Creationist Museum
Saw this over on slashdot: Slashdot | Creationism Museum To Open Next Summer
The article it discusses is here.
Ok, so the Grand Canyon was created by Noah’s Flood. That flood didn’t happen to hit anywhere else, did it? Because I’d think we’d have more huge canyons all over the place. Unless the Grand Canyon is the spot just below the garden hose God used to drown millions of people. How silly of me to overlook the observationally-established truth.
Sorry — complaining about this stuff is basically useless. I know.
This excerpt just about sums it up:
On the shelf behind Ham’s desk lie several surprising books, including Richard Dawkins’ latest. “I’ve skipped through it. The thing is, Dawkins does not have infinite knowledge or understanding himself. He’s got a position, too, it’s just a different one from ours. The Bible makes sense and is overwhelmingly confirmed by observable science. It does not confirm the belief in evolution.”
Yeah. He’s skipped through it and determined that Dawkins doesn’t have infinite knowledge. Therefore, since his beliefs contradict that of the bible, he’s wrong. Great.
The best part is this exchange:
But if you believe in the Bible, why do you need to seek scientific credibility, and why are Creationists so reluctant to put their theories to peer review, I ask?
“I would give the same answer as Dawkins. He believes there is no God and nothing you could say would convince him otherwise. You are dealing with an origins issue. If you don’t have the information, you cannot be sure. Nothing contradicts the Bible’s account of the origins.”
This, in a nutshell, is exactly how these guys go about their arguments. They never answer serious criticism. Any weaknesses in their position they try to downplay by diverting attention. Whether or not Darwin believed in God has nothing to do with the question.
More than anything, though, I’ve learned that arguing with people about this is usually pointless. It really degrades into a competition to confuse each other, not a serious attempt to rule explanations out.
And if there are several people involved, and one or two of them (of either persuasion) are a bit too enthusiastic, it’s better to just walk away.
Finally, I’d just like to point out this excerpt, which is so full of irony my brain shuts down:
We pass the site where one day an animatronic Adam will squat beside the Tree. With this commitment to authenticity, I find myself asking what they are doing about the fig leaf. Marsh considers this gravely and replies: “He is appropriately positioned, so he can be modest.There will be a lamb or something there next to him. We are very careful about that: some of our donors are scared to death about nudity.”
November 23rd, 2006 at 6:21 pm
This type of stuff isn’t all bad. In fact it often inspires in me new and creative combinations of swear words, combined with guttural grunts of disgust and sometimes pounding my head against things, which I admit is probably more entertain for an observer, but still not all bad.