In today’s issue of the eSkeptic, Stephen Asma reviews New Creation Museum that recently opened in Kentucky. If you recall, I wrote a bit about this museum a while back, and at the time I thought that the most interesting thing would be how they managed to deal with dinosaurs.
It turns out that explaining how dinosaurs might have thrived in an alternate universe populated with magical arks that floated safely over the world-wide-wet with the rest of the animal kingdom involves a degree of mental gymnastics that would make any self-respecting schizophrenic cringe at its implausibility. According to Ken A. Ham, the director of the new Creation Museum in Kentucky:
“We don’t know for sure, but from a biblical perspective we know that all animals were originally herbivores.” (Carnivore activity only happens as a result of the Fall — animals did not experience death before Adam’s sin.) “So it is possible that carnivores [including carnivorous dinosaurs] ate plants and grains while they lived on the ark. Even today we know that grizzly bears eat grass and vegetation primarily, so it’s not true that an animal with sharp teeth and claws must eat meat or must be a carnivore. At the very least, the carnivores could survive on vegetation for a significant time span.”
Um ... sure. Let’s not even start with how idiotic that is from a scientific perspective. It doesn’t even make good sense from a biblical perspective. Apparently, they want us to believe that about 4500 years ago, Noah was not only able to get two of every kind of animal on the ark, but that the menagerie also included dinosaurs. On top of that, all the carnivores ate sticks and berries because they weren’t yet carnivores. In my bible this detail of the time line is pretty clear: The fall of man came before Noah. So if the fall precipitated the conversion of all carnivores from a blissful life of veganism, then it clearly occurred prior to the mythic flood.
Aside from such foolishness, Professor Asma detects a recurring theme at the museum: That sciences like geology and evolution that favor an “old-earth” worldview make the average person feel small and insignificant, which naturally results in all the social ills that we see today.
It’s one thing to be ignorant of science. It’s quite another to look at scientific evidence and the scientific method and claim that they’re evil. If you’re a blind-faither, however, evil is what other people do.
If you ask me, I think it’s likely that this well-funded museum will get get a decent amount of press, and that people large and small will marvel at how nice the dinosaurs were before we started all that thinking for ourselves crap.
While there’s no report on this, I hope there’s carrousel music playing in the background of this museum. Stupid people need something with which to fill their empty little heads.
Y’know, DOF, I’m in a set of religious studies courses right now, and I still can’t see how people can believe that crap. Literal interpretations of any of the books boggles even my prof (who I consider kinda out-there). Liberal interpretations, on the other hand, are merely a matter of principle - they exist because what was desired in religion, or important, has baggage attached.
Which, in a way, is kinda sad. Even for the most negotiable among the religious I know, it gives them a sense of community. Strange that so many people can be so close together at all times, and still feel isolated.