scifi author John Scalzi went to the Creation Museum, and he took pictures. Lots of pictures. Click here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/scalzi/sets/72157603091357751/) for lots of pictures and lots of snark. I suppose I'll reproduce his disclaimer:

Warning: No little amount of sacrilegiousness follows. If you are a creationist and/or otherwise determined to take the Bible literally, you will almost certainly be offended. Don't come whining to me when you are.

Arstechnia did something similar a little while back: essay (http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/ars-takes-a-field-trip-the-creation-museum.ars), photos (http://www.flickr.com/photos/drjonboyg/sets/72157600301874014/)

Oh. My. God.

I've known about this place for a while and knew it was bad, but this is literally messed-up, bat**** crazy. The lengths to which these people milk the Bible for proofs of their theory aren't just disturbing, they are mind-numbing. Weeds came about after the First Sin? Animals realized that they had venom afterwards?

I like the dinosaurs missing the ark bit, quite innovative. I thought only unicorns missed the ark....

To think that there might actually be people that believe this. Seriously, though, weeds came about after that thing with the apple? Sheesh, anyone with some gardening knowledge and half a mind should know that the distinction between weeds and non-weeds is more than a little arbitrary.

And only 50 'kinds' of dinosaurs? Most of whom were fairly small? Well thank god they forgot about the Brachiosaur then, since with its height of 30 meters and weight of over 100 ton, there wouldn't have been much room for any other dinosaurs.

Such willful stupidity staggers the mind.

In another world, another place, another time, I would have said this is the funniest thing I have ever seen.

Considering some people actually take all this SERIOUSLY, considering how much money was spent on the thing, and considering how much money however runs this thing is making ($20????!!! you've got to be kidding. The most notorious tourist traps in Edinburgh are cheaper), this is too pathetic for words.

The upper cretaceous was in -2400? How interesting. I wonder if the Pharaos used to go dinosaur hunting.

Such willful stupidity staggers the mind.

Somehow this reminds me of one of my best Girl Genius moments:

"You can't be so stupid."
"Can if I wants to!"

What people forget is that the Bible is not a science textbook. They dedicate about 2 pages to creation. Asking for more detais that arent in the book is like asking an aethiest about the God they worship. There is none. Get over it!

But that frankly means that what they set up in this museum are fantasies they try to put into accord with those about 2 pages. You can talk science, especially inductive and deductive reasoning, with a creationist all day and he will only say that Darwin's theory of evolution can't explain this or that and that thus his view is legitimate, if not right, repeat. He just doesn't like that man and apes have common ancestors, just like folks 100 years ago didn't like it, if not for reasons of taste and pride, for the sole reason that it contradicts the line: "God created Adam and Eve." Thus evolution can't be.

Of course the entire museum and it's exhibits are a constant joke. I think the pertinent question is one of faith. For that it does not matter in the slightest whether there is sufficient basis in the bible for the museum and its exhibits.

What's making the entire thing so extraordinary silly is that they use it in politics and use politics to try to force it into the scientific education, under the guise of scientific theory, which it is not. In that context it's like setting up the ten commandments in front of a court building or other follies that indicate their inherent uneasiness with a nation of worldly laws and worldly science. In taking the bible literal they are fundamentalists. And they are in my understanding by tendency theocrats, and quite radical ones for that. Maybe they're now shrinking back a bit, withdrawing matters of faith back into personal lives. Maybe. Maybe not. In my view, if America ever faces facism, it'll come from that direction and wrap itself in red, white and blue (*hint* if contested, that last bit is worthy of a thread of its own *hint*).

The really scary thing is that these kinds of nutjobs are worming their way into Swedish schools as well now. Swedish schools who are in no shape to handle things like this as tolerance and open mindedness are seen as the greatest of virtues (which they arguably are) but it means that wackos like this gets the time of the day and are allowed to give guest lectures to young minds. For people who have never paid much attention to philosophical and existential questions intelligent design and creationism will appear very sensible and logical.

joa,
the problem in my eyes is not so much that creation is being taught in school. That's fine with me. I was taught creation in school - in my Catholic religion classes in my Catholic Kindergarten and later in school. I was _not_ taught that in biology classes. I find that separation sensible and adequate. One is a matter of faith, of worldview. The other is a matter of science which has an altogether different approach. What pupils make out of that is no longer the school's job. That's what anybody has to do on his or her own.

What I loathe about the creationists is that they are trying to roll back 700 years of intellectual development. They are reactionaries. It is beyond hilarious to me that these people, just as if nothing happened in the last 700 years, try to repeat St. Thomas Aquinas proof of god, this time with the help of the internet, power point presentations and a professionally set up museum.

