Creation Museum

blackredyellow

angelica wrote:

So, are you willing to tell a child their belief in Santa Claus is factually wrong?

Yes... parents don't believe in santa claus and will tell the kid the truth about christmas presents when he/she gets older. There is a big difference when the parents believe in something that is factually wrong.

Mookie Baylock

angelica wrote:

Really? Are you saying only secular learning is "higher" learning? Religious people aren't allowed to have higher learning? Or to have it in a "public" place?

Many people recognize this view for what it is...your opinion. And your opinion does not bind them from living how they see fit and creating their museums they way they like.

You are looking at this from a very philosophical point of view.

Very simply, what this is, is right-wing religious conservatives trying to make Intelligent Design look real, and true science look false, by displaying it in a medium that immediately invokes public trust and support.

It offends me because as a museum professional I have strived throughout my career to present things in museums that are scientifically and historically valid and not to present false or speculative information (unless it is stated as such) because people visit museums with the trust that they will learn something informative and entertaining. The goal of museum's (at least in my eyes) is to bridge the gap between ivory towered academia and average knowledge. Now this "museum" is undermining that trust by knowingly presenting false information to further an anti-science agenda.

angelica

blackredyellow wrote:

Yes... parents don't believe in santa claus and will tell the kid the truth about christmas presents when he/she gets older. There is a big difference when the parents believe in something that is factually wrong.

You're saying "yes" that you are going to tell children who believe in Santa that they are factually wrong? Again, what do you have to gain by trying to impose your view on another? Do you think it magically evolves them?

Reasoned discussion is always helpful and is evolutionarily sound, but the"I'm right, you're wrong" mentality undermines reason right from the beginning.

The minute we take that stance, rather than an understanding one, it shows we are not understanding, but are rather caught up in our own arbitrary worldview.

angelica

Mookie Baylock wrote:

You are looking at this from a very philosophical point of view.

Very simply, what this is, is right-wing religious conservatives trying to make Intelligent Design look real, and true science look false, by displaying it in a medium that immediately invokes public trust and support.

It offends me because as a museum professional I have strived throughout my career to present things in museums that are scientifically and historically valid and not to present false of speculative information (unless it is stated as such) because people visit museums with the trust that they will learn something informative and entertaining. The goal of museum's (at least in my eyes) is to bridge the gap between ivory towered academia and average knowledge. Now this "museum" is undermining that trust by knowingly presenting false information to further an anti-science agenda.

I'm looking at this quite practically. People are where they are. And they act the way they act. No matter how much you are offended or don't like it, people will still be exactly who and where they are in their lives. Your opinions and feelings on the subject remains about your ideas, and your feelings that stem from those ideas.

Do you recognize that many to most people will appreciate the objectivity, historic validity and so on that emanates from "accurate" museums? Do you realize this creation museum cannot be a threat to the truth?

IDgotI

Quoting from the site:

"The Creation Museum, opening May 28, 2007, presents a "walk through history." Designed by a former Universal Studios exhibit director, this state-of-the-art 60,000 square foot museum brings the pages of the Bible to life."

I think it's worth bearing in mind the PT Barnum once operated "Barnum's American Museum" in New York city where he featured exhibits of mermaids and made a colosal ammount of money.

My point is that just because this place is called a "museum" doesn't make it a museum for *either* side in the creation vs. evolution debate. With a former Universal Studios exhibit director it sounds like a place to generate a lot of money.

A creationist museum would probably feature exhibits on the writings and teachings of creationists and biblical scholars. Evolutionists could thouroughly disagree with those writings but at least everyone could agree that an institution with exhibits on thinkers and thier teachings was a museum.

This place is promising:

"A fully engaging, sensory experience for guests. Murals and realistic scenery, computer-generated visual effects, over fifty exotic animals, life-sized people and dinosaur animatronics, and a special-effects theater complete with misty sea breezes and rumbling seats."

Animatronics and special effects are for theme parks. There is no reason not to have a crationist theme park. There is no reason not to have an "Evolution Theme park". But rides and rumbling seats don't make a place a museum. They just make a lot of money for the person running them.

What's next? The "ET - The Extra Terrestrial MUSEUM"?

The issue here isn't creationism vs. evolution it's PT Barnumesque huxterism and exploitation of sensitive issues to make a buck. I should think even a creationist... heck, *esspecially* a creationist should be worried about this place.

I think BOTH sides in the debate between religion and science deserve better than "animatronics" and "Rumbling Seats".

angelica

IDgotI wrote:

Quoting from the site:

"The Creation Museum, opening May 28, 2007, presents a "walk through history." Designed by a former Universal Studios exhibit director, this state-of-the-art 60,000 square foot museum brings the pages of the Bible to life."

I think it's worth bearing in mind the PT Barnum once operated "Barnum's American Museum" in New York city where he featured exhibits of mermaids and made a colosal ammount of money.

My point is that just because this place is called a "museum" doesn't make it a museum for *either* side in the creation vs. evolution debate. With a former Universal Studios exhibit director it sounds like a place to generate a lot of money.

