Scientists Visit Creationist Museum

The University of Cincinnati hosted the North American Paleontological Convention last week. In what appears to be a planned field trip, approximately 70 paleontologists, paleozoologists and geologists toured the Creationist Museum in Petersburg Kentucky. Apparently they were unimpressed, and who can blame them?

Many of the paleontologists thought the museum misrepresented and ridiculed them and their work and unfairly blamed them for the ills of society.

“I think they should rename the museum — not the Creation Museum, but the Confusion Museum,” said Lisa E. Park, a professor of paleontology at the University of Akron.

“Unfortunately, they do it knowingly,” Dr. Park said. “I was dismayed. As a Christian, I was dismayed.”

Sorry abuot that Dr. Park. I can only imagine what it’s like to have one’s life’s work completely taken out of context and abused and mangled in the way hers has been. But even sadder, I think, are those who visit the museum with the expectation and belief that what is being represented is not a point of view, but verifiable scientific fact. That it’s passed on to children as fact is even worse.

Terry Mortenson, a lecturer and researcher for Answers in Genesis, the ministry that built and runs the Creation Museum, said he did not expect the visit to change many minds. “I’m sure for the most part they’ll be of a different view from what’s presented here,” Dr. Mortenson said. “We’ll just give the freedom to see what they want to see.”

Dr. Mortenson and others at the museum say they look at the same rocks and fossils as the visiting scientists, but because of different starting assumptions they arrive at different answers. For example, they say the biblical flood set off huge turmoil inside the Earth that broke apart the continents and pushed them to their current locations, not that the continents have moved over a few billion years.

“Everyone has presuppositions what they will consider, what questions they will ask,” said Dr. Mortenson, who holds a doctorate in the history of geology from Coventry University in England. “The very first two rooms of our museum talk about this issue of starting points and assumptions. We will very strongly contest an evolutionist position that they are letting facts speak for themselves.”

I love it when religious people disagree with the fundamental conclusions of a scientific discipline but then try to use select parts of those conclusions to support their positions. It’s one thing* to reject science in favor of religion. It’s quite another to completely misrepresent science in order to force it to conform with your world view. The above statement is more than merely uninformed opinion, it’s intentional deceit. This man and the people working at the museum are intentionally deceiving the public in order to make their beliefs seem as though they actually have some bearing in scientific fact.

I’m more than a little amused that people who become so bellicose about science ‘making a mockery of religion’ are completely sanguine with the science fiction that is Creationism. It’s as if they thought to themselves that because science (in their opinions) belittles their beliefs, they now have the right to criticize science. Which seems somewhat arrogant and ignorant all at the same time.

What they don’t seem to realize is that science isn’t around specifically to disprove god or religion or anything of the sort. All science does…is explain our physical universe. Believe it or not my ignorant little theists, it is not necessary to even look at god in order to  do that. I do not need to invoke some unseen unknown inscrutable thing in order to know what conditions need to exist in order for lightning to occur. That isn’t a slight, no matter how badly you want to take it as one. It’s just that science sees that the simplest explanation is usually the best and most accurate. You need to get over yourselves. In short: science just ain’t that into you.

*Okay, yes, one very stupid thing.

12 responses to “Scientists Visit Creationist Museum

  1. Must have gone with a closed mind!

    • leftcoastlibrul

      It is not about “having an open mind.” It is about expecting science to be honest and real. This is neither. When one’s evidence requires an open mind and relaxed standards for scientific methodology? It isn’t science. Trying to shame people into acceptance of a theory with nothing but the statements of how the other side deserves equal time is like showing up with a knife at a gun fight. It isn’t about feelings. It isn’t about belief. It isn’t about faith. It is about verifiable scientific fact.

  2. Neither is Evolution. When have you personally witnessed “macro Evolution”? Have you seen an ape turn in a human? Evolution is not a science, it’s a theory, a theory which has a lot of missing links, not just one missing link. Evolution, requires an open mind and relaxed standards for scientific methodology. So try again!
    Macro Evolution has no verifiable scientific facts and requires more faith to accept than does Creation. Man has intelligence therefore an intelligent being (God) created us.

  3. Science has to be proven time and time again, evolution fails the test.

  4. This article violates the pillars of Atheism. The Pillars of Atheism teach that in order to be an Atheist you must pursue truth. Rejecting God, violates the pillar of pursuing truth. According to The critical thinker is also a lover of truth. Therefore to reject God is to reject truth.

  5. leftcoastlibrul

    Okay, let’s take it one at a time.

    Have I ever witnessed macro-evolution? Yes. In fact there is an amazingly cool article about it here. Two bird populations splitting into separate species! Before our very eyes! Actual macro evolution in practice! Do you know how cool that is? It’s amazing! And thoroughly repudiates the idea that evolution has no scientific fact.

    Second: Ape turning into a human. This is beneath you. I’m going to pretend you didn’t say it, because it’s just embarrassing.

    Theory: One more time: Learn the actual definition of ‘theory.’ It does not mean what you think it means. A scientific theory is not just an idea or a belief. A scientific theory is a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena. Scientific theories have proof. Gravity is a theory. Are you disputing gravity?

    Okay. Next. “Pillars of atheism.” This is too tinfoil hatty. There are no pillars of atheism. You don’t have to join a club. There is no secret hand shake. Critical thinking is something even theists are capable of; my father in law springs to mind. The man is perfectly good at critical thought. He just lets it slide when it comes to theism. There is only one thing required to be an atheist: a lack of belief in any god. That’s it.

    The critical thinker is a lover of fact. “Truth” is very subjective, and goes all the way from art (truth is beauty, beauty is truth) to Philosophy (I think therefore I am). Everyone has their own ‘truth.’ I prefer fact as does, I’m sure, the guy who writes that blog. Atheists don’t feel the need to agree about everything because atheists know the difference between subjective truth and objective reality.

    As for your last sentence….I really don’t know how you came to that conclusion.

  6. leftcoastlibrul

    Oh! And thank you for the link. Some interesting stuff there.

  7. You are welcome for the link, I try read as much as I can.

  8. Hmmm, very pretty bird but the article reminds me of piltdown man hoax:

  9. More Evolution Hoaxes:
    Famous Evolution Hoaxes and Exaggerations
    By David Dewitt, Ph.D., Oct. 1999
    Associate Director of Creation Studies at Liberty University

    Nebraska Man
    In 1922, scientists discovered a fossil tooth. Reported to be one million years old, it was heralded as the “missing link” in human evolution and called “Nebraska Man” since it was found in the state of Nebraska. Henry Fairfield Osborn, an eminent paleontologist, said it combined characteristics of chimpanzees and man. This fossil became famous because it was used as evidence for evolution in the 1925 Scopes trial. Later, it was discovered that the tooth did not belong to any type of human or ape. It was found to be the tooth of a pig!

    Piltdown Man
    This famous hoax fooled scientists for nearly 50 years. A portion of a human skull and the jaw of an orangutan were pieced together to form a “missing link.” Scientists studied casts or models of this specimen and numerous reports were published on it.

    Later, it was found to be an absolute fraud. On the original specimen, which was rarely seen, one could easily see where the teeth had been filed down to look more human-like!

    Haekel’s Embryos
    Ernst Haekel was a German developmental biologist who studied embryos. He proposed an evolutionary theory called “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.” According to this view, as a fertilized egg develops to form an embryo, it repeats evolutionary history.

    As evidence, Haekel examined and drew pictures of embryos of a fish, frog, chicken, pig and human. In the pictures, there was remarkable similarity among the different animals.

    However, these pictures were later shown to be deceptively altered! Further, it was also shown that his recapitulation theory was untrue. Nonetheless, it is still occasionally used as evidence for evolution, and Haekel’s fraudulent drawings are still placed in biology textbooks today.

    One book commonly used in graduate schools, Molecular Biology of the Cell by Bruce Alberts (president of the National Academy of Sciences), still includes Haekel’s embryos in the chapter “The Evolution of the Cell.”

    Peppered Moth
    The peppered Moth is a classic example used to show evolution in action. In England, scientists observed increasing numbers of a dark variety, and decreasing numbers of a lighter variety, of the moth.

    This change was originally attributed to better camouflage-ability since there was a decrease in light-colored lichens on tree trunks, due to pollution. As pollution decreased, the colors reversed. Supposedly, those moths with better camouflage would escape predation by birds and leave more offspring.

    Recently, it has become known that pictures of these moths in textbooks have been staged because the moths do not rest on tree trunks as they are often portrayed!

    In addition, the change in coloration was observed in other areas without a similar change in lichen. Presently, scientists do not know what caused the difference in coloration but they know that it is not by the Darwinian model which had been previously proposed.

    Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist, described his reaction to finding out this information about the moths in a book review in Nature. “My own reaction resembles the dismay attending my discovery, at the age of six, that it was my father and not Santa who brought the presents on Christmas Eve.”

    These and other examples were taught to generations of students as “facts” of evolution.

  10. And they call this science…how embarrassing!!!

  11. leftcoastlibrul

    Okay. To continue.

    Your first link is from 1912 and does not in any way debunk the link I posted which shows very clear scientific method in determining that macro evolution is taking place.

    Your second link is indeed embarrassing to the scientists who perpetrated the fraud and is not science. What it does not do is debunk the link I posted which shows very clear scientific method in determining that macro evolution is taking place.

    What it also does not do is mention the fact that David DeWitt has been debunked by true scientists as the creationist hack he is. If he told me it was raining out I’d go check for myself.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s