Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Creationism Museum To Open Next Summer 1570

Posted by kdawson
from the example-of-intelligent-design dept.
Aloriel writes to point out a story in the Guardian (UK) about the opening next year of the first Creationism museum in Kentucky, just over the Ohio border. From the article: "The Creation Museum — motto: 'Prepare to Believe!' — will be the first institution in the world whose contents, with the exception of a few turtles swimming in an artificial pond, are entirely fake. It is dedicated to the proposition that the account of the creation of the world in the Book of Genesis is completely correct... The museum is costing $25 million and all but $3 million has already been raised from private donations." A lot of that money is going into the animatronic dinosaurs, which are pictured as coexisting with modern humans before the Fall. According to the article, up to 50 million Americans believe this. The museum has a Web presence in the Answersingenesis.org site.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Creationism Museum To Open Next Summer

Comments Filter:
  • by lecithin (745575) on Wednesday November 22, 2006 @06:25AM (#16947012)
    "Aloriel writes to point out a story in the Guardian (UK) about the opening next year of the first Creationism museum in Kentucky, just over the Ohio border."

    I am writing abou the closing next year of the first Creationism museum in Kentucky, just over the Ohio border.

    Does first post count as a 'scoop'?
    • This museum devoted to creationism causes me to recall a bit of insight by Karl Marx. He once said, "Religion ... is the opium of the people." [quotationspage.com]

      The opium that is creationism is some damned powerful stuff.

      • by AceJohnny (253840) <jlargentaye@gmaiTEAl.com minus caffeine> on Wednesday November 22, 2006 @07:30AM (#16947456) Journal
        While I agree on the negative impact of such an endeavor, I don't think religion as it is used in the USA corresponds to Marx's definition.
        Marx meant it as a means to tame an oppressed class "Suffering in this life guarantees you Paradise in the afterlife!".
        We can hardly call the american middle-class "oppressed" in any way.

        Actually, come to think of it, I have no idea how come religion (specifically, christianism) is so powerful in such a developped country as the USA...

        I wonder if it has anything to do with protestant evangelists taking up the methods of capitalism. Hmm...
        • by kfg (145172) on Wednesday November 22, 2006 @07:47AM (#16947594)
          The American version is "Pie in the Sky":

          The Preacher and the Slave

          Long haired preachers come out every night
          Try to tell you what's wrong and what's right
          But when asked how 'bout something to eat
          They reply in voices so sweet

          CHORUS:
          You will eat, by and by
          In that glorious land in the sky
          Work and pray, live on hay
          You'll get pie in the sky, when you die.

          Chorus:

          Oh the Stravation Army they play
          And they sing and they clap and they pray
          Till they get all your coin on the drum
          Then they tell you when you're on the bum

          Chorus:

          Holy Rollers and jumpers come out,
          They holler, they jump and they shout.
          Give your money to Jesus they say,
          He will cure all diseases today.

          Chorus:

          If you fight hard for children and wife
          Try to get something good in this life
          You're a sinner and bad man, they tell
          When you die you will sure go to hell.

          Chorus:

          Workingmen of all countries, unite,
          Side by side we for freedom will fight;
          When the world and its wealth we have gained
          To the grafters we'll sing this refrain

          FINAL CHORUS:
          You will eat, bye and bye,
          When you've learned how to cook and to fry.
          Chop some wood, 'twill do you good,
          And you'll eat in the sweet bye and bye.

          -Joe Hill

          KFG
        • by Twylite (234238) <(az.oc.tpyrc) (ta) (etilywt)> on Wednesday November 22, 2006 @08:25AM (#16947836) Homepage
          Marx meant it as a means to tame an oppressed class "Suffering in this life guarantees you Paradise in the afterlife!".

          No. Marx said that religion is a social defense mechansim, the expression of problems in society, and develops based on the material and economic realities in a given society. Authorities can use religion as a means to console an oppressed class. Marx also said that people should transcend religion and take control of their own destiny.

          We can hardly call the american middle-class "oppressed" in any way.

