Rejecting a Creationist Museum Challenge

In A Tale of Two Museums the Evangelical Ecologist gives the following challenge to those of us who are Christians and accept the theory of evolution. (Yeah, that’s why we use “theistic evolutionist”–it takes less time to type!):

But clearly it’s not a scientific method that’s being debated here, though I suppose that’s part of it. At the root of the difference between these two museums is an infinitely divergent world view. One museum unabashedly acknowledges God as Creator and the Bible as a competent standard to establish the context for man’s place in the history of the biosphere. The other, not.

So to those of you espousing the evolutionary view, before you condemn in toto what the folks in Kentucky are doing, I offer this challenge: Gather like-minded souls together, raise $25 or so million dollars, and build a museum on a Biblically-based evolutionary model that expressly brings mankind closer to the Creator rather than driving people further away from Him.

But I have several problems with that challenge. First, the museum in Kentucky is not about acknowledging God as creator. If it was, they could do just that. It’s about acknowledging one interpretation of Genesis as superior to all forms of science. It is the scientific method that is being debated here. Young earth creationism is profoundly anti-science of all varieties.

Second, I don’t need the new Museum. I do not desire a science museum that acknowledges God. Where should it do so? Should there be an addition to each sign that says, “And God did it?” One of the great values in science is that anybody can do it, if they’re willing. Results must be replicable. A Muslim, a Jew, a Hindu, a Christian, an Atheist all should be able to come to the same scientific conclusion. If they can’t, it’s either a bad conclusion, or one of them is not doing science.

I’m going to stick with the my own knowledge that my heavenly father made all this and let the science museums stick with describing it.

Similar Posts


  1. I agree with most of what you have said, except your last statement. Science museums all support evolution. There is no proof of evolution, yet it is presented as fact, just as some Christians present the six days of creation as fact. If the Bible is true science should agree with it and I believe it does. Most scientist do not agree with the Bible and they present their views as fact, just as those who do agree with the Bible. It seems to me that the basic problem is to say that our view of something is absolutely true. We, both Christians and scientist, do not know enough about anything to say this. If one must acknowledge either view as the most important it would have to be that the Bible is absolutely correct and if it seems to disagree with science then we do not yet understand either the science of the subject, or what the Bible is saying about a particular subject.

  2. You say there is no proof of evolution? Have you studied science at the college level? In a university known to churn out real, productive research scientists? Evolution IS the paradigm of biology today. Microevolution is fact and can be observed in a laboratory or in nature today. Macroevolution is nearing testability by virture of genetic science. Someday we may well be able to “turn back the clock” and create a formerly living ancestor of a modern species. Though I suspect that the limits imposed by loss of genetic information will lead to YECs not being impressed at all. Whether evolution is theory or fact depends on the defintion. At a certain, limited scale it is fact. At the scale of geological time, it is a compelling theory that satisfies the criteria of being “science”. Taking Genesis literally, then imposing that narrow interpretation upon on the data at hand is NOT science. Try reading Genesis as a liturgy sometime, with the congregational response being the relatively uniform “And the evening and the morning were the ______ day.” Suddenly, the light goes on and one says A ha, this is what the author meant for this passage of scripture, not for it to be used as a science text.

  3. Try reading Genesis as a liturgy sometime, . . .

    I wanted to highlight your excellent recommendation. Perhaps we would find it easier to hear a text as liturgical if so many churches had not practically abandoned a liturgical style of reading, such as responsive reading, musical responses, and so fort.

  4. Well, would studying a subject at any level guarantee accuracy, or are you trying to belittle me? Of course you are. Does Dr Walt Brown have enough accreditation for you?
    All of his book is available for your examination on http://www.creationscience.com. (If what is written about DNA does’t amaze you then there is something wrong with me)(Yes I know what I said)
    I will agree with you that, “Evolution IS the paradigm of biology today.” and add that it is a sad state of affairs.
    I admire intellects until they start preaching without studying both sides of an issue.
    Really the mechanics of living things is not the most important aspect of life. The real question is “What is life?” When you can answer that question I will be in awe of you. I know you hate the word, but life is magic. You can not define it, don’t know where it came from, and don’t know where it goes.
    I don’t really understand how one could prove how something could have been made by taking that something and making something else out of it. Sounds like bad science to me.
    Try reading Genesis as I do. You can because I posted it “WAS EVERTHING MADE IN SIX DAYS?”

Comments are closed.