A new museum founded on the idea of a literal reading of the Genesis account is set to open, and some aren't happy about it:
A group called DefCon: Campaign to Defend the Constitution is one of several groups planning to take part in a "Rally for Reason" outside the Creation Museum in Petersburg when it holds its grand opening on Memorial Day.
"The main problem is that this is a museum of misinformation," said Lawrence Krauss, a professor of physics and astronomy at Case Western Reserve University who is a member of DefCon's advisory board.
Those attending the rally are sure to be outnumbered by the faithful making the trek to the 60,000-square-foot museum's opening day.
At least 2,000 to 3,000 visitors are expected, said Ken Ham, who is president and founder of the non-profit Answers in Genesis, the group that built the museum. Already this week, about 5,000 charter museum members have attended sneak previews, Ham said yesterday.
"Why do they worry about my little museum?" he asked about the protests by scientists. "They've got museums all over the world."
Good question. Krauss attempts to undermine the museum's own scientists, but doesn't really help his own case:
Ham also said his museum has scientists on staff who agree with the idea that the Earth was created in six days and is only 6,000 years old.
But Krauss and Scott said the vast majority of scientists, and science, are on their side.
"They try to blind you with Ph.D.s, but you find a Ph.D to say anything," Krauss said.
That would appear to bolster the case that there is not a scientific consensus on evolutionary theory.
The new museum is making the new all over. Even the New York Times reviewed it, amazed at the museum's "weirdness". I was particularly amused by this line:
Evolution gets its continual comeuppance, while biblical revelations are treated as gospel.One suspects (fears?) that was written without irony. The review is probably as even-handed as they could muster.
The problem with the museum is that it, too, is an exercise in speculation. We simply don't know--can't know--how Creation worked out in the details. I can't say with certainty that there were dinosaurs on the ark. To portray such things certainly leaves oneself open for criticism. Nor can I see with confidence how old the earth is. I will say this, however: I feel confident that The Creation Museum's portrayal is at least as reliable as the one in "scientifically based" museums; moreso, really, because they begin with a foundational belief in divine Creation.