A creationist museum would probably feature exhibits on the writings and teachings of creationists and biblical scholars. Evolutionists could thouroughly disagree with those writings but at least everyone could agree that an institution with exhibits on thinkers and thier teachings was a museum.

This place is promising:

"A fully engaging, sensory experience for guests. Murals and realistic scenery, computer-generated visual effects, over fifty exotic animals, life-sized people and dinosaur animatronics, and a special-effects theater complete with misty sea breezes and rumbling seats."

Animatronics and special effects are for theme parks. There is no reason not to have a crationist theme park. There is no reason not to have an "Evolution Theme park". But rides and rumbling seats don't make a place a museum. They just make a lot of money for the person running them.

What's next? The "ET - The Extra Terrestrial MUSEUM"?

The issue here isn't creationism vs. evolution it's PT Barnumesque huxterism and exploitation of sensitive issues to make a buck. I should think even a creationist... heck, *esspecially* a creationist should be worried about this place.

I think BOTH sides in the debate between religion and science deserve better than "animatronics" and "Rumbling Seats".

You've essentially hit the nail on the head. The truth remains the truth, no matter what guise it's presented as. People have discernment skills, and are entitled to choose for themselves.

Ultimately, a creationist is not bound by popular secular or social thought in the US that dictates that evolved humans at this point in time are purely objective. They have every right to define their own terms for their own purposes. They are using the same schools of thought that allowed other thought progression through the years and that enabled science taking it's place of dictatorship in the US. Creationists/Id folk can and will use the same techniques. We can deny their rights, we can stomp our feet, and the fact remains, we uphold freedoms for good reason.

blackredyellow

angelica wrote:

You're saying "yes" that you are going to tell children who believe in Santa that they are factually wrong? Again, what do you have to gain by trying to impose your view on another? Do you think it magically evolves them?

What do I have to gain by telling my children the truth? Hopefully that they will grow up to be intelligent, honest adults. And how is telling my children the fact that santa doesn't exist "trying to impose my view on another"?

If my someone came to me and said that they heard that he couldn't catch AIDS from unprotected sex or that they could catch it from a toilet seat, should I just let them believe whatever they want, no matter how irresponsible it is, just so that I wouldn't be "imposing my view on another"? Isn't that what school and education is all about?

angelica

blackredyellow wrote:

What do I have to gain by telling my children the truth? Hopefully that they will grow up to be intelligent, honest adults. And how is telling my children the fact that santa doesn't exist "trying to impose my view on another"?

If my someone came to me and said that they heard that he couldn't catch AIDS from unprotected sex or that they could catch it from a toilet seat, should I just let them believe whatever they want, no matter how irresponsible it is, just so that I wouldn't be "imposing my view on another"? Isn't that what school and education is all about?

I did not say "your" child. You did not respond by saying you would tell "your" child. In both those posts we both spoke detached of the child. You are certainly entitled to tell your children whatever you'd like.

If you like to "enlighten" people as to the facts, in a "right/wrong" way, be my guest. It's merely on par with religious people doing so.

As for your "aids" example, again, there is a clear and very distinct difference between constructive discussion/debate and with right/wrong dictating. The respective outcomes of both positions are dramatically different. By staying on a even playing field we DO contribute to progression. By playing "I'm right, and you are wrong", we sucker our own selves into cycles that repeat over and over until WE learn enough to evolve out of them.

Ahnimus

I'd hate to be the tour guide in that place.

Collin

Ahnimus wrote:

I'd hate to be the tour guide in that place.

I think you should go Ahnimus. You might learn a thing or two

Anyway, I don't want to be offensive but this is definitely one of the most ridiculous things I have ever seen.

Seriously:

guests will learn how to answer the attacks on the Bible’s authority in geology, biology, anthropology, cosmology, etc., and they will discover how science actually confirms biblical history.

Main theme

The Bible is true from Genesis to Revelation!

Ahnimus

Collin wrote:

I think you should go Ahnimus. You might learn a thing or two

I'd rather stick bamboo under my toe nails.

chopitdown

Ahnimus wrote:

I'd hate to be the tour guide in that place.

with all due respect, they probably don't want you as one

chopitdown

it seems more like this museum should be called Genesis world. Looking through the museum on the webpage, there is only 3 or 4 rooms of the 20-30 spots where creation is even mentioned. The rest seems like a walk through of Genesis and then some of the early NT. But as far as a world view is concerned they are portraying exactly what they believe. Just don't go to it if it bothers you; i mean that's the standard response for people and entertainment. No one is forcing someone to go to it, so why not let them do their thing. I HIGHLY doubt this will take the place of trips to the Field Museum of Chicago, or the Smithsonian.

angelica

chopitdown wrote:

I HIGHLY doubt this will take the place of trips to the Field Museum of Chicago, or the Smithsonian.

I completely agree. People, whether consciously or unconsciously use value judgments in making their decisions. If anyone thinks this museum will take the place of "reputatable" museums--more historically or scientifically substantiated ones--I say that person is not applying accurate value judgment themselves due to fear and other emotional considerations.