Professional scientists expose AiG museum's unscientific nature

Society of Vertebrate Paleontology ^ | July 17, 2007 | Society of Vertebrate Paleontology

[steveg1961]

Professional paleontologists from around the world are concerned about the misrepresentation of science at the newly opened Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky. The Creation Museum has been marketed to the public as a "reasoned, logical defence" for young- earth creationism by Ken Ham, the President and CEO of Answers in Genesis, which runs the Creation Museum. The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, a world-wide scientific and educational organization concerned with vertebrate paleontology, contends that the museum presents visitors with a view of earth history that has been scientifically disproven for over a century.

The Creation Museum's fossil exhibitions, though artistically impressive, include a vast number of scientific errors, large and small. These errors range from implying that the Earth's sedimentary rocks were deposited by a single biblical Flood, to claiming that humans and dinosaurs lived alongside one another, to denouncing the reality of transitional fossils.

"Ken Ham is not recognized as a scientist or educator among experts in the fields of geology and paleontology, and his views on the interpretation of Biblical texts are extremist. Visitors to his 'museum' may arrive knowing little about these sciences, but they will leave misled and intellectually deceived," said Dr. Kevin Padian, Professor and Curator, University of California, Berkeley and President of the National Center for Science Education.

The fossil exhibits at the Creation Museum discount the last 150 years of paleontological and geological discovery. Not only are transitional fossils, including snakes with limbs and dinosaurs with feathers, abundant in the fossil record, but radiometric dating allows paleontologists to pinpoint the timing of major events in the ancient history of the earth.

For example, Tyrannosaurus rex existed over 65 million years ago, whereas modern humans didn't show up on the scene until 200 thousand years ago. They never walked side by side. The Creation Museum neglects to include this critical data in its analysis of the history of life on earth. "Most of us in the public view museums as places to get the latest information on scientific discovery. In this case, the Creation Museum is using the disguise of science museums and centers without including an iota of science inside," said Dr. Kristi Curry Rogers of the Science Museum of Minnesota.

"That's the real danger of such a place – undermining the basic principles of science, eroding the public's confidence in science, and causing a general weakening of science education in the country," commented Dr. Glenn Storrs of the Cincinnati Museum Center.

[doc30]

What *I’ve* been wondering, and I’ve asked this question on FR before and received dead silence as an answer, so I’ll ask it again, is how do evolutionists account for the fact that, if the Grand Canyon is the product of millions of years of riverine erosion through rockbed, why don’t we see many, many such grand canyons everyplace where a major river flows?

Has anyone bothered to ask creationists that if sedimentary rocks are the product of a global flood, why they are not univerally covering the Earth's surface? Or how they turned to rock so quickly? Such information could be exploited to creat faster and harder concrete. After all, the sediment would have to cure quickly in order for there to be a rock bed for the river to erode. And also, how does a global flood account for the periodic deposition of sediments that form those rocks? How does it manage to contain a layered structure if it was all deposited at once? Hydrologists would like to know that secret in order to manage erosion and sediment deposition today. And if the canyon was created by erosion in a very short time, why does it have the structure of something that was eroded over a long period of time? And if we know the rate of erosion of rock by running water, we should be able to back date when the erosion started and how much water flowed passed. Oops! That goes back milllions of years! And if the canyon was carved by receeding flood waters, why aren't there more canyons all over the southwest, or whereever bedrock is near the surface? After all, a receding deluge of such size would leave a similar footprint everywhere? Why doesn't it.

THe simple fact is that a global flood as the cause of the Grand Canyon contains too many contradictions to physical evidence.

But then again, to creationist liars, physical evidence has no bearing on the case.

[Alter Kaker]

Good, then both sides hold each other in contempt and both sides also claim that the other is lying to children.

Yes, however, don't fall for moral relativism when one side is right and the other is wrong.

Let the museum continue to operate

Has anybody proposed shutting it down? Of course it will continue to operate in a free country where even charlatans and idiots are afforded first amendment protections.

and if the truth eventually wins out, I'm sure the musuem will lose visitors and eventually shut down for lack of patronage.

The truth won't win out unless we make the truth win out. Ignorance is a tough foe.

[kostelnicka]

If only it were that simple. Unfortunately, that museum exists to indoctrinate, and there’s enough ignorance and superstition around to keep it going for quite a long time, I’m afraid.

I can’t help but notice in these debates that the creationists always have a handful of talking points. They’ve been given questions to ask the rest of us about evolution, but rarely does anyone have the heart to ask a creationist to back up the “science” of biblical creationism. Is it because we don’t want to hurt their feelings, or because every creationist argument reduces to “the Bible tells me so”? In either case, treating creationists with kid gloves is dangerous. They’re mobilized, and dedicated to spreading ignorance and lies. They’re not quaint and harmless.

[Right Brother]

With all due respect, it's the Ritalin-dispensing medical profession that's invaded the schools, the radical special-rights for sexual orientation proponents that have invaded the schools, the historical revisionists, the write, "Allah is God" 100 times crowd, the "don't tell your parents that you're getting an abortion but you have to get written permission for life-saving asthma medication" folks.... shall I continue?

Bravo. To the Godless, the belief in a Creator is much more dangerous. What all these so-called 'conservative' evolutionists don't understand, is one of the first steps of tyranny is to elevate 'man' to the highest moral authority. Then the state becomes God, and thus, the arbiter of morality. Unwitting supporters of their own demise.

[SirLinksalot]

Yes, however, don't fall for moral relativism when one side is right and the other is wrong.

I don't. I know that one side has to be right.

Has anybody proposed shutting it down? Of course it will continue to operate in a free country where even charlatans and idiots are afforded first amendment protections.

