Would You Adam and Eve It?
Given his background as an Orangeman, a former Secretary of the Lord's Day Observance Society and his past sympathy for the British Israelite movement, it was perhaps no surprise that Nelson McCausland should get involved in advocating creationism and a greater emphasis on Orange culture. But there's a difference between, say, Mervyn Storey as an interested individual and local politician asking the National Trust to consider explaining alternative views of the origins of the Giants' Causeway and Mr McCausland, as Culture Minister, appearing to come close to issuing directions to the Ulster Museum to get the Orange bannerettes and the Bible quotes out. The minister says his letter to the Museum was "very balanced", but balance is in the eye of the beholder - it's impossible to imagine an Alliance or nationalist minister writing a letter which would achieve a similar balance.
I'm just wondering in practice how the Museum might achieve the necessary balance. As families stroll through the displays will they be reading labels like "Scientists say fossils like this are the stony remains of animals which lived millions of years ago. However considering the biblical chronology drawn up by Archbishop Ussher, Stormont ministers reckon it can be no more than 6000 years old."?
Nelson McCausland wouldn't be drawn on his personal view of the age of the Earth on the Nolan show this morning, but Edwin Poots has previously stated that he believes in the "young earth" theory. Anyway, wherever you stand on the creationism, intelligent design, evolution sliding scale it's going to be hard to get an agreed consensus view.
Frankly it's going to get confusing having endless arguments raging in all the labels attached to display cases in the Ulster Museum. So perhaps the best thing might be to have a distinct dedicated Museum of Orange Culture, Ulster Scots and Creationism, which provides the alternative views so treasured by our minister (though maybe not the "Stork theory of babies" sarcastically suggested by Richard Dawkins on the Nolan show)
I suggest such a Museum's motto could draw on the famous rhyme of the English Lollard movement in the 1300s: "When Adam delved and Eve span, who was then the Orangeman?"
I'm 
© MMX
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~32~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
"Museum: noun, a building in which objects of interest or significance are stored and exhibited." [OED].
According to this definition, there is no reason why objects depicting and describing the historical context of Orangeism should not be displayed.
Any objects that date the Earth to 4004 B.C. should also be included, if they stand up to the accepted standards of scientific scrutiny. If none exist, the culture minister could be placated by the inclusion of his theories, in the museum section that includes goblins and leprechauns.
Complain about this comment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating
Perhaps our Minister could read this. It does describe a few laws of physics which I suppose were intelligently designed to help us all
Complain about this comment
So it’s the evolution religion only in our tax funded museums, that’s a real share future.
They will be a very cold house to all who believe the Lord Jesus Christ made all things.
“All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made.” John1:3
Maybe the BBC could poll their licence payers in Northern Ireland and see how people believe the earth was created by God in 6 days approximately 6000 years ago.
Complain about this comment
Mark
"perhaps the best thing might be to have a distinct dedicated Museum of Orange Culture, Ulster Scots"
Mark
Ulster Scots is a relatively new creation, while the Orange Order are the last surviving dinosaurs. I'm just wondering were a balance can be struck between old and new cultures???
Complain about this comment
#3 - Science is about what can be proven, so your "shared future" comment is moot: no-one said there can be no creationism-related items in the musea, only that they do not belong in the science sections.
Also, evolution is not a religeon. It has no deity, and isn't responsible for enough war and deaths to qualify as one.
Complain about this comment
#3 - "... Jesus Christ made all things"?
Not in my KJ Bible he didn't, or in yours either, unless Jesus name is mentioned in Genesis.
Complain about this comment
I have the following issues with Carbon 12 dating
Carbon 12 can only measure back as far as 60,000 years not millions and millions.
Coal, Diamonds & fossils that are suppose to have been formed millions of years ago, actually still emits Carbon 12 so they must be less that 60,000 years.
There are other assumptions made about C14 that may question its accuracy even at the 60,000 year range.
Is it assumed that C14 absorption from the atmosphere has always been constant, but absorption is depended on the earth’s decreasing magnetic field and the sun’s varying solar activity.
It is assumed that C14 production rates and the C14 decay rates are at equilibrium as this takes 20,000 years. Scientists have proven the production rates and decay rates have still not reached equilibrium, meaning the earth must be less than 20,000 years.
Is it assumed that C12/C14 ratio (1:1trillion) has also been constant, this ratio may have been greater pre-flood due to the water expansion, causing higher C12 levels and less C14 production.
Better to trust in the Rock not the fossil ;-)
Complain about this comment
It is without doubt correct that the Minister is entitled to his views whatever they may be.
