Creationist Museum’s Second Anniversary

Containing more space than London’s Natural History Museum, the BBC asks the question, “who goes to the creationist museum and what motivates people to make a visit?

I remember the controversy when this particular creationist museum was proposed. As I recall, they had to change locations due to special interests groups which turned out to be much better, and added more space to the project. When the museum did finally open it was greeted with some protesting from airplanes flying by to protesting signs on the ground…

I find it interesting, those who believe in a faulty view of separation from church and state (the government can only disagree with religion), would be so worried about a creationist museum. One of the reasons is competition from other museums, another is the fact that they just don’t like Christianity or any other religion.

Back to the BBC quest in answering why people go to a creationist museum. They interviewed a few people, not a very good study but interesting comments nevertheless…

Laurie Geesey, the former high school teacher, who says she believes God created “everything visible and invisible”, feels people look down on her views “especially under the current [White House] administration”. “It interferes with their lifestyle, you know ‘If it feels good go ahead and do it’ – the Bible doesn’t teach that,” she says.

Scott Rubin, “Evolution is a good theory, I don’t believe in it, but parts of it are sensible and parts of creationism are sensible,” he says. “When it comes down to it, how can you know for sure? What I do know is God’s changed my life. I believe God created the world in six days, I do believe that.”

Dan Schoonmaker, the Army helicopter pilot (who as a member of the military gets in free) described himself as a “creationist in training”, admitting it needed “a lot of faith”. “I personally don’t know, but natural selection seems to be the only thing people go on. It should be more open,” he says.

Robert Mailloux, the retired businessman dismisses Darwin’s theory as “not even a low grade hypothesis” and said it had “no substantial science” in it. “The Bible says God created the Earth in six days and we flat believe that. There are over 100 ways science is able to look at the Earth and 90 say it is thousands of years old – only 10 say it’s real old…Darwin buried with kings at Westminster Abbey? He’s not a king. He’s the king of the atheists’ movement.”

What I found also interesting, the BBC enters the creation vs evolution debate by trying to make a case for evolution with the fossil Ida found years ago, which has been dismissed by most evolutionists even as a ‘missing link’ and used for profit reasons.

So there has been skepticism from the other side about Ida’s impact on the hypothesis of evolution but the BBC makes a weak attempt to say otherwise…“The most recent such finding, a “47-million-year-old fossil” of a primate, called Ida, may have given scientists a “fresh insight” into evolution.”

Speaking of skepticism, what I found lacking in the BBC report, was the fact that anti-creationists have visited there as well, not just outside protesting, but actually taking on tour on the inside. The Creationist Museum is a great family destination,  and refreshing to see that evolution is not taught like a religion like you see in secular museums.

Advertisements

42 thoughts on “Creationist Museum’s Second Anniversary

  1. There you go *again* with your ‘special interests groups’.
    Care to name them ?

  2. There are several things I really like about this clip.

    First, lets start at the end. I love the ending of the clip when he trails off saying…

    “Whenever we have problems we turn to science”

    They have their god, science, and their prophet Darwin.

    I also think the most telling statement he makes in the video clip is “it goes against everything we know.” What a hypocrite this guy is. He complains that AiG claims to “know the answers” and that makes it bad science, when he clearly stated that he was against the museum because it went against everything he “knows about the universe”.

    Finally he makes this gem of a statement “we ask the questions and let nature do the answers.” Nature can only show you what you want to see.

  3. mcoville,

    “They have their god, science, and their prophet Darwin.”

    I disagree.

    If science were a living god, it would denounce Darwin as a false prophet.

  4. mcoville states, “What a hypocrite this guy is. He complains that AiG claims to “know the answers” and that makes it bad science, when he clearly stated that he was against the museum because it went against everything he “knows about the universe.”

