Creation Museum opens

Oh well, kids probably come to school insisting that there are giant blue oxen as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bunyan_and_Babe_the_Blue_Ox

Reply

What I find very interesting is that, when I was growing up, it was generally understood that a "day" to God was not the same as a "day" to us. I believe there is a passage in Job to that effect. So there was never any conflict, as I remember it, between the truth of the Bible and the truth of science. What happened to change that? This current outlook seems very medieval to me.

Reply

CLM, I think the main difference in philosophy is not whether the Earth was created in seven days (I agree that nearly no "creationists" believe that; the Bible does say "day" to God is not the same as "day" to man, and anyone with a thorough knowledge of the Bible would know that). Rather, the real issue is whether or not God was behind creation at all.

Creationists take issue with the theory that life was created by accident and not by an intelligent force - call it God or whatever. Creationists are generally not opposed to the idea that evolution may have been the means by which the variety of the species was accomplished.

The mainstream fuss over evolution versus creationism is based on misinformation. The fact is that most people who believe in evolution believe in God. And most people who believe in creationism believe in evolution.

The debate between creationism and evolution was started by atheists who have contempt for the belief in God as the force behind the existence of life. The only reason it is discussed in the mainstream is because these atheists have twisted the beliefs of most creationists by denying that they see evolution as plausible.

By the way, as any honest scientist will agree, "science" has uncovered only a small amount of information regarding how today's species came to be. There is far, far more that is unknown. Relying on proven science to understand life is like clinging to driftwood while crossing the Atlantic Ocean.

It's so easy to scoff at other people's beliefs. But first, one should have the intelligence to verify whether one's understanding of others' beliefs is even accurate.

Reply

FWIW, the phrase is "Chaqu'un son goût" which is French for "Everyone has their own taste" ... in English it might be "To each their own". So, if your Mother was into kissing cows ... to each their own! :)

I think that dismissing what you consider "odd behavior" is fine when that behavior doesn't significantly affect others but when that behavior is detrimental to anyone else you can't just dismiss it. Having said that, this is a private "attraction". No one will be forced to go there. Any public school teacher taking kids there should be summarily dismissed but if parents want to teach their kids the fable of creationism, then they're going to do that "museum" or not.

I suppose my only problem with this place, though, is in calling it a museum. Does it have artefacts? Is it "an institution devoted to the procurement, care, study, and display of objects of lasting interest or value" (thanks Merriam-Webster).

Ah well, a further sign of the polarization of the US and the growing public displays of Christian fundamentalism.

A>

Reply

CLM, the folks running this museum are YEC's -- young earth creationists. They take the bible very literally -- God created everything in 6 days as we know them. At least, that's what I got from reading their websites.

I do think that most Christians see the bible as more metaphorical (if that's the right term) than literal. They also, as I understand it, for the most part do accept evolution. I know the Catholic church does. It's a small but vocal group, I gather, that opposes evolution altogether.

SKL, that's an interesting bit of insight -- "The debate between creationism and evolution was started by atheists who have contempt for the belief in God as the force behind the existence of life." I was under the impression that the debate came about by creationists trying to get creationism (or ID) taught in science classes, either alongside or in place of evolution. I'd like to learn more about the origins of the issue -- can you point me to some background materials?

Yes, science has indeed uncovered only a small portion of what there is to know about the origins of life, but that small part is still a huge amount. What remains to be learned is massive and why the world of science is so exciting these days.

Anthony - Thanks for correcting my quote... I have no idea how to put a caret over the u and it seems I'd mis-remembered it anyway. I do wish my French was better.

I don't know what displays they have and, as I noted, I'm not planning on visiting any time soon, but I have to assume they have lots of artifacts and what-not on display that prove or at least support the concepts they're presenting.

Reply

Roger, a distinction needs to be made between people who take the Bible literally and those who believe God is behind the existence of life. Based on the course in creationism & evolution that I took in high school, creationists are mostly in the second category - they believe God is behind the existence of life, but do not deny the plausibility of evolution of species. They may not agree with every detail of every evolutionary theory, but in most respects, the differences are not fundamental. These creationists have advocated having modern-day schools mention the fact that alternate theories of evolution exist - not to replace Darwinism or to teach in science class that God created the world in six 24-hour periods.

Of course, historically, schools in predominantly Christian nations (including the US) all used the Bible as a key textbook. Evolution wasn't taught to children at all. When more people came to understand Darwin's theories, they began teaching the older students that this was a theory. It is only recently that people are fighting to force schools to teach that Darwin's theories are the only theories worthy of consideration. This, by the way, is a very unscientific way of teaching - a theory is by definition one possible way of explaining phenomena, not the only possible explanation.

This battle is really just symbolic anyway. In public schools, the amount of information kids actually learn about evolution is negligible at best. Few high school grads have ever laid eyes on Darwin's writings and many wouldn't even be able to explain the relevant differences between the species, much less contemplate how such differences came to be. We're lucky if most of our kids come out of school being able to read their science texts at all. It's so stupid that so many resources are wasted because some atheists or members of non-Judeo-Christian religions are afraid kids will hear a random word or two that originates from the Bible. As if high school kids are ignorant of the Bible anyway. What a waste of resources.

And all this fuss is just about the first bit of Genesis. The rest of the Bible is full of stuff we still allow our kids to hear in school. But let's keep that quiet, lest half of the next generation's education budget gets spent to weed out those instances.

Reply

It doesn't matter what I think about the "museum". It's a private enterprise and I have a right to support it or not.

Frankly, I don't think it will change many minds.

Reply

Theories are testable and predictive. Beliefs are not. What's interesting about the "Barney was on the Ark" belief is that it reflects the enduring ability of religion to agressively co-opt existing belief systems. Folding biblical dinos into the creation myths is a great way to co-opt kids. And so the pagan winter festivals became Christmas, and the religion of Abraham and Moses begot the religion of Christ, which in turn begot the religion of Mohammed. Just wait, Harry Potter will find his way in yet...

Reply

I'm afraid that SKL rather garbles the situation.

There are a goodly number of YECs that absolutely reject evolution in any meaningful sense and insist on a less than 10,000 year old world.

The approach of accepting evolution while insisting that it is divinely controlled is normally described as "theistic evolution" and is quite different from YECism.

Indeed, the one form of 'creationism' that the Discovery Institute (the primary organization behind "Intelligent Design" creationism) does not tolerate is theistic evolution.

The general history has been a change from legal bans on teaching evolution (Tennessee in the mid-1902s, read up on the Scopes trial), to attempts from the 1960s onward to either force permission to teach creationism in science classes, or ban any teaching of origins at all.

This went from outright Biblical-literal creationism to "scientific creationism" to "Intelligent Design" creationism. The changes in labeling being driven by adverse court rulings. (You can read up on the sort of efforts that were made in the trial transcripts of Kitzmiller vs. Dover, which are widely available on the web).

Having lost all court cases--not to mention any remaining credibility--the DI appears to be falling back on "teach the controversy". This is akin to giving equal credence to flat-earthers in a geography class. Fact is not co-equal with fantasy wishes.

The underlying problem is that there is NO scientific "alternate theory". Those who follow the efforts of creationists to tear down the foundations of science and substitute their own brand of theocracy constantly ask for whatever "theory" that is being pushed to actually *state* the theory--and to provide testable hypotheses. To date, no creationists have stepped up to that challenge. Thus, there is NO known creationist "theory".

If you really want to explore the issues and what is said on both sides in excruciating detail, start with the TalkOrigins Archive. It contains links to creationist sites (who, interestingly--and tellingly--enough, do not return the compliment) to get their side of issues.

Since Roger mentioned Kent Hovind, it is worth pointing out that his troubles were quite self-made. he is in prison on a 10-year sentence for tax evasion. If the publically available comments of his supporters are to be believed, he appears to be having trouble adjusting to a place where he is not the one who determines the day to day rules...but that describes his life outside prison as well.

Reply