Creation Museum
A few days ago I took a drive to Kentucky with a few friends to see the Creation Museum. I must say I was a little disappointed. I mean, I was expecting Young Earth Creationism but what they presented was little more than general attacks on secuarism. I wasn't expecting anything as subtle as Intelligent Design but I have heard much better Young Earth Creationism than this (is "good Young Earth Creationism" an oxymoron?). They even did a timeline of secularism, condemning anyone whose Biblical interpretation didn't agree with Bishop Ussher's chronology. They even condemned Galileo for suggesting that the Bible needs to be re-interpreted in light of scientific discoveries. They failed to mention that it was the passages suggesting that the Earth stands still (esp. Josh. 10:12) that Galileo wanted to re-interpret, so that he could promote the Copernican system! I would have loved to ask the director what he meant by that panel, whether he would really have us believe in a geocentric universe just because Joshua commanded the sun to stop over Gibeon.
I amused myself by joking with one of my friends who happens to be a practising Jew (the rest of us were atheists). You see, this museum was none too subtle and didn't try to restrict itself to Genesis and talk about Creation myths and Flood Geology. They also ventured into the New Testament, which, to my recollection, has very little to say about dinosaurs. Yes, their tenants were the 7 Cs: Creation, Corruption, Castastrophe [the Flood], Confusion [Babel], Christ, Cross, Consummation. So I had good fun nudging my Jewish friend as she was grinding her teeth, reminding her that she's already half way there. (Of course she's not half way, she's no creationist.)
My biggest bitch was with their presentation of Archaeopteryx. They admitted that the fossil exists, denied that it was a true transitional form but gave no explanation whatsoever as to what else it could be. (Is it just another bird, or is it a reptile?) And that was typical of their approach to everything - sow the seeds of doubt without providing a better explanation, lest the people see who much weaker the Creationist excuses are.
posted by Nick @ 10:45 am
6 comments
6 Comments:
A vaguely related side note: I met Alister McGrath today - Dawkins' nemesis. I was having lunch at Harris Manchester College, where he is a fellow, along with Peter Harrison, the Andreas Idreos Professor of Science and Religion.
Ah, it just sounds good to drop those names!
And I saw Richard Swinburne on my way back to my room. I said hello, because I met him in Cambridge last year, but of course he had no idea who I was...
Have you read any of McGrath's responses to Dawkins?
Not sure, have read some reviews of The God Delusion. If he's the one who complains of Dawkins' ingorance of mediaeval theology, then I'm not impressed. The philosophical arguments about God's existence are more fundamental than the theological debates about His nature. That being said, I don't much like Dawkins' writing style; those asides are just annoying.
I like your use of the word "nemesis". Especially considering that McