The Panda's Thumb Legacy Archive — pandasthumb.net

Welcome to the Creation Museum

Posted 27 May 2007 by Guest Contributor

By Martha Heil, an editor at the American Institute of Physics Answers in Genesis, the biblical literalist ministry had a local advance opening of its young-earth creationism museum today. It claims that the museum scientifically proves the Word: that the earth was created in six days, that dinosaurs with pointy stabbing teeth ate only plants before the fall of humankind, and that dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time. They also would not let scientists in their gates today. Today was for the believers. Today was also a carefully orchestrated event for people who would carry their message to the citizens of the nation. A huge press conference was planned and drew reporters from all over the country. Tomorrow, in another post, we'll look carefully at the news stories those messengers carried and see the impact that this ministry had on the conversation about a museum that purports to do science, but deliberately misleads its visitors using scientific terms and hand-picked facts. Today, since scientists weren't allowed near the place lest they interrupt Answers in Genesis' well-funded and well-guarded version of the history of the Earth and the development of the species on it, I couldn't stay. I had hoped to introduce the attending journalists to some scientists, not so they could get "the other side of the story", but so they could get some perspective. This museum is not a museum of science. It's a museum of faith, carefully cloaked in scientific garb, to help prove the truth of the Christian bible. Why is this a concern for scientists, such as the ones that have signed petitions protesting the museum, or those who couldn't be there but are quietly fuming? Because this museum distorts science. It's an educational attraction, carrying in this morning at least one schoolbus in through a long line of cars waiting at the iron gates. It shows first the scientific viewpoint places a scientific fact in front of the visitor, then "debunks" the years of research and testing that went into ascertaining that piece of knowledge with carefully chosen phrases that reinforce a specific religious viewpoint. Down the road from the creationism displays, there is a roadside attraction that scientists aren't worried about. The Living Word Outdoor Drama promises plays from biblical times, staged for religious education and information. It has live animals in its shows, invites concert performers to sing and causes no ire in the scientific community. Why? Because it's honest. It aims to renew or inspire your faith, but it doesn't try to deliberately mislead people using scientific terms that many people find confusing even while they're in school and have the job of learning those terms. Down the road also and the place where I spent most of my day is Big Bone Lick State Park, with campgrounds, a lake, live bison, and a small paleonotological museum. Being a state park, it's nowhere near as well funded as the Answers in Genesis shop. It has a few displays of the huge mammoth bones that were found preserved in the sulfur and salt swamps in the area. The salt found here allowed Native Americans to cure meat, and so the traces of those early dwellers on our continent are also found here. Outside the state park's museum, I met a physicist and astronomer who come one Saturday a month to show visitors views of the Sun and its explosive activity through a solar telescope. They've been coming for years, and their college campus is about to open a planetarium for the students. It's been in the works for a long time, due to the ups and downs of educational funding, and these teachers hope later to do outreach efforts like bringing in younger students to see the discoveries of science as shown in the sky. Their planetarium runs on the same computer system as the planetarium at the Answers in Genesis attraction. However, the astronomers will show students what the great enterprise of science has discovered. The Answers in Genesis theme park has been reported to have cost $27 million dollars. However, until tax time, we won't know if those 27 million dollars are all from small donors, as the directors like to imply. The state-of-the-art planetarium system was donated and groups of volunteers came to help build the museum. Ken Ham, the founder, is a dedicated fundraiser and publicist. Does the museum have large donors that fund this display of faith? This well-crafted educational site also has accompanying instructional materials for students of all ages. It has found a few folks with PhD's who serve as the talking heads and the justification that Answers in Genesis is doing science. It's even implied that those who don't visit the museum can't critique it, because there must be some startling new discoveries inside. But according to the Answers in Genesis website, the questions the museum poses are old ones, ones that have been shown to be untrue many times over by those whose business is testing hypotheses and performing experiments to get data. Scientists of all religions can come together and do great science, because the process of science has safeguards set in it to help overcome human biases. Scientists can repeat others' tests. They can look at data gathered and evaluate whether the most logical conclusion has been drawn. The system called peer-review, in which a scientific manuscript is sent to colleagues in the field for evaluation, is there to weed out weak conclusions and help improve ways of testing. Religion can be a large part of scientist's life and is, for many practicing scientists---but at the work bench, it's no more relevant to the experiment than the scientist's favorite football team. When someone begins with a conclusion---such as that dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time---and then cherry-picks facts that support the conclusion, that's not science. That's all. Please don't be confused.

57 Comments

Ron Okimoto · 27 May 2007

Some things that should probalby be dropped from this type of piece are:

Why concentrate on where the money came from if you don't know where it came from? It is transparent inuendo that something isn't on the up and up or the sources are suspect when no one knows if that is the case or not.

Why make claims about the "science" when you haven't been there and seen it? This piece should have been written after going through the museum and demonstrates a preconceived notion of what to expect. Sure you can go to the AIG web site and look at their bogus arguments, but we are talking science here, and this person should have waited until she had the experience to make her claims. What is she going to do, appologize if she was wrong? I realize that there is very little chance of anything the AIG is involved in amounting to jack, but when you are ragging on someone else about their lack of sound methodology, you should have all your ducks in a row.

