Calif. Science Center Removes Evolution Disclaimer After Atheists Complain

[trotsky]

http://www.christianpost.com/news/calif-science-center-removes-evolution-disclaimer-after-atheists-complain-117615/

A science and wildlife center in San Mateo, Calif., has reportedly removed a disclaimer regarding evolution from one of its exhibit signs after receiving backlash from the online atheist community.

...

The science museum sign was advertising an exhibit titled "Animal Connections," where children would have the opportunity to get "up close and personal" with that day's theme animal, "reptiles." The sign also read at the bottom: "This program may discuss the topic of evolution."

...

"Evolution happens to be true, and people need to learn about it. Making it seem 'scary' in this way only adds to the bad feelings people have about such a marvelous view of life, and deprives children of a proper grounding in biology," Coyne maintained.

The CuriOdyssey center reportedly returned contact to Mehta this week, informing the atheist blogger that they had in fact posted the disclaimer about evolution as a courtesy to religious visitors, but have now decided to remove the disclaimer from their posters.

[Goblinmonger]

1. "Love" the comments

Haters of God often cite evidence for micro evolution which is observable (i.e. bacteria resistance to antibiotics) as proof of macro evolution or changes from one kind to another or vertical transitions (3000 lb hippos to 160 ton whales equipped with sonar and blowholes) which has not been proven in the fossil record. Sadly the masses are unaware of this obfuscation.

Lots of people don't want to accept God as the Creator because they don't want to be responsible to him for what they do, and what they believe. So they play their little games. They lie to themselves in the vain hope that if they wish hard enough, God will leave them alone. They pretend that the universe, and life on earth "just happened" as part of their attempt to "prove" that God isn't real and had nothing to do with what exists. And all of them are evolutionists.

Keep saying it long and loud enough and you might convince yourself that there is no God and all of life and matter evolved from one single non-living source

I think what non-atheists need to realize when they react to how we react, is that this is what we really face in the real world. At least a lot of us. Some are lucky to live in more secular areas.

[nil desperandum]

3. "Haters of God"

That's an interesting term that individual is using....

I don't hate god any more than I could hate the easter bunny or santa claus...how do you hate something that doesn't exist? I also find the idea that the individual respondent is convinced we don't want to "accept" god as the creator....again for the same reason I'm convinced that santa didn't put any presents under my tree....

We humans are an incredibly arrogant species, we so believe in the fact of our own superiority we invent gods who then work their magic to create the ultimate species and end up with us? Really?

What believers have a hard time accepting is that a cosmic accident of chemistry resulted in life forms who succeed by killing other lifeforms and over countless millions of years the life forms that became superlative killers were the most successful...and the ones with the larger brain pan became the best killers of all....

Too many humans like to pretend we are a superior species above the subsistence concerns of lower species...I would suggest the evidence across the planet might offer an alternative view of what we are....the true monsters of the planet, the destroyers of anything and everything...that will be our legacy after we are gone and the planet starts over with a new set of life forms that grow based on available oxygen levels.

[calimary]

18. Welcome to DU, nil desperandum!

Glad you're here. I just hate it when room somehow just has to be made for the Flat-Earth Society types - in defiance of fact and the scientific method and the galaxies of evidence supporting evolution - but MAN because something else is merely believed, or taken solely on faith, then that somehow merits being put on equal footing. That we have to take the myths, spooked-out campfire tales and dictates of nomads, sheep-herders, tribal shamans and cave dwellers from thousands of years ago as having the same legitimacy as what has been researched, studied, hypothesized, and then proven - just GALLS me! Religion belongs in RELIGION class. In churches. In philosophy class. NOT in the real of science. They're just not the same!!!!

That's such a good point you make - "we humans are an incredibly arrogant species." We are. We're just the ones at the top of the food chain. For now.

[Dustlawyer]

27. +1!!! Is it too much to ask religious people to respect separation of church and state?

There are more than Christians in this country and I for one am tired of them proselytizing. Go ahead and indoctrinate your own kids, but don't foist your beliefs on the rest of us. It is our right as Americans not to have ANY state sponsored religion. Ya'll have plenty of time to celebrate your faith at church and at home. Schools, courts, and legislation are for everyone and serve a purpose already, we do not need religion to interfere in those arenas!

[eridani]

43. I just don't get why people arguing about evolution keep getting mixed up with the question--

--of whether god exists or not. Seriously stupid tactic

In order to do science, you have to assume that the laws of the universe are consistent. Either those laws have an author, or they just exist.

Assuming that the operating system of the universe had an author leads to the conclusion that the laws are what they are.

Assuming that the operating system of the universe did not have an author leads to the conclusion that the laws are what they are.

You get the same result either way, so the existence or non-existence of god is irrelevant. So why bring it up?

[bravenak]

53. Well, damn!

You need to take a bow after that one. I agree, yes.

[callous taoboy]

14. re: comments: Delusional, delusional, and delusional.

Delusional.

