A Field Trip To the Creation Museum

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.

Factually inacurate

[Scrameustache (459504)]

Eve was naked until she ate from the tree of knowledge, at which point she made herself a skirt with leaves.

They fail at bible accuracy, in a frikkin bible museum!

Re:Factually inacurate

[Walt Dismal (534799)]

Oh, the museum isn't all that inaccurate. For example, the exhibit showing the RIAA offering an apple to Eve is certainly correct. And the Stone-Age diorama showing Jack Thompson and Darl McBride hitting each other over the head with clubs was not only historically accurate, but desirable as well.

Confused

[truthsearch (249536)]

Ok, I'm confused. What does the great flood have to do with creationism? Is it "evidence" of creation?

This just seems to validate that it's more of a biblical museum than a creation museum.

Re:Confused

[gurps_npc (621217)]

One of the problems creationism has is that animal/dinosaur bones are found buried MUCH deeper than any reasonable man can claim to have happened in just 40,000 years, without some kind of natural dissater that dumped a lot of dirt on them. And it happens consistently over the ENTIRE world.

As such, they need a natural/unnatural dissater that affects the entire world.

Hence they calim that Noah's flood moved tons of dirt, buring lots and lots of bones much deaper than happens normally.

This is supposedly why we find animals buried with millions and millions years worth of dirt on top of them, instead of just the 40,000 thosand years of dirt that one would think.

Velociraptors, huh?

[WilliamSChips (793741)]

Better be prepared! [xkcd.com]

Full of Blasphemous Lies!

[Reverend528 (585549)]

This museum does not reflect the beliefs of all young earth creationists! It actually makes the absurd suggestion that Dinosaurs were allowed on Noah's Ark. If that were true, there would still be Dinosaurs today! Not to mention, it goes against the bible which clearly states that only 2 of every land vertibrate were allowed on the ark.

This museum was built by godless atheists who want to profit from true believers!

Belly button

[Eccles (932)]

I couldn't tell from their pics; did their Adam model have a belly button?

Imposing?

[CaptainPatent (1087643)]

FTA:

Built at a cost of $27 million, it's an imposing building--not a particularly attractive one

Doesn't sound like it was very intelligently designed

buh-da-ching

wow

[JeffSh (71237)]

jesus christ! what an abomination.

Coal could be made in a few weeks

[Bullfish (858648)]

I read in an illustrated book how this big guy with an S on his shirt turned coal into a diamond by holding the coal and merely pressing his hands together. That took seconds. So maybe coal could be made in weeks. I think too in a similar book, there was this guy who lived with dinosaurs on a hidden island. So maybe man did, or does live with dinosaurs. I mean, I saw these things in print. they must be true.

How come no one can make money with Flood Geology?

[Dr. Manhattan (29720)]

Mainstream geology pays off. It helps people find oil, coal, minerals, natural gas, water, etc. etc. etc. How come "Flood Geology" doesn't make better predictions about such things if it's really a better, more accurate theory?

Why don't creationists take the $20+ million they spent on the museum, and use it to apply "Flood Geology" to finding valuable mineral deposits and such? They could open a bunch of museums with the profits, and provide solid evidence for their "theory" that would make those 'deluded geologists' take notice.

Funny how they never seem to want to actually try to apply what they say they believe...

Tourism Mecca?

[moehoward (668736)]

How cool would it be if the Flat Earth Society opened a similar, though less expensive, attraction right next door. Even if somebody just put up a sign for it, it would be so poignant.

On the other side of their building, we could have a "global warming" museum..... Oh, crap. This is slashdot. I am about to get modded down into oblivion.

Problems

[virgil_disgr4ce (909068)]

I've been thinking a lot about this ever since I first heard about the Creation Museum, and I find myself powerfully troubled and conflicted -- not over its content, which I know exactly where I stand on -- but over my intense desire to decry this "museum" as an utter abomination. I have always tried to endorse tolerance and understanding, and I've always let people believe whatever they want.

But I have a big, big problem when it comes to the public actions of those believers. How many thousands of children and impressionable adults will never even have the chance to learn basic tenets of logic, reason and science after being indoctrinated by a "museum" like this and the cooing, gentle voice of its proponents, telling children stories about dinosaurs living next to adam and eve and jesus?

I don't know what to do. I fully believe in Voltaire's classic quotation on freedom of speech and belief. But in this instance, I find myself thoroughly unwilling to defend the "Creation Museum's" right to make up whatever crazy "facts" they want. It's the first time I find myself wanting to "think of the children" who may very well grow up into the willfully ignorant bible beaters that are founding this "museum."