It is however also correct that when acting as a Minister of the crown he has NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to foist those views onto any other person, persons and or organisations whether cultural or scientific.
In fact if such a document or documents have been dispatched to any cultural or scientific organisation the Minister and all those civil servants who are there to review and ensure he does not step beyond his remit should be disciplined.
OK I maybe taking a sledgehammer to a little nut but it is this very type of thinking which has State Education Boards in the USA ruling that only certain theories of life and certain history can be taught in schools.
Would you like to see your childern coming home and telling you only this theory or that theory can possibly be correct because all the alternatives have been wiped from the school books and libraries?
Censorship is alive and well and living in ?????????
Complain about this comment
What kind of journalism allows Mark Devonport to muse about the labels a museum "might" put on exhibits. How about sticking to the facts?
I really object to the persistent implication that many Christians are 7 Day Creationists. I've been working with Christians for three decades and I've met tens of thousands of them. In all that time I've only ever knowingly met two 7 Day Creationists. I've never met anyone who references Archbishop Ussher. Yet there's a persistent suggestion from secularist journalists that Christianity is anti-scientific. You may not agree with my faith but you have no right to use ridicule and caricature in reporting it.
It's interesting to see a BBC correspondent citing Wikipedia as a source. Says a lot, I think.
"Balance is in the eye of the beholder." Go get some.
Complain about this comment
Northern Ireland has had a troubled history by anyone's standards. It is quite unfortunate therefore, at a time when the provinces international reputation that any member of the devolved administration should seek to make it a laughing stock with a proposal perhaps more suited to the 18th rather than 21st century. The Minister is entitled to have private views, however these should not impact on his ministerial duties. If that is the case then quite frankly he should go.
Complain about this comment
M_Bell, sorry science is about observations, theories and proving those theories through experiments.
Please note, I am not talking about evolution within the species (micro evolution) this has been observed and proven.
The theory of evolution is a religious belief and takes greater faith to believe than creation.
Nothing creating everything, non-life giving birth to life and apes becoming men.
Evolution of nothing to a point dot of infinite mass
Evolution of point dot of infinite mass to star dust
Evolution of stardust to rocks
Evolution of rocks to chemicals
Evolution of chemicals to micro-organisms
Evolution of micro-organisms to animals
Evolution of animals in humans
All unproven, unobserved, unrepeatable and no intermediary fossil evidence, a lot of faith required!
P.S. The first chapter of gospel of John is fresh revelation on Genesis 1. The Word refers to Jesus.
Complain about this comment
#9 - the "facts" to which you allude are that a government minister has interfered with the running of musea. Why should a journalist be censored from writing about this?
I agree with your experience of working with Christians, but
1. The article / blog was not about the type of Christians that you or I have met - it is about Christians like the minister wanting his religious beliefs to be promulgated by our public institutions.
2. The minister is indeed a creationist
3. The 6,000-year old Earth theory is a consequence of creationism, and is held by the Orange institutions (have a look at the induction certificate of any Orange-man or woman. There are some on display at the Ulster-American Folk Park if you don't have your own).
Complain about this comment
Nelson McCausland is right to hold discussions with the management of museums about how they spend taxpayers money. It is extremely obscure of the BBC to run the campaign which they have run this morning against him. The government minister responsible for the museums should take a very great interest in what is portrayed within them and it would be very remiss if he were to fail to do that.
Clearly there is an issue with some of the museum staff who have been used for too long being answerable to no one and they feel if they leak the letter to the BBC they will get support in their attack of the DUP minister.
With regard to evolution surely those who claim to believe it should consider how they think everything came from nothing with a big bang. In Northern Ireland we have seen the result of many big bangs over the last 40 yrs and it is certainly not anything remotely like order and beauty as God has created it in the earth.
Complain about this comment
I believe we should let Nelson peddle his one sided version of the history of mankind at the museum complete with his proof of how Orangism is one of the lost tribes of Isreal, that the world was made in 6 days, the female of the species was an afterthought made from a rib of man, that Ulster Scots is really an ancient biblical language and the Orange Order was created to promote religious diversity. It would teach the next generation why religious crackpots still stuck in the victorian era should never be involved in politics or government. Where do the DUP dig these people up.
Complain about this comment
With McCausland in Culture, Arts & Leisure, and Ruane in Education - we really do get the government we deserve, don't we? People are entitled to whatever crazy wee fantasies they like, but Genesis is a series of myths, not history, not science. Humans and chimps share a common ancestor, and the earth is billions of years old. These things we know, and these things we can back up. If that causes some people to have a problem with *their* inability to understand ancient texts, then that is sad, maybe even unavoidable, but it is not a problem for scientists.
Complain about this comment
Eutychus, evolution is incompatible with the Bible, evolution teaches that millions of years of death created man but the Bible teaches the death came after man, as a consequence of his disobedient to God’s instructions.
Evolution theory is attempting to do anyway with the first man, Adam, and his sin, so there is no need for the second man Jesus, the sin bearer.
Complain about this comment
Mark
I was surprised Prof. Richard Dawkins actually entertained Nelson McCausland's views. Surely Prof. Dawkins knows that this is merely the standard that the U.K. has come to expect from a typical orangeman politician in this part of the country. Has he never seen the likes of this on T.V.?
These creationist types are beyond rational reason. They come from a position of dogma rather than reason.
On that note, can I recommend that people here look up some of Dawkins' interviews on youtube to see him embarrassing these preacher types in U.S., only for the said preachers to remove Prof. Dawkins from their property and later be exposed for their very hypocrisy. Iris Robinson is in the same league.
Alternatively, for a laugh, check out George Carlin's views on creationism.
Love, PieMan.
Complain about this comment
SavedbyGrace
How long does it take the light from the stars in the heavens above to reach us?
A bit longer than 6000 years! Do not tell me the speed of light is variable to such an extent that millions become thousands. That would be something for Nelson's Museum.
Complain about this comment
16. savedbygrace
"the first man, Adam...the second man Jesus"
I suppose you're the third man and they told you in person who they were???
Myths and legends, without evidence, are simply myths and legends. Science is factual, relying on empirical evidence, therefore fact!!!
Complain about this comment
Mark
NUTS!
The debate here and in the wider media shows us once again that this place is coming down with them. McCausland's the cause and there's no doubt, he’s nuts.
Mark, McCausland’s claptrap would be more suited to [Saint] William Crawley’s Blog; they’re definitely nuts over there.
The only positive to come out of this nonsense is that PieMan has returned. He brings flavour to any debate.
Pie, pie
Susie
Carryduff
Complain about this comment
SavedByGrace, it is very simple. Evolution is fact. The earth is billions of years old. Fact.
If your theology is wrong (and it is), change your theology.
Easy.
Complain about this comment
Mark
It is time for Nelson to go. How can a man be a Minister when he has a partisan approach to culture? Our Culture Minister is as partisan as they come!!!
Complain about this comment
savedbygrace,
re. your #7, a few points.
Radiocarbon dating measures the decay of carbon-14, not carbon-12. It then calculates ages from the radio of the two isotopes.
You are quite right that radiocarbon dating has limitations. First of all, it is only useful for dating the remains of living things (or artefacts made from them). Secondly, it is only useful back to about 60 Kya (-ish), because carbon-14 has a half-life of about 5700 years. After 60,000 years (>10 half-lives), only millionth of the original carbon-14 content is left, and since it only makes up one-trillionth of all carbon atoms in living things, it becomes unmeasurably small beyond 60,000 years.
However, it is *not* assumed (at least, not by the physicists) that C14/C12 ratios have always been constant. Fluctuations due to the effect of the changing magnetic field, alterations in flow of carbon between reservoirs and the atmosphere due to deposition and weathering, the reduction in atmospheric C14 since the Industrial Revolution due to large-scale combustion of fossil fuels, and spikes in C14 following atmospheric tests of nuclear devices in the mid-20th century are well documented, and - along with all the other limitations - controlled for, by the very scientists whose methods you are criticising. Claiming that C14 dating is invalid because C14 ratios "have still not reached equilibrium" is a complete strawman argument, because the physicists neither assert that to be the case, nor depend on that being the case for radiometric dating to be accurate. (Since all the factors I listed above change over time, C14 levels will *never* be in equilibrium, almost by definition.) They use calibration curves (based on decades of research into the effects of the above factors and others) to convert raw results into accurate dates, as well as work out when carbon dating is, or is not, the appropriate method to use.
By the way, carbon-14 is formed by the collision of neutrons with nitrogen-14 atoms in the upper atmosphere, and decays back to nitrogen-14 by beta decay. I am quite intrigued to know how on earth the expansion of water could have any effect, any effect at all, on either process.
In any case, radiocarbon dating is only one of many radiometric dating methods. No-one (except a couple of creationists with a fixation on Mount St Helens, anyway) would use radiocarbon dating to date materials hypothesised to be millions of years old, because everyone (including said creationists) knows that the short half-life of C14 makes it unsuitable for calculating dates in the millions-of-years range. That's why we use other dating methods (the WIkipedia article on radiometric dating alone lists about twenty, of which half have applications in dating materials on geological timescales), as well as checking whether the dates are consistent with the stratigraphic evidence. And that is the killer point: if you measure using two or more independent methods, invariably you find that they *agree*. So if your god has been aiming to plant false evidence to make us think that the Earth is billions of years old, he's done an extraordinarily good job... but then why would he do that?
Better to trust in the scientific evidence, in my opinion.
Complain about this comment
Savedbygrace
"Scientists have proven the production rates and decay rates have still not reached equilibrium, meaning the earth must be less than 20,000 years."
So why do most people who would be recognised a by a scientific journal not recognise this as anything but total nonsense? Maybe because how can one say this politely it's poppycock.
Don't tell me humans rode dinosaurs? Saddle my dinosaur Mabel! I've developed speech and language in zero years flat.
Complain about this comment
Mark,
You know, this whole episode reminds me of similar display of Ministerial incompetence displayed by Gergory Campbell in advocating the reintroduction of the death penalty.
Can I ask: do McCausland and Campbell have nothing better to do with their posts than orchestrate these collective irrelevancies? They're up there with Ian Jnr in involving themselves in matters which are clearly beyond their expertise?
You have the death penalty from Campbell
You have McCausland trying to micromanage the artifacts in a museum
You have Ian Jnr & Donaldson trying to overrule the Chief Constable in police matters
You have Wilson trying to pretend he knows more than the scientists in global warming
You have Robinson (Mrs that is) telling gays they really shouldn't be gay
Don't get me started on Mr Robinson
Then there's the Dodds' Dynasty
Jim Shannon can't even figure out when to turn up for the kick-off!
Do these people have *nothing* better to do with their time other than getting themselves involved in matters which are clearly above their expertise? Did someone forget to tell them that they have *actual* jobs to do?
Where else would such people and displaying such incompetence get away with this? McDonalds wouldn't tolerate it, and neither should we.
Love, PieMan
P.S., thanks for the mention Susie.
Complain about this comment
no offence to anyone here,but anyone who dosent know that the earth is billions of years old,should go back to school,thats not myth its fact,and has been proven time and time again,for billions of years it spewd out volcanic ash then it begin to cool down,i could go on explaining billions of years after billions of years,how seas devolaped etc,but anyone who can multiply 2x2 must have common sence to know that,
Complain about this comment
As an archaeologist, a former museum professional and as a devout and practising agnostic, I find the Minister's intervention unfortunate, and some of the debate over creationism and the sciences depressingly ignorant.
The Minister is a creationist and sees belief in evolution as largely incompatible with Christianity. It's his right to hold that belief, and his sincerity shouldn't be attacked. But one reason why I find his views so unappealing is that they relegate his god to the status of a poor-man's Paul Daniels.
"Let there be light. You will like this. Just a little, not a lot. And we'll have a bit of firmament over there ..."
Now a God who can set in motion the development of the DNA double helix, a God who can envisage the origin of stars and the complex dance of the planets, or sculpt a Grand Canyon or the Glens of Antrim or the Giant's Causeway, a God who can plot the course of the development of the myriad species on the planet - now that's a God to be reckoned with. But creationists, by and large, don't seem to have the spiritual certainty to allow their god to escape from the small-minded confines of their literalism.
However, what is most disturbing is political intervention in the work of a museum, any museum. In my lifetime, communist regimes used Museums as a means of reinforcing the party line. Archaeologists and historians were obliged to slant all of their work to ensure the purity of the Marxist-Leninist historiography. Colleagues in Czechoslovakia and Poland had to bend science to comply with the dictates of party hacks. Worse was the Nazi use of Museums to justify their racial theories. Until recently, for example, the Natural History Museum in Vienna had a (admittedly historical) display devoted to human skulls purporting to show the differences between those of 'aryans' and of other races.
Now I'm sure that Nelson McCausland would be horrified to be compared with a Mikhael Suslov or a Bernhard Rust, but political interference in how the past is portrayed objectively is the road on which he is setting out. It is not only academically unsound, but socially corrosive and thus extremely dangerous.
I do agree with him that we should have a permanent display in the Museum which shows the history of the Loyal Orders - they are a part of the shared cultural heritage of this island. And let us also have a display devoted to militant nationalism - also part of our shared heritage.
As regards creationism, there is a problem. There are no artefacts in the Ulster Museum that 'prove' that the world is billions of years old. There are none which 'prove' that it is 20,000 years old. No display is going to satisfy either side as to 'balance'.
What is required is a serious upgrade in the teaching of science in schools so that any discussion of 'creation' can be conducted on an informed level and not at one where simple basic science is either not understood or is simply ignored.
It is a matter for regret that while we have a Minister of Education who proves that total stupidity is no bar to high office up on the hill, and a Culture Minister of such a restricted set of views and lack of understanding of museums, the prospects for the level of science teaching to improve seem to be zero, for the politically driven interference in museum display policy only to increase and for the debate to drone on and on and on and ......
Complain about this comment
Mark
I'm delighted, I posted a link to Nelson McCausland's blog yesterday. The world and his granny could see his opinion on our Celtic connections which was highly offensive. I'm glad he has now removed the offensive material and hope he desists in the future, from being partisan and having anti Irish culture/language sentiments in his opinions, while holding the position of Minister in the peoples Assembly.
Thanks!!!
Complain about this comment
@manof pie - my distinct impression was that Dawkins didn't know at first McCausland was actually a minister. It was only towards the end of their 'conversation' that mccausland self-identified himself as a minister for culture that dawkins got the full picture he wasn't just dealing with some odd random Nordey with absurd opinions. It was great stuff. Doesn't do our reputation much goood though, sadly.
Complain about this comment
Waltersin,
Yeah, I couldn't believe my ears when I tuned in that morning, I thought I had the wrong station since I instantly recognized Dawkins' distinctive voice. Then I heard the Northy talk on the other end of the conversation and I thought "yet again we're about to be embarrassed on a national stage, if not the world stage. I hope Dawkins doesn't mention this in his next book."
I remember watching some of his "interviews" with the american preachy types on youtube and I thought "only in America would this happen."
Little did I know it was about to materialize in my back garden thanks to McCausland.
PieMan
Complain about this comment
Amusing to see another member of the Free Presbytaleban unable to contain their ridiculousness.
Could a creationist please explain how we can see stars 2.5 million light years away with the naked eye (Andromeda galaxy).
Can they also have a go at explaining endogenous retroviruses please.
Complain about this comment
Evolution is a religion. It is believed by faith. Science is observed tested and proven.
Evolutionists use evidence of micro evolution, changes within kinds, to try and prove the
whole theory.
The theory of evolution as it is taught in text books, schools and universities; has five
stages. Cosmic evolution or the big bang. This spinning condensing mass that explodes has a
problem angular momentum. A known law of science says any fragments of this mass, planets
moons etc have to spin the same way. Well look around you not all objects in our solar system
let alone the universe spin the same way. Whatever got us here did not start with a big bang.
Then chemical evolution is the next major step. This is where the original elements c n o s etc
evolve to the entire periodic table as we know it. And the elements we haven't found yet. This
is alchemey. Not even known or theorised nuclear processes could do this.
Then we have organic evolution. The elements combining to form life. This goes against a known
law of science, louis pasteurs - life MUST come from life. This has never been observed, there
is nothing close to evidence for this, and in fact itis almost a certianty to say it is impossible
if not highly impossible in an oxygen rich environment. Yet the text books glide over the issue.
Then we have macro evolution. Changes across kinds of animals. Dinosaurs to birds is favorite. Yet
again there is no evidence. This is believed by faith. Fossils show that something lived and died
Not that it had children let alone that any offspring that may have been different. Yet this philosophy
of a fossil record it peddled as science. Shame on science for allowing this travesty.
The only evidence for any kind of evolution is micro the fifth and final step. Changes within kinds
Within genus.ie the birds at galapogos guess what folks they are still birds. The only evidence for
any evolution is not the big fancy religion theory but simple changes that with any amount of time
Have no evidentiial basis for making the diversity of life we have.
I go further than nelson did. Get the false science out of our publicly
Funded institutions. The theory of evolkution is a faith, believed
Against the scientific evidence.
Complain about this comment
RJ,
like I said, they come from a position of dogma rather than rational reason.
They'd probably say something to the effect of "God put those pesky galaxies and fossils there to test your faith"
I for one, am glad I failed that test.
Love, PieMan
Complain about this comment
RJ,
The rev in the Free Presbyterian is an utter clown in my opinion. He is bigoted and a joke.
The cowboy!
Complain about this comment
@majestic filibuster evolutionists certainly do not use evidence of micro evolution to try and prove the whole theory. That is a nonsense made up by creationists.
The evidence for evolution is not particularly strong in the fossil record or micro-evolution or anything else that you think scientists rely on.
The strong evidence for evolution is in the genetics of endogenous retroviruses.
Most creationists repeat the mantra "there is no evidence for evolution" based on their ignorant view that fossils and the beaks of finches are all that scientists have to go on.
They couldn't be more wrong.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS