Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Creationism Museum makes clear that creationism is not intelligent design

Denyse O'Leary
August 4, 2007
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The Society for Vertebrate Paleontology, be it noted, has denounced the recently opened Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky:

Dr. Catherine Badgley, a professor at the University of Michigan and president of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, remarked, “according to the Creation Museum, the history of life is short, sin-ridden, and laden with moralizing imperatives. In contrast, the real fossil record shows that this long history is brimming with discoveries of new kinds of animals, plants, and environments, inviting people to use their unusual minds to question, to reason, and to wonder at life’s remarkable variety.”

Unusual minds? Interesting choice of words. But what on earth has happened to the Society for Invertebrate Paleontology? Why aren’t they chiming in? Maybe next month. The Museum has just recorded its 100, 000th visitor, so it won’t need the additional huff for a while. For more go here.

Comments
I suspect you're right, Tyke. My lawyer friend has stressed that the Creation Museum makes one thing quite clear: It is a privately funded enterprise whose purpose is apologetics based on a literal interpretation of Genesis. By denouncing the Museum, the vert paleos are revealing a classic modernist agenda - namely that they are the only ones who have a right to interpret the story. In a post-modern society, they are sure to lose. Just watch them blame the swelling crowds of museum-goers (the outcome of their private stupidity in this matter) on ID theorists like Mike Behe, who would want nothing to do with the Creation Museum. Given their (inevitable) views, the vert paleos would be wiser to treat the Creation Museum's account of Earth's history the way a smart church treats the Da Vinci Code's account of Christianity's history. That is, don't bother to get hot and bothered about it, just make clear that this is all very fun and interesting as a novel but it is simply not history. Period. I wonder if the invert paleos ( we haven't heard from the inverts yet)will behave in their own best interests, or if they will help swell the crowds at the Creation Museum by denouncing it? Come to think of it, if I were doing PR for the Creation Museum, I would be trying to schedule a denunciation from the paleobotanists as well ...O'Leary
August 5, 2007
August
08
Aug
5
05
2007
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT
PandasThumb author Mike Dunford said here
It's extremely uncommon for me to find myself in agreement with Denyse on anything (and it's not a comfortable feeling), but in this case I do think she's got a good point. Creationism is certainly explicitly based on the Bible, and Intelligent Design certainly is not.
Mike is one of my favorite guys. There is a nuance to this debate however that is emerging. Not all young earth creationists argue their case form Bible. There are a few who adopt the convention of ID and argue from the facts. For example see Chemistry of Amino Acids Refute Paleontological Speculations.scordova
August 4, 2007
August
08
Aug
4
04
2007
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT
Having seen photos of some of the displays at the Creation Museum, it's pretty clear that the place is more to do with apologetics rather than science. And it's not that Answers In Genesis is making a big secret of it. They are first and foremost a Christian apologetics organization, and any science they may include is simply there to back up their primary mission.tyke
August 4, 2007
August
08
Aug
4
04
2007
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT
Very interesting how they seem to say that the fossil record shws it's false to conclude the history of life is "laden with moralizing imperatives." Apart from the loaded language in which that was framed, can somebody tell us how you might about the history of morality from fossils? (One could conclude that there really is no morality at all if Darwinism is correct. But then they have no moral standing from which to criticize the Creation Museum, do they?) And what about this: "this long history is brimming with discoveries"? Is this just poorly written, or did they actually intend to say that discoveries have been made in every epoch? Were the Cambrian or Mesozoic eras "brimming with discoveries"? No, the past few hundred years of human history have been. Again, is this just poorly written, or did they really intend to set "inviting people to use their unusual minds to question, to reason, and to wonder at life’s remarkable variety" in direct opposition to "the history of life is short, sin-ridden, and laden with moralizing imperatives"? These concepts are hardly polar opposites, after all!TomG
August 4, 2007
August
08
Aug
4
04
2007
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT

Leave a Reply