Follow by Email

Search This Blog

Tuesday, June 12, 2012

Short note on a creation museum

EDIT:  I have recently noticed that this seems to be my most popular topic to date.  I also noticed that my post seems to be the third most popular on Google for creation museum info, right between
Museum of Creation Truth |   and Creation Truth , which I personally find sort of satisfying and kinda funny.  I know the reason that the topic interests me, but what is it about a creation museum that interests everyone else.  I am especially curious if this is occuring in any other country other than the United States.  If you  could leave a comment with your thoughts or experience concerning onee of these, for lack of a better phrase, propaganda structures, I would greatly appreciate it.  And now back to the story.

I've noticing billboards along I-40 in Oklahoma City advertising for a creation museum, I think in Cincinnati.  What are your thoughts on this.  Personally, as I've stated, I have no real gripe against religion as a source of community or for the feeling of fellowship.  When you claim religious fables are science using either mis-interpreted or blatantly false information, then that's where I draw the line.  First of all, the art work on these ads is atrocious.  Seriously, they look like something out of a 1950's comic book.  While I like the look of the golden age comics, I don't think the style lends itself to advertising for what is claimed to be a hard science museum.  Secondly, I personally can't remember an anklyosaur or triceratops in the bible, unless they were one of the plagues that I missed.  Or was there a pteradon in Sodom?  Point being, if you talk to someone that believes dinosaurs walked with humans and the Earth is only 6000 years old, they will tell you dinosaurs aren't mentioned in the bible because when it was written, the word wasn't invented.  I'll bite, but where does it say "And lo, the gigantic lizard did tempt the shepards to leave their charges in their fields and follow it unto Bethlehem."?  There is no description of anything even remotely similar to a T-Rex or a Brachiosaur in the bible.  And how did they fit on the Ark?  Did they bump the unicorns, manticores, centaurs, and dragons to make room?  And who was the poor bugger that had to clean up after the dinos on the boat.  The interesting aspect of this is you can see a clear division in religious thinking.  On one side, you have the people who go to creation museums that claim the mega fauna lived with humans.  The other side believes that the first is nuts, because everyone knows god placed the bones in the ground to make us think the world is older that 6000 years.  Guys got a wicked since of humor, especially to wait 6000 years for a practical joke to pay off. I know that there are some people that are religious, but do trust in science and know that evolution is the most likely explanation. I don't include them, because they aren't likely to visit a creation museum. Either way, my main point, outside of being perturbed by this (it's not too obvious, is it?) is that these people, who could all be lumped together as "young Earth creationists" (and I wish I had coined that term) are mis-using the scientific method or out and out corrupting it to prove their world views.  They go in with a preconceived notion and bend the data to make it fit, kinda like the anti-vaccers.  The Y.E.C. (a fitting acronyms) claim  carbon radio dating is faulty, that the only way to date a fossil is to issue a blanket statement that all the fossils date from the great flood 4,400 years ago.  They have a tendency to use a lot of logical fallacies including argument from authority, strawman argument, Argument from ignorance , Argument from scripture (Spider-man fallacy), (shifting the) Burden of proof, and I could keep going, but it's not worth the time right now.  Like I said this is a short one, and I'm really wanting to know what people think of these creation museums.  On the one hand, they are dishing out crap and calling it good science.  On the other hand, if a skeptic goes to one, they can get a good idea of Y.E.C.'s thought process.  I've also heard the suggestion that if you have friends that study paleontology, paleobotony, or anthropology, take them with you and turn 'em loose.  I like that one, and I'd even sell tickets.  Let me know your thoughts or feelings, or even if you feel that this is a completely over-blown reaction to a harmless little museum, and keep in mind folks, that there are several of these in the United States, and there may be more in other countries.  To my international readers, let me know if they have these things in your countries and where they are.  Better yet, if you've been to one, what was it like?  Until later.  And if I misspelled the names of the dinos, sorry, Latin isn't my first language, but I did try.

The Skeptical Okie


  1. I live in OKC and was curious when i saw the billboards. Apparently there is a creation museum but its closer to Dallas. I do want to go there just to see how they link humans to dinosaurs and explain evolution using scripture - which must take a lot of creativity/intelligence :) But institutions like this continue to amaze me in that people today have access to so much knowledge in terms of scientific research and papers - but continue to believe in the legitimacy of a series of unverifiable books written 2000 years ago - dare i say fables!

    1. I hadn't heard about the one in Dallas yet. They have a couple of ways that they link humans and dinos. The most famous one I believe is at the Creation Museum in Kentucky where they imply that they were used as beasts of burden (ala The Flintstones). The other ways are that we co-habitated the planet, but they dinos missed the boat (Iknow, bad pun) during the flood. Another creation answer concerning the evidence of the fossil record is that they were placed there by god to test peoples faith. The reason that places like this continue to thrive, I believe is that most people lack a lot of the fundamentals when it comes to understanding science and research. They think that because science is self correcting and is subject to change when new information appears, it must not be true. They'll state that since the bible hasn't changed since it was written (which it has been rewritten several times) it must be the truth. Plus I think it's easier for people to believe in something rather than actually think about or learn new information. And I like the term fables for the scriptures. It is a very appropriate description. Thanks for the comment, and I hope are as interested in some of the future topics. If there is anything you'd like me to cover, let me know. Thanks again.