Stop spouting facts... the science is settled!

According to Wikipedia, scientism is a term used to describe the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or the most valuable part of human learning—to the exclusion of other viewpoints. Followers of scientism tend to be zealots, more devout even than the average followers of traditional religions. What makes them especially stubborn is that they tend to not think of their beliefs as their “religion;” instead, they think scientism is simply the default way of thinking for any person and so they cannot comprehend any argument made from a different point of view. To them, if something can't be examined scientifically, it can't be true.

Now, you would think that people who practically worship science would welcome scientific debate. They say they do. Actually, they brag that they do. In the new Cosmos series, Neil deGrass Tyson offered these five, simple rules for science:

(1) Question authority.

(2) Think for yourself.

(3) Test ideas by the evidence gained from observation and experiment.

(4) Follow the evidence wherever it leads.

(5) Remember: you could be wrong.

Ignore the self-contradiction going on here – like, how can someone test the idea that we should test ideas by evidence? My point in citing these “rules” is to show how skepticism is supposed to be at the heart of science. According to Tyson, I'm not supposed to accept a conclusion just because someone in authority says it's true. I'm supposed to think for myself. Right? I could be wrong but maybe it's the person making the claim who is wrong.

There are real scientists who are skeptics. At the risk of sounding cliché, scientific advancement often comes when people think outside of the box. Science Alert once published a list of 8 scientific papers that were rejected during peer review before going on to win a Nobel Prize. Obviously, these authors were on to something and the scientific establishment just couldn't see it. How often has one radical idea, one that other scientists may have thought sounded crazy, turned out to be true? Maybe we should ask Galileo.

Devout members of scientism aren't skeptics. They claim to be but they aren't. They blindly follow the majority opinion without question. You can often identify them by their frequent use of the phrase, “The science is settled.” To them, truth is whatever is accepted by a majority of scientists. Anyone who disagrees is considered a heretic. Actually, they don't call them heretics – they call them, “science deniers” but, in scientism, it means the same thing. Doubters of some scientific theory aren't ever called “skeptics” or “free thinkers;” they're “deniers.”

Let me give you a few examples of scientism's doctrine. The first is obviously evolution. I cannot tell you the number of times I've heard rabid evolutionists defend their theory by saying no credible scientist denies that evolution happened. Note the use of the word “credible,” but never mind blatant No True Scotsman fallacy. Truth is not decided by popular vote. Evolutionists often refuse to debate creationists on the grounds that “the science is settled,” “there is no debate among scientists whether evolution is true,” and debating the theory with a creationists gives the impression there is still doubt over the theory. Followers of scientism want to squelch any dissent over evolution by suing public schools who want to “teach the difficulties,” rejecting any creationist paper submitted for peer review, and even protesting a privately funded, religious organization like the Creation Museum.

Another long standing doctrine of this godless faith is climate change. Once upon a time, it was called “global warming” but after decades of no noticeable increase in the global, mean temperature, they had to replace “warming” with the much more ambiguous term, “change.” Actually, none of the dire predictions made by these alarmists have happened. In 2008, ABC aired a video montage showing all the terrible things that would happen by 2015 because of climate change: New York flooding, hundreds of miles of scorched earth, and skyrocketing food and fuel prices. I remember 2015. It was nothing like the predictions made by the video but followers of scientism aren't embarrassed by their failed predictions; The “science is settled” concerning climate change and bad things are going to happen unless we do something now. //RKBentley shakes his head//

Bill Nye was recently embarrassed by Tucker Carlson when he tried to pull that “the science is settled” crap. Carlson was asking basic questions about climate change and Nye was obviously making up the answers. Before we spend trillions of dollars on this “crisis,” we need to have some answers: the most fundamental question is, is there even any warming? The trend for the last few decades says no. If it is happening, to what extent are humans causing it? If we could stop warming, should we? What is the earth's temperature supposed to be? Every air-breathing animal produces carbon dioxide. Humans produce about 2 pounds of CO2 per day. Even if we converted the entire world to 100% emission-free energy, humans will still produce billions of pounds of CO2 every day just by breathing. How can that be bad? Plants require CO2. What will happen to our forests if we could reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? These are legitimate questions but they are heresy to dogma-driven zealots like Nye. A real scientist on CNN recently brought up some of these points and Nye scolded CNN for, “having one climate change skeptic, and not 97 or 98 scientists or engineers concerned about climate change.”

The most recent political discussion which followers of scientism have weighed in on is the transgender issue. Scientists now “know” that things like gender identity or even our biological sex aren't immutable but exist on a spectrum. You would think that after 6,000 years of human history, the science would at least be settled about who is a male and who is a female. Wrong! Now we're being told that doctors sometimes got it wrong when they checked “male” or “female” on a birth certificate. I'm a 51 year old white guy. Why can't I identify as a 65 year old person and start receiving social security? Why can't I say I'm a black guy and maybe qualify for affirmative action programs? But I can say I'm a woman and folks like Nye will rush to defend my delusion as being normal, usual, and healthy. Anyone who disagrees is a hate-filled, homophobic, bigot. Colleges are adopting strict policies requiring the use of gender-neutral pronouns. If I call a female, “she,” suddenly I'm the one who has the problem. Several years ago, I wrote about California's ban on gay-conversion therapy for minors. Really? So after little Johnny was abused by an uncle, he seeks help because he doesn't like the sexual feelings he now has toward men and the only acceptable response is, “You're gay, Johnny, you can't change it. You'd better learn to live with it!”

Bill Nye has said that being a creationist suppresses critical thinking. I believe Nye's religion of scientism is a far worse assault on critical thinking than being a creationist could ever be. He does not want debate. “Science deniers” must be ridiculed and insulted until they have lost all credibility. Maybe they should even be put in prison. Nye and folks like him have their minds are made up. Stop confusing them with facts. The science is settled.

More Liberal Bigotry

Liberals are bigots. It's a symptom of their ideology - an inevitable consequence of their political agenda. Bigotry is as fundamental to liberalism as swimming is to fish. You cannot be a liberal without being a bigot. Liberals, for example, see every black face as a victim. They don't believe blacks are able to take care of themselves so they must be subsidized with tax payer dollars. Liberals stereotypically believe every black person is the same – they think the same, they struggle the same, and they are all equally victims of whites. Never mind Dr. King's dream that men should be judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin, if a black man wants a job, or to go to college, or to start a business, liberals automatically think he needs special consideration because he's black. The color of his skin is the first criterion liberals consider. It's called, “affirmative action.” To liberals, blacks are “disadvantaged” as though being black is like being handicapped.

Because they are bigots in their very core, liberals are blind to they own bigotry. It's kind of like that stinky person who can't smell his own body odor. If a conservative should disagree with a black person about anything, then liberals assume the conservative is only disagreeing with the person because he's black. They just can't understand the concept of judging a person (even a black person) by his actions or words. Likewise, if conservatives talk about “welfare reform,” liberals accuse them of racism because the liberals think most people on welfare are black. And heaven forbid if a black person dares to believe he's not a victim and works hard to improve himself because then that person is accused of trying to “act white” and labeled an “Uncle Tom.”

