LiveScience Article On Creationist Museum

Stephanie Pappas from LiveScience must have been reading about the mosque controversy for plans to build one at ground zero (not anywhere else in America) and decided to use the theme and also a study for her article on the creationist museum. Answers in Genesis had a few things to say about it…

“An especially egregious example of bad reporting on the Creation Museum occurred yesterday when a commentary appeared on LiveScience.com. According to Alexa.com, it is a well-trafficked website that ranks an impressive number—6,700 out of millions of websites worldwide.”

If I were AIG I wouldn’t use Alexa rankings as a way to determine traffic to a website because it’s no where near an accurate measure on how many people visit a website because it requires people to use a toolbar or some sort of software that records browsing habits by the host and then sends it to the site for rankings. Many people who surf the internet do not have it! And rankings from that site can be artificially inflated as well so it’s not really impressive. Unlike a real-time tracker which records most people who visit the site which is impressive and way more accurate on web traffic.

LiveScience starts out with misleading the reader into thinking the creationist museum is inclusive (non-club members not allowed sort of thing) but in reality it’s open to everyone of all faiths or non-faiths. If they read the Bible, the Gospel is to be preached to everyone. Likewise, the creationist museum is opened to everyone. If it was inclusive they would only sell tickets to like minded groups.

Now Bernadette Barton of Morehead State University in Kentucky who feels threaten by the Museum (because it’s creationist) conducted a study by bringing in hand picked students for field trips who reported their experiences. LiveScience reports it this way…

“The Creation Museum, opened in 2007, puts its own brand of scientific explanations of creationism  alongside exhibits of Adam and Eve, dinosaurs with humans, and Noah building his Ark. One exhibit, “Graffiti Alley,” purports to show what happens when mankind abandons Young Earth Creationism. These consequences include the birth control pill, abortion, divorce, murder and gay marriage.”

Stephanie Pappas, we want a picture of this exhibit where you mentioned those words stated above that is supposed to be in the creationist Museum or make it known to your readers that you are just interpreting the message rather than repeating the words which looks like this…

Rejection of Scripture not young earth creationism which leads to those things mentioned in the picture. “I was seeking to understand the fundamentalist framework,” Barton told LiveScience. ” No, it was a fishing expedition. The article also claims that faith is being forced on people, this is also not true. Do you see people being dragged in against their will making them watch certain videos and look at exhibits? Of course not! AIG was right, this is a clear attack on Christianity rather than “we just want to understand” study on the Museum.

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “LiveScience Article On Creationist Museum

  1. LiveScience starts out with misleading the reader into thinking the creationist museum is inclusive (non-club members not allowed sort of thing) but in reality it’s open to everyone of all faiths or non-faiths.

    Let’s begin by noting that Michael said just the opposite of what he probably meant—otherwise the rest of his sentence contradicts the first phrase.[1]

    So is the Creation Museum a friendly place for those who do not share the rabid fundamentalism of its sponsor, as alleged by AiG?

    Prominent signs warning that guests could be asked to leave at any time, without cause. Hm. Reservations that promise expulsion of a group if they were not honest about the “purpose of [the] visit.” Hm. Guards that constantly patrol the entire museum with dogs. Hm. An incident where—

    At one point, Barton reported in her paper, a guard with a dog circled a student pointedly twice without saying anything. When he left, a museum patron approached the student and said, “The reason he did that is because of the way you’re dressed. We know you’re not religious; you just don’t fit in.” (The student was wearing leggings and a long shirt, Barton writes.)

    So much foir Michael’s claim that the Creation Museum welcomes all with open arms. Can you imagine the American Museum of Natural History or the Field Museum or the Smithsonian even considering doing any of these things?

    As with all creationists everywhere, critical thinking and skepticism are not appreciated.

    =============

    [1] No, wait. He misuses the same word later, as well: “If it was [sic] inclusive they would only sell tickets to like minded groups.” Michael’s Conservative Dictionary apparently defines “inclusive” differfently from conventional dictionaries.