[Jerry442]

15. ...3000 lb hippos to 160 ton whales equipped with sonar and blowholes...

Ridiculous. Next thing you know, someone will be telling us a 5 pound helpless infant can develop into a 250 pound adult with a college degree. Really.

[geardaddy]

25. That comment is a can full of win.

[LostOne4Ever]

28. Referring to your second quote

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]Lots of people don't want to accept God as the Creator because they don't want to be responsible to him for what they do, and what they believe.

I think this video is relevent:

[flying rabbit]

38. On a related note (I am more of an agnostic Buddhist than anything else)

I had a Christian coworker flummoxed by the the fact that I had a moral compass without the threat of eternal damnation. Makes me wonder what was going through his head all the time.

[LostOne4Ever]

39. I have always thought

That people who say things like that are making more of a statement about themselves than they are about non-theists.

It is hard not to reply

"So the only reason you don't kill me and take all my money right this instant is because of fear of punishment? Really?"

[flying rabbit]

40. spot on.

I made some comment about not needing an invisible sky god to make me do the right thing. He honestly seemed puzzled.

[el_bryanto]

2. I thought we had moved past that

I'm old enough that when we discussed evolution in Jr. High i think i had to take a note home to my parents. Not in high school though.

Bryant

[trotsky]

4. We still have a long way to go.

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/12/30/publics-views-on-human-evolution/

A full third of the US populace rejects evolution outright.

Another third only accepts "divinely guided" evolution, which is also against science.

[progressoid]

5. That's just fucking depressing.

[el_bryanto]

6. That's interesting

I guess divinely guided evolution is about where I come down, as I do believe in God as a creator.

Bryant

[skepticscott]

10. That's simply "intelligent design"

Which is as scientifically and rationally bogus as six day creationism. Those who advocate it can offer absolutely no evidence (and haven't really even bothered to look) for what this "guidance" involved, and where in the evolutionary process it took place.

"Evidence doesn't matter...that's just what I believe," you say? Well, the six day creationists that so many of the "divinely guided" evolutionists dismiss as "dumbasses" or something else disparaging believe in their version of things just as strongly. So what right do you have to say they're wrong?

[eridani]

44. Actually, it's stupid design

You wouldn't buy a washing machine from a company that had to send out a repair tech every time you wanted to switch from Regular to Delicate, would you?

Stupid people need a god to identify with who is also stupid, and therefore can't be bothered to get the laws of the universe right the first time. Or, as minister Thomas Burnet put it in the 18th century--

"We think him a better Artist that makes a Clock that strikes regularly at every hour from the Springs and Wheels which he puts in the work, than he that hath so made his Clock that he must put his finger to it every hour to make it strike: And if one should contrive a piece of Clockwork so that it should beat all the hours, and make all its motions regularly for such a time, and that time being come, upon a signal given, or a Spring toucht, it should of its own accord fall all to pieces; would not this be look'd upon as a piece of greater Art, than if the Workman came at that time prefixt, and with a great Hammer beat it into pieces?"

[Bernardo de La Paz]

12. Your "divine guidance" put the entertainment complex right next to the sewage plant. nt

[LostOne4Ever]

20. +infinity

I have always loved that joke

[el_bryanto]

22. I admit that seems like a bad choice but when I was divinely guiding the evolution of the human form

There was only so many things I could do - I had to work with what I had.

I did get rid of the tail, but in retrospect, that might have been a mistake.

Bryant

[longship]

29. Well, I don't agree with your POV, but I love your reply.

It is a winner.

Well played on the tail. I got a good out of it.

(Still disagree, but that's a different matter.)

[LostOne4Ever]

21. That is probably where most non-creationist theists come down

That or the deist model of the creator giving the universe that small nudge to get things started and has been content to sit back and watch ever since.

That said, as far as biology is concerned there is no guidance to evolution. The puddle of water has shaped itself to fit the crack in the rock rather than the crack in the rock was formed to perfectly fit the puddle of water.

[Act_of_Reparation]

31. Thinking God guides evolution, or played any part in the cosmological genesis...

...still makes one a "creationist". An old-earth creationist perhaps, but a creationist still.

[LostOne4Ever]

32. When I thought of creationist

I usually thought of people who believe that humanity was "created" separately from other organism. Young earth being those who believe the universe the universe is 6000yrs old and was literally created in 6 days, and old earth being those who say that a day to god is not the same as a day to us.

Ill make note of my mistake and won't make it again.

Thank you.

[Act_of_Reparation]

34. It is easy to make that mistake given how the debate's been framed all these years...

...but, the belief that mankind was created separately from the rest of the kit and caboodle sounds to me more a kind of "special creationism".

Theistic evolutionists and deists do reject the Biblical narrative in favor of naturalistic mechanisms, and are largely on the side of science (many scientists of faith being old earth creationists themselves) where education is concerned, but they still ascribe agency to the genesis of the cosmos and the emergence of life. If they believe there is a creator, then they must be considered creationists, albeit separate and distinct from those who are making our heads hurt.