I moved to Kentucky in the summer of 1970, when I was only 4 years old. Even though I was a more than a decade removed from Segregation, I remember some of the racial tensions that still lingered in the South. Being white myself, I can't say I can entirely empathize with the struggles blacks faced in the 50's but I can at least say I'm sympathetic to it. I can imagine, at least a little, the smoldering defiance Rosa Parks must have felt when she refused to give up her seat to a white man and move to the back of the bus.

Certainly there was racism then. For the record, I'm against racism but I'm still for liberty. If a person wants to be racist, I think it's his right to be a racist. However, the real problem wasn't necessarily the racist attitudes that were prevalent at the time but rather it was the segregation laws that put teeth in racism. For example, it would be sad if a black man wouldn't marry a white woman for fear they might be shunned by a racist society. It's a far worse thing, though, to make laws against interracial marriage. It was the laws allowing segregation that truly made blacks the victims of racists.

Democrats back then were all for institutional racism. For example, it was Democrat governor, George Wallace, who stood blocking the steps to a segregated school in Alabama and said, “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.” Since then, Democrats may have officially denounced segregation, but they are still not able to divorce themselves from the racism inherent in the liberal wing of the Democrat party.

So where am I going with all this? I mention this now because here in my own beloved state of Kentucky, liberal Democrats have abused the power of their office to impose their racism on another class of people – Bible believing Christians. Just recently, our Democrat Secretary of State, Bob Stewart, advised Ark Encounter, LLC, the group building the Noah's ark themed attraction in KY, that the state has changed its mind on the group's application for a tax incentive KY makes available to tourist attractions. The Ark Encounter will not be receiving the incentive after all.

When I first wrote about the Ark Encounter project 4 years ago, it had already been approved to receive a special tax incentive the state of KY makes available to lure tourist attractions here. It's not really a subsidy, per se. Instead, new tourist attractions can receive a partial rebate of the amount of sales tax they generate for the state. In other words, for every sales tax dollar the state receives from Ark Encounter visitors, they would give a few cents back to the park. So it doesn't cost the state any money – the state is making money from the park. What's more, it's only paying the incentive out of funds received by people visiting the park! No money is being taken from property taxes, income taxes, etc.

Some other attractions in KY that have received this same incentive are the Newport Aquarium and the Kentucky Speedway.

When the park originally applied for the incentive, it was clear this was a for-profit endeavor but was still overtly religious in nature. From the get go, folks like Barry Lynn objected to a religious organization receiving “tax payer funding” but the incentives were approved notwithstanding. With that approval in hand, the group raised the necessary funds, purchased the land, got the permits, and began building. Now, the state has changed its mind and told the group they will not receive the incentive after all. They claim to object on the grounds that AiG intends to use the park to proselytize (AiG has always been very clear about this) and that workers are required to sign a faith statement – which is a federal right for religious organizations. So the objections sound rather shallow since very little has changed about the park's stated goals since the state approved the original application.

I'm not sure how much the group relied on this incentive to make its decision on where to build but I know it was at least a factor. Its location is only a few miles away from OH and IN so the group had other options on where it could build and still be reasonably close to the Creation Museum. It's a rather dirty trick to lure the business in with the incentive and then take it away after it's too late to change its mind.

But besides that, what annoys me the most about all this is how the state is hurting Christians with its racist policies. We saw the same thing when the Boston Mayor wanted to ban Chick-fil-A because its president supported traditional marriage or the confiscatory fines levied against Hobby Lobby because they did not want to pay for employees' abortion inducing drug prescriptions. Time after time, the government treats religious people and businesses as second class citizens. Sec. Stewart said in his letter that the Ark Encounter, “will generate jobs and visitor spending that will be welcomed in the local economy.” I'm sure it will and he is happy to accept it; he just won't offer the same incentive KY has given to non-religious attractions. It's sort of like the bus driver who didn't mind receiving a fare from Rosa Parks but still didn't want her to sit in the white people's section.

If this were a black owned business, Democrats would be falling all over themselves to give away subsidies because they believe blacks can't run a business without help from white liberals. But this is a Christian owned business and they treat Christians differently. They can't see how refusing to give a religious business the same incentive available to anyone else is discrimination.

I'll say it again. Liberals are bigots.

To Speciate or Not to Speciate; What's the Question?

Secular science is the epitome of contradiction. I see it so often that it seldom surprises me anymore. While looking for quotes for my last post, I came across still another amusing example. Since it wasn't relevant to the point of that post, I didn't bring it up then. However, I cannot let it pass without comment.

In my last post, I quoted a NY Times editorial. You can read the entire article here but I wanted highlight two points it made.

The key event for the young Earth creationist interpretations of geology and biology is the great flood, which the [Creation] museum places at 2348 B.C. Obviously, Noah’s ark could not fit two of every single land animal. The exhibit notes that the Bible says two of every “kind” of animal, so there weren’t two dogs, two wolves, two dingo dogs, etc., but rather one pair of wolf-like dogs. After the flood, the two wolf-like dogs multiplied and “diversified” into a panoply of species.

That's a fairly accurate description of the typical, creationist position. The animals taken on the Ark were representative kinds and the thousands of terrestrial species alive today are descended from the few thousand kinds on the Ark. However, in the same article, the author made this comment:

Usually, creationists make a distinction between “microevolution” — antibiotic resistance among microbes, for instance, which they accept — and “macroevolution” — the appearance of new species, which they dispute.

Isn't that funny? I mean, which is it? Do creationists believe in speciation or don't they? Obviously creationists don't “dispute” the appearance of new species – I just object to calling speciation, “evolution” (either micro- or macro-). However, this science blogger can't seem to make up his mind. How can he say at one point that creationists believe in hyper-evolution only to immediately assert that creationists deny speciation at all? Such is the irrational reasoning of non-believers.

Evolutionists will sometimes say anything to discredit creationists. They will even lie. It's rather typical for them to make up caricatures of creationists beliefs which they then ridicule. Their default position is that creationists deny “macroevolution,” which they say includes speciation. This very claim was raised in the video, “Things Every Creationist Must Deny” which I blogged about a while back. However, when creationists talk about speciation that has occurred since the Flood, evolutionists do a 180 and accuse creationists of believing in “hyper-evolution.”

I've heard both of these criticisms before, I just can't think of a time when I've heard them both used at the same time. This particular evolutionist couldn't keep his objections straight so he employed them both.  It's a sort of reflex.  I often suspect evolutionists of not being sincere but in this case, I'm sure of it.

Is Creationism a Belief in Hyper Evolution?

Creationists believe that Noah took animals on board the Ark in pairs that represented kinds. Actually, it's not a creationist “belief” but rather what the Bible states overtly. Consider this passage (Genesis 6:19-20)
  

“And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. Of the birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive.”
  

So the Bible is clear that animal “kinds” were represented on the Ark. A “kind” is broader than a species. In taxonomical terms, a kind is probably closer to a family than a species. Noah did not have 2 lions, tigers, cougars, lynxes, leopards, ocelots, cheetahs, and house cats on the Ark; instead, he only had one pair of a “cat-kind.” From these two ancestral cats, all other species of cats have descended. One straw man criticism of the Ark is that there is no way that Noah could fit 2 of every species of animals on the Ark. Since Noah only brought animals on the Ark according to their kind, the number of animals necessarily on the Ark is much less than the critics' inflated estimates.

    
There's a tired, old retort employed by evolutionists whenever creationists talk about speciation after the Flood. They assert that the few centuries or even millennia since the Flood is not enough time for the many thousands of species of animals to have descended from the few thousand kinds of animals that were on the Ark. They say that such rapid diversification is a type of "hyper-evolution."

 
In a NY Times editorial called, “Creationism = Evolution?” (note the use of the word “creationism” by the way; see my last post on that subject), one science blogger made the following comments after visiting the Creation Museum:

The descendants of the ark dog include foxes, states one of the museum signs. This is pretty incredible if you don’t accept the theory of evolution. Dogs (and wolves) have a genome of 78 chromosomes. The red fox has 34 chromosomes. By most any measure, dogs and foxes are different species and yet here in the Creation Museum, it was stated that foxes had diversified from dogs, with major changes in appearance and genetic make-up, in an incredibly short time of less than 4,500 years — far, far faster than an evolutionary biologist would claim.

  
If animals speciate rapidly, evolutionists call it “hyper-evolution.”  Part of the confusion in the above quote stems from their penchant to call any kind of change, “evolution.” I've written about that before.  It's a misnomer but not one which I'll visit again in this post.

  
A common understanding about evolution is that it is a “gradual” process. This stems from several different lines of reason which include things like the rate at which mutations occur in DNA, the length of the reproductive cycles of the host, and common interpretations of geological ages. In some instances, our observations of living populations seems to concur with the idea of gradual evolution since most of the minor variations we observe (what some people call “microevolution”) would have to continue for a very, very long time before they amounted to any significant changes in the populations.

What seems to escape many evolutionists is a very simple point which, to me, seems ridiculously obvious. Animals are adapted to their environment. Unless the environment should suddenly change, there's no reason to expect rapid change in the animals that occupy that environment. So animal populations continue in long periods of stasis, showing only minor changes in response to the minor changes in the environment – like the beaks of Darwin's finches. If these minor changes were all that occurred, then evolution would indeed be a staggeringly slow process.

 
The world after the Flood, however, was marked by dramatic environmental change. The specialized niches once occupied by the animals on the Ark no longer existed. The animals had to make their way in a new, very different world where the rule was to adapt or die. Rapid speciation necessarily was the norm – not over thousands of years or even over centuries. I'm talking about rapid speciation occurring in a few decades!

 
In spite of their claims to the contrary, rapid speciation should not be a surprise to evolutionists because there are many examples of rapid changes in species in response to sudden changes in their environment. Very early on in my blogging career, I posted this quote from Sciencedaily:

"Countering the widespread view of evolution as a process played out over the course of eons, evolutionary biologists have shown that natural selection can turn on a dime -- within months -- as a population's needs change. In a study of island lizards exposed to a new predator, the scientists found that natural selection dramatically changed direction over a very short time, within a single generation, favoring first longer and then shorter hind legs."

Ignore the conflation of “evolution” and “natural selection” for a moment. In light of this comment, it's rather hypocritical for evolutionists to say thousands of years since the Flood is not a long enough time for diverse changes to occur in the descendants of the kinds that were on the Ark. The environmental change in this experiment was rather subtle – they introduced a new predator onto a group of islands. Yet the indigenous species of lizard began to adapt quickly - "within months" according to the article. How much more dramatic was the change in environment after the Flood? The animals then would begin to adapt just as quickly.

Now the quote from the NY Times editorial above specifically said that 4,500 years is not enough time for foxes to split from other dog species. That belief is contrary to the experiments done by Russian scientist, Dmitry Belyaev. In the 1950s, Belyaev used wild, silver foxes in a study about the domestication of dogs. He would put his gloved hand into the cage with a wild fox to try to pet or feed the fox. Foxes that were the most curious or docile were selected to reproduce. Through this form of artificial selection, rapid and dramatic changes took place among the silver foxes:
  

“Belyaev and his colleagues did indeed create a population of foxes that differed in temperament and behavior from their wild cousins. The foxes changed physically as well, with alterations in coat color appearing as early as the eighth generation—typically a loss of pigment resulting in white patches. The foxes also developed floppy ears and curved tails, mirroring traits seen in dogs as well as other domesticated species.” (bold added; source here)

In less than a decade, these wild foxes began to look like domestic dogs. Their behavior changed as well to include things like whining and barking, traits also seen in domestic dogs. Certainly there has been some mutation to the DNA of these creatures since they have a different number of chromosomes but if these foxes could be turned into dogs in a few generations, saying 45 centuries isn't long enough for them to have split from dogs is laughable.

I've said before that, for evolution to occur, novel traits have to be added to a population. The removal of traits from a population will not allow the population to “evolve” regardless of how long the change occurs. On the other hand, if adaptation occurs primarily via different combinations of traits already present in a population, then speciation can occur in a few generations. Long ages aren't even necessary.

  
Time is not the hero of evolution. It's not even a player in the game. Gradual change is a flawed idea that is practically built into the long age assumptions of evolutionary theory. It's contradicted by simple observation.

Russell Crowe as Noah

Hollywood is making a new film with a biblical theme. This time, it's an adaptation of the biblical the account of Noah with Russell Crowe being cast in the leading role. After the wildly successful, The Passion of the Christ, I would have thought Hollywood would have caught on that people want to see these kinds of films and studios would start producing more of them. I guess it's not always about money for liberals. They have their standards too. Some just can't bring themselves to make a movie portraying the Bible in a favorable light no matter how successful the movie might be.

Some Christian movies made over the last several years have suffered from small budgets. This new endeavor, on the other hand, will have an estimated budget of $130 million. That sounds like plenty of money for special effects and all the other things that might make an epic adventure successful. I wonder if any critics are going to protest the cost of the movie the same way they have protested the Ark Encounter. $130 million could feed a lot of starving children in third world countries. These same critics who berate AiG for spending millions on the Ark Encounter seldom lament the millions Hollywood spends each year on movies that seem to glorify sex and violence.

One report describes this as an “edgy Biblical re-telling of Noah’s Ark.” It's the word “edgy” that makes me suspicious. If the film's director, Darren Aronofsky, wants this to be a smash hit, I would recommend he stick faithfully to the narrative of Genesis. There's certainly enough in the real account to make the movie thrilling. I'm worried, though, that Aronofsky will fall into the sometimes practice of Hollywood elitists who feel they need to add “depth” to the characters and story. That was the killing blow to Richard Greer's portrayal of David in the movie, King David. What? Was David not an interesting enough character without embellishing him?

I'm also curious how the movie will treat the extent of the Flood and the animals on board. Will they portray a global flood? It would be entirely possible for the movie to not commit to a global or local flood so perhaps they'll go the easy route and not say either way. It would be difficult for them, though, to hide which animals are on-board. Will they make the simple mistake of Noah bringing all “species” of animals onto the Ark? I half expect to see lions and tigers rather than a single “cat-kind.”

Finally, will the movie bring out the real message behind Noah? Will it be about a righteous God Who judges sin? Will people know that God has provided salvation to those who believe in Him? Will they see the Ark as a picture of Jesus? Somehow, I doubt it.

Most of what I know about the movie at this point is speculation. We'll have to wait and see the finished product before giving it a thumbs up or down. I'm somewhat encouraged that movie makers are looking to the Bible as the inspiration for great movies. Still, Hollywood has seldom treated Christians with the same respect they show for AIDS victims or drug users.

Science Nazis

That's right. I said it. Some people are science Nazis. They are Nazis in the sense that they are militant about their scientific conclusions and feel perfectly just in forcing the “ignorant” masses into compliance through propaganda or whatever means possible. The Joseph Goebbels of the movement is Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE).

Before I begin, let me say that I may be annoyed but I am not unhinged. Many times in the past, I have read comments by evolutionists who, I am sure, were foaming at the mouth as they wrote. It's typical for people with this attitude to argue by insult. That's not what I'm trying to do here. I sincerely believe that Eugenie Scott is a propagandist as are many others like her.

OK, now to the meat of my “rant.”

Nature.com recently published a piece titled, “Evolution advocate turns to climate change.” The subtitle of the article says, “Education centre known for battling creationists aims to help science teachers convey understanding of global warming.” It's interesting that they use the term, “battling creationists.” I think the subtitle conveys the general impression held by the scientific community of the NCSE's true agenda as being militantly anti-creationist. They are not just concerned about keeping “religion” out of science education in schools, they are battling creationists wherever they are found. This has long been demonstrated by Scott's years-long crusade against the Creation Museum and Answers in Genesis.

AiG has always admitted that they are not interested in changing public school curriculum. Like myself, they do not want public school teachers (especially those who might be unbelieving) teaching the Bible to our kids. This is the job of parents and the Church. Also, the Creation Museum is a private institution. It was built entirely with donated dollars and does not receive – nor ever received – any type of public grant or funding. Why then does Scott, and others of her ilk, concern herself with them? The reason is simple: it's because she loathes the idea that anyone anywhere believes in creation.

In the Nature article, reporter Susan Young highlights the same attitude toward global warming. Young begins her article lamenting that, in the same way some students have rejected the theory of evolution, some students are also rejecting the idea of global warming (or man-made global warming). She says that Scott has chosen to intervene because of the “entreaties from educators and textbook authors.” The article quotes Scott as saying, “I think we can make an important contribution. If teachers understand that there is a place that they can go to for help, we can use some of the expertise that we’ve gained over the years dealing with evolution to apply to this related problem.”

Well, first off, one might ask how is evolution related to climate change? During any discussion, if a creationist happens to mention something like the Big Bang, the evolutionist is quick to point out that the Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution (cosmology v. biology). Here, though. Scott says two unrelated sciences (biology and meteorology) share a related problem. In her mind, the “problem” is that there are people who don't fall lock-step into established, scientific consensus.  Her's is a political agenda - not a scientific one.

According to the article, “25–30% of [surveyed] respondents reported that students, parents, administrators or other community members had argued with [educators] that climate change is not happening or that it is not the result of human activity.” What is even more alarming is that “[s]ome school boards and state legislators have threatened to require educators to ‘teach the controversy’ about climate change — a term coined in relation to evolution that amounts to presenting a scientific theory as one of various possible viewpoints.”

Oh my goodness! You mean there are actually school boards out there who want educators to tell their students that some people – maybe even some scientists – disagree with their theory?! I can see why Scott is up in arms. (I am using sarcasm in case it isn't obvious).  Honestly, I can't see a "controversy" in teaching students to be skeptical.  In the case of global warming, I believe there is more dissent among scientists about the issue than there is concerning creation.  However, Scott is a propagandist and she sees it as her job to sway the masses to the desired point of view.

Scott believes the solution to this imagined problem is “helping people to understand the reasons why scientists overwhelmingly accept climate change.” This is the crux of the issue. It's the elitism of the scientific establishment or “truth by consensus.” Scott believes that the science is settled. Since the overwhelming majority of scientists accept climate change, we know that it's true so dissent is no longer allowed. Her approach is cleverly worded but it's little more than a thinly veiled “appeal to authority.”

I wonder how Scott might have behaved a few centuries ago when Galileo was introducing ideas that upset the scientific establishment. Would she have said, “Look people, the science is settled on this – Ptolemy was right”? Even well established science can still be wrong. Most scientists will admit this. Still, certain elitists only allow debate within the scientific community. Lay people are not allowed to have an opinion other than then current consensus of the establishment.

What is most amusing about the article is this disclaimer:

The statement also says that the NCSE will not take a position on what, if anything, should be done to counteract global warming or mitigate its effects. “What to do about it ranges widely and gets outside of the strict science and into policy issues in which many, many variables are going to have to be considered,” says Scott. “We are not a policy think tank; we don’t have expertise in this area.”

Wait a minute! They don't have expertise in this area? Why exactly, then, is she taking a side on this issue? On the one hand, they claim not to know enough to recommend a solution but on the other hand, they know enough to know it's absolutely true and students don't just need to be taught about it but need to believe it. I know why they are interested. Even though their expertise is not in global warming, Scott is still commenting on her area of expertise – propaganda!

Loving God with our Minds: A Series in Logic. Part 4

RED HERRING

An extremely common tactic employed by critics is to use the red herring. A red herring is a fact or detail raised by your opponent that is unrelated to the topic. This is done in an attempt to derail the conversation or to force the Christian to waste time addressing irrelevant issues. The thing that is so annoying about red herrings is that the points raised often contain an element of truth – they're just not pertinent to the subject. In a debate about evolution and creation, for example, my views on something like Revelation are not directly relevant.

One of my very early blogs was a response to an editorial in the Courier Journal written by militant evolutionist, James K Willmot in which Willmot committed a number of logical fallacies. In the midst of his rant against the then new Creation Museum, Willmot made the comment, “AIG also believes in a literal interpretation of the Book of Revelation.” This would certainly qualify as a red herring. It contains an element of truth since I'm sure that AiG accepts the entire Bible as the inspired word of God. However, they also recognize the obvious use of symbolism in the book of Revelation. AiG certainly does not believe there will be a “literal” harlot named Babylon who rides on the back of a scarlet beast in the last days. However, just the simple fact that AiG would have to clarify this point demonstrates the danger of a red herring. AiG is put on the defensive and is forced to waste time defending a point that's not relevant to the creation v. evolution debate in the first place.

The best way to deal with a red herring is to let it go. If someone you've engaged in debate throws out a red herring, tell him, “that's interesting. Maybe we'll discuss that later but for now could you please address the topic?”

ARGUMENT BY VERBOSITY (Argumentum verbosium)

Many evolutionists will often try to make a point by simply throwing out terms. It's a type of red herring. One very common example of this occurs when an evolutionist says something like, “Evolution is supported by geology, biology, physics, astronomy, chemistry, paleontology, anthropology, dendrochronology, … etc.” It seems like the longer the evolutionist can make the list, the more evidence it is for evolution. The reality is that none of it is “evidence” for evolution; they're merely empty words. “Biology” for example, is a scientific discipline which studies living things. To merely say “biology” isn't evidence for evolution any more than saying “theology” is evidence there is a God. How does biology support evolution? When the critic answers that, then he actually begins to address the topic. Until then, he is merely spouting words.

One time on FaceBook, an atheist once wrote, “Things creationists must deny” followed by about 20 terms; included were many of the terms above but there were several others including “logic” and “trigonometry.” Besides being a straw man, how should a Christian respond to that? Does anyone really expect me to write even a short paragraph for each term explaining how I don't disagree with it?

Besides simply throwing out terms, another variation of this fallacy is to roll out long, detailed terminology in hopes of confusing your opponent or even to wear him down. I cannot count the number of times I've been in internet debate forums where an evolutionist will merely cut and paste a lengthy section from some technical paper. The sad fact is that, in most cases, it would simply take too long or too much space to post a reply so it's easier to just skip over it. This gives the false impression that the creationist is unable to answer the question.

It's true that we defend our positions with words. However, there's no rule that says the most words wins. Throwing around long lists of terms or minutia isn't an argument.

NO TRUE SCOTSMAN

The No True Scotsman fallacy is where a critic argues that the only legitimate position is his and thus every dissenting position is illegitimate. The name of this fallacy is derived from this classic example:

Person 1: “No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.”

Person 2: “My uncle Angus puts sugar on his porridge.”

Person 1: “Well, no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.”

In that example, poor uncle Angus is disqualified from being a true Scotsman only on the flimsy grounds that he puts sugar on his porridge when such a qualifier is merely arbitrary.

I've mentioned before that the ad hominem is the fallacy most frequently used by critics. Since the No True Scotsman is a type of ad hominem, we see it too used frequently. Here are some common examples:

“No legitimate scientist believes in creation.”

“The Creation Museum is not a real museum.”

“No rational person believes in God.”

Have you ever heard any of these before? If you've spent any time debating opponents of Christianity, I'll bet you have. We identify groups by a common denominator. All Christians, for example, believe in Christ (though they might believe different things). Be on the look out, though, for arbitrary conditions. There are legitimate scientists who believe in creation. The Creation Museum is a real museum. And rational people do believe in God!

Further Reading

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

Part 8

The Hypocrisy of "Separation of Church and State" Advocates

In my last post, I talked a little about the antics of that wolf in sheep's clothing, Barry Lynn. The controversy around the new Ark Encounter reminded me of some of the similar controversy that surrounded the Creation Museum when it opened. I think some people need a lesson in the idea of “separation of church and state.” I wrote this a while back but this might be a good time to revisit it.

In May, 2007, I was fortunate enough to visit Answers in Genesis’s new Creation Museum the week that it opened. For those who might not be familiar with it, the Creation Museum presents the Biblical history of the world rather than the evolutionary theory. It’s a great museum that rivals any secular museum I’ve been in. It was built entirely with private donations and is overtly religious in nature.

Anyway, about the time the museum opened, there was this tiny, wanna-be-grass-roots group called DefCon who was circulating a petition protesting the museum. DefCon is an abbreviation for “Defense of the Constitution” - you’ll see in a moment how ironic that is. Now, DefCon has the right to protest anything they want. They can picket, circulate petitions, tell lies (actually they shouldn’t tell lies but they still do), and try to discourage support for the museum in any way they see fit. However, everything was not as it seemed.

There were actually 2 petitions being circulated - one for educators to sign and the other for everyone else. The wording in each was nearly identical except the first began, “As educators..."; So, the people who signed this petition were specifically evoking their positions as educators when they signed it.

I first became alarmed when I read a little blurb about a DefCon board member, Sam Schloemer, who happens to be an elected school board official. The article referred to him by his elected title of Representative. In his quotes, he openly condemned the museum and encouraged teachers to do the same. Of course, many of these teachers who signed the petition were PUBLIC school teachers - i.e. representatives of the state.

So let’s see here, we have an elected official encouraging other public officials to condemn a private, religious organization. Then we have public employees, acting within their capacity “as educators” actually doing it. Doesn’t anyone see a problem with this? It would be akin to a group of history teacher banding together and signing a petition saying, “As educators, we condemn the outrageous belief that Jesus was an historical person.”

Now, being the concerned, Christian voter that I am, and (at that time) a resident of OH where Rep. Schloemer serves, I wrote letters to the Governor, Rep. Schloemer, the state’s Secretary of Education. I also engaged in much online debate about the blatant infringement on the First Amendment that was occurring. The silence from the elected officials was deafening. In all fairness, the Governor’s office replied with a non-committing response but he mistakenly seemed to think the museum was in OH. The Secretary of Education said that there is no official position of the DOE but did not comment on the teachers’ actions. I never heard back from Rep. Schloemer.

The response from cyberspace was confusing. I was constantly told, over and over, that these educators had the right to sign the petition because, even though they were teachers and elected officials, they were also private citizens and had their First Amendment right free speech. They also said that AIG is trying to effect public school curriculum by telling kids God created us so it was AIG who was violating the first amendment. If these people had their way, there would be a padlock on the museum right now.

OK, let’s get this straight: A private, religious organization exercising its belief is violating the first amendment. And ELECTED officials and PUBLIC employees openly condemning a religious institution and petitioning against it is free speech? It’s Bizzaro world.

There are a few people out there who believe the first amendment says something like, “there will be a separation of church and state.” Well, the amendment does not use the word “separation” or “church” or “state” so it’s about a bad a summary as one could make. For those who are confused, let me point out what the first amendment actually says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "

Here’s a little reading exercise. In the above quote, who is being bound or restricted by this amendment? Is it the religious person? No!! It’s CONGRESS (i.e. the state)! Religious people have the right to say, do, or believe anything they want. They can speak out and proselytize to their hearts content. They can publish newsletters and blog about how bad they think the government is. They can even build a museum and peacefully assemble there. They can do all these things and the STATE can do nothing about it. The state should do NOTHING to infringe upon the rights of Christians to exercise their faith, which includes signing a petition against them.

Perhaps there are a few teachers who signed the petition not realizing their actions were a violation of the free exercise clause. If you care to rescind your petition then you are forgiven. For all the rest - shame on you.

The Ark Encounter

I happened to visit Answers in Genesis' website a couple of days ago and noticed a banner saying there was going to be a big announcement today. Frankly, I had forgotten about it because a lot of times people will tease a big announcement for something that turns out to be not so big after all. Today, while my wife and I were pulling into the parking lot of a local, Chinese buffet, the noon news report on the radio announced that AiG was planning to build a “theme park.” The alleged park was reported to include a full-scale ark the size of Noah's and cost a projected $150 million! Wow!

During lunch, I had mixed feelings about the report. Was this truly going to be a “theme park”? Visions of something like the Pirates of the Caribbean ride at Disney World were running through my mind. One criticism often leveled against the Creation Museum is that it's more like a “theme park” and not a serious museum. To bolster the point, I've seen critics post the photo of PZ Myers sitting astride the saddled dinosaur the museum has set up for a photo op. The critics refer to the saddled dino as an “exhibit.” It's certainly not an accurate criticism. However, if AiG truly built some kind of Noah's Ark theme park, it would likely validate the critics and seriously undermine their own credibility.

After lunch, I had to go into work and didn't get home until late. When I got home, I immediately went to AiG's website to learn more about the announcement. Much to my relief, it isn't really a “theme park” in the sense the radio report had implied. It is described as a “tourist attraction” and while the attraction will be themed, it isn't rides and games. The Ark Encounter website describes it as, “a one-of-a-kind facility that presents the full-size Ark and its historical background and times.” Besides a full-sized replica of the Ark (what it might have looked like), the attraction will also include a 100-foot “Tower of Babel” (what it might have looked like) with a 500 seat theater, a petting zoo billed as “Noah's Animals”, and several other themed attractions. Like the Creation Museum, it seems the Ark Project seeks to educate visitors in the historical reality of the Bible. It's purpose is to both educate and evangelize. Unlike the Museum, however, the new attraction will be “for profit.”

The radio spot also included a sound bite from Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. This man purports to be a Christian but since the Bible says we can know them by their fruits (Matthew 7:16), I have my suspicions about him. One thing that helped seal the deal for the project is that Kentucky has special tax incentives in place to lure outside, tourist interests to KY. Barry Lynn feels that since the Ark attraction is overtly religious, it should not receive any kind of tax subsidy. I guess Mr. Lynn feels it's OK to subsidize a NASCAR Sprint Cup Race (which also received the subsidy) but not a group like AiG for an attraction like the Ark Encounter. Is he serious? I'm sure he is. Liberals think they're being “fair” when they exclude Christians from enjoying the same benefits available to everyone else.

There are still a lot of hurdles to jump before ribbon is cut at the new attraction's opening. All in all, I'm excited about it. When the Creation Museum opened, I was able to attend it the first week. Hopefully, I'll have the opportunity to visit the Ark Encounter in the Spring of 2014. Good luck to AiG.

A thought about the Mosque at Ground Zero

At the risk of sounding contradictory, I think I have liberals figured out; yet on the other hand, I'll never really understand how they think. I mean, they are predictable in that they always loathe American, conservatives, and Christianity but the reason for their loathing escapes me. The mosque proposed to be built at Ground Zero is still another example of liberal hypocrisy and lunacy. I've seen no outrage from the left over a shrine being built in the shadow of the fallen Towers which is likely being funded by the same groups that toppled them! And what about the expected dedication date of 9/11/2011? Hello!! Instead of outrage we here calls for religious tolerance and constant harping on the fact that it's “legal.” Give me a break!

This is all strangely familiar to me. I lived in Cincinnati a few years back near where Answers in Genesis built their Creation Museum. In the years leading up to the building of the Museum, AiG scouted a couple of locations as potential sites for the build. This was covered fairly extensively by the local media and I followed the story pretty closely. On a couple of occasions, when a possible location was being considered, AiG would meet with the zoning committee to discuss zoning for the museum. Such meetings drew libs out of the woodwork in protest. There were complaints that the Museum would be a disruption to the community, over-burden the streets with traffic, attract protestors, and generally be a source of embarrassment to the Tri-state area. It didn't seem to bother them one bit that AiG is a religious organization which had a legal right to build such a museum. Indeed, many were outspoken about the fact that the objected to what AiG represented. At one meeting, a protestor went so far as to say that if the commission allowed this museum to be built, it would violate the separation of Church and state! Chew on that for a while! On at least one occasion, the board capitulated and refused zoning for the Museum before it was eventually built at its present site.

A lot of the arguments raised by liberals at the building of the Creation Museum are the same arguments being used by conservatives about the building of the mosque now. The mosque would certainly be a disruption to the community, a draw for protestors, a source of controversy, and most assuredly an embarrassment that we would allow a terrorist sympathizer to build a monument overlooking the hallowed grounds of the worst act of terrorism committed in America. Even like the Museum, much of the debate is around zoning. Why are the liberals suddenly so tolerant about the Muslim religion when they weren't nearly as tolerant when a Christian organization wanted to build a museum?

I ask rhetorically because we already know why: they are hypocrites who hate America and Christianity. To them, teaching children that Adam and Eve were real people is a worse crime than killing thousands of innocent Americans. They compare Christian fundamentalists to terrorists who shouldn't be allowed to build a museum but they excuse real terrorists and allow them to build a mosque to be dedicated on the 10th anniversary of September 11th!

Like I said, liberals are predictable but I'll never really understand them.

Ignorance on Display at the Creation Museum

There was ignorance on display at the Creation Museum. No, I’m not talking about my good friends at Answers in Genesis. I’m talking about a group that visited there recently. There was a nerd… I mean “paleontologist”… convention held at the University of Cincinnati and a group of 80 of the nerds… I mean paleontologists… decided to take a fieldtrip and tour the museum. OK, I know I should be nicer because, after all, the museum’s tour guide greeted the group graciously saying, “Praise God, we are excited to have you here.”

So, what was their impression of the museum? The Courier Journal characterized their responses this way, “some were skeptical, some were amused, some were offended.” That’s typical. Professional evolutionists like these are militant about their beliefs. They don’t just disagree with creationists – they loathe them! Weren’t any of them curious? Weren’t any of them surprised? Didn’t any of them learn anything? No, I guess that’s expecting too much.

But even though their snobby attitudes are typical, I continued to be annoyed by them. Here are a few of their quotes for your consideration:

“I think it’s a very professional outfit and they put on a good show,” said Jason Rosenhouse, a math professor at James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Va., and manager of a blog on evolution. “If you can sort of suspend disbelief, you can see why people get caught up in it.”

Do you see what I mean? The Mr. Rosenhouse’s not-so-subtle implication is that the museum is merely “a good show” but only those people who “suspend disbelief” [sic] could “get caught up in it.” And he didn’t stop there. He went on to say this:

“I hate the fact that this exists,” he added. “But given that it exists, I can see why people would find it compelling.”

Can you believe that? He hates the fact that the museum exists!! I’ve said before that if it were in their power, there would be a pad lock on the museum right now. It’s a textbook example of the attitudes exposed in Ben Stein’s “Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed”.

Arnie Miller, a geology professor at UC, echoed Rosenhouse’s sentiments during the tour:

“From a pure audio-visual standpoint, it’s spectacular,” he said. “Part of it I find offensive as a scientist. It’s more than just a different point of view. They contend that if you don’t accept their view of the story in Genesis, you’re responsible for the ills of society.”

Mr. Miller has misrepresented AiG’s position. Here are AiG’s true thoughts on the matter:

The concepts of right and wrong must have an ultimate basis from which to appeal, or else they become simply relative to the culture. This is what we see happening in today‘s Western world. The Bible teaches that God the Creator made men and women for each other, and experience confirms that we are made for each other physically. This was the Creator’s intention and plan. And any deviation from this is outside the created order. So it has been until very recent times, when, backed up by evolutionary ‘science’, the concept of homosexual acts being ‘wrong’ has been changed. Now they are promoted as neither right nor wrong, but a ‘choice’. And, unless one appeals to a Creator who sets the absolute laws for life, who can say this is incorrect? If there is no Creator who has made us and set the rules, then all our morals and ideas of what is right or wrong are simply subjective—what we ourselves decide.

The Courier Journal article concludes:

Julia Sankey, a geology professor at California State University at Stanislaus, said she wanted to know more about the attitudes some of her students are bringing to class.

“I’m not offended, just annoyed,” Sankey said. “Why are we wasting our time on this (evolution debate)? It’s not science, and we’re wasting our time.”

