The Gown Student Newspaper at Queen's University Belfast

I take it all back about the "real name thing" - this thread is deliriously funny - JC is way too cool for his on good - let the Gods fight it out - but keep McCausland and Creationism out of the Ulster Museum!

more so than the flying spaghetti monster?

did you know that the rise in sea tempreature directly correlates with the decline in the number of "avast ye scurvy demon" pirates?

@unknownmale

Ah yes, a small mistake that.

I did try to type with my mighty hammer Mjolnir at first.. well not at first actually. At first I tried shouting godly commands at the computer from across the room but alas it would not heed to my will. I then did try to smite the keyboard with Mjolnir but alas that did not serve either.

Having consulted my dad, Odin He The Allfather I was able to solve my dilemma. Now there's a deity who answers prayers for you.

I think we all know how the universe really started here lads...

1In the beginning The Flying Spaghetti Monster created the heaven and the earth.
2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And His Noodley Appendage moved upon the face of the waters.
3And The Flying Spaghetti Monster said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4And The Flying Spaghetti Monster saw the light, that it was good: and The Flying Spaghetti Monster divided the light from the darkness.
5And The Flying Spaghetti Monster called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6And The Flying Spaghetti Monster said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7And The Flying Spaghetti Monster made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8And The Flying Spaghetti Monster called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9And The Flying Spaghetti Monster said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10And The Flying Spaghetti Monster called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and The Flying Spaghetti Monster saw that it was good.
11And The Flying Spaghetti Monster said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and The Flying Spaghetti Monster saw that it was good.
13And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14And The Flying Spaghetti Monster said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16And The Flying Spaghetti Monster made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17And The Flying Spaghetti Monster set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and The Flying Spaghetti Monster saw that it was good.
19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
20And The Flying Spaghetti Monster said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21And The Flying Spaghetti Monster created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and The Flying Spaghetti Monster saw that it was good.
22And The Flying Spaghetti Monster blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24And The Flying Spaghetti Monster said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25And The Flying Spaghetti Monster made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and The Flying Spaghetti Monster saw that it was good.
26And The Flying Spaghetti Monster said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27So The Flying Spaghetti Monster created man in his own image, in the image of The Flying Spaghetti Monster created he him; male and female created he them.
28And The Flying Spaghetti Monster blessed them, and The Flying Spaghetti Monster said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29And The Flying Spaghetti Monster said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31And The Flying Spaghetti Monster saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

frankly I find the notion that John B. Dick has actually read "On the Origin of Species" to be the most farcical thing I've heard in a long time.

Oh and Thor, are you sure you're not the Norse god of Thunder?

@Thor Norse God of THUNDER!

My apologies, I should know my place. If you need me, I'll just be chilling and drinking some water here....woah! Wine! Yeah, that's right. I gots skills...

Whoops, my mistake, you are physicist – first line of the article!

Took me so long to read through the article, I forgot.

I think the article and subsequent comments do an injustice to the people of faith who have no problem whatsoever with evolution.

McCausland deserves to be mocked for his idiocy, but this should not spiral into a wider attack on religion. Atheists themselves are often guilty of misusing science for their own philosophical ends (as well as general smugness.) The DUP does not speak for everyone.

Just out of interest, what is your academic background Daniel?

@ JC

Hey man lightning bolts are my thing, you stick to plagues of locusts and turning the Nile red.

I don't get why people believe JC's Dad created the world in 7 days, its way more interesting than that.

In the beginning there was nothing except for the ice of Niflheim, to the north, and the fire of Muspelheim, to the south. Between them was a yawning gap called Ginnungagap where a few pieces of ice melted by a few sparks of fire created the moisture initiating life.

Ymir, the evil frost giant, was to first to appear. As Ymir slept, the sweat from under his arms became two more giants, one male and one female, and one of his legs mated with the other to create a third, a son Thrudgelmir. These were the forebearers of the family of frost giants.

They were nursed by the cow giant Auohumbla who, like Ymir, was created from the melting ice in Ginnungagap. Auohumbla herself fed on a block of salty ice, and her licking sculpted it into the shape of a man and it became the frost giant Buri.

Buri fathered Borr, and Borr fathered three sons, the gods Vili, Ve, and Odin. These brothers killed the giant Ymir, and unleashed a vast flood with Ymir's blood killing all the frost giants but the son of Thrudgelmir, Bergelmir and Bergelmir's family who all took safety in a hollow tree. Odin and his brothers used Ymir's lifeless body to create the universe. They carried it to the center of Ginnungagap and there they ground his flesh into dirt.

The maggots that appeared in his flesh became the dwarves that live under the earth. His bones became the mountains, his teeth rocks and pebbles. Odin strewed Ymir's brains into the sky to create the clouds, and took sparks and embers from Muspelheim for the sun, moon and stars. The gods placed four dwarves—Norðri (North), Suðri (South), Austri (East), and Vestri (West)—to hold up Ymir's skull and create the heavens.

The three gods created the first human beings, Ask from a fallen ash tree and Embla from a fallen elm. Odin breathed life into them; Villi granted them intelligence; and Ve gave them vision and hearing. They dwelled in the realm the gods created from Ymir's eyebrows, Midgard, where the human race could live safe from Bergelmir and his descendants.

So you see it's relatively simple in comparison, whats more its existed a lot longer than Christianity, plus ya know Giants!.

Feel free to believe what you want, all the creation myths have as much evidence for them as the next one. Just don't spend to long listening to Quetzalcoatl big feathery fell has a thing about eating hearts and such.

Also

@Hang on now... : Point well made, but if that isn't the belief of mainstream Christians we need to hear more of their condemnation as well. A vocal minority only exists because the majority stay silent after all

Hmmm, there does seem to be certain bias on the like/unlike side here. But really, thats all those buttons ever show in a debate like this. It fools nobody.

I have real stuff to get to doing so ill be brief. I got bored half way through rational empiricist's riposte but the reason I stopped reading I think was under the line "the problem is you haven't defined the terms". No that isnt the point. Pedantry isnt an argument, it is the veil when one doesnt exist. We all know what he means from reading it. Pedantry is boring.

Also, his (or her) entire piece smacks of an academic essay, which is inappropriate on an opinion article really.

@Rational Empiricist

There is nothing rational or empirical about your argument. And there won't be anything rational or empirical about mine: read "On The Origin of Species" and come back when you're not a complete twat. Birds and beaks and stuff.

Hi bais, cut it out, getting sick of everyone trying to say I don't exist. I mean it, I'm watching you. Your science won't save you when I start chuckin' thunderbolts boyo!

Rational Empiricist,

Thanks for your kind words. Your comment was interesting and educating and I must admit you have somewhat called my bluff here.

As a mere undergraduate student, some of the ideas you raised with regards to the philosophy of Science are beyond my current level of understanding but I'll answer what I can.

When I use the term 'fundamentalist Christianity', I use it to describe those for whom the bible is their ultimate authority for morality and questions of fact. If all their reason tells them one thing, if it contradicts the bible, they will go with the bible every time.

Whilst ignorance of Science transcends this small group as you correctly point out, it is these people we are at conflict with, with regards to the contents of the Ulster museum.

Yes, I'm also well aware of the controversy around the world with regards to evolution, I should have phrased the sentence better but I was trying to point out how for evolution, just like global warming, it is only the opinions of the qualified Scientists who really matter.

I'll happily admit my education on the philosophy of Science is woefully inadequate, if you had an introductory book recommendation on the subject I'd be interested to read it.

You're right that only Biologists should be the ones we listen to with regards to evolutionary theory. It annoys me too to see physicists paraded around as global warming critics or chemists used to substantiate 9/11 conspiracies.

A Scientists is often of no more use than a layman outside his respective field.

Yes, I deliberately ignored the difference between creationism and 'Intelligent Design'. To me, ID is simply a well funded front for creationism with PR in mind. Sure there are differences of opinion but they're both ultimately ill-informed faith based factual claims made by Christians, broadly the same and I won't play into their hands by constantly using the term 'intelligent design'.

I'd disagree with you on your next point, you say we can 'see' the spherical earth, but have you ever actually seen it? No, only pictures which could be part of some far fetched conspiracy as 'the flat earth society' actually believe.

We have seen many examples of evolution in modern times, the AIDs virus would be a good example but there's plenty more convincing evidence too.

When using the term 'Christian Science' I'm referring to the well funded organisations in America that hire qualified scientists to try and help them prove ID in the public sphere and court cases. I don't regard it as proper Science and they are trying to prove a position, and not enquire for the facts disinterestedly as any good scientist should.

And yes, I agree history is always distorted somewhat, but giving into religious lobby groups isn't the way to best continue the search for fact.

