Creation Museum Opens in Kentucky

  • Thread starter cepheid
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Creation
In summary: It's not quite as deep-seated as you'd think. There are many of us evangelicals who know that creation "science" is garbage (at best). Strangely, many of the professing creationists I talk to are aware, at some level, that this pseudoscience just doesn't hold up when put to the flame. My guess is that this movement is led by a small group of people who happen to hold sway over many Americans. They've probably realized that they're plenty of money to be made from creationism through seminars, literature, and museums. I think that if you have a reasoned discussion with most of these guys, without trying to present science as opposed to faith, they'll usually
  • #1
cepheid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,199
38
"Creation" Museum...

I couldn't believe this story when I saw it...

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070528/creation_museum/20070528?hub=TopStories [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
This news has been around for sometime, and the news of its opening was out a few months earlier.

Some related blog posts: http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/05/21/calling-all-ohio-indiana-and-kentucky-scientists/
http://scienceblogs.com/interactions/2007/05/may_28_a_dark_day_for_science.php [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #3
yea the guy who owns (or directs or something) the museum was on CFRB today (talk radio station from Toronto) on the John Moore show (who was not at all impressed), but I'm glad he didn't start arguing with the guy and actually let him talk because it was a pretty nice insight into the "logic" behind these things.
 
  • #4
The hardly unexpected next step after Kent Hovind's enormous success with Dinosaur Adventure Land.
 
  • #5
This has got to be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard of...
 
  • #6
That anyone is surprised by any of the surprises that come from the creationists anymore is a surprise to me.
 
  • #7
I'm not surprised, just disgusted. Just think of how many abortion clinics and archeological expeditions could have been funded with that money...
 
  • #8
SpaceTiger said:
That anyone is surprised by any of the surprises that come from the creationists anymore is a surprise to me.

I see what you mean (and appreciate how you put it). To be honest, I haven't looked too deeply into what ideas creationists have been coming up with. It's always somewhat painful and irksome to read. I guess that's why I find this so difficult to fathom...due to a degree of naivete about just how deep-seated/widespread some of these ideas are.
 
  • #9
cepheid said:
I see what you mean (and appreciate how you put it). To be honest, I haven't looked too deeply into what ideas creationists have been coming up with. It's always somewhat painful and irksome to read. I guess that's why I find this so difficult to fathom...due to a degree of naivete about just how deep-seated/widespread some of these ideas are.

It's not quite as deep-seated as you'd think. There are many of us evangelicals who know that creation "science" is garbage (at best). Strangely, many of the professing creationists I talk to are aware, at some level, that this pseudoscience just doesn't hold up when put to the flame. My guess is that this movement is led by a small group of people who happen to hold sway over many Americans. They've probably realized that they're plenty of money to be made from creationism through seminars, literature, and museums. I think that if you have a reasoned discussion with most of these guys, without trying to present science as opposed to faith, they'll usually realize how dubious creationism is.

Should creationism be stopped? Absolutely. But I'd recommend a softer approach. Creationists seem to love having arguments, so if you take the adversarial road, you aren't going to win. Fortunately, creationists tend to recycle the same set of ten or so arguments (gaps in the fossil record, 300,000 year old mollusks, dust on the moon, etc.), so it's not too hard to explain their folly in an expedient manner.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
it would be interesting to see this become the next jurassic park

to bad there is no genetic engineering involved
 
  • #11
the website said:
Bible as a literal story...dinosaurs
Doesn't this contradict itself? Either that or it implies dinosaurs and humans were alive at the same time. :biggrin:
 
  • #12
ShawnD said:
Either that or it implies dinosaurs and humans were alive at the same time. :biggrin:
that's exactly what it implies. The guy on the radio said something along the lines of "and this is still true today, komodo dragons are dinosaurs." ... ok, komodo dragons are in fact very large reptiles. But I don't think it takes an expert eye to spot the slight differences between a komodo dragon and a T-rex :uhh:.

