Creationism Conference at Michigan State University Stirs Unease 1007
sciencehabit writes "A creationist conference set for a major research campus — Michigan State University (MSU) in East Lansing — is creating unease among some of the school's students and faculty, which includes several prominent evolutionary biologists. The event, called the Origins Summit, is sponsored by Creation Summit, an Oklahoma-based nonprofit Christian group that believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible and was founded to "challenge evolution and all such theories predicated on chance." The one-day conference will include eight workshops, according the event's website, including discussion of how evolutionary theory influenced Adolf Hitler's worldview, why "the Big Bang is fake," and why "natural selection is NOT evolution." News of the event caught MSU's scientific community largely by surprise. Creation Summit secured a room at the university's business school through a student religious group, but the student group did not learn about the details of the program—or the sometimes provocative talk titles — until later.
Why at a place of learning? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why isn't there a designated place for bullshit like this?
Re:Why at a place of learning? (Score:5, Funny)
I'm all for it if it comes with a free bucket of tomatoes for the spectators.
Re:Why at a place of learning? (Score:4, Insightful)
Disagree with what? Making stuff up? A literal interpretation of the bible?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Why at a place of learning? (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean behave like those people organizing the conference. Check.
I didn't see anything about a "Throw tomatoes at scientists" workshop.
Seriously, the best way to combat something like this is to just ignore it. Showing up to cause a scene and throw rotten fruit just gives them a reason to think their ideas are a threat. Unless you think they actually are.
Re:Why at a place of learning? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why at a place of learning? (Score:4, Insightful)
By telling future generations that the planet is 6000 years old when the universe is 14 billion light years across, you stunt the growth of individuals. This is like telling kids today that Columbus discovered America and proved that the Earth is round. No, he screwed up and though it was in the East Indies.
Then we wonder while our kids are so screwed up compared to the rest of the world. They have to relearn everything and straighten up the moronic things everyone taught them earlier.
As far as testable, we already have evidence that creationists are morons. Done and Done. Now we just need to prevent them from trying to spread their ignorance.
Re:Why at a place of learning? (Score:5, Insightful)
When is the last time that a politician has tried to get history books rewritten to take City on The Edge of Forever into account? When's the last time that a school board voted to allow for the teaching that light speed could be bypassed using dilithium crystals in a warp drive? I doubt even the most hard-core Trek fan has seriously tried doing this. (And even if they did, I doubt they got any traction on it.)
I have no problem with people's religious beliefs. I even have my own religious beliefs. But the second that you try to set policy based solely on your religious beliefs, you are foisting them on other people who might have different religious beliefs (or no religious beliefs at all). This gets even worse when the religious belief-backed policy is favoring religious belief over science and even worse still when it tries to push science out of the science classroom because it challenges someone's religious beliefs.
Re: Why at a place of learning? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a common misconception but fortunately you're wrong. Scientists do their utmost best and make careers out of proving other scientists wrong.
The scientific method of not trusting others and even more importantly not trusting ourselves to be right about anything has proven to work very well to better our understanding of our universe, better than anything else we've tried in the history of mankind.
Re:Why at a place of learning? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is. It's called a Church.
/snark
(Sorry, non-idiot Christians.)
Re:Why at a place of learning? (Score:4, Interesting)
Why isn't there a designated place for bullshit like this?
You mean, a place for reasoned public debate about topics where science, religion, philosophy of science, geology, paleontology, genetics, and zoology all have something to bring to the discussion? If a university isn't the place for that, where do you have in mind?
Re:Why at a place of learning? (Score:5, Insightful)
REASONED debate
Creationists admit they can NEVER be convinced
There went reason and debate
Re: (Score:3)
More than a few atheists and agnostics similarly admit they can NEVER be convinced.
Reason and debate? Are these the exclusive province of secular society? Clearly dedication to your beliefs cannot be the defining factor, eh?
Re:Why at a place of learning? (Score:5, Insightful)
Scientists aren't picking sides. That is the whole point. You develop a theory for how things happen based on collected evidence and derivations. If your hypothesis doesn't fit the data, it isn't valid.
It doesn't matter how much contrary evidence you provide against creationists. By their own definitions, they can never be falsified. How do you debate that?
Re:Why at a place of learning? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a very dangerous and slippery slope to stop allowing rented space on university campuses just because some people don't like the discussion. The moment it violates campus policy it gets pulled, but otherwise it's as good a spot as any for this sort of event. If you don't like it, don't go, or hold your own event in the conference room next door.
Re:Why at a place of learning? (Score:4, Insightful)
That wouldn't let them leech of the university's reputation for fake credibility.
They'll be citing these talks later as "the talk by distinguished [bullshit title] R.Nut. given at Michigan State University", and let people assume this was a university condoned lecture.