I suppose I should acknowledge that at least she sought to know more about her students’ attitudes but I’m sorry that Ms. Sankey feels she is wasting her time with this. After all, according to various polls, up to ½ of the US population believes in creation. I predict that one day her “it’s already settled” attitude is going to be the undoing of evolution.

Here’s what I predict. One weakness in creation science is the lack of enough practicing scientists. However, thanks to the efforts of creation ministries like AiG, more and more students will become interested in science, they will then study science in college, and eventually become practicing scientists. They will begin doing research, publishing papers, and making contributions to their field. The difference will be that they will be doing it from a creation perspective. When that happens, scientists will be forced to argue the science and can no longer argue by consensus (argumentum ad populum).

I say, let the nerds scoff. They have no idea what’s really going on at the museum!

The Creation Museum is One Year Old

The Answers in Genesis, Creation Museum, recently celebrated the 1 year anniversary of its opening. Before it was built, the museum was expected to have 250,000 visitors its first year. Attendance far outpaced that though and the museum welcomed its 400,000th visitor on May 21 (5 days before its anniversary).

I had the privilege of visiting the museum the week it opened and had written a review of it online. In celebration of this milestone for the museum, I thought I’d repost my first impression here.

My Trip to the New Museum!

Well, I did it! I went to the newly opened Creation Museum. And, as I promised, I’m going to relate a little of my experience there. I’m not sure where to begin but I thought it would be a good idea to divide different parts of the museum into different posts. In this post, I’ll talk a little about the first impressions.

The museum is only a short distance off a main highway that circles Cincinnati. There are road signs directing people to the museum so it’s really impossible to miss. The weather today was hot, but this morning it was overcast so the sun wasn’t glaring. Overall, it was a nice day. As I drove up, I looked to see if there were any protesters and there weren’t. A staff member told me later there were only a few on the first day; she said around 15-20 but the news reported about 100. Either way, I guess that means there were very few.

The wrought-iron gates leading into the museum are topped with silhouettes of 2 stegosauruses. The wilderness area can be seen on the right (described in detail in another post) and the museum itself dead ahead. It’s a very sharp, contemporary building. It had been redone since I visited it about 1 year ago under construction. There had been a covered patio area along the front of the building but that was now enclosed to become a foyer where the ticket counters, brochures, and some cool statues were.

I got there a little after opening (10AM) and there were a fair number of cars already there. I saw license plates from FL, NY, PA, KS, MO, LA, IL, TX, MI, WY, and of course, OH/KY/IN. There was only a short line at the admissions window. Admission is 19.50 for an adult but I had a $5 off coupon I had printed from the website. I also purchased admission to the planetarium for $5. My 4 year old son was admitted free. Also, they gave me a discount card good for $5 off admission all year.

In the foyer there was a dino skeleton but I didn’t notice the name on the plaque. The other statues were a wooly rhino skeleton, a white rhino, and a giraffe. All were life sized and very well done. They appeared carved.

Inside the main lobby there were several animatronic-statues. Overhead, there was a life sized saurapod, eating some plants. There was a large aquarium type display (made to look like a small pond/stream) stocked with real fish and turtles. On the other side of the water were 2 animatronic children playing in the water and 2 small bipedal dinos standing nearby.

Also in the lobby were several display cases with real animals: one holding a chameleon, another dart frogs, and another finches. There were some long hallways leading to the restrooms and along the walls were displays of fossils. Some of them were very impressive. They included the “fish-eating-fish fossil”, a horse-shoe crab with a long trail of its fossilized tracks, several cat skulls, shark teeth, etc.

Everything about the building was very well done. Admittedly, it’s a new building so it would be expected to look new but it was done very high-end.

The Planetarium

While waiting for admittance into the planetarium, on display right outside is the old planetary projector which was used to train the Mercury astronauts. The planetarium sat about 40-50 people. The show itself was 22 minutes long and its theme was “the scale of the universe.” It was narrated by the same guy who does the voice of John Whitaker on Adventures in Odyssey. It began with the reading of Genesis 1 from the 1968 Apollo space mission. It did a pretty good job of impressing upon the viewer the enormity of the universe.

For the 1st 19 minutes or so, the film was pretty matter of fact and only occasionally mentioned God. It could be used in most secular planetariums. Only for about the last 3 minutes did it talk about a young universe. It touched upon the distant starlight problem and offered a couple of suggested resolutions. I couldn’t take notes in the dark (and with my son on my lap) but I recall one that was mentioned was the time dilation effect of a deep gravitational well (I suppose from Humphreys White Hole cosmology model). At least one other was mentioned but I couldn’t recall it later. Theories not mentioned were CDK or light-in-transit. The film concluded by pointing how earth, though it is seemingly inconsequential in the immense universe, it still the center of God’s attention.

In all fairness, the last planetarium I’ve visited was on the University of Louisville’s campus about 20 years ago. I would suppose that technology is a little improved since then. Even so, this was good. The movie played more like an Omnimax or IMAX show rather than the planetarium shows I remember from my youth.

The Museum Itself

The entrance into the main exhibit area is done in a Grand Canyon motif. Immediately inside is a mocked up display of an archeological/pale ontological dig. On TV monitors (monitors are everywhere here) 2 archeologists are explaining how they each interpret their find – one is YEC and the other evolutionist. In the next room, there are several wall plaques (plaques isn’t quite the right word but I can’t think of how else to describe them) show different explanations of various evidence side by side. One plaque, for example, has the evolutionary “tree of life” with the first organism living ~4 billion years ago. Next to it is the YEC “orchard” of life showing a variety of species descending from a single created kind.

In the next area were some displays of people trusting or rejecting the word. I recall there was a statue of Luther nailing his 95 theses to a door. There was a Gutenberg bible and a Hebrew text smuggled out of Iraq in a car tire just before the deposing of Sadam. On the far wall was a mural depicting a scene from the Scopes trial. Just before leaving the room, there was a copy of Charles Templeton’s book, Farewell to God, with a quote explaining how he rejected a belief in God based, in part, on not believing the Genesis account of creation.

The next area was built like a city street or alley with walls covered with graffiti depicting a type of “dark side” or life without God. In a small room there were some college age kids on monitors with facts being displayed how there are many young adults leaving the church.

Up until now, an emphasis has been on contrasting 2 world views: A natural view without God and a Christian view. From here, the remainder of the exhibits revolve around the 7 C’s of creation: Creation, Curse, Catastrophe, Confusion, Christ, Crucifixion, and Consummation.

The 1st C is kicked off in a small (30 or so seats) theater with a video dramatization of Genesis 1. It’s extremely well done. Leaving that room, there’s an area with several picture/plaques discussing the unique design of creation. There’s a monitor showing a 1 minute loop of the creation of Adam. Just past this, the real meat of the museum begins.

There’s a long pathway which winds past scenes from Genesis. The first scene is of Adam naming the animals. Several life sized animals are exhibited. There had to be a tremendous amount of artistic license used in creating the animals since we have no way of knowing what the original kinds looked like. I remember there were some horse like animals; they had zebra like faces and manes but their coats were a mixture of spots and stripes. There was also a leopard like cat and a cougar like cat, the latter with a small mane. There were also 2 dino-kind animal statues.

The next scene was of the creation of Eve. Then finally, a scene with Adam and Eve standing waist deep in a pond with a serpent looking down on them from a tree.

This is the start of the curse section.

Around the corner a display case with just the serpent. It was portrayed as being red with mane around its head like a horned toad. From there was a scene of Adam and Eve wearing skins and standing next to an altar with 2 sacrificed animals on it.

Immediately past this room is a large area with an animatronic dino. It’s standing over a small, dead dino either having just killed it or about to scavenge it. All along this area are small plaques discussing how certain condition may have come to be in the world: diseases, venom, etc.

Next was Cain* with a small garden in front of a brick home. There were 2 small children playing nearby and a pregnant woman (I suppose Cain’s wife) standing on a step by the door. On the wall across from the display was a plaque with the question, “Where did Cain get his wife?” There was a long explanation below which I didn’t read. Ken Ham says this is THE most asked question he gets while lecturing.

[*Added in edit. On a subsequent visit to the museum, I realized this was not Cain and his wife but Adam and Eve. The 2 children playing presumably were Cain and Abel.]

Next was a scene of Cain standing over a dead Abel.

Here began the Catastrophe section.

The first scene was an animated Methuselah talking about how he was alive while Adam was and knew what the world was once like. Now, his grandson Noah had been warned of God’s judgment. The next room depicts the construction of the Ark. One animated workman is talking about how foolish it is to be building the Ark. In another area, Noah is overseeing things as he talks to one worker about coming on the Ark with them. One plaque says the Ark in the room represents about 1% of the actual Ark.

In the next area are several Ark models. One gives a good depiction of scale by showing several animals outside the Ark. There was good attention to detail because I noticed several tree stumps all around the Ark demonstrating how many trees would have been cut down in the immediate area to build the Ark. The exhibit did make one small mistake by having both horses and zebras displayed outside the Ark. I think both would have been represented by a single pair of horse-kind.

A TV monitor in the room showed a 1-2 minute loop of the world just before the flood. It did not portray a “canopy” collapsing. Instead, it showed great fissures (the fountains of the deep) bursting open with water shooting far into the air. The clip ends with 2 small girls looking out the window of their home and seeing a tidal wave coming.

The next room displays what might be the most “scientific” part of the tour. There are several photos from the Mt. St. Helen’s eruption. Explanations of how certain geological formations are formed by water.

I believe it was here also that discussed some of the YEC theories about plate tectonics.

Next began the Confusion area of the museum. A monitor played a short vignette on the account of the Tower of Babel. One wall displayed people of various cultures with the “One Blood” account of how different ethnic groups arose. It also discussed racism and how some people incorrectly consider people of different skin color to be qualitatively different.

Finally, the final C’s (Christ, Crucifixion, and Consummation) were presented in a 10-15 minute video that explained how Christ was born to be the Lamb of God and His death was the payment for our sins. Ultimately, the world would be restored to its original, perfect state. It was very moving and after the movie, a staff member announced there were staff members available to discuss what was shown (almost like an invitation).

Honestly, the museum was not quite what I expected. While there were some dinos in different places, and some technical stuff, the over impression of the museum was more evangelical. It didn’t go out of its way to bash evolution or present YEC over ToE as the better model. Instead, it simply presented the events as the Bible as actual history.

The Bookstore

The tour of the museum ends in the bookstore (a fairly common tactic; the aquarium in this area does the same thing). Like everything else in the museum, it’s done up very well. It has a sort of Barnes and Noble feel with its wooden bookcases – except here there is a dragon-like dino right in the middle of the room. There are many books/DVDs on creation of course, but there are other Christian books as well: there are some bibles, bible commentaries, and some classics like Pilgrim’s Progress. I was surprised how few toys and souvenirs there were for children. They had some interesting novelties like real dino egg shell fragments and some biblical coins (a widow’s mite and a drachnia) The prices were reasonable for a gift shop. I bought my son a pack of 12 toy dinos and a magazine for myself for a total of $11.

The Noah Café/Grill

The food was typical for a museum. It was served cafeteria style. Again the prices were reasonable for a place like this. We bought a 10 piece chicken nugget to share, mac/cheese, a pop and 2 candy bars for $8.

The floor of the café was made to look like rock strewn with fossils. On the back of the café was a beautiful mural of Noah’s ark resting on a mountain with a rainbow above it. The tables and benches were wooden to give the room a feel like being inside a wooden boat.

We ate on the large patio area that overlooked the pond and wilderness trails. At the bottom of a flight of stairs was a huge wooden deck that stretched out over the lake.

The Wilderness Trail

There was a meandering trail that was still being worked on. It’s not a “hike” by any means. The whole thing is wheel chair accessible. A lot of the plants looked like they had just been planted. Along the way were some topiary bushes of deer, dinos, and a sort of Loch Ness looking one at the water’s edge.

There were 3 waterfalls and 4-5 wooden bridges. There were also 2 rope bridges: one was suspended and the other floating.

Men in White

This was a 20-25 minute movie shown in the museum’s special effects theater. The theater seats around 200. The special effects include seats that vibrate as a dino walks by and mists of water during the flood scene.

The Men in White movie is introduced as a “satire” and some of the characters are identified as “stereotypes.” I would say rather they are caricatures of certain types of evolutionists. The movie is meant to be light hearted and not a “slam” on evolution.It starts with an animatronic girl named Wendy sitting in front of a camp fire facing the screen. On the screen is a beautiful panorama of a canyon and the night sky. She’s asking the typical questions: why am I here, is there a God, etc? Suddenly, 2 angels appear (named Mike & Gabe) and start talking about how there is a God who created the world.

The scene cuts to the caricatures of a scientist, a school teacher, and a philosopher going on about the “facts” of evolution and “there is no God.” When a student questions the teacher about the possibility evolution might not be true, she answers, “You’re violating the constitution of the United States and the separation of church and state!” It’s really kind of funny the way she says it.

It then has a news interview with Susan TeeVee and Ed U. Kashan. Ed is citing the “facts” about how radiometric dating has proved the earth is 4.2 Billion years old and Susan is nodding along in agreement with everything he says. Mike & Gabe hit pause on their remote every few minutes and interject a YEC explanation of the evidence.

A little later, the 2 angels are in a classroom where a teacher is showing a slide show about YellowstonePark and discusses the evolutionary angle of it. Mike and Gabe begin asking the teacher tough questions and offering some evidence for a young earth.

The movie wasn’t attempting to be “scientific” but some of the evidences talked about for a young earth were the helium present in ancient zircon, the amount of salt in the ocean, decay of the earth’s magnetic field, etc.

In the end, Wendy had not made up her mind, but she was at least considering both options.

Of everything I’d seen in the entire museum, this was the most “confrontational” in contrasting YEC and evolution. Even though the evolutionists were portrayed in caricature, they were still giving the same lines I always hear from evolutionists. Also, Mike & Gabe never said evolution was wrong or creation was right. Only that evolution wasn’t proven and there are other explanations for the “evidence” which evolution presents.

While obviously favoring the YEC position, the movie was sending the message just to question the “facts” of evolution and decide for yourself.