And yet there I am, suddenly the intolerant monster I have never been able to stand. Yet I tremble to imagine a future dark ages in America, where real science -- the search for the evidence of the reality of the universe -- is stoned in the streets and systematically rubbed out.

Please: before you mod me into oblivion, I want to hear everyone's thoughts on this subject.

Re:Problems

[Lemmy Caution (8378)]

"Tolerance" isn't just some blanket value which lets everything go. It goes hand-in-hand with a kind of skepticism about dogmatic claims and the absence of a moral teleology (that is, the idea that there is one way people were "meant" to live.) It doesn't mean you have to accept absurd or contradictory ideas, or lifestyles that are actively hostile and dangerous to your own.

The US is looking more and more like the taliban

[cpotoso (606303)]

It is sad but true. A very "renaissance" of obscurantism. The US looks more and more like Iran or the Taliban. No science, no reason, only stupidity. This is the beginning of the end of the US empire. No doubt about it.

I try to console myself...

[christian.einfeldt (874074)]

...by saying that somehow the benefits of democracy outweigh censoring even really dangerous, stupid shit like this museum.

At least we all get a good laugh out of this one.

And a good cry.

Re:In 5.. 4.. 3.. 2..

[ronadams (987516)]

You know, it didn't HAVE to take 5 seconds to queue the comments... it could very easily be scientifically explained how the comments came about in only .5 seconds... you're so narrow-minded.

Re:In 5.. 4.. 3.. 2..

[by Anonymous Coward]

Why shouldn't we be anti-"religious", if "religion" means promoting falsehood? Why should we give anyone a free pass to go on and on about nonsense without criticism?

Re:In 5.. 4.. 3.. 2..

[Hijacked Public (999535)]

Because a more direct and effective route would be to skip right over religion and go straight to being be anti-falsehood promotion?

Re:Faith is a poison upon mankind.

[faloi (738831)]

It turns man against man, because of different ancient social mores and savagely ignorant beliefs about the workings of the universe.

Because basic human greed won't turn man against man, amiright? I'll grant you that religion has been a smokescreen used many times to cover up human greed (whether it be for power, money, what have you), but in the absence of religion "might makes right" has stepped up to the plate on more than one occasion throughout human history.

Re:Faith is a poison upon mankind.

[div_2n (525075)]

I think it is better to argue that human corruption of faith is the underpinnings behind such misadventures. Furthermore, I would argue that in these instances, faith was the vehicle, the gullible nature of humans was the road and the corrupted "leaders" were the drivers.

Science COULD have the same effect on making people do seemingly illogical things. See the Milgram Experiments for reference. I would argue that if everyone ditched religion for science, it is inevitable that someone would use science in the same way to corrupt people into achieving their agenda.

Re:Faith is a poison upon mankind.

[Billosaur (927319)]

Belief in something with no scientific proof is the foundation of just about every failed adventure in human-kind.

Paraphrasing Contact [imdb.com]:

Palmer: Did you love your father?

Ellie: Yes.

Palmer: Prove it.

We know all sorts of things. Our knowledge is vast, but compared to the infinity of space, insignificant. If nothing else, quantum physics teaches us that there are many gray areas, where things are not as cut-and-dried as they seem. Belief and/or faith in something without scientific proof is not the death of Mankind -- belief and/or faith in something when the evidence before contradicts that belief/faith is where the madness lies.

Re:Faith is a poison upon mankind.

[Jeremi (14640)]

Not arguing for religion here, but where do you think scientific proof comes from? Many times scientists take a belief they have and then set out to 'prove' it.

A hypothesis is not the same thing as a belief. The difference is just as you said: when a scientist has a hypothesis, he does everything in his power to try and prove that his hypothesis is wrong (i.e he "tests it"). Compare that to when a religious person has a belief, and he does everything in his power to prevent people from proving it wrong.

but don't think believing something w/o proof is wrong in any way

It is if you refuse to reconcile your beliefs with the facts. Ask any Christian Scientist whose child died for lack of a blood transfusion.

Re:Faith is a poison upon mankind.

[TheRaven64 (641858)]

For one thing, it ignores the fact that a lot of progress happened by accident. Columbus set out to prove that there was a route to India by sailing west. He ignored a lot of evidence that the Earth was sufficiently large that he would run out of supplies about half way there. Fortunately, he found a continent in the middle where he could take on food. A lot of scientific discoveries have been made in a similar way; by people trying to prove things that we now think of as silly, and discovering some interesting contradictory evidence.

Re:One Word

[bedonnant (958404)]

Speaking as a Frenchman, that such a museum has been conceived and built is mind-boggling, in a bad way. It reflects poorly on the american educational system. It shows how far fundamentalists can go to counter Reason in a way that hasn't been seen in France for centuries.