Intelligent Design

New Scientist stomps on Noah’s Ark

Spread the love

From Josh Rosenau at New Scientist:

School field trips to creationist Ark? Sink that idea right now

Just as pernicious as the scientific errors and the religious proselytising is a subtler form of indoctrination. The relentless message to visitors is that our world is as fallen and wicked as Noah’s, and that the destruction of the flood – including the obliteration of all humans other than a virtuous few – was not just acceptable but praiseworthy.

Under the pretence of illustrating a beloved tale shared by Jews, Christians, Muslims and others, Ark Encounter presents a message as socially divisive as it is scientifically inaccurate, instilling fear, hatred and hopelessness. Those are lessons no school or parent should want their students or children to take on board. More.

Fear? Hatred? Hopelessness?

Aw, give it a rest, Josh (an American Darwin in the schools lobbyist).

Why do Brits care so much what happens here in North America anyway?

Does the word Rotherham mean anything to any of you Brits? No. Thought not.

Tax-supported education faces many problems in the United States, but most of them stem from the fact that teachers are usually recruited from the dumb squad in any faculty. Many countries recruit from higher drawers.

I think the world is very wicked, even if Noah’s Ark is a legend. I am also glad to live in a country (Canada) where publically funded Catholic schools can start the day with the Hail Mary if they ruddy want to.

Less government. More citizen.

Fix your own problems, Brits, and don’t bug us. And don’t listen to the Darwin in the schools lobby and their expensive trial lawyers.

Note: When I was a kid, schools used to go to US attractions all the time. In those days, Canadians could cross the US border just by stating the name of the town in which we were born. If the town existed … Decades earlier, my father, then a cowboy, would often cross the border on horseback, looking for stray cattle. He would not know what side of the border he was on until he stopped for coffee and asked.

Stuff lost, stuff gained. I don’t know. Different world. Still don’t need New Scientist getting a shovel in the hole.

Get lost, twerps. I would rather deal with school trips to a park dedicated to the Abominable Snowman than with you.

PS: When my dad was a cowboy, it had nothing to do with six-guns and violence. It was supplying the world with beef.

Cattle drive vacation.

See also: Do you want to know what life is like when progressive globalists take over? Here.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

28 Replies to “New Scientist stomps on Noah’s Ark

  1. 1
    daveS says:

    As a US citizen, I welcome this sort of commentary from outside the country (albeit ultimately from an American).

    Would any public school principal take up Ham’s invitation? I doubt that would go over well with the students’ parents, even in KY.

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    Here is a meeting of Darwinbots protesting indoctrination into any religion:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axSnW-ygU5g

    Michael Egnor is the one throwing the hammer at their meeting:

    “Materialist theories of the mind border on the insane. If a man walks into a doctor’s office and says “I never have direct access to my thoughts and I have no first person point of view,” the man will be referred to a psychiatrist and may be involuntarily hospitalized until it is established that he is not a danger to himself or others.
    If the same guy walks into the philosophy department at Duke University, he gets tenure.”
    Michael Egnor – neurosurgeon – professor in the Department of Pediatrics at Stony Brook University since 1991
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....03010.html

  3. 3
    Dionisio says:

    By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.
    [Hebrews 11:7 (ESV)]

    Here’s a commentary from Reformation Study Bible provided by Ligonier Ministries:

    Although faith perceives things that are invisible because they transcend the physical universe (11:3, 27), in this section the emphasis is on faith concerning things that are future but nevertheless certain because God has promised them. The coming flood of judgment was not yet visible when God’s word of warning came to Noah. Noah built the ark in reverent response to God’s warning, and through his active faith his family received salvation. The unbelieving world was condemned for its preoccupation with the present, and Noah inherited the righteousness that comes by faith (10:38; Rom. 4:13).

  4. 4
    ellazimm says:

    Does the word Rotherham mean anything to any of you Brits? No. Thought not.

    What does this have to do with school trips to religiously motivated sites?

    Furthermore what do stories about crossing the border on horseback have to do with it either?

  5. 5
    Seversky says:

    Let’s suppose a human despot had, by some terrible misfortune, acquired the power to drown all life on the surface of the Earth, save for a chosen few. Let’s suppose this despot had exercised that power and wiped out uncounted billions of living creatures, including the entire human population, again, save for the chosen few. Wouldn’t that have been judged the worst atrocity committed in all of human history, worse by far than even the Holocaust?

    Yet we are supposed to believe that this was some wondrous and miraculous event to be celebrated in Scripture – and now in a theme park in Kentucky. Wouldn’t it have been better sited in Arkansas?

    And what happened to the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving Creator who was able to harden or soften the hearts of kings at will? What was wrong with appearing to all the people of the Earth individually and saying, with a Jedi-like wave of the hand. “You want to go home and rethink your life.” Then they would all have gone home with a blank expression, muttering, “I want to go home and rethink my life. These are not the droids we were looking for.”

    Do any of you actually read these stories for comprehension?

