Kentucky Fried Creationism

The Cincinnati Enquirer reports on the whiz-bang opening of the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky. Long snippets:

The museum opened at 10 a.m. with about 500 people in line and with license plates from 31 states and two Canadian provinces in the parking lot of about 600 spaces....

"It's really impressive - and it really gives the impression that they're talking about science at some point," said critic Lawrence Krauss, professor of physics and astronomy and director of the Center for Education and Research in Cosmology and Astrophysics at Cleveland's Case Western Reserve University.

On a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being best, "I'd give it a 4 for technology, 5 for propaganda," Krauss said. As for content, "I'd give it a negative 5."...

The museum, with its roaring Utah raptor and impressive computer-generated images of what Noah's Ark might have looked like plying the waves of a Great Flood, has a polish and professionalism of exhibits that would make documentary-makers, many museums and theme parks drool.

"They've got a lot of beautiful animation to attract the kids," said Thomas More College mathematics and physics professor Robert M. Riehemann. "It's as believable as any fantasy science-fiction movie or museum that you'll see."

But the flash lacks the facts, argue Riehemann, Krauss and other critics - including more than 800 scientists from Kentucky, Ohio and Indiana who signed a "statement of concern" about the museum.

"We, the undersigned scientists at universities and colleges ... are concerned about scientifically inaccurate materials at the Answers in Genesis museum," the statement reads. "Students who accept this material as scientifically valid are unlikely to succeed in science courses at the college level."

"They're trying to make it look like it's your option - you can choose whichever version you want," Riehemann said. "But really, the scientific community is very strong, and very united, that the earth is more than 6,000 years old - that dinosaurs did not co-exist with human beings.

"But they want to present it as though there's really some kind of issue here among scientists," Riehemann said. "There's no real disagreement in the greater body of scientists."

"'What do you mean by mainstream science?' is what I would say," said Answers in Genesis president and co-founder Ken Ham. "By mainstream science, I would understand, 'Oh, you study cells, you study genetics, you study the physical laws.'

"What we're showing here is our scientists are mainstream scientists, and mainstream science confirms the Bible's history - that's what we're saying," Ham said. "I would say mainstream science is what this place is all about."...

Other exhibits showed dinosaurs aboard Noah's Ark, and asserted that no animals, including dinosaurs, were meat-eaters until after Adam committed the first sin in the Garden of Eden.

"Before man's fall," according to one exhibit, "animals were vegetarians. In a 'very good' creation, no animal would die, so there were no carnivores."

"There is no other place like this in the world - this is a world first," Ham said. "Hopefully, maybe it will be the start of many more around the world."

Among Kentucky dignitaries who celebrated the building's ribbon cutting on Saturday were Boone County Judge-executive Gary Moore; state Sens. Richard "Dick" Roeding and Jack Westwood; state Reps. Addia Wuchner and Tom Kerr; Kentucky Court of Appeals Judge Joy Moore; County Commissioner Charlie Kenner; state Commerce Secretary George Ward; and Paul Patton, the state's director of faith-based initiatives.

More here.

Creation Museum site online here.

Reason's Ron Bailey attended Creation Summer Camp, where some the museum's founders were, er, counselors, here.

More Reason stories on evolution here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    "It's really impressive - and it really gives the impression that they're talking about science at some point," said critic Lawrence Krauss...

    Win.

  • stuartl||

    Other exhibits showed dinosaurs aboard Noah's Ark, and asserted that no animals, including dinosaurs, were meat-eaters until after Adam committed the first sin in the Garden of Eden.

    I'm curious what prevented the Allosuarus(?) on their home page from starving to death. Those teeth are not much good at chewing plant matter. No doubt there is some good scientific explanation.

  • ||

    This and other "creation science" efforts should make it easier to rebut the claims of creationists. They've accepted the paradigm of modern, experimental science as the standard for testing their claims. By that standard, their claims can easily be shown to fail. (As opposed to arguing that experimental science / Aristotelian logic represent only one set of "truth" rules, which cannot be shown to be better than any other set of truth rules.)

  • Bhh||

    Allosaurus ate bananas. They're soft and he could peel them with his little claws.

  • ||

    Love means never having to say you're -saurus.

  • Christ on a Cracker||

    From Mr. Bailey's article:
    "... If Adam is your ancestor then you were created specially and have a purpose in life. If evolution is true, we are descended from ape-like animals with no morality, no aesthetic sensibility and no soul." If evolution were true, Bell tells the conferees, then "you would have no purpose for your existence."

    Actually, if this is true, then your life has no pre-ordained purpose. It is up to you to come up with a purpose.

    Athesism is not for the weak minded.

  • thoreau||

    I'm almost tempted to go visit this place.

    I'd probably get kicked out in about 5 minutes. But it would be fun while it lasted.

    Hit and Run roadtrip, anybody?

  • ||

    Can anyone who's studied Genesis tell me if the flood was supposed to destroy all life on earth, and if so, how did it kill all of the fish?

  • ktc2||

    Yeah, let's make a roadtrip of it.

    We'll all go and laugh until we pass out or they throw us out.

  • stephen the goldberger||

    "Can anyone who's studied Genesis tell me if the flood was supposed to destroy all life on earth, and if so, how did it kill all of the fish?"

    It combined fresh water bodies with salt water bodies and all the fish couldn't handle the fragile shift to their ecosystem.

    Sort of like how Global Warming will kill us all.

  • ||

    Why even bother with the "animals were vegetarians ... so there were no carnivores." nonsense, why not "animals didn't need food until the fall" full stop. This way the creationist have even one less thing to explain and one less thing to embarrass themselves with.

  • SugarFree||

    Oh, Kentucky... every time I develop a little pride, you haul off and kick me in the taint.

    We're really all not idiots here, it's just that the idiots all seem to have megaphones.

    I could meet you up there, for the roadtrip. There are two awesome and three middling disc golf course within a 20 minute drive, so the whole trip wouldn't all have to be about laughing at doofuses.

  • ||

    "...and Paul Patton, the state's director of faith-based initiatives."

    Ahhhhhhh...nothing like a little irony to start off the first day after a long weekend.

    That's just poetic.

  • robc||

    Post museum, we could head into Newport and hit the HofbrauHaus for dinner. The beers may help us forget. As a Kyian and an evangelical christian, I would need a good bit to drink to get over the embarrassment of that place.

  • biologist||

    Clearly, Ken Ham isn't worried about violating the Bible's prohibition on "bearing false witness". He must know something we don't know. Is it:

    A: God told him the end justifies the means.
    B: There is no God.
    C: His stated interpretation of the Bible is false, and he's just doing this schtick to get rich.

  • ||

    My understanding is that the is funded privately. My understanding is that no one is being compelled to attend.

    Check both of those boxes above, and I don't care if they're teachin' everybody that the world is flat.

  • stuartl||

    Why even bother with the "animals were vegetarians ... so there were no carnivores." nonsense, why not "animals didn't need food until the fall" full stop. This way the creationist have even one less thing to explain and one less thing to embarrass themselves with.

    Someone might ask where the animals got the energy to move around.

    Don't you understand that this is REAL science? They have strong evidence for all of their assertions.

  • ||

    Largely because they want to remain accurate to the text and interpretations thereof. If they just wanted a nice, easily swallowed story, they've got plenty of options (it's not like anyone even reads the lineages anyway). I mean, if you're assuming that a deity can create the entire freaking universe, a couple plants that provide protein and can be consumed with teeth like that on a carnivore isn't particularly difficult.

    I don't like the scientist complaints against it, though. It's religious speech, for starters, and probably political as well, and as a result as well protected by the 1st amendment as it gets.
    It should be very easy to debunk anything this obviously false. Trying to stop information from getting out suggests that you're not capable of doing so.

    And for most of us, this is something you can pick an option over. Unless you're studying the history of the universe or evolutionary biology, it doesn't matter much. Even stuff like particle physics doesn't require you to know much about the creation of the universe or the utility of flooding.

    Actually, if this is true, then your life has no pre-ordained purpose. It is up to you to come up with a purpose.

    No, to be more precise, your purpose is to reproduce as quickly as possible to prevent your genetic code from being annihilated, in a hopeless attempt to slow the loss of genetic diversity in the human race.

  • Timothy||

    Hell yes, road trip!

    Ken: I think they have a right to tell people whatever they want, but it doesn't make them any less mock-worthy that they're well within their rights. The spreading of falsehood also really irritates me, because then the rest of us have to waste our time trying to rebut emotionally appealing nonsense instead of working on something productive.

  • Garth||

    I can "get" why some people need to believe a deity created the universe and all the stuff in it... but sticking to the Noah's Ark story? C'mon, that's just being ridiculous.

  • ||

    No question--other people's speech can be annoying.

  • SugarFree||

    Garth,

    When building a house of cards, you have to use all the cards for the sake of stability.

  • D.A. Ridgely||

    stuartl,

    I understand DEATH (Dinosaurs for the EthicAl Treatment of Humans) was very big in those days and the allosaurus, etc. struggled on a diet of prehistoric tofu and airborne plankton. After being ousted from Eden, early human use of fire emitted so much CO2 into the atmosphere that the airborne plankton sank into the oceans and all but two of the dinosaurs died out. Due to a clerical error, they were on Noah's Transportation Security Authority watch list and were thus barred from the Ark. This was all part of God's plan that one day we would have enough gasoline to get to church on Sunday in our SUVs, so we shouldn't feel too sorry for the dead dinosaurs, except maybe for Fred and Wilma's loyal pet, Dino.

  • steveintheknow||

    A road trip would be awesome!

    Like the time I went to the actual Hell House for Halloween. thats right kids, as seen on tv.

    The truth may set you free, but lies, bull shit, and propaganda... that's where the fun is.

  • SugarFree||

    DAR,

    That reminds me of my favorite creationism joke:

    Creationists: People who watch The Flintstone and think it's a documentary.

  • SugarFree||

    Stupid missing s. I guess it wasn't on the ark either.

  • biologist||

    gattsuru | May 29, 2007, 9:44am | #

    ...I don't like the scientist complaints against it, though. It's religious speech, for starters, and probably political as well, and as a result as well protected by the 1st amendment as it gets.


    so scientists' complaints about the museum aren't protected speech?

    It should be very easy to debunk anything this obviously false. Trying to stop information from getting out suggests that you're not capable of doing so.

    I didn't see in the article where anyone was trying to stop "information" from getting out, but in fact many books have been written debunking exactly the claims of creationists (e.g. Scientists Confront Creationism). There are many real science museums as well. However, studying science and math to gain the understanding in order to be able to discriminate among plausible-sounding alternatives takes time and effort the average person isn't willing to exert.

    Ken Schultz:

    those are the main libertarian talking points, and I agree, but I have a general objection to people propagating false statements as true.

    Timothy:

    exactly

  • biologist||

    hmmm, apparently there's a newer edition of the book I recommended updated to address intelligent design:

    Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism

  • ||

    Where's Elmo to tell me I'm not allowed to doubt the veracity of the museum's claims without first visiting the museum and absorbing its message?

  • Bhh||

    If you're on a roadtrip in the general area you might as well stop by
    Touchdown Jesus
    .

  • ||

    This was also interesting.

  • ||

    I mean, if you're assuming that a deity can create the entire freaking universe, a couple plants that provide protein and can be consumed with teeth like that on a carnivore isn't particularly difficult.

    It's too bad all the pork-chop trees vanished in the flood.

  • ||

    What annoys me about the whole "evolution vs creationism" thing is that people keep harping about science when the debate is about history.

  • ||

    Bhh,

    About your link:

    It's good!

  • Grotius||

    Ken,

    If they are going to put their wares into the marketplace of ideas then they are fair game.