That's all I want to hear. We are on the same page here. If they are indeed charlatans, time will prove it. And if they aren't, time will also prove it.

The truth won't win out unless we make the truth win out. Ignorance is a tough foe.

I thik Ken Ham will also agree with this particular statement.

[Coyoteman]

That's why evolutionists date sedimentary layers using radiometric dating methods which are known to give wildly erroneous numbers, due to the fact that the underlying assumptions of the dating method are wrong, then?

Which radiometric methods are used on sedimentary layers?

Which of the underlying assumptions are wrong?

And please list your scientific qualifications in the relevant fields so we can judge whether to have any confidence in your statements.

[doc30]

“Moreover, typical creationist arguments are based on lies and deception. These dishonest people hope to convince the scientifically illiterate of their point of view through less than moral means.”

Great post, doc!! Couldn’t have said it better myself!! (And I’m blue in the face from saying it so many times on previous similar threads).

And not to mention that there is a lot of money to be made by creationists from donations from those whom they have successfully deceived.

[kostelnicka]

“The truth won’t win out unless we make the truth win out. Ignorance is a tough foe.”

Amen!

[agrace]

Check out this article, and tell me what you think. I found it pretty interesting, but I’m no scientist. And as no scientist, I’m fascinated by the concept of time, and I’ve often thought that maybe these disputes will all be resolved someday when we finally understand time as a dimension and how it works relationally to everything else.

http://aish.com/societywork/sciencenature/Age_of_the_Universe.asp

[doc30]

I can’t help but notice in these debates that the creationists always have a handful of talking points. They’ve been given questions to ask the rest of us about evolution, but rarely does anyone have the heart to ask a creationist to back up the “science” of biblical creationism. Is it because we don’t want to hurt their feelings, or because every creationist argument reduces to “the Bible tells me so”? In either case, treating creationists with kid gloves is dangerous. They’re mobilized, and dedicated to spreading ignorance and lies. They’re not quaint and harmless.

If creationism were to be taken seriously as science, then creationists simply need to define what would disprove creationism. Evolution has defined criteria that would disprove itself.

[Alter Kaker]

That's all I want to hear. We are on the same page here. If they are indeed charlatans, time will prove it. And if they aren't, time will also prove it.

I disagree. Reason doesn't always prevail over ignorance and superstition. Ken Ham's "theories" were disproved 150 years before this "museum" was built.

You can't inflict reason on the unreasonable.

You can, however, counter these charlatans' attempts to poison the minds of the next generation of Americans.

[Alter Kaker]

What all these so-called 'conservative' evolutionists don't understand, is one of the first steps of tyranny is to elevate 'man' to the highest moral authority. Then the state becomes God, and thus, the arbiter of morality.

As a conservative, a believer, and a scientist, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. In what way, precisely, am I "elevat[ing] man to the highest moral authority?"

[Alter Kaker]

No one trusts science anymore, at least that science that purports to explain worldwide phenomena.

I take it you ride mules everywhere you go -- whatever you do, don't trust cars or planes or bicycles.

[Right Brother]

As a conservative, a believer, and a scientist, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. In what way, precisely, am I "elevat[ing] man to the highest moral authority?"

A believer? Of what?

[atlaw]

What *I’ve* been wondering, and I’ve asked this question on FR before and received dead silence as an answer, so I’ll ask it again, is how do evolutionists account for the fact that, if the Grand Canyon is the product of millions of years of riverine erosion through rockbed, why don’t we see many, many such grand canyons everyplace where a major river flows?

I think I see your problem. Your question is properly addressed to geologists, not evolutionary biologists. And your friendly neighborhood geologist will, I'm sure, be happy to clear up your confusion.

[SirLinksalot]

As I said, continue your work and let Ken Ham continue his. That’s all you and Ham can do.

If more people are convinced that your views are right, good for you. If more people are convinced that he is right, too bad.

[Matchett-PI]

Bttt-Here’s some reference material for this thread, FYI.

Especially see this post in the thread below:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1657102/posts?page=26#26 [Re: Kurt Wise/Robert Moehler]

C. S. Lewis on Creation and Evolution: The Acworth Letters, 1944-1960
The American Scientific Affiliation Science in Christian Perspective - PSCF 48 (March 1996): 28-33. ^ | March 1996 | Gary B. Ferngren and Ronald L. Numbers
Posted on 06/28/2006 11:06:10 AM EDT by Matchett-PI
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1657102/posts

In the same thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1657102/posts?page=1#1 [Re: Galileo & RCC]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1657102/posts?page=15#15 [Re: Pope John Paul ll]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1657102/posts?page=18#18 [Re: JP Holding]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1657102/posts?page=28#28 [Re: References #15 above]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1657102/posts?page=31#31 [Re: #26 above]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1657102/posts?page=35#35 [Re: Astrophysicist writes Dr.James Kennedy]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1657102/posts?page=45#45 [Re: Ann Coulter/C.S. Lewis]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1657102/posts?page=54#54 [Re: Charles F. Austerberry, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Biology/ASAlist]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1657102/posts?page=67#67 [Re: The Bible and the dimension of time]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1657102/posts?page=70#70 [Re: Wisdom (Jesus)]

[TXnMA]

Article on Ken Ham's latest profit-producer (aka "gullible sucker-fleecer"). Interesting discourse going on. (I'm considering stepping into the absurd "Grand Canyon = Great Flood" discussion...).

[Alter Kaker]

A believer? Of what?

I believe in God, in the unity of God, and in no gods but Him. I know that He is One. I love Him, I fear Him, and I (do my best) to sanctify His name. I try to live my life as a follower of His commandments.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping, dear brother in Christ!