    Indeed, the guy is a hypocrite not only that, he is wrong to claim AIG “knows the answers.” And argue, if we knew of the designer there would be no science because nobody would study nature or science would be turned back to 1850. Many important science discoveries happened with people who believed in God as the designer. God’s wisdom is very advance far beyond what us mere humans can understand. Knowing this, we couldn’t have all the answers for everything that goes on in nature.

    There is a common story made up by many secularists in order to try and convince people if we believe in God as the Creator of all things, science would never progress but nothing could be further form the truth. I do storm chasing for a hobby, I study patterns of storms at times it the very midst of it’s fiery, even though I believe God designed it the system of stormy weather, it doesn’t mean I don’t want to know how nature works! Do secularists really believe there would be no need to study such things like DNA if people believed it was designed by God?

    The man in the video worships science and feels evolution is like the Gospel it must be preached and believed by everyone.

  5. This is baffling.

    Michael, you say that:
    “… he is wrong to claim AIG “knows the answers.” ”

    Indeed, I would say that AIG has no scientific answers at all, but they *do* claim to have the answer. They claim a god created it all, which is an answer of some kind (religious, I’d say). That answer is not scientific, and has not been proven (at all).

    I have never seen anyone worshipping science, by the way. That is a ludicrous notion. I like being a scientist, but that’s about it.

    By the way: strom chasing sounds like fun!

  6. Eelco, they do not claim to have the answer to how everything works, only on where is came from.

    Just because I know God created humans does not mean I know how every system of the human body works, that is what science is for. Christians use science to learn how God’s creation works, we enjoy science.

    krissmith777, I agree. Unfortunately since they worship a false god, Darwin makes the perfect false prophet.

  7. “Just because I know God created humans …”

    So how did “God’s creation” work then ? How did “he” do it ? You seem to know the answer to that …

  8. You almost got the idea Eelco. The one thing you need to understand is that I do not know the answer to how God did it, that is what science is for. Knowing who made something does not explain how it works. I know that a Ford car plant made my car, that does not mean I understand how a combustible engine works.

    You start with the assumption that evolution did it. I start with God did it. But I still need to use the scientific method to learn how He did it and how it works. That is the beauty of science, it gives us a way to marvel at God’s creation.

  9. I do not start with the assumption that evolution is the process that made humans (in the end). It is my conclusion !
    That is quite a different viewpoint …

  10. Eelco,

    English lesson for you, God is one answer, the only answer. Nothing plural about that. AIG has answers but not for everything. This is what I meant.

    Studying how bees stabilize their flight in windy conditions by extending their hind legs. Even though this costs 30% more energy and produces more drag, it provides stabilization against turbulence by increasing their moment of inertia.

    Assuming a trend beyond what the data permit is something evolution does all the time while improperly drawing parallels as a result, neglects pertinent differences. Who really taught those bees physics and aerodynamics? A mutation or mutations while millions of transitional bees fell to their deaths with a gust of wind?

    Many of the conclusions about how things work in evolution, is not science!

  11. English lesson for me ?!? That’s quite an aggressive statement, which I’ve not seen from you before.

    Anyway, I asked you (on June 23, 2009 at 7:52 am):
    “So how did “God’s creation” work then ? How did “he” do it ? You seem to know the answer to that …”

    I was asking for ‘the answer’ here (singular !) …

  12. But that is where you are confused Eelco, just because we know God created something does not mean we know how.

    We use science to learn how God made things to work and how they effect the rest of His creation.

    That is the beauty of REAL science, we can learn how something works and marvel that God uses even an ant to glorify Himself.

  13. Well, knowing *how* something was done helps you to test whether your theory that this something actually *was* done or happened.

    OK, let’s leave the ‘how’ question aside for a moment, and consider the evidence that there actually was a creator that created everything. How do you ‘know’ that this is actually the case ? All you say is that you ‘know’ this. But based on what ?

  14. Really? For me it is easy because I know Jesus. I have a personally relationship with the one that created everything.

    But I know that sounds foolish to you and you would feel better with a more scientific answer so here is one for you.

    Something can not come from nothing in the physical world. I can explain where everything came from, can you?

  15. Who says something has to come from nothing ?
    Why would there be nothing first ?
    Physics does not say something comes from nothing, as that is evidently not possible. I think this is a common misconception.

    “I can explain where everything came from, can you?”
    No, I cannot. And neither can you. If you can, do explain !

  16. I can explain where everything came from, God.

    If you take God out of science you no longer have true science. If everything did not come form God, where did it come from? “I don’t know” is a childish way of avoiding giving an answer.

    Despite what our post-modern culture indoctrinates kids with, there is absolute truth. You have to choose did everything come form nothing or did God create it?

    This is so simple that my 7 year old has known the answer to this for several years now.

  17. “Childish” ?? No. Saying you do not know is very honest. Of course I have my ideas, I’m not actually satisfied not knowing.

    And ‘God’ is a very short answer (3 letters), which certainly is not an explanation.

    “You have to choose did everything come form nothing or did God create it?”
    That’s a false dichotomy. You do not have to choose between two options. There are *lots* of options to choose from. And again, physics is *not* saying everything came from nothing, that is a ridiculous idea. Why do you repeat that?

    “This is so simple that my 7 year old has known the answer to this for several years now.”
    Because you told him so ?
    My 9 year old tries to figure it our for himself, and I let him.

  18. “Of course I have my ideas, I’m not actually satisfied not knowing.” What are your ideas then?

    “And ‘God’ is a very short answer (3 letters), which certainly is not an explanation.” Keep it simple. Don’t need more than the truth.

    “There are *lots* of options to choose from.”, still waiting to hear them.

    “And again, physics is *not* saying everything came from nothing,” they are not saying it in print because evolutionists refuse to go back to the beginning. Like children they figure if they refuse to talk about it it never happened.

    “Because you told him so ?”, because she uses common sense.

    “My 9 year old tries to figure it our for himself, and I let him.” I’m sure you would be proud of your son if he came home and said “Dad, isn’t it wonderful that God created everything.”

    But to avoid creating dozens of rabbit trails, lets stick to one topic. What are your opinions of the origin of existence? You said there are many and that you have one of your own. Let’s hear it.

  19. No, sorry, I am not falling for that. I asked you to explain, and now you are just asking me for my ideas.

    And of course there are many: just read a book, or browse the internet. Lots of religious ones (yours is not unique at all), and lots of scientific ones (usually *not* starting from nothing).

    My ideas are simple physical ones, and don’t quite answer all the questions, which is why I prefer to say “I don’t know (yet)”. My guess is that I will not actually find the answers – I’m not that arrogant. What we do think we understand is how matter was formed, which is from energy. So near the beginning there was lots of energy, some of which was turned into matter (and some into massless particles like photons). What was before ‘near the beginning’ we really do not know, as the laws of physics break down there. So lots to think about, which is what the optimist in me would say.

    But I first want to hear *your* explanation. I asked first. And ‘god’ is not an explanation. Perhaps a paragraph or two ? Some outline of an idea ?

  20. Ah, instead of ‘the laws of physics’ I should have said ‘the *current* laws of physics’. Physics is not a finished subject. Not at all.

  21. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
    Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.

    Theres two paragraphs for you.

    I’m still waiting to hear your explanation of where everything came from.

  22. That’s a religious idea. Not an explanation. It doesn’t explain anything. And it is not your idea either, is it ?

    My explanation of ‘where everything came from’ ?
    That is funny question: I just said that all matter and light came from energy (standard physics), but where: all over the place. Where the energy came from ? I do not know. If the universe is cyclic (a nice option) it was always there, if not then I do not know. Perhaps the multiverse hypothesis brings something: that does not have a beginning either.

    I’m happy to speculate, but I am not happy to say that I know, because I don’t. That is the nature of science, by the way. It only provides theories, not absolute answers. If you believe in an absolute answer, then it would be outrageously arrogant to say that *you* know this answer, taking into account how limited we (human beings) are. Perhaps there is an absolute answer: but that requires absolute proof to verify.

    That’s a little hard, I think. Unless you are happy to delude yourself, or just believe whatever answer someone tells you.

  23. Just because you refuse to accept the truth of an answer does not mean it is false. I do not say that I alone know the answer to where everything came form, I only know the one who knows.

    If someone one is there to witness an event then their testimony would be truth. God was there when everything began and His testimony is what I posted before, that is not religion that is truth.

    All of the theories you put in your response do not explain where the energy or matter come from. It is either God or out of nothing. Unless you believe matter is eternal and then you are saying you know matter always exist and I know how hard it is for you to admit you know anything except that God does not exist.

    Really think about it. You say you can not know anything for certain, then why can’t God be the creator of everything?

  24. “I only know the one who knows.”

    Well, *claims* to know. Of course that is what belief is, you simply believe what a person was supposed to have said (written up quite a bit later, of course), without thinking about it for yourself, or testing the claims. That is your good right.

    “You say you can not know anything for certain, then why can’t God be the creator of everything?”
    Sure, but it is very very very unlikely, as there is no scientific evidence at all. Just your ‘witness’.

  25. “Sure, but it is very very very unlikely,” Which is a lot more likely than we all came from energy, that apparently has always been because no better explanation can be thought up yet.

    “as there is no scientific evidence at all. Just your ‘witness’.”” Do you want scientific evidence of God’s creation? Take a breath…. where did oxygen come from?

  26. You claim you ‘god-did-it’ is more likely than my scientifically argumented idea. Care you provide some arguments ?

    “…. where did oxygen come from?”
    Fusion reactions in stars. Very generally accepted theory. Nothing to get exited about.

  27. “Fusion reactions in stars. Very generally accepted theory. Nothing to get exited about.”

    do we need to get in to the infinite regression of your theory?

    Where did the stars come from?

  28. That’s very cheap – you ask a question, I answer.
    Then you keep on asking …

    All this is found in any astronomy book – look there.
    We were discussing the singularity, not star formation.

  29. Don’t get mad at me, your the one going one step at a time.

    The obvious point is that something has to be there to make something, but what was there to make the first something? What is your infinite force?

  30. Energy.

    And whether it is infinite or ‘lots’ is something we do not know, and possibly will never know, as that is hard to measure.

  31. How about that, we worked through an entire train of thought. we may not agree with each other, but we can understand each other.

    I understand that everything we know of has to come form something else, nothing can be made out of nothing. I believe that God is eternal and He made everything in the beginning.

    You believe that energy may be eternal and that out of that energy everything was created.

    This is where the real discussion should be. How can an unintellegent energy, that has no need to change because it supports itself in it’s current environment, start to change itself so that over billions of years we have what we have now? There is no natural need for the energy to evolve into anything else, so what started the process of natural selection or mutation that caused evolution to begin?

  32. “You believe that energy may be eternal and that out of that energy everything was created.”
    No, I’m a scientist. I do not believe. I test theories.
    As you know energy and mass are equivalent (E=mc^2 and all that), so you can create particles out of energy and vice versa. How that all that happened in detail (baryongenesis) is not yet clear, obviously.

    An ‘unintelligent energy’ ?
    That’s a funny expression …

    “There is no natural need for the energy to evolve into anything else, so what started the process of natural selection or mutation that caused evolution to begin?”
    Why do you want there to be a start ?

  33. “Why do you want there to be a start ?” because logically everything has a start.

    “No, I’m a scientist. I do not believe. I test theories.” Don’t you believe your results?

    (Definition of Believe: To accept as true or real.)

  34. mcoville,

    I have noticed the interesting replies you have been getting, how was information created in the beginning? Answer: why do you want information to start? Because you need specified information to build things not just complexity, and information comes from what? Answer: It’s not obviously clear. Where does specified information come from on your computer? Answer: intelligence. Only a thinking intelligent being can create specified information that can function.

    One gene (assuming all the components were built and functioning from the very beginning) to make and control one part would be more ideal for evolution. But parts of living creatures are constructed of intricate components with connections that all need to be in place for the thing to work, controlled by many genes that have to act in the proper sequence.

  35. @mcoville:
    “because logically everything has a start.”
    Well, no. Could you explain that logic ? I do not see the need for that at all. There might well have been a start, but there is no logical need for that.
    Do you also see a logical need for an end ? Probably not …

    “Don’t you believe your results?”
    Please differentiate between facts (observables) and theories (interpretations of those facts). Facts you can be sure of, theories not.
    I don’t think you understand how science is done. When someone says that he/she believes a scientific theorie, he/she says that the likelihood for that theory to explain all possible observables is high. But one is never sure. It is therefore not a ‘belief’. One tests theories, one does not believe in them.

  36. @michael:
    “how was information created in the beginning? ”
    It was not created in the beginning (if there was one), information evolves, I’d say. See the link below my next sentence.

    ” Only a thinking intelligent being can create specified information that can function.”
    Well no. Mutations can create information in the genes.
    See http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

    But information theory is not my speciality (and neither is it yours, I think). Have a look at
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/infotheory.html
    for comprehensive coverage. I’ve only read parts of this so far … there is quite a bit to cover. So I am not drawing any conclusions yet.

  37. Eelco, I get the feeling you like to split hairs to make you feel better about your position.

    It does not matter if there is a need for a beginning, everything has a beginning unless it is eternal. Life is not eternal so it had a beginning.

    Logically the same can be said for an end. Unless something is eternal it has an end.

    “Facts you can be sure of, theories not.” this is a false statement. Because a human scientist has to interpret the data to create facts, there have been mistakes. Some facts have been proven false after knowledge or technology has given us the means to do so.

    I understand how science is done, do you understand how the English vocabulary is used? I did not ask if you believed in your facts, I asked if you believe them to be true. There is a big difference in those two statements.

    Just because atheists like yourself do everything they can to avoid using the word believe in any of its forms does not mean you do not use its application in your life. Do you believe the facts you interpret from the data? (Come on you can say it, yes you do or no you don’t)

  38. “It does not matter if there is a need for a beginning, everything has a beginning unless it is eternal.”
    Of course. So it is not ‘logical’ per se that there has to be a beginning. The universe could be eternal (see my earlier comments on cyclic universes).

    “Because a human scientist has to interpret the data to create facts, there have been mistakes.”
    No, the data are the facts ! The interpretation is the theory, not the facts !!!
    Of course there can be mistakes in obtaining the data. But the principle stands: facts are not something you believe in (keeping in mind mistakes can and have been made, including fraud of course !).
    The interpretation of the facts is what constitutes a scientific theory, and there you are not sure, indeed. Scientific theories are never a belief.

    But if you want to insist that we need to belief in the facts (the observational data, not the theory) because mistakes could have been made, or fraud could have been committed, then you are right, of course. If you suspect something like that, you would have to demonstrate that, though (not always that hard).

    I as a person do belief in things if I have to, for example in situations which are time critical (no time to think things through), and where I need to trust people or belief in my gut feelings about the situation.

  39. “So it is not ‘logical’ per se that there has to be a beginning.” The discussion of the need for a beginning is a philosophical one not a scientific one, please stick to science. Science has shown us that everything has a beginning unless it is eternal.

    “The universe could be eternal (see my earlier comments on cyclic universes).”, I would concede that is a theory of some scientists. But then you have to define the universe. I do not think it is possible to say the universe as we know it to be could be eternal, it would be a better theory that the energy that makes up the universe could be eternal.