MSU should be prepping their lawyers already, IMHO.
Re: (Score:3)
They will also find a speaker with an impressive title that implies that he is a respected scientist and try to give the impression that serious/rational scientists believe their fairy stories. It might not get far with most slashdot readers, but it will sound good and 'may be right' to many; most people do not have much understanding of science - these are their target audience - the masses, not the educated minorities - enough to keep the collecting plates full at the churches.
So...what you're saying is t
Re:Why at a place of learning? (Score:5, Interesting)
Where's a better place for a discussion which may introduce truth and actual intellectual debate? Maybe someone there will point out a real conservative viewpoint such as Augustine's from around AD 400 which by using the text of the Bible alone came up with the conclusion that a strictly (simplistic) literal interpretation was impossible and also never intended. Augustine also pointed out that some of the greatest damage that can be done to the Church is by scientifically-ignorant believers who attempt to lecture scientific experts about how the experts are wrong in their views.
Unfortunately for Christians, and just about every other group ever organized with a human membership component, ignorance at the adult stage is usually manifest in a self reinforcing mindset and not one welcome to instruction.
Re:Why at a place of learning? (Score:5, Insightful)
There are more Christians (by denomination) who don't believe in Biblical Inerrancy, and more English speaking Christians who don't beleive the KJV is the best or only correct translation, than vice versa. One of the big points people like Luther and Wesley claimed for the Protestant Reformation, was that the Bible was sufficient for grace - not infalliable, and particularly not an infallible guide to matters of ethics, science, or politics. It's a minority of spin-offs of spin-off churches that have adopted Inerrancy as a position, and in claiming all true Christians believe that, they are not just supporting Creationism (and Young Earth Creationism in particular), they are saying that a whole lot of the people who disagree with them are Heretics, That's just the sort of thing that needs exposed to the general public. This is precisely the problem with closing off Universities to such debates as creationism. Limit the debates to a particular someone's church, and how can there be any neutral ground to address the underlieing assumptions of the Creationists, and how does anyone expect anyone to change their mind if you can't address any of the underlieing assumptions?
Anne Coulter wrote a book about how many Christian denominations were not really Christian, because they tended to vote 'Liberal'. Should that claim and all related politics be off limits at universities and only debated in those churches that actually believe only Republicans are going to Heaven? Do we stop having televised debates between candidates until a sufficiently small percentage of churches are equating Republicanism with Jesus, and how small is sufficiently?
Re:Why at a place of learning? (Score:5, Insightful)
I for one welcome an opposing opinion.
I think that if we've learned anything form the Ham vs Nye debate, it is that belief and science are two different things. One will be changed with arguments, the other can't.
In other words: religion is not an opinion.
Re:Why at a place of learning? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Not only that, but most colleges have student religious organizations as well--and they have the same rights as other student organizations to use campus facilities. If you open this can of worms, are you also going to tell the campus Muslim, Jewish, Catholic, Baptist, etc. groups that they can't use campus facilities to meet or have conferences too?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Why at a place of learning? (Score:4, Interesting)
But they also teach religious studies and anthropology at universities. Here we have a fascinating American subculture, poorly studied in published works, and the nearly-uncontacted tribe wants to hold a tribal council at the University itself.
And idiots will protest because they have no tolerance for this subculture they disagree with. That's a terrible affront to science.
Re:Why at a place of learning? (Score:5, Insightful)
University students are not children and should have the right to have penises down their throats if they want them. Both actually and metaphorically.
And your argument still sounds like its an excuse to call speech something other than speech so it can be restricted because someone doesn't like it.
We get it, Creationism isn't even science and it's crap. I believe that too. It is speech, however, and it is not a position that was simply created to annoy you or the faculty of a university. People do take it seriously, and although I don't expect you to, you should take seriously the fact that denying them the ability to discuss their views in public is probably worse than their ideas.
Re: Why at a place of learning? (Score:4, Insightful)
The university has a program that was used to hold this event. They had the opportunity to block it at the application. If this *does* meet the requirements for the program and the conference organizers did not lie, the university should follow its own process and allow it.
The prevailing message coming from creationists today is not that mainstream science is supporting them, but rather that mainstream science is trying to silence them.
So what fits their message more? Being allowed to speak in a school building sponsored by a religious studies extracurricular or being booted off campus because the academic orthodoxy doesn't like them?
If you let them speak, they might get some minor credibility, but fighting back against this is what scientists should be good at. More to the point, anyone with half a brain isn't going to be fooled by this. Once those "scientists" open their mouths, they have to present facts that can be refuted, or theories that can be tested.
On the other hand, if you try and kick out a group from a university who is trying to present their own opinions, you make it look like you are against speech, and they can then argue that they got kicked out because the mainstream academics couldn't present something to refute them, so the school silenced them politically.
