If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Belfast museum sued by DUP politician for not agreeing to Creationism exhibit
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
The Ulster Museum in Belfast faces a legal challenge unless it stages a creationist exhibition as a counter to its forthcoming series on Charles Darwin, a Democratic Unionist member of the Northern Ireland assembly warned today.
Forty-eight hours after the DUP's Northern Ireland environment minister, Sammy Wilson, railed against the idea that climate change is man-made, his party colleague Mervyn Storey has threatened legal action against the museum over its promotion of Darwin's theory of evolution.
The North Antrim DUP assembly member called this morning for an "alternative exhibition" promoting creationism to be staged alongside one planned for the Ulster Museum in Belfast this year.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/feb/12/northern-ireland-charles-darwin-courts
I do fucking despair at the human race.
Is there no end to the vile acts some of these fundies will do to undermine science and push their agenda where it has no rightful place to be?
FFS :rolleyes:
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
If the times ran a story about how the big bang went, there would be no politician in the UK who would be allowed to stop them unless they printed a particular alternate theory that their voters might be fond of.
Ultra vires - beyond the powers that be.
I think the Museum has its snout deep in the public trough so they have to play by the rules.
It should but the thing is if the museum wants to run an exhibition on darwinism it shouldn't be compelled to run an exhibition on creationism to satisfy some people's complaints. A museum doesn't have to be fair or representative imo because they're a centre of culture and stuff and therefore should be given free reign to run exhibitions on whatever. Same with any other media really, with some small caveats (i.e. not running pornography on the 9 o clock news lol).
It's less about what is permitted and what isn't and more about what it is free to do, or free not to do.
Well if it's publically funded and people want to run an exhibition on creationism, then I honestly don't see the issue. It's no different to running an exhibition on any other aspect of a religion...
If there are 'creationist' artefacts, or pieces of art and room to spare, then why the heck not? I'm sure it would bring more people in.
Though perhaps when Churches of all denominations agree to let a scientist argue the case for evolution at Sunday services we can allow religious beliefs to enter science lessons and museums.
But it isn't a Sunday service... It's a publically funded museum.
There must have been exhibitions dedicated to mythology of some sort before .
I honestly don't see the issue. It's freedom of speech isn't it?
I don't believe in God (amongst many other things) or any of that... But would go and see it out of curiousity. It's not like it'd be hurting anyone.
There probably have been. But it undermines the 'editorial freedom' if you can call it that of the curator to say what exhibitions are going on or not, because if it's one on certain subjects they are compelled to run it side-by-side with a different subject. Museums can't be run by politicians, and nor should they. I'm sure a theism vs darwinism exhibit would be interesting in itself, but the point is the museum should have the freedom not to do that.
edit: say it was an exhibition on women's suffrage, but a politician said "OOH, you cant do that without running an exhibition on how men have suffered too...". Not the politicians place to interfere in the running of a public institution.
But this is not about freedom of speech. This is about an institution dedicated to certain activities and subjects using its premises and resources to promote those very activities and subjects. Just about churches are dedicated to discuss and promote the religious beliefs they subscribe to, science-minded museums are dedicated to exhibtions that are based on scientific and academic knowledge.
Time after time I hear one side demanding to be allowed to express their views in circles where it simply does not belong, while not even contemplating returning the favour. Religious groups have as much right to be given time and space at museums and science lessons as scientists and atheists have a right to put their point across at Sunday services across the country.
In other words, they should all steer clear of each other.
Why is that so difficult to understand? What do you really think the answer from Churches would be if scientists and academics demanded the right to speak at services?
The business is sucking on the government teat and therefore must suffer any adverse consequence of that decision.
There is a celebrated US Supreme court case (Wickard vs Filburn) which has been far reaching in its influence on future actions. A telling line for me from that decision was : "It is hardly lack of due process for the Government to regulate that which it subsidizes."
That is the crux.If you do business with a prostitute, you may well have a good time but should you complain if you end up with a STD ?
The Christian Union at university allowed people to.
It doesn't matter either way anyway, if a church allows it or not, a church is not a publically funded museum. It is a place of worship, not somewhere to exhibit things.
And why shouldn't there be an exhibition about men's rights?
Anybody should be allowed to challenge what goes in to a publically funded institution. If it comes from the tax payer's money, then the taxpayer should have a say.
Similarly, I don't want a politician making decisions on what exhibits a museum can run. It should be the museum curator who doesn't have a vested interest in any one party political line. Just the same as the BBC. Sure, if it is specifically a government institution then fair enough. But politicians are there to make policy, not to intefere in small details that are better looked after by their respective peoples.
Otherwise you can go down the line that says that since the police are publicly funded, an MP should be able to order police around like they're his personal army. He or she can't, and for good reason.
Thousands of churches do not allow it, not even once, at any of their regular services.
And it does not matter whether a museum is publicly funded or not. What matters is what the function and reason of being for a museum is. In this case, it is a science-based exhibit. Faith-based beliefs have no place in it. That is the long and short of it.
If you start letting in ANY exhibit not relating to the intended purpose of a particular institution, then you end up with situations like this:
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/35616504.html
Why *shouldn't* a Flying Spaghetti Monster exhibit be shown at the natural history museum? Why *shouldn't* a creationist exhibit be shown at a science museum? In fact, why not have a scientology exhibit there also, demonstrating their ideas about the existence of humanity and their art/artefacts that illustrate this? Why *shouldn't* every nutter on the planet have their views aired in a completely inappropriate forum, like publicly funded schools, museums etc, particularly in those that don't even relate to the subject that said individuals wish to exhibit? Surely the question is, why SHOULD they be allowed? And if you're going to open the floodgates and let one in, what grounds do you have for rejecting others and not letting the whole situation get ridiculous and completely run amok?
It usually goes "blah blah blah evolution is only a theory blah blah alternative theories, blah blah Darwin was a dick blah blah flying spaghetti moster".
The best thing to do with a situation like this is to commit it to memory and next time someone tries telling you religion is innoculous, cite it.
We are at a crossroads. For the first time in human history, science, common sense and rationale are starting- slowly- to win the battle against religious superstitions and ignorance. However there are people determined to stop this from happening and to continue to indoctrinate future generations with lies and improbable absurdities. The outcome of this will shape mankind for centuries. It is imperative we do not allow religious fundamentalists to undermine science and put their ludicrous faith-based beliefs on a par with them.
I'm not as positive that we're at a cross-roads. Religiosity has waxed and waned all throughout history. Sam Harris reckons currently something like 40% of Americans think Jesus is coming back in their lifetime. You can't reason people away from kooky beliefs like that.
EDIT: This is the kind of person we'd have to convince of the failed God hypothesis: Conspiracy Theory
Lol I accept that we've come a long way and people's understanding of the world through science and logic has improved (and that's a good thing!) but I think you are being possibly a bit mellowdramatic (I can't spell that..) in considering it's a massive conspiracy or that it's 'imperative we do not allow religious fundamentalists to undermine science' etc. I think we spread the ideas, and educate people about science, and then 99/100 they will make up their own minds that science just makes good sense.
I don't think it should be a conquest to beat the religionists for the saviour of humanity
edit: I should make clear though that I am against religious lobbyists sticking their nose in where frankly it's not wanted, like a museum or a school. I hope I've made that clear already in the rest of the thread though
Individual adults are welcomed to believe whatever they wish of course.
Just because something is accepted does not make it true.
I think the 'theory' of evolution is now more than just a 'theory'. Its almost universally accepted amongst scientists that life has evolved and continues to do so. The detail of how and why it happens still needs to be ironed out.
I didn't say that tho. I said we should say that this is the accepted science as we understand it today.
Also, there's a difference between what constitutes a scientific theory and what Roger at the local describes as a theory.
Do you understand it ?
I do not know about you but I am not overwhelmed with the evidence.
Yes lol. I have said in previous threads there are things we still don't understand at all like what causes gravity to work (some think gravitons which are theoretical, but based on collected evidence).
The theory of evolution is just a theory and again I do understand it, it could be false, but the evidence is there to suggest it does happen.
I'm not saying that religion is incompatible with these beliefs and have argued for religion in this kind of argument before but the fact remains that there are questions about all kinds of things, and some people come up with their own ideas, but scientific rationalism works to critically look at these questions and provide a suggestion that most people can agree on, based on observations and such.
I don't know whether you're just trolling with one sentence replies tho
Try opening your eyes.
Could be the blind leading the blind, but could you help me see what it is I am failing to see ?