I see Creationism as primarily an American fundamentalist phenomenon, and as such as a religious issue. That American fundamentalists are unable to reconcile science with religion in their theology gives in my view testimony of their lamentable intellectual niveau, but I guess that's the price one pays for taking their preferred translation of the bible literal. It appears one then has to take refuge to 'debunking evolutionist lies' to get along in a complicated world. If one wants to see the results of such intellectual stagnation, just look at what has become of Islam since 'the doors of itijad' have been closed.

PS: For a fundamentalist, say of the Christian pre-millennial dispensational reconstructionist dominionist school, this statism makes a lot of sense. It is then based on the assumption that the end of days is imminent anyway. American fundamentalism is a charismatic Christian movement. It's about experiencing god, being 'born again'. If all you need to do to be raptured is to fervently and honestly believe, there is little room or need for further interpretation or critical textual analysis. Believe and be saved, that's the simple deal.

If America ever faces facism, it'll come from that direction and wrap itself in red, white and blue (*hint* if contested, that last bit is worthy of a thread of its own *hint*).

Ragusa, did you think of that yourself? I could swear I've heard something like that before. Anyway, I doubt that Creationism is limited to the US, or that it even originated there; opposition to Darwin's theory started as early as the theory itself was revealed. I suppose it is most active there, however. I think this could be explained if the US has a higher number of home-schooled people and more influential parental school boards, and I believe this is the case (please correct me if I'm wrong).

What I see in the case of these people is an unwillingness to treat the Bible in any way metaphorically - on some issues. That last bit matters, because there are some parts of the Bible that afaik most Christians do take metaphorically and that have been taken metaphorically for centuries - such as the Song of Songs. So if a poem about love is interpreted as a poem about the love of God and the Church - and it has been, what is the problem to interpret the Genesis allegorically? After all, for God, seven days are the same as seven billion years. But no, seven days it has to be. Six thousand years it has to be. Because unlike other parts of the Holy Bible, the Genesis must be read without any interpretation, and no exception.

Shaman,Ragusa, did you think of that yourself? I could swear I've heard something like that before. Originally Posted by Ragusa View Post
If America ever faces facism, it'll come from that direction and wrap itself in red, white and blue (*hint* if contested, that last bit is worthy of a thread of its own *hint*).Sadly, it was not my idea. At least the author won a Nobel Price ;) It's roughly from Sinclair Lewis' 'It Can't Happen Here' (1935). Roughly, because I haven't yet read it, yet. I firmly intend to do. He wrote his book and something like what I wrote after visiting Nazi Germany.I suppose it is most active there, however.That at least. Iirc it emerged in the US as a part of the 'anti-secular' backlash in America's Culture War. More knowledgeable persons are invited to comment.

What joa observes is IMO 'spill over' from the internet? Dunno, it would be an explanation. Swedes generally do speak english, and Creationists publish their stuff in mostly english. It's just one click away. The effect of the internet on the spread of such nonsense is IMO underrated.

Ragusa, it isnt during science lessons but neither has it been during the religion lessons but more during external lectures where people from various sects have come and preached under the pretense of a secondary opinion considering the evolution of this world.

I agree that all kinds of mumbo jumbo should be taught in school, during religion classes where young pupils can learn about as many of the various systems of belief on this earth as possible.

But that frankly means that what they set up in this museum are fantasies they try to put into accord with those about 2 pages. You can talk science, especially inductive and deductive reasoning, with a creationist all day and he will only say that Darwin's theory of evolution can't explain this or that and that thus his view is legitimate, if not right, repeat.

Where the problem exists is when people try to use Evolution and other scientific theories as an attack against Christianity. When people keep on the attack, some people will come up with stuff like this in an attempt to answer people that only want them to renounce their faith--or at least make a fool of themselves to reconcile it.

I think the pertinent question is one of faith.

That and why shut the bleep up is not an appropriate answer to such badgering...

I was _not_ taught that in biology classes.

Nor should you. The Bible is not a science textbook. They're trying to talk about ethics, how much details do you need to explain how the earth got there?

What I loathe about the creationists is that they are trying to roll back 700 years of intellectual development.

Which they likely see as a dismal failure. They see their critics adopting the same attitudes that they had 700 years ago...

What I see in the case of these people is an unwillingness to treat the Bible in any way metaphorically - on some issues.

It's wierd. They take the literal parts as guidelines and the oversimplified part as set in stone fact...

Where the problem exists is when people try to use Evolution and other scientific theories as an attack against Christianity.Than there really isn't any problem. Darwin, himself, was no atheist, and I've never met an atheist who attributed "The Origin of Species" as his sole reason for believing that there is no God. It's part of the argument, sure, but it's never the entire argument.

Gnarff,
you made a good point. I think it's a lot about perception and misperception especially. But I think the opposition to Darwinism and the idea of evolution sans divine creation is a matter of principle. That they also battle against those godless, secular and atheist heathens who tease them just adds them bonuses on their fast track to salvation. I think that their dislike for evolution is something more basic. It is in my eyes about the contradiction to the Holy Book first of all.
What I do think is that in general a disenchantment with the downsides of a western hedonistic and liberal lifestyle turned them back to the roots, to a more literal understanding of the bible. That started early, likely in the 1970s already, with them being appalled by the sexual revolution, dysfunctional families, those scary hippies, drugs, high crime, urban conditions etc.

You also made an excellent point about that they may see the last 700 years of intellectual development as a dismal failure. In that they are pretty much in tune with the Taleban. Like them they try to recreate a golden, happier past, when Families were still intact, woman knew their place, when there was no abortion, and when perhaps perverts like gays were sent to jail, or stoned, etc.

In my understanding they hold that in reference to religion everything has been said, that there is nothing new beyond the text of the Bible. So what has been said in those 700 years is invalid and irrelevant, if not misleading and false and further critical textual analysis will only lead away from the truth. That argument in favour of the status quo is not too uncommon in monotheistic theology, I know of it being made in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. That was what I meant with my reference to the doors of itijad having been closed in Islam. For a literalist critical reading of the text is if not heresy, at the very least dangerous relativism.

It just seems to me that the biggest problem is the literal time interpretations. If you take out the rigid requirement that the world is only a few thousand years old and the old six day creation period, I see no reason why someone who believes in god cannot equally accept that god created the world by setting things up so that this particular planet around this particular sun would develop just so as to allow everything that science is finding out to actually happen. Man was created by god setting the evolutionary process to result in homo sapiens. Voila.

Not being much of a bible scholar, I'll ask those who are: what is so blasphemous about what I wrote?

dmc,
think about eschatology. If you read the bible as a prophecy about the end times, time frames suddenly become very interesting for you. An American literalists the time interpretations is likely to read The Bible as a countdown to Armageddon, much like he'll interpret the events in the Middle East in such a fashion. Considering how upset, say, John Hagee is about it, expecting to be raptured every day, he must have done just that. That is a very peculiar reading of eschatology (and IMO very questionable theology), and quite an American one if the popularity of 'The Great Late Planet Earth' or 'Left Behind' are any indication.
If you read time frames like that when it's about eschatology, it is quite natural to also apply that to the creation itself. The bible sais 5000 years? Then it *is* *true*. The apparoach to eschatology certainly sheds a little light on that bit.

PS: The more general thing is of course the view that evolution as understood by scientists is a teaching that excludes any role for god in the emergence of life, and as such is viewed as an attack on faith itself that must not be tolerated. Period.

Darwin, himself, was no atheist, and I've never met an atheist who attributed "The Origin of Species" as his sole reason for believing that there is no God. It's part of the argument, sure, but it's never the entire argument.

It's also the part that makes the least sense. The Bible is not about science but morality.

Like them they try to recreate a golden, happier past, when Families were still intact, woman knew their place, when there was no abortion, and when perhaps perverts like gays were sent to jail, or stoned, etc.

Even if they could have the good parts without the deterioration in social morality, they'd be happier than a pig in a manure pile...

If you take out the rigid requirement that the world is only a few thousand years old and the old six day creation period, I see no reason why someone who believes in god cannot equally accept that god created the world by setting things up so that this particular planet around this particular sun would develop just so as to allow everything that science is finding out to actually happen.

Exactly, the two are not mutually exclusive. It's the extremists on both sides that insist on that--and thus you get museums like that...

If you read the bible as a prophecy about the end times, time frames suddenly become very interesting for you. An American literalists the time interpretations is likely to read The Bible as a countdown to Armageddon, much like he'll interpret the events in the Middle East in such a fashion. Considering how upset, say, John Hagee is about it, expecting to be raptured every day, he must have done just that.

The Book of Revelation, much like the Book of Isaiah, are the most cryptic in the Bible. It actually says that nobody will know the exact time of Christ's return. I've accepted that I will likely be in the bathroom at that time (I'm always there when something good happens).

It's also the part that makes the least sense. The Bible is not about science but morality.Of course it isn't...but it has often been used to quell scientific thought, if you know your history. Further, if someone argues to you that the bible is the literal word of God, than the theory of evolution becomes a very important ingredient in the argument that such a line of thinking is beyond ridiculous. As in most arguments, who you are arguing with and what specific point you are trying to address has a lot to do with which particular arguments will carry the most weight when making your case.