          If you have surrendered your capacity to take decisions, to think for yourself, and to control your own destiny, then you are oppressed (according to Marx and others). Religion is, by this definition, oppression.

          Actually, come to think of it, I have no idea how come religion (specifically, christianism) is so powerful in such a developped country as the USA...

          Perhaps it has something to do with Spain starting the colonization of the Americas by imposing Catholicism on all natives and immigrants. Or maybe it was the pilgrims, puritans, quakers, and lutherans that followed them, avoiding religious persecution in Europe. Or maybe you should just read about the Eurpoean colonization of the Americas [wikipedia.org] to understand why the USA was founded by a bunch of Christian fundamentalists.

          • by dsanfte (443781) on Wednesday November 22, 2006 @10:07AM (#16948898) Journal
            I need a stamp for threads like this that reads "TREATY OF TRIPOLI" in big, bold letters.

            From Article 11 of the treaty, as approved by the Senate and signed by President John Adams in 1796:

            As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.


            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli [wikipedia.org]

            The founding fathers were Deists, not Christian fundamentalists.
            • by Twylite (234238) <(az.oc.tpyrc) (ta) (etilywt)> on Wednesday November 22, 2006 @10:41AM (#16949584) Homepage

              The fact that the government of the United States was not established by Christians or on Christian principles does not detract from the fact that the original settlers of the lands now forming the United States were Christians coming from denominations that class as "fundamentalist", nor that the population of the United States - as a direct result of its original settlers - is primarily (80%) Christian.

              Perhaps I should have said "settled" or "colonized" rather than "founded", or maybe "the lands that would become known as the United States". Not all of us measure our national history by the formation of the current system of government.

        • by TaoPhoenix (980487) <TaoPhoenix@yahoo.com> on Wednesday November 22, 2006 @08:47AM (#16948028) Journal
          It's a Power engine of the highest order. Its proponents begin by asking you to suspend logic and assume an anti-entropic premise. From there, the orthodox doctrine is One of Many interpretations. It gets worse. For the newbie, they can either listen to glorious affirmations, or face the grinding universe. It's like a mathematical proof with a division by zero in it. It's an "illegal operation" for a reason. If that step is allowed, quite literally anything can be pseudo-proved. The fun part is the computer era has contributed a whole new slew of reasons to show it all up.

          "God hasn't answered my prayers."
          "He is Busy."
          "No he's not, he's God."
          "Oh. Well, then you're too puny to understand Him."
          "Hmm. Then can I talk to the cool souls of dead people? Like Edward Gibbon?"
          "No. The Other World is removed from this one."
          "That's no fun. Can I send an email?"
          "No."
          "What?? God has no IT staff?? Where did all the Slashdotters go?"

          • by tommyServ0 (266153) on Wednesday November 22, 2006 @11:08AM (#16950136) Homepage Journal
            Its proponents begin by asking you to suspend logic and assume an anti-entropic premise.

            This is a canard--actually the reverse is true. It is the Christian faith alone that can account for logic, reason, and rationality.

            Why should anyone be rational if the Christian God does not exist? Why are men under any obligation to be rational in a materialistic universe?

            As a Christian Theist, I believe all men should be rational. I believe people should believe things on good evidence. I think we are under obligation to use our intellectual tools to glorify God, and to learn about this world--we should be consistent. I believe that becasse God requires all men to be rational. I can make sense of the obligation to be rational.

            If this world is sound and fury signifying nothing, why must men be rational? Why don't I just live moment by moment and be inconsistent: thinking on thing one time and another thing another time, caring nothing for logic? After all, logic has no place in the material universe--it is an abstract, non-material set of laws. How can laws of logic actually exist in an atheistic universe?

            The odd thing about the materialist is this: the materialist who wants to be rational has already departed from his materialism.

            If you are a materialist, you have a naturalistic explanation for everything we say and do. What's going on in this gray matter in my cranium is controlled by the laws of physics and chemistry and biology. I don't really think, I'm really like a weed that's growing. Weeds don't think, and neither do I, we're all subject to the laws of physics, I'm just at a more complicated/complex level.

            If naturalism is true, there's no such thing as rationality, there's just whatever people end up thinking and doing. Why call men to be rational then?

            However, the Christian God calls men to be consistent and rational. For the Christian Theist, I can expect all men to be obligated to be rational. Not so for those who reject the Christian God.
            • by EllisDees (268037) on Wednesday November 22, 2006 @11:45AM (#16950796)
              >What's going on in this gray matter in my cranium is controlled by the laws of physics and chemistry and biology. I don't really think,

              Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. Everything going on in your head could be entirely chemical and biological, and can still be considered thought. There is no violation of physical laws going on when you think.

              >If naturalism is true, there's no such thing as rationality, there's just whatever people end up thinking and doing.

              Once again, an unfounded logical leap. What is your evidence that rationality is anything more than 'whatever people end up thinking and doing'?

              >However, the Christian God calls men to be consistent and rational.

              No, he does not. The very premise of the religion, that man is born in sin because of the acts of the original man and woman, is illogical. If Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil before they ate of the tree, they had no idea it was evil to disobey god. "When you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." If you don't know that an act is evil, how can you (and all your children for all eternity) justifiably be punished for it?

              Your religion is no more rational than any other. Get used to it.
    • by arcite (661011) on Wednesday November 22, 2006 @07:02AM (#16947244)
      First they made the Sex museum and now there's going to be a Creationist museum? When will they finally make one we nerds can identify with? I can only visit the Smithsonian Apple exhibit so many times. :sigh:
  • I'd go (Score:5, Funny)

    by Jason1729 (561790) on Wednesday November 22, 2006 @06:27AM (#16947026)
    From the linked site it sounds like it's a great place to go for a laugh.
    • Re:I'd go (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Knutsi (959723) on Wednesday November 22, 2006 @07:50AM (#16947604)
      Somehow I cannot find this funny. The last 200 years we've come an amazingly long way in understanding the world around us, and that understanding may be the single most precious thing we have! Yet someone says 1/5th of the Americans, from country that gets the most television time in the world, convert to or cling to the old childish illusions. It scares the life out of me. I simply refuse to laugh.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by XorNand (517466) *
        1/5? It's actually twice as worse [straightdope.com] as you think. 40% of Americans "flatly reject" evolution. Of 35 surveyed countries, only Turkey has a less enlightened populace.
  • by serutan (259622) <snoopdougNO@SPAMgeekazon.com> on Wednesday November 22, 2006 @06:33AM (#16947052) Homepage
    This wouldn't even fool my 3rd level Magic User.
    And he'll pretty much believe anything I tell him.
  • by BadAnalogyGuy (945258) <BadAnalogyGuy@gmail.com> on Wednesday November 22, 2006 @06:35AM (#16947058)
    The book of Job describes a creature called a 'behemoth' whose description can be interpreted as that of a dinosaur.
    • by MosesJones (55544) on Wednesday November 22, 2006 @07:33AM (#16947488) Homepage

      Hell if we are going there then there are lots of things that could be interpreted in the bible to be dinosaurs, after all it doesn't say the scale of any elements, so take genesis itself.

      The snake (a reptile) has legs at the start of genesis, we know this as the punishment from god is to have no legs and slither on its belly, a snake with legs is a lizard and the bit with the apple and the tree was pretty terrible, so the snake was in fact a terrible lizard. A quick translation of that is "terrible lizard" so in fact the dinosaurs didn't become extinct it was just that god turned them into snakes.

      See its easy if you are trying to prove something.

      The biggest problem with all of this is the damn Egyptians, they've got around 6,000 years of continuous history and at no time have we found any hieroglyphics that say

      "Damn it was wet this year, I don't mean a little bit it absolutely pissed down and everybody died"
  • by javilon (99157) on Wednesday November 22, 2006 @06:36AM (#16947070) Homepage
    Some people understand religion in one way and some people in another, but most of the religious beliefs are in contradiction with science.

    In modern science you not only have evolution, you also have biologically inspired sociology, computational neuroscience and a number of other disciplines that you just cannot understand if you believe in a human soul. The more progress in this areas of study, the more problems you have trying to match this knowledge with religious faith.

    Even the soft religious beliefs like "there must be something different about humans" are being challenged. We are just animals, no soul.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Some people understand religion in one way and some people in another, but most of the religious beliefs are in contradiction with science.

      Can you justify this? No anecdotes please.

      It might help if you clearly define a scientific observation and a scientific theory before you proceed. Anything that is not observable has nothing to do with science and therefore cannot be contradicted by science. Statements like God created the world in 6 days are obviously contradictory. But statements about having a sou
    • The voice of faith (Score:5, Insightful)

      by kahei (466208) on Wednesday November 22, 2006 @07:47AM (#16947586) Homepage

      most of the religious beliefs are in contradiction with science.

      Until about 40 years ago, most scientists were religious people. For all I know, they still are (I don't go round asking them). Most scientific theories were developed in an environment of religion, and most religious beliefs emerged from cultures that had at least some vague concept of forming theories about natural phenomena and testing them by trial and error. Ever since long before Galileo sat in his Vatican-funded observatory (it's a pity he didn't keep out of politics, though!) and Newton took time out from his theological studies to formulate a few laws of motion, people have had, among various other things, religion and science.

      It's just rational humanists such as you who have trouble with this. And it's fine for you to have trouble with it -- you have a perfect right to believe that religion and science are somehow opposites locked in eternal conflict. But you ought to be aware that it's just your belief, just as some folks belive the End Times are Coming or God Hates Fags.

      computational neuroscience and a number of other disciplines that you just cannot understand if you believe in a human soul

      The fact that you believe it's impossible is part of your faith -- it's not a fact about neuroscience and souls. Otherwise there wouldn't be any religious neuroscientists, which I observe not to be the case.

      Put your faith down and talk about facts -- even Creationists can do that, on a good day, with a favorable wind. The main difference between a creationist and a rational humanist is that the creationist understands that they are running on faith.

  • by 91degrees (207121) on Wednesday November 22, 2006 @06:37AM (#16947078) Journal
    And a lot of the women looked like Raquel Welch.
  • by Pecisk (688001) on Wednesday November 22, 2006 @06:39AM (#16947094)
    People will take long ways to create illusion around them that something they believe in actually exists or have existed. Poor people, still linger to last leftovers of "belief".

    Why I tagged this "ohhdear"? I believe in God, however, I don't think it has anything to do with Bible or this physical world. People simply can't believe something that doesn't not exist or at least have some evidence of it. People don't believe in God and Jesus because they want to be good, they want to feel good, just be a part of system of believe. They want to feel safe.

    Jesus said love your enemies and forgive them. We don't. Jesus said don't kill and don't seek revenge (well, not directly, but...). We don't.

    We don't want to believe. Creationism is just a "feeling-good-because-we-are-so-many-so-stupid" way of confirming that we are not wrong. That everything Bible says is true, because priest said so...and if they are wrong, religion and my belief should be wrong too, right? So it simply can't be.

    Human is so weak when it comes down to reality and how we are selective to it.
  • by lotusleaf (928941) on Wednesday November 22, 2006 @06:40AM (#16947116) Homepage
    "You ever notice how people who believe in creationism look really unevolved?" - Bill Hicks [wikiquote.org]
    • by Lisandro (799651) on Wednesday November 22, 2006 @07:55AM (#16947644)
      Some of my favorite comedic quotes about religion were from the great late Bill Hicks. This one is priceless too:

      "A lot of Christians wear crosses around their necks. Do you think when Jesus comes back, he's really going to want to see a fucking cross? Ow! Maybe that's why he hasn't shown up yet...it's like going up to Jackie Onassis wearing a sniper rifle pendant... Just thinking of John, Jackie. We love him. Trying to keep that memory alive, baby.

      [mimes shooting a rifle]

      I did that routine in Fyffe, Alabama, and after the show these three rednecks came up to me. 'Hey, buddy! C'mere! Hey Mr. Comedian! C'mere! Hey buddy, we're Christians and we don't like what you said!'

      I said 'Well, then forgive me.'

      Later, as I was hanging from the tree..."
  • by DoofusOfDeath (636671) on Wednesday November 22, 2006 @06:51AM (#16947164)
    (Oh great, here goes that karma I built up. Oh well...)

    Could we please just skip the redundant parts of the conversations that sping up 100% of the time when we have creationism vs. non-creationism discussions? The arcs of conversation are so predictable that you could just rehash them from the /. archive with a Python script, and no one would know the difference.

    Some topics that I now view as complete noise (since we've hashed them over to death 400 times):
    - how stupid Christians are
    - how much /.'ers {loath | fear} {a theocracy | George Bush | anti-abortion activists}.
    - details about why creationists are wrong.

    None of these topics is uninteresting, except for the fact THAT WE HAVE THE SAME CONVERSATIONS EVERY TIME A TOPIC COMES UP PITTING RELIGIOUS VIEWS VS. ATHEISTIC ONES.

    Seriously, I don't even know why we kick these articles around more than once every 5 years. Because clearly they don't stimulate any new thoughts in us /.'ers.
    • Actually (Score:3, Insightful)

      by tkrotchko (124118) *
      I'm surprised that people here are so upset about it.

      Here's a religious group exercising their freedom of religion and freedom of speech. They're building a museum with their own money to build an edifice to their beliefs. So what. The worst that you can say is they're exercising the freedoms that most people admire.

      You may not agree with it, but heck, I don't agree completely with anybody on everything.

      I think perhaps people need to be more tolerant, and that goes both ways.
    • by OakLEE (91103) on Wednesday November 22, 2006 @07:23AM (#16947414)
      I think the real reason these stories come up so often is because it's just a cheap way for the editors to generate page views. Most people here have an irrationally strong hatred of Creationists, and there's nothing more satisfying then reaffirming one's beliefs on a regular basis, ergo the rehashing arguments. The smug feeling people get here reading this rehash is no different then the smug feeling Creationists get when they tell you that you are wrong for believing evolution and not accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.
  • by XorNand (517466) * on Wednesday November 22, 2006 @06:53AM (#16947178)
    From the article:
    But if you believe in the Bible, why do you need to seek scientific credibility, and why are Creationists so reluctant to put their theories to peer review, I ask?

    "I would give the same answer as [prominent atheist, Richard] Dawkins. He believes there is no God and nothing you could say would convince him otherwise. You are dealing with an origins issue. If you don't have the information, you cannot be sure. Nothing contradicts the Bible's account of the origins."
    Why do theists continually shift the burden of proof back to athiests? If I were to insist that a teapot orbited the Sun (an analogy used by Dawkins), I would have to *prove* this to other people before they'd believe me. Why does religion get a free pass when telling me there's an invisiable man in the sky?
    • Basically, for about 4000 years, Man has believed that there are beings greater than Human. In fact, the belief is that these beings created humans and the world and the universe. They, for 4000 years, called these beings god or gods or God.

      In the past couple hundred years, a few uppity atheists like yourself suddenly come along and demand proof of the existence of these beings. The reason the demand for proof is shoved back in your face by theists is that there is a long history of belief in these beings.
      • Yes a good one (Score:3, Insightful)

        by aepervius (535155)
        "Do you have any tangible position to argue from besides smugness?"

        Using logic only, you can't disprove the existence of anything. You can't disprove the existence of blue dragon. You can't disprove the existence of faery and gnome. In other word, saying "we always did it so" is an axiom, and no better than saying "god exists" as an hypothesis to prove that gods exists. But you cannot disprove god exists, because there is nothing you can start up with. You CANNOT disprove an axiom of existence. You can o
      • by Dunbal (464142) on Wednesday November 22, 2006 @08:58AM (#16948114)
        In the past couple hundred years, a few uppity atheists like yourself suddenly come along and demand proof of the existence of these beings.

              The parent is an obvious troll, but what the hell.

              Yes. Way back when the world was full of "mysteries", when the most someone ever traveled was less than a hundred miles or so, when men had no way to predict what was going to happen when their child was sick, and when the King or whoever the local Lord was could press you into his service to die suddenly on a foreign shore, it made a lot of sense to believe in God. How else could the world be explained rationally? It's God's will that you die here in France, my son. It's also God's will that your child die of tuberculosis. It's all part of the Plan. Be miserable. Suffer. For it is your lot. After you are dead you'll get a reward. Heh, how convenient for the King.

              Now we've explored the entire world, and seen it from space. There are no dragons hiding in dark corners of the map anymore. We've unlocked almost all of the great mysteries of life - to the point of understanding how our world works, and how our bodies work. The youngest child in our world can now wield a power that would have amazed people thousands of years ago - in the flick of a light switch, or with opening a tap to issue hot water. The world has changed.

              And yet people like yourself hang on to the same irrational arguments to try to sway people to "belief" in something abstract. You claim that because people believed these things for so long, they must be true. And you claim to have "personal experiences with God". Then you claim that we have to disprove your imaginary God. I say that it's up to you to disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Oh, you laugh. But you can't disprove it. I say he exists. Lots of people believe in him.

              The tangible position to argue from is that your God is retreating behind our knowledge. Before - he used to live in the sky, behind the thunderstorms. But now that we have mastered the sky, we know he doesn't live in the clouds. He must be in space. But now that we explore space, we know for certain he is not in our solar system. He must be hanging around a nearby star system. Or is he in the sun - shall we go back to sun-god worship? Oh, I know where he is - in your HEAD! Had you been born in China, in all likelyhood you would not believe in this God. Had you been born in Iran, in all likelyhood you would believe in Mohammed and not Jesus. Therefore your faith is related to that chance accident which is your place of birth. Strange, how there can be so many books, about so many gods. And all of them claim to be the one true book.
  • by belmolis (702863) <billposer@a l u m . m i t .edu> on Wednesday November 22, 2006 @06:54AM (#16947190) Homepage

    When I first saw this, I thought: "Great! Creationism is declining so rapidly that we need a museum to teach about this primitive superstition." No such luck.

  • by OakLEE (91103) on Wednesday November 22, 2006 @06:55AM (#16947198)
    Ok, so let me get this straight. A bunch of Bible-thumpers raises private money to build a museum to depict scenes out of the Flintstones, and everyone here is bitching about how these people should be shut up. The 1st Amendment separates church and state, but it also protects freedom of speech. These people aren't directly inciting violence or rebellion They're not spouting libelous falsehoods. Let them be.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by belmolis (702863)

      I don't think that they should be forcibly shut down, nor do other posters seem to me to be taking that position. I hope that they will come to their senses, or that it will fail economically, but I wouldn't dream of censorship.

      Why are we unhappy about it? Because it isn't innocuous as you suggest. Promotions like this are part of a broader effort to convert as many people as possible to fundamentalist Christianity and to get it into the schools where children can be brainwashed with it. Creationism is

    • Frankly, I haven't seen many posts saying they should be shut up.

      What most of us _are_ saying is that:

      1) it's stupid. Sorry, the same first ammendment says I _can_ say I find it bloody stupid. Same as if I read about someone spending that much money on a magic ring of levitation to jump off a cliff with. Or spending that much money on animatronics to "prove" to everyone that Lord Of The Rings is 100% fact. (Sure, you can animate hobbits and orcs all you want, but that doesn't make it a scientiffic proof.) S
  • by rucs_hack (784150) on Wednesday November 22, 2006 @07:01AM (#16947238)
    Ladies and gentlemen, if you'll just follow me.

    This first exhibit shows god with his little bag of mysteries. He is shown placing dinosaur bones in the rocks because even god likes a good laugh.

    And further on we have another aspect of God. This is god in his aspect of 'having to make all the animals himself because he is too stupid to create a universe that can do this shit on its own'.

    Now we have a stuffed monkey. You will see that the monkey, while superficially similar is not at all related to man. This is proved by the fact that the monkey is holding a placard stating that god made him as part of a batch job, 4103 years ago, on a tuesday. Further you will see that the stuffed Man we have next to him is also holding a placard, and this states definatelly that god made him the previous wednesday as part of an entirely different batch of wonders. This disparity, proved by our scientifically validated placards, is all the proof any sensible person should need.

    Lastly we have the flood exhibit. This exhibit houses a model earth, three feet in diameter, and shows what it would look like covered in water. As you can see only the tip of mount arrarat is visible, even though it isn't the highest peak in the world. This is because it was a very curvy mysterious flood. If you look closely you will see one tiny wooden boat near arrarat which contains a pair of every species on the planet, their diverse ecological requirements and foods, all neatly seperated to stop them eating each other. Next to this model you will see the explanation of where the water went, and how, when the entire world was engulfed in a flood of sufficient depth to kill everything living, a boat made of wood was able to survive. As you can clearly see, that notice says 'shut up and go away, heretical unbeleiver'.

    This concludes the tour, please give us loads of money as you leave.
  • by drgonzo59 (747139) on Wednesday November 22, 2006 @07:04AM (#16947260)
    This is ridiculous -- and this coming from an Christian and a scientist. There is nothing in the Bible about evolution, either in support of, or against it. The Bible was never meant to be a history/geology/physics/biology textbook, it is a book about faith and the relationship between God and man. These people are wrong not just from the point of view of an atheist but even as far as the Church history is concerned -- i.e. other Christians regard them as "nutty".


    The problem with Fundamentalists is that they interpret the Bible literally. If it is written to forgive 70 times 7, they will probably start counting the number of times they forgive someone and when they reach 490, they'll probably say -- "that's it, the Bible says to stop". Ever since the books of the Bible were written, it was understood (see the writings of early Church fathers -- around II century) that a lot of the stuff was symbolic and typological. In other words the people who wrote the Bible, thousands of years ago, chose which books to include and which to not include, along with their contemporaries who interpreted and wrote about the interpretation of the scriptures, would _never_ agree with a literal interpretation.


    Instead of spending $25 million on the museum, these people could feed and cloth a huge number of children from the developing countries, they could donate it towards AIDS research. To me that would be a more convincing witness to a Christian life than building a museum with animatronic dinosaurs...


    I live in Southern Ohio, I would go out protesting against this museum along with anyone else who wishes to do so.

  • by Zaatxe (939368) on Wednesday November 22, 2006 @07:34AM (#16947498)
    Where is the foot icon in this article?!?

    "Stephen Bates is given a sneak preview and asks: was there really a tyrannosaurus in the Bible?"

    "[The museum] will be the first institution in the world whose contents, with the exception of a few turtles swimming in an artificial pond, are entirely fake."

    "...tableaux and a strangely Disneyfied version of the Bible story."

    "As for the Grand Canyon - no problem: that was, of course, created in a few months by Noah's Flood."

    "But what, I ask wonderingly, about those fossilised remains of early man-like creatures? Marsh knows all about that: 'There are no such things. Humans are basically as you see them today. Those skeletons they've found, what's the word? ... they could have been deformed, diseased or something. I've seen people like that running round the streets of New York.'"

    "[The workers], too, know they are doing the Lord's Work, and each has signed a contract saying they believe in the Seven Days of Creation theory."

    "'[Adam] is appropriately positioned, so he can be modest. There will be a lamb or something there next to him. We are very careful about that: some of our donors are scared to death about nudity.'"

    "The museum's planetarium is his pride and joy. Lisle writes the commentary. 'Amazing! God has a name for each star,' it says, and: 'The sun's distance from earth did not happen by chance.' There is much more in this vein, but not what God thought he was doing when he made Pluto, or why." (what has happened to the heliocentric belief?)

    About Ken Ham, the museum's director and is inspiration: "Ham is an Australian, a former science teacher - though not, he is at pains to say, a scientist - and he has been working on the project for much of the past 20 years since moving to the US. 'You'd never find something like this in Australia,' he says. 'If you want to get the message out, it has to be here.'"

    "Poodles are degenerate mutants of dogs. I say that in my lectures and people present them to me as gifts." (I've always knew that poodles couldn't be real dogs!)

    "It is full of books with titles such as Infallible Proofs, The Lie, The Great Dinosaur Mystery Solved and even a DVD entitled Arguments Creationists Should Not Use."
  • May I point out.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by codeButcher (223668) on Wednesday November 22, 2006 @07:53AM (#16947628)

    the account of the creation of the world in the Book of Genesis is completely correct...

    The problem is not with the account, the problem is with some people's interpretation of the account. When I read the first 2 chapters of Genesis, it does not preclude evolution (yeah, go read it). It also does not demand a 7x24 hour creation period (since the Hebrew word for "day" has many meanings).

    In fact, Genesis is NOT a scientific treatise on the origin of the world. The book is clearly about the origin and early history of Israel. The first 2 chapters only provide some context for Adam.

  • by Opportunist (166417) on Wednesday November 22, 2006 @08:31AM (#16947882)
    I think the reason why creationism and other balony can grow in the US is a general "all or nothing" attitude in a lot of people there. I've noticed it in a few people while I was in the US, many of them have an approach to things that allows no middle way. Things are black or white, good or bad, there or not. Yes or no. Very binary.

    Creationism and clinging to the bunk is a necessity for the religous zealots there. If God didn't create the world, he cannot exist. All or nothing. Either the Bible is 100% correct or God is gone. Now, that must not happen, of course, so Creationism MUST be correct.

    Even the most zealous religious groups here in Europe take a rather moderate stance towards Creationism. God can exist without it, the Bible needn't be literal. "Created in seven days" is a metaphor for a creation in a "whole way", that's what the seven symbolizes. That can take millenia (hey, who are you to dictate to God how long one of his days is? Remember, he's beyond and above space and time). He also created the animals before man, so those dinos can exist way before man came to be. A millenia old earth? No problem, those "seven days" are a metaphor.

    I've had lengthy talks with very devout theologists and without failure they all said that you cannot take the Bible literal. Doing so would most likely make you either crazy or turn from the faith, because you'd have to realize that it cannot be true if taken literal. You don't even want to count the translation mistakes (it was translated from Aramaic to Greek to Latin to English... talk about bablefish) or the interpretations. And a lot of things changed meaning in the millenia since its creation, a lot of the figures and parallels used to describe things don't make sense anymore to a modern person. Do you REALLY want to try taking something like that literal?

    The general belief here is (if you are so inclined to take it serious and believe in it) that God created the world in seven "steps", which is also in sync with the original text ("days" is only a way to translate it. The original text talked about "daily tasks", in today's commerce it would be translated as "man days"). And that's by far not the only translation mistake the various people who copied it made.

    And you want to take one of those babelfishy documents literal? Must be nuts to do that.
  • Priorities (Score:5, Funny)

    by Minwee (522556) <dcr@neverwhen.org> on Wednesday November 22, 2006 @08:47AM (#16948034) Homepage

    We pass the site where one day an animatronic Adam will squat beside the Tree. With this commitment to authenticity, I find myself asking what they are doing about the fig leaf. Marsh considers this gravely and replies: "He is appropriately positioned, so he can be modest. There will be a lamb or something there next to him. We are very careful about that: some of our donors are scared to death about nudity."

    Um.

    Adam being naked with his Tingling Naughty Bits hanging out is too much for their more conservative donors to handle, but Adam squatting naked behind a sheep is okay?

    I guess that doesn't surprise me.

Stellar rays prove fibbing never pays. Embezzlement is another matter.

Working...