mental_floss magazine
SUBSCRIBE >
GIFT SUBSCRIPTIONS >
DIGITAL SUBSCRIPTIONS >
subscriber services >
In my Year of Living Biblically, one of the more fascinating and surprising pilgrimages was to the new Creation Museum in Kentucky. This is the $25 million museum for those who believe that the earth is 6,000 years old. It’s the Louvre of the young earth movement.
And whatever I may think of creationism, I have to admit that the museum is spectacularly well done. There is a scale model of the ark. There are animatronic cave people and dinosaurs. There is a movie theater with sprinklers in the ceiling that go off during the flood scenes.
Here are five things I learned from my visit:
Dinosaurs on the ark, Biblical Astronomers, and why Inherit the Wind is unfair to Creationists, all after the jump…
- Creationists are not idiots: If I had to guess, I’d say there’s no IQ difference between your average creationist and your average evolutionist. It’s just that the creationists’ faith is so strong, they’ll distort data to fit their literal view of Genesis.
- The ark had baby dinosaurs?: The creationists I met had put a remarkable amount of thought into the logistics of Noah’s Ark. I bought a book called Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study, which spends 300 pages outlining the engineering. There are chapters on the ventilation system, on-board exercise for the animals and the myth of explosive manure gases. And how did they fit all those animals on the ark? The head of the museum told me that many of the big ones – like the dinosaurs – went on when they were younger to save room.
- Moderation is a relative term: I thought that creationism was about as far to the literal fringe as I could go. Not so. Consider this: When I was at the Creation Museum, I met their resident astrophysicist.
He told me about a group of people called Biblical Astronomers whom he considers an embarrassment to the creationist movement.
The Biblical Astronomers believe the earth is the center of the universe and remains stationary because it says in Psalm 93:1 that the earth “shall never be moved.” The mainstream creationists believe the earth is young – but it does revolve around the sun.
- There is an unexpected beauty and dignity in the creationist worldview. I’ll never abandon evolution – even if they found Noah’s page-a-day calendar on a pristinely preserved ark. But I did a thought experiment one day: I imagined what it would be like to be a creationist. I put myself in the mind of someone who believes the earth was formed 6000 years ago.And it was an amazing experience. Most notably, I felt more connected. If everyone on earth is descended from two identifiable people – Adam and Eve – then the “family of man” isn’t just a vague cliche. It’s true. The guy who sells me bananas at the deli on 81st street – he’s my cousin. The creationist mindset made me feel closer to my fellow humans. It made me want to invite strangers over to dinner. My goal is to keep that ‘we’re-all-family’ mindset without having to adopt the six-day-creation POV.
- Inherit the Wind is kinda unfair to creationists. I heard this time and again from the creationists I met. They said the famous play-turned-Spencer-Tracy movie portrayed them unfairly. I rented it. And I have to say, they’ve got a point.William Jennings Bryan – a deeply religious three-time Democratic presidential nominee who was the prosecuting attorney for the anti-evolution folks – was turned into a total buffoon named Matthew Harrison Brady, played by Frederic March. Brady is a pot-bellied glutton. In one scene, he’s gorging on fried chicken out of a basket…in the courtroom. The film recreates the famous showdown over the Bible between the Bryan and the brilliant Chicago lawyer Clarence Darrow. It’s a good scene. But if you read the court transcript, it was actually a more interesting and subtle confrontation.
For instance, here’s the dialogue from the movie:
Darrow: Do you believe every word of the Bible is true?
Bryan: Yes. Every word is literally true.
And here’s the corresponding real exchange:
Darrow: Do you claim that everything in the Bible should be literally interpreted?
Bryan: I believe everything in the Bible should be accepted as it is given there. Some of the Bible is given illustratively; for instance, “Ye are the salt of the earth.” I would not insist that man was actually salt, or that he had flesh of salt, but it is used in the sense of salt as saving God’s people.
Like creationists today, he admits there is some figurative language in the Bible, even if most of it should be taken as literally true. Yes, I know there’s artistic license and all that. But it does seem odd to me that this movie – which is supposed to be a champion for the truth – distorted the truth so much. Why do that? Especially when you have reality on your side.