  6. 6
    Bob O'H says:

    Does the word Rotherham mean anything to any of you Brits? No. Thought not.

    Wow. What does child abuse in Yorkshire have to do with a creationist museum in Kentucky? New Scientist may be published in the UK, but it sees itself as a global, which would include the USA.

    (BTW Rotherham isn’t a word – it’s a place, and I would expect most Brits to have heard of the town. Canadians not so much)

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky, a fate far worse than drowning awaits those who continue to choose the ‘wages of sin’, i.e. death, over the free gift of God, i.e. eternal life.

    Special and General Relativity compared to Heavenly and Hellish Near Death Experiences – video (reworked May 2016 – following two videos referenced in it)
    https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/1193118270701104/

    (Entropic Concerns) The Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the Dead is the correct solution for the “Theory of Everything” – video
    https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/1121720701174195/?pnref=story

    Albert Einstein vs. “The Now” of Philosophers and of Quantum Mechanics – video
    https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1129789497033982/?type=2&theater

    (Centrality Concerns) The Resurrection of Jesus Christ from Death as the “Theory of Everything” – video
    https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1143437869002478/?type=2&theater

    Verses, quote and music:

    Romans 6:23
    For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

    Luke 16: 24-26
    “And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
    But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
    And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.”

    Quote

    “The fact there’s a highway to hell and only a stairway to heaven says a lot about anticipated traffic numbers.”

    AC/DC – Highway to Hell
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKggnBh2Mdw

    Stairway to Heaven – Ann & Nancy Wilson (Heart) – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xufuZ0dCmLA

  8. 8
    bornagain77 says:

    Dr Egnor throws another sledgehammer during the annual “Darwinbot’s atheism revival meeting”:

    A Dehumanizing Ideology Unsurprisingly Catalyzes Violence
    Michael Egnor August 7, 2016
    Excerpt: And it is precisely the metaphysical commitments Coyne has championed that have catalyzed atheist violence — the denial of an objective moral law, the denial of eternal accountability for transgressions, the reduction of human beings to animals or even to meat robots, deprived of free will or of any claim to human exceptionalism. These are all tenets of atheist belief, and Coyne himself is one of the loudest salesman for the dehumanizing ideology inherent to atheism.
    Just how violent and repressive can atheism be?,,,
    In the past century, a number of nations have been governed by explicitly atheist governments. Atheist governments murdered more than 100 million people during the 20th century.,,,
    Looking at modern history, we see: Christian culture creates reasonable and tolerant democracies. Islamic regimes create repressive theocracies. Atheist regimes create totalitarian hellholes.
    The denial of free will and the other anti-human inferences inherent to atheism are not merely theoretical affronts to humanity.
    The fact is that atheism is the most violent ideology in the 20th century, and given its short run and unprecedented rate of state-sanctioned murder, it is also the most violent and repressive ideology in human history.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....03055.html

  9. 9
  10. 10
    Mung says:

    Does the word Rotherham mean anything to any of you Brits?

    http://studybible.info/version/Rotherham

  11. 11
    Seversky says:

    bornagain77 @ 7

    Seversky, a fate far worse than drowning awaits those who continue to choose the ‘wages of sin’, i.e. death, over the free gift of God, i.e. eternal life.

    Who designed human beings according to your beliefs? If human beings were designed by an all-knowing, all-powerful Creator then they were designed to be fallible and curious beings. How is it just to punish them for behaving the way they were designed to behave?

  12. 12
    Mung says:

    Follow the logic. God is not created. Any created being is created. Therefore, any created being is not God.

    Seversky complains because God created beings which were not God. Why?

  13. 13
    Robert Byers says:

    This NEW sSCIENTIST article is written by a aggressive opponent of creationism. I was banned from their blog or practically. No reason at all given.
    I consider this article to be malicious with intent to raise to a false standard of danger the Ark thing. It shows they see it as a important defeat. Its a spatial representation of disagreement that reaches the public and the kids therein.
    Excellent!!

    At least he didn’t say it was terrorist inspiring?
    This NS loses credibility to me in what they let get printed.
    This is stupid criticism and malicious sour grapes.

    I don’t agree, as a canadian with PUBLIC funded catholic schools as i see it as a identity issue and not a religious one. However they should say anything they want although I understand they are being forced to accept homosexual propaganda and not allow anti-homosexual truth.
    Canada is a censored nation at the moment.

    I know people from Canada planning on going to the Ark and the creation museum who only recently heard about it.
    So whoever Josh scares away is made up by some Canucks.
    The bad guys are acting like the bad guys in any movie/tv show i ever saw.
    Indeed it really is anti-Christian, anti-contract for religious tolerance from articles like this.
    Why in the claim of love for the Ark story does the Jewish come before Christian. Hmmm. At least we got ahead of Islam.!

  14. 14
    News says:

    EllaZimm at 4 and Bob O’H at 6: The stench of the Rotherham scandal was that child welfare authorities turned a blind eye to the abuse rather than be thought politically incorrect. Fix that and then get back to us. Oh well, maybe Brexit shows your good intentions.

