Pundits and naysayers will also turn out in droves as this article contends.
Even more scathing was Kai Ryssdal's commentary on NPR yesterday, quoting physics professor Lawrence Krauss.
As the Answers in Genesis Creation Museum prepares to open Monday with its message that the Bible's story of creation is literally and scientifically correct, a growing group of scientists, educators, clergy and concerned citizens will be countering the Creation Museum's message with their own "Rally for Reason."
"We're people interested in science over superstition," said Edwin Kagin, a Union lawyer and Kentucky state director of American Atheists.
How much money and glitz does it take to institutionalize a scientific lie? In the case of the Creation Museum, about $27 million worth.A statement of the museum's intentions are in the "about" section of their website.
The reason for this museum is quite simple: The historical record in Genesis must literally be true. Since this is incompatible with essentially all of modern scientific knowledge, therefore modern scientific knowledge must be incorrect.
But if you want to renounce modern science as flawed, then an intellectually honest approach would be to also renounce technologies such as airplanes, cars and even radios that work using precisely the same scientific principles that tell us the earth is well over 6,000 years old.
But that's not the approach the Creation Museum takes. It renounces knowledge, but has spent lavishly on creating the illusion of science.
So, they've created a museum that appears scientific, but that simply lies about the science instead.
The Creation Museum uses dazzling and expensive animatronic displays made possible by hard-won advances in science to suggest the viability of a literal interpretation of Genesis.
That includes a six-day creation of the Earth, a 6,000-year-old universe, and a world where dinosaurs and humans happily roamed together. All of these are inconsistent with everything science tells us about the natural world.
Alas, such scientific fraud is not subject to legal intervention unless there is a financially injured party.
But what of the intellectual injury to thousands of young children who might visit the museum — built to be within a day's drive of two-thirds of the U.S. population — and who come out confused about science, the very thing that can give them a competitive edge in the modern world.
Religion doesn't have to be bad science. And, similarly, bad science shouldn't be defended simply because it might have a religious basis.
While religious tolerance is important, there should be little tolerance for promoting or consuming such religiously motivated scientific fraud.
How much of the Bible should we accept as fact and how much should we receive as metaphor? This is the question behind this issue and one that will never be settled. If an extreme metaphorical position is adopted, then where should the line be drawn that certain events, people, etc. cease to be metaphorical? Krauss did not advocate abandoning the Bible altogether, just those parts that do not agree with scientific fact. But the creation museum does not advocate abandoning science altogether, just those parts that do not agree with the Biblical record. Who is right? Who is wrong? What do you think?
The Creation Museum will be upfront that the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of faith and practice, and in every area it touches upon.
We’ll begin the Museum experience by showing that “facts” don’t speak for themselves. There aren’t separate sets of “evidences” for evolution and creation—we all deal with the same evidence (we all live on the same earth, have the same fossils, observe the same animals, etc.). The difference lies in how we interpret what we study. We’ll then explore why the Bible—the “history book of the universe”—provides a reliable, eye-witness account of the beginning of all things.