with the crazy Christians of the left and right – scientific truth and science education aren’t as important as making sure everything is ritually purified of The Bad People’s involvement.
I’m pretty sure it’s intended to be the first thing, but it’s the second thing. The third thing? AFAIK, he did read it carefully, but it appears he thinks that by telling lies about what’s in the links, he can garner unwitting agreement from Dopers who don’t usually bother with opening links.