    But this leads us to my original question… if the energy is eternal why would it evolve matter out of the energy?

    This could be a philosophical question, but pure logical science would tell us that there is no reason for energy to evolve matter that would only take away from the energy instead of adding to it.

    Side note. Thank you Eelco for keeping this discussion civil. I feel we have made strides in understanding each other and I hope we can keep it going. I do not expect you to agree with me, I only hope you better understand my position and I hope to better understand your position.

  40. “Science has shown us that everything has a beginning unless it is eternal.”
    But that is what I said. But it is not ‘logical’ that there is a beginning, as it could be eternal as well. I think we do not disagree there. I would still call it science, though, not philosophy.

    “I do not think it is possible to say the universe as we know it to be could be eternal, it would be a better theory that the energy that makes up the universe could be eternal.”
    Yes, that is getting close to what I think. One could define the universe as being space+time+energy, where energy can take the form of matter or light, as explained.

    “why would it evolve matter out of the energy?”
    I would say just because it can. The nice word for this is ‘potential energy’ in physics. But there is no particular reason, just the laws of physics. Why the laws of physics are the way they are is of course the big question, which I will not pretend to know the answer to. I prefer “don’t know” to a god/goddess/spiritual entity or similar. Of course I’d like to know, but I am not happy pretending I know (even though I am human, and sometimes do …).

    “keeping this discussion civil.”
    Yes indeed! That is why I bother reacting here, as Michael and most of the people reacting remain civil, even though we often completely disagree. I think mudslinging and insulting does not help one bit convincing someone, and just creates two camps that just dig themselves in.

    I do feel that Michael’s tone is hardening a little bit, but I do hope that I’m wrong on that, or just imagening this …

  41. Eleco you state,

    “The universe could be eternal (see my earlier comments on cyclic universes).”

    Before the 1960’s many scientists believed the Universe was eternal. Then of course by the mid-1960’s the big bang theory which claimed the Universe had a beginning made in roads that convinced the majority of scientists by so-called; evidence. Since it has been discovered the Universe is so finely tuned the so-called; multi-universes was proposed. You can’t test such a proposal, nor can you observe it, nor can you prove there was or was not the very first universe that is not our own. This is like what evolutionists like to complain about when a Christian see specified complexity as being built by a intelligent designer namely, God but only worse because we can’t observe any of those universes if they really did exist but we can certainly observe specified complexity.

    Eternal and non-eternal universe or universes are not the same principles which both are “facts” that people are basing their assumptions on. The problem with a beginning is the fact something had to be a cause to put it into existence. I always say that naturalism is much more at home with a mystery, because it’s easier not to explain something than to actually try and explain how a primordial hot and dense initial condition was created in the first place at some finite time. If the vast majority of secular scientists switch to a belief that there are zillions of universes with no beginning universe, then they could rely on the mystery even more without an explanation and claim it’s science rather than just a story which is what it really is, because it has no testable facts or observed data.

  42. I do not think you understand much about cosmology, to be honest. The ‘Big Bang’ theory (still a bad name) does not imply a beginning. All it tries to explain is the bit we can actually observe and make direct predictions about, which is the period shortly after a possible singularity. But one can also have a cyclic universe and observe exactly the same thing.

    From wikipedia:
    “As used by cosmologists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past, and continues to expand to this day.”
    It does not go beyond the ‘primordial hot and dense initial conditions’ (that is, not to t=0), because physics as we know it breaks down there. So having a real beginning of time and space, or a cyclic universe, are both options not precluded by ‘Big Bang’ cosmology.

    You history of the subject is also not accurate at all. Lots happened before the 1960’s. The term Big Bang was coined by Hoyle 1949, after all, as a condencending joke.

    The ‘multiverse’ ideas that are floating around now do have testable predictions, like dark energy (and its properties, which people are trying to measure now). Look for BAO’s, Baryonic Acoustic Oscillations, for example. Good fun, and ultimately measurable.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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