Ron Okimoto · 27 May 2007

Some things that should probalby be dropped from this type of piece are:

Why concentrate on where the money came from if you don't know where it came from? It is transparent inuendo that something isn't on the up and up or the sources are suspect when no one knows if that is the case or not.

Why make claims about the "science" when you haven't been there and seen it? This piece should have been written after going through the museum and demonstrates a preconceived notion of what to expect. Sure you can go to the AIG web site and look at their bogus arguments, but we are talking science here, and this person should have waited until she had the experience to make her claims. What is she going to do, appologize if she was wrong? I realize that there is very little chance of anything the AIG is involved in amounting to jack, but when you are ragging on someone else about their lack of sound methodology, you should have all your ducks in a row.

PC2 · 27 May 2007

Since this is in the same vain as the blog Jason Rosenhouse submitted on the 23rd, I will make the same critique of this entry.
I find it interesting that you pick on young earth creationists who believe in a ,of course, scientifically indefencible position (a position which I do not hold). Yet, you defend the equally scientifically indefencible position of the cambrian explosion being a result of purely blind chance. It seems to me if you were truly worried about finding the real truth of the matter you would be equally critical of the fantastic claims made for the materialistic philosophy of purely blind chance transmuting jellyfish into dinosuars and then the equally fantastic claim of dinosaurs transmuting into ducks chickens or whatever, not to mention polar bears into whales. Shoot, science can't even change one bacteria population type into another bacteria population type despite extensive efforts to do so! To rail against someone who believes in young earth creationism because he finds such materialistic fables preposterous is to fail to take a good hard look in the mirror and see how fantastically preposterous your story truly is. Of course you probably will call me crazy but hey I'm no more crazy than you believing pigs can someday fly.

snaxalotl · 27 May 2007

pc2, you write like you've never read panda's thumb before. more incisive commentators than you are routinely ignored for not bringing anything new to the argument.

ron, I agree about the money. it's sad what the deluded waste their money on, but it's their money, bless them. But I think it's pretty reasonable not to distinguish between an organization and the museum they're running. I think we can reasonably assume that what AIG presents inside the museum is not too different from their years of monotonously samey presentations outside of it.

raven · 27 May 2007

The creation museum might well backfire on the creos. Ham has dinosaurs wandering around with mammoths and humans, a supercontinent that broke up 4,000 years ago with runaway plate tectonics rafting marsupials to Australia at miles/year speeds. Needless to say, the whole ad hocracy conflicts with most of the last 400 years of science.

In the conflict between a pack of ad hoc fairy tales and reality, reality will eventually win. Not to say that it won't necessarily be soon.

PS, PC2 is a troll who hasn't met a crackpot idea he doesn't like. One of his shining moments was a starring role as an HIV/AIDS denier. Caveat, any thread where he trolls up some conflict, vears off course and hits bottom immediately. He can stay incoherent far longer (decades) then most can stay interested.

Don Smith, FCD · 27 May 2007

realPC,

The word is indefensible.

Natural selection is not a random process and hence the Cambrian explosion is not the result of "blind chance". It maybe said to be the result of blind processes (i.e. not directed processes), but not blind chance. That's the bit you always ignore.

David Stanton · 27 May 2007

PC2 wrote:

"It seems to me if you were truly worried about finding the real truth of the matter you would be equally critical of the fantastic claims made for the materialistic philosophy of purely blind chance transmuting jellyfish into dinosuars and then the equally fantastic claim of dinosaurs transmuting into ducks chickens or whatever, not to mention polar bears into whales."

I don't know who has been feeding this rubbish to this guy, or why he is apparently buying it (but I can make a good guess on both accounts). Got any references for any of those claims PC2? Let's just pick one at random shall we? How about the polar bears into whales routine? As anyone at all familiar with the literature knows, there is very good evidence from a number of independent sources, that whales are descended from terrestrial ancestors, specifically artiodactyls. No polar bears involved. Here are a few references where some of the evidence can be found:

Mitochondrial DNA J. Mol. Evo. 50:569-578 (2002)

Casein Genes Mol. Bio. Evo. 13:954-963 (1996)

Overlapping Genes Nuc. Acid Res. 30(13):2906-2910 (2000)

SINE Insertions Nature 388:666-370 (1997)

Of course, this is just the tip of the iceberg. There is a vast literature which is constantly growing. All of the evidence points to exactly the same conclusion. If you don't want to believe it, fine. If you want to do the research yourself, fine. Just don't whine about scientists not being critical. Don't complain about nobody wanting to find the real truth.

As for the "blind chance" argument, once again, nobody in their right mind thinks that. Get over it. Grow up and make a real argument. Don't keep going over the same old crap over and over. It's boring.

Ron Okimoto · 27 May 2007

snaxalotl wrote:

ron, I agree about the money. it's sad what the deluded waste their money on, but it's their money, bless them. But I think it's pretty reasonable not to distinguish between an organization and the museum they're running. I think we can reasonably assume that what AIG presents inside the museum is not too different from their years of monotonously samey presentations outside of it.

