Skip to comments.Society Of Vertebrate Paleontology Speaks Out On Creation Museum
Posted on 07/29/2007 2:13:08 PM PDT by EveningStar
Professional paleontologists from around the world are concerned about the misrepresentation of science at the newly opened Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky. The Creation Museum has been marketed to the public as a reasoned, logical defence for young-earth creationism by Ken Ham, the President and CEO of Answers in Genesis, which runs the Creation Museum.
The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, a world-wide scientific and educational organization concerned with vertebrate paleontology, contends that the museum presents visitors with a view of earth history that has been scientifically disproven for over a century...
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencedaily.com ...
So I guess censorship in the name of science is acceptable. Whether or not one agrees with the premise of this museum, its founder has a right to advocate his position and present it to the public.
Private money....private museum.
You do have to wonder why these guys (scientists) are so unsure of their belief structure that the creation museum would scare them..
That doesn't necessarily mean that Creationists are right. Science is not a popularity contest. But it does point out why Evolutionists are so afraid the Creationists.
Personally, I find that I don't have enough faith to believe in Evolution.
It's a beautiful building and the grounds have been presented in a very appealing manner.
Some exhibits are animatronic. Other than the place was busier than flies on stink and navigating the exhibits was thus a pain, I was overall impressed. Due to a time contstraint, I was unable to see the plantarium exhibit.
Less impressed was the justification they used in the exhibits. There was a Disney like video (seats that rumble and spritzes of water when the appropriate action is seen on the screen)that had a young girl wondering about the purpose of life. The video was heavy on saying the secular worlds version of events had conflicts and was based on theories, yet they only referred to an apologetic way of looking at scripture to justify the theories of the Genesis believer. It was also heavy on dissing public education rather than telling how working in concert with public education, fuller and better explanations could support the fact of God in science.
There was another portion of the exhibit that had two palentologists working a find. The speaker was a believer. The other person was not. They had been schooled together and work many of the same digs. The believer simply said they came to different conclusion using the same set of facts because of where they set their beginning. Of course the believers was in a literal interpretation of Genesis.
The remainder of the exhibits contained a lot of claims of proof, yet they was a strong use of the word "could". While the secular world claims X happened, we believe it "could" be explained as Y. The canyons of the Mt. Saint Helens eruption was often cited to explain the Grand Canyon "could" have been formed in less than 10,000 years.
It was a exhibit to plant doubt of the secular and scientific view of the world rather than provide conclusive evidence of the biblical view.
I clicked on the link and read the full news release. There was nothing there about censorship. I also looked around the website of The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology to see if there was any additional information on the news release or a call for censorship that the news release omitted. There was none. Are you using some other source?
That’s pretty much what I saw too - no call for censorship.
it’s not censorship but despite evolution in all the public schools, museums and even subtle references in kiddie movies like Ice Age and Curious George, most Americans just aint buying it. And that really bothers them.
So I guess censorship in the name of science is acceptable.
I read the article and I see that you are the only person talking about censorship.
Whether or not one agrees with the premise of this museum, its founder has a right to advocate his position and present it to the public.
Yes he does. It's freedom of speech. Speech that the majority agrees with is already protected, It's speech that is in the minority that most needs first amendment protection. Of course, that has no bearing on whether the speech is honest or irrational. See tagline.
The SVP is a buncha snooty-nosed @-holes.
Definitely a bunch of elitists in the world of paleontology.
why are they so scared of free speech?
Who is scared of free speech?
When a spokesperson for a group of scientists claims that the Museum is a “danger” to the public discourse, the clear implication is that the museum should not be operating. Calling something as innocuous as a Creation musem a “danger” is an attempt to drive it beyond the the realm of acceptable discourse. The same type of verbiage is currently being employed by scientists in the Global Warming dispute, the most current example being the threatening letter sent from the EPA to a dissenter. The attempt by scientists, right or wrong, to place themselves above public scrutiny in the mode of a priesthood is the real danger. While I do not agree personally with the strict premise of the Creation Museum, this bit of americana has every right to exist without being call a danger to the public. The use of Political Correctness against the Museum is IMO a veiled call for censorship.
It represents a danger because it presents psuedoscience as real. Some people will actually believe what is presented as true science and that isn’t a good thing.
I can’t understand why fundamental Christians need to invent any sort of science. Why isn’t faith enough?
Most of us in the public view museums as places to get the latest information on scientific discovery. In this case, the Creation Museum is using the disguise of science museums and centers without including an iota of science inside, said Dr. Kristi Curry Rogers of the Science Museum of Minnesota.
Thats the real danger of such a place undermining the basic principles of science, eroding the public's confidence in science, and causing a general weakening of science education in the country, commented Dr. Glenn Storrs of the Cincinnati Museum Center.
Dr. Storrs didn't say it was a "'danger' to the public discourse," as you dishonestly posted, he said it was a danger to the public's understanding of science.
The attempt by scientists, right or wrong, to place themselves above public scrutiny in the mode of a priesthood is the real danger.
How is pointing out that the museum isn't scientific putting scientists "in the mode of a priesthood"?
While I do not agree personally with the strict premise of the Creation Museum, this bit of americana has every right to exist without being call[sic] a danger to the public. The use of Political Correctness against the Museum is IMO a veiled call for censorship.
Pardon me if I find your dislcaimer about not personally agreeing with the strict premise of the Creation Museum difficult to believe. If the Museum has freedom of speech (and it does), why doesn't The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology? Does "free speech" run in only one direction? You position is incoherent: you don't agree with the museum, but you don't want it criticized. And to avoid that, you'd censor the speech of those who would. And those whom you'd censor are the scientists who've spent their lives studying the subject ostensibly covered by the museum.
They aren't the censors, potential or real. You are.