Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United States Government Science Politics

A Field Trip To the Creation Museum 1854

Posted by kdawson
from the dinosaurs-were-vegetarians dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A Field Trip To the Creation Museum

Comments Filter:
  • by Mockylock (1087585) on Friday June 08, 2007 @10:21AM (#19436743) Homepage
    Queue anti-religious /. comments...... NOW.

    • by ronadams (987516) on Friday June 08, 2007 @10:22AM (#19436759) Homepage
      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.
      • by Chas (5144) on Friday June 08, 2007 @11:32AM (#19438089) Homepage Journal
        Sorry. The evolutionists are wrong. The creationists are wrong too.

        The world came into being when I woke up this morning. It'll end after I fall asleep tonight.

        I'll create a new one while I sleep. Hell, I've been doing it for the past thirty-odd years. I'm getting pretty good at it.

        I'm even creative enough that I've given it multiple back-stories.

        Shit, I should write this up in a novel.

        *Big*Fscking*Grin*
        • by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 08, 2007 @12:12PM (#19438863)
          As a Christian, I've been dreading the opening of this museum. It can only undermine what little dwindling respect remains for the Bible and for God.

          Not all Christians believe the King James Version is a perfect literal translation, and therefore that earth was created in less than a literal week. Some of us are at least willing to accept that the ancient word translated "day" in Genesis has more possible translations than "a 24 hour period", and dinosaurs never walked among humans.

          Another example: their model of the ark isn't just unrealistic, it's unscriptural--the Bible clearly states the ark of the flood was box-shaped. Sure, this might seem like a petty point compared to some of the more obvious and scientific blunders, but it only goes to support the point that this museum is more interested in pandering to neo-Christian tradition than explaining Bible truth.
          • by gfxguy (98788) on Friday June 08, 2007 @01:02PM (#19439855)
            I agree. I believe in God, and I can even accept Jesus Christ (I have to try real hard, though), but I don't accept any sort of literal translation of the bible and, in fact, I think it's mostly fables created then for the same reasons fables are created now - to keep people in line.

            This sort of thing is just ridiculous. There was a funny bit on the Simpsons (Ok, there's ALWAYS a funny bit on the Simpsons) when Homer, after having the crayon removed from his head, proves God can't exist. Flanders, instead of challenging his beliefs, burns it.

            Sounds about right. It's funny 'cause it's true.
          • by SimHacker (180785) * on Friday June 08, 2007 @01:12PM (#19440027) Homepage Journal

            Cafeteria Christianity [wikipedia.org] is a pejorative term, used in general to describe individual Christians or Christian churches who selectively follow or believe in the doctrines of their religion, particularly what the Bible states as being the word or will of God. The use of the term suggests that the believers being so described are not as legitimate as other Christians. As cafeteria style means to pick-and-choose, as in choosing what food to purchase from a cafeteria line, the implication of the term "Cafeteria Christianity" is that the individual's professed religious belief is actually a proxy for their personal opinions rather than a genuine interpretation of or spiritual relationship with Christian doctrine or the teachings of Jesus. The selectivity implied may relate to the acceptance of Christian doctrines (such as creationism and the virgin birth of Jesus) or Biblical morality and ethical prohibitions (e.g. a rejection of homosexual acts and dietary laws) and is often associated with discussions concerning the applicability of Old Testament laws to Christians and the Sermon on the Mount.

            The label "Cafeteria Christianity" has been used both to encourage more conformity with Biblical teachings and to advocate for less. When used by Conservative Christians, it is often an expression of a preference for a more literal and uniform approach to the Bible, rather than the carefree do-what-you-want theology preferred (as some see it) by Liberal Christians. The term in this sense thus expresses contempt for those viewed as lax in their Christianity.

            It is also used by some Christians and skeptics to undermine the advocacy of particular Christian precepts by pointing out the supposed inconsistency of the advocate's position. The logic of such a usage is that someone who has rejected one supposed command of God has little room to argue that another such command should be followed. Thus these individuals observe that some Christians are more than willing to condemn certain behavior on Biblical grounds and yet do not themselves adhere to the Bible in its totality, i.e. a charge of hypocrisy. For an example, see An Atheist argument on Cafeteria Christianity. The counter argument is usually that, according to the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 (as well as some Paul's letters), Gentile Christians are not obliged to keep the entire Old Testament Law.

