VirusHead

Heidi, do you agree that opening this museum is an extremely wicked plot to plant lies in people’s minds? Could it be more likely that these religious people are locked into the literal interpretation of the Bible as a belief (meme?) that they are willing to support with their donations? In your post last Sunday Laughing at attempted theocracy you suggest the fundamentalists would be better off not trying to ban Halloween. Does this advice not apply to the other side? I agree that textbooks are a legitimate battleground but demonizing a museum seems like a waste of energy. I think history shows the religious side always loses these arguments eventually. There are already considerable fractures within the evangelicals on the 7-days of creation issue Big Bang – The Bible Taught It First so I think the beginning of the end of that particular debate has already occurred. — Vance

Sorry for the wait on approving your comment – Akismet thought it was spam.

My problem isn’t with their opening a Christian museum, however woefully inadequate. Religiously motivated museums can be found all over the world, and there are already a goodly few here in the USA.

My opposition is based on the notion that they represent the “young earth” theory, Noah’s flood and so one as though they were scientific facts.

They can believe whatever they want. However, the bible is not a science textbook. I think the collection of books that make up the bible are useful and interesting in a number of ways (I co-edited a book on religion and literature), but scientific method is not one of them.

The bible contains interesting observations of the natural world – such as being renewed “like an eagle” (some kinds of eagles return to their place of birth and yank out every feather, at which point they either die or recover and grow new feathers – it’s a powerful image). But at that point, there wasn’t even a classification system for genus and species…

I wonder how this same group would respond to other religious origin stories being presented as scientific fact. There are a lot of them, and you can even find a common threads among them if you compare. Genesis itself has more than one narrative within it.

The Hebrews, like every other group on the planet, created a story to explain the origins of the earth, the universe, everything in it, and what was expected of them. We are storytellers, meaning-makers, symbol-creators.

Biblical texts were not written to teach scientific realities – there wasn’t even a glimmer of an idea of scientific method at the time. Even the idea of divine inspiration came about fairly late in the game, and plenty of great writings were burned or lost or censored out, too. The ancient texts contain much wisdom, and much foolishness as well.

I would have little quarrel with a christian museum per se (although honestly I don’t like the idea), but they have gone much further by framing it in terms of presenting two scientific positions – the non-biblical (i.e. wrong, anti-christian) version and the biblically authoritative (i.e. correct forever and ever amen) version.

I do not share your optimism about the beginning of the end of the debate. That we would still be debating it shocks and appalls me. Presidential candidates are even saying that that natural selection isn’t a scientific fact? This does not bode well for America. Darwin alone shouldn’t be anyone’s dogma – evolutionary processes are much more complicated (punctuated, sometimes even catastrophic), but science adjusts to new discoveries and refinements based on evidence.

There is still a lot we don’t know for a fact to be true, but there are some things that we do know – clearly – not to be true. An earth that could be younger than 10,000 years old is one of those things. I say this as someone who grew up arguing against evolution – and eventually discovered that every argument I had in my arsenal was faulty in some way or other.

Presenting origin narratives as though they were scientific fact does not do our children any favors, especially in a world where they are already falling behind in science and math.

Heidi, I spent some time on the Answers in Genesis website, but didn’t see anything unusual for a self described “Biblical authority” organization, other than the surprisingly named “Consummation Theater” in the Creation Museum. Could you expand on your statement: “but they have gone much further by framing it in terms of presenting two scientific positions – the non-biblical (i.e. wrong, anti-christian) version and the biblically authoritative (i.e. correct forever and ever amen) version”? Is this different from pointing out what you believe to be the weaknesses in your opponent’s position, while declaring the superiority of your own?

Thank you for posting this. It may come down to private foundations and scintifically-minded venture capitalists to take on religious fictions with new museums and public presentations. Publicly funded universities and community groups do not have the funds or public support for that.

Could you expand on your statement: “but they have gone much further by framing it in terms of presenting two scientific positions – the non-biblical (i.e. wrong, anti-christian) version and the biblically authoritative (i.e. correct forever and ever amen) version”? Is this different from pointing out what you believe to be the weaknesses in your opponent’s position, while declaring the superiority of your own?

Yes. It is different because biblical literalists promote scripture as scientific fact. In science, theories are the end points – detailed understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation and incorporate known facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. By definition, science cannot say – it’s in the bible, and therefore it is true.

So they can argue that they believe these things like a young earth or human co-existence with dinosaurs if they like, but to do so they have to ignore, not incorporate, large sectors of scientific knowledge.

As for sourcing, here are a few:

From Ken Ham’s blog:

“A number of Ph.D. scientists are employed by AiG and work with AiG to ensure scientific accuracy in what is taught.” – Ph.D. Scientists? Names? Credentials? Arguments?

“They don’t care what scientific research/facts AiG’s PhD scientists have included in the Museum exhibits—because the Creation Museum is set up to tell people the Bible’s history in Genesis is true, Krauss, because he only allows naturalistic explanations in science for the origin of life, will not even consider anything creation scientists say or write. Maybe the students Krauss is in charge of at the university should write their research papers the same way Krauss has researched the Creation Museum teaching exhibits! Of course, if they did that, they would fail! But their professors can get away with such an unscientific approach when used against Christians.” – How do you have supernatural scientific explanations anyway?

From the AiG Statement of Faith:

“No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.”

From the About us page, Prepare to Believe:

“The Creation Museum will be upfront that the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of faith and practice, and in every area it touches upon. We’ll begin the Museum experience by showing that “facts” don’t speak for themselves. There aren’t separate sets of “evidences” for evolution and creation—we all deal with the same evidence (we all live on the same earth, have the same fossils, observe the same animals, etc.). The difference lies in how we interpret what we study. We’ll then explore why the Bible – the “history book of the universe” – provides a reliable, eye-witness account of the beginning of all things. After that, we’ll take guests on a journey through a visual presentation of the history of the world, based on the “7 C’s of History”: Creation, Corruption, Catastrophe, Confusion, Christ, Cross, Consummation. Throughout this family-friendly experience, guests will learn how to answer the attacks on the Bible’s authority in geology, biology, anthropology, cosmology, etc., and they will discover how science actually confirms biblical history.”

First attack science, and then say science supports them.

From the Mission Statement for the Museum:

“Exalt Jesus Christ as Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer through a safe, wholesome, family-friendly center for learning and discovery that clearly presents major biblical themes from Genesis to Revelation. This center will equip Christians to better evangelize the lost with a sense of urgency, through a combination of exhibits, research and educational presentations that uphold the inerrancy of the Bible. This center will also challenge visitors to receive Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord and to accept the authority of the Bible by providing culturally relevant biblical and scientific answers from a biblical worldview.” (Emphasis added)

The mission confuses religion with science again.

Again, displacement might help. How would they feel about science from a “pagan” worldview? Science from a “zombie” worldview? Science from a “feminist” worldview? The whole point of “science” is to try to establish descriptive and predictive methodologies and theories in which it really doesn’t matter what religious beliefs you have, or nationality, or any other factors of “worldview.” Scientific views change too, and perhaps there are aspects for debate. But you just simply cannot take an ancient collection of documents and claim that their authority is defensible as science. They criticize science as materialistic, naturalistic. Well…that’s what’s observable, for the most part. There are more abstract theories too – complexity theory, quantum mechanics and so on. But science has limits. It doesn’t say there is no God, but like most of the mystics, it also cannot pin down God like a bug. Religion is a separate topic.

Like most other creationist groups, they lack scientific argumentation, feel pretty comfortable with quoting sometime long-dead scientists out of context, they don’t actually link to any reputable scientific sites, and so on.

None of this is new.

Do you have to believe that the sun revolves around the earth in order to be a christian? Of course not! Heard of the opposition of the catholic church to, say, Galileo?

And yet it was the monk Mendel who founded the science of genetics – through experimentation, not the “word of God.”

Just for laughs, check out where we rank in terms of the rest of the world on evolution – just barely above Turkey at the bottom of the list. Woo-hoo – hurray for ignorance.

Heidi, thank you very much for taking the time to expand on your “two scientific positions” statement. Now I understand what you were saying and agree with you. I had assumed AiG would make at least a halfhearted acknowledgement of the scientific method, but as you point out their Statement of Faith makes it very clear that they reject it. You made the structure of their lies very clear