Like this column? Check out AJ’s terrific posts on Biblical Trivia and on hanging out with the Amish. Or just buy his new book here.
Comments (34)
Comment
- Follow mental_floss
common now do you actually believe in creationism. It is was too for fetched for me. It was great when I was a kid and great for kids in general but its not for me.
posted by Rick Campbell on 10-25-2007 at 3:11 pm
YES!!! Ive been waiting for this article all day! I think this guy is awesome. I dont know about this whole creationism thing-a-ma whatsit, But I am defenitely getting this book.
posted by Gil on 10-25-2007 at 3:16 pm
hey Rick, I’m sure AJ’s not a creationist, but just reporting on the things he found interesting as he was trying to understand their beliefs.
posted by Mangesh on 10-25-2007 at 3:17 pm
Ken Ham(one of the guys involved with the creation museum) is a brilliant man; I heard him speak several times while in college. If some of you were as open minded as you say you are, you would give him a chance and see through the fallacies of evolution. Or would a simple, easily explained and proven theory be too open minded….
posted by Andrew on 10-25-2007 at 3:52 pm
If god exists and created the earth, then why has he never been interviewed in the pages of Vanity Fair magazine?
posted by Scott Rose on 10-25-2007 at 3:56 pm
The main thing I appreciate about AJ’s book is that it is opening a dialogue. The great taboo of not talking about religion. I too am agnostic. I too believe in respecting those of faith.
But what irritates me to no end is when a religious person is disrespectful of my beliefs. Recently I had a family member tell my 9 year old son that Harry Potter was demonic. If he disagreed with my parental choice to let my children read Harry Potter, the respectful thing to do would be to pull me aside and explain his concerns.
I am interested in the Bible, and religion (and other religions). It has and continues to play a huge role in our daily lives. But I am agnostic. I teach my children to be respectful off all faiths and believes (or lack of belief).
posted by Elizabeth on 10-25-2007 at 3:59 pm
I’ve never been to that museum, but I’ve attended some literally translating services in my town. But I’m usually pretty creeped out by these folks, not that they aren’t nice and all that, its just that if you can get people to believe that all the animals in the world were on a boat a few thousand years ago, what other scary things can you get them to believe? My experience taught me that you can get them to believe some really awful things too. And some of the folks who believe really awful things DO really awful things. I much prefer a doubter to a true believer.
posted by Scott on 10-25-2007 at 4:14 pm
I has been my general experience that whereas agnostics and atheists are generally respectful of the beliefs of the religious (unless they are having it shoved down their throats), the truly religious seem to have no intention of returning the favor. The ones I have encountered tend to disrespect any beleif system other than their own either as accusing them of bearing false belief (when dealing with the faithful of another religion) or of being so stupid as to be fooled by the fallacies of science (thank you Andrew).
AJ was nice and respectful and made sure not to ruffle a single feather. I admire that, but at the same time i think there are times when a few feathers need to be ruffled – say when people want to stop science from being taught. We need scientists, lets not lose them to being too polite.
posted by Ed on 10-25-2007 at 4:14 pm
It is quite funny how he disparages Creationists for distorting data, as if Evolutionists don’t do the same, but then says he’d never “abandon evolution” himself despite proof of Noah.
Did I say quite funny? I meant quite pathetic and not surprising at all.
posted by Sam on 10-25-2007 at 4:57 pm
interesting. i read a wonderful article about this museum in “skeptic” magazine. the article did a great job of showing how flawed the museum inherently is.
posted by Jennifer on 10-25-2007 at 5:17 pm
Interesting article. I admire how you can present both sides of the story and even say you are for a certain side without being offensive towards the other. Religion is a major issue in my family. My parents are both fundamentalist bible believing Christians who think everyone who does not believe how they believe are damned to hell for all of eternity. I on the other hand have always been interested and fascinated by other religions. I love listening to other people explaining what they believe in, and why. One thing I’ve learned is that anyone who wants to tell you about their religion usually has no interest in hearing about your’s. Thank you for the interesting read. :)
posted by Tara on 10-25-2007 at 8:02 pm
Regarding point 1, the evidence suggests that your average YECer is both less intelligent and less educated than your average evolutionist.