EDIT: I would actually have no problem with a bible museum if it presented the bible as a story, it could be very interesting and educational. It's one of the most important books ever written, we can also learn a lot about the way society functioned and the way we understood the universe back in those days— told, first hand, by those very people (The only reason I wouldn't go is because I don't think I could stand being in a place packed-full of religious nuts snootily ooohing and aaahing. And I get sick to the stomach when I see parents brain-washing their little kids with that crap).

But it's a great book, and it's one of the most ridiculously violent, racist, sexist, action-packed sagas ever written: thousands of years of generation after generation killing, raping, plaguing, enslaving, and torturing each other. Monstrous wars, the Earth opening up an swallowing sinners into a fiery death! It's like "Terminator" minus the plot consistency!
 
Last edited:
  • #13
moe darklight said:
that's exactly what it implies. The guy on the radio said something along the lines of "and this is still true today, komodo dragons are dinosaurs." ... ok, komodo dragons are in fact very large reptiles. But I don't think it takes an expert eye to spot the slight differences between a komodo dragon and a T-rex :uhh:.

Did creationists always believe this? I thought it was generally accepted that dinosaurs existed long before humans, even for those who believed in creation.
 
  • #14
It really depends who you ask, they can't even agree between them. I've heard some of the more moderate ones say that the bible is a metaphor for God's work written for people to understand back in those days (which still would not make sense, since the order in which God created things during those 7 days isn't even the right order). Then there are others who say the bible is all true, but some parts are metaphors (mysteriously, all the parts that have been proven wrong are metaphors, while the others aren't)...

Then there are those who believe that God gave the Earth the appearance of being billions of years old (that he created the Earth already filled with fossils and rocks that are billions of years old)... because, you know, God's tricky like that; he likes to keep you guessing, even if it sends you straight to hell to guess wrong.

and on and on and on... in short, don't look for a rational or consistent argument.
 
  • #15
cyrusabdollahi said:
These people need to be silenced, forcefully if necessary.

A call for the truth police! :uhh: I still tend to favor freedom of faith and thought.

Just wait until someone starts mixing the Many Worlds Theory with Bible doctrine. "In the beginning, in a very large number of worlds, there was light, in the rest there was not..."
 
  • #16
I favor reason and rationality way before I favor freedom of faith and thought. These people say mainstream science is a fairy tale and substitute their own ad-hoc BS.

I say beat them with sticks like they do in Iran until they learn to shut up.

Hash yes, but their ignorance is a deadly plague and it needs to be put to an end.

These people need to be a laughing stock in the mainstream media 24-7. The news should make a joke out of these people every night.

They say things like "This country was founded with Judeo-Christian beliefs"....well, no. Most presidents were not Jesus freaks. Learn your own history and stop making up more BS like they make up their own science.

Full of it...there all full of it. The news should call them "Domestic Fundamentalists"
 
Last edited:
  • #17
cyrusabdollahi said:
I favor reason and rationality way before I favor freedom of faith and thought. These people say mainstream science is a fairy tale and substitute their own ad-hoc BS.

Who gets to say what is truth? What is your definitive reference to look-up the right answers?
 
  • #18
I think well established science counts as truth. I am all for a well educated public. These idiots get wayyyyyy too much leeway.

The government can't tell them what to say or think. But as a society, we can shun them and outcast them, which I would be all for.
 
Last edited:
  • #19
cyrusabdollahi said:
I think well established science counts as truth.

Throughout history, what percentage of scientific theories have required revision or were flat-out wrong?

The government can't tell them what to say or think. But as a society, we can shun them and outcast them, which I would be all for.

They already are, as are you by them. But I don't think we should have elected one as President.
 
  • #20
Ivan Seeking said:
Throughout history, what percentage of scientific theories have required revision or were flat-out wrong?

Not to come off as supporting cyrus' pogrom, but I expected a much better argument here. Surely you're not going off on the "Newton was wrong, so science is just faith" rant? I thought that was reserved for cranks.
 
Last edited:
  • #21
Not at all. But there is no way to rule out faith arguments. And people have a right to follow their own philosophy.

But I do appreciate the personal insults formed as a question.
 
  • #22
Ivan Seeking said:
Not at all. But there is no way to rule out faith arguments. And people have a right to follow their own philosophy.

Sure, but I fail to see how that has anything to do with the practice of science, seeing that it's not based on faith. I don't think we should be aggressively silencing religious people, but I certainly don't think that all ideas are created equal. I find that sort of rational nihilism disturbing from a mentor on a scientific forum.


But I do appreciate the personal insults formed as a question.

"Surely you're not going off on the "Newton was wrong, so science is just faith" rant?"

I apologize if you interpret that as an insult, but I don't know why you would.
 
  • #23
cyrusabdollahi said:
I favor reason and rationality way before I favor freedom of faith and thought. These people say mainstream science is a fairy tale and substitute their own ad-hoc BS.

I say beat them with sticks like they do in Iran until they learn to shut up.

Hash yes, but their ignorance is a deadly plague and it needs to be put to an end.

These people need to be a laughing stock in the mainstream media 24-7. The news should make a joke out of these people every night.

They say things like "This country was founded with Judeo-Christian beliefs"....well, no. Most presidents were not Jesus freaks. Learn your own history and stop making up more BS like they make up their own science.

Full of it...there all full of it. The news should call them "Domestic Fundamentalists"

I think your view could lead to the point where anyone who questions mainstream science would be publicly humiliated. Let's not forget that much of what today is mainstream science, would have sounded ridiculous and magical some time ago.

I do think, however, that the news-media and politicians should act responsibly and drop their politically-correct stance when it comes to religion. Many of these views would be ridiculed (or at least ignored) by the media were it not for their religious background. The news-media's job is not to play it safe and try not to offend anyone, which is sadly what they're doing lately.

I also think that religious schools and religious programs aimed at children should be banned. An adult has the right to believe in whatever crazy theory he wants to, but filling young childrens' minds with this horrid crap is irresponsible and abusive. Watch a movie like Jesus Camp, and I hope you'll agree (I personally know from spending some childhood years in Israel where the old testament is read in class).

Also, like I joked about before, the bible is incredibly violent and many of its passages have terrible messages (especially regarding women, those who do not share your faith, homosexuals, and just human—and animal—rights in general)... this is not stuff that a young kid can process without proper guidance.
Most parents wouldn't let a 6 year old kid watch "Romper-Stomper", yet they will happily send them to a church once a week to be told about a man being tortured, his entire family killed, and his life ruined for the sake of some twisted bet (book of Job); or the first-born child of every non-beleiving family being murdered (this is, of course, celebrated as a joyous occasion— pesach ("passover" I think?). The murdered weren't of one's faith, so their lives are worthless, of course) ... etc. etc. etc.
 
  • #24
The creation story in the Bible was not meant to be taken literally. And it certainly was not meant to be twisted to fit humans living with dinosaurs.

It was intended to show something that other creation myths did not: that God created order from chaos. Other contemporary creation storys taught the opposite, that the universe was in order before creation and then something happening to disturb that order. Such as the Persian teaching that the world was covered by a stone shield and a rock breaking that shield and setting the stars and planets in chaotic motion.

The Bible story teaches stewardship, that all of creation is good (...and God said "It is good"...) and should be cared for.

I agree with the man at the park who said that money should have been used for something else.
 
  • #25
Artman said:
It was intended to show something that other creation myths did not: that God created order from chaos. Other contemporary creation storys taught the opposite, that the universe was in order before creation and then something happening to disturb that order.

I would rather say that order from chaos is the "standard" creation myth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_belief

Examples:
Rig Vedas (hinduism)
Greek mythology
Egyptian mythology

all proceed from a state of initial chaos from which some form of order arose...
 
  • #26
moe darklight said:
I think your view could lead to the point where anyone who questions mainstream science would be publicly humiliated. Let's not forget that much of what today is mainstream science, would have sounded ridiculous and magical some time ago.

But its not longer 'some time ago', and we all know, (or should know by now), that its flat out fairy tales if you think the world was created in 7 days and that all the animals were put onto a boat 2 by 2. When you fact check the bible with science, its wrong. Not just wrong, its ridiculously wrong.

I do think, however, that the news-media and politicians should act responsibly and drop their politically-correct stance when it comes to religion. Many of these views would be ridiculed (or at least ignored) by the media were it not for their religious background. The news-media's job is not to play it safe and try not to offend anyone, which is sadly what they're doing lately.

I agree.

I also think that religious schools and religious programs aimed at children should be banned. An adult has the right to believe in whatever crazy theory he wants to, but filling young childrens' minds with this horrid crap is irresponsible and abusive. Watch a movie like Jesus Camp, and I hope you'll agree (I personally know from spending some childhood years in Israel where the old testament is read in class).

I agree, and thanks for reminding me. I got to see that movie. I herd its real bad.
 
  • #27
Ivan Seeking said:
Throughout history, what percentage of scientific theories have required revision or were flat-out wrong?

Exactly. But science is not religion. It is based on logic and reason. When there is a problem, we revisit the science and correct it in light of new information.

The bible is absolute. Its right and if you don't agree with it blindly you're going to hell. And if you don't believe in my bible you're going to hell because your bible is wrong and my bible is right...oh brother.
 
  • #28
Ivan Seeking said:
Just wait until someone starts mixing the Many Worlds Theory with Bible doctrine. "In the beginning, in a very large number of worlds, there was light, in the rest there was not..."

Well, this is how string theorists try to solve the Landscape Problem, in fact... :biggrin:
 
  • #29
SpaceTiger said:
Sure, but I fail to see how that has anything to do with the practice of science, seeing that it's not based on faith. I don't think we should be aggressively silencing religious people, but I certainly don't think that all ideas are created equal. I find that sort of rational nihilism disturbing from a mentor on a scientific forum.

I had two points buried in there. First, there is reason to doubt any particular theory in that science continually evolves. But more importantly, to most people science is taken on faith. Most people don't have the experience or training to gain the conviction held by scientists. And the evolution of science often is not understood as being a natural part of the process.

"Surely you're not going off on the "Newton was wrong, so science is just faith" rant?"

I apologize if you interpret that as an insult, but I don't know why you would.

I guess that I was shocked that you would expect such an argument from me.
 
Last edited:
  • #30
vanesch said:
I would rather say that order from chaos is the "standard" creation myth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_belief

Examples:
Rig Vedas (hinduism)
Greek mythology
Egyptian mythology

all proceed from a state of initial chaos from which some form of order arose...

Many of these include fights between gods or destruction and other negative teachings about the act of creation, to explain good and evil. The Bible story from Genesis chapter 1 presents it as a pure act of good.

From your link:
Origin of Belief - Wikipedia said:
...A Hindu creation account is recorded in the sacred texts, the Vedas, according to which the universe, the Earth, along with humans and other creatures undergo repeated cycles of creation and destruction (pralaya)...

...The later puranic view asserts that the universe is created, destroyed, and re-created in an eternally repetitive series of cycles. In Hindu cosmology, a universe endures for about 4,320,000,000 years (one day of Brahma, the creator or kalpa) and is then destroyed by fire or water elements...

Or Greek-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demiurge" [Broken]

Demiurge -Wikipedia said:
The concept of artist or creator and even the Platonist conflict between the poet and philosopher (see Plato's Republic) has a link in Plato's expression of the demiurge in his works...

...However, in contrast to Plato, several systems of Gnostic thought present the Demiurge as antagonistic to the will of the Supreme Being: his act of creation occurs in unconscious imitation of the divine model, and thus is fundamentally flawed, or else is formed with the malevolent intention of entrapping aspects of the divine in materiality. Thus, in such systems, the Demiurge acts as a solution to the problem of evil...

The unique aspect is more the purity and goodness of the act of creation described in the Bible. It also does not call the heavenly bodies gods or place the world on top of a giant turtle, or fish, or huge god such as Atlas as several other religions did.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #31
But more importantly, to most people science is taken on faith. Most people don't have the experience or training to gain the conviction held by scientists.

I wouldn't say this is analogous to religious faith, it's more like trust. It's true that most people don't have the knowledge to prove scientific claims, but the fact that the proof exists and the professionals could present it makes a big difference. Ask a priest for proof of god, he will tell you to have faith. Ask a scientist for proof of the big bang, he will present you with the evidence compiled throughout history. Science is logical and empirical -- even people who aren't trained in it understand this and many trust scientists. Inherent in this trust is the understanding that scientists and scientific theories can be wrong, and that if they are, the scientific method will eventually uncover the inaccuracies. Again, this isn't something you can expect from a religion.


Ivan Seeking said:
I guess that I was shocked that you would expect such an argument from me.

I wouldn't, really, and was perhaps a bit glib in my surprise. Apologies.
 
  • #32
SpaceTiger said:
Surely you're not going off on the "Newton was wrong, so science is just faith" rant?
How about "Newton was wrong and that's exactly why science is not faith"?
In order to be scientific, a theory is supposed to be falsifiable. If Newton hasn't been falsified, then what does it mean to be falsifiable? Has the phlogiston theory been falsified yet? Don't forget, it was good science in its day. If Newton is still right because his theory continues to explain a limited set of phenomena, then so is phlogiston, is it not? To paraphrase an old joke, I thought that the difference between science and faith was that only scientists need a waste basket. Shall we do away with it?
 
  • #33
Ivan Seeking said:
I had two points buried in there. First, there is reason to doubt any particular theory in that science continually evolves. But more importantly, to most people science is taken on faith. Most people don't have the experience or training to gain the conviction held by scientists. And the evolution of science often is not understood as being a natural part of the process.

I think this is an excellent point. It is extremely difficult to convey to the general public the degree to which certain well-established theories have been corroborated and substantitated (by empirical evidence or otherwise), without delving into overly technical details. Even my "conviction" in evolution is based on a faith of sorts. I haven't taken any biology since my first year (and now I'm finishing up my undergrad). My memory of the genetics we learned in high school is sketchy. Nevertheless, my "faith" is a faith in competence of the scientists themselves and of the scientific method, if you like. My willingness to accept the results of mainstream science that I don't have the background knowledge to fully understand is based on an understanding that no one is more careful or skeptical of new ideas and theories than the scientists themselves. If it has survived the intense scrutiny of the peer-review process, if the evidence in support of it has only mounted over the last 150 years, if no one has ever been able to show significant findings to the the contrary...well, you get my point.

In contrast, many people don't understand that scientists are held to such standards. This problem is compounded by the oft-mentioned discrepancy between the colloquial and scientific use of the word "theory". In common parlance, a theory is akin to a hypothesis in science -- an as yet untested educated guess. In light of all this, I can see how the scientists are fighting an uphill battle, and it is relatively easy for the creationists to claim that scientists are guilty of obfuscation by resorting to overly technical jargon and using it to claim intellectual superiority (or even supremacy) in a given field of knowledge.

What I DON'T understand is why people would BUY such an argument on the part of the creationists. Don't they ever ask themselves, "what would the scientists have to gain by lying to us and spreading falsehoods in general?" Unlike the creationists, the scientists do not have a personal stake in the outcome of this "debate."

One news story I saw on MSNBC illustrated this point. It was discussing a man who was using the rapid geological changes induced by the eruption of Mt. St. Helens to argue that the Earth could have been shaped in a timespan as short as that claimed in the Bible. To his credit, he had taken it upon himself to learn a fair bit about geology. The criticism of real geologists was that although he understood some of the science, he was not employing the scientific method. He was starting with the conclusion that he wanted to be true, and then using certain scientific evidence to justify that conclusion. Scientists, on the other hand, don't start with any preconceived notions about what they "should" find. They just go where the evidence leads. This argument, for me, clinched it. I couldn't see how anyone in his/her right mind could refute it. If we are to embark upon a "search for truth," surely this approach is the absolute best we can do?
 
  • #34
I think cepheid hit the nail on the head there. Creationists have already decided what nature is to them and try desperately to see meaning where there is none. Many lack the knowledge and training as has been mentioned to corroborate mainstream scientific theories and take the words of scientists as those of a preacher where they are to have faith in them or not. As soon as those theories start indicating nature is not as they see it then they become very defensive. For some reason having ones perception of how things are turned upside down sems to aggravate a lot of people. But I would say iof they needed any more proof that modern scientific theory was well grounded just look at the technological innovation in the past 100 years or so.

I also believe as cepheid highlighted, that the general public do not realize how harsh peer review is.
 
  • #35
jimmysnyder said:
If Newton is still right because his theory continues to explain a limited set of phenomena, then so is phlogiston, is it not?

I'm not trying to say Newton was right, just that saying he was wrong is an oversimplification and can be deceptive. His theories are still useful for many purposes and act as a limiting case for more modern theories. If one's only concern is the true nature of things and the most basic workings of the universe, then sure, Newton was completely wrong. Science, however, is not just about answering the ultimate questions (in fact, I don't think it should even try), it is about being able to understand and predict the behavior of the natural world. Newton's laws can still do this in certain limits. Perhaps one can use phlogiston to predict or understand something, but I can't say I'm familiar enough with the theory to say one way or the other.

I think a person can treat science as an object of faith, but I don't think they should, nor do i think most people do. If one believes that what we can test with science is all there is, then they have a faith of sorts. If one simply takes science as means of describing the natural world with increasing precision and accuracy, then I wouldn't say they have faith in it, just logic and understanding.
 
<h2>What is the Creation Museum in Kentucky?</h2><p>The Creation Museum is a museum located in Petersburg, Kentucky that presents a literal interpretation of the biblical creation story.</p><h2>When did the Creation Museum open?</h2><p>The Creation Museum opened on May 28, 2007.</p><h2>Who is the founder of the Creation Museum?</h2><p>The Creation Museum was founded by Ken Ham, a Young Earth Creationist and president of the apologetics organization Answers in Genesis.</p><h2>What exhibits can visitors expect to see at the Creation Museum?</h2><p>The Creation Museum features exhibits that showcase a literal interpretation of the biblical creation story, including life-size dinosaur models, a replica of Noah's Ark, and a planetarium show about the creation of the universe.</p><h2>Is the Creation Museum scientifically accurate?</h2><p>The scientific accuracy of the Creation Museum has been a topic of debate and controversy. While the museum presents a literal interpretation of the Bible, many scientific experts have criticized its claims and exhibits as being unscientific and not based on evidence.</p>

What is the Creation Museum in Kentucky?

The Creation Museum is a museum located in Petersburg, Kentucky that presents a literal interpretation of the biblical creation story.

When did the Creation Museum open?

The Creation Museum opened on May 28, 2007.

Who is the founder of the Creation Museum?

The Creation Museum was founded by Ken Ham, a Young Earth Creationist and president of the apologetics organization Answers in Genesis.

What exhibits can visitors expect to see at the Creation Museum?

The Creation Museum features exhibits that showcase a literal interpretation of the biblical creation story, including life-size dinosaur models, a replica of Noah's Ark, and a planetarium show about the creation of the universe.

Is the Creation Museum scientifically accurate?

The scientific accuracy of the Creation Museum has been a topic of debate and controversy. While the museum presents a literal interpretation of the Bible, many scientific experts have criticized its claims and exhibits as being unscientific and not based on evidence.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
  • General Discussion
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
9
Views
23K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
7
Views
3K
Back
Top