Hey! Did you ever want to go to the Creationist Museum but couldnt find the time?

[Pico and ME]

Well now you can.

IU Atheist Make Online Stir with Creation Science Museum Video

Bloomington, IN, December 12, 2008 - Indiana University students made a noticeable splash in the blogosphere when atheist and science blogs linked to their video account of a field trip to a creation science museum. Popular blogs Pharyngula and Friendly Atheist began the tide of attention that resulted in the video being watched over 12,000 times in less than two days since its December 10th release.

The full video can be found at http://saiu.org/2008/12/10/creation-museum-trip-video/.

The video was edited by club treasurer Eoban Binder and features members and friends of SAIU reacting to the Petersberg, Kentucky museum during their November visit. The video opens with the group excitedly sharing their expectations while gathering on the Bloomington campus. One member states that she expects the museum will seem hilarious until she realizes that people actually believe its message. The group includes a high number students in the sciences, and throughout the video, they point out flaws and inconsistencies in the exhibits while other members supply sarcastic interpretations in the museum's defense. In the final scene, one member summarizes his experience when he calls the museum a "nexus of all the misinformation and propaganda against science and progressive education."

Reactions to the group video have been both positive and negative. PZ Myers is a noted biologist and atheist blogger who appeared in "Expelled", Ben Stein's 2008 documentary film on the creationism/evolution debate. When posting the video, Myers stated that SAIU's willingness to pay the museum and make the video meant nobody else needed to go. Similar remarks were made by Hehmant Mehta, chair of the national Secular Student Alliance board of directors. "Save your money," he wrote. "Don't go visit (in case you were tempted). Just watch Eoban Binder's video." Mehta will be visiting Purdue and IU campuses in March of 2009.

The Creation Museum was founded by the creationist organization Answers in Genesis, which promotes a literal interpretation of the Bible including the six day creation. SAIU registered as a group using its real name and openly discussed its plans on the group's forum. As a result, they came to the attention of the Answers in Genesis US CEO Ken Ham, who wrote about SAIU on his own blog the day the group visited. He suggested that the group is evangelistic in its atheism and that its members must "hate the creation/gospel message being presented so powerfully in the culture." He nonetheless welcomed SAIU. The museum's website is creationmuseum.org.

The Secular Alliance of IU joins together atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, skeptics and humanists on IU's campus to promote a naturalistic way of thinking over one which is based on belief in the supernatural. The group's goal is to unite people with a common trust in science, reason, and logic. The SAIU hosts events to discuss and promote a scientific view of the world, to help others gain a better understanding of secular beliefs, and to call into question common superstitions of our time.

This is from an email.

[Shawnee123]

I'd rather see raptors and Wooly Mammoths! Grrrrr.

[Juniper]

Um, no thanks.

[Sundae]

They could have been a lot more disrespectful, kudos to them.

Can I just say, in the UK, far more people would be going there just for laughs than to be educated annd uplifted. And we have a State religion.

RK highlighted this place before departing. It scared me then and it scares me now. Trying not to step on anyone's relegious toes here but... a God that demands such twisted logic.. or a God that dictates what pants you wear.. or facial hair.. or makes you wear something on your forehead.. or not eat meat on a special day.. or kill an animal in a certain way.. Crikey me. How did that pedant ever manage to create a world in 6 days? Surely he would still have been quibbling about whether a zebra is black with white stripes or white with black on day 10,067!

[stomp. stomp. stomp]

[monster]

[wolf]

Originally Posted by Sundae Girl

Can I just say, in the UK, far more people would be going there just for laughs than to be educated annd uplifted. And we have a State religion.

The head of which is a nutter.

[Happy Monkey]

Of course. It is a religion.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

I'd rather see raptors and Wooly Mammoths! Grrrrr.

Denver Museum of Nature & Science.

The latest stegosaurus -- seems his tail spikes actually stick out port and starboard, and he has little osteoderms mailing his entire throat.

Mammoths? They got mammoths/pachyderms. Columbian Mammoth skull and a complete skeleton of an oddball elephantine critter with short tusks and a long jaw. Hyaenodons and Miocene pigs (giant warthogs, sort of) and a very large carnivorous pig I'd hunt with an elephant gun, a pro hunter backing me up -- and antidiarrheal medication! The gun's for him, the meds for me. He's got teeth big enough to carve quite large chessmen from.

One each mammoth tooth the size and shape of a meatloaf and a mastodon tooth, every bit as big, with its row of eight cusps, telling us the two ate very differently.

And that Prehistoric Journey exhibit isn't just the dinos, but the entire bio-/geological history of the planet. See! Ediacaran seascapes! See! Ordovician nautiloids! See! Potassium-40/Argon-40-bearing gneissy rock 1.2 billion years old, and pass the business end of a Geiger counter over it -- it's 50 counts over background, and was hotter back in the day! See! Giant Carboniferous dragonflies and funny-looking plants! Thrill to the Dimetrodon! See! Cute primates that look like lemurs! Admire the smilodontia of the Smilodon down in the lobby, and check out the newly discovered creodont Malfelis badwaterensis! Looks like a stretched lion with a long nose. Yes, the name really does mean "bad kitty from Badwater."

The place used to be called the Denver Museum of Natural History. They've expanded some from those days.

[Ruminator]

Please don't think all creationists believe that God created everything in six sequential literal 24 hour days.
Personally I don't, and there are scientists who are creationists that also believe that the evidence indicates creation occurred over a long period of time.
Dr. Hugh Ross and his group are one example.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Ruminator

Dr. Hugh Ross and his group are one example.

I fact checked and found Hugh Ross along with the mention that he accepts 'dual revelation'.

I will will withhold any references to 'doublethink' and simply say that IMO it appears that dual revelation is a method by which one reconciles the difference between evolution and a literal interpretation of the bible by saying that both are correct but that we imperfect humans are reading the bible wrong.

From Inherit the Wind (but you won't find it in the quotes section)

Brady: That is correct.
Drummond: That first day, what do you think, it was 24 hours long?
Brady: [The] Bible says it was a day.
Drummond: Well, there was no sun out. How do you know how long it was?
Brady: The Bible says it was a day!
Drummond: Well, was it a normal day, a literal day, 24 hour day?
Brady: I don't know.
Drummond: What do you think?
Brady: I do not think about things that I do not think about.
Drummond: Do you ever think about things that you do thing about?! Isn't it possible that it could have been 25 hours? There's no way to measure it; no way to tell. Could it have been 25 hours?!
Brady: It's possible.
Drummond: Then you interpret that the first day as recorded in the Book of Genesis could've been a day of indeterminate length.
Brady: I mean to state that it is not necessarily a 24 hour day.
Drummond: It could've been 30 hours, could've been a week, could've been a month, could've been a year, could've been a hundred years, or it could've been 10 million years!!

Dual Revelation is explained here.

Now, since the scientific method deals only with naturally recurring and observable processes in the present, historical events are by definition outside of the scientific method. Therefore such views on origins as Evolutionism and Creationism are inherently outside of the scientific method since they both require the study of ancient historical events in an effort to find evidence for or against their central claims. Similarly, the scientific method has no application in the realms of reason or the conscience since they are defined by different methods of acquisition. In the end, we simply must recognize that while the scientific method is a powerful method for acquiring knowledge of the natural world, it is severely limited in scope for the central interests of man.

The current revival of what has been called "dual revelation" theology (DRT) is motivated by the same impulse as when it first arose in medieval Europe. During the initial influx of the Greek philosophical works into the West some felt compelled to reconcile the new knowledge with the Bible. According to this view, all knowledge was classified as "truth" and as such it was weighted equally when judging its value to the interests of man. Therefore, there was rational truth, historical truth, and revealed truth. An example of this school of thought was the heterodox philosopher Siger of Brabant (1270 A.D.) who advocated a philosophy of double truth, i.e., that there is one truth in human reason--Aristotle--and another in religion--the Christian revelation (4). For some in the Scholastic tradition this approach was intended to reconcile what they feared was a threat to the Christian world view. Siger's philosophy can be traced even farther back to the Muslim commentator Averroes (1198 A.D.).

Today, one of the most prominent advocates of DRT is the progressive creationist, Hugh Ross. His reasoning goes as follows:

"God's revelation is not limited exclusively to the Bible's words. The facts of nature may be likened to a sixty-seventh book of the Bible. Some readers might fear I am implying that God's revelation through nature is somehow on an equal footing with His revelation through the words of the Bible. Let me simply state that truth, by definition, is information that is perfectly free of contradiction and error. Just as it is absurd to speak of some entity as more perfect than another, so also one revelation of God's truth cannot be held as inferior or superior to another." (7)

For God to lie would be a violation of his holiness. The Bible claims that God created the universe. Further, it declares God is responsible for the words of the Bible. On this basis, no contradiction between the facts of nature and the facts of the Bible would be possible. Any apparent contradiction must stem from human misinterpretation (8).

[Ruminator]

Interesting find richlevy.

Let me add some more information for you.

Progressive creationism does not contradict a literal understanding of the Bible. Heres why:
In Genesis 1 we read that God created everything in this physical universe. It further breaks down into six time periods the creative acts of God.
Translated into the English language as "day" in these verses is the Hebrew word- "yom".
Yom has a few definitions and many uses and applications, not just one.

It can mean the daylight hrs of a "day", a 24 hr. day/night period, its used in terms like Day of Something, or a time of something, or in the broadest reference- a period of time- various lengths in different uses.

So how well does a Creator creating new aspects of creation in six periods of time(referenced by modern man possibly as supereons, eons, eras, epochs) over the first billions of years of the universe's existence compare with the Genesis account?
Perfectly until you try to dogmatically claim that [yom] can only mean a 24 hr. time period, which has unfortunately become the prevailing interpretation. *(one of the reasons for my signature below)

How well does progressive creationism fit with scientific evidence? As a model it fits perfectly from the Big Bang onward.

[Cicero]

I usually go to museums to learn something.

It just might be a little boring.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Ruminator

...there are scientists who are creationists that also believe that the evidence indicates creation occurred over a long period of time.

I don't reject the idea outright; but I do take exception to the word "evidence" being attched to the idea.

The laws of physics unfolding into the universe as we know it, described as an act of creation by a deity, is more a matter of semantics. If you define the deity to mean the sum total of the universe, and the laws of the universe simply an expression of said deity, then you have metaphorically reconciled science and crationism...but in a way that is not subject to be verified by evidence, nor would it be appropriate to attempt to do so.

[HungLikeJesus]

Originally Posted by richlevy

...
For God to lie would be a violation of his holiness.
...

I have not been educated within any religious framework, so I'm hoping someone can clarify what the work "holiness" means, at least within this context.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

My God is a Celestial Mechanic.

And if you're eternal, having literally all the time there is, there's not a lot of reason not to take your time, and dare I say, do it right. Thirteen billion Earthly years is a mighty span of time. A lot can happen. A Creation that goes of itself, from the Big Bang onwards, seems to me to have a lot of divine wisdom to it. Saves a lot of labor on the part of the Almighty, for one thing -- no call to bust a separate miracle for each species -- and a whole lot of those, 99% of which that ever lived are presently extinct, and to what end if any? -- nor to determine the relative proportions of the elements of the periodic table and their properties.

Young-Earthing it, and Creationism, strike me as attempts to nail the Eternal into a crate built to human specifications. That very well-loved Bible counsels against this very thing -- and there are a good many believers wise enough to keep this in mind.

I'm a believer -- for I have no idea why the Big Bang banged. I could say "God did it," and speak no worse nonsense than anyone else.