Creation Museum Opens this Weekend

Staff and volunteers at the new Answers in Genesis creation museum have prepared diligently for this weekend--opening weekend--of the new $27 million facility formulated to "uphold the authority of the Bible from the very first verse." The museum is 65,000 square feet, located in Petersburg, Kentucky and features animatronic dinosaurs, state-of-the-art models and graphics, more than 50 educational videos, a model of the Grand Canyon, and a bookstore.

Pundits and naysayers will also turn out in droves as this article contends.

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.

Even more scathing was Kai Ryssdal's commentary on NPR yesterday, quoting physics professor Lawrence Krauss.

How much money and glitz does it take to institutionalize a scientific lie? In the case of the Creation Museum, about $27 million worth.

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.

A statement of the museum's intentions are in the "about" section of their website.

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.

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?

Dawkins' Dangerous Idea

Regular readers of The Rambling Prophet will know that I have been sloughing through The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. For some reason Dawkins has chosen God as his sworn enemy and has declared an all-out war on faith; and not just Christianity but faiths of all stripes. Whether you are Buddhist, Hindu, Mormon, Muslim, or you rub sticks together chanting while you sit cross-legged on a rock, you are on Dawkins' radar.

His book serves as a piece of atheistic evangelism, encouraging atheists and all would-be atheists to come out of the closet and be unashamed of their true colors. Dawkins' problem however is that he is a great scientist; but a poor philosopher. This is proven true in a recent refutation of the book by Alvin Plantinga, brilliant philosopher from the University of Notre Dame. Dr. Plantinga does an amazing job of showing how Professor Dawkins misses the real points of his own arguments.

Dr. Dawkins' primary problem, his delusion if you will, is his a priori commitment to naturalism. As Dr. Plantinga observes:

The real problem here, obviously, is Dawkins' naturalism, his belief that there is no such person as God or anyone like God. That is because naturalism implies that evolution is unguided. So a broader conclusion is that one can't rationally accept both naturalism and evolution; naturalism, therefore, is in conflict with a premier doctrine of contemporary science. People like Dawkins hold that there is a conflict between science and religion because they think there is a conflict between evolution and theism; the truth of the matter, however, is that the conflict is between science and naturalism, not between science and belief in God.

Often throughout the course of the book, Dr. Dawkins resorts to ridicule and vitriol without seriously addressing some of the major claims of Christianity (even though he asserts his primary beef is not with the Christian God). This is the sign of a poor argument, that one cannot seriously rebut, only mock and ridicule. At times I have found his smart-aleck, "I'm brilliant and I know it" tone quite annoying. As Dr. Plantinga concludes:

The God Delusion is full of bluster and bombast, but it really doesn't give even the slightest reason for thinking belief in God mistaken, let alone a "delusion."

The naturalism that Dawkins embraces, furthermore, in addition to its intrinsic unloveliness and its dispiriting conclusions about human beings and their place in the universe, is in deep self-referential trouble. There is no reason to believe it; and there is excellent reason to reject it.

Perhaps this is why Dr. Dawkins can claim only one convert to his religion. On page 117, his apparent affection for Douglas Adams, deceased author, is admirable and he refers to him as "possibly his only convert." Prayerfully, it will be his last.

When Philosophy and Science Collide

Not to long ago, I was in a discussion with Streak about the nature of science and its interconnectivity with philosophy, particularly that of origins. It is possible to teach science in a controlled environment and for philosophies about the origin of life to never come up. However, it is unlikely that the subject will never come up and when a student's philosophy collides with his or her view on science, what should happen? Either one should be intellectually honest and confess that one believes in a young earth, holds to creation, etc. or one could simply hide that fact from one's professors and mentors.

Just because a person studies theories that differ from a creationist standpoint does not make that student an automatic proponent of it. A creationist professor can teach theories that differ from his own perspective and vice versa. That is simply scientific faithfulness. However, what if one's beliefs collide with what a scientific institution purports and a student receives a degree that blatantly contradicts deeply held philosophical beliefs? From BP:

Typically, a scientist must follow the guidelines of secular science if he wants to earn an advanced degree in the field from a reputable university. So when Marcus Ross wrote a dissertation to finish a Ph.D. in geosciences from the University of Rhode Island, he had to work within a conventional scientific framework.

Even though he wrote that the earth is more than 65 million years old, he doesn’t really believe it. Ross is a young earth creationist who believes in the Genesis account of creation and is certain the earth is no more than 10,000 years old [emphasis mine].

The New York Times article, Believing Scripture but Playing by Science’s Rules, 12 February 2007, justifies Dr. Ross' actions by "separating paradigms" and that Ross' dates are "entirely appropriate."

“For him, Dr. Ross said, the methods and theories of paleontology are one ‘paradigm’ for studying the past, and Scripture is another,” The Times reported. “In the paleontological paradigm, he said, the dates in his dissertation are entirely appropriate. The fact that as a young earth creationist he has a different view just means, he said, ‘that I am separating the different paradigms.’”

The aforementioned quotation illustrates the tension. Can (or should) the paradigms be separated? Should one publish a work that contradicts his deeply held religious beliefs and then use those same credentials to gain employment? Dr. Ross teaches earth sciences from a creationist perspective at Liberty University.

Insight from an Atheist

Religion as free enterprise?

Dr. Richard Dawkins, noted atheist claims so. Currently I am in the midst of his book, The God Delusion, and am immensely enjoying it. Though Dawkins has assuredly declared a war on faith of any stripe, there is significant insight contained in this tome, even though you must sift through his jaded sarcasm and biting British wit.

...the religiosity of America stems paradoxically from the secularism of its constitution. Precisely because America is legally secular, religion has become free enterprise. Rival churches compete for congregations--not least for fat tithes that they bring--and the competition is waged with all the hard-sell techniques of the marketplace. What works for soap flakes works for God, and the result is something approaching religious mania among today's less educated classes. In England, by contrast, religion under the aegis of the established church has become little more than a social pastime, scarcely recognizable as religious at all.

This quote also broaches another topic that came up in the comment thread of my last post, and that is of historical revisionism. Revisionism takes place essentially when a historical fact does not necessarily line up with your supposed worldview and then the meaning of those facts are changed to suit your purported belief

In the aforementioned quotation, Dr. Dawkins patently asserts that the founding fathers of America were secularists, yet Drs. Dobson and Falwell, and many others representing the religious right, would assert that America was founded on Christian principles. Who then is correct? That would be my question of the hour.