Answers In Genesis Opens $27 Million Creation Museum

[Antlerman]

On May 28th the AiG folks are opening the Creation Museum in Petersurg, Kentucky. It's their response to any natural history museum, which uses real science as its basis for a construction of history. Personally, I think it would be more appropiate for them to name it, "The Supernatural History Museum."

 

From the New York Times article on it:

 

The heart of the museum is a series of catastrophes. The main one is the fall, with Adam and Eve eating of the tree of knowledge; after that tableau the viewer descends from the brightness of Eden into genuinely creepy cement hallways of urban slums. Photographs show the pain of war, childbirth, death — the wages of primal sin. Then come the biblical accounts of the fallen world, leading up to Noah’s ark and the flood, the source of all significant geological phenomena.

 

The other catastrophe, in the museum’s view, is of more recent vintage: the abandonment of the Bible by church figures who began to treat the story of creation as if it were merely metaphorical, and by Enlightenment philosophers, who chipped away at biblical authority. The ministry believes this is a slippery slope.

 

Start accepting evolution or an ancient Earth, and the result is like the giant wrecking ball, labeled “Millions of Years,” that is shown smashing the ground at the foundation of a church, the cracks reaching across the gallery to a model of a home in which videos demonstrate the imminence of moral dissolution. A teenager is shown sitting at a computer; he is, we are told, looking at pornography.

 

But given the museum’s unwavering insistence on belief in the literal truth of biblical accounts, it is strange that so much energy is put into demonstrating their scientific coherence with discussions of erosion or interstellar space. Are such justifications required to convince the skeptical or reassure the believer?

 

In the museum’s portrayal, creationists and secularists view the same facts, but come up with differing interpretations, perhaps the way Ptolemaic astronomers in the 16th century saw the Earth at the center of the universe, where Copernicans began to place the sun. But one problem is that scientific activity presumes that the material world is organized according to unchanging laws, while biblical fundamentalism presumes that those laws are themselves subject to disruption and miracle. Is not that a slippery slope as well, even affecting these analyses?

 

Here's their web site http://www.creationmuseum.org/

 

And we live in which century and on what planet?

 

Edit: I was just reading AiG's response to criticism of this new Creation Museum on their web site here.

 

But is a belief in “particles-to-people” evolution really necessary to understand biology and other sciences? Is it even helpful? Are there any technological advances that have been made because of a belief in evolution?

 

Although evolutionists interpret the evidence in light of their belief in evolution, science works perfectly well without any connection to evolution.

Are they this ignorant?? They ask has there been any technological advances that have come from people accepting evolution as good science? It's almost inconceivable to think of what hasn't! In response, I love this statement on Evolution from the Botanical Society of America:

 

To make progress, to learn more about botanical organisms, hypotheses, the subcomponents of theories, are tested by attempting to falsify logically derived predictions. This is why scientists use and teach evolution; evolution offers testable explanations of observed biological phenomena. Evolution continues to be of paramount usefulness, and so, based on simple pragmatism, scientists use this theory to improve our understanding of the biology of organisms. Over and over again, evolutionary theory has generated predictions that have proven to be true. Any hypothesis that doesn’t prove true is discarded in favor of a new one, and so the component hypotheses of evolutionary theory change as knowledge and understanding grow. Phylogenetic hypotheses, patterns of ancestral relatedness, based on one set of data, for example, base sequences in DNA, are generated, and when the results make logical sense out of formerly disparate observations, confidence in the truth of the hypothesis increases. The theory of evolution so permeates botany that frequently it is not mentioned explicitly, but the overwhelming majority of published studies are based upon evolutionary hypotheses, each of which constitutes a test of an hypothesis. Evolution has been very successful as a scientific explanation because it has been useful in advancing our understanding of organisms and applying that knowledge to the solution of many human problems, e.g., host-pathogen interactions, origin of crop plants, herbicide resistance, disease susceptibility of crops, and invasive plants

 

<snip>

 

What would the creationist paradigm have done? No telling. Perhaps nothing, because observing three wheat species specially created to feed humans would not have generated any questions that needed answering. No predictions are made, so there is no reason or direction for seeking further knowledge. This demonstrates the scientific uselessness of creationism. While creationism explains everything, it offers no understanding beyond, “that’s the way it was created.” No testable predictions can be derived from the creationist explanation.

Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life.

In those few instances where predictions can be inferred from Biblical passages (e.g., groups of related organisms, migration of all animals from the resting place of the ark on Mt. Ararat to their present locations, genetic diversity derived from small founder populations, dispersal ability of organisms in direct proportion to their distance from eastern Turkey), creationism has been scientifically falsified.

 

<snip>

 

See full statement here

 

What do these people at AiG really care about?

[NotBlinded]

 

[nick5]

We should all get together and go visit this place just for a laugh.

[Lycorth]

Xian see, Xian do.

[Mongo]

And here I thought this would be the last place on earth I'd spend an afternoon.

 

As described, it seems like a gigantic ink blot test were you can see what goes through the minds of these fundys. Nothing but disaster and calumity occupies their minds.

 

You know... this would be the perfect location for an international gathering of atheists where the highlight event would be a contest to see how many scientific errors you can find in the museum.

 

Mongo

[Antlerman]

You know... this would be the perfect location for an international gathering of atheists where the highlight event would be a contest to see how many scientific errors you can find in the museum.

 

Mongo

Yes I like this idea. I'm sure it would be so many it would take at least 30 pass throughs to catch them all.

 

I'm struck by how like little children they are in imagining all sorts of impossible anachronisms like cavemen fighting dinosaurs, medieval knights flying spaceships to the moon, one big boat carrying all the animals of the world over the ocean, T-Rex's and little children being friends and playing together, humans who can fly and walk over water without the aid of any technology like superman and friends, etc. It doesn't matter at all to them if it has doesn't have reality supporting it, as long as it fits their fantasy. That's exactly what this is, it's how children think.

 

They should really call it, "Fantasyland Museum and Funhouse".

[Legion]

I'm almost ambarrassed for them.

[Amethyst]

I've noticed how most of the mainstream press reviews of this museum are catering to the Christians too. None of them dare claim that it might not be real, that it doesn't support science. It's as if they are scared to death not to be politically correct. It's also as if the papers are all afraid of the fundies and what they'll do to their business if they give that museum anything other than a positive review. When did we lose the right to read different opinions other than those of Christian fundies and those who support them?

 

[Sexton Blake]

I wonder if they are running episodes of THE FLINTSTONES in the museum as proof that dinosaurs lived at the same time as humans?

[Ro-bear]

Martha Heil has an interesting article about this. No scientists are allowed at the grand opening. Doesn't really give one much confidence in the museum.

 

http://members.tripod.com/martha_heil/idupdate/

[Antlerman]

Martha Heil has an interesting article about this. No scientists are allowed at the grand opening. Doesn't really give one much confidence in the museum.

 

http://members.tripod.com/martha_heil/idupdate/

I like this excerpt from it:

Today was for the believers. Today was also a carefully orchestrated event for people who would carry their message to the citizens of the nation. A huge press conference was planned and drew reporters from all over the country. Tomorrow, in another post, we'll look carefully at the news stories those messengers carried and see the impact that this ministry had on the conversation about a museum that purports to do science, but deliberately misleads its visitors using scientific terms and hand-picked facts.

 

Today, since scientists weren't allowed near the place lest they interrupt Answers in Genesis' well-funded and well-guarded version of the history of the Earth and the development of the species on it, I couldn't stay. I had hoped to introduce the attending journalists to some scientists, not so they could get "the other side of the story", but so they could get some perspective.

 

This museum is not a museum of science. It's a museum of faith, carefully cloaked in scientific garb, to help prove the truth of the Christian bible. Why is this a concern for scientists, such as the ones that have signed petitions protesting the museum, or those who couldn't be there but are quietly fuming?

 

Because this museum distorts science. It's an educational attraction, carrying in this morning at least one schoolbus in through a long line of cars waiting at the iron gates.

It shows first the scientific viewpoint – places a scientific fact in front of the visitor, then "debunks" the years of research and testing that went into ascertaining that piece of knowledge with carefully chosen phrases that reinforce a specific religious viewpoint.

The thought occurred to me as they speak of bussing school children in through the gates to this distorted hall of knowledge, what if this were a museum on Arian superiority?? What I saw in my mind was little Hitler Youth being indoctrinated with this distorted scientific language and glossy productions to make it all seem truthful. It's so irresponsible to me it borders on abuse.

 

Shouldn't there be some sort of disclaimer these "Museums" to protect our children that have to state openly such as "The views expressed in these exhibits are not accepted as valid scientifically by the vast majority of the worlds scientists, and should be considered for entertainment and inspirational purposes only."

 

Thoughts?

[Ro-bear]

Shouldn't there be some sort of disclaimer these "Museums" to protect our children that have to state openly such as "The views expressed in these exhibits are not accepted as valid scientifically by the vast majority of the worlds scientists, and should be considered for entertainment and inspirational purposes only."

 

Thoughts?

 

I have the same concerns that you do, Antlerman. However, this museum is privately funded, and its fundy founders, sorry lot though they be, have a right to promulgate whatever nonsense they wish. I am concerned because so many people are weak-minded and lazy enough to go along with, and even help spread, the nonsense that AIG specializes in.

 

I have a student, a fine, intelligent young man, an A student and a Scholars Bowl participant, who is so indoctrinated that he refuses to even entertain the possibility that evolution explains the emergence of mankind. How a bright young person with a solid underpinning in the sciences can cling to such dogma is beyond me. It is very frustrating, both from an educational and societal perspective.

[Antlerman]

I have a student, a fine, intelligent young man, an A student and a Scholars Bowl participant, who is so indoctrinated that he refuses to even entertain the possibility that evolution explains the emergence of mankind. How a bright young person with a solid underpinning in the sciences can cling to such dogma is beyond me. It is very frustrating, both from an educational and societal perspective.

The only consolation I can draw from this story is that my son, who is intelligent, between 16 to 20 years of age parroted this young earth nonsense with such lines as "Were you there?" as a response to my speaking of events in the millions of years ago time frame. He didn't grow up with me, but I countered this nonsense pretty strongly with him, where now, though he still is a believer doesn't argue this garbage with me, and has even pulled back from the more radical Ken Ham rhetoric. Personally, I see him now at 24 as well on his way to settling into a more "human" like existence.

 

In other words, youth is stubborn, but I like to believe that intelligence will ultimately prevail for them. But then maybe they are intelligent in other ways, and don't want to be bothered with questions that challenge their adopted cultural mythologies. To challenge their myth, is to threaten their cultural structure for them. That's huge motive to resist an idea taught to be a threat to them. The best way is to show that it's not a threat to belief as it isn't for millions of believers, but then that's not the role of school teacher, or is it?

[Ro-bear]

The best way is to show that it's not a threat to belief as it isn't for millions of believers, but then that's not the role of school teacher, or is it?

 

If I were a science teacher, I would be able to do more on this front. As a literature teacher, I can only try to imbue the questioning habit and hope students apply it to other facets of their lives. Too many people just aren't interested in questioing the basic assumptions that undergird their worldviews. That seems very odd to me personally, but it seems to be normal for our society.

[Realist]

Hi All,

On the same note as this topic I briefly saw headlines of this museum opening a couple of days back and went searching in "google" to find out more. In several of the "Xtian" sites I opened I was amazed to see the varying viewpoints on the creation/dinosaur etc. viewpoints currently in religion. Science has really thrown them in a whirl! Take a look at this site here for instance and the paragraph below from it!

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/dinos_on_ark.asp

 

"Creationist researcher John Woodmorappe has calculated that Noah had on board with him representatives from about 8,000 animal genera (including some now-extinct animals), or around 16,000 individual animals. When you realize that horses, zebras, and donkeys are probably descended from the horse-like “kind”, Noah did not have to carry two sets of each such animal. Also, dogs, wolves, and coyotes are probably from a single canine “kind”, so hundreds of different dogs were not needed."

 

If this aint evolution what the hell is it?????!!!

 

Take care all!

[Eccles]

What really pisses me off about this place flogging the lies in the bible is that fact that one of the founders is an Australian, Ken Ham who calles himself a Scientist. That con man should lose his Australian citizenship, his science degrees and membership of any scientific institution and society to which he belongs. I am Australia and am very embarrased about this con man.

 

$27 million to promote the lies and forgeries of that book of bullshit: the bible.