Trust amends Causeway centre ‘Creationist’ exhibit

21

The National Trust has amended a controversial exhibition at the new Giant’s Causeway visitor centre.


An audio exhibit revealed how people’s explanation of how the Causeway was formed developed as scientific understanding improved.

Young earth creationists believe the Causeway was formed 6,000 years ago. The vast majority of scientists say it was formed 60m years ago.

The trust says it has always supported the “scientific view” of its formation.

The Causeway is a Unesco World Heritage Site and features more than 40,000 interlocking basalt columns.

The £18.5m centre was opened on 3 July.

The National Trust decided to carry out a review of the exhibit after the creationist element provoked what it termed a “wide and mixed response”.

In July, an online campaign to remove it began.

A new piece of audio, approximately 20 seconds long, now replaces the previous recording.

Graham Thompson, project director for the Giant’s Causeway, said the change would clear up “any misunderstanding there may have been”.

“The National Trust is content that this review is complete.”He said: “The National Trust only endorses the scientific explanation of the origins of the stones, yet recognises that others have alternative beliefs.

Written By: BBC News
continue to source article at m.bbc.co.uk

21 COMMENTS

  1. I hope that is the end of all the stupidity and ignorance surrounding this particular issue. Including a creationist perspective in such a setting would have been a terrible advertisement for Northern Ireland and how the world would perceive us. I am glad action has been taken to remedy this. Northern Ireland is home to some of the finest minds in academia and education in general and this would have done us a great disservice by advocating that we might all be retrograde religious nuts with no grasp on reality. This is not true, has never been true and will never be true. It is good to know that the hardline minority creationist mind can be thwarted in this part of the world. Reason, logic and science are in the ascendency and we had all better get used to it. Alright.

  2. If I were them, I would have gone into some details as to why the basalt cooled into columns, like crystals.  You don’t see that sort of thing in many places.  I am thinking of those crystals discovered in a cave in Mexico, I think it was – see recent National Geographic magazine.  If that is a common thing to happen as basalt cools from XX degrees, that would be very interesting.  Counter-intuitive to me, at least.  Anyone know if structures like Kimberlite pipes have similar features ?

  3. I’d love to see a young earth creationist and a new-age celtic druid argue about it :

    Face it, guys, you can’t both be right. Let’s say we’ll stick to  factual evidence until one of you can prove that either Yahwe or the giant Fionn McCool did it. Call me when you’ve figured it out. You are not supposed to use the loaded guns that are in that big unlocked box that I happened to forget right here. See you in a bit.

  4. Some bright spark posted the following on YouTube:
     

    “I feel my intelligence insulted when people parrot the
    geologist’s theory that it was made by “cooling lava” or some such
    idiocy. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can clearly see they were
    deliberatley carved, probably by poweful beings with a lot of time in their
    hands, (because it would’ve taken an awful lot of work by mere mortals.)”

    In a way, he’s right. “Common sense” does suggest that – which just goes to show how unreliable common sense is!

    By the way, those misspellings are his, not mine.

  5. Just another thing to add to a long list of backoffs and retrenchments by the religious side. I don’t think what we make of this case is as important as reminding people that the list is long and that their side always fails on facts. There is nothing to indicate that the future will not continue to be more of the same, and we need to keep rubbing their noses in it.

  6. But they still have their foot in the door of science, so to speak.  As the NSS infers, the door should not of been opened in the first place. Only facts, no superfluous ideas should be allowed at this type of education centre.
    From the press release statement, I get the impression the creationists are still smirking.  

    http://www.secularism.org.uk/n

  7. I wonder if the formation of the columns cannot be simulated with some other, easily melting and solidifying material. It would show that no supernatural forces are needed to create such a natural work of art. I know that you can get something similar with drying mud (see url). 
    http://www.shutterstock.com/pi
    But columns with some length would be more convincing. It would make a nice sideshow in the visitor centre.
    Somebody?

  8. CEVA34
    Some bright spark posted the following on YouTube:

    “I feel my intelligence insulted when people parrot the geologist’s theory that it was made by “cooling lava” or some such idiocy. 
    Anyone with an ounce of common sense can clearly see they were deliberatley carved, probably by poweful beings with a lot of time in their hands, (because it would’ve taken an awful lot of work by mere mortals.)”

    I suppose this supports the hypothesis that creationists have one ounce brains, and the credulity to believe in sky-fairies and giants.

    By the way, those misspellings are his, not mine.

    More creationist lectures from the whizzdumb of illiterates!

  9. I suppose this supports the hypothesis that creationists have one ounce brains, and the credulity to believe in sky-fairies and giants.

    More creationist lectures from the whizzdumb of illiterates!

    Be careful Alan…some folk here think that approach is detrimental to the debate. The religious people can’t be stupid because so many of them have academical qualifications. IMO they are just asinine.

  10. “However, not everyone agrees with the scientific view. There are some people who believe – often for religious reasons – that the earth was formed more recently: thousands of years ago rather than billions.”

    “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.”

    “However, not everyone agrees with the Biblical view. There are some people who believe – often for scientific reasons – that the earth was formed approx 4.5 billion years ago by the laws of physics rather than 6,000 years ago by a man in the sky.”

    Does anyone think there is any chance of getting that caveat into the scriptures, for balance you understand?….nah, a didn’t think so, now get ALL this religious woo woo shite out of science and education ya bunch of retarded fuckwits.

  11. The only misunderstanding is that the trust thought they could get away with sneaking a bit of creationism in with any complaints which proves why we have always got to be on our guard.

  12. If the creationists were right, and the universe were created only 6000 years ago, then we could not very well see anything further than 6000 light-years away, could we? Light from anything further away than that, if it were created only 6000, years ago could not have reached earth by now. But our own galaxy is 100,000 light-years across, let alone the vast distances to other galaxies, such as 2,500,000 light years to the closest one — Andromeda. We would not even be able to see the stars of the local Milky Way. But we do. Therefore the creationists are not only incorrect, they are lying, because their apologists are fully aware of this, and they sweep it under the rug.

  13. This is all ridiculous and false. Everyone knows that the causeway was built by Irish giant Finn MacCool to get to Scotland in a timely fashion. Everyone also knows that it was ripped up by the Scottish giant named “Benandonner”. I resent the fact that this has now been relegated to a “legend”.

    I would like;

    - A formal apology from the Scottish parliament recognising that their giant ripped up the causeway
    - A written confirmation from the national trust that the giant theory is a valid alternate version of events
    - A formal “sorry” day to be held in Scotland to commemorate how great the bridge once was and their continued sorrow at ripping it up.
    - “Sorry” beads to be worn on “Sorry day”.
    - “Sorry” hats may also be a good idea.

Leave a Reply