Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Friday, February 9, 2007 | Science : Anthropology | print version Print | Comments

Document Meet the Relatives. They're Full of Surprises.

by John Noble Wilford

Reposted from the NYTimes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/09/arts/design/09orig.html?ex=1171688400&en=f0fc44f6c80ce3a8&ei=5070&emc=eta1

Our ancestors have arrived at the American Museum of Natural History. They are very old, and we are only beginning to recognize them and ourselves in them. They remind us of our origins long ago and how we have emerged as modern humans in the fullness of time.

The museum's new permanent exhibition on human origins, which opens tomorrow, merges notable achievements in paleontology and genetics, sciences that have made their own robust evolutionary strides in recent years. Each introduces evidence supporting the other in establishing a genealogy extending back to protohuman species that arose in Africa from earlier primates some six to seven million years ago.

These two scientific threads run through the exhibition like the strands of the DNA double helix.

Ellen V. Futter, the museum's president, said the "mutually reinforcing evidence" was organized in the exhibition to address three fundamental questions: Where did we come from? Who are we? And what lies ahead for us?

Turn right at the entrance of the new installation, the Anne and Bernard Spitzer Hall of Human Origins, and you see paleontology's side of the story. More than 200 casts of prehuman and human fossils and artifacts illustrate stages in physical and behavioral evolution. Four life-size tableaus depict scenes in the lives of human predecessors, the realism stamped by the presence of pesky flies on their shoulders.

Some of the most striking displays are reconstructions from fossil and other evidence of what these ancestors probably looked like. Museum scientists and technicians have recreated the faces and bodies of the famous Lucy skeleton and Neanderthals — even the controversial Hobbits, the tiny specimens of what may be a previously unknown extinct species found recently in Indonesia.

The reconstruction of Turkana Boy is especially evocative. Based on one of the most complete ancestral skeletons ever excavated, the fleshed-out Homo ergaster, a species that lived in Africa 1.9 to 1.4 million years ago, is almost six feet tall, with a body form remarkably like that of modern humans.

"The fossils on which the reconstructions are based are witnesses to a dynamic history," said Ian Tattersall, a paleoanthropologist at the museum and co-curator of the exhibition. "Now we have a much larger story to tell, with the addition of what we are learning from molecular biology."

Bear left in the hall, and there is the sign "DNA Tells Us About Human Origins." Below are three tubes containing particles of DNA in a milky white solution. The samples are not particularly impressive, until you think that this is the stuff of encoded information shaping an entire organism and the material that has transformed the study of genetics, or genomics, and revealed the place of humans in the rest of life.

One of the vials holds human DNA, and another a chimpanzee's. The analysis of their genetic material has confirmed what comparative anatomy predicted, showing that human DNA is 98.8 percent identical to that of chimps and bonobos, our closest living relatives. And our DNA is, on average, 96 percent identical to our most distant primate kin, some of which are mounted on the wall.

The third vial contains a DNA sample from a 40,000-year-old Neanderthal, the extinct close cousin of Homo sapiens. The discovery of a Neanderthal skull in 1856 led to the recognition that different kinds of humans once lived on Earth. This rare DNA specimen, on display in this country for the first time, was donated by the Max Planck Institute in Leipzig, Germany, the first laboratory to succeed in extracting the genetic material from Neanderthal bones.

Standing nearby are the skeletons of a chimpanzee, a Neanderthal and a modern human, and stations with interactive electronic displays are ready, at the touch of a screen, to explain the differences and similarities between the bones, brains and DNA of the three species.

Other computer animations offer insights into how scientists decode the hereditary information, how it is transmitted through generations, and how mutations of mitochondrial DNA, the traits inherited through the mother's lineage, reveal relationships through time and migrations. A video of a "tree of life" changes before your eyes, like a kaleidoscope, showing the branching interrelationships among 479 species.

Rob DeSalle, the exhibition's other curator and a molecular biologist at the museum, said genomics is leading to the discovery of "the history between other species and humans and the relationships of humans to each other."

The genetics side of the exhibition is not as visually compelling as the fossils and reconstructed life in other sections. Plan to invest more time with the interactive displays and videos, which convey the truly new contributions to understanding the science of human evolution and the complexity and connectivity of life.

The Hall of Human Origins occupies the galleries of its predecessor, the Hall of Human Biology and Evolution, which had its opening 12 years ago, before many of the advances in genomics and a number of major fossil discoveries. That exhibition closed in September 2005 to make way for its more up-to-date replacement, supported by a gift from the Spitzers, the parents of Gov. Eliot Spitzer of New York.

Some of the cast of fossil characters may be familiar to regular museum visitors, but they have been revitalized in new settings. For example, the Australopithecus couple that left tracks walking 3.5 million years ago across a plain at Laetoli, Tanzania, appear here. The surprise is that they are so small, no more than three feet tall. Yet the discovery of their footprints was the first clear evidence that prehumans were walking upright well before they made tools.

In the habitat displays, two Homo ergasters butcher a carcass and fight off a vulture and a jackal trying to steal the meat, and a Homo erectus, Peking Man, crouches and is about to be pounced on by a hyena. The curators said these were reminders that early human ancestors were prey rather than predator for much of their history.

Toward the back of the gallery, the cultural aspects of evolution are illustrated. An exact reproduction of the painted animals from the cave art at Lascaux in France stretches across the wall. Other displays include a replica of a 75,000-year-old piece of ochre decorated with geometric patterns, a recent discovery in South Africa and one of the earliest examples of symbolic thinking and creativity in modern humans. In this context the exhibition reviews the elements that make humans different from other life: tool use, language, music and writing, as well as art and other forms of creative expression.

Off in a side room, the Spitzer Hall has an educational laboratory with microscopes and laptops ready for visitors, guided by instructors, to try their hands at examining fossils and learning how to decode DNA. The lab is designed with young people and student groups in mind, but anyone is free to experience something of what it is like to delve into the human past. Elsewhere a multimedia bulletin board offers news of the latest developments in research into the human past.

One issue cannot be entirely sidestepped in any public presentation of human evolution: that many people in this country doubt and vocally oppose the very concept. In a corner of the hall, several scientists are shown in video interviews professing the compatibility of their evolution research with their religious beliefs.

Standing nearby at the end of a tour of the exhibition, Michael J. Novacek, a paleontologist and the museum's senior vice president, said that a previous show on Darwin had been a reassuring test case. The exhibition was popular, he said, and provoked "very little negative response."

Dr. Novacek said the new hall was "an emphatic statement about the theory of evolution and its power to tell us our origins and history."

"We emphasize that a scientific theory is an argument that is very carefully tested against scientific evidence," he continued, "and this one has withstood much scrutiny."

The modern human capacity for symbolic and creative expression has brought forth different narratives to explain where we came from, drawn from myth, religion and pre-Darwin science. The exhibition's parallel lines of fossil and molecular evidence have the cumulative effect of solidifying the foundation for the more recent scientific narrative of human evolution.

There are still many gaps in knowledge, and unsolved mysteries. But seeing ourselves in the train of preceding species, we also recognize the degree of our separation from other animals, even our earliest ancestors. Only modern Homo sapiens in our time could present with such newfound authority the epic narrated through the museum's Hall of Human Origins.

The Anne and Bernard Spitzer Hall of Human Origins will open February 10 at the American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West and 79th Street. Museum hours: daily, 10 a.m. to 5:45 p.m. (to 8:45 p.m. on Fridays). Suggested museum admission: $14; $10.50 for students and 60+; $8 for children 2 to 12; free for members. (212) 769-5100 or (212) 769-5200; amnh.org.

Comments 1 - 30 of 30 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #21589 by AdrianB on February 10, 2007 at 3:16 am

 avatarBit surprised to see no comment to this, compared to the may comments about the lunatic rantings of McGrath.

To be honest I'm not interested in the rantings of McGrath, I just sigh, laugh and move on.

This is what it's about. This is fantastic. Good luck to all those involved in this exhibition.

Other Comments by AdrianB

2. Comment #21593 by mattjuan on February 10, 2007 at 3:32 am

I think you're right mate. We spend so much time arguing for rational thought that we forget to celebrate it.

Other Comments by mattjuan

3. Comment #21595 by Logicel on February 10, 2007 at 3:38 am

 avatarVery important points from the article:

One issue cannot be entirely sidestepped in any public presentation of human evolution: that many people in this country doubt and vocally oppose the very concept. In a corner of the hall, several scientists are shown in video interviews professing the compatibility of their evolution research with their religious beliefs.

Standing nearby at the end of a tour of the exhibition, Michael J. Novacek, a paleontologist and the museum's senior vice president, said that a previous show on Darwin had been a reassuring test case. The exhibition was popular, he said, and provoked "very little negative response."

Dr. Novacek said the new hall was "an emphatic statement about the theory of evolution and its power to tell us our origins and history."

"We emphasize that a scientific theory is an argument that is very carefully tested against scientific evidence," he continued, "and this one has withstood much scrutiny."

Other Comments by Logicel

4. Comment #21601 by linck on February 10, 2007 at 4:37 am

 avatarSounds like a great exhibition, I wish I could see it. I hope loads of people, especially school classes, will visit.


"The modern human capacity for symbolic and creative expression has brought forth different narratives to explain where we came from, drawn from myth, religion and pre-Darwin science."

Yepp, pre-Darwinian. We are the lucky ones living in the past-Darwinian era. We can seek explanation that are actually supported by evidence.


Theist always say that the concept of evolution is ugly and amoral.
But I find much beauty in the idea that all life on the world is related. And our genes rob all credibility of "racial superiority" - something theist didn't have much of a moral problem with.

Other Comments by linck

5. Comment #21611 by Nuclearman on February 10, 2007 at 5:43 am

Great stuff, with this exception:

In a corner of the hall, several scientists are shown in video interviews professing the compatibility of their evolution research with their religious beliefs.

Sounds like the apologists get to make their token nods to the religious extremists.

The video could have been put to better use having interviews of scientists in the field SHOWING how they do a dig, or showing a moment of discovery.

It is a museum of science; leave the religious apologists out of it. Let science speak candidly and honestly for itself, thanks very much.

Other Comments by Nuclearman

6. Comment #21621 by justme on February 10, 2007 at 7:31 am

 avatarSounds good. Maybe they should take this on the road and set up shop outside the Oval Office?

Other Comments by justme

7. Comment #21633 by Mango on February 10, 2007 at 8:24 am

 avatarHaving the video in the corner that shows scientists reconciling the fact of evolution with their faith is important to have. The museum recognizes that many Americans still need to get on board with evolution as a fact.
So when every theist leaves the museum they will have no rational option but to accept that evolution is true. That is, they'll feel terribly stupid for ever having said, "I didn't come from no monkey!"

Other Comments by Mango

8. Comment #21651 by woollybear on February 10, 2007 at 10:54 am

 avatarFor those of us who won't be going to New York anytime soon, the museum's website has a section devoted to the exhibit. I spent about an hour traveling back into human history.

http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent/humanorigins/?src=h_h

Other Comments by woollybear

9. Comment #21659 by John Phillips on February 10, 2007 at 12:22 pm

Linck: I agree, two things that always give me the shivers and I consider the most awe inspiring is one, to quote Sagan, that we are all made of starstuff and two, everything living and that has lived on this planet shares a common genetic heritage. How can some pie in the sky monster even begin to compare with that.

I actually feel both frustration at and sadness for the creationist, the goddidit brigade and religites in general, as their beliefs actually demeans humanity and misses out on the real awe inspiring wonder that is understanding our universe and the natural world.

Along with much better education we need to actively promote these type of events in an entertaining but subtly educational way so that we can eventually prevail over the continuing stupidity of beliefs which not only demean us all but actually restrict our further development as humans.

Other Comments by John Phillips

10. Comment #21664 by gimlibengloin on February 10, 2007 at 1:02 pm

John Phillips (9)

"Linck: I agree, two things that always give me the shivers and I consider the most awe inspiring is one, to quote Sagan, that we are all made of starstuff and two, everything living and that has lived on this planet shares a common genetic heritage. How can some pie in the sky monster even begin to compare with that."

Yes, but why focus on "starstuff" rather than "primeval pondslime" or amoeba? Is it because one makes you feel better than the other? Why not continue even further back to condensed gas clouds and then further to the formation of molecules? And what do you mean by "starstuff"? Hydrogen etc? Whats so awe inspiring about that?

Do you really believe that such an origin is more uplifting than the belief that man was created in the image of the Divine? Do you really think that the view that man is inherently no more valuable than any other collection of matter is preferable to the theistic view?

Other Comments by gimlibengloin

11. Comment #21668 by jeepyjay on February 10, 2007 at 1:08 pm

 avatarThe museum's website still has the details of its previous brilliant exhibition about Darwin

http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/

It gives a comprehensive introduction to evolution in easily understandable form and very well presented.

In response to gimliben-watsit I suspect that the Divine was created in the image of man, rather than the other way round.


Other Comments by jeepyjay

12. Comment #21671 by linck on February 10, 2007 at 1:35 pm

 avatargimlibengloin, I think John Phillips ment the expression that we are all made of star dust.