I admit that it is reasonable to assume that the museum's AIG junk is bogus, but when you are trying to promote science, shouldn't you stick to the actual observation and not jump to conclusions beforehand? What is the article trying to support?

LaPopessa · 27 May 2007

What I've never been able to understand is the need of some creationists to deny evolution in order to believe in creationism. Faith is the basis of religion. Faith in God is what leads me to know that my belief in him is not threatened by evolution. God gave us brains and we would be poor children if we didn't use them. To learn. To explore. To discover. To reason. Why would some want to so limit God's gifts to us by denying our ability to reason? If someone need to believe in creationism, fine. That's their belief. When people try and turn belief into science, that's giving up on the beauty of faith, not celebrating it.

PC2 · 27 May 2007

Don Smith,
Natural Selection as a creative force is shown by hard science to be constrained by the information that is already in the DNA. In other words species or "kinds" are limited by walls on every side in which selection is useless. From the best evidence we have reproductive isolation of sub-species is because genetic information is being lost not gained in the genome. Natural selection is also severely constrained as a creative force by the requirement of the precisely correct mutation happening at the proper time that the "natural selection would choose for it. The fossil record is completely silent on billions and billions of missing links in the supposed evolutionary scenario. Dr. Sanford has also shown that most mutations to DNA are slightly negative thus are below the radar of Natural selection. He calls the principle Genetic Entropy and has written a book on it. The problem of slightly harmful mutations becomes compounded with each passing generation until "Genetic Meltdown occurs. There is no known unchallenged beneficial mutations despite millions of observations for unchallengable mutations. No sir Mr. smith the news is not good for evolution.

David Stanton · 27 May 2007

Raven,

I agree. He's already spouting that Sanford nonsense again. That crap has already been dumped on at least two other threads. What a nutcase. I don't intend to respond to him again. I suggest we all take Raven's suggestion and do likewise. I know we'll be accused of running away, etc. Who cares?

Now if they had a display in the musaeum of a polar bear turning into a whale, then at least his post would be on topic. What are the odds of that?

Don Smith, FCD · 27 May 2007

Well I guess that settles it since PC2 is responding to a comment directed at realPC ;}

Boy, post a bunch of drivel with no evidence to back it attacking the efficacy of NS. All I said was that your statement of "blind chance" being behind the Cambrian explosion is an incorrect assessment of the ToE. You seem to be agreeing with me on that point.

BTW, if your faith is so weak that should Evolution be shown to you to be true, you would lose that faith, I submit you have little faith. Your faith is as weak as the reed blown every which way in the wind, or the house built upon sand that is washed away in the storm. Only if you can accept what science has shown and still believe, then will your faith be strong. Many scientists do exactly that, I know you can too.

Arthur Hunt · 27 May 2007

From Martha's blog, the first paragraph:

"The shaggy K-9 unit---also known as a police dog --- at the entrance to the gates was not there as an example of artificial selection, in which the breeder's hand imitates nature's by bringing out traits inherent in dog DNA, using selective pressure to fit the required environmental niche---superior sense of smell, lightning fast reflexes and unparalleled obedience. No, the dog, like the guns in holsters, the security stops, and the burly men in uniform, all meant one thing: those who are a threat will not be tolerated here."

Guard dogs. Armed security. Now that sounds like a family-friendly sort of place.

snaxalotl · 27 May 2007

Natural Selection as a creative force is shown by hard science blah blah blah

— pc2
pc2 is apparently using "hard science" in the sense of "science that I find very difficult" now I have a pretty good idea why pc2 writes the way he does. what I don't understand is why you other guys are so heroically arguing with him. clearly he isn't making any statements he hasn't seen refuted dozens of times, so he's obviously completely immune to refutation. what can you possibly expect will happen when he sees your carefully marshaled arguments? Are you perhaps the sort of people who make jokes about someone's funny name expecting they'll find you marvelously original? do you have no powers of prediction? people like pc2 deserve a wry smile; maybe the warning that nobody finds him very thought provoking; maybe some gentle ribbing. But painstaking attempts to correct his misunderstandings ... really ...

Sir_Toejam · 27 May 2007

Why make claims about the "science" when you haven't been there and seen it?

surely you're not serious? ever heard the term, "reasonable assumption"? far more than reasonable in this case.

Sure you can go to the AIG web site and look at their bogus arguments,

or look at their public press releases, or anything else for that matter. I suppose if I pointed out a pile of dog crap on the ground to you, just seeing it and smelling it just wouldn't be enough for you, would it?