You are being too kind to them.
posted by salient on 10-25-2007 at 9:36 pm
One thing to keep in mind regarding those creationists being disparaged is that they are not usually dumb sheep; many of the people I’ve talked to think things through thoroughly and don’t blindly hold on to faith because Joe Shmoe once told them to. They are also usually careful about what influences their thoughts, a lesson for all of us!
posted by Jim F. on 10-25-2007 at 9:50 pm
The play changed details mostly for purposes of clarity and brevity. The biggest difference between the passages you quote above: length. The play is three acts as is, and the film isn’t much shorter.
I actually performed in a production on Inherit the Wind, and while I shared your frustration with the distortions and loss of certain nuances, I still had to admit that most of the changes the writers made were very good.
I can’t speak for the film versions, though. They make the townspeople more nasty than they needed to be. The real problem with those people is ignorance and fear, not nastiness.
posted by Andrew on 10-25-2007 at 10:42 pm
`I’ll never abandon evolution` throws the rest of this article into a strange light for me as well; having too much faith in science as we know it is not rationalism.
posted by Nikolas Payne on 10-26-2007 at 12:00 am
What surprises me is how tolerant we can be of other’s thoughts and beliefs, but when it comes to Christianity and creationism we think they are uneducated bigots. Whether or not you had a bad experience with some Christians should be irrelevant if you are truly open minded. Tolerance is equal opportunity, not just to the beliefs you agree with.
posted by Kate on 10-26-2007 at 6:00 am
Scott Rose,
Why would you demand more of the the author of the Bible than you do of the author of The Catcher in the Rye. He’s already said his piece, dawg!
And AJ,
Fair enough, man.
David
posted by David O on 10-26-2007 at 6:09 am
Thanks for another great article and keeping an open mind about these topics. While I do not believe in the literal, Biblical timeline for creation, I feel we are all here for a purpose, and are not a result of unlikely and random events. Evolution, as a process, is irrelevant to my faith in God.
posted by Josh on 10-26-2007 at 8:22 am
Thank You Kate and Jim F, for having some sane reasoning.
As far as creationists distorting the facts, show me a “missing link” that has been proven as such; “Lucy” is an ape(re: not human), and please can someone give me a brief synopsis of Piltdown Man. Go Ahead. I’ll wait. I’ll even make coffee.
With regards to the young earth, did MentalFloss not recently have an article about modern items being found fossilized and petrified after mere decades, not millions of years? Why are seemingly modern human footprints found fossilized with dinosaur footprints on top of them?
Oh, and while you are preparing the dissertation on Piltdown Man, please prepare a short study on the evolutionary reason for the duckbill platypus. I’ll wait.
…like Jim said, I did not arrive at my beliefs in creationism or God lightly. It took years of study and overwhelming wvidence for me to arrive at these conclusions. If I come across as narrow-minded, it is simply because I have a hard time believing how millions of people can dismiss mountains of evidence as a fairy tale.
posted by Andrew on 10-26-2007 at 8:22 am
Good article. It sold me your book.
posted by TMo on 10-26-2007 at 8:28 am
This was a good article. I feel that there is faith involved on both sides of the coin. It takes as much faith to believe that my ancestors started out as a single cell organism that crepted up out of the sea what used to be a million yrs old and now a few 0’s added over the years takes it into the billions and evolved down the line into an ape and then men. So if this is indeed a question of orgins, and either cannot be proved..why is one favored over another academically when both pose very good arguments? They should both be taught in school. The bible never stated science is bad, and they used to go hand in hand. Not all believers are religous nuts, our faith is rooted in Christ not the church itself or religion. And if the argument stands for which is true from a secular stand point neither can be proven and both Theories, and great points from both sides.
posted by Daye711 on 10-26-2007 at 9:55 am
“Most notably, I felt more connected. If everyone on earth is descended from two identifiable people – Adam and Eve – then the “family of man” isn’t just a vague cliche. It’s true. The guy who sells me bananas at the deli on 81st street – he’s my cousin. The creationist mindset made me feel closer to my fellow humans. It made me want to invite strangers over to dinner. My goal is to keep that ‘we’re-all-family’ mindset without having to adopt the six-day-creation POV.”
Um, no matter which side of this “debate” you favor, this is accepted. Human evolution, like all instances of speciation, came from a population in isolation which had mutations sufficient to differentiate its descendants from its former species. Darwin was the first to refer to “Out of Africa” hypothesis, and DNA evidence supports it, that we all came from a small population of proto-humans in East Africa about 200,000 years ago. You’ve heard of Mitochondrial Eve? The last ancestor you and I had in common, if you and I are the most diverse people on earth. More likely, you and I had a much more recent common ancestor, assuming Jacobs to be a name implying European descent, so you can continue to believe in the brotherhood of man even if you also choose to believe the overwhelming evidence of human evolution.
posted by ianrey on 10-26-2007 at 10:02 am
I just finished a book called “Why People Believe Weird Things” by Dr. Michael Shermer. He’s the publisher of Skeptic magazine and the executive director of the Skeptics Society. He goes into great detail about why creation “science” should not be taught as science. Anyone who thinks evolution & creationism should be taught side-by-side in a science classroom should read this book before writing a letter to the State Board of Education. Evolution is a scientific theory well-supported by evidence and testing. Creationism is a purely religious belief & should not be treated otherwise.
posted by Evan on 10-26-2007 at 10:52 am
To me, the logic process of creationism falls flat. Put simply, creationists start with a view of the world they accept as true, then see the physical evidence around them as supporting it — and coming up with logical explanations of the things that don’t immediately seem to support it.
True scientific method (and the science of evolution) is exactly the opposite. The assumption is we don’t know why something is the way it is, but based on the physical evidence, they come up with an idea of why (called a “hypothesis”). Then they construct, test and evaluate this hypothesis. It becomes a theory only if its results can be replicated, and it is the best explanation of the time (see: Newton)
The thing that is most overlooked when people call something a theory (other than what they really are describing most of the time is a hypothesis) it that it has to have the _ability_ to be empirically proven false. Creationism is a philosophy, a world view, a logical proof, that cannot be tested empirically to the standards of the scientific method.
As someone more intelligent than me once remarked, “All theories are wrong. Some are useful.”
Based on that, who really has the more ‘open mind’?
posted by TheoryDriver on 10-26-2007 at 11:10 am
Why is it people will accept that the dog is a domesticated relative of the wolf but refuse to believe they might be the result of evolution from the ape clan? All things change over time. Our crops are larger and more abundant varieties of the wild stock they favor.
Isn’t it egocentric of us to put ourselves above everything else on Earth and create a myth of our creation?
How silly!
posted by Cronessa on 10-26-2007 at 11:21 am
Interestingly enough there actually may have an “Adam and Eve.” The study of evolution through mitochondrial DNA has led to some interesting discoveries. In “Mapping a Human HIstory” the author states that we may have all descended from one woman and one man, though it is highly unlikely that they lived at the same time. There are lots of other interesting information on this kind of DNA and evolution in the book as well. I highly recommend the book.
posted by stephanie on 10-26-2007 at 12:06 pm
Interesting. I’ve attended a lecture by Shermer at the University of Kentucky (mentioned by Evan above) and I’ve got tickets from the creation museum thumbtacked to my cubical wall. … I think that deffinitely makes me an anomaly.
Personally, I think it is just as vapid and closeminded to blindly swallow whatever the likes of Shermer and Dawkins are pushing this week as it is to blindly swallow relgious text without questioning what you read.
I’ve read about AJ’s book and I think I’d like to pick up a copy. I appreciate the openness to the idea of YEC thought. As far as I’m concerned, it’s not a huge deal to my faith if earth was created in 6 days or if earth was created over many years, as it’s not a salvation issue… but it is nice to not be seen as a total idiot for even considering YEC.
The problem with blindly accepting evolution “until it is proven wrong” is that there are parts of evolutionary and creation science that clearly contradict one another as well as portions of old and young earth theory. At the end of the day, you have to make judgements on theories based on your underlying faith, be it agnostic, atheist, Christian, Muslim or Hindu. You choose to disregard the work of X lab-trained PhD because of their faith, and uphold the work of Y because of their lack of it or vice versa. Whoever does not agree with you becomes the perpetuator of “bad science.” Which can’t be “true” because it doesn’t agree with your “science”.