Star burn hydrogen to helium. When hydrogen is used up the helium burns into heavier elements. Carbon, oxygen, nitrogen...the main compounds of our bodies were born in the heart of stars.
But this process only works till iron (element 26).
All other 66 elements, which are on this planet and in traces in our bodies, were formed in a supernova.
A star explosion, so bright it outshines an entire galaxy and catapults the star ashes into space. They mix with hydrogen clouds that eventually form another star, its planet and are the building blocks for anything on these planets.


I find the idea that all of us are the end product of a 10 billion year chemical and biological evolution fascinating.
Far more beautiful than the idea that we are 6000 year old mudballs.

Other Comments by linck

13. Comment #21672 by linck on February 10, 2007 at 1:43 pm

 avatarWhat does image of the divine actually mean?

If Adam was truely an image of God it means God has a penis. For what does he need it? After whos image was Eve created?


Why do you think that the acknowledgement that all living thing on earth are related equals having no more value for human life than for that of an amoeba?
Makes a nice emotional pseudo-argument but not much sense.

I find every step of evolution - physical, chemical and biological - fascinating.
Inspiring and challenging our for imagination.

How can an "eternal truth" be inspiring if all you get out of it is "God did it" or "God's will"?
Were is the challenge to question, to develope and to find the satisfaction of discovering understanding yourself?

Other Comments by linck

14. Comment #21673 by John Phillips on February 10, 2007 at 1:47 pm

gimilibengloin: Do you think I would have said it if I didn't. I find the belief that humans are made in the image of some mythical super-being demeaning and often restrictive of our potential, deliberately so by many religions, even to the extent of trying to even control our thoughts let alone our actions. Even if that technically means we are of no more value than any other collection of matter. Though to repeat, I find the fact that we are all starstuff and share a genetic heritage with all living things on this planet awe inspiring in itself. A oneness with the universe through our constituent parts, if you will. However, personally I consider myself of more value than any other collection of matter, but then I am selfish :) I.e. whether as individuals we are actually of more value than any other collection of matter depends on ones viewpoint and is largely up to us and what we do with our lives. We can cower and waste our time worrying about some pie in the sky monster or we can live our lives to the full for the so called three score and ten, or whatever the equivalent is nowadays, that we know for certain we have. That is what I have done, and though I only have a portion of that three score and ten left, I have enjoyed most if not all of it. If I died tomorrow, I would regret it as I am not ready to give up just yet :), but I would have few if any significant regrets.

Other Comments by John Phillips

15. Comment #21674 by gimlibengloin on February 10, 2007 at 1:49 pm

linck (12)

"I find the idea that all of us are the end product of a 10 billion year chemical and biological evolution fascinating.
Far more beautiful than the idea that we are 6000 year old mudballs."

But whats the implication of that chemical and biological process for the worth of humanity?
And if you're honest whether one believes the Biblical account or the evolutionary account "mud/dust balls" is what we are. But with the evolutionary account that is ALL we are. With the Biblical account God breathed into the man's nostrils the spirit of life and man was created in God's image. "You have made him a little lower than the angels" (Hebrews 2:6,7)
Surely what determines our worth is what we are fundamentally not what stage of cosmic evolution one chooses to emphasise?

Other Comments by gimlibengloin

16. Comment #21675 by gimlibengloin on February 10, 2007 at 2:01 pm

John Phillips (14)

"I find the belief that humans are made in the image of some mythical super-being demeaning and often restrictive of our potential"

Well, assuming your premiss "mythical" is true then I would have to agree.
Its not easy to see how it is restrictive of our potential. Quite the opposite in fact. To believe that man has been created a rational being to appreciate God's creation surely provides a logical basis for scientific endeavour and, indeed, did so. However, the belief that mans intelligence and capacities are merely the result of random processes allied to a process merely concerned with survival is surely fatal to our fulfilling our potential.

I've got to go bed now but its been interesting.

Regards, GBG

Other Comments by gimlibengloin

17. Comment #21676 by John Phillips on February 10, 2007 at 2:02 pm

gimilibengloin: I missed one point in your previous reply about why starstuff and not pond slime etc. Apart from the fact that Linck expanded quite accurately my original answer about starstuff I also did equate with pond-slime or amoeba, though indirectly, but not through some squeamishness at the thought of being related to what might be considered a lesser life form. I did so when I commented on the fact that all living things share a genetic heritage, i.e that includes pond-slime, amoeba, etc. etc. but didn't think it necessary to list every possible evolutionary step from the ground up. However, feel free to insert any life form you care to that I have failed to mention as it makes no difference as it still fills me with awe and wonder that I share my genetic heritage with all of them. And even more awesome is that we can learn about all of this through our own efforts, not through the efforts of some mythical super-being.