PC2 · 27 May 2007

Don Smith,
You claim the almighty power of natural selection to create the vast interrelated complexity of life around us. Yet you ignore the fact of the hard evidence. You have no beneficial mutations in which to select from and even if there were an unambiguously minor beneficial mutation it would be still carry the weight of all the slightly negative mutations with it. (Sanford;Genetic Entropy 2005)

Bergman (2004) has studied the topic of beneficial mutations. Among other things, he did a simple literature search via Biological Abstracts and Medline. He found 453,732 "mutation" hits, but among these only 186 mentioned the word "beneficial" (about 4 in 10,000). When those 186 references were reviewed, almost all the presumed "beneficial mutations" were only beneficial in a very narrow sense- but each mutation consistently involved loss of function changes-hence loss of information. While it is almost universally accepted that beneficial (information creating) mutations must occur, this belief seems to be based upon uncritical acceptance of RM/NS, rather than upon any actual evidence. I do not doubt there are beneficial mutations as evidenced by rapid adaptation yet I contest the fact that they #1 Build meaningful information in the genome instead of degrade preexisting information in the genome #2 That "beneficial" mutations/adaptations are truly and purely random since the adaptation is fantastically mathmatically improbable due to size of genome and limit of time i.e. evidence points to a preexisting feedback loop is indicated in generating the beneficial adaptation.

David B. Benson · 27 May 2007

More off-topic diarrhea of the mouth from poster PC2.

Who is in violation of the rules with now, his third handle...

Jeffrey K McKee · 27 May 2007

Thanks, Martha. You Go, scientist!

Cheers,
Jeff

Don Smith, FCD · 27 May 2007

Sorry folks. My mistake. Won't hapen again.

ERV · 27 May 2007

Arthur Hunt-- Holy crap!

Even Disney World/Land doesnt have armed security! What the hell???

Ron Okimoto · 27 May 2007

Sir toejam wrote:

I suppose if I pointed out a pile of dog crap on the ground to you, just seeing it and smelling it just wouldn't be enough for you, would it?

That isn't what I said and you know it, so what is your problem? Unfortunately this wasn't like observing the effects of an electron, or wondering about a historical event. The author could have waited and actually looked before they leaped, but just like the fools that were being castigated, felt that wasn't necessary. I just pointed it out. If you want to call that good scholarship go ahead, but don't expect most people to agree with you. If you want to fight stupidity and dishonesty, that doesn't seem to be the way to do it. Your input wouldn't help either. Justify that last sentence in the context of what I wrote. Pretty sad isn't it? Why did you write it? What was the point of doing something that stupid to support a point that is obviously bogus? If you don't want the accusation of double standards just have one. Why is that so bad that you thought that you needed to embellish your response? Isn't that a creationist tactic?

Martha Heil · 27 May 2007

CORRECTION: I do not work for the American Physical Society. i am an editro at the American Institute of Physics. I know they sound similar, but please correct the version above, because they are entirely separate entities, with individual views on any issue.

thanks,
Martha Heil

Sir_Toejam · 27 May 2007

That isn't what I said and you know it, so what is your problem?

my problem is with you saying:

Why make claims about the "science" when you haven't been there and seen it?

because if that ISN'T what you meant, you shouldn't have said it, idiot.

Sir_Toejam · 27 May 2007

but don't expect most people to agree with you.

raise your hands all, if you think that we don't have enough evidence to predict exactly the nature of the creation museum, given that Hamm himself has described its purpose and construction in detail, and all of the arguments that would be presented have already been detailed by AIG and Hamm repeatedly. anyone?

Bob Cornwall · 27 May 2007

Indeed, and we in the religious community, especially we who are pastors who don't believe this garbage want to say. Please, there is a much more responsible way to interpret the Bible, one that need not indulge in bad science.

Answers in Genesis doesn't speak for me!!!!

Science Avenger · 27 May 2007

The last time I was in a group where the "if you weren't there you can't talk" argument was deemed impressive was in a low-rent pool hall.

And, with respect, why is that lying, useless, belching bunghole of a troll allowed to continue to fuck up these threads? I think you guys running the show here have gone far beyond reasonable in your patience.

PvM · 27 May 2007

One of the foremost experts on the Cambrian, Dr Valentine, who is often misquoted by ID proponents is on the record as stating that

The title of this book, modeled on that of the greatest biological work ever written, is in homage to the greatest biologist who has ever lived. Darwin himself puzzled over but could not cover the ground that is reviewed here, simply because the relevant fossils, genes, and their molecules, end even the body plans of many of the phyla, were quite unknown in his day. Nevertheless, the evidence from these many additional souces of data simply confirm that Darwin was correct in his conclusions that all living things have descended from a commmon anscestor and can be placed within a tree of life, and that the principle process guiding their descent has been natural selection. The data on which this book is based have accumulated over the nearly century and a half since Darwin published On the Origin of Species, some gradually, but much in a rush in the last several decades. I have been working on this book for well over a decade, and much of that time has been spent in trying to keep up with the flood of incredibly interesting findings reported from outcrops and laboratories. I am stopping now not because there is a lull in the pace of new discoveries (which if anything is still picking up), but because there never will be a natural stopping place anyway, and because the outlines of early metazoan history have gradually emerged from mysteries to testable hypotheses. (Valentine On the origin of phyla 2004, preface)

Rolf Aalberg · 28 May 2007

PC2 - If you would like to discuss from your point of view, I wouldn't mind discussing with you - but that would have to be done on another forum that Pandas Thumb! You may not be aware of it, but on PT most of the contributors are bona fide scientists or people with sufficient understanding and insight into science that they really don't want to or care to argue with you - you are worlds apart, sharing no common ground.

But if you take your business to the talk.origins newsgroup, a lot of people from different walks of life will be most happy to debate your arguments. (Well, actually, debunk all the misconceptions you are throwing around).

FYI, I, like you, am not a scientist. the only difference (and that's no small difference!) being that I try - not only to learn, but also apply my intellect to appreciate and understand what science actually says; to understand the realities behind sometimes dry scientific observations.

Looking forward to seeing you on talk.origins, Rolf

Rolf Aalberg · 28 May 2007

Sorry about the 'bona fide', guys - it just popped off the top of my head. A rose is a rose...

Peter Henderson · 28 May 2007

Looking forward to seeing you on talk.origins, Rolf

Does this mean that the Talk origins site is going to start updating again ? I've been watching both Fox News and CNN (both on Sky Digital over here) as well as BBC News 24 and Sky News to see if there's any coverage of the opening ceremony. So far there's been nowt, except for the tail end of an interview with Ken Ham on the BBC Radio Ulster news at lunchtime. Maybe it's too early in the day here. If the museum was in NI I'd bet it would attract huge crowds. Ham spoke at the Waterfront hall in Belfast in 2005. 2,000 people turned up, filling the auditorium to capacity. Does this mean that the education system here is as bad as that in the US ???

Ron Okimoto · 28 May 2007

Sir Toe Jam wrote:

raise your hands all, if you think that we don't have enough evidence to predict exactly the nature of the creation museum, given that Hamm himself has described its purpose and construction in detail, and all of the arguments that would be presented have already been detailed by AIG and Hamm repeatedly. anyone?

Science avenger wrote:

The last time I was in a group where the "if you weren't there you can't talk" argument was deemed impressive was in a low-rent pool hall.

Nope, guys that wasn't the argument and I think that you know it. Making it out to be that argument is what I was complaining about. The fact is that if you want to take the high ground. Take the high ground. It isn't like this person couldn't check. It isn't like it was going to be the end of the world if she didn't wait. Just like she jumped the gun on the funding issue, why jump the gun on the science issue? I already admitted in the first post that there was enough evidence to claim that what the guys at the AIG could put together was bogus, but the point was that if you are castigating people for their scientific shortcomings you should have all your ducks in a row. She didn't. Anyone deny that? How many people get jumped on for spelling around here? We aren't talking about a spelling mistake, here.

demallien · 28 May 2007

RealPC,

OK, I give up. We know how mutations happen, we even know how to stimulate them. We know that their effect is random (which genes are affected etc). Mutations are observable science, and by that, I mean observable today, right now, in a lab.

You state that mutations can only result in a loss of information. OK, sure, why not. Let's test that idea:

Take piece of DNA, with a sequence of GCTCTCTACTCT. Hit it with a mutation so that it becomes GCTCTCTGCTCT. Now, according to your braindead theory, this must result in a loss of information. That is, there is less information in the sequence GCTCTCTGCTCT than in the sequence GCTCTCTACTCT. Now, let's imagine the equally possible mutation which reverses this change, so the sequence goes from GCTCTCTGCTCT to GCTCTCTACTCT. Now, we know from observable science that this is an equally possible mutation. The problem is that your theory demands that GCTCTCTGCTCT has less information than GCTCTCTACTCT, but our second mutation moves from the former to the latter, hence increasing information.

It's just maths and observable science... And you're just wrong...

Ron Okimoto · 28 May 2007

Sir Toe Jam wrote:

raise your hands all, if you think that we don't have enough evidence to predict exactly the nature of the creation museum, given that Hamm himself has described its purpose and construction in detail, and all of the arguments that would be presented have already been detailed by AIG and Hamm repeatedly. anyone?

Science avenger wrote:

The last time I was in a group where the "if you weren't there you can't talk" argument was deemed impressive was in a low-rent pool hall.

Nope, guys that wasn't the argument and I think that you know it. Making it out to be that argument is what I was complaining about. The fact is that if you want to take the high ground. Take the high ground. It isn't like this person couldn't check. It isn't like it was going to be the end of the world if she didn't wait. Just like she jumped the gun on the funding issue, why jump the gun on the science issue? I already admitted in the initial post that there was enough evidence to claim that whatever the guys at the AIG could put together would be bogus, but the point was that if you are castigating people for their scientific shortcomings you should have all your ducks in a row. She didn't. Anyone deny that? How many people get jumped on for spelling around here? We aren't talking about a spelling mistake, here.

Ron Okimoto · 28 May 2007

How could I double post 20 minutes apart? As far as I know I only submitted once.

David Stanton · 28 May 2007

demallien,

Of course PC is wrong. He doesn't care. Your argument has been used before on him. He knows this already. He has never tried to refute the argument. All he wants is to derail threads. All he wants is to get scientists arguing among themselves in order to obscure the real issues. That is the only effect of his mindless blubbering ever has. His post has nothing at all to do with the topic of this thread, it never does. How did he manage to turn a discussion about a museum into a discussion of mutations? I think he just tries to push our buttons by using arguments he thinks we can't help but respond to. He already knows that most of us know better. I have decided that it just isn't worth it any more. If the moderators won't ban him for violating the rules, I at least don't have to respond and neither do you or anyone else. The worst thing you can do to someone who wants attention is not give it to them.

David Stanton · 28 May 2007

Oh yea, I almost forgot:

"Quoth the raven, nevermore."

(I always wanted to use that line. Thanks raven).

Science Avenger · 28 May 2007

Ron Okimoto wrote: I already admitted in the first post that there was enough evidence to claim that what the guys at the AIG could put together was bogus, but the point was that if you are castigating people for their scientific shortcomings you should have all your ducks in a row. She didn't. Anyone deny that?
Yes, because at the core of what you are saying is still the "if you weren't there you can't talk argument". Once that's tossed, all her ducks ARE in a row.

stevaroni · 28 May 2007

Does anybody know how the museum is structured financially?

Is it privately held, or is it some sort of public company?

If the later, is it in a structure that will it have to release financial statements, like, say, Disney?

I'd be really curious if they're going to get enough traffic to turn a profit once the fanfare wears off. I sort of see it as a one-shot deal for the ignorant creation faction that wants to bring their kids and say "see - all that stuff I teach you is real", but that market is somewhat limited, even in Kentucky

Moses · 28 May 2007

Comment #179221 Posted by Ron Okimoto on May 27, 2007 7:47 AM (e) Some things that should probalby be dropped from this type of piece are: Why concentrate on where the money came from if you don't know where it came from? It is transparent inuendo that something isn't on the up and up or the sources are suspect when no one knows if that is the case or not.

Because of whom is making the claims and the history of such claims in the past. The Discovery Institute for lying about Science is funded by a multi-millionaire right-wing crank who's goal is the destruction of Science and the Constitution so he can drag us back to the 8th century. By tracing the money, we can see the agenda. Thus it is a legitimate area of inquiry.

Why make claims about the "science" when you haven't been there and seen it?

1. Because they've TOLD us what to expect. 2. Because this isn't their first effort. Just their newest and biggest.

This piece should have been written after going through the museum and demonstrates a preconceived notion of what to expect. Sure you can go to the AIG web site and look at their bogus arguments, but we are talking science here, and this person should have waited until she had the experience to make her claims.

Bullfeathers. If we have a group of people who've been telling us "SCIENCE" LIES for decades then they tell us they're building this huge museum to glorify their lies and tell us what's in it... I mean, WTF? For YEARS Ken Ham has been telling us about his museum and the exhibits it'll contain. Nobody with a brain needs to actually visit the museum to get the tiny details because the LIES ARE ALL BIG.

What is she going to do, appologize if she was wrong? I realize that there is very little chance of anything the AIG is involved in amounting to jack, but when you are ragging on someone else about their lack of sound methodology, you should have all your ducks in a row.

:rollseyes: Before you criticize maybe you should realize that this isn't a surprise... We've known about Ham's NEW museum for a long time. This is from TWO YEARS AGO (and 11 years into the process):

Ready to fight for beliefs Ham is ready for a fight over his beliefs --- based on a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis, the first book of the Old Testament. "It's a foundational battle," said Ham, a native of Australia who still speaks with an accent. "You've got to get people believing the right history --- and believing that you can trust the Bible." Among Ham's beliefs are that the Earth is about 6,000 years old, a figure arrived at by tracing the biblical genealogies, and not 4.5 billion years, as mainstream scientists say; that the Grand Canyon was formed not by erosion over millions of years, but by floodwaters in a matter of days or weeks; and that dinosaurs and man once coexisted, and dozens of the creatures --- including Tyrannosaurus rex ---were passengers on the ark built by Noah. Although the Creation Museum's full opening is still two years away, already a buzz is building. "When that museum is finished, it's going to be Cincinnati's No. 1 tourist attraction," says the Rev. Jerry Falwell, nationally known Baptist evangelist and chancellor of Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va. "It's going to be a mini-Disney World."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7954411/

Moses · 28 May 2007

Comment #179509 Posted by Ron Okimoto on May 28, 2007 9:09 AM (e)

Nope, guys that wasn't the argument and I think that you know it. Making it out to be that argument is what I was complaining about. The fact is that if you want to take the high ground. Take the high ground. It isn't like this person couldn't check. It isn't like it was going to be the end of the world if she didn't wait. Just like she jumped the gun on the funding issue, why jump the gun on the science issue? I already admitted in the first post that there was enough evidence to claim that what the guys at the AIG could put together was bogus, but the point was that if you are castigating people for their scientific shortcomings you should have all your ducks in a row. She didn't. Anyone deny that?

Classic, really. This is not some mere "scientific" or "religion" issue. This is, at its core, a POLITICAL issue. And is one shot in a war by people who ARE ON RECORD as wanting to destroy both science and our constitutional protections from religious zealotry. Even though you're pretending otherwise. Also, this is not (from all appearances) an investigative journalistic piece, but an editorial on the events and people surrounding the events. As such, RAISING THE QUESTION of who funded this museum, and just how badly science is misrepresented in this museum (especially as THOSE WHO COULD CRITICIZE THE MUSEAM WERE BANNED FROM TOURING IT) is a LEGITIMATE AVENUE of questioning in this editorial. FWIW, you are allowed to ask rhetorical questions and take rhetorical positions in journalism and/or editorials. And, you don't necessarily have to answer them. Especially when those who need to answer them won't give you the time of day, save to lie or insult you.

Sir_Toejam · 28 May 2007

THOSE WHO COULD CRITICIZE THE MUSEAM WERE BANNED FROM TOURING IT

yeah, I got a big kick out of the irony of trying to convince the world you are presenting something scientific... by banning all the scientists from it. Only a true creobot could have thought of such a masterstroke.

Ron Okimoto · 28 May 2007

Science avenger wrote:

Yes, because at the core of what you are saying is still the "if you weren't there you can't talk argument". Once that's tossed, all her ducks ARE in a row.

Just like I said in the first post it demonstrates a preconceived notion of what she expected. I guess the high road isn't very high for a lot of people. I also see that her discussion of the AIGs financing of the museum may not have risen to a level high enough to get mentioned among the ducks in a row. No one denies that this is a political issue (Moses), but stooping to the level of the opposition is still stooping. What do we need this kind of junk for? Reality isn't good enough? I don't think so. There will be enough junk among the AIG exhibits for hundreds of such essays and they will be able to cite specific examples of what is actually there.

waldteufel · 28 May 2007

Bob Park, on his web page "What's New" put it better than anyone I've read so far:

"The museum is a monument to the failure of education."

PC2 · 28 May 2007

Demallien you state:
Take piece of DNA, with a sequence of GCTCTCTACTCT. Hit it with a mutation so that it becomes GCTCTCTGCTCT. Now, according to your braindead theory, this must result in a loss of information. That is, there is less information in the sequence GCTCTCTGCTCT than in the sequence GCTCTCTACTCT. Now, let's imagine the equally possible mutation which reverses this change, so the sequence goes from GCTCTCTGCTCT to GCTCTCTACTCT. Now, we know from observable science that this is an equally possible mutation. The problem is that your theory demands that GCTCTCTGCTCT has less information than GCTCTCTACTCT, but our second mutation moves from the former to the latter, hence increasing information.

That is exactly why I listed this study;
Bergman (2004) has studied the topic of beneficial mutations. Among other things, he did a simple literature search via Biological Abstracts and Medline. He found 453,732 "mutation" hits, but among these only 186 mentioned the word "beneficial" (about 4 in 10,000). When those 186 references were reviewed, almost all the presumed "beneficial mutations" were only beneficial in a very narrow sense- but each mutation consistently involved loss of function changes-hence loss of information.

You change one letter in your example and claim meaningful information is being created with no proof or studies to back you up whatsoever. Whereas I showed you exactly why beneficial mutations are exceedingly rare IF they exist at all! That is why I stressed the fact that most mutations are only slighty harmful and thus below the radar of natural selection. This problem is compounded with each passing generation and is passed throughout the entire population since it is not selected out. This principle of "Genetic Entropy" is crushing to the mutation/selection hypothesis. A very well written book on the subject, which sites numerous (non-biased) studies in its pages, is "Genetic Entropy" by Dr. J.C. Sanford. Dr. Sanford was Genetics professor for 25 years at Cornell, He invented the "Gene Gun" which is used in genetic research around the world. If you ate some corn this week you probably ate some that has been effected by his reasearch. He is often critcized for holding YEC beliefs, Yet clearly this belief are outside his field of excellence. An area where he clearly has excells over most of his peers. This book should be taken seriously by scholars everywhere. Though it is understandable to the lay reader, it has information that will challenge PhDs in the field of genetics.

Sir_Toejam · 28 May 2007

I guess the high road isn't very high for a lot of people.

that's got nothing to do with the fact that your argument was vapid.

Ron Okimoto · 28 May 2007

Sir toe jam wrote:

that's got nothing to do with the fact that your argument was vapid.

Why don't you start with the first post and work through it again? You are just demonstrating exactly what I said was a problem. You made the mistake of making up your own version of what the argument was and now all you can claim is that it was "vapid." Do you mean your made up version or what I actually wrote? I agree that your version was "vapid." What difference does that make? It should apply to anyone that is commenting on this junk. Why shouldn't the editor of some science organization or journal take the high road? Why not wait for the financial information to come in or argue against what is actually in the museum?

demallien · 29 May 2007

PC2, you are a buffoon. If one mutation causes a decrease in information, a second mutation, undoing the effect of the first mutation, is evidently increasing information. Duh!

David Stanton:
Yeah, I know PC2 is a troll. But why waste the perfectly good opportunity to refute a standard creationist canard for any passing lurkers?

Science Avenger · 29 May 2007

PC2 trolled: You change one letter in your example and claim meaningful information is being created with no proof or studies to back you up whatsoever.
Jesus you are an ignorant fucktard. It's a simple mathematical proof, so simple even you ought to be able to follow it. information(GCTCTCTGCTCT) = X information(GCTCTCTACTCT) = Y You claim mutations result in a loss of information. Therefore a mutation from GCTCTCTGCTCT to GCTCTCTACTCT would be a loss of information, hence X < Y. But by your same reasoning, a mutation from GCTCTCTACTCT to GCTCTCTGCTCT would be a loss of information, hence Y < X, which is a contradiction, which means what you are saying is, as usual, CRAP.

Science Avenger · 29 May 2007

Make that:

You claim mutations result in a loss of information. Therefore a mutation from GCTCTCTGCTCT to GCTCTCTACTCT would be a loss of information, hence X IS GREATER THAN Y.

But by your same reasoning, a mutation from GCTCTCTACTCT to GCTCTCTGCTCT would be a loss of information, hence Y IS GREATER THAN X, which is a contradiction, which means what you are saying is, as usual, CRAP.

Don Kincart · 27 March 2008

All the great minds on this site (the anti Christ) should,in ignorance,critisize something I doubt they have ever seen. Why,if you dont believe,do you feel that you have to tear it down?":You know,If you are right and I am wrong,it doesnt matter ,as there would be nothing after death. However if you are wrong,and I am right,you have hell to pay...

scottsman13 · 1 May 2008

Amazing, people commenting on theories you obviously have not even read. And commenting about Darwin whom you have not truly studied. Darwin was an amazing person, and had an incredible lust for knowledge. He indepth study of the earthworm is but one example.

I also cannot believe it was said that a Pastor stated that he does not believe in the book of GENESIS. I would not attend his Church.

Very different comments, and everyone trying to convince the other who is right, when you all really do not know.

Let me ask you a question : If you truly believe the idea that there is no God or Creator, and you are only going to live for 80 to 100 years old, and then life is over, why would you care about a museam and whether or not they have a guard dog outside or not. This would be your heaven. That is extremely sad. We sit on the Earth, a heavenly body where if it were a little further away from the sun we would all die, and if it were a little closer we would die. Life is fragil, and you should not take it for granite.

I hope you all find the truth and it does not escape you. What is truth and how would you know it if you heard it? Just like the movie states: "If I have to tell you, you will never know it."

Abdula alQrim · 3 October 2009

A museum based on a biased position, up held by a biased source or two (Sanford - good choice (sarcasm intended))Is really not worth being offended by. I might seriously read a creationist work if it didn't inevitably degenerate into a religious rant like Sanford's Genetic Entropy. Just thank God that not a nickle of tax money was wasted on this joke of an institution.

Abdula alQrim · 3 October 2009

scottsman13 said: Amazing, people commenting on theories you obviously have not even read. And commenting about Darwin whom you have not truly studied. Darwin was an amazing person, and had an incredible lust for knowledge. He indepth study of the earthworm is but one example. I also cannot believe it was said that a Pastor stated that he does not believe in the book of GENESIS. I would not attend his Church. Very different comments, and everyone trying to convince the other who is right, when you all really do not know. Let me ask you a question : If you truly believe the idea that there is no God or Creator, and you are only going to live for 80 to 100 years old, and then life is over, why would you care about a museam and whether or not they have a guard dog outside or not. This would be your heaven. That is extremely sad. We sit on the Earth, a heavenly body where if it were a little further away from the sun we would all die, and if it were a little closer we would die. Life is fragil, and you should not take it for granite. I hope you all find the truth and it does not escape you. What is truth and how would you know it if you heard it? Just like the movie states: "If I have to tell you, you will never know it."
Why does every creationist believe that if you don't believe in the creation myth you don't believe in God? I believe that God used evolution to make Man. I think he/she would be insulted to think you disbelieve in his way of doing things you would prefer magic.

wile coyote · 3 October 2009

scottsman13 said: Let me ask you a question : If you truly believe the idea that there is no God or Creator, and you are only going to live for 80 to 100 years old, and then life is over, why would you care about a museam and whether or not they have a guard dog outside or not.
Let me ask a question in return: If you truly believe that Santa Claus doesn't live at the North Pole with his elves, then why would you worry about posting gibberish to internet forums? I'm an apatheist, I don't care about religion one way or another, and what you believe about the matter is of no interest to me. But thinking that somebody just can't get along without religion is being silly. Lots of people do, and understand it or not, they get along just fine without worrying about theological questions. And no, they are no more wild irresponsible yahoos than anyone else. Good Bob, I'm so quiet and bookish that nobody would see anything to complain about except that I'm so boring.

Stanton · 3 October 2009

wile coyote said: I'm an apatheist...
You worship the mineral apatite?

wile coyote · 3 October 2009

Stanton said: You worship the mineral apatite?
Guess again.

DS · 3 October 2009

scottsman13,

Let me ask you a question : If you truly believe the idea that there is a God or Creator, and you are only going to live forever in heaven if you obey his laws, how could you not care about a museam that is based on lies and deceit? How could you not care that it was built by people who disobey the commandmants? How could you not care that it is run by people who are trying to sabatoge science education in America? How could you not care that they are trying to hijack your religion and make a mockery of everything that the Bible says that you should believe in? That is extremely sad.