CrypticWritings, thanks for the review! I’ve been watching the news reports about the museum–I’m on their mailing list–and would like to visit it someday.
Oh my, surely that was a misprint.
There were some good scientific facts, but it seemed more of a sales pitch and the last exibit was…the gift shop!!!..Hundreds of titles…oh what a money maker!
Gasp! You mean…you mean…it ended just like the “Saint Peter and The Vatican: The Legacy of the Popes” travelling museum exhibit did??!! I saw that in Milwaukee, and there was NO WAY to get out of the exhibit hall without marching through the cramped gift shop, where you could buy most anything with the exhibit’s logo on it, along with a more modest number of actually useful things.
I did go with an open mind and was a little excited to see what was there. In the end it seemed as I stated, like more of a creationism propaganda attempt…But, I honestly was dissapointed with the lack of solid scientific facts and evidence; there was some, but it was weak overall.
I wonder, though, if you went to a normal natural history museum with the same mindset, would it really be any different? For instance, my local museum’s dinosaur hall might have a display saying “75 million years ago, this area was part of a vast inland sea”, but no further explanation about how they deduced that. And I’ve certainly seen propogand-ish enthusiasms about how marvelous the glory of evolution is!
If you can, it might be interesting to put yourself back in the mindset/expectations of visiting the Creation museum, then go to a normal museum and see if it “feels” the same way. Let us know if you do that.
I have yet to figure out how protestants are to get unbelieving scientists and ordinary atheists to accept creation science when they are trying to use the Bible that is not accepted by the scientists/aethists to refute science.
Has anyone here seen the “Journal of Creation” (previously known as TJ, Technical Journal, Creation Ex Nihilo) creationontheweb.com/content/view/3873/91/ ?
It’s far more formally scientific, mostly college-level or beyond, than the more popular-science level of Creation magazine, or apparently the museum.
Mainly, they don’t so much use the Bible as the beginning, end, and only source, or to refute science. They use the Bible as the source of their framework that the earth is young and species were separately created, THEN within that framework, do the scientific facts support or refute it? Can the facts of geology and paleontology be explained by a 10,000 year old earth and cataclysmic flood? How do we account for old starlight (several competing theories on that, most involving relativistic physics equations that are beyond me)?
It’s a shame if the museum didn’t take that approach more than a gee-whiz approach.