Note: I will be covering the 7:38 p.m. (Eastern time) launch of the Space Shuttle Atlantis tonight via my Twitter page. I’ll also have a new blog entry up here before the event.
Sometimes, I have to laugh at the restrictions fundamentalist religions place on human behavior. I like to think of it this way: the tighter they fasten the chastity belt, the more likely stuff will pop out they don’t wanna see.
Today’s example is Ken Ham’s atrocious "creation museum", which is more akin to a funhouse full of warped mirrors that distort reality than an actual place to learn stuff. The situation: in a film shown in the museum depicting the Biblical account of creation, it turns out the actor playing Adam has, well, bitten off more than just a chunk of apple. He used to run a "sexually suggestive" website. Ham has taken down the video pending an investigation.
Shocking! You’d think the far-right theocrats would feel a bit haggard at this point, but the hits keep on coming.
Of course, this is all pretty funny to me, since I am not above the ocassional episode of schadenfreude, especially when it comes to people like Ham, who bears false witness for a living.
And as the actor who played Adam is quoted saying:
But just because I’m Adam on the screen, that doesn’t mean I’m Adam off the screen… I’m hired to get a point across. On the flip side, if I was hired to play a murderer, that doesn’t mean I’d go out and kill somebody. It’s make-believe.
Make believe. Yes, that fits the description of the "museum" quite well, I think!
June 8th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Haggard eh? No pun intended?
June 8th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
“”We are currently investigating the veracity of these serious claims of his participation in projects that don’t align with the biblical standards and moral code upon which the ministry was founded,” Answers for Genesis spokesman Mark Looy said in a written statement.”
I thought it was answers from genesis? Or in . . . or . . . something.
June 8th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
I’m actually GLAD they built this museum. I’m looking forward to bidding on one of those cool animatronic dinosaurs when they go broke and can’t pay their bills!
June 8th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
…And the fact that shine a big spotlight on this kind of nuttiness, so everyone can see how nutty it is!
June 8th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Anytime I hear anything about Genesis, all I can think about is when god calls out to Adam, “Where are you?” and asks if he ate of the tree. (GEN 3:9)… Where Are You? Isn’t this God? Shouldn’t he already know, like… Everything?
June 8th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
This is so timely! A friend sent me this link … Some guy went to the “museum” and took pictures, then put them up on Flickr. Take a minute to read of some of the comments people have posted against the photos. Hilarious!!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/drjonboyg/sets/72157600301874014/
June 8th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Just looked at the pics. Naturally, Adam & Eve are… white.
June 8th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Yeah, there’s a group on Facebook that posted pictures of the museum – a lot of them, over a hundred I believe. Anyway, some of the comments on those pictures (including some written by yours truly) are really snarky.
In particular, we had fun with one of the pictures featuring Adam and Eve, in which Adam had a nice haircut and Eve had long stringy hair. We joked that Adam had been to the salon, but Eve hadn’t… and Adam had apparently gotten a wax job done, too, since he didn’t have any body (chest) hair.
June 8th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
As much as I think the museum is ridiculous, and I don’t support it at all…
This is just an employee issue. Nothing more. It does not say that the museum or the nuts running it support porn. It just says that this guy didn’t put it down as a previous job on his application.
How do you know if someone that works for/with you has never run an internet porn site? Is that on your job application? Maybe it was, but who would answer it honestly…
I think the whole “creationism” stuff is just as bad as the rest of you, but don’t make this Ham guy out to be a porn supporter. Concentrate on bedunking all the ridiculous ideas he pushes on the public, not his lack of doing a CIA investigation for each employee.
June 8th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
Murff, I don’t think anyone interprets this as the museum supporting porn.
I also, sadly, believe that this museum will not go broke. It is already getting cult status, and their intended market is quite large.
June 9th, 2007 at 12:06 am
I think it will go broke and here is why. In the 1980s we had something in Michigan called “Autoworld”, it had nothing fun just stuffy things about the car biz. It was contrived and useless. The only fun (I use the word loosely) thing was an inside ferris wheel that you had to wait a long time to get on (we didn’t go). My dad got free tickets and we went but there was nothing to bring us back. Now there are good auto museums in Michigan the Henry Ford for example, but if you build something contrived like this and it doesn’t have time to properly build itself up it will stink and people will only go once. This thing is about as fun as church, that is to say boring enough that your eyelids will feel as heavy as cinder blocks.
June 9th, 2007 at 1:18 am
Troy, again I have the feeling that this is more wishful thinking than reality-based reasoning. Comparing a pseudo-scientific museum with a boring car-themed amusement park and stating that what holds for one holds for the other does not make a convincing argument.
I certainly do hope it will go bust, but at this point there is no indication that it will do so in the foreseeable future.
June 9th, 2007 at 3:33 am
PK, I think you are probably, depressingly, correct.
This “museum” is probably going to be around for a long time, perverting Science, dumbing down kids, and making an embarrassing amount of money for the owners.
As somebody once said “Never underestimate the power of Human stupidity”
June 9th, 2007 at 3:33 am
I used to do this with Digestive biscuits in my tea
PK, I think you’re right – it won’t go broke, there are too many believers. There are plenty here in Australia too. It’s so frustratingly sad.
June 9th, 2007 at 3:45 am
What is it about sex that scares the religious drones so?
Sex is good. If there is a creator, He/She/It must like sex. If God didn’t want us to enjoy sex, vaginae would have thorns.
OEJ
June 9th, 2007 at 7:38 am
Miranda, thanks for the link, some of those comments are hilarious! Nice to see how many are simply not taking any of it seriously at all, gives me some hope.
June 9th, 2007 at 10:23 am
SG-1 has a new episode in which the father of Vera(Claudia Black), another alien visitor to earth, has accurately calculated the gullibility of humans to the extant he is selling “star dust” with its ability to connect the ingester/user to the “alpha force of the universe”. The character sounded a lot like some of the televangelists we love to debunk.
People ARE gullible. Thus I expect the creation museum will thrive,,,,unfortunately,,,
GAry 7
June 9th, 2007 at 10:40 am
What will happen if the museum continues to attract large numbers who go because it’s so funny and amusing??????
June 9th, 2007 at 10:47 am
Just as little note on word choice — BA used an incorrect tense of the verb “to beget.” It should have read “Creation museum BEGETS controversy.”
This sort of thing is fairly common with unusual and/or archaic words. Last Sunday and NPR correspondent referred to “shodding a horse.”
June 9th, 2007 at 11:00 am
The Creation Museum is now open 7 days a week.
Seven days a week.
Does anyone else find that ironic? I’m no biblical scholar but I know there’s a bit in that book that not only talks about how the world was made but also something about having a day off.
June 9th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Since it’s funded by church donations, it doesn’t matter if the museum loses money. But I expect they would like to make some money.
Is there any astronomy in it?
June 10th, 2007 at 3:01 am
abburdlen, didn’t you know, the greatest sin in the creationist’ theology is not to make a profit?
After all, they are more than willing to pervert Science in the name of their agenda, is it any surprise that they are willing to subver their own ‘instruction manual’ for the same ends?
In the South there is a fast-food chain called ‘chick-fil-a’ (I’m not sure if they are nationwide or not), and the founder is a devout Christian – as a result, none of the stores in that chain are open on Sunday, and somehow they manage to make a tidy profit. I wonder if Sunday work is required, or volutary at Ham’s place???
June 10th, 2007 at 8:31 am
I can’t see what the fuss is all about. When I’m looking through my Meade 12 inch ’scope (oh, my pride and joy), I’m looking at star systems light years away. If I’m sailing in a boat those stars, for navigation purposes are ‘painted’ onto the sky. Why not let everyone hold their own belief without ridiculing them – isn’t that the mark of a democratic, freedom-loving society?.
One thing I have noticed from the comments here, and my knowledge of science is incomplete (but who’s isn’t? That’s what science is all about) is how incomplete some peoples knowledge of the Bible is. I’m not a guy that has to defend the Bible (though its odd how ‘rattled’ some scientific-orientated carbon life-forms get), but let’s at least try to understand Genesis (and what God meant when he asked questions in ‘the garden’) before we try to demolish it. Because it just betrays our ignorance. It’s akin to me saying astronomny is rubbish because a few years ago some scientists reckon the stars were older than the space they ‘inhabited’ (and that was a view at one point). Ofcourse I can’t say that – especially as I enjoy astronomy and my purpose was to leanr and not just denigrate someones belief.
So, please. guys, less heat more light (whoever you think the light got there!). Ciao
June 10th, 2007 at 10:24 am
Brother Tadhg: The fuss is about sheep fleecing. While we(skeptics) are trying to grow thoughtful, rigorous thinking, problem solving citizens, the unscrupulous are trying to create wolf snacks and unfortunately, they’re doing a pretty good job of that. It’s easy to play to fear and make gobs of money. So difficult to encourage bravery in an uncertain reality. It takes great courage to let go the support of a god crutch and walk this universe alone. It is however, something every child must eventually do. Then maybe we can have logical discussions of how to solve our very real survival issues. As long as people have hope that some deity will magically solve their problems, we will be hobbled by such wishful thinking and those problems will remain unresolved.
GAds, I need more coffee,,,
GAry 7
June 11th, 2007 at 2:24 am
“not just denigrate someones belief.”
This isn’t about denigrating someone’s belief. This is about exposing anti-science for the BS that it is.
(It’s just we can’t help but laugh when you have a bunch of plonkers who are trying to teach people that the T-Rex ate daisies)
June 11th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
I’m reminded of another creationist venture, Kent Hovind’s Dinosaur Adventure Land. Hovind is a creationist who build a dinosaur themed creationist theme park in his yard in Florida. He has had ongoing battles with the legal system regarding failure to get permits, improper zoning, and tax dodging. Somehow or another, the website still lists it as open for 2007. I thought the IRS had closed in on Hovind a while back, but apparently things haven’t finalized.
http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-11/hovind.html
The difference I see here is one of funding and appearance. Hovind’s theme park comes off rinky dinky and amateur. From the pictures, this museum has the appearance of a modern, neat, glossy museum with quality displays. The presentation is slick. The scientific content is juxtaposed against nonsense that is presented as of equivalent (if not superior) merit. Sadly, there is enough of a market for this attitude that I don’t think the museum will go broke.
June 11th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
Brother Tadhg, you answer some of your own questions in your post. These are just a few of the reasons that I am fussy about Creationists:
1) You say that we are in a “democratic, freedom loving society,” yet how many new laws are proposed or passed every year by “Right-Wing Christian Conservative” elected officials that are obviously designed to LIMIT our rights and freedoms? Laws against gays (laws defining marriage as only between a man and a woman) for example. Or laws deciding what can and cannot be shown on public television? I mean, its OK to show people shooting and killing each other on TV, but we have to throw a fit if someone shows a boob? My big concern is that these elected officials of our democratic society are passing laws (such as teaching “intelligent design” in our schools) that are clearly and wholeheartedly religious in nature, thereby forcing religion upon the people, which the Constitution of the United States expressly forbids.
2) Your comment regarding knowledge of science vs. knowledge of the bible works both ways. The whole purpose of this Creation Museum is to demolish the scientific facts (obtained by following the basic scientific principles of hypothesis and observation) that don’t agree with words in a book.
3) The issue of Literal Creationism has been brought up on this board many times. Its okay to say we are trying to “understand Genesis”. I don’t have a problem with studying a text in order to gain a better understanding of the subject matter. But I do have a problem with the literalists that insist the text of the bible is flawless, and that the hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of papers, journals, and books and the scientists that study geology, biology, astronomy, etc. who write those books are wrong.
4) The real battle here (if you can even call it a battle) is simply constant vigilance against misinformation. If someone you know were to tell you that the earth is flat, that the moon is made of green cheese, or that the sun is just a big GE lightbulb that floats across the sky, would you correct them? If we are all entitled to our belief, then why would the Creationists care if the scientists believed in evolution? (My answer is because the Creationists get their money from their followers, and scientific fact is a threat to their profits. But that’s just my opinion.)
I have no problem with anyone else’s religion, as long as they practice it in the privacy of their own home.
B-)
June 13th, 2007 at 1:58 am
I totally agree with Murff. We can perfectly debunk their false ideas without using their own arguments. Yes, because making investigations on other people’s life in order to find scandals is just the way bigots discredit people.
Ciao,
Guido
July 2nd, 2007 at 2:46 am
So Phil, take it you’re not planning to visit the place yourself?
July 2nd, 2007 at 3:04 am
… Althopugh come tothink of it thatcouldbe quite funny – imagine the BA, the Squid and a party of biology professors taking a casual stroll around -guiding tourists and visitors by pointing out all the erros of scence, fact & common sense!
I wonder how long a skeptical scientist would last if they went in there and asked a few reasonable questions like :
1) So those teeth were designed for eating what? and
2) How much animal droppings did build up on theArk?
&
3) How long did it take Noah tocatch every species of Australian, Indonesian, tropical ranforest yet undiscoveredetc ..animal…? (& how come THAT really epic story didn’t maeit into the Bible..)
Anyone livng near there (I’m an Aussie resident – sadly ths made it as anews story eevn here in Oz) wish totry that practical experemnt in the toleration of Fundamentalist Christians for giving equal tme to sanity? ..
As for the whole “sexual issues” issue – Yep – the Puritans have a lot to be blamed for .. The Janet Jackson micro-second 1/4 breast pop-out furore must be the most overhyped mountan-from-molehill (sorry Janet -not implying anything there!) beat-up issue in human history … Well except maybe for the War of Jenkin’s Ear!
Hmn .. Maybe we should add “So why did God create us with genitalia and is S/He/It circumcised Her/ His /Itself btw” to the list …