Congratulations, you just gave their own "scientists" more credibility, often simply because you saved them from actually having to open their mouths and present facts.
"We had scientists all ready to talk, but of course, the priesthood wouldn't let them present their theories. Why? Because they couldn't stand up to our scientists."
I keep hearing it bemoaned that the US is anti-intellectual and thinks academics are out of touch and act like some sort of priesthood. Then I hear academics trying to swat down groups like this. I realize that this topic may be deeply annoying to some scientists, but ultimately they're playing right into the hands of their enemies.
The correct response to this is not to silence, but rather for those concerned scientists to hold their own rebuttal. Publish a flyer, make some blog entries, hold your own conference, even hold a demonstration. Present facts to refute fallacy. After all, those things presumably worked for you, right?
Re:Why at a place of learning? (Score:5, Informative)
Science does not believe.
Religion does not prove.
There is no Venn diagram overlapping the two.
Re:Why at a place of learning? (Score:4, Insightful)
Good ol' non-overlapping magistera as the most subtle god of the gaps argument in the universe.
People make beliefs out of scientific evidence all the time. Science creates all sorts of beliefs, and ones I'd argue(kind of impertinently) to be more justified than religious ones.
And a great many theologists would object to the notion that religion doesn't prove. Proofs are more important to theology than science, which uses empiricism rather than absolutism.
I don't have much of a point other than that these things can be argued to death.
Re: Why at a place of learning? (Score:3)
While I agree with your meaning, I think it more accurate to say religion does not demonstrate, rather than prove. Proof is for mathematics.
Re:Why at a place of learning? (Score:5, Informative)
In other words: religion is not an opinion.
That may be, but it *is* a protected civil right in the United States. If you fuck with it, other civil rights like Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press could easily be fucked with next.
Let them have their conference. It doesn't hurt anyone, and fucking with it will only cause major headaches for everyone. Consider it a religious conference if it makes you feel better.
Re:Why at a place of learning? (Score:5, Informative)
Michigan State is an arm of the government. They take both state and federal money.
Re: (Score:3)
However there is a large and growing group that deeply believes there is a social war going on, that there is an outright attack on beliefs by the cultural elite. These groups become more insular over time, and they're getting support from politicians, and politicians are getting support for them. It's the primary reason why things like climate change is getting wrapped up in politics. So when groups of students protest these talks it actually encourages the faithful, presents evidence that the us versus
Re: (Score:3)
There are times to debate and times not to debate. This is one of those times when debate won't work. In a debate, both sides stand a chance at convincing the other. Sure, that chance might be slim, but it is there. Ham could have convinced Bill Nye that evolution isn't true - though the evidence required would have to have been enormous. Ham outright admitted that no evidence that Bill Nye presented could ever change his mind.
The same is true for the people who deny that the Holocaust happened or that
Re: (Score:3)
You can guess from the comments that many universities and colleges are not places of learning.
They are places of teaching.
Re:Why at a place of learning? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why at a place of learning? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Nazis cannot hold rallies there
Yes they can. Nazis, and creationists, have the same rights to free speech as anyone else. A public university has no right to be censoring speech. If the creationists went through proper channels to reserve the room, and paid the rental fee, it is unconstitutional for a public university to deny them access based on the views expressed.
Re:Opinion are wortheless (Score:5, Interesting)
If you applied that at a University, all of the Liberal Arts would be out, and STEM would be the only thing left.
Evidence based study of a Shakespeare Sonnet? Pottery and graphic design? Film criticism and Foreign language courses?
There is a broad range of subjects between hard objectivity of STEM and pure conjecture of Creationism. And those have a place in the Uni as well.
So does Creationism, if it is related to religious studies which examine belief systems
It makes you uneasy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It makes you uneasy? (Score:5, Informative)
Let them wallow in their beliefs.
Sure, that's done a lot of good so far. Like all of the religious wars around the world. The acts of devout religious believers like ISIS. A world where families trying to raise their children are heavily taxed but churches are free to wallow in their untaxed riches. Whole nations who justify their atrocities against others because they are "Gods chosen people". Child molesters mostly untouched by the law because they are "respected" church priests. Groups of people who want to take the entire next generation and teach them bullshit like they are guilty of a sin that was supposedly committed by a fictional caveman, that sin being to "eat from the tree of knowledge"; even though the evidence is that most have their thinking processes so damaged into adulthood that they can't accept reason and want to do this to their own children.
I live in a country so controlled by the religious ignorant that one has to profess the complete stupidity of religion to get elected, an Atheist who professes to be rational and thinking can't be elected because of the hate of the masses. And you think we should "let them wallow in their beliefs" even to the point of using tax payer funded facilities to do so?
Re:It makes you uneasy? (Score:4, Insightful)
The acts of ISIS are not the acts of devout religious believers; they are the acts of fanatical religious extremists. While they are very devout believers in what they've been taught, their acts are not supported by the vast majority of those who share the same religion. Don't let a vocal minority colour your view of the entire group.
Re: (Score:3)
Which would be fine, but it is a major educational institution with several faculty members who in fact will, at least indirectly, be the targets of these ignorant lunatics.
What the fuck is wrong with the university? What's next, a conference for Holocaust deniers?
Sure, why not? This is a refreshing change when we're seeing other colleges and universities set up "free speech zones [huffingtonpost.com]". I don't agree with the conference's claims, but as a proud MSU alum, I would be disappointed with MSU if they denied their use of the facilities simply because they find their claims discomforting.
Re:It makes you uneasy? (Score:4, Insightful)
UMich is a public university. Both Creationists and Holocaust Deniers could make a case to express their views there and have a right to, if they have followed the proper procedures for reserving the space. And so could devotees of the TIME CUBE.
Universities are not supposed to be bastions of educational orthodoxy. I'm not sure what is meant by "indirect" targeting of faculty. Does that mean that they are targeted by artillery using spotters, or do you simply mean that it would annoy them?
The faculty of a major research university should be used to defending their positions as part of their work with the scientific method. If they can't swat away these loons, what are they doing teaching and working at a school like UMich?
Perhaps some of the attendees might go to a place like that and have some actual science rub off on them. In any event, as long as classes or actual research was not impinged upon by their presence, I don't even know why anyone would argue that they shouldn't be allowed, if only for free speech reasons.
Re: (Score:3)
And so could devotees of the TIME CUBE.
Please let me know when the TIME CUBE conference is being held. I will definitely attend that one.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, MSU is a state university, but UMich is a public university. While it is not directly run by the state, it is not a private university.
In any event, questions of legality aside, I don't see any problem with this other than some professors would be annoyed that these people are using class space near them. And that's not enough of a reason to not host them, again, if they followed the prescribed process.
There is some discussion that they lied or misrepresented their views to get the space. If so, the
Re: (Score:3)
Columbia can invite Ahmadinejad to speak and that's okay even though he is a horrible dictator. But a group with an alternative theory of human existence is the end of the world for academia?
Whether you agree with their point of view or not, it's irrelevant. If you have faith that your argument is correct, then their argument should be a non-issue. It almost seems as if folks can't be bothered to defend their science. Science the shit out of them, that's a far better strategy then trying to get the talk
Re:It makes you uneasy? (Score:4, Insightful)
Uh, Ahmadinejad was elected, you're not liking his administration's or country's policies doesn't make him a dictator. Out of curiosity do you watch Fox News for something other than a blood pressure boost or comedy relief?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Like many universities, they have space is available for use for conferences for a fee.
In that sense its no different than any other conference, and as a public institution they'd have 1st Amendment legal problems if they tried to deny this group use specifically because of religious content.
Re:It makes you uneasy? (Score:4, Insightful)
The conference is pretty much a lie. That's rather the point.
Re:It makes you uneasy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Again, so what? I do not have to agree with everything that goes on around me. And they don't have to agree with me either. Now...if they lied about the purpose of this conference, that's a whole different story.
There is no place for PSEUDOCIENCE in universities. Not for Homeopathy, not for creationism, not for astrology. They can be discussed as curiosities or historical analysis (like when you analyse Greek mythology), but can not be presented as scientifically proven facts. If you want to promote irrational beliefs, the place is in the church, not in the university.
Re:It makes you uneasy? (Score:5, Funny)
There is no place for PSEUDOCIENCE in universities.
Time to kick economics out.
Re:It makes you uneasy? (Score:5, Insightful)
They are borrowing the prestige of the University and it's faculty to lend credence to their anti-science agenda. I don't have a problem with them talking, but I certainly have problem with them appropriating other people's reputation to improve their ability to be heard.
Re: (Score:3)
Again, so what? I do not have to agree with everything that goes on around me. And they don't have to agree with me either. Now...if they lied about the purpose of this conference, that's a whole different story.
And again..., why the fuck do you think the university owes them a platform? That's the objection here. We agree that the creationists are a bunch of dim-witted crackpots, and that leaving them to their curious choice of things to believe in is usually the best course, but nobody is obliged to offer them any sort of elevated platform from which to spew their noise. Surely, any number of local churches would have been happy to host this gathering of erudite mythological scholars.
Re:It makes you uneasy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or, you know, because irrational Christian beliefs are just as dangerous as irrational Muslim beliefs because it leaves people trying to define reality according to their own religion. And then they move on to trying to prevent others from having facts which contradict with their beliefs.
So, when the Taliban doesn't want children to be educated because it goes against their beliefs (or so they say) ... what is the difference when Christians insist creationism be taught in schools as if there was as much evidence for it as evolution? Do you think the rest of society should accept you r beliefs just because you insist?
Maybe we don't give a damn about Christianity in particular, we just hate stupidity which couches itself as religion denying observable facts about the universe?
I'm pretty sure those of us who criticize religions for making claims about the physical world would pretty much say the same thing about any religion which says things which aren't supported by evidence?
In university I had a physics professor who was a Jesuit priest. He was awesome, smart, funny, kind, and had a firm grasp of how the physical world around us existed. I had no problem with the fact that he was a Christian.
But, a person claiming the world is only 6000 years old and that evolution never happened? I'm afraid I have to conclude that person is an idiot. And I wouldn't care if you're a Christian, Muslin, Jew, or a Hindu.
So, get over your complex of feeling persecuted because of being a Christian .. it could be your own stupidity which draws our ire, and not the specifics of your religion.
Re:It makes you uneasy? (Score:5, Insightful)
I criticize Christianity more than, say, Islam, because there are more Christians around me than there are Muslims. I find it more interesting and relevant to discuss phenomena inside my own culture than phenomena further removed, affecting me less.
Re:It makes you uneasy? (Score:4, Informative)
Sure, you do. All the time. Of course if you happen to live in a country in which Christianity is the dominant religion that impacts the lives of such atheists you would expect the most common topic to be Christianity. Or do you really expect people to criticize the things that don't impact their lives instead of the things that do?
If "you never hear these people criticizing any other religions" how did they get lablled islamaphobic? Amazing that they could do that without criticizing other religions - http://www.salon.com/2013/03/3... [salon.com]
And debates such as
Christopher Hitchens vs Tariq Ramadan
Sam Harris vs Reza Aslan
are illusionary?
Re: It makes you uneasy? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is absolutely no need or right to speak on a campus. They can speak all they want, but nothing says they have a right to do it on a campus. The whole learning process about these clowns does not require them to speak on campus. They have publish stuff on paper and on the internet, the information is available to anyone that want to learn about these ideas.
These people are not themselves engage into learning and sharing points of view, there is no place for such people on a campus. A university is not the place for dogmatism and denial of evidences.
Re: (Score:3)
So they got their reservation using deception? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like a good grounds to reconsider and reject them to me. Give them a refund and tell them to go book a venue elsewhere.
Re:So they got their reservation using deception? (Score:5, Insightful)
Would you silence a dissenting view? That is not healthy for scientific discourse, no matter how wrong you believe the dissenting view to be.
Confusing people into think these groups present a scientific dissenting view is even more unhealthy for scientific discourse. Being open minded does not mean you have to keep listening to rehashed ideas which have been thoroughly discredited.
Re:So they got their reservation using deception? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no such thing as "scientific discourse" between a scientist who says "evolution happened and I can prove it, and the Earth is 4+ billion years old" and the shrieking idiot who says "Yarg! Evolution is a lie and the Earth is 6000 years old".
Or, are you saying that the crazy homeless guy on the street may in fact be making a valid point and we should give him equal time?
Sorry, but the religious people who deny science have neither science nor evidence on their hand. So treating them like you need to make room for them in "scientific discourse" is bullshit.
Want to engage them in discourse? Let them talk to the philosophers. They're clearly not willing to listen to the scientists.
You can't silence them with facts and logic, because their beliefs are independent of facts and logic. And pretending otherwise and trying to debate them is utterly pointless ... anybody who insists on maintaining that level of ignorance should not be treated as a rational person willing to objectively weigh evidence. Because they're not.
People who say these things are every bit as dangerous as the Taliban, because they insist their beliefs should trump reality. Which means many of them would like to be able to force the rest of us to believe as they do.
And a religion has the "right" to say "OMG, these people are teh evil because they disagree with us". Whereas if the rest of us say "OMG, teh religious people are teh idiots because they're stupid", somehow that's illegal.
Believe whatever you want. But don't pass it off as science. And sure as hell don't do it at a university where actual people are trying to learn actual stuff.
Re:So they got their reservation using deception? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Or, are you saying that the crazy homeless guy on the street may in fact be making a valid point and we should give him equal time?
The crazy homeless guy on the street gets his "equal" time in proportion to his audience and the reception of his message from his audience. He has (and generally receives) the right to stand on the street corner and express his point (within reasonable civility constraints). While his point may or may not actually be valid, society in general has voted that it is not valid (because he is called crazy and is standing on the street corner and not in a lecture hall or in a more formal public venue.) The only
Re:So they got their reservation using deception? (Score:5, Insightful)
Professor Tom Nichols, who teaches at Harvard and the Naval War College, has a great piece called the "Death of Expertise." [tomnichols.net]
I quote:
Re:So they got their reservation using deception? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So they got their reservation using deception? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So they got their reservation using deception? (Score:4, Insightful)
Holding a conference on a public universities campus puts their name on it, giving it the appearance of tacit approval. It is pretty obvious that someone intended to poke the university in the eye with a sharp stick, and they rightly deserve to get booted for using deception to get in the door.
Silencing a dissenting view would be trying to get them banned from the town. They are still welcome to rent conference space from any number of hotels, or even have their conference in a Church. Nobody would criticize a church for refusing to rent their space for a party to honor Darwin on his birthday, now would they?
Re:So they got their reservation using deception? (Score:4, Informative)
Does not appear to be deception, but rather no one bothered to ask what it was about in any detail. Additionally, it seems that the faculty does not really care...
FTA
University officials say they have no plans to interfere with the event. “Free speech is at the heart of academic freedom and is something we take very seriously,” said Kent Cassella, MSU’s associate vice president for communications, in a statement. “Any group, regardless of viewpoint, has the right to assemble in public areas of campus or petition for space to host an event so long as it does not engage in disorderly conduct or violate rules. While MSU is not a sponsor of the creation summit, MSU is a marketplace of free ideas.”
Holocaust Deniers in Jewish Studies lecture hall? (Score:3)
How about a Cold Fusion conference in the Physics department? A White Power rally in the African Studies department? A Holocaust Denier's conference in the Jewish Studies department? A Westboro Baptist Church meeting in the LGBT studies department?
Laugh (Score:4, Interesting)
BACKDOOR STRATEGY
We may have been banned from the classroom,
but banned does not mean silenced. By book-
ing the speakers, and renting the facilities, we
still have an impact.
Creation Summit is visiting major college and
university campuses throughout the country,
bringing world renowned scientists before the
students. Scientists with tangible proof and
viable evidence. Many, for the first time ever,
are discovering that the Bible is true – That
science and Genesis are in total agreement,
and if Genesis 1:1 can be trusted . . . . .
so can John 3:16.
http://www.creationsummit.com/ [creationsummit.com]
I think everyone should read Ecclesiastes, it affirmed my lack of belief in Christian dogma. (or any religion)
Don't really care (Score:4, Insightful)
I say there are really 3 valid responses to creationists for an atheist.
1. Ignore them. It's a waste of time.
2. Listen to their premises and reject them for being logically inconsistent.
3. Listen to them and convert.
Getting uneasy and yelling at them is a serious waste of time. It won't get you anywhere. It also make you look like a jerk.
Let them believe what they want. It OK to have a debate, but if they start getting belligerent then respectfully remove yourself from the conversation.
I follow those guidelines for all free exchanges of ideas. I doubt MSU will allow this to get out of control. There is a lot of things that happen at my university that I don't agree with, but they don't affect me, so I let it go.
Re:Don't really care (Score:4, Insightful)
Some creationists dismiss the fossil record, geological evidence, and other physical evidence of the claims made by modern science as decoys, an elaborate ruse created by some god in order to mislead those who lack faith. However, few of these same people are willing to acknowledge that a very similar argument could be used against the existence of their god, holy text(s), and/or prophet(s). Is it not equally plausible that Yahweh, the Christian Bible, and the story of Jesus and his homies are all just be an elaborate ruse created by Satan to test his followers? Why the abundant application of skepticism when it comes to everything we can observe in the natural world but total lack thereof when it comes to unverifiable stories that other humans tell us? Seem inconsistent to me.
Public Use of a Public Space (Score:5, Insightful)
If the conferences are open to the public, then the appropriate thing to do would be to attend and laugh. Treat it like the comedy club act that it is, and get a good chuckle. If question and answer is permitted, follow the rules of proper debating and ask reasoned questions. Bonus points if you are actually a believer and use biblical/theological sources to tear apart the spurious claims of these extremists.
Non-story (Score:5, Informative)
From TFA:
University officials say they have no plans to interfere with the event. “Free speech is at the heart of academic freedom and is something we take very seriously,” said Kent Cassella, MSU’s associate vice president for communications, in a statement. “Any group, regardless of viewpoint, has the right to assemble in public areas of campus or petition for space to host an event so long as it does not engage in disorderly conduct or violate rules. While MSU is not a sponsor of the creation summit, MSU is a marketplace of free ideas.”
The university is going to let the crackpots say whatever they like, and then ignore them. Which is as it should be.
It is impossible (Score:5, Insightful)
It is impossible to win an argument with someone who defends their delusions with the claim that "God planted the evidence for evolution to tempt you."
Re: (Score:3)
It is. Just walk away and leave them in their self chosen prison.
It would be heaps easier if they didn't try to push it into education and legislation. Else I'd be all right with live and let live. The problem is just that they want to make it apply to me, and that's where I draw the line.
Re:It is impossible (Score:5, Insightful)
You can turn that kind of reasoning back on itself. "How do you know that Satan didn't plant the bible to tempt you away from the path of science?" All the justifications for the veracity of the statements in the bible are statements made in the bible itself. That kind of circularity is exactly what a deceiver would set up to tempt those who are easily led astray.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
We NEED more public discussions at universities (Score:4, Insightful)
I am saddened by these sudden cries for censorship. I should note that I believe in evolution. I believe that most Christians do, too; for example, the Catholic church in the 1950 stated that there was "no intrinsic conflict between Christianity and the theory of evolution". But if someone has a belief that is different from the mainstream, let them present it. If it's convincing, others will believe if. If it's not convincing, they will convince no one else.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not about stifling discussion...or academic freedom...you're believing the trolls
from TFA, the group hustled their way into getting space then over-billed it, using the credibility of the University wrongly:
Creation Summit secured a room at the university’s business school through a student religious group, but the student group did not learn about the details of the program—or the sometimes provocative talk titles—until later, says MSU zoologist Fred Dyer.
which is BS
end of story
As Wallace Matson said: (Score:3)
Creationists? (Score:3)
I thought they were all about 3D printing cute plastic toys and stuff.
Re:Completely appropriate venue (Score:4, Informative)
The concern is over the appropriateness of the venue. Since Creationists by and large reject major branches of science, allowing them to have a "conference" at a university seems wildly inappropriate.
As to refuting the Creationist's claims, some people have dedicated years just to that; www.talkorigins.org
Re:Completely appropriate venue (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with this statement is it presupposes the need to treat what are essentially ridiculous theories which fly in the face of science as if they were a legitimate opposing viewpoint which should be considered.
This is blatantly denying actual science to prop up your own religious beliefs.
And that is not something you do in a university.
If you want a venue to have your creationist aired, go to your church.
No, because the creationists are essentially irrational people who simply say "I reject your reality and science and substitute my own hocus pocus".
You can't intellectually refute someone who doesn't actually rely on logic or facts. At all. And giving them the benefit of debating them is pointless.
They have no evidence other than their belief, which is in opposition to observable facts.
You might as well have a reasoned discussion with a two year old.
Facts and logic are completely irrelevant to people who understand neither, and assume that the things they believe hold as much value as things which we can prove.
Re:Completely appropriate venue (Score:5, Insightful)
Calling a proposition "ridiculous" in no way refutes it. It sounds like you're emoting frustration at not knowing how to engage in a debate on the topic.
Now I think you're starting to zero in on a proper focus of the debate. And if it's debatable, a university may be a reasonable place for the discussion.
You're doing nothing to refute my conjecture that the university community is incapable of rationally debating the creationists' claims.
Simply calling the other party "irrational" in no way invalidates their claims. Remember, the main purpose of a public debate is to convince the audience, not the other debater, that your position is right. If you think the other party holds an irrational view, that should help you, not hurt you, in convincing the audience that you're position is the correct one.
You're going to have a hard time making a concrete case that the creationists are doing that. Every belief system has axioms, including yours. During a debate, you can try to show that a creationists' axioms are unreasonable, or his reasoning from them is flawed, but that kind of discussion is totally appropriate to a university setting.
You're painting with a very broad brush. If I didn't know better, I might conclude that you're incapable of engaging in the debate properly, which absolutely reinforces my main point in my earlier post.
Re:Completely appropriate venue (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't play chess if your opponent insists on playing checkers with the same pieces. There are rules that govern rational debate; through the correct application of these rules we can come closer to the truth. If one side doesn't follow the rules (for instance, they consider "but it says in the bible that x" a valid argument), a debate is impossible. That's why you can't debate creationists: they're not playing by the same rules.
Re: (Score:3)
A fantasy convention wouldn't be spun as reality.
Re:Ooh..."unease" (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably that, despite all the oddity, the cosplay, the heated discussion on whether this or that imaginary figure is more powerful and all the other stuff that appears scary to an outsides, I do not know a SINGLE fantasy geek (over the age of 10, at least) who'd consider anything of his favorite fantasy real, or even having an impact on their life.
Let alone letting their fantasy creation dictate how they should lead their lives...
Huh? Yeah, but the ones that do do get sent to the insane asylum. But that's the big difference here. If I say I have an imaginary friend and he tells me how I have to live my life, I get sent to therapy. Do it with 2000 other idiots and you have a cult, with 2,000,000 you have a religion. And then it's a-ok suddenly for some reason.
Re: (Score:3)
About the only thing Social Darwinism has to do with Darwinism is the word "Darwinism". Darwin explicitly made the point that the more variation the better. Social Darwinism, on the other hand, actually rejects the notion of a healthy population having plenty of variety in individual specimens; asserting that limiting variety is the path to population health.
Re: (Score:3)
Social darwinism not so much a perversion of science, but an incredibly basic "is/should" fallacy.
It's absolutely true that if you have a system of economics that favors survival of some genetic traits, those traits will become more common. The problem is that people assume that the ones the current system selects for are somehow ideal. It's completely unjustified.
Re:Sounds legit (Score:4, Informative)
I think I've found the place to book my next neo-Nazi homeopathic phrenology conference.
Re: (Score:3)
Except YEC creationism explicitly rejects this. They reject a poetic, metaphorical reading of Genesis 1 in favor of a literal (and historically novel) interpretation.
Re: (Score:3)
Imagine you're a god, and you have to explain the formation of the universe to illiterate scrub-dwellers with crayon drawings. I might write it the same way.
Re: (Score:3)
Then you would be a particularly stupid deity.
Re: (Score:3)
Everything that humans do begins in their mind. Why should that be any different with God? In the Genesis account we read over and over again, “God said”. Speaking is a form of communication from a mind. There is evidence that the human mind can communicate with matter at the quantum level. Why is it not conceivable that an infinitely greater and more powerful mind, the mind of God, could directly create and then influence/control matter by simply sending forth a communication from His mind? Ju
Re: (Score:3)
As far as I am concerned, it IS a university's job to guide people from stupidity to enlightenment. That's the whole point of one, not to cash in your money and hand you a piece of paper in return. I know that we're in the age of the "education for sale", but that's not what universities are supposed to be for.
Re: (Score:3)
It's more a matter of place than of time. Come over to Europe, the place where even mentioning that creationism could be something to be taught at school is a surefire way to sink your political career instantly.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, being the socialist I am I really want to agree, but can't. There are lunatics everywhere on the political spectrum. They just excel in different areas of idiocy, from "the invisible hand will fix it" right over to "private property is theft".
Re: (Score:3)
Well.... Philosophy, specifically epistemology, is the basis for scientific method, so I would concede that much. Still, there's a lot of ... speculative philosophy that touches the physical world nowhere.
Music, at least touches physiology and mathematics.
Economics. To the extent that it generates reproducible results and has both descriptive and predictive power, I'd say it has a scientific basis. That's not how it's taught in Econ 101, nor does that appear to be the way it's practiced. In educational inst
Re:Well, this is embarrassing... (Score:5, Interesting)
Frankly, I think Hitler's religious views, indeed the religious views of all the leading Nazis, is irrelevant. Few of them ever got their hands directly bloody murdering Jews, Gypsies and the like. It was all their God-fearing Lutheran and Catholic subordinates who did the dirty work. The underlying motivations of Hitler, Goebbels, Himmler and the other leading figures are interesting in certain perspectives, but to me, the most horrifying part of the Holocaust isn't that the leadership possessed some "out there" beliefs, but that ordinary men and women, who under other circumstances would have been considered your average citizens, no better and no worse than anyone anywhere else in the world, could be so easily manipulated into viewing people that they had lived side by side with for generations as vermin who needed exterminating.
I have two observations to make on that topic; one factual and one anecdotal.
The factual observation is that the Holocaust, while engineered by Hitler and his inner circle, was in fact the product of centuries of anti-Semitism to be found throughout Christendom. The chief difference between the Nazis and Isabella and Ferdinand was the latter did not have Zyklon B at their disposal, and thus had to use more mundane methods to get rid of the Jewish populations within the borders they ruled. The number of pogroms dating back to the earliest days of Christian dominance of Europe suggest that the Holocaust wasn't some outlier, but rather the culmination of anti-Semitic beliefs and sentiment.
The second observation is anecdotal. When was a teenager, my best friend's family had originated in Germany. Only one of his father's siblings; his youngest aunt, was born in North America. The rest had all been born in Germany before and during World War II. One day I was visiting my friend, when his grandfather, a very nice man, came up to us and told us "Whatever you hear from other people from Germany about what went on before and during the war, don't believe anyone who says they did not know. We all knew what was happening. We knew whole families were disappearing, that people who were outspoken were gone in the morning. Anyone who tells you they were ignorant of what was happening is lying."
It has stuck with me for many years, and it is chilling, because it suggests to me that many people I know personally, in the same circumstances, might turn their back on such conduct, and indeed, might allow their prejudices of any group to be built up to the point where that group is dehumanized. At that point, you don't even care what happens to them, and can bury your head in the sand with ease.
The interview question (Score:3)