Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Creationism Museum Opening in Kentucky

Posted by Zonk on Sat May 26, 2007 05:39 PM
from the see-where-you-are-wrong-is-everywhere dept.
Noel Linback writes "A new creationism-espousing museum is opening in the state of Kentucky. According to a New York Times article the museum depicts humans and dinosaurs living together in traditional 'diorama' style exhibit. 'Whether you are willing to grant the premises of this museum almost becomes irrelevant as you are drawn into its mixture of spectacle and narrative. Its 60,000 square feet of exhibits are often stunningly designed by Patrick Marsh, who, like the entire museum staff, declares adherence to the ministry's views; he evidently also knows the lure of secular sensations, since he designed the Jaws and King Kong attractions at Universal Studios in Florida. For the skeptic the wonder is at a strange universe shaped by elaborate arguments, strong convictions and intermittent invocations of scientific principle. For the believer, it seems, this museum provides a kind of relief: Finally the world is being shown as it really is, without the distortions of secularism and natural selection. '"
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] A Field Trip To the Creation Museum 1854 comments
Lillith writes "The anti-evolution Creation Museum opened last weekend and Ars took a field trip there and took lots of pictures. 'There were posters explaining just how coal could be formed in a few weeks as opposed to over millions of years, and how rapidly the biblical flood would cover the earth, drowning all but a handful of living creatures. The flood plays a big part in the museum's attempt to explain away what we see as millions of years of natural processes. There was also an explanation as to why, with only one progenitor family, it wasn't considered incest for Adam and Eve's children to marry each other.' (Myself, I liked the picture of the velociraptor grazing peacefully next to Eve, who is wearing some kind of dirndl, in the Garden of Eden.)" The reporter posted more photos from the museum on Flickr.
[+] Entertainment: Texas Creationist Museum Facing Extinction 824 comments
gattaca writes "A small Texas museum that teaches creationism is counting on the auction of a prehistoric mastodon skull to stave off extinction. The founder and curator of the Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum, which rejects evolution and claims that man and dinosaurs coexisted, said it will close unless the Volkswagen-sized skull finds a generous bidder. 'If it sells, well, then we can come another day,' Joe Taylor said. 'This is very important to our continuing.'" Meanwhile, the much larger Creation Museum in Kentucky that we discussed and toured when it opened last year seems to be thriving.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • I mean, the whiskey has to count for SOMETHING, right?
    • by kennygraham (894697) on Saturday May 26 2007, @06:19PM (#19285909)
      several groups (both religious and secular) will be protesting [rallyforreason.com]. come join us!
    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 26 2007, @06:43PM (#19286123)
      The human mind only knows what it experiences (including the experience of receiving communication from others in any form). The accuracy of said experiences, as well as the soundness of the interpretation, is always questionable.

      Some people are very uncomfortable with uncertainty. They desperately crave a solid and unquestionable source for correct knowledge. So, in the absence of such a source, the mind will play games with itself to create one. Hence the popular religious trend of interpreting mythology as if it were history.

      It is true that scientific knowledge is not rock-solid. It is vulnerable to inaccuracy and just as questionable as any other kind of knowledge. So, the religious believers are correct in pointing this out. However, there is a very important difference of methodology at work. The scientific process is one of perpetual questioning and re-examination of fact, and hence of perpetual refinement of accuracy. The religious process utterly lacks this element, and as such it has no demonstrable means of approaching any kind of practical validity. That, however, does not prevent people from convincing themselves that their religion of choice is correct and unquestionable, and that any and all evidence to the contrary must be in error.

      So long as this thought process is confined to the realm of private institutions (museums, churches, clubs, and what have you), I am fine with it. Just don't go infecting public education with your myths.
    • An appeal (Score:5, Informative)

      by Puff of Logic (895805) on Saturday May 26 2007, @07:05PM (#19286315)
      I'm attaching this as a reply to the first post in the hopes that it will be seen by people entering the thread and thus head off some inevitable posts. Creationists, this is addressed to you.

      Here goes:

      The word "theory" is not synonymous with the word "hypothesis" in science.

      Please, please try to remember this when you instinctively want to cry "but it's only a theory!" when talking about evolutionary theory. As has doubtless been explained to you ad nauseum by the scientifically-inclined, Theory is a designator that must be earned and requires a reasonable body of supporting evidence. So while indeed the colloquial allows the use of "I have a theory" to mean a hypothesis, this is not correct in science.

      Make whatever other arguments you will, but please stop making this elementary mistake. cheers.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 26 2007, @05:41PM (#19285581)
    And they rested on the seventh, but that was due to union regulations.
  • by conigs (866121) on Saturday May 26 2007, @05:42PM (#19285585) Homepage
    Just remember: not everyone who partakes in Christianity (big C or little c) believes the world was created 4,000 years ago. Some of us actually believe in evolution. (Well, us non-fundies anyway.)
    • by Ice Wewe (936718) on Saturday May 26 2007, @05:50PM (#19285637)
      Wait... wait... wait. You're telling me that some Christians believe in evolution? Hmm, so if you're willing to compromise on evolution, why not gay marriage?
      That's it, I'm starting the Homosexual Creationism Museum which honors homosexual Neanderthals and dinosaurs.
      I think that's a fair compromise.
    • by catbutt (469582) on Saturday May 26 2007, @06:05PM (#19285785)
      Well the whole thing about God being perfect, but making humans flawed, blaming humans for being flawed, and then punishing someone else to make up for those flaws .....that seems a tad silly as well.

      Or do you just consider Christianity the idea that we should be nice to each other? Because I don't think Jesus invented that concept.
      • by conigs (866121) on Saturday May 26 2007, @06:13PM (#19285859) Homepage
        I normally don't respond to ACs, but here goes:
        In its broadest sense, a fundamentalist is someone who believes that unvarying principles must apply to all people or every situation, in this case, the Bible as absolute truth. So, if someone believes every word of the Bible is absolute truth and nothing is metaphorical, simplified in terms that the people of the time would understand, and was completely accurate in its translation from language to language, then that would qualify them as a fundamentalist in my mind. In general, there is nothing wrong with that. I see no problem with believing what you believe. It's when you force that belief on other people that causes problems. Open discussion of beliefs on the other hand, is good for everyone involved.
        Now, what do I believe? I am a Christian, but I believe there is one problem with the Bible: it was physically written be humans. This means two primary things to me:
        1. It could only be written in terms that the person writing it could understand. This could lead to simplification of concepts. For example, in the story of creation, seven days may not necessarily equate to seven 24-hour periods. It could just mean seven stages, where each stage could take years, centuries, millenniums, etc.
        2. Because humans are flawed, some of those who physically wrote the Bible may have injected their views of the world into it. It then becomes a problem to decipher what may have been written by a human voice and not God's. This can only be done through self reflection which will be different for each person.
        This is just what I believe and I have no expectations of other people to accept or adhere to this belief. This is where I depart from fundamentalists.
        • by Belacgod (1103921) on Saturday May 26 2007, @06:33PM (#19286033)
          Very well said. Furthermore, the arguments presented in the Bible are not logical arguments, which would lose their force if combined with shoddy reasoning. The Bible is a series of stories that advocate particular moral choices, and seek to make those moral choices attractive. If you find those moral choices attractive, it doesn't matter that the imperative to do them doesn't come coherently from the text, because the imperative to do them comes from yourself, and the Bible is only a way to encourage yourself to follow them, inspiration rather than command. Some may find the Bible inspiring enough to change their actions and principles to coincide with it, but they're not being convinced by any sort of logic--they're being convinced by the emotional attractiveness of the Bible's principles. That's what religion is--a set of explanations of the world and moral principles that derive their force by making us feel good when we follow them. It's not necessary to accept every part of your chosen religion to get the benefit of it--you just have to like it enough to be inspired to act accordingly. Clearly the Creationist Museum operators have taken a very different part of Christianity to heart than Conigs has.
  • by arthurpaliden (939626) on Saturday May 26 2007, @05:46PM (#19285609)
    We have lots of cave drawings of man with impressive animals like wooly mamoths and the like. So why are there not cave drawings of man with really impressive animals like the dinasaurs. I mean I I was impressed enought to paint the large elephant like creature you would think that a 20' high meat eating moster would at least reate a few pictures.
  • My favourite quote (Score:5, Interesting)

    by toby (759) * on Saturday May 26 2007, @05:49PM (#19285633) Homepage Journal

    "It's a great place for children who are in public school and haven't really decided what to believe yet."

    Who ya gonna believe! GOD or some hairy liberal professor! [scienceblogs.com]

    Welcome to the 21st Century, America!

  • Almost funny... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by John3 (85454) <john3NO@SPAMcornells.com> on Saturday May 26 2007, @05:54PM (#19285699) Homepage Journal
    Ken Ham (President of Answers in Genesis, sponsor of the museum) would be amusing to watch if he wasn't so scary. There was a segment in the documentary "Friends of God" which showed Ken speaking to a group of children [youtube.com] about dinosaurs and evolution. His logical argument to the children was that since scientists weren't around 4,000 years ago but god was then we have to believe god and not the scientists.

    "Intelligent Design" groups have been running tours through legitimate museums, providing their own narrative in order to dispute the information provided by the museum displays. Maybe after this museum opens some atheist tour group so do the same thing...take tours through Ken's "museum" and provide scientific narrative to dispute his biblical nonsense.
  • Best Protest (Score:5, Interesting)

    by moehoward (668736) on Saturday May 26 2007, @06:12PM (#19285857)

    The best way to protest this is to get a couple thousand people to show up there and laugh for 5 minutes on queue. I recall a similar protest was done in India some years ago and it is brilliant.

    Just laugh as hard as you can at them for 5 minutes. Rinse. Repeat.
  • not a museum (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JustShootMe (122551) <rmiller@duskglow.com> on Saturday May 26 2007, @06:18PM (#19285905) Homepage Journal
    I'd defend the right of the people who started this to continue on as long as they can support it, but I'm not sure it should be called a "museum". A museum implies some hind of historical accuracy.

    Perhaps "theme park", or "house of ill repute" instead?
  • natural selection (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mistersooreams (811324) on Saturday May 26 2007, @06:43PM (#19286131) Homepage
    Urm, even if you reject the scientific theory of evolution, it's just ridiculous to reject natural selection. You can easily observe it in your own lifetime, as Darwin did.
    • Re:Not going there (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Tony (765) * on Saturday May 26 2007, @06:14PM (#19285863) Homepage Journal
      I'm not positive that science has everything right. . .

      That's the great thing about science: neither do scientists! They don't know what they have right, either. Isn't that a fucking hoot?

      What they know is what *makes sense* based on observed facts. The epistemology of science is simple: if your explanation is contradicted by observation, it is not true. Otherwise, it *might* be true.

      That's it. Nothing is ever "proven." It's just that some things only have one current explanation, and so we use those as our working assumptions. If another explanation comes around that isn't contradicted by the *observable facts*, that explanation is also considered.

      Human nature makes us sure of ourselves-- sometimes *too* sure. But, for the most part, the scientific method, and the knowledge gained from that method, are self-correcting.

      And that is why this museum can never win any converts from those who understand science. Their explanations do not cover the observable facts.