  2. Michael natters on about Alexa ranking of sites. He pretends to know a fair amount concerning tis subject. Why, Michael might even know enough about site traffic to answer Eelco’s challenge Michael’s claim by supplying his readership statistics. But, so far…

    Once he completes that task, Michael might lay out his qualifications for discussing any arera of science, after Olorin met his challenge last February to do the same.

    And, of course, the oldest of all, the promised substantive review of Meyer’s Signature in the Cell.

  3. Oh well, perhaps we are all being to hard on the Creation “museum.” We have natural history museums, and in their bias they do not allow anything besides their own evolutionary, atheistic biases to enter their exhibits. So that is why Ken Ham wants a whole museum dedicated to one principle, and only one: God Did it.

    Now, why shouldn’t “God did it” be a part of a museum? There is no logical reason besides evolutionary bias. If fact, that can explain everything we see in the fossil record. Why do some dinosaurs have feathers? God did it? — Why does Tiktaalik (a fishibian) have intermediate stages of fore-arms? Because God made it that way. — Why are their ape like-humans in the fossil record? Because God did it. — How does star light from millions (and even billions) of light years take only 6,000 years to travel to reach us? I’ll tell you!! Because God did it!

    Wow!! How blind we “evolutionists” have been!! It’s all because God did it!! And that’s the entire point of the Creation museum!!!

    Sarcasm, free of charge

  4. Good jhob you included that last line, krissmith. At an early age, creationists have their sarcasm detectors surgically removed—along with the neo cortex, one might add.

    =========================

    PN: The title above the comment-entry box says, “Welcome back Olorin.” Somehow I doubt that Michael has any control over that wording.

  5. The Creation Museum is “welcoming” in the same sense that the taliban is welcoming. As long as you believe exactly as they do, you’ll be welcomed. Otherwise….

    .

    “You can safely assume that you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.”
    —Anne Lamott (1954- )

  6. Olorin :The Creation Museum is “welcoming” in the same sense that the taliban is welcoming. As long as you believe exactly as they do, you’ll be welcomed. Otherwise….
    .
    “You can safely assume that you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.”—Anne Lamott (1954- )

    Olorin,

    Answers in Genesis is even un-welcoming of other Creationists… On their list of “Creation Scienctists” they disagree with…

    After their list, they say:

    But because the idea that the earth is ‘millions of years’ old has been disastrous in the long run, no present day ‘long-agers’ are included intentionally, because we submit that they should know better.

    To be accepted, they have to agree with them, period!

  7. Krissmith, AiG is even worse than that . A couple weeks ago I quoted their author guidelines—it’s not even enough to be of the young-earth persuasion. You must in addition subscribe to a specific document that lays out how to interpret scripture. If you are heterodox in any particular,, your patootie is out the door and in the asphalt.

  8. Olorin :Krissmith, AiG is even worse than that . A couple weeks ago I quoted their author guidelines—it’s not even enough to be of the young-earth persuasion. You must in addition subscribe to a specific document that lays out how to interpret scripture. If you are heterodox in any particular,, your patootie is out the door and in the asphalt.

    True, oh so true..

    I wish more Creationists were as open, and intellectually honest as Greg Nayman… who says

    As a progressive creationist, I do not believe in evolution. However, it is a valid belief system, and Theistic Evolutionists are free to believe it if they choose. After all, it may be the correct theory, and we cannot be dogmatic in our condemnation of it.

    Link: http://www.answersincreation.org/evolution_bible.htm

  9. By the way: has Michael answered our questions in the meantime ?
    Obviously I still like to know the answers to our simple questions … answers that Michael has readily available but refuses to give.

  10. Eelco, Michael has not yet—

    (1) Provided readership statistics in response to his challenge of your contention;

    (2) Set forth his qualifications to discuss any area of science, history, or even religion, since his challenge to me;

    (3) Attempted any substantive review of Signature in the Cell, as promised more than a year ago.

    Creationists bluster a lot, but they can’t back up any of their claims. That’s one reason they have no credibility. (There are others.)

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