The Creation “Museum”

Why would I go to a creation museum?
creozerg robsterFCD 109
I don’t believe in a special creation, to put it bluntly. I have no question that evolution by natural selection is fact as well as solidly grounded theory.  I find the whole concept of a 27 million dollar facility pushing a narrow interpretation of a creation myth to be offensive, when one could have sent those millions to, say, upgrade the facilities of a teaching hospital in Africa, or fund clinics in the slums of central America, or promote polio vaccination programs worldwide… the list of real charitable projects would go on and on and on. And if you would prefer those dollars be used for US charities, try Habitat for Humanity or the Susan G. Komen breast cancer charity, or the Secular Students Alliance (more on this group in a post to come).

Why? Because my students come from varied backgrounds and with this “museum” only a 90 minute drive from home, some will have visited this place. While I am familiar with most of the claims of creationists of many stripes, thanks to TalkOrigins and The Counter Creationist Handbook (which I am holding above, and if you are a science educator, you should own this book and keep it in your office or classroom), it is always best to see these claims firsthand so that you can see their claims firsthand, how they are presented, etc so that you can be better prepared to respond.

Also, because there was a large group going, I didn’t have to pay $22 to get in, just ten. I’ll be offsetting that with donations and dues payments to a variety of pro science education groups or skeptical organizations, such as the NCSE, CSI and SSA, among others. Consider it Idiocy Offset Credits, sort of like offset credits of the carbon type.

Finally, PZ Myers, lord of the squid, was going, and I wanted to get a chance to see if fire really did shoot from his eyes and if bats darkened the skies with their leathery wings above him, blotting out the sun. Sadly, his reputation in this manner has been greatly exaggerated.

creozerg robsterFCD  096

My tie has the periodic table on it. I was ready to teach the controversy between four elements and all those hundred or so elements that scientists keep adding to every now and then. PZ’s tie, on the other hand is one of two crocoducks, the other belonging to Richard Dawkins.

What did I find?

It looked like a museum, at least on the surface. But like any gilded turd, scratch the surface and the stench becomes clear.
creozerg robsterFCD 092
It boiled down to a false dichotomy, based on circular reasoning and appeals to authority, appeals to ancient knowledge, appeals to fear, straw men, half truths and bald faced lies all wrapped up in post hoc reasoning so thick that the light of reason would be hard pressed to penetrate. If you go and have any questions in your faith, I think it would actually drive towards doubt and disbelief, instead of reinforcing your wavering philosophy, especially when you get home and do some fact-checking.

The false dichotomy was between “man’s reason” and “God’s Word.” Simply put, you have a choice between accepting an evidence based conclusion based on experiment and observation or Ken Ham’s interpretation of Genesis. Believe in theistic evolution, deism, intelligent design, or anything but Profit Prophet Ken Ham’s version, and you are in trouble, whether you self identify as Christian or not.

Photo credit - DeusExorcist

Photo credit - DeusExorcist

I really am not concerned with what religion you happen to follow, or none at all for that matter, as long as you are honest and willing to accept evidence when it contradicts faith. Prophet Ham may be honest in his beliefs, or maybe he has found that lying about the evidence is comforting and pays off well. He certainly isn’t willing to accept any level of evidence that he might be incorrect and goes to great lengths to dismiss it in the most dishonest way possible. Also, rather than respond to PZ by name, he is just “that professor.” Real mature.

The circular reasoning was present in a simple formula. The bible is true because it is God’s word, and it says it is true, which one would expect from any religion. Fine, many believe this. But again, the only acceptable interpretation of that truth was Prophet Ham’s version of a literal interpretation. This was backed up with an appeal to authority, namely God’s authority, on loan to Prophet Ham. If you doubt Ham’s interpretation of God’s word, you are responsible for all that is wrong in the world.

Photo credit - SpoonfedTribe

Photo credit - SpoonfedTribe

This would be a surprise to many scientists who are Christians. This wasn’t a museum, but instead, a church with animatronic dinosaurs, theaters, petting zoo. It was an amusement church, as I heard at least one person call it by the end of the day.