There is no such thing as unbiased science.
YEC, ID and Evolution scientists should work side by side to establish the truth instead of trying to prove their own theories right…
posted by Ashley on 10-26-2007 at 2:08 pm
The beauty and dignity in evolution is that it connects you to *all life on earth*, not just all humans.
Dawkins’ book The Ancestor’s Tale is every bit as awe-inspiring as Genesis, when you consider that you, me, every cow, lizard, fish, tree, and bacteria all share a common ancestor if we go back far enough.
If Creationism inspires this feeling while evolution doesn’t, it’s due to an inability to conceive larger numbers as well as you can “6000.” This isn’t unusual, but once you can wrap your head around the big numbers, rationalism is possessed of its own grandeur.
posted by Holmes! on 10-26-2007 at 4:13 pm
I have never cared about the authenticity of evolution. I think its interesting, but I also think the notion of god is interesting. The two, outside of narrow born again christian thinking, have nothing to do with each other. They are not mutually exclusive.
I have been studying ‘creationist’ arguments for the past year or so. At first it was just for entertainment, because i like listening to passionate views contrary to my own. Then, I was interested in the possibility of alternatives to evolution. But, what makes so angry time and time again, is the utter intellectual dishonesty of people who feel they have to believe something that, according to them, is beyond testing, while at they same time they claim to be involved in scientific discussions and research.
Im sure fundamentalist christian creationists can be quite rational in conversation. The problem is is that they are dogmatically committed to a view that is beyond reason.
They will never say, “I believe the Bible, but if you can poke enough holes in its authenticity, I’ll give it up.”
They are compelled to find any reason they can to not believe. They are compelled to disprove anything that contradicts with their historically narrow view.
The alternative they believe to be convincing is flawless evolution evidence or born again christian fundamentalism.
This is not a view produced by a mind with a real desire for truth.
posted by darren taylor on 10-26-2007 at 5:31 pm
“There is no such thing as unbiased science.”
Take a pencil, hold it in front of you, and drop it. What happens? It falls to the floor. Every time. Why? Be you Christian, Hindu, Atheist, or otherwise, SCIENCE tells us it falls due to gravity. How is this biased? Unless you belong to a religion that says magical invisible elves exist that pull that pencil down to the floor every time you let go of it, you understand that gravity is the culprit. Science is inherently unbiased because of the methodology used to explain why things are the way they are. Science tests, observes, scrutinizes every aspect of a situation without bias…why do I feel like I’m wasting my breath?
posted by Erin S. on 10-28-2007 at 4:01 pm
i think that this museum is an absolute tragedy. to think that there are kids who go there and come away believing the drivel that is taught there. i dont understand why some christians cant accept evolution–it doesnt disprove God, it could just be God’s elegant plan (even the friggin pope believes in it). there is evidence far and wide for evolution–from humans being the only animal with a tailbone but not tail to the fact that elephants have an extra toe inside thier feet. to suggest, as some comments have, that there is actually evidence for ID/creationism is total bull. there are mounds of evidence showing how unintelligent your “intelligent designer” really is. and no, you may not use the bible as your evidence
posted by rob on 10-29-2007 at 12:41 pm
If you think you can disprove the creation theory, then you have not studied it very well.
The scientific method involves testing and experimentation. If you want to call evolution fact, show me evolution. There is no proof of evolution that can stand up to the scientific method.
You have great faith.
posted by GC on 10-29-2007 at 2:39 pm
If you haven’t, I strongly suggest you read “The Book of Jerry Falwell,” by Susan Harding.
posted by drew on 11-8-2007 at 12:22 pm
creationists don’t deny there being some mutations, changes from gene pools, etc. They just think that God created everything, and then some changes happened on their own in the years that followed.
Radio-isotope dating doesn’t disprove creation, because both the Bible and the Koran describe an earth that was already in existence, a proto-earth before Creation of living things.
posted by Christine on 7-4-2008 at 2:02 pm