            The term Cafeteria Catholic [wikipedia.org] (also à la carte Catholic or CINO = "Catholic In Name Only") is a pejorative or an insulting characterization and is used to describe people who dissent from certain teachings of the Roman Catholic Church while maintaining an identity as Catholics. These people are said to view the Church much like a "cafeteria", where one picks and chooses only those items that appeal to them. The term is typically applied to those who blatently dissent from selected Catholic moral teaching on issues such as abortion, contraception, premarital sex, and homosexuality. The term is less frequently applied to those who dissent from other Catholic moral teaching on issues such as social justice, capital punishment, or just war. Groups labeled as such include Call to Action, FutureChurch, DignityUSA, and Catholics for a Free Choice. Some of those who employ the term in their vocabulary accuse those who view the term pejoratively of believing dissent from the constant teaching of the Church to be a form of devoutness.

            It should be noted that the this epithet is not created, used, or endorsed by official church teaching. However, the practice of selective adherence to the magisterium of the church has been repeatedly condemned through the teaching of the Popes:

            * In a homily delivered on April 18, 2005, Pope Benedict XVI clarified the relation of dissent to faith:

            "Being an adult means having a faith which does not follow the waves of today's fashions or the

        • by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 08, 2007 @12:13PM (#19438905)
          > The world came into being when I woke up this morning. It'll end after I fall asleep tonight.
          > I'll create a new one while I sleep. Hell, I've been doing it for the past thirty-odd years. I'm getting pretty good at it.
          > ...
          > Shit, I should write this up in a novel.

          Why not just wake up tomorrow in a world where you've already written it? :)
      • by queenb**ch (446380) on Friday June 08, 2007 @11:40AM (#19438249) Homepage Journal
        1) How does one express an epic level eye roll in text?
        2) I am the only one that thinks that they put this thing in Kentucky because they think that everyone there is an inbred hill billy who won't know any better? (Not saying that everyone from Kentucky *is* an inbred hill billy but that the people who put the museum there think this)
        3) Haven't we figured out by now religion and science don't mix? Copernicus, Galileo, Da Vinci, and who knows who else?
        4) Umm....the book of Genesis doesn't exactly print out a recipe for world building and population. If it said something like 2 cups of flour, 1 cup of butter.....bake at 350 for 20 minutes, I might be willing to buy this. But the fact of the matter is that it doesn't. Instead it gives us a big allegorical story and makes all sorts of references about the fact that time for God doesn't pass like it does for us humans. I myself see no conflict between evolution and religion. They are answers to separate questions - Why and How.
        5) Am I the only one that finds it odd that a bunch of nutballs who don't even bother to read their own holy book swear that the it is the literal word God even though it was originally written in Aramaic, translated in to Hebrew, then to Latin, then to Greek, and the back to Latin, and then to English? And that's a best case scenario for most of the books of the "Bible".
        6) Am I the only one who really questions the validity of the King James version, the one that most of the swear is "true and correct"? King James had all sorts of things tucked into his translation that supported his divine right to rule. It was politically motivated and PAID FOR by a King - as in "You didn't do what I said. Off with his head!" kind of a King at that.
        7) What about the places where the Bible contradicts itself? Since its the literal word of God, that makes God wrong and since God is infallible, he can't be wrong, therefore - using their own logic - God did not write the Bible OR God isn't God.

        Oh, but we can ignore all of the historical facts because we have "faith".

        2 cents,

        QueenB.
        • by JonathanBoyd (644397) on Friday June 08, 2007 @01:10PM (#19440001) Homepage

          3) Haven't we figured out by now religion and science don't mix? Copernicus, Galileo, Da Vinci, and who knows who else?

          Copernicus was a Roman Catholic who was encouraged by his bishop to spread his research about heliocentrism. Galileo ran into trouble because of remarks he made about the hope - politics was the problem, not science. I don't recall Da Vinci running into any problems re: science and religion and he is recorded as wanting to die catholic with confession etc. If you take a look at two of the greatest ever scientist, Faraday and Maxwell, you'll see that they were evangelical Christians who played in active role in teaching the Bible in their local churches. Alister McGrath, the previous principle of Wycliffe College, the theological college of Oxfod University, got his first PhD in Biophysics. A large proportion of Christian students in Oxford are scientists, medics, mathematicians and engineers.

          Try telling them that Christianity and science don't mix.

          Am I the only one that finds it odd that a bunch of nutballs who don't even bother to read their own holy book

          Wow, no sweeping generalisations or assumptions there.

          swear that the it is the literal word God even though it was originally written in Aramaic, translated in to Hebrew, then to Latin, then to Greek, and the back to Latin, and then to English? And that's a best case scenario for most of the books of the "Bible"

          Actually, the OT was written in Hebrew and the NT in Greek, with a handful of Aramaic. Translations have been made into a variety of languages over the years, but when a new translation is made, people don't take the most recent translation in another language then put it into their own; they take the most reliable Greek and Hebrew manuscripts and start over from them. seriously, read the translation notes from something like the NIV or the English Standard Version and see how absurd your allegation is. Modern translations are superior to older ones because we have more and better manuscripts available and are better at translating them.

          Am I the only one who really questions the validity of the King James version, the one that most of the swear is "true and correct"?

          Where do you get the idea that most people swear the KJV is the only true and correct version? There are quite a few vocal people about it, but most churches use one out of NIV, NRSV, ESV, NASB, NLT and serious scholars end to recommand translations like NASB and ESV.

          7) What about the places where the Bible contradicts itself? Since its the literal word of God, that makes God wrong and since God is infallible, he can't be wrong, therefore - using their own logic - God did not write the Bible OR God isn't God.

          Sure, if we go along with your false dichotomy that anything you think is a contradiction must be a contradiction and the explanations of those who know the Bible better, have studied it considerably more and arrive at a different conclusion are clearly wrong.

          Oh, but we can ignore all of the historical facts because we have "faith".

          Pot. Kettle. Black. Do some research.

        • Sheer ignorance. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by JeanPaulBob (585149) on Friday June 08, 2007 @01:39PM (#19440497)
          5) Am I the only one that finds it odd that a bunch of nutballs who don't even bother to read their own holy book swear that the it is the literal word God even though it was originally written in Aramaic, translated in to Hebrew, then to Latin, then to Greek, and the back to Latin, and then to English? And that's a best case scenario for most of the books of the "Bible".

          Wow. I'm not sure I've ever seen a more fundamentally ignorant statement on Slashdot. This translational game of telephone that you're proposing is divorced from all history. Textual transmission is nothing like what you're suggesting. Our English translations are not obtained from Latin texts; they are obtained from the original languages (Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic).

          The Old Testament:
          Originally written in Hebrew, except for three or four small sections written in Aramaic. The main Hebrew manuscripts we have now is called the Masoretic text, compiled by the Masoretes in the 9th & 10th centuries. It's a Hebrew manuscript, and does not come from any translational lineage. We also have the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament written before the time of Jesus.

          The New Testament:
          Originally written in Greek. We have that Greek. (We have many manuscripts copied at different times, some dating back to the second century.) We also have the early Latin translation called the Vulgate, but the Greek manuscripts we have did not come from the Vulgate. We have both. We also have some other early translations (e.g. into coptic/Egyptian language).

          Now, there are some who think that the NT was originally in Aramaic. This is highly unlikely for much of the NT, written as letters to Greek Christians throughout the Roman empire. It may be more reasonable for the Gospels, and some of the letters written to primarily Jewish Christians. Hey, Luke's gospel account starts out with a statement that he'd sought out many witnesses as his research, and it's entirely likely that some of that was Aramaic.

          So even granting Aramaic primacy for all the NT, the chain for the NT is Aramaic-->Greek. We have that Greek. For the OT, it's just Hebrew (with a little bit written in Aramaic). We have that, too. For both, we also have various later translations, but those translations are not part of the lineage that we have now. For instance, there is no Latin in the lineage of our OT manuscripts at all--that was a ridiculous error. (I.e., our Greek manuscripts are copied from earlier Greek manuscripts, back to the originals.) The English translations are from the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, with no lineage of translation except possibly Aramaic-->Greek.
          • by terjeber (856226) on Friday June 08, 2007 @09:17PM (#19446787)

            This translational game of telephone that you're proposing is divorced from all history.

            I never understood why people who want to talk about the bible are often so stuck on whether it is literally, word for word, true or not. The bible is a horrible book about an insane divine entity whether it is literally true or "young girl" was mistranslated into "virgin" when written in Greek.

            Take the story of Abraham. The dude's old. He has a kid. God wants to test him. So he tells him to kill his son. Burn him too. Dude doesn't like it, but eventually he agrees. Goes on to build the bonfire and all. Given his devotion, God eventually says: Dude, I was only joking, you don't have to kill him.

            In the Christian faith system this is a beautiful story about loyalty. In the real world it is the story about a psychopathic megalomaniac who finds joy in tormenting other people and a weak idiot of a moron who goes along with the torture.

            The correct response if God comes to you and asks you to kill your son is to spit God in the face and tell him to fuck off. If he insists, you get a gang of your best friends together and busts the knees of God. That is the correct response. God was a psychopath for demanding the sacrifice, Abraham was insane for accepting.

            Being part of an organization that thinks this is a beautiful story marks you as a nut-case in my book, but that is just me.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 08, 2007 @10:24AM (#19436775)
      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?
      • by Hijacked Public (999535) * on Friday June 08, 2007 @10:34AM (#19436919)
        Because a more direct and effective route would be to skip right over religion and go straight to being be anti-falsehood promotion?
    • by FatSean (18753) on Friday June 08, 2007 @10:25AM (#19436787) Homepage Journal
      Belief in something with no scientific proof is the foundation of just about every failed adventure in human-kind.

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

      Glad I could accomodate you, as religion has been a particular pox on my existance.
      • by faloi (738831) on Friday June 08, 2007 @10:33AM (#19436913)
        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.
      • by div_2n (525075) on Friday June 08, 2007 @10:38AM (#19436973)
        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.
        • by mosb1000 (710161) <mosb1000@mac.com> on Friday June 08, 2007 @12:46PM (#19439563)
          "It is inevitable that someone would use science in the same way to corrupt people into achieving their agenda."

          I'm pretty sure I've already seen this happen. The scientists involved usually seem to be unconcerned with the corruption of scientific principles. I've spoken with a microbiologist who was unconcerned, and he said that it was important for the most intelligent people to make all the decisions. To this end, he reasoned that people who were easily swayed by flawed science were rightly manipulated by scientists who deliberately misrepresented their findings. His aim was to become a public policy maker.

          The view that most people aren't smart enough to make the best decisions for themselves is very troubling to me. It is one that I have heard many people express to me when they felt I would be like minded. Based on my personal experiences, I have concluded that most people feel this way (including most scientists).

          People should be careful not to delude themselves into thinking that religion causes this kind of mass manipulation. It is always caused by people thinking they are smart enough to make decisions for others.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by ubrgeek (679399)
        > Faith is a poison upon mankind.

        And all this time we've been looking for the WMDs ;)
      • 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.

  • Factually inacurate (Score:5, Informative)

    by Scrameustache (459504) on Friday June 08, 2007 @10:24AM (#19436773) Homepage Journal
    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: (Score:3, Funny)

      by bedonnant (958404)
      actually, when they ate from the tree, they realized they were naked. maybe they dressed before and didn't realize it either.
      maybe eating only grass is not good for mental health.
      • by allthingscode (642676) on Friday June 08, 2007 @10:31AM (#19436885)
        Nope, according to the bible, which we have to take to mean exactly what it says (we are creationists):

        Gen 3:7 - Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

        http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesi s+3 [biblegateway.com]
    • by Walt Dismal (534799) on Friday June 08, 2007 @10:29AM (#19436845)
      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.
    • by superyooser (100462) on Friday June 08, 2007 @12:02PM (#19438691) Homepage Journal

      Also, God rested on the seventh day and established His sabbath for mankind (Mark 2:27) [crosswalk.com].

      But... "Now Open 7 days a week" [creationmuseum.org]

      A great museum, but they have a blind spot on this point.

  • Confused (Score:5, Insightful)

    by truthsearch (249536) on Friday June 08, 2007 @10:24AM (#19436785) Homepage Journal
    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 (Score:5, Interesting)

      by gurps_npc (621217) on Friday June 08, 2007 @10:38AM (#19436975) Homepage
      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.

    • Re:Confused (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Richthofen80 (412488) on Friday June 08, 2007 @10:52AM (#19437257) Homepage
      At the core of a creationist argument is that all of the Bible's stories are literally true.

      The whole point of creationism and other philosophies like them is that they are a response to, and not a discovery of, new knowledge. The bible says that the flood happened. Therefore, when investigating the 'origins of life', that HAS TO BE accounted for. No option of how history happened can exclude that information. The entire museum takes all of the information in the bible and then attempts to map that information to a model which would allow the bible to be true. The bible is the yardstick to which all other information is measured.

      Science, on the other hand, is progressing by asking questions, proposing models and ideas, and advancing those models and ideas through objective testing. If the model or idea is invalidated by the testing results, they are modified. The yardstick in this case is objective reality. If an idea is good enough, we can test its validity in the world.

      I personally side with science/reality. I mean, I don't have much choice. Reality will continue to be what it is regardless of what I want to believe. :)

  • by Reverend528 (585549) on Friday June 08, 2007 @10:27AM (#19436813) Homepage
    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!

  • by Eccles (932) on Friday June 08, 2007 @10:28AM (#19436827) Journal
    I couldn't tell from their pics; did their Adam model have a belly button?
  • Imposing? (Score:5, Funny)

    by CaptainPatent (1087643) on Friday June 08, 2007 @10:29AM (#19436839) Journal
    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
  • It's funny. . . (Score:4, Insightful)

    by smooth wombat (796938) on Friday June 08, 2007 @10:29AM (#19436843) Homepage Journal
    a local radio host had on an atheist the other day who refused to recite the pledge in its current incarnation because of the "one nation under God" part.

    Someone came on and identified themselves as a Catholic and bemoaned how society has become "me first" and this was because of people not worshipping God.

    That got me thinking, if the caller was upset about the "me first" generation then he should certainly have a problem with the biggest "me first"er of them all: God.

    After all, God says that there will be only one God, him (her/it/whatever), that you must follow his rules and you must give thanks to him. If that isn't self-centered, I don't know what is.

    As we can see from the exhibits (it's not a museum folks), apparently anything can be twisted enough to justify a religious rather than scientific or logical reason for something.

    The really depressing part is now we'll have another generation of kids having their minds polluted by nonsense of dinosaurs living with man and the Earth being only a few thousand years old. I guess being oblivious to reality is the easiest way of getting through life.
  • wow (Score:5, Funny)

    by JeffSh (71237) <jeffslashdot&m0m0,org> on Friday June 08, 2007 @10:29AM (#19436849)
    jesus christ! what an abomination.
  • by CrazyJim1 (809850) on Friday June 08, 2007 @10:30AM (#19436861) Journal
    Even though I know God exists, I don't try and fill in history that the Bible doesn't explain. I'm not sure why other people have this desire to do so.
    • Even though I know God exists

      One of the reasons that [most] scientists (those who believe in the scientific method as the surest method to get as close as possible to truth) find certain religious people insufferable is that they attempt to assign their own meanings to words which already have plenty of meanings, thank you.

      I understand that what you mean is "I believe that God exists", just as a scientist would say "I believe that quantum entanglement exists". But that's not what you're saying. And as long as you say what you don't mean, then you will be alienating those who do.

      Others have said similar things to you, so this comment is somewhat redundant. But none of the other comments explain what the root problem is, and most of them are quite rude - which is fun, but not conducive to communication.

  • by Bullfish (858648) on Friday June 08, 2007 @10:30AM (#19436865)
    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.
  • Exclusiveness (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Findeton (818988) on Friday June 08, 2007 @10:32AM (#19436891)
    Only in USA you could see such a building, a museum worshiping stupidity.
  • 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...

  • by moehoward (668736) on Friday June 08, 2007 @10:33AM (#19436911)

    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 (Score:5, Interesting)

    by virgil_disgr4ce (909068) on Friday June 08, 2007 @10:34AM (#19436927) Homepage
    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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Lemmy Caution (8378) on Friday June 08, 2007 @10:40AM (#19437017) Homepage
      "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.
    • Re:Problems (Score:5, Insightful)

      by faloi (738831) on Friday June 08, 2007 @10:45AM (#19437111)
      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?

      It's, essentially, in the middle of no-where in Kentucky. The only people that are likely to visit the museum are people that already have their minds made up, or the children of those people. They'll already be indoctrinated.

      If schools start mandatory field trips to the museum, we can talk. Until then, it's not likely to get visited by anybody who is "on the fence." People will either be going to take pictures and mock it, or they'll be going because it's a museum dedicated to what they already believe.
      • Re:Problems (Score:5, Informative)

        by UbuntuDupe (970646) on Friday June 08, 2007 @11:11AM (#19437677) Journal
        If schools start mandatory field trips to the museum, we can talk.

        Actually, this creation museum is ALREADY receiving TAXPAYER funding. It's COMPLETELY outrageous. The state and local government give them FREE police and fire protection, EXEMPTED it from paying its fair share of taxes (due to some BS "non-profit" status), provides it with FREE road maintenance for the surrounding area, REGISTERED it in public directories, and granted it a FREE permit to use the land.

        Oh, sorry, I was just looking to rationalize my pre-existing bias that the government forces me to pay for anything I'm opposed to.
    • Re:Problems (Score:5, Funny)

      by Lockejaw (955650) on Friday June 08, 2007 @10:52AM (#19437251)

      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.
      Some nutter can rant all he wants about how he knows pi is rational. What he doesn't get to do is teach that in school.
    • intolerance is evil

      intolerance of intolerance is actually good

      in fact, to meet a fundamentalist, and for them to call you intolerant, as in, hypocritically intolerant, is actually a badge of achievement

      because you are not hypocritically intolerant if you are intolerant of them

      because what they don't understand is that fundamentalism is true intolerance, and therefore to be intolerant of that is actually to strive in the direction of more tolerance

      intolerant: "because you are not a true christian/ true muslim, i am better than you" =evil

      intolerance of intolerance: "because you consider yourself better than me based on your religious bigotry, i am intolerant of you" =good

      intolerance can be predicated on a number of characteristics of a person that is not intolerant in and of themselves: race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

      intolerance can also be predicated on someone else's intolerance: not tolerating their intolerance of someone because of race, religion, seuxla orientation, etc.

      so you can judge any tolerance in question as to what it is opposed to. and if it is opposed to some inherently nonintolerant feature of a person, it is true intolerance. but if it is opposed to an intolerant feature of the person themselves, it is not intolerance, it is a form of tolerance, because it directed against real intolerance
  • by cpotoso (606303) on Friday June 08, 2007 @10:35AM (#19436937) Journal
    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.
    • by Cutie Pi (588366) on Friday June 08, 2007 @11:14AM (#19437745)
      I'm definitely not a creationist, but don't think for a minute that psuedo- and anti-science is limited to religious zealots.

      Look at all the things that people buy into today, particularly in Europe, such as homeopathy, reflexology, chiropractics, magnet therapy, colonics, yadda yadda. How many people believe that irradiated strawberries are radioactive? How many people sit around worrying about the "toxins" in the body? How many people belive that Feng Shui increases the positive "energy" in a room?
  • ...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.
  • by Anzya (464805) on Friday June 08, 2007 @10:45AM (#19437105)
    Ok, so maybe not a caveman but do they realy think that God would bother to explain to people who doesn't even know that there is atoms how he created the universe? It's what Pratchett calls Lies for children.
    God - Ok so afte a couple of million years...
    Secretary - Hold on, how much is a couple million years?
    God - Sigh... ok so on the first _day_ I made light using what I like to call the Big Bang.
    Secretary - Sorry that's too long and my hand hurts. I'll just write God made light on the first day.
    God - Sigh....

    I don't actually see that much problem with being both beliver of evolution and the Big bang and being a christian. I think the problem is that people read the bible like it was a book about natural science instead of what it realy is ie a history book and a book about ethics.
  • by gsfprez (27403) on Friday June 08, 2007 @10:46AM (#19437123)
    Falwell, Pat Robertson, Robert Tilton, Kenneth Copeland, everyone on Trinity Broadcasting Network, and this stupid-ass museum...

    PLEASE GO AWAY or SHUT THE HELL UP! You're fscking embarrassing.

    Except TBN - you're Jesus pimps... which is far worse. The Bible has something to say about pimping God... and that He doesn't take kindly to it.
  • by monomania (595068) on Friday June 08, 2007 @10:47AM (#19437139)
    I notice they're not closed for Jewish holidays. As a jewish person, I always find that interesting.
  • WTF (Score:4, Informative)

    by scottennis (225462) on Friday June 08, 2007 @10:47AM (#19437157) Homepage
    I went to the flickr gallery and was stunned and fascinated (shocked and awed?) at the exhibit which "explained" where Cain got his wife and why it was okay for him to marry (and have sex, although the "S" word is never used) his sister.

    For your edification I copied out the central "argument" for you to mock (er, I mean discuss.)

    "The farther back in history one goes (back towards the Fall of Adam), the less of a problem mutation in the human population would be.
    At the time of Adam and Eve's children, there would have been very few mutations in the human genome--thus close relatives could marry, and provided it was one man for one woman (the biblical doctrine of marriage), there was nothing wrong with close relatives marrying in early biblical history."


    B.S. (Bedevere Science) all. (SIR BEDEVERE: And that, my liege, is how we know the earth to be banana-shaped. ARTHUR: This new learning amazes me, Sir Bedevere. Explain again how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes.)
  • Now, how comes... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 08, 2007 @10:50AM (#19437211)
    ... That I went to a strict Catholic school, had Jesuits as science teachers, and Creation was relegated to Religion hour? In class, it was Darwin or bust, the Earth was some 5 billions years old, and nobody questioned evolution. Ever. And those who taught were priests.

    I once asked my biology teacher (Jesuit) about the Bible's recount of the Creation. Answer: "The Bible was written by men, and inspired by God. Do you think He could have gone to some Bronze Age guys and told them about atoms, mass-energy equivalence, aminoacids and DNA? That was Abraham and company He was talking to, not Mr Spock."

    You folks need some of these Jesuits types, methinks.
  • What scares me (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SABME (524360) on Friday June 08, 2007 @11:37AM (#19438167)
    What scares me is not that people believe this stuff, but that people who believe this stuff are getting into public office and passing laws that affect me. I've read more than one message in this thread decrying other posters for speaking out against the Creationist museum. I ask you to please consider your obligation as a US citizen (if you are a US citizen) to participate in the democratic process.

    If our elected officials change our government such that it adopts policies in line with Creationist views, and you disagree with those views, it is your right -- your obligation -- to express your contrary opinion in spoken and written form, as well as in the voting booth. The mere existence of a Creationist museum scares me because it means that there are enough voters to push our government in what I feel is a bad direction. The Creationists have a right to have the museum and express their views. But I have a right, and a duty, to express my views that they are mistaken, to argue against their beliefs.

    Here's a thought experiment to illustrate my point: Imagine that all medical research and treatment, everywhere in the US from now on, had to adhere to strict supervision by a board of politicians and clergy with fundamentalist views. Now wait 100 years. What do you think the state of US medical technology would be in such a case?
  • by ajs318 (655362) <sd_resp2.earthshod@co@uk> on Friday June 08, 2007 @11:56AM (#19438583)
    This is how the debate between sound science and "intelligent design" looks from the sidelines. Note here that we replace the theory that life was created by an intelligent designer {who logically must have been created by a more intelligent designer, and so forth, since any mechanism which would account for the spontaneous generation of an intelligent designer must be capable of spontaneously generating life} with the theory that all roses are red. This has little bearing on the quality of the debate.

    IDist: All woses are wed.
    Scientist: No they aren't. Look. Produces white rose A white rose.
    IDist: That is obviouthly not a wose. All woses are wed. That flower is white. Therefore it cannot be a wose.
    Scientist: It is a rose. A white rose. Performs some unspecified test which demonstrates that the white flower indeed belongs to the genus Rosa.
    IDist: Well, OK then, I acthept that it may be a wose, but you still haven't dithpwoved my theowy. Even you must surely have to admit that it is sort of a bit wed-ish. No, it's not a white rose -- it's just a vewy pale wed wose. You still haven't dithpwoved my theowy. All woses are wed!
    Scientist: Now you're just talking bollocks.
    IDist: Waaaah! You used a naughty word! Well, that just pwoves it, doesn't it? All woses are wed. I win! Come on, mummy, buy me an ithe cweam!

Life. Don't talk to me about life. - Marvin the Paranoid Anroid

Working...