Creation Museum is built on a foundation that belies its mission
God created [the Earth and Universe] in six normal-length days around 6,000 years ago.
Not only is the physical foundation of the Creation Museum, which is built on a geologic landscape moved by glaciers 120, 000 years ago, refuting this premise, but so is its logical foundation.
The museum asks visitors to cast away the Scientific Method; the same methodolgy that bears the fruit which the museum now eats of (Genesis pun intended).
The museum asks visitors to cast away the Scientific Method; the same methodolgy that bears the fruit which the museum now eats of (Genesis pun intended).
For it is the same Scientific Method, accessible to any reasoning individual, which gives us the science of Geology. It is through this science that we can independently verify the age of the ground the museum sits on. And it is the Scientific Method which made possible:
- The Physics and Material sciences that allowed for selection of the material used for the structure of the building that houses the museum
- The Architectural and Engineering sciences that provided the designs of the building
- The science of Fluid Dynamics that makes possible the museum's plumbing system
- The science of Electrical Engineering which makes possible the lighting and communications sytems the museum now has
- The science of Thermo Dynamics which makes it possible for visitors to drive their cars to Petersburg, KY and to heat and cool the facility itself
- ...
- The Computer Science that made possible the museum's own web site which allows it to promote ignorance...ignorance about the very Scientific Method which makes it possible.
Related:
- Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton debate religion
- Religion: A man-made, two-edged sword
- What is wrong with Intelligent Design?
- Neil deGrasse Tyson: The Perimeter of Ignorance
- Must See TV!: C-SPAN BookTV: Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion"
- Conservative Culture and Porkopolis debate Intelligent Design
- Response to "If there is no God, then why be moral?"
- Intelligent Design is not Science
- Intelligent Design is just religion under the covers
- Where's the 'Hypothesis' for Intelligent Design?
- Editorial: The false choices of Intelligent Design
- It's not anti-Creationism; It's anti-anti-Scientific Method
- District Court Ruling on Intelligent Design
- WSJ Opinion Journal: Faith in Theory
- Ohio reverses Evolution mandate
- WSJ Science Journal: Two New Discoveries Answer Big Questions in Evolution Theory
- CoyoteBlog: Advice for the "Reality-Based" Community
2 Comments:
you'd get more readers and more comments if you got rid of the f$#% pink unicorn.....
Malc:
In response to "you'd get more readers and more comments if you got rid of the f$#% pink unicorn....."
The "the f$#% pink unicorn" is actually a flying pig...as in "When Pigs Fly".
You can turn it off by selecting the "Pig's Can't Fly!" checkbox at the top of the site.
Most folks visiting the site actually like the idea of a flying pig. I'm sorry the sight of it inspired you to vulgarity.
With regard to your "more readers" reference, the site meter statistics show that the 'few' readers this site gets often originate from .gov sites; like senate.gov, house.gov, usda.gov, etc.
That may be in part to the commentary provided here often relates to public policy. The 'few' visitors to this site that take the time to explore it will also find that it was referred to in a national story (USA Today: 'Blogosphere' spurs government oversight )and in an investigation into Congressional abuse in Arizona (Arizona Tribune Covers Federal Land Giveaway Documented by Porkopolis ).
So while most bloggers would welcome quantity, this site strives for quality in its readership.
Unfortunately, as evidenced by your comment, the quality of this site's readership is not totally within my control.
Post a Comment
<< Home