Other Comments by John Phillips

18. Comment #21677 by John Phillips on February 10, 2007 at 2:14 pm

gimlibenglon: But that is the difference between me and you, I see the steps that the various religions have made and some still try make to stop our investigating our universe. Particularly when those discoveries disprove what the religions have been telling us over the centuries. I don't need some mythical monster or super being to give my life meaning, my very existence and the way I live my life does that for me. The difference is that I don't waste any time worrying about what this mythical super being thinks of my actions or what happens to me after I am dead. It is not relevant to living my life except when the religious try to impose their irrational beliefs on me or the way I live my life. If they all kept their beliefs to themselves as a personal belief system we would not need this debate as it would not affect me. Unfortunately, down the centuries and even today, believers are trying to gain control to affect how I live my life, as can be witnessed on a world wide basis every day.

Other Comments by John Phillips

19. Comment #21680 by kkant on February 10, 2007 at 2:29 pm

You trying to convert somebody, gimlibengloin? :D

If you believe in an imaginary friend, your potential is restricted to the limits set by the works of that friend (e.g. the Bible). Thus you get Kent Hovind's shenanigans, the persecution of Galileo, and all the rest.

The fact that we know we are the product of natural selection does not in any way diminish our power to fulfill whatever potential we have.

Other Comments by kkant

20. Comment #21681 by mjwemdee on February 10, 2007 at 2:34 pm

 avatarlinck (Comment #21672)

"What does image of the divine actually mean?
If Adam was truely an image of God it means God has a penis. For what does he need it? After whose image was Eve created?"

I presume you are inferring this from the old translation (King James Version) of Genesis 'Man was created in God's image'. Just thought I'd point out that this is an error frequently made by English-speakers. English is a fine language but in this context does not distinguish between man (a male person) and man (mankind in general) in the way that other languages do, as in German for example (Der Mann/Der Mensch). Consequently it could be argued that the writer (writers?) of Genesis had all of humanity in mind, including Eve.
This is of course purely semantic quibble. Everyone knows that Eve really came as an afterthought, don't they? ;-)

Other Comments by mjwemdee

21. Comment #21686 by linck on February 10, 2007 at 3:39 pm

 avatar------- And if you're honest whether one believes the Biblical account or the evolutionary account "mud/dust balls" is what we are-------

I fully agree with you there, GBG.


-------But with the evolutionary account that is ALL we are-------

Again full agreement, but why to emphasize that this is ALL? Why would it be worrying or freightening if that is all? Can life not be beautiful and rich without a divine purpose?


-------With the Biblical account God breathed into the man's nostrils the spirit of life and man was created in God's image. "You have made him a little lower than the angels" (Hebrews 2:6,7)
Surely what determines our worth is what we are fundamentally not what stage of cosmic evolution one chooses to emphasise?---------

We are a stage of evolution, as is any other being around us and before us.
Of course countless holy writings, the bible is only one of a dozend books - not the oldest and inspired by older accounts- emphasize on humans.
We are the pinacle of creation, we shall rule the world, we are higher beings - a very surprizing conclusion concidering these books were written by humans.
It is certainly tickling the ego, but I feel good about myself and the people I love without any refernce to a higher plan or being.

We should try ourselfes to fill our lives with meaning and purpose.

Other Comments by linck

22. Comment #21688 by Logicel on February 10, 2007 at 3:56 pm

 avatar"However, the belief that mans intelligence and capacities are merely the result of random processes allied to a process merely concerned with survival is surely fatal to our fulfilling our potential."
______

Mutations were random, natural selection was not.

Though my genome is shared with all living creatures, my uniqueness rests on the very fact that I came into being. I do not need a divine presence for me to be humbled and gratified that this evolutionary process made my being possible. The actualization of the possibility of me is astounding enough, in itself. The recognition of my unigue life is enough for my motivation to fulfill that actuality to the best of my natural abilities. As I age, and study more about history and evolution, I am even more astounded and humbled about my coming into being.

I also feel immensely connected to the zillions of hominids that preceded me and made my own being possible. This recognition gives me a profound respect for humanity despite the terrible actions humans have done, do, and will do. It is the passing of the human torch, and that torch is hope.