  15. 15
    Bob O'H says:

    News @ 14 – again, what does that have to do with science? We can all agree that what happened in Rotherham was terrible, but every country has horrible events happening in it – even, I dare say, Canada. So why is this what happened in South Yorkshire relevant to science, and what is published by a privately owned global science magazine?

  16. 16
    FierceRoller says:

    News @ 14, I like how you responded without actually engaging the questions EllaZimm and Bob O’H asked. Why does the existence of pedophiles in England mean American schoolchildren should be taught Biblical literalism as historical fact?

  17. 17
    Bob O'H says:

    Fierceroller – to be fair I think Denyse’s argument is that the existence of pedophiles in England mean Americans shouldn’t be allowed to publish articles in UK-based magazines abut whether schoolchildren should be taught Biblical literalism as historical fact.

  18. 18
    Dionisio says:

    Mung @12:

    Seversky complains because God created beings which were not God. Why?

    I think you misunderstood your interlocutors ‘wise’ comments.
    Perhaps your interlocutor’s main complaint is valid: God should have consulted with your interlocutor before creating human beings. Actually, God should have consulted with all your interlocutor’s party comrades and their fellow travelers too. Their comments here in this site display so much ‘wisdom’ that we should refrain from discussing much with them.
    Disregarding your interlocutor’s clever advice was kind of rude of God, wasn’t it?
    That may explain why we humans ended up so messed up and screwed up as we are.
    Now, here’s a potential alibi God could present: your interlocutor was not available when God created us.
    Maybe you should ask your interlocutor the same question God asked Job: where was your interlocutor when God created everything (including humans)?
    Do you agree?
    🙂

  19. 19
    News says:

    To Ellazimm and Bob O’H: Brexit. Less government. More citizen.

  20. 20
    ppolish says:

    Building the replica Ark was no mean feat. Bravo!

    How’d the replica Beagle pan out? Puny.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_.....190734.stm

  21. 21
    ppolish says:

    Does the Beagle Park offer turtle rides and sell T- shirts?
    http://shirtigo.co/galapagos/

    Why on earth did C. Darwin ride the turtles anyway? Homesick for his horse maybe.

  22. 22
    ppolish says:

    Noah and Darwin had a lot in common. Loved animals, sailed the seas, rode turtles for grins.

  23. 23
    sagebrush gardener says:

    Seversky @ 11

    If human beings were designed by an all-knowing, all-powerful Creator then they were designed to be fallible…

    And if humans were not fallible, we would merely be an army of robots. That is not what God wanted.

    It would be trivial to program a computer to say nonstop, “I love you, Seversky”. And to do exactly whatever you commanded, within its abilities. But how satisfying would that be?

    Instead we were created “in his image”, with the ability to freely love and worship him — or not. The choice is yours, Seversky.

  24. 24
    Bob O'H says:

    News @ 19 – What? Can you please explain? Again, what do these (and a paedophile ring in South Yorkshire) have to do with science?

  25. 25
    Phinehas says:

    Let’s suppose a human despot had, by some terrible misfortune, acquired the power to drown all life on the surface of the Earth, save for a chosen few. Let’s suppose this despot had exercised that power and wiped out uncounted billions of living creatures, including the entire human population, again, save for the chosen few. Wouldn’t that have been judged the worst atrocity committed in all of human history, worse by far than even the Holocaust?

    What if it wasn’t a human despot, but rather an eco-enlightened alien who recognized that the human virus would soon kill the planet and everything on it unless contained.

    Or perhaps it was a cabal of humans who promoted killing unborn babies as the best method for maintaining population control.

    Perhaps our outrage can morph with the analogy.

    In any case, surely the right of a creator over his creation cannot be compared to that of the creatures he creates. Can Mario tell Miyamoto that it is wrong to put Princess Peach in danger?

  26. 26
    goodusername says:

    Can Mario tell Miyamoto that it is wrong to put Princess Peach in danger?

    Probably not since I doubt Miyamoto has the skill to create sentient, feeling, thinking creatures. But if Miyamoto did have such skill, and Mario and Peach were living sentient creatures, I think they’d have quite a few complaints regarding their treatment, and I think most people wouldn’t blame them for complaining.

  27. 27
    News says:

    Bob O’H at17: You wrote “Fierceroller – to be fair I think Denyse’s argument is that the existence of pedophiles in England mean Americans shouldn’t be allowed to publish articles in UK-based magazines abut whether schoolchildren should be taught Biblical literalism as historical fact. ”

    No. It means you should just get your shovel out of the hole.

    Biblical literalism, taught in school, would be a problem. But an attraction is an attraction. Kids like that sort of thing.

    Why don’t you front an atheist attraction?

    How come naturalist atheists only ever want to spend other people’s money?

  28. 28
    Bob O'H says:

    Denyse, I’d still like to see an explanation of why you think paedophilia in South Yorkshire is relevant to an article about the Ark museum. Is there any chance you’ll respond and defend what you wrote?

Leave a Reply