|
|
The Icon Bar: General: Any National Trust members here?
| |
Any National Trust members here? |
| |
Stoppers (11:50 17/8/2012)
arawnsley (13:06 17/8/2012)
Phlamethrower (13:14 17/8/2012)
Stoppers (14:55 17/8/2012)
VincceH (00:12 18/8/2012)
Stoppers (12:13 18/8/2012)
thecellartroll (19:22 18/8/2012)
trevj (11:19 20/8/2012)
VincceH (13:38 20/8/2012)
trevj (15:17 21/8/2012)
VincceH (20:17 21/8/2012)
Stoppers (11:52 22/8/2012)
VincceH (12:51 22/8/2012)
Stoppers (16:08 22/8/2012)
Stoppers (14:15 17/8/2012)
qUE (13:08 17/8/2012)
Stoppers (22:00 3/10/2012)
|
| |
|
Simon Willcocks |
Message #120915, posted by Stoppers at 11:50, 17/8/2012 |
Member
Posts: 302
|
I cancelled my membership renewal yesterday, I've been a member for decades and was expecting to continue being one. I was surprised the gentleman on the phone didn’t know what I was talking about when I told him my reason, so I guess it needs some more publicity.
There's a petition (not terribly well worded, IMO, but anyway), and you can formally register your opinion here.
The National Trust recently opened a visitor's centre at the Giant's Causeway in Northern Ireland. In it they have an exhibit showing a debate between mid-19th century scholars over the age of the rocks; whether the earth is six thousand years or much, much older. In itself, that's a perfectly reasonable historical feature.
The problem comes when they go on to say, in a section titled "The Debate continues today": This debate continues today for some people, who have an understanding of the formation of the earth which is different from that of current mainstream science.
Young Earth Creationists believe that the earth was created some 6000 years ago. This is based on a specific interpretation of the Bible and in particular the account of creation in the book of Genesis. A creationist group called the Caleb Foundation welcomed the move:This is, as far as we are aware, a first for the National Trust anywhere in theUK, and it sets a precedent for others to follow.... I agree; it is a precedent, and a very bad one. 150-odd years ago it was fine to hypothesize that the earth was only 6000 years old, just as it was once fine to suggest that people would die if they moved faster than 25mph, or man would never fly. Now we know better and insisting that there is more than one kind of science is just dangerous.
(Looking up links, I came across one to this: "Iraqi TV Debate: Is the Earth Flat?". We're doomed, I tell you!) |
| |
 [ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Andrew Rawnsley |
Message #120916, posted by arawnsley at 13:06, 17/8/2012, in reply to message #120915 |
R-Comp chap
Posts: 595
|
Whilst it does sound a bit, erm, odd, I recall a couple of years ago discussing something similar with a professional geologist (PHD, I believe, and working for oil companies). He was spouting the 6,000 year stuff, but from a scientific perspective, not just a biblical one.
I don't claim to know the ins and outs, but just comment that I have had personal experience that this view does exist. And no, before anyone asks, he wasn't a RISC OS user 
I guess my point is that whilst it does seem a bit wierd for NT to include such stuff in their displays, there are alternative views on this around, and our understanding of the world does change with time. I remain unconvinced on the 6,000 year business, but it doesn't mean I'm right. Although I'd like to think I am
Somewhat reminds me of the ongoing "global warming" debate in the scientific community, but that's a bit more mainstream, I guess. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
qUE |
Message #120917, posted by qUE at 13:08, 17/8/2012, in reply to message #120915 |
Posts: 187
|
But it is 6000 years old and I was also born yesterday. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jeffrey Lee |
Message #120918, posted by Phlamethrower at 13:14, 17/8/2012, in reply to message #120916 |
 Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot stuff
Posts: 15100
|
What's wrong with the National Trust acknowledging the fact that some people are bonkers? They're not saying that modern science is wrong, just that not everyone believes in it. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Simon Willcocks |
Message #120919, posted by Stoppers at 14:15, 17/8/2012, in reply to message #120916 |
Member
Posts: 302
|
Whilst it does sound a bit, erm, odd, I recall a couple of years ago discussing something similar with a professional geologist (PHD, I believe, and working for oil companies). He was spouting the 6,000 year stuff, but from a scientific perspective, not just a biblical one. How very strange! I'm just reading "It's not Rocket Science", and, apparently, there's a 150 million year cycle involved in plate tectonics. How do you go about finding oil when you disagree with how and when it was formed? (Did he actually work as a geologist, or in marketing?)
I guess my point is that whilst it does seem a bit wierd for NT to include such stuff in their displays, there are alternative views on this around, and our understanding of the world does change with time. I remain unconvinced on the 6,000 year business, but it doesn't mean I'm right. Although I'd like to think I am Understanding does change with time, but it usually approaches a conclusion. YEC starts with the conclusion and works backwards, which is why it isn't science.
It was interesting when cosmologists and geologists were in disagreement; I think the geologists had the age of the earth rather longer than the age of the universe for a time. The geologists were right (or at least closer to the truth).
A 6000 year earth would mean basically that all science was completely wrong (with the possible exception of chemistry).
Somewhat reminds me of the ongoing "global warming" debate in the scientific community, but that's a bit more mainstream, I guess. That one reminds me of the debate over the connection between smoking and lung cancer. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Simon Willcocks |
Message #120920, posted by Stoppers at 14:55, 17/8/2012, in reply to message #120918 |
Member
Posts: 302
|
What's wrong with the National Trust acknowledging the fact that some people are bonkers? They're not saying that modern science is wrong, just that not everyone believes in it. The problem is they neglected to include the word bonkers!
The most annoying thing is that as soon as the NT put it in their display, the Caleb foundation won. If it stays in, they'll point to it and say that even the NT agree with them, if it gets removed they'll claim to be being repressed.
I used to be a lot more relaxed about these things, but one day I watched how Ken Ham (an Aussie creationist scamming Americans) misrepresented a perfectly reasonable and polite message to a nine year old girl (explaining that "Were you there?" is not a helpful question to ask someone explaining the age of something, "How do you know that?" is better) as an attack on her and deleted (almost) every comment on the post that disagreed or linked to the letter so readers could look at the original for themselves. The refusal of the commentators (who caught a glimpse of one of those messages) to even look at it ("Why in the world would someone keep a nasty message directed toward a 9 year old?") frankly scares me. http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=210758918969582&_fb_noscript=1 http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/06/23/dear-emma-b/ |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
VinceH |
Message #120923, posted by VincceH at 00:12, 18/8/2012, in reply to message #120918 |
 Lowering the tone since the dawn of time
Posts: 1600
|
What's wrong with the National Trust acknowledging the fact that some people are bonkers? They're not saying that modern science is wrong, just that not everyone believes in it. ^This.
(And to answer the actual question - I'm a member.) |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Simon Willcocks |
Message #120925, posted by Stoppers at 12:13, 18/8/2012, in reply to message #120923 |
Member
Posts: 302
|
What's wrong with the National Trust acknowledging the fact that some people are bonkers? They're not saying that modern science is wrong, just that not everyone believes in it. ^This.
(And to answer the actual question - I'm a member.)
It's because the lunatics are trying to re-take the asylum, and this helps them. Not much, I'll grant you, but they can now point to the National Trust and say that the situation is still not settled. This is essentially "Teach the Controversy"/"The Wedge Strategy", except they concentrate on evolution.
There are school books in the USA that use Nessie as proof that evolution is false, and the Republicans in Texas don't want children to learn critical thinking skills because they "have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority".
But it isn't limited to the USA, the anti-science crowd are injecting their views into schools in the UK, for example: Newsnight video..
There's also this: Committee on Culture, Science and Education: The dangers of creationism in education.
Anyway, I'm not here to persuade anyone (I've never been any good at that, anyway), but at least a few more people know about it. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Steven Gregory |
Message #120927, posted by thecellartroll at 19:22, 18/8/2012, in reply to message #120925 |
Member
Posts: 135
|
My problem with all these bonkers folks is that it seems we're not allowed to offend them by saying that they are not scientists.
But they are not. To be a scientist you have to accept that no matter how sure you are, that you may be wrong. You have to accept that the world MIGHT be 6000 years old even though it is PROBABLY much older. You even have to accept that you MIGHT have come into existence only yesterday even though you PROBABLY came into existence 9 months before you were born.
The nutters will always insist that there is no way that they can be wrong (for example, because the bible says so) and therefore they are not scientists and their beliefs (to which they are perfectly entitled) are not scientific theories or scientific facts. They are PROBABLY just bollocks. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Trevor Johnson |
Message #120929, posted by trevj at 11:19, 20/8/2012, in reply to message #120923 |
Member
Posts: 660
|
The interactive exhibition is reported to include the statement "Some people around the world, and specifically here in Northern Ireland, share this perspective."
This seems to give the impression to tourists that it's a relatively common belief within Northern Ireland. If I lived there I'd be well pissed off at being misrepresented in this way. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
VinceH |
Message #120936, posted by VincceH at 13:38, 20/8/2012, in reply to message #120929 |
Lowering the tone since the dawn of time
Posts: 1600
|
This seems to give the impression to tourists that it's a relatively common belief within Northern Ireland. If I lived there I'd be well pissed off at being misrepresented in this way. If I lived there, I'd be wondering if any of the people I know are amongst the nutjobs.
But I wouldn't infer anything significant from "some people". Some is more than one, but much fewer than most. I wouldn't feel I was being misrepresented. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Trevor Johnson |
Message #120939, posted by trevj at 15:17, 21/8/2012, in reply to message #120936 |
Member
Posts: 660
|
I wouldn't feel I was being misrepresented. It's the "specifically here in Northern Ireland" which sounds like misrepresentation to me. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
VinceH |
Message #120940, posted by VincceH at 20:17, 21/8/2012, in reply to message #120939 |
Lowering the tone since the dawn of time
Posts: 1600
|
I wouldn't feel I was being misrepresented. It's the "specifically here in Northern Ireland" which sounds like misrepresentation to me.
Okay, yes, that word is more than a bit dodgy - but it looks to me more like a case of someone making a silly mistake.
i.e. I think they really meant "including here in Northern Ireland", but the instruction from above was probably something along the lines of "mention that there are some in Northern Ireland specifically", so the writer(s) had that word lodged in their brain cell. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Simon Willcocks |
Message #120941, posted by Stoppers at 11:52, 22/8/2012, in reply to message #120940 |
Member
Posts: 302
|
Okay, yes, that word is more than a bit dodgy - but it looks to me more like a case of someone making a silly mistake.
i.e. I think they really meant "including here in Northern Ireland", but the instruction from above was probably something along the lines of "mention that there are some in Northern Ireland specifically", so the writer(s) had that word lodged in their brain cell. You could well be right, but why would anyone give this instruction in the first place? The wording seems suspiciously as if it was written by a young earth creationist, not a scientist.
They have a belief about the formation of the earth, not an "understanding". There's no real definition for "mainstream science"; science includes includes all reasonable hypotheses (and rejects those that have been found to be wrong, like the universe being younger than the earth). For a 6000 year old earth, you'd have to disprove the knowledge built up over the last two hundred years in the areas of geography, biology, physics, cosmology and probably linguistics. I suppose you might be allowed to keep some chemistry.
Two hundred years ago there were no human devices on the Moon and Mars, satellites, TV, antibiotics, film, radio, aeroplanes, cars, plastics.... I think now is better. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
VinceH |
Message #120942, posted by VincceH at 12:51, 22/8/2012, in reply to message #120941 |
Lowering the tone since the dawn of time
Posts: 1600
|
Okay, yes, that word is more than a bit dodgy - but it looks to me more like a case of someone making a silly mistake.
i.e. I think they really meant "including here in Northern Ireland", but the instruction from above was probably something along the lines of "mention that there are some in Northern Ireland specifically", so the writer(s) had that word lodged in their brain cell. You could well be right, but why would anyone give this instruction in the first place?
"Mention that there are some in Northern Ireland specifically..."
...Because that's where this exhibition is, so we want the location used in some context within it.
That sort of thing isn't particularly unusual.
All we are seeing here, IMO, is someone who took the instruction too literally - in particular, the word "specifically" - and used it incorrectly, in a way that's resulted in people (who I would argue probably need to get their tin foil hats serviced) interepreting it to mean something other than intended.
"You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity." - Heinlen. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Simon Willcocks |
Message #120943, posted by Stoppers at 16:08, 22/8/2012, in reply to message #120942 |
Member
Posts: 302
|
All we are seeing here, IMO, is someone who took the instruction too literally - in particular, the word "specifically" - and used it incorrectly, in a way that's resulted in people (who I would argue probably need to get their tin foil hats serviced) interepreting it to mean something other than intended.
"You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity." - Heinlen. Have you seen the quality of modern tin-foil? I much prefer a partial geodesic dome made of flattened drinks cans (not Coke, for obvious reasons). Bits do keep falling off, though.
I don't see villainy in the NT's actions, I see a mistake. I also see an organisation [The Caleb Foundation, in case that's not obvious] dedicated to getting this sort of thing into as many scientific displays as possible:
CAUSEWAY DEBATE FEATURE PROMOTES HEALTHY DEBATE - David McConaghie (Press Officer) News Letter, 10 July 2012
THE new visitors centre at the Giant's Causeway added another excellent item to Northern Ireland tourism.
The Giant's Causeway is our most visited tourist destination and is of world significance. The new centre will only add to this unique and priceless natural treasure.
One particularly welcome ingredient in the centre is how it treats ongoing debates around the formation and age of the stones themselves.
'Caleb' has championed the recognition of the view, held by scientists right across the spectrum, that the scientific evidence points to a much younger age of the universe and to the direct involvement of a Divine Creator.
The inclusion in the new centre of an acknowledgement of an alternative explanation of its origins, and of the continuing debate about it, is an encouraging step. We've had collective hysteria from those who would conceal evidence, suppress facts, withhold data, obstruct enquiry and stifle debate - but that was expected.
'Caleb' had engaged over many months with elected representatives and the National Trust on this. The step taken by the Trust is a small, but welcome, move towards greater inclusivity.
It is though, of itself, significant. For the first time a younger earth interpretation has now been included as part of an official site such as this. The National Trust did so without abandoning its own commitment to the majority interpretation. If the Trust can do so - why couldn't others? Clearly they could.
This new feature at the Causeway Centre also has another wider significance. Every church group, Sunday school, youth fellowship etc can now go to the Causeway Centre, take on board what is said about the continuing debate and, from that starting point, tell children, young people, men's groups, ladies' fellowships or senior citizens about the wealth of evidence in all branches of science - evidence that some would seek to suppress - in all creation, that points to the hand of a sovereign God in this world. From there, they can show how this is in harmony with the Bible's revelation of the grace of God in reaching down to mankind to redeem from sin.
Where once the only view on display was of an old earth, there is now reference to another perspective. The availability of more information will promote healthy, informed debate - surely that is a good thing.
So, basically, it's good for them, because it makes it easier to tell children that science is mostly wrong.
Oh, and if someone can find any links to any of this "wealth of evidence in all branches of science" on their site (or any other), I'd love to have a look at it. It must be on the web somewhere, unless the scientists are capable of censoring the internet (in which case they obviously love porn as much as they hate YEC).
Oohh! found some... http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c012.html
[Edited by Stoppers at 19:44, 22/8/2012] |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Simon Willcocks |
Message #121160, posted by Stoppers at 22:00, 3/10/2012, in reply to message #120915 |
Member
Posts: 302
|
FYI
http://ntpressoffice.wordpress.com/2012/10/03/review-completed-at-giants-causeway-visitor-centre/ |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
The Icon Bar: General: Any National Trust members here? | |
|