Julia Sweeney, when she was in the early phases of 'letting go of God' would walk outside her home and just pretend at first that there was no God, and was astounded that what she saw was what she always saw, that without God, she was the same and so was the everything else around her.

One of my religious friends, though he disdains the institutional structure related to religions, insists that God is a tool that he uses to motivate himself to be the best that he can. The implication is that it does not matter if God exists or not (and this was the conceptual preference of my very devout Catholic mother), it is just the means to get to an very important end. But if this divine tool does not exist, as they both imply, then WHO is doing the work involved in their goals to be the best they can be? They are. My mother is dead so she can no longer do what Julia Sweeney did, but perhaps my friend may be able to.

Other Comments by Logicel

23. Comment #21689 by linck on February 10, 2007 at 3:56 pm

 avatar#21681 by mjwemdee

I agree that the englisch is not always differentiating between "man" and "human".

In my German bible it is translated as "human". But there are version that translate it as "man"
In the first creation story (Gen 1:27) male and female are created simultaniously.
In the second story of creation (Gen 2:7-23) Adam was first and Eve was created because he didn't have a "helper"

But, though in my version it is "human", in Gen 2:22 it says: And God build the woman and brought her to the human.
Throughout the book there is a difference; women are not automatically included in the word "human".
This shows in so many languages were the word for man and human are the same or from the same source - while women are different.


Interesting exception:
In Lithuanian, which is the oldest still spoken version of the original Indoarian language, man is "vyras", woman "zmona" and humans "zmones".

Other Comments by linck

24. Comment #21718 by neander on February 10, 2007 at 7:10 pm

 avatarThis sounds like a fantastic exhibit. What a pity my children and I will not see it (Australians). Most of the scientific-evolutionary news out of the US is so terrifying, that it is good to hear that some Americans are sane, normal, and capable of leading the world in science. Let us hope that the exhibit doesn't get picketed.

Other Comments by neander

25. Comment #21726 by uzi on February 10, 2007 at 7:38 pm

Evolution adds value to the what it means to be alive. It gives us an unending connection to billions of years of cosmic formation. It bridges the gaps between all forms of life, unites us, and most assuredly humbles us for what we are.

How much lower could one feel than to be the result of a powerful being's whim, created as a puppet to stroke his apparently fragile ego? How much meaning is there to dedicating one's live to try earning a forgiveness for some egregious crime allegedly committed by an ancient ancestor? If an eternal curse was placed upon all mankind simply for eating some fruit, then what hope would anyone ever have of actually receiving the coveted "grace" offered to us, apparently the eternal carrot-on-a-stick?

I love live too much to live in the shadow of my potential, wallowing in the wretchedness and unworthiness that Christianity insists I possess. I simply reject that the premise that the best life is lived by fearing [punishment of?] god.

A "sudden" existence deprives us connection to the world, making our situation not natural but a contrived juxtaposition of unrelated rivals. It undermines the beauty of science, and encourages a celebration of ignorance. It diminishes the respect and esteem we should inherently hold for all living creatures with whom we share our genetics.

I value life too much to subject it to religion.

Other Comments by uzi

26. Comment #21728 by eccles on February 10, 2007 at 7:45 pm

 avatarWhat a pity a building containing a similar exhibition can't be built next to the Creation Evidence Museum in Texas.

Other Comments by eccles

27. Comment #21911 by hopeful on February 11, 2007 at 4:38 pm

This sounds like something that would be wonderful to see.

However, I can imagine a group of religious believers on a tour through these exhibits.

Would they be swayed? Well some might, but I suspect most wouldn't. I can imagine them telling each other it is all an elaborate deception or delusion.

The interesting question is: why?

I suspect that the key reason might be a lack of understanding and appreciation for the science people and processes, rather than the exhibit itself.

Religious believers don't seem to have this understanding and appreciation, either because they never aquired it through education and experience, or because their religious indoctrination has undermined it.

Other Comments by hopeful

28. Comment #21917 by John Phillips on February 11, 2007 at 5:27 pm

uzi: Thank you. You expanded perfectly what I meant by religious belief in our supposed creation by a god or gods as demeaning and restrictive to mankind.

Other Comments by John Phillips

29. Comment #22011 by Red Foot Oakie on February 12, 2007 at 10:11 am

 avatarThis sounds cool. If I can get to NYC I'll check it out.

Other Comments by Red Foot Oakie

30. Comment #22014 by kkant on February 12, 2007 at 10:25 am

Excellent post, uzi.

Other Comments by kkant
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: