The New Creation Museum: A $25,000,000 Monument to Stupidity

Steve Shives
The Creation Museum, a state-of-the-art interactive 60,000 square-foot facility, had its grand opening May 28 in Petersburg, Kentucky, not far from Cincinnati, Ohio. The museum cost over $25,000,000 to construct, collected entirely through donations from private investors. It is the brainchild of Ken Ham, who is also the founder and head-honcho of the Christian ministry Answers in Genesis. Ken is a native Australian with, according to his bio, a B.S. in applied science from Queensland Institute of Technology.[1] Either the Queensland Institute of Technology is not a very good school, or Ken Ham wasn't paying attention in class.

As you might intuit from the name of his ministry (and the titles of the books he has authored or co-authored, including The Lie: Evolution), Ken Ham is a creationist, meaning he believes the Earth and the rest of the universe was created by the hand of God. But that is too general a description; Ken is a young Earth creationist, meaning he believes the universe to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 6,000-10,000 years old. Ken is also a biblical literalist-he thinks the Earth was created exactly as described in the Book of Genesis. It is this model of the universe that is represented in the Creation Museum.

Ken Ham might be a nice guy-I don't know him personally-but scientifically speaking, he's an idiot. The fact that he seems to have a legitimate scientific education makes him stubborn and willfully ignorant, as well. Consider that he's just spent an enormous amount of money building a facility to proclaim his plainly wrong theories to potentially hundreds of thousands of gullible visitors a year, and we may also add "irresponsible" to the list.

The "science" presented at the Creation Museum is a feeble imitation of the real thing. Some creationists talk a good game, but most of their claims are preposterous, and some of their explanations are elaborately contrived in order to force uncooperative facts to agree with the creation myth of Genesis. "The Bible is true. No doubt about it!" decrees the entry describing the museum's Bible Authority Room on an online walkthrough. The entry then declares the ignorance of anyone who rejects the biblical version of history, "including literal six-day creation."[2]

Ignorance is not rejecting the Genesis account; ignorance is using the Bible as a basis for science when it is an unfit foundation for anything-its history is convoluted and unreliable, its morality is confused and often repugnant, and it contains no science as we now define the term. It brims over with pseudoscience and mysticism, astrology, numerology, so-called prophecy, has all the hallmarks of mythology, but contains none of the objective observation and critical analysis on which legitimate modern scientific inquiry depends.

Creationists like Ken Ham tether their pale simulacrum of actual science to the Bible because they believe it to be God's Word, inerrant and perfect; yet to anyone who reads the Bible honestly and objectively, this is self-evidently false. Christians turn to the Bible for moral guidance, but (to cite just one example) in Numbers chapter 31 we read how Moses, great hero of the faith and supposed author of the Torah, angrily rebuked officers in his army following a battle with the Midianites where, following God's orders, they had killed every man. Why was Moses angry? I'll let him speak for himself: "And Moses said to them: "Have you kept all the women alive? Look, these women caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to trespass against the LORD in the incident of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man intimately. But keep alive for yourselves all the young girls who have not known a man intimately." (Numbers 31:15-18, NKJV)

Some hero, ordering his men to slaughter all the male children and their mothers, but to keep the virgins for themselves. If the Bible is so warped that a degenerate murderer like Moses is portrayed as a role model, why should we trust its so-called science any more than its morality?

The various exhibits at Ken Ham's museum depict, through models, life-size recreations, animatronics, and a much-touted special-effects theater, several important episodes in the Biblical account of history. Visitors get to walk through a replica of the Garden of Eden, stand before the Tree of Knowledge, and learn the answer to the oft-asked question, "Where did Cain's wife come from?" (Answer: he, like the rest of his brothers, married one of his sisters.[3]) They learn how Adam named all the animals, how children in the first generation played outside with nearby dinosaurs (all of whom were apparently friendly herbivores), and how Eve ate an apple and caused everything bad that has happened since.

After that, you can visit Noah's workshop and tour a full-scale "historically accurate" model of the ark, and learn how Noah and his family fed and cared for the tens of thousands of animals kept onboard for over a year during the Great Flood. Then see how the people of ancient Babel offended God by trying to build a tower tall enough to reach him, forcing the omnipotent and omniscient creator of everything to destroy the tower and confuse their languages so the people of Earth could never try such a wacky stunt again.

Describing these attractions only reinforces how utterly ridiculous it is that anyone in the civilized world believes any of this actually happened, especially those who claim to be scientists. I don't deny that some stories found in the Bible have some value as myths or as literature, but to insist that it is the authority on everything is deranged. Creationism is not science. Most of the time it doesn't even look like science. Its supporters have struggled for decades to establish it as an equally valid alternative theory to evolution to be taught to children in science classrooms; they have always failed, because what they propose to teach is the opposite of science.

The first step in the scientific method is observation. But creationists don't start there; they begin with their conclusion. Creationists assume that God created the universe exactly like the Bible says he did, and work backwards to prove it. It's intellectual dishonesty of the worst kind. When subjected to actual scientific rigor, creationist explanations disintegrate. To be scientifically useful, a hypothesis must be falsifiable, and in this way the creationist theories do at least serve a minor function; we may not know exactly how the universe was created, or all the details of the mechanisms of evolution, but we do know-for a fact-that the universe was not made in six 24-hour days less than 10,000 years ago by the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

The biggest shame of all about the Creation Museum is that it sounds like a pretty neat place, gross scientific inaccuracies aside. Who wouldn't want to visit a place with animatronic dinosaurs, for God's sake? The exhibits were designed by Patrick Marsh, who also built the Jaws and King Kong rides at Universal Studios.[4] That slick, compelling presentation will probably convince many of those who visit, especially young children who don't know any better, that what they are seeing is the truth. That ignorance, generated and upheld by religious dogma masquerading as real science, will remain with many of them for the rest of their lives.

I'm glad my parents took me to the Smithsonian.

Published by Steve Shives

I'm not especially intelligent or eloquent, but I'm honest, independent, and prolific, so I'm bound to stumble across an insight now and then.  View profile

15 Comments

Post a Comment
  • Adam Powell8/27/2011

    Evolutionists version of God, is a man in a lab coat. And they'll believe whatever he tells them.

  • Adam Powell8/27/2011

    you do realize that the museum wasn't meant to be a a real science museum right? Even creationists said this. You're dumber than you think ken ham is.

    Of course that doesn't make the idea wrong. There's actually more flaws in evolution than creationism.

    Even the bible(a book with more science than a science book) says it's 6000 yr old.
    If evolutionist would quit calling it fact, they'd see how much of a religion it is. It's not the same s gravity. Any fool can walk off a cliff. No one can turn a cell into a dinosaur. Liberal bias. Nothing more.
    Evolution isn't based on evidence. There used to be evidence of a flat earth. If people would look at creationists evidence they'd change. I've seen many evolutionists convert BASED ON SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE NOT RELIGION.

  • Daveman12/16/2010

    I personally think both us coming from nothing(not talking about Evolution in the sense of species evolving but the idea we came from a single cell organism with no obvious catalyst causing us to happen) and Christian Creationism both sound idiotic. Both beliefs on how life started are blatantly based on FAITH. I am sick and tired of people bickering back and forth instead of saying the only obvious truth that I DON'T KNOW. I do agree that this is a monument to stupidity, but hey, if you have that much money you get to do whatever the hell you want to do in this wonderful capitalist US of A!!! This is moronic, but I give him props for having the gajonyas for sticking to what he believes and in essence committing professional suicide as a person with his level of education. Ataboy:)

  • Mike White11/26/2010

    Some people, when they try to prove the theory of evolution or disprove creation offer some kind of facts, even though I may personally believe they are distorted or twisted. You do not do that, you just offer opinion upon opinion, with no facts at all, sort of like they say we creationists do. Why are your opinions any better than anyone else's?

  • Joel K. Ness2/9/2010

    Ken Ham is way behind the times. The original dinosaurs and man theme park was opened in 1966. Go to:
    http://www.flintstonesbedrockcity.com

  • samadams211/3/2009

    Steve said: "it 'sounds' like a pretty neat place" Apparently, Steve has not visited the Creation Museum, yet he professes to know so much about it.
    I recommend that Steve actually go a spend a Friday afternoon/evening and Saturday morning taking it all in. After that, I would like to read another review by him.

    samadams2

  • dumbcreationists3/16/2009

    Any Creationist who thinks there is not enough evidence for Evoloution clearly hasnt studied it enough, there has been observed evoloution in species over the last few hundred years:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

    including the hospital bug MRSA which has evoloved very recently.

    and the fossil record is full of missing links such as Archaeopteryx.

    The funniest thing of all however is that Evoloution never once claims to be the answer to how life started, Evoloution is how life came to be what it is today, the study of the origin of life is Abiogenesis....Creationists have spent years fighting the wrong enemy (they probably cant pronounce Abiogenesis).

    Science can also proove that the Universe is Billions of years old, its as simple as understanding the speed of light and knowing that there is a vast amount of stars and Galaxies in our Universe, if the universe was 6000 years old the sky would be constantly bright and the Earth would not exist, let al

  • Sharon Poffinberger9/19/2007

    Now I have this morbid curiousity to actually see this museum for myself. lol Generally when faced with the usual response of Creationists when they point out that 'Evolution is a theory', I tell them; Yeah, like gravity.

  • OJO8/17/2007

    Evolution, natural selection to me sound dumb. Yhou have a bunch of so called intelligent people making a bunch tohu bohu about a theory that single cell organisms over millions of years became everthing we have today. That shows dumb they are. What was there before single cells, big bang, and all the other nonsense you believe. There is evolution, and it's not the you believe.

  • The Lazy Interviewer7/28/2007

    Oh boy........

    The problem with Creationists is that they have an answer for everything that seldom can be proven without anything but faith and the book. Evolution is not this wacky theory, it's based on evidence, scientific observation, and testing. Just because there isn't a book passed through the ages with nice photographs of every "missing" link, doesn't mean that evolution is supported.

    Creation, however, is not.

    This article is correct. This is a monument to stupidity. To me, its a disservice to God to pretend that everything in the Bible is literal. If the Bible was meant to be the complete answer to everything, why is it that God hasn't updated it in centuries?

    I believe the Bible is what all religious texts are, a guide on sensible rules for living your life and getting along, coupled with stories that reflected a historic people's belief on how things they couldn't explain came to be. I am spiritual, I pray, and I like to think that all of this

Displaying Comments
Next »

To comment, please sign in to your Yahoo! account, or sign up for a new account.