The appeals to fear were hard and heavy. If you don’t believe Prophet Ham’s view, culture heads towards a second fall, complete with war, genocide, murder, family strife, divorce, disease, stem cell medicine, lions and tigers and bears, oh my!

creozerg robsterFCD 079

Photo credit - SpoonfedTribe

Photo credit - SpoonfedTribe

The straw man was present everywhere, but only in one incarnation. “This is the opinion of human (fallible) scientists.” No scientific evidence to support anything was offered on either side of the discussion, just a list of claims and some pretty pictures. Of course, had evidence been given, it would have been very one sided, and Ham wouldn’t allow that. Attacking such a strawman would be easy as pie. Or it should have been. The attacks were made with half truths and flat out lies, such as mutations are always negative, with antibiotic resistance used as their example. (I apologize for the lighting issues in many of these photos. The lighting was OK, but there were poorly placed floods all over, making it difficult to get a picture without glare, and I don’t have a polarizing filter on my wide angle lens.)

bias creozerg robsterFCD 165

Yes. Antibiotic resistance, in the view of Prophet Ham is not an example of evidence of evolution, because as soon as the antibiotics are gone, the resistant bacteria die off. If that were true, we wouldn’t be worried about the problem of antibiotic resistance, and frantically trying to develop new antibiotics to treat diseases like TB. In some types of antibiotic resistance, the resistant strains are less fit in the absence of the antibiotic, as they have to produce resistance factors, an expensive investment. In this case, the resistant strain will, over time, make up a smaller percentage of the bacteria present, but not all of them die out.

Picture credit - DeusExorcist

Picture credit - DeusExorcist

Let’s put it another way. Can you drink milk? I can. That is a mutation, and it is a good one for humans to have. Most mammals are lactose intolerant by the time they reach adulthood. Making the enzyme lactase is expensive in terms of amino acids and energy. If you don’t need it, it is better to shut it off, stop making lactase. But if you have access to milk from herd animals, it’s good to keep the lactase gene turned on. You can enjoy a useful supply of food that isn’t available to others without the mutation. You and any of your offspring that carry the mutant gene will be more likely to thrive than those non-mutants. This mutation occurred independently in several different parts of the world and continues to thrive. That is natural selection. That is evolution. If you don’t have milk, do you waste away and die? Not unless milk and milk products are a primary and indispensible part of your diet. But outside of those circumstances, there is no longer a pressure that reduces the fitness of individuals without the mutation, or those who have mutated back to normal (can’t use lactose as adults). Instead of dominating the population, you would see a slow drift back to not being able to break down lactose or being able to thrive in the presence of antibiotics.

Ken Ham would prefer to pretend that natural selection is not evolution, and that evolution is simultaneously biblical and heresy. All cats are one group, and a few thousand years ago, lions, tigers, leopards, etc all evolved from one very small population of ark riders. Horses did the same, all the ponies, zebras, donkeys, onagers, etc. Whales are separate yet again, but please ignore the well established fossil record of whale evolution. But humans are special, never change, and have no relatives. All fossil hominids are either human or ape, but none are a transition between the two. Its all very creative, very imaginative, but not based on science. For all intents and purposes, until humans could measure rates of mutation, or were paying attention to speciation, God had the mutability factor on DNA polymerases dialed up to 11.

You see, no matter what transitional form, feature or fossil you offer to Ham and his followers, none of them are real. They are either misinterpreted or fraudulent. Or they fit into a history of Earth close to one million fold too fast, and sped up in the wrong places.


Some of the exhibits at the Creation “Museum” were simply ridiculous. Here are a few of the dinosaurs, which I understood were sculpted by a staff artist.

cera creozerg robsterFCD 073cera creozerg robsterFCD 066

TTex creozerg robsterFCD 023TRex creozerg robsterFCD 070

tric creozerg robsterFCD 048tric creozerg robsterFCD 061

Edap creozerg robsterFCD 040Edap creozerg robsterFCD 010

Notice anything from their display plaques? Cenozoic, Jurassic, etc, all are from just a few thousand years ago, all when the catastrophic flood is supposed to have taken place. All of the fossils date to that time. Never mind radiometric dating, the geologic column, age of the universe and distance to remote stars. Those don’t fit in with the 6000 year window of acceptable time. They have to throw that “Man’s evidence” out. Also, check the diet listing. “Diet after the fall.” Of course, with no death, meat eaters would have been vegetarians, including such obligate carnivores as cats, so the diet has to be defined as “after the fall.”

Here is another.

creozerg robsterFCD 095

No aquatic dinosaurs? Actually, this is correct. Amazingly, I did learn something at this place! Mosasaurs, ichthiosaurs, and the like don’t fall into the archosaur clade that dinosaurs are found in. More on clades in a bit… We often mistakenly lump these in with the dinos. The dinos have the following features; socketed teeth, terrestrial (land dwelling, so that rules out the aquatic ones by definition alone) with specific fenestrae on their skulls (open spaces that reduce weight, see below), a specific bone attachment point on their femurs, and they carry their limbs in line with their bodies.

Clades are a means of grouping species by defining characteristics. All mammals have hair and mammary glands, including the duckbill platypus and echidna, which are egg layers. We cut them out in the next clade, where egg layers are separated from mammals that bear live young and nurture their fetal young by placenta. We break the mammals up once again between marsupials, which give birth to young very early, which then are raised in a pouch, and the eutherian, or true placental mammals, which give birth to much more mature young. Here is another stunner.

marsup creozerg robsterFCD 065

Did you know that your mother nursed you in your womb? That would be quite a feat. Maybe Ham is simply unaware of human female anatomy… Yeah, that’s probably it. Marsupials evolved first, which based on the evidence, would be the rational explanation. But rational explanations are for sinners. Apparently, marsupials spread out first and so, the flood got them first. That makes no sense at all to me, especially in light of their explanation of the geologic column (coming soon).

OK, back to the aquatic dinos. Mososaurs are classified as being more closely related to snakes, having a flexible skull and jointed mandibles. They still count as reptiles, but not dinosaurs. Plesiosaurs are often placed as being most closely related to modern turtles, and ichthyosaurs probably have no surviving modern group to fit in, but again, not dinos. These are yet another branch that split off from the reptiles and adapted to the water.

The real problem I have with this is that all of the aquatic groups lived at the same time as dinosaurs, died out at the same time as dinosaurs (KT event) and their fossils are found in sediments dating to the same time as dinosaurs. Prophet Ham suggests that aquatic life should have survived the flood, but really, think about this for a second. If you need truly fresh or salty water, you will be out of luck. If you try to live in the wrong type of water without adaptations to regulate salt uptake or loss, you won’t survive, that eliminates most fish. Next, give up on those animals who need wetlands, or feed in shallow water, coral reefs and kelp forests, or have reproductive cycles where they have to seek out shallows to lay their eggs, and need to do this in less than 5 months. Ham and the Creation “Museum” are all wet.

Next, how do plants survive all of this? Plants need oxygen and light, but the flood would have covered the earth in a tremendous amount of water, miles deep in places. Few seeds do well when waterlogged, especially in salty water.

Never fear, Ken Ham has the answer. Create an entirely new ecosystem, not seen anywhere on earth, and completely infeasible if given any thought. At least I think this is one of the things he is trying to do here.

Floating forests.

creozerg robsterFCD 042
Yeah. Forests that float on the ocean. Not mangrove swamps, not algal mats, but buoyant forests that float, apparently without any trouble of soil loss or production. If this seems odd to you, it should be. But Ham needs it in order to explain the geologic column. It helps him explain why organisms are found in specific chronological order and not intermixed, as one would expect from a catastrophic flood. Some of these floating forests, of course, didn’t make it through the flood, but sank, giving us some of the older sediment layers, or for Ham, buried before other, more recently evolved plant groups.

creozerg robsterFCD 080

Prophet Ham holds out hope that human and dinosaur bones will be found together, along with a bit of crank magnetism (believe in one pseudoscience and you probably believe in others), thinking we might just find a dinosaur out there in the wild.

creozerg robsterFCD 076

creozerg robsterFCD 058

At least with the Pawlenty river footprint fossil, he doesn’t make the old claim that human and dino footprints can be found side by side. At least he has learned to not make some ridiculous claims.

Pal creozerg robsterFCD 027pal creozerg robsterFCD 038

But one very nasty specter raises its head, the story of Noah’s son Ham. After the flood, Noah got drunk and passed out. Ham poked his head in the tent, saw this and told his brothers. Brothers came in backwards (nobody wants to see their dad naked) and covered him up. When Noah found out what had happened, he cursed Ham’s progeny, not Ham. Nice family. The curse was that Ham’s children would be servants and slaves forever.

Photo Credit - unknown.

Photo Credit -No Guy in the Sky

Included in an afternoon lecture was this beauty. It isn’t a photo, but rather a copy of a slide straight from the Answers in Genesis website, the parent company of this sick, sad place.

This is what they really believe.

This is what they really believe.

Feel insulted yet?

By some racist sleight of hand, Ham’s descendants were assumed to have ended up in Africa, and so, slavery of Africans was not only biblical, it was all but a moral imperative. Ken Ham’s bunch repeats this cultural myth, dropping the slavery part as though it never happened. Ken claims to have been completely unaware of this, deflecting any embarrassment he should be feeling onto those who would criticize him. Being an Australian and thus less aware of American biblical justifications for slavery (although it has been used several times, by several cultures throughout history), he may have an out, but that doesn’t excuse everybody else that works for him.

Photo credit - Anthony

Photo credit - Anthony

When it comes down to it, the Creation “Museum” is as much on our side as it is against it. In an age of the internet, where information is just a click away, if something doesn’t make sense to a kid (as much of this museum does not), they can quickly find out that the “Museum” is baloney. For every group that goes, some will figure this out, and the joy of finding things out is what makes science so enjoyable and rewarding a profession or hobby. Ham is grasping at the ghost of a passing age, already tenuous when Darwin and Wallace presented their theories. If he can’t hold onto his bronze age beliefs and what he believes is his moral center, he truly believes that he would descend into barbarism. That is what I think drives Ham into his ridiculous position and choice of evangelical outlet.

The rest of the museum not dealing with evolution, the garden of eden, the fall of man, building the ark, the flood and other pseudoscience focuses around a bit of church history and stories of some of the major players in the Old and New Testaments. I didn’t go into some of these, but if you want more skeptical views of the Creation “Museum,” here are the tales of the 300.

It is not a place I would take a kid for multiple reasons. First, the layout is long and winding, with few bathrooms and water fountains available. It isn’t like many museums where you can start in a central atrium and go to your choice of several halls, but is rather a long dull walk. Second, there are almost no interactive exhibits,  just lots of manikins, models and wordy plaques. Third, unless they have read piles of dino books already and know baloney when they see it, teaching this malarkey to a kid will stunt their intellectual growth and set them up to do poorly in science classes all the way through college.

indoc creozerg robsterFCD 063

Poor kid is gonna be bored out of his gourd.

Also, it is handicap accessible, but not handicap friendly. If you use a power scooter or chair, good luck. Some of the exhibits are upstairs, and I don’t think I saw an elevator up to the dino hall. Wheelchairs might make it through, but strollers were a constant hazard and obstruction.

Another thing many of us noticed… There was nowhere to toss your bottles or cans for recycling. I guess they assume that Jesus is going to come soon to rapture them away, so why bother with taking care of things?

Go if you want, but not alone. You will need someone else to express your amusement, indignation and outrage to. Otherwise, you’ll go nuts. Also, pack a lunch and bring some bottles of water. Otherwise, you are going to have to pay them for overpriced food. There are no restaurants nearby, making you a captive customer.

All pictures were taken either by myself or by my wife unless otherwise credited. All links to creationist websites feature the rel=”nofollow” attribute in order to keep my post from increasing their google ranking.

Teach on.


18 comments on “The Creation “Museum”

  1. Dave Nichols says:

    Great post on the C”M” visit, Rob. Your new blog is looking fantastic!

  2. Mixter says:

    Great post. I was there. It was all sorts of crazy.

    I love this quote by Jason Lisle: “Science comes out of a biblical worldview. We don’t try to prove the Bible from outside evidence. We accept the Bible as a presupposition.”

    BTW: The variation photo was taken by No Guy in the Sky.


  3. Bob Pendell says:

    Where do they get this crap about water being miles deep? There isn’t that much water on earth to begin with. And there is no such claim in the Bible. I know the Christianoids like to point to that verse in the flood myth that “the tops of the mountains were covered.” I am told that the accurate translation of the word “covered” is actually “shrouded in mist.” Nothing about covered in deep water and the word “water” is not found in that verse. The problem with these morons is not that they get their science wrong, but that they get their scripture wrong in the first place and justify their bizarre ideas on science by quoting bizarre mistranslations of their scripture.

    Fr’instance. Genesis does not claim that God created the universe in six days. It says that he created heaven and earth “in the beginning.” Then it says that the earth “became” without form and void (Heb. tohu va bohu). It doesn’t say when this happened, but it was obviously meant to happen somewhat later than the creation itself. How much later is never stated.

    The idiots can’t even read the scripture they claim to believe. If there is a God somewhere, I’m sure He takes little notice of these fools who claim to speak in His behalf and can’t even get the book right.

    With love under will,

    Bob, Adastra,
    The Wizzard of Jacksonville

  4. Robert says:

    Thanks, Dave and Mixter. I have updated the photo credit.

    Hi Bob,

    The seem to think that the water came from a reservoir under the crust. Of course, this ignores the simple fact that this water would have been squeezed out by gravity. The release of the water caused huge geysers of water into the air, causing Pangaea to break up and sent the tectonic plates scooting across the planet into their current arrangement. This is all very important in order to explain the basic scientific knowledge that many visitors would have, but within a 6000 year time frame.

    The disappearance of these hundreds of millions of cubic miles of water is explained away by just saying that it evaporated.

    If you don’t think about it, creationism works just fine. I feel bad for the people that work for years in order to gain a doctorate and then throw away all of that to lie. Someone who actually cared about their field lost a place in graduate school to somebody who had made a premeditated choice to seek a degree and use it to undermine the public trust in evidence based science.

    Of course, they would respond to your obvious knowledge of the bible and their mistranslations as being “man’s reason” and not “God’s Word.” These are of course people who also believe in the non-biblical concept of the rapture. Its amazing how often God thinks exactly like the person offering their opinion.

  5. billy says:


    Thank You for posting the pics and comments.
    I went to the Creation Museum yesterday and found it very disturbing on so many levels that it’s hard to even know where to start.
    For one thing, they profiled me and my friends and insisted that we get our pictures taken (front and side views).
    Maybe most upsetting were the several “classrooms” they have there for “educating” children… they even had a guy dressed up in a “scientist” outfit to further confuse the unsuspecting kids.
    The fact that this place even exists is mind-boggling.
    And, they seem to be raking in the bucks too.
    There’s a sign when you come in that sez that they have the right to eject you (after you pay them the $22.00 entrance fee) if they don’t like your dress or if you don’t show proper respect… what other “museum” does that?!
    It’s silly to try to reason with these nuts anyway… but it is necessary to talk about it, as i’m esp. worried about the impression this kind of misinformation is making on kids.
    Keep up the interesting posts, etc.
    Best wishes,

    – billy (from New Jersey)

  6. Motley says:

    I saw you several times at the ‘Museum’ and you’d probably remember me… anyways, the more I think about the ‘Museum’ the more morbid it gets. They’re really promoting some heavy shit here… just how heavy it is doesn’t happen to be lost on me. It ranks with the most vile propaganda I’ve ever witnessed; it is similar to a horror house more than a Museum. << me.

    I dunno if the people in charge know what they're doing, but they do seem like hate-filled people. There's nothing positive emanating from Ken Ham. I don't think I've ever seen a single picture of him smiling… I just think they're the worst type of extremists. Not to say they rank with Islamic extremists, but rather if they understood what they're doing, promoting, and trying to accomplish they should be afraid.

    I almost see the modern YEC movement as similar to the Nazis in the early 20th century. They complain about evolutionary theory leading us to a bad place but don't realize that they're throwing down some of the most vile prejudices possible against atheists and other more open minded persons.

    It's nothing short of scary. I truly believe if these people get what they really want, the US will be a fascist nation and intellectuals on the side of science and knowledge will become criminals.

    Am I wrong? Satan, I hope so…

  7. whatchamacalit says:

    Just curious as to any info on dna studies that show human migrations out of Africa some 70,000 years ago? It seems the more we learn about dna the more the racism thing must come to a head and be dealt with once a for all. I just don’t see how thinking people can continue to keep their heads buried in the sand??

  8. […] I decided to take some time and write a follow-up piece to my adventure at the petting zoo at the Creation “Museum” and fulfill Mr. Hammer’s offer of guest […]

  9. […] I decided to take some time and write a follow-up piece to my adventure at the petting zoo at the Creation “Museum” and fulfill Mr. Hammer’s offer of guest […]

  10. Paul says:

    A couple of more comments…
    whatchamacalit: There is almost no genetic diversity in the entire human population. You’d get more diversity from a group of 15 monkeys. All claims of ethnic superiority are unfounded.

    Motley: I didn’t think about the mug shots. That’s funny. But I think that they really were just souvenir pictures; another way for the museum to make money.

    Let’s take on the issue of Nazi’s. Because here there is something in the museum that is worth noting. Hitler’s concept of the super race is solidly grounded in Darwinian evolution. It’s a particularly bad interpretation of Darwin. And it’s without any solid base in facts. But Hitler really did use Darwin’s theories to justify his agenda.

    Likewise the Chinese tried a revolution where they killed all of the most educated and the stilled craftsmen. The idea was that these elite had corrupted things and caused trouble for the common man. Boy did that make a mess of things. It seems unlikely that such a revolution could take place in this country.

    Rest assured that only a few Christians insist on a young earth. Calmer heads do prevail. Even though this debate has raged for many years:
    “Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.” — St. Augustine (A.D. 354-430)

  11. Robert says:

    Hi Paul,

    I wouldn’t say that there is “almost no” genetic diversity among humans, but rather that there is more than you would find in recently bottlenecked species such as the Tasmanian Devil or the Cheetah, and less than is found in remarkably diverse species such as the Larus gull. If we had less genetic diversity, it would be very easy to find organ donors.

    As for the link between Darwin and Hitler, it is far more tenuous than you seem to think. You would be hard pressed to find mention of Darwin or evolution anywhere in any of Hitler’s writings or speeches. On the other hand, Martin Luther’s senile rants on the crimes of the Hebrew peoples are referenced several times as an opportunistic attempt to claim historical justification for his actions.

    It is true that Darwin’s writings, combined with racist and religious views on the separation of the races led to the formation of the eugenics movement. If I remember my Darwin, he wrote that applying the concepts of natural selection, as brutal and heartless as they were, would destroy what makes humankind admirable, our compassion. (Sir Francis Galton developed what would become eugenics after the death of Charles Darwin, making it rather difficult for Chuck to object, of course.) Perhaps Hitler missed that part, or is more likely, science escaped him as he pursued an art career.

    Historically, however, eugenics draws on several cultures, including Greek, Roman and Hebrew laws requiring that populations be kept “pure” or that deformed children should be put to death. The eugenics movement and the holocaust are far more similar to the actions and intents of a livestock breeder than the effects of a directionless natural process.

    For the part that modern eugenics does draw from Darwin’s work, it is a terrible misinterpretation of natural selection, which hinges upon the word natural. When humans interfere with selection, it becomes artificial selection and by removing specific traits or lines from a population decreases its diversity and probably its genetic health as well.

    The larger issue here, regardless of the lack of grounding in Darwin’s work, is that such claims don’t draw away from the fact that evolution does occur, and the theory of natural selection is an exceptionally well supported theory and the best explanation for both the diversity and unity of life on earth.

    The real misdeed in the debate is the unethical claim that the blame for the holocaust and other crimes lays solely on the shoulders of Darwin and science. Scientists did contribute to the evils of eugenics, but so did religion and racism, and it can be argued that these did so to a much greater extent, especially within the purview of the Third Reich.

    Apparently, he didn’t read his Augustine. As for the cooler heads… Polls place American acceptance of a young Earth creationist belief at around 45%. Acceptance of theistic and naturalistic evolution come in around 48% and 11%, respectively. We rank behind every other industrialized nation on this basic scientific concept, excluding Turkey.

  12. Paul says:

    Well said Robert. But I think that our conclusions are not far off. The faulty science of the Third Reich does share some of the blame for the holocaust. Are we agreed so far? Is not the concept of a “super race” drawn directly from evolution? Historically other reasons have been given for genocide and ethnic cleansing. But modern science is the justification that Hitler used.

    With knowledge comes power. And that power can do good. But it doesn’t always.

    I’m not familiar with the statistics on America’s scientific literacy. But I think that almost all Americans are prepared to accept the conclusions of scientific research involving genetics. We eat hybridized grains and fruits without question. We rush to the doctor to get a flu vaccine that’s engineered for whatever coming plague the scientific models predict will spread in the next year. We demand accurate answers from scientists and we don’t pause a moment to check the scientists beliefs. Like calculus, the explanation for evolution doesn’t really come up in the day to day lives of most Americans.

  13. Robert says:

    I would say that a superior race is not a concept within current evolutionary science. While Darwin was a product of his times, and was a racist by our modern standards, he was an ardent abolitionist and in his journals wrote that he hoped that the slaves in some of the places that he visited would rise up and violently revolt for their freedom. Also, his conclusion that the human race was one race with a common ancestry was one that was very uncomfortable for many racists to accept.

    The definition of a super race used by the Nazis is certainly not a view supported by Darwin, for such a race would have no problem competing and dominating the gene pool of the species by reproductive success and competition for resources. Germany had, in the recent past, demonstrated that it was not capable of doing this. Beyond this, war and death camps would have been unnecessary, natural processes would have done the job.

    It really was more of a cultural mythos and a belief in the divine right of the German people than any scientific hypothesis that drove their actions.

    Also, books and journals on Darwinism and Haeckel’s embryogenesis work were banned. From the original German

    6. Schriften weltanschaulichen und lebenskundlichen Charakters, deren Inhalt die falsche naturwissenschaftliche Aufklarung eines primitiven Darwinismus und Monismus ist (Haeckel).

    Translated to

    6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Haeckel).

    Why ban Darwin if Darwin justifies a Nazi state? Combine this detail with creationist phrasing in Mien Kampf and it should be clear that Darwinism would be a minority position.

    America produces some of the best scientific minds in the world, but the overall scientific literacy of Americans is pitiful. Americans accept the benefits of a scientific society, but are far from understanding it. I would say that we have slid back from our space race science education rush to pre-sputnik days. I’m not sure what needs to be done to bring us back to the top, but improving education and salaries for educators should be a big part of it. College education also needs to become more affordable.

  14. […] Great Flood via computer animation and artistic dioramas of the wholesale slaughter of the world? Having been to this “Museum”, I can say that no depth is too low to subject young minds to in order to scare them away from […]

  15. […] Great Flood via computer animation and artistic dioramas of the wholesale slaughter of the world?Having been to this “Museum”, I can say that no depth is too low to subject young minds to in order to scare them away from […]

  16. […] aquí Categorías:Biología evolutiva, Ciencia, Escepticismo, Humor, Magufadas Etiquetas: […]

  17. Gerry says:

    Ken Ham is living proof that Australians hump sheep!

    • Robert Bevins says:

      I’m sure there are _some_ Australians that have a bit of the ol’ Thomas Granger in them, but Ham is just proof that if you say something that reassures people, you can get them to send you money. (and if somebody says something bad about you, you can try to get them fired!)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s