[el_bryanto]

35. The problem with that is that Young Earth Creationists get all the press

If you announce yourself as creationist, people are going to assume that you are opposed to science, particularly the science of evolution (although apparently Astronomy is an issue as well). Which is why they don't want to call themselves that.

Once a term is defined to mean the radicals, more moderate folks aren't going to want to associate with it.

Bryant

[skepticscott]

37. If you're a creationist, you ARE opposed to science

because you're basically saying that you've just GOT to shove "god" in there somewhere, and substitute "gawdidit" for science, reason and critical thought in those selected places.

[Sister to TxTowelie]

11. Let's hope these people won't grow up to be

medical professionals or researchers. I can't imagine them getting through such programs without accepting evolution as the basis for humans as a species.

[LostOne4Ever]

33. Welcome to DU!

Sadly though, too many professionals buy into anti-evolution loonacy.

[Sister to TxTowelie]

36. Thank you for the welcome, but

my stay here will probably be short-lived. I'm here for a purpose: to start a thread, but I need a few more posts before I can do that. I should have something up in the Texas Group in the next few hours.

[SomeGuyInEagan]

8. We *had* moved past it ...

... but like so many things in America, we've experienced a serious regression on this over the past 30 years.

So sad to see so many things fought for and settled in the '30s, '40s, '50s, '60s and '70s being chipped away, usually for a buck, once you get to the bottom of it. Always follow the money, somebody is getting rich.

[cui bono]

13. Yeah, all the regression seemed to start in the 80s after Reagan got elected.

A new mindset was put forth and it has just gained momentum every since.

I think it's pretty much run its course now though. There seems to be push back again.

[SomeGuyInEagan]

23. You know, that's kind of where I am with it, too ...

I look at a lot of stuff today with more a sense of sadness than rage, though I am plenty pissed. But I agree, that we seem to be s-l-o-w-l-y waking up (the bigger "we" - the folks here always got it). People are tired and broke and seem to understand (finally) that since 1980 they/we have been squeezed a buck. Or maybe they knew it, but at least the Republicans kind of kept it private and were willing to throw scraps to the rest of us.

Perhaps if one lives long enough ...

[geardaddy]

26. This ^

[stopbush]

7. As little as the religionists known about science, they know even less about their chosen religion.

If you want to learn about science or religion, ask an atheist.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

19. True, as studies show repeatably. nt

[rug]

30. Should I ask you or Francis Collins about genes?

[stopbush]

41. I would do OK in such a discussion.

[rug]

42. I'll go with Collins.

[stopbush]

45. Your choice. At least with me you don't have religious bullshit mucking up the science.

eom

[rug]

46. Bullshit is bullshit regardless of the adjective.

Collins is the one who knows genes.

[edhopper]

48. Does Collins think the teaching of evolution

is controversial?
Does he think we should subject science to a religious test?
That is one big red herring you are flinging around.

[rug]

49. I'm not the one mongering fish.

7. As little as the religionists known about science, they know even less about their chosen religion.

If you want to learn about science or religion, ask an atheist.

Although that's more straw than herring.

[LTX]

47. All in all, I have to say that atheists-who-advocate

tend to be (on the discussion boards I've encountered) about equally as divided as "religionists" in their proportions of scientifically-literate and -illiterate. Indeed, it is in the atheist camp that I seem to most commonly encounter claims about science "proving" what is "true" or the "truth." Makes me shudder.

[skepticscott]

50. If you're taking the use of the term "prove"

as it applies to science in the same sense as it's used in mathematics, you're making an error. As are people who argue that because something in the real, physical world cannot be demonstrated to a 100%, mathematical certainty (which nothing ever is) that it can't be considered any more likely than any alternate possibilities.

[LTX]

51. I don't think the term "prove"

really belongs in any scientific discourse (expect for its inverse, since disproof is integral to hypothesis and theory). I agree that, to the extent it is used, it should be accorded a legal definition, as in preponderance of the evidence. But I rarely get the sense that it is being used in that way when I encounter it in discussions, especially when it is used in connection with science "proving" something "true."

[skepticscott]

52. When a scientist uses the word "proven" in a strictly scientific context

they do not mean "demonstrated to an absolute, 100% certainly, beyond all doubt and regardless of any evidence that may come to light in the future" or anything of that nature. Take it more to mean "having such overwhelming evidence in its favor relative to the alternatives, that no other explanation is worth considering at this time". And even that is always provisional. The use of the terms "prove" or "proven" is a convenience people who understand its use in the realm of inductive inquiry, rather than throwing in all of the disclaimers very single time.

[weissmam]

9. Simple

creationists are scam artists that try to get money from stupid people

[LeftinOH]

16. A disclaimer about evolution shouldn't be removed to appease

atheists, or anyone else. There simply shouldn't be one to begin with.

[Goblinmonger]

17. I don't think the atheists wanted to be appeased

but were fighting for a separation of church and state.

[hrmjustin]

24. I agree with removing the disclaimer.