  • ||

    The museum's website is notable for its lack of photographs. I could only find this page with three photos of visibly uninspired workers. If they really want to make some money, they should charge by the yawn.

  • Grotius||

    Lamar,

    Note that the first picture is full of "spectral orbs!" ;)

  • ||

    There are no legal or justice issues here, because it's all voluntary. Regarding the accuracy, now that the museum puts specific claims on the table, scientists can counter them. Overall, students will benefit from seeing the debate. I'm optimistic that the museum will become more Dawrinistic over time as it's supporters develop a more scientific outlook.

    In related new, the American Museum of Natural History has updated their exhibit on human evolution. They also finished revamping their anthropology exhibits over the past few years so they are less about diaramas and more about the flow of cultural traits. I'll be thrilled if AMNH opens a Hall of European Peoples.

  • ||

    What annoys me about the whole "evolution vs creationism" thing is that people keep harping about science when the debate is about history.

    Good history scholorship involves science.

  • thoreau||

    I'm optimistic that the museum will become more Dawrinistic over time as it's supporters develop a more scientific outlook.

    If this was about a bunch of people who started their exhibits under certain misunderstandings but are willing to correct their misunderstandings, then you would be right. Through a process of feedback the exhibits would "evolve" over time and eventually reflect good science.

    But that's not what this is about. The museum is about dogma, and the people espousing it are not interested in revision.

    They have a right to make a museum reflecting their views, of course, and the rest of us have a right to mock them mercilessly.

  • GILMORE||

    Do creationists have an explanation for why men have nipples?

    Science has failed to provide an explanation that will satisfy me. Why did jesus give me boobies?

  • Mike Laursen||

    What annoys me about the whole "evolution vs creationism" thing is that people keep harping about science when the debate is about history.

    Once again I wish we could post our comments in the form of Venn diagrams. Dan T., in your Venn diagram, do the History and Science circles not overlap?

  • SugarFree||

    GILMORE,

    Would you rather have them here?

    (SFW, but disturbing)

  • biologist||

    jtuf | May 29, 2007, 10:57am | #

    There are no legal or justice issues here, because it's all voluntary.


    agreed

    Regarding the accuracy, now that the museum puts specific claims on the table, scientists can counter them.

    their claims have been countered and disproven over and over and over and over...

    Overall, students will benefit from seeing the debate.

    when empirical questions are involved, there is no real debate, if enough information is available. That students benefit from examining the sides' competing claims is true, but doesn't require a visit to a dishonest museum, they should be getting this information in class. I suspect if high school instructors taught evolution coupled with presentations debunking the specific claims of young-earth creationists they'd get in trouble for offending religious beliefs.

    I'm optimistic that the museum will become more Dawrinistic [sic] over time as it's [sic] supporters develop a more scientific outlook.

    Like the beliefs of the creationists running the museum, your optimistic supposition lacks empirical support.

    Gilmore:

    what explanation have you heard that you didn't find satisfactory?

  • thoreau||

    Why did jesus give me boobies?

    Jesus only gave you the nipples. Beer and ice cream give you the rest.

  • Grotius||

    Gilmore,

    Do creationists have an explanation for why men have nipples?

    Male nipples are "The Theists [sic] Nightmare."

  • biologist||

    Grotius:

    from the video you linked:

    Did the first man have nipples?

    Before I accepted the evidence of evolution I often wondered if Adam and Eve had navels.

    (great video, btw)

  • Grotius||

    biologist,

    I wondered that question myself. In fact if I recall correctly I asked a minister that question when I was a kid. I can't really remember the answer but I do remember feeling somewhat unsatisfied.

  • ||

    "If they are going to put their wares into the marketplace of ideas then they are fair game."

    I agree. ...and I hope someone points out to them that because they can put their wares into the marketplace, because they can prepare their kids for the heresies they'll have to endure in public schools, there's no reason to crowbar their ideas into the public school curriculum.

    This is the libertarian solution. We should applaud it.

  • MattXIV||

    My understanding is that the is funded privately. My understanding is that no one is being compelled to attend.

    Check both of those boxes above, and I don't care if they're teachin' everybody that the world is flat.



    While this is a defense against any legal sanction for the museum, it does nothing to support abstaining from criticising it, even quite harshly. Indeed, the success of free speech as a practical policy requires that people do so, since it relies on incorrect positions be scorned sufficiently that people cease to hold them.

  • thoreau||

    This is the libertarian solution. We should applaud it.

    Does this mean I have to stop telling jokes about Blue Man Candidate because he's a libertarian who dyed his skin blue at his own expense?

  • Jim Murphy||

    I'm curious what prevented the Allosuarus(?) on their home page from starving to death. Those teeth are not much good at chewing plant matter. No doubt there is some good scientific explanation.

    God said it, I believe it, that settles it. Allosaurus ate hummus.

  • Jim Murphy||

    I could meet you up there, for the roadtrip. There are two awesome and three middling disc golf course within a 20 minute drive, so the whole trip wouldn't all have to be about laughing at doofuses.

    I'd rather see where they make the bourbon and race the horses ; )

  • ||

    "While this is a defense against any legal sanction for the museum, it does nothing to support abstaining from criticising it, even quite harshly. Indeed, the success of free speech as a practical policy requires that people do so, since it relies on incorrect positions be scorned sufficiently that people cease to hold them."

    Did someone suggest otherwise?

  • ||

    biologist,

    Scientists took over a century of debate to weed out racist views from evolutionary presentations. They also had to rechallenge a few reincarnations of those ideas. Taking that as a template for opposing false ideas, I think we're up to the challenge to convincing creationists that the data supports Darwin. Anyway, it's good we have this comparitively light hearted news in today's blog.

  • thoreau||

  • ||

    It would be great if Mencken were still with us...what a hoot his column on this would be.

  • lunchstealer||

    Christ on a Cracker | May 29, 2007, 8:52am | #

    Wait, we've got another ontological dilemma here. If the cracker that Christ is on is a communion cracker, and if that cracker has undergone transubstantiation and is now the body of Christ, then that would be Christ on Himself?

  • ||

    Dan T., in your Venn diagram, do the History and Science circles not overlap?

    Only very marginally. Take it from a history and philosophy double major - science is only incidentally implicated in historiography.

  • biologist||

    lunchstealer, that sounds like Christ is involved in some sort of autoerotic activity

  • ||

    I believe Ken Ham claims that Tyrannosaurs used their teeth to crack open coconuts. Read it on a blog linked to from Pharyngula.com

    This, of course, raises the question of why other animals, like tigers, which cannot crack open coconuts, have such teeth. From Mark Twain's "Diaries of Adam and Eve": "She engages herself in many foolish things; among others; to study out why the animals called lions and tigers live on grass and flowers, when, as she says, the sort of teeth they wear would indicate that they were intended to eat each other. This is foolish, because to do that would be to kill each other, and that would introduce what, as I understand, is called "death"; and death, as I have been told, has not yet entered the Park. Which is a pity, on some accounts."

    There is also the question of why animals that were designed to subsist on vegetation would go to the bother of chasing down and killing meat, since this takes a lot more energy and is harder to do than browsing.

    Wish Mark Twain was alive to unleash on these idiots.

  • Franklin Harris||

    Let me get this straight. Animals were all vegetarians until after the Fall, at which point, some of them suddenly became meat eaters, which is what their teeth are good for but what God didn't want them to do, proving God is an unintelligent designer. Later, the Flood came along, and Noah put all of these animals, including dinosaurs and meat eaters of all stripes, on a big boat. So, am I to take it that the reason Noah didn't have a breeding pair of unicorns is because a T-Rex decided to have a midnight snack? Then, after the Fall and the Food, God decides his creation isn't perfect anymore, anyway, so he lets all of the dinosaurs die off. And he puts the dinos' bones in different fossil levels even though they must have all kicked off at about the same time. But, of course, this is the same God who created light in mid-travel from millions of light years away so that people might actually be fooled into thinking the universe is old enough for light to travel vast distances on its own. Clearly, His ways are not our ways.

    And people actually believe this?

    I'd have an easier time believing Rudy Giuliani is a libertarian.

  • Mike Laursen||

    This is the libertarian solution. We should applaud it.

    Gotta disagree. Although I think Creationists are bozos, they're paying taxes to support public schools, so they are justified in wanting their nonsense to be taught there.

  • ||

    Dan T, RC Dean,

    This is about history not science, you say? Is biology not a science? What about geology? Astronomy? Cosmology? What the fuck?

  • ||

    "Although I think Creationists are bozos, they're paying taxes to support public schools, so they are justified in wanting their nonsense to be taught there."

    I agree that they're justified in wanting their nonsense taught to their own children, and I agree that they're justified in not wanting to have to pay taxes to propagate that which contradicts their religious convictions.

    ...but they're not justified in trying to teach religious things to non religious people or people of other religions. I guess I'm just not real wild about the way you used the word "justified" there.

  • ||

    Franklin Harris,

    Now, now, the creationists don't claim God created light in mid-travel. They claim that the speed of light has slowed down over the years. Google it and see for yourself.

  • ||

    They claim that the speed of light has slowed down over the years. Google it and see for yourself.

    that's been around for a while. when Kansas banned evolution, they also banned the big-bang theory.

  • lunchstealer||

    I have seen a textbook used by homeschoolers that makes some tragicomic claims regarding the speed of light, radiogenic decay, and any of a number of other rather well established physical laws.

    Everything is rational if rational is solely defined as justifying the bible.

  • ||

    The creationist/ID'ers focus on undoing Darwin, but in the end they have to reject all modern science past the 1800's. They don't see it that way, but then they have to resort to non-constant speed of light and other crap to "prove" a young earth.

    Anytime I meet someone that wants to argue about evolution, I just ask them to explain red-shift. This usually results in completely blank expressions.

  • ||

    Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 2Pe 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation.
    2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 2Pe 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

  • ||

    "Now, now, the creationists don't claim God created light in mid-travel. They claim that the speed of light has slowed down over the years."

    Actually, both have been claimed. The latter is slightly more plausible, and the speed of light may have indeed varied somewhat under some theories, though not anywhere near the order of magnitude that the creationists would need, and if so, there would be all sorts of other effects of that that are all missing.

  • ||

    jer 2:27 "Saying to a stock, Thou [art] my father; and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth: for they have turned [their] back unto me, and not [their] face: but in the time of their trouble they will say, Arise, and save us." Before you say that you don't believe that you came from a stone answer this question, where did the soup come from?

  • thoreau||

    There are certainly some mainstream cosmologists who propose that the speed of light has changed over time. But none of the hypothesized effects come anywhere close to providing cover for claims of a literal 7 day creation.

    The only way to be a literal 7 day creationist without discarding most of modern physics is to believe that light was put there in mid-travel. Of course, once you go there, you could just as easily hypothesize that we were created 5 minutes ago with all of these memories implanted in our brains.

    I have been told that in the 1990's, when newsgroups were the place to go for internet arguments, there was a guy on evolution/creation threads who described himself as the High Priest of the Church of Last Thursday. He argued (facetiously, one presumes) that the world had been created last Thursday by his cat, who was actually a deity. When people pointed to his posts from before last Thursday, he would say that those records and memories were fabricated during the creation.

  • ||

    Isa 45:12 "I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, [even] my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded."

  • ||

    Isaac Newton "Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system. I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance."

  • ||

    "Boone County Judge-executive Gary Moore; state Sens. Richard "Dick" Roeding and Jack Westwood; state Reps. Addia Wuchner and Tom Kerr; Kentucky Court of Appeals Judge Joy Moore; County Commissioner Charlie Kenner; state Commerce Secretary George Ward; and Paul Patton, the state's director of faith-based initiatives."
    Any Kentuckians out there? I was curious as to how many of these pols were Dems and how many were GOP. I'm pretty sure which it would be, but would be nice to know.

  • ||

    And would Judge Joy Moore be the spawn of uber-idiot Roy Moore? That would explain a lot...

  • biologist||

    flood:

    if other planets aren't at the right distance to receive just the right amount of heat and light, then life couldn't have formed there by natural phenomena, and would have required outside intervention (i.e. supernatural phenomena, such as God). A more convincing argument for creationism would be if we found our sort of life thriving either on Mercury or Pluto.

  • Franklin Harris||

    Isaac Newton "Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system. I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance."

    Newton believed this because, genius that he was, he couldn't account for the stability of planetary orbits. A century later, Pierre-Simon Laplace came along a did it. When Napoleon asked Laplace where God was in his account of planetary motion, Laplace supposedly said, "I have no need of that hypothesis."

    And of course Earth seems perfect for human life. On all of the billions and billions of planets in the universe that are not perfect for humanoid life (or intelligent life of any sort), no one is sitting around thinking about how perfect their planet it. However rare planets that support intelligent life are, if you're thinking about it, you must be on one of those rare planets.

  • ||

    Frankly, I'm surprised it's open Sundays.

    Heathens.

  • NP||

    solune,

    Not to defend them or anything, but I think most evangelists would tell you that it's a-okay to visit a place other than a church on the holy day as long as you're following the Lord's ways.

  • Brian||

    Did the people that are against this because it's in a museum and they don't believe in it think that wax statues were real people at some point in the lives?

  • ktc2||

    How did nonsense like this ever come to be considered "conservative ideals"?

    I read a lot about media/academic prejudice against "conservative ideals". As long as creationism, antigay bigotry and xenophobia are representative of "conservative ideals" who can blame them?

  • ||

    Franklin Harris " And of course Earth seems perfect for human life. On all of the billions and billions of planets in the universe that are not perfect for humanoid life (or intelligent life of any sort), no one is sitting around thinking about how perfect their planet it. However rare planets that support intelligent life are, if you're thinking about it, you must be on one of those rare planets.'
    Gen 1:14 'And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:'

  • ||

    Franklin Harris. 'When Napoleon asked Laplace where God was in his account of planetary motion, Laplace supposedly said, "I have no need of that hypothesis."
    Leplace "I had no need of that hypothesis" note that he was a Catholic as well. It is funny how one word can change the meaning of a statement. (had, have)

  • Franklin Harris||

    flood, if you're just going to keep quoting the Bible at people, I'm going to start quoting The Epic of Gilgamesh. It has all the same creation myths and had the first.

  • Franklin Harris||

    them first

  • ||

    Franklin Harris
    If you would like to quote those writings maybe you could quote some of the ones about a world wide flood.

  • biologist||

    Gilgamesh flood myth

    There's a summary, for all the good it will do you, since both the Gilgamesh flood myth and Noachian flood myth are irrelevant, since there's no objective evidence of a planet-wide flood near the time the accounts take place.

  • biologist||

    flood: the Hebrew word "yom" used in Genesis 1 can be translated as "day", or it can mean an indeterminate period of time. As someone once wrote, "It is funny how one word can change the meaning of a statement." One could also note that it is also funny that one word can have more than one meaning.

  • biologist||

    jtuf wrote "I think we're up to the challenge to convincing creationists that the data supports Darwin."

    jtuf, I'd agree if I thought creationists would be open to considering their "data" (Bible) might be incorrect, or that their interpretation of the data (Bible, again) might be incorrect.

    jtuf, meet flood. flood, jtuf.

  • ||

    I would never give up the peace I have found in Jesus Christ for anything. If you think about it creation science is making the science community better lets suppose that evolution were true, you have to admit it has a whole lot of holes in it, creation science is exposing some of these holes, you all talk about free thinking and so forth, but when it comes to evolution you stop thinking freely. Creationist are asking good questions about evolution, it seems that atheist best answers to these questions are to insult christians. Don't believe me read the majority of the comments on this page. When it comes down to it if I'm wrong I lived a life of hope and peace, and learned a little science along the way, and nothing happens to me I just die. But if I'm right your theories of evolution will sound pretty silly when you stand before God trying to prove to him there was no flood.

  • ||

    As for the comment about why men have nipples, if evolution were true and nipples are useless, why did they not evolve away. How many millions of years does it take a nipple to evolve away. Why wouldn't we be Asexual that would seem to be the most efficient way to breed.

  • ktc2||

    Who discovered asexual reproduction?

    Uh . . . your wife?

    Damn, what movie was that?

    Anyway, Flood, the problem isn't that fundies are "asking good questions" about evolutionary theory. The problem is they are simply redressing and restating the same tired old thoroughly debunked nonsense over and over and sadly those of lesser intellect (like our imbecile in chief President Bush) fall for it.

  • ||

    "you have to admit it has a whole lot of holes in it"

    Would you care to give a couple examples? Because I'm a practicing evolutionary biologist, and while there are most definitely open questions in evolution, they're about _how _ exactly natural biological evolution happens, not _if_ it happens; and I can't think of any positive developments resulting from "creationist...asking good questions about evolution."

    "But if I'm right your theories of evolution will sound pretty silly when you stand before God trying to prove to him there was no flood."

    It's worth pointing out again that natural evolution is not incompatible with most people's understanding of their Christian faith; in fact, there are a significant number of practicing evolutionary biologists who are devoutly religious (although admittedly fewer than among the population at large). It's just incompatible with a literal reading of the Biblical creation story - a reading which is discounted and disproved in so many ways by so many different scientific disciplines and methods that no one with the slightest respect for the modern practice of science can honestly and seriously entertain it.

  • ||

    "If you think about it creation science is making the science community better..."

    As thoreau, biologist, and several others here have pointed out, this statement would be true if creation science were operating by the rules of science, and more generally by the rules of intellectually honest and rigorous argument. Instead, it operates by willful misrepresentation, deliberate distortion of the views of actual scientists, and rehashing long-ago debunked, completely non-scientific "theories."

    In other words, there's no such thing as "creation science." There's only creation pseudoscience and its latest incarnation, intelligent design. The most significant thing "creation science" has done is drive an unnecessary and intellectually dishonest wedge between fair-minded scientists and fair-minded theologists. That's not an accomplishment to brag about.

  • ||

    Memes and Genes are information containers, data if you will, flowing through time. Nature provides a selective process for the genes, if these genes travel with other adaptive "beneficial" genes, then the organism that they construct and guide may survive, thrive and reproduce those genes. If not, the organism becomes extinct and that information, that DNA data line ends. This is the essence of natural selection, the driving force of evolution. All DNA / Gene controlled organisms have changed through time.

    The process of science is the "natural selection" of memes, it provides a time filter, a searching, probing, critical peer review which allows those memes which explain with evidence to move forth through time. Memes that do not explain with evidence, that are based on "belief" only... memes like the idea of the flat earth will eventually be thought silly and die out, providing historians with a chuckle or two. Some memes may hang on for generation after generation and provide a nice living for religious fanatics like Ham and the other goof balls who built this "museum". The bodies in which these memes find themselves will not become extinct but will become terminally silly! They will spend their life's energy, time and money building arks with dinosaurs in them. They will profess that the earth is 6000 years old... they have lost the ability to pass on information to critically thinking brains, their memes are aimed at brains with the shortest dendrites, the least experience, the brains with the least information, the young children and the religious non-thinkers. Noah's Ark with a smattering of dinosaur species, 6000 year old earth... terminally silly memes... eventually bound for extinction.

  • ||

    Damn, what movie was that?

    Gardens of Stones (or something like that)

  • ||

    The movie is WarGames!

  • Tina||

    Again, The Onion has a timely view.


    http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/i_believe_in_evolution_except

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement