Senate Creationism (Now Discussing: Creation Museum)

In the past, there's been discussion about creationism vs evolution on several occasions, but rather than argument, I thought it would be more interesting to have a discussion more about Creationism as a movement and some of the broader implications and dynamics of that.

As a good start, there is the Creation Museum located in Kentucky, just outside Cincinnati, and has started to become the face, or at least, the premiere site, for creationism in America.

To give an idea of the place, here's a gallery of images from the museum to spark that initial discussion, as I don't have any particular questions I'd suggest starting with.

 

isn't that the place that says the earth is like 6000 years old.

 

Yes, this is a facility fully dedicated to young earth creationism.

 

I think creationism as a movement exemplifies the fact that religion in the US is a huge commercial enterprise, an industry worth billions of dollars. The Creation Museum is a theme park for people who want to see their religious fantasies come to life and who are willing to part with their cash for the experience. The fact that it is religion related and so set up as a "not for profit" just means it is designed as the showroom for the "Answers In Genesis" production warehouse of books, DVDs, CDs and other courses. The operators of the theme park earn good salaries. It's all about the money and the ability to make something so ridiculously fringe appear mainstream and 'scientific'.

The creationist crowd tried and failed to import religion into the classroom with Intelligent Design. Now they are using theme parks and entertainment to get to the kids they missed when ID was thrown out.

 

I do think it's at least worth noting that apparently they've been having some financial issues, so the Creation Museum hasn't been a resounding success. They've recently added zip lines to try to broaden attendance.
http://www.wcpo.com/news/zip-lining-among-new-attractions-at-the-creation-museum
So while it's present, it's not nearly as profitable as they've wanted it to be.

 

I think that is because most real museums have different exhibits from time to time to ensure people return. The Creationist Museum seems to have had an initial influx of people in its first year but attendance is diminishing as the novelty wears off and the exhibits remain the same. This is pretty much the curse of any museum which is so specifically geared towards one subject matter. A static "Darwin" museum with the same exhibits from year to year would most likely suffer the same fate, any museum for that matter.

 

Great photos Lowie. What strikes me is how well-designed everything looks. It's a pretty museum. It looks better than our space museum.

We should try to come up with some temporary exhibitions for them to raise some more money, so they can make some more pretty stuff. For instance: in 2016 they can celebrate the 400 year anniversary of the heliocentric theory, and the banning of Copernicus by the Catholic Church.

 

Yeah, the sad thing is how much work clearly was put into this, and thorough a job they do of trying to make this look professional. They actually also do a fairly decent job of presenting the science before they discard it for no reason.

The most intriguing thing, and some of the signs can show this, is that they're focused most at the danger of Christians that are not Young Earth Creationists rather than non-Christians, who are largely unaddressed.

 

I think it's pathetic the lengths that YECs go to in order to spread their lies to the ignorant public. Ray Comfort is guilty of this sort of dishonesty as well.

 

Don't forget Ray Comfort's cohort, Kirk Cameron of "Growing Pains" fame.

Both he and his sister Candace have become card-carrying members of the commercial 'born-again' movement.

In terms of the museum, what bothers me most about is that is represents the idea that a fact is only a fact if it doesn't interfere with one's religious beliefs or cause any emotional discomfort whatsoever. This mode of thinking is pervasive in 21st-century America, and it's pretty frightening. As a movement, packaging ideas in this manner and attempting to sell them to the public as a means of gaining political support is very shrewd, and that's also very frightening.

There have been many times when I think the best thing for the human race as a whole would be extraterrestrial contact, just to dispel this notion that we're the most important beings in the universe. Putting aside the 'benevolent vs. malevolent' aliens concept, simple proof that we're not alone would hold a very large mirror up to the face of this type of thinking, one which would be very hard to ignore.

Just a thought.

Peace,

V-03

 

They're attitude on facts is that the facts are the same, it's the interpretations that are different. Which I still have issues with, clearly, but so they try to separate things out into the direct facts and the interpretations, like ages count as interpretations whereas what you measured to calculate that is a fact, but you presume how things change over time.

 

Like a day is 1,000 years in G-d's reckoning of time, or something along those lines?

 

Yeah, anyone that takes an interpretation like that has apparently sold out.

Of course, I didn't expect this, but there's now a big news story directly relating to the Creation Museum and Ken Ham, and that's the announcement, apparently, that Bill Nye has agreed to a debate to take place, at the Creation Museum, next month. If I had the chance, I'd go as that ought to be interesting.

I know the standard policy towards creationism is that it should simply be ignored, but I hope that Bill Nye's willingness to enter the debate takes away the claim that people are simply afraid to argue with them because they know creationists are right, and also may open people's eyes to both sides of this, and ultimately diminish the strength of the whole creationism/intelligent design in schools push. I do hope that the debate will reach the public, and I would think that likely to be a condition of Bill Nye's to be willing to do this.

 

Traveling to Kentucky for a debate at the creation museum sounds like a fun way to spend the weekend. Too bad it's on a Tuesday.

I tend to agree that scientists should not validate the "controversy" by engaging it. Since rejection of evolution is gaining gaining ground among Republicans as a membership litmus test, there will be more and more school districts in certain parts of the country where no amount of counter education is going to prevent board members from grandstanding on the issue and championing the cause of anti-evolution teachers. And those school board members will be championed by their legislators backing them for political gain. It's always been a marker of the north south divide in this country and the urban rural divide, and just another example of political entrenchment.

 

I think something like this can't be ignored under the logic that it shouldn't be engaged. Not even addressing those that disagree with natural selection but believe in theistic human evolution, this still isn't just a fringe issue, or just a Republican issue, although it's a far bigger problem there. While almost half of Republicans said that humans didn't evolve, which is terrifying, there's still also over 25% of Independents and Democrats saying the same thing. I'm in a state where the push to teach creationism is bipartisan.

As it stands, not discussing anything with them leads to creationism winning simply by appearing unopposed. Ken Ham won't change his mind, but hopefully Bill Nye can present things in a way that people that watch the debate will get a better understanding, and some inroads can be made.

 

I'm not advocating ignoring the problem, but I think funding ongoing efforts to go after public school creationists with lawsuits is likely to be more effective than trying to get through to adults with education

 

The problem with engaging them, and I agree that it needs to happen, is that most of the hardcore creationists and their followers are bat**** crazy. It's like having a formal debate with an intellectually disabled pre-schooler who drools. Who wants to suffer through that? I still recall this video of Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron illustrating the physical properties of a banana as evidence of creation.



These people are dishonest and crazy. Nuff said.

 

Yeah, that's a classic. Behold the banana, a product engineered by God for human consumption, with only a minimal assist from up to 10,000 years of human cultivation.

 

I don't think it's a zero sum thing, though. I think it can be done across the board, and I've had at least one situation where the discussion actually did change someone's mind. That was weird. But I do think this will be a net good.

 

Neglecting to engage them is passing over a chance to educate people. I don't see how that does any good. Talk to a crowd, and there could always be one or two that might start thinking individually. The next George Carlin could be among 'em.

And it should be fairly easy. Three pictures and you're off.
This is the soil in Alberta. Here is the soil in Colorado. And look! The very same dust layer in Holland, all at roughly the same depth. Trickster god, or meteor? What's more likely?

 

What would be the grounds for this lawsuit?

 

Sarge - First Amendment violation.

 

Schools have an obligation to teach kids the truth. Creationism isn't truth; it's fiction.

 

If a school teaches only evolution as fact, I could file the exact same suit. I'd like to see schools teaching, "Some people believe the universe was created, and this is why they believe that. Others believe in evolution, and this is why they believe that." Of course, finding teachers willing to teach both sides without bias would likely be problematic.

 

Evolution isn't a belief, though. It's a scientific theory, which means it is actually supported by evidence. There is zero evidence for creationism, which is why creationism is only a belief.