Thanks for the comment and compliments.
Have a nice day also.
Daniel Gillen

Also well done for the ridiculously pretentious fan page you set up for yourself Daniel! Made me laugh!

creationism is a unionist idea ? - hmmm, if the protestant religion and the refomation happened in the 16th century, did creationism emerge out of the primordial soup of academia (like humanity according to evolution)? Considering the creationists base their ideas on the ancient book of Genesis this claim is fallicious.
I'm pretty sure if you look in the history books the catholic church werent big fans of people suggested the earth wasnt the centre of the universe and ideas trying to give other explanations for the origin of the world - as Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo learnt to their cost.

Oh God not this old chestnut again! Daniel you probably dont understand coming from England, but the DUP periodically embaress themselves two or three times a year with ridiculous statements, which everyone laughs at and then moves on. This was one such statement. The Ulster museum will not change and everyone will forget about it. Seriously I sometimes wonder what would happen to the Dawkins followers if everyone did just accept evolution. They would have very boring days prowelling the internet looking for people to argue with.

I was talking of the spasticity of their ideas.

I find their need to impose bullshit on the population more offensive than the word "spastics".

I wouldn't like to knock anyone's religious faith, but it's much easier to knock than facts.

You really do need to be a backward twat to attempt to argue against evolution in populist terms.

"I presume you would not be Feyerabendian". Christ I'm in over my head here.

Unknownmale
If the CU were doing it there would be a couple of thousand as opposed to one or two thumbs lol.

also if the eye was created by God then why does Nelson McCausland wear glasses?

@ Get your political geography right!

Ireland is an island of the British Isles, located in the Atlantic Ocean west of Great Britain and the European mainland. The north of Ireland is any part of Ireland that cannot be described as the south of Ireland. For example Cork is in the south of Ireland, Portrush is in the north of Ireland. Sligo is in the west of Ireland, Wicklow is in the east of Ireland.

Get your actual geography right.

GYPGR, you should know that nearly 50% of te population reject the British control of the north of Ireland so how about you stop shit-stirring. You are probably one of Nelson's constituents from Ballysillan or somewhere.

i see the CU and Orange society have been jumping about this post hitting the thumbs down button

**They are funda(MENTAL)
"It’s unbelievable to think that in 2010 there are people who still believe in the bible and in God and in all that total nonsense.

It’s both scary and worrying."

Fair enough! but why do you say this?
But if you think that belief in God is nuts. How then do you explain morality (not its origins but why we should obey it).

** John B. Dick
"People should read up on 19th century views on Darwin’s theory. The 19th century was when they were really starting to toy with the idea of deep time and evolution. And guess what, they didn’t think that it conflicted with religious belief."

I have read up on the 19th Century controversy. If you had you would have realised that there were people from the church and from within science who opposed it and did believe it conflicted with both the evidence and religious belief e.g. C.H.Spurgeon, Lord Kelvin even Emma Darwin herself.

Evolution does not argue against a God but a specific type of God namely a providentialist God. The God whom "hardened cynic" appears to allude to one that is aloof and non-interventionist, Aristotle's God.

**Eyes to see
"Religion asks for you to have faith, not to question what you are taught but merely accept it as The Truth. "
"Religion" is a rather big term some religions do not even accept "Truth" as a concept. Some relgions say "take it or leave it".
Some religions like Christianity do say question "take heed that none decieve you",
Work out "your salvation with fear and tembling", "seek and ye shall find"

"Science asks you only that you ask “why” and “how” and to question any truth no matter who teaches it."

I mean no offence but this is a rather simplistic view of science.

"Science in essence asks only that you use your eyes to see.
Religion relies on Faith, Science relies on Facts."

see above post ^^^^

"Both are socially acceptable, but only one is Truth."

Unfortunately, science cannot be about truth it is about knowledge (that is what science means in Latin). The stuff we know today if wrong or outdated tomorrow (even if this is not the case there is still the problem of induction) so it would be absurd to claim that it is truth.

Nice to Chat!
Yours

Rational Empiricist

P.S. Apologies if I am appearing rather agressive this is not intentional but merely my writing style.

P.S. Daniel I have been calling you Chris it was 5am when I was writing this so I apologise! I also apologise for my poor grammar.

Hey Chris!

A very interesting article there I enjoyed it very much but I have a few queries and if you could you please answer them I would be much obliged. Please don’t take my arguments personally they are not personal they do however critique aspects of your article.

In the preamble you use the term “fundamentalist Christianity” one of the big problems with terms like these is that they are often bandied about without any clear exposition on what they mean. So can you define what you mean by “fundamentalist”?

I agree that there is a lot of ignorance and I have found that that transcends cultural, religious (or non-religious) and political boundaries. I have found many Christians and Non-religious people ignorant of evolutionary theory but I have also found people from both sides who understand it perfectly. I have also found atheists who are ignorant of Christianity and some who are not. I find Roman Catholics who are ignorant of Protestantism and others who are quite the scholar (and vice versa). However what we must not do is create a straw man either as straw men breed ignorance and straw men fail to deal with the real issues at hand. I cannot deny your anecdotal experience but what we must not do in an investigation (and as a scientist I’m sure you will agree) is take bare anecdotal evidence as a rule.

I know this is a small point but to say that evolution is only controversial over here is incorrect. Evolution is famously controversial in the USA and it is controversial in Australia not to mention many African countries. The controversy has spread to the Middle East also, in Turkey for instance Islamic creationism is on the rise.

With regards to your comments on the “international scientific community” seeing “evolution is a scientific fact” I have a number of things to say.

Firstly what view of science do you take Kuhnian, Popperian, logical positivistic, naïve inductivistic, Lakatosian? I presume you would not be Feyerabendian. To understand this is foundational to any further discussion on this topic. I mean no offence but your approach (alas like many scientists today, whether creationist or evolutionists) appears to be rather confused and displays a lack of education on the philosophy of science.
Secondly could you please define to me what you mean by “scientific fact”. The term “fact” just like “theory” is a very technical term in the philosophy of science and one that has a disputed definition.
Thirdly the majority of the members of the “international scientific community” are not qualified to speak on evolution yet you have accredited them with much more than they have. By this I mean Evolution is a hypothesis in Biology not in Physics or Chemistry (although in biochemistry it does touch). Amongst those in Biology not everyone touches on the fundamentals of the “new synthesis” every day and amongst those very few are taught to question (as all good scientists should do according to naïve inductivists, falsificationists and logical positivists) the “disciplinary matrix” fewer still actually do question it. So the people that are qualified to speak on these issues are very small and are not some great body of science as is inferred.
Fourthly as Kuhn noticed the scientific community works within paradigms. Through this paradigm they interpret the evidence through this paradigm they see the world. The paradigm is the foundation for research, investigation and training. When a person wants to become a scientist they are trained by the scientific community in the paradigm and how to see the world. When this person becomes a scientist and they go about their investigations they then interpret the evidence accordingly. If however something does not fit with the paradigm the scientist will judge his/her own incompetence rather than the paradigm. If after repeated attempts in various fields of science there appears no solution at all and with ad hoc hypotheses failing a crisis emerges in science and debates in science rage focusing largely on the metaphysical foundations. Only when a suitable paradigm emerges does the scientific community change paradigm. When the community finally adopts the new paradigm people stop the metaphysical debates and go about the business of puzzle solving that marks out the “new science”. So the fact that the scientific community regards the paradigm as a fact is no wonder they are trained in it, everything they interpret is guided by it, most scientists are trained not to look for gaps in the theory but to “puzzle solve”. The community does not change the paradigm easily or quickly because as mentioned it takes consistent failure and a competitor to emerge for change to happen. The New synthesis is at the “crisis” point but will take a while before a “paradigm shift” emerges.
Fifthly this ties in with your comment about journals and Kuhn’s description of science. The scientific will defend the paradigm. The community will use funding and peer review to promote the paradigm and exclude and derail its competitor. This is true not just for the evolution debate but for all fields and all paradigms. Peer review has its virtues namely ensuring that people take into consideration things they had not otherwise. However unfortunately peer review can also act to censor other views. I am not saying that this censorship happens to every paper but only those which attack fundamental tenets of the paradigm.
I could explain the above points in more detail but it would take far longer to give it the justice they deserve. So I shall move on to another part of the article.

In one place in the article you state “No matter how many tricks the so called ‘Intelligent Design’ lobby play,” . If I have misunderstood you I apologise but Chris we must be careful about equating ID with Creationism, they are not the same thing. The ID movement differs hugely from Creationism and even the term “creationism” 3 groups lay claim to Young Earth, Old Earth and Theistic Evolutionist.

One statement you have said in the article we are in total agreement “I’ve often heard it said by advocates of creationism, “But admit it, evolution is just a theory”. However this does nothing to discredit evolution, it just highlights the ignorance of those making that argument. In science, the word theory has a very high status attributed to it.”. You are so right! There is much confusion over the terminology in science and theory is just one example. “Theory” is a disputed term but even in “the everyday scientist” use of the word it means “a model that has lots of supporting evidence”. When we say it “is only a theory” that is what we are saying. Even if it were true that it was just a theory it is still a rather glib response so you are right in sighting this as a bad argument. I have sighted this argument as a bad argument many times to friends of mine who have used this.

However in the next sentence I have a problem but this is not because you have attacked creationism (in any form) but you have oversimplified the scientific method and have not defined certain words. The except is as follows “You cannot just come up with an untested idea and call it a scientific theory. In science a theory starts off as a hypothesis, and is then rigorously tested by different scientists,”. The problem here is what do you mean by the term “testing” are you using this term in a Popperian sense e.g. “testability is falsifiability”? or another? This is quickly followed by another problem again relating to your view of science. “and the conclusions are published in peer reviewed scientific journals. After all this, and when it becomes accepted by the scientific community, only then does it become a theory.”. This is another oversimplified description of science.

In the next line you say “Evolution is a theory just as the notion of a spherical Earth is a theory, and it is the best tried and tested explanation for what we observe.”. However the parallel drawn here is not perfect as we can observe a spherical earth by observation in the present but we have yet to observe a monkey become a man. Yes, we can observe changes within an organism e.g. a grey squirrel it may become a different type of organism e.g. a black squirrel but it remains a squirrel it does not become a donkey. We do not observe the massive changes that requires for us to say that evolution is observed rather it will always be inferred.

Now the next statement is an example of blatant straw man fallacy and argumentum ad hominum. “However, no matter how often the Christian fundamentalists give off the illusion of wishing to engage in scientific discourse, it is an illusion. For them, rational argument is nothing more than a propaganda tool.”. Again, Chris I would like to know how you define fundamentalist. However fundamentalists use reason because it is a natural faculty and no more use rational argument for propaganda than any other group of people throughout history. Furthermore a fundamentalist Christian could just respond by stating we are commanded “to love the Lord with all our mind…” and as thus rational argument from a fundamentalist perspective is not just propaganda but as Saint Augustine pointed out an act of love and as Aristotle pointed out an end in itself.

The next analysis you present states that “Christian Science” is an oxymoron. As a side point the Church of Christian Science is a cult and is not mainstream but I’m sure you are not talking about them. However what you mean is that Christianity and science are incompatible. This is sheer nonsense and one look at the history of science will tell you otherwise. Read the esteemed (and agnostic) Professor Peter Bowler (QUB) and Ivan Morus’ “making modern science” or Professor Brooke “science and religion” to see how vastly misunderstood these claims are. There is sheer irony in these words too because it is interesting that science flourished after the Reformation. Some historians of science claim that the principles that they upheld e.g. nature is intelligible and that God’s glory is revealed in nature acted as a catalyst to advance science, not to mention the fact that certain puritans seen it as an opportunity to worship.

The next part of the article suggests that fundamentalists base everything on faith and not on reason or empirical study. To this suggestion I say “I agree in part but I disagree in part also”. I agree that there are ignoramuses (some atheists, some Christians, some neither) who base everything on blind belief and not on reason or empirical study and this is sad. However there are others who this is not the case and again let us not fall into straw man fallacy or ad hominum. I think it also important to note what is meant by faith from a biblical perspective Hebrews 11:1 defines faith as “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things unseen”. For faith to exist one needs evidence (rational and empirical) so if you are using that term please use the term “faith” in its correct use just as certain people should use “theory” correctly. Furthermore we all have faith in certain things e.g. causation, language, our own existence, an intelligible universe. We need faith in these otherwise we cannot do science or anything we can’t see them, we hope they are there and we have evidence to say they are true so it would seem we have faith in these.

The next part of the article states “We must ask do we really want our public educational centres to have their contents dictated to by public opinion. Do we wish to mirror Texas, where a conservative run school board can chose to teach a cherry picked and distorted version of history in their school rooms?”. To which I respond history is always distorted, no matter decided by democracy, aristocracy or academia. History is a human activity and thus is like humans imperfect. We cannot “demand neutrality” for you ask us to do something humans cannot do, remove themselves from the subjective, remove their bias and become something neutral.

Sorry for the length there Chris but I tried to do justice by your well written and entertaining article.
Have a nice day

Yours,
Rational Empiricist.

I see no problem in John B. Dick's argument but I am astounded that the Gown would publish a comment that includes the word "Spastics" . This word is deeply offensive and should be removed according to your own criteria.

Comments will not be published if:
•The language used is considered offensive, obscene, threatening or vulgar.

Religion may ask you to simply accept what you are given as truth, but it is not impossible to have a religious and scientific mind. What I don't understand is how every "sciencey" type that comes on here, rather than arguing against creationism, just blurts out that God isn't real, rather than creationism not being real. I don't for one minute believe in creationism,I understand and accept evolution, but I do find it mildly offensive that people attack faith for what it is - it isn't based on concrete foundations, it's something you have to have at the very heart of you. If you don't have it, there's no need to attack other people for having it.

And as for not questioning your religion, take a look at how many people across the world regularly question their religion, and yet still have that faith that what they believe in is something worth believing in, I think it's unfair to attack someone for their faith.

I enjoy the insane probabilities. They're pretty much what prove evolutionary theories.

"Absolutely no Scientific proof? Come off it, it’s got tons of proof...

*insert wikipedia link*"

I lol'd.

You are living in Northern Ireland not "the north of Ireland".

The problem with creationist science is that it simply isn't - you suggest an exhibit showing "the proof that creationist scientists have found" but there just isn't any solid, testable proof that intelligent design occurred.

I'm a scientific type with a Christian background and a relatively firm faith - and I have no problem with reconciling the two. As Daniel Gillen points out, we currently have no firm picture of what happened immediately before the Big Bang, so I'm quite happy to imagine that it was God who lit the match - that before the bang happened he shaped our universe, because we unarguably exist through an endless string of insane probabilities.

What I also believe is that He then kept a hands-off approach - evolution happened as naturally as the theory suggests. We are truly a miraculous creation but I'm not expecting to see fingerprints in the clay.

Religion asks for you to have faith, not to question what you are taught but merely accept it as The Truth.

Science asks you only that you ask "why" and "how" and to question any truth no matter who teaches it.

Science in essence asks only that you use your eyes to see.

Religion relies on Faith, Science relies on Facts.

Both are socially acceptable, but only one is Truth.

Claire, you're completely full of shit. There wasn't one day that people woke up with a fully-formed eye.

People should read up on 19th century views on Darwin's theory. The 19th century was when they were really starting to toy with the idea of deep time and evolution. And guess what, they didn't think that it conflicted with religious belief.

It's spastics like McCausland and his wee mate Mervyn Storey who decide that they know better while knowing, quite frankly, fuck all.

Claire, respectfully I don't think you're as knowledgeable on Science as you make out.

"I have met scientists who blindly believe in the Big Bang Theory for instance. This is something that has absolutely no scientific proof."

Absolutely no Scientific proof? Come off it, it's got tons of proof, the biggest being that we can see all the galaxies are moving away from a central point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

Of course, the Big Bang theory offers no explanation for a root cause of universe, just what happened once it started. The notion that you can call one of the most fundamental and widely accepted discoveries of cosmology to have 'absolutely no scientific proof' really illustrates my point that pseudo-scientists such as yourself really don't know what you're talking about.

You say the Human Eye is so amazing, as if it could not have evolved as Scientists believe. Here's Dawkins showing exactly how it could have evolved through evolution by natural selection.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEKyqIJkuDQ

If you want to subscribe to Intelligent Design, you're welcome too, but please do us the favour of not pretending that you're basing your views on anything more than blind faith.

Apart from sciency people.

What this whole experience has taught me is that most people are knobs.

I find it amazing that Evolutionists can be more Fundamental than some Christians. I have a problem myself with some of the more dogmatic Christian types. Their in inability to respect anyone who has a view thats contrary to their own, Their dismissal of science or anything that isnt written in the Bible in black and white, and the fact that sometimes I get judged by them even though I am a Christian myself.

But lets be real here guys. I myself see that micro evolution happens, I see that we are adaptable creatures. I have seen proof for micro evolution at least and so not in any way dispute that.

I have however also seen the bias with which scientists explore the world around us. In any Journal article we will first see a Hypothsis. We will even see that this is usually a one tailed hypothesis that predicts the direction that they expect to find when they statistically analyse the results. All science therefore starts with a bias. I as a scientist myself wish that exploratory science started without a bias. Without a prior belief. I have met scientists who blindly believe in the Big Bang Theory for instance. This is something that has absolutely no scientific proof. It is something that experiments have tried to recreate and failed. These experiements if they had not failed would still not of proved anything since someone was "creating" it anyhow.

I believe in God. Im not a fundamentalist. But I do believe in intelligent design. I do also believe in micro evolution but I believe this supports rather than conflicts creation. What I dont believe is that we all came from just one cell that happened by chance in some atmospheric explosion. That to me is not an explanation, its a fairytale. Yet I see creation all around me. When I look at the eye and its complexity Im in awe of its design, When I look at DNA and its complex uniqueness I am in Awe.

I say, go for it. Include creationism. Include the proof that creationist scientists have found. Include it as an alternative theory and let others make up their mind.

A reconstruction of the Garden Eden is a stupid idea though. I dont think for one minute that people want to introduce religion as science. But do not ignore a science simply because it has some implications for religion. That would be absurd and would be more biased than any Christian fundamentalist I have met.

Another question... what could they possibly exhibit in the 'creationalist' section?

There's no evidence?

'Here we have reconstructed the garden of Eden, press the interactive touch pad to hear the snake tempt Eve?'

'Hiss, apple, Mmmm, you like apples don't you, you naughty girl.'

Great article. It's appalling, worrying and frankly embarrassing for us all.

@ logical

Explain "accountable to".

The Gown holds the Union and university to account...does God hold me to account? Does he have a newspaper and a website in which he writes about me and challenges things I do, and then decides whether or not I get into heaven?

Please explain "accountable to".

it makes sense to dismiss the idea of an all powerful 'creator' God if this is the figure who everyone will be accountable too. I guess no God equals no ultimate judgement . Its very interesting how voice of reason comments 'Hes the chief drum beater for bigotry and imposing Unionism on the other 50% that live here'Im pretty sure the idea of God the creator plays quite a major role in many faiths around the world. Im quite sure the Roman catholic church also believes that God created the world! lol

@They are (funda)MENTAL:
You can't dismiss someone as "mad" for believing in God. You've just classed a good 85 per cent of the world as insane. Admittedly, it's worrying when someone believes in a literal word-for-word interpretation, but I think the majority of people believe in the values that a Bible, or any religious text really, teaches, and whilst they might not always live up to these values, I don't think it's entirely right to attack them for having them.

The only way I can see room for a Creationist display in the museum is if they were using it as an example of the progression of scientific thought, which doesn't really disprove the existence of God, rather it disproves the likelihood of literal Creationism. If it is used to show the way that scientists proved that it couldn't be true, but still alluded to the fact that some people still believe it to be true, then I can't see much wrong with it.

It is best to remember that within mainstream Christianity there are a diverse number of beliefs as to the begins of the earth, rather than the one-dimensional views portrayed here.
There are the so called 'new earth' creationists (usually believing the Earth to be 6000 years, not the 4000 years mentioned above). There's 'Old Earth' creationism (Earth as millions or billions of years old, but created by God) and indeed Christian evolution - the belief in the evolutionary process, as designed and sparked by God.

To say that all Christians believe in a 4000 year old year rather smacks of the very ignorance of the other side's subject matter than this article's author so flatly condemns. Nelson McClausland may hold that view, but I certainly hope people don't see him or his DUP comrades as representative of the Christian community in Northern Ireland.

I hope that better informs a few folk who are interested.

Nelson McCausland was never hugged by his mother. I stand by that analysis. Hes the chief drum beater for bigotry and imposing Unionism on the other 50% that live here. Next he will want bonfires to be sacred worshipping grounds.....Dump wood here.

Nelson McCausland, a mad who by his very being defies both Darwin's theory of natural selection and the intelligent design theory

It's unbelievable to think that in 2010 there are people who still believe in the bible and in God and in all that total nonsense.

It's both scary and worrying.

And when it's people in positions of responsibility and power that believe in it it's all the more worrying.

Trying to rationalise with Nelson McCausland is like arguing with the Flat Earth Society.

I really hope the Ulster Museum stands its ground. The museum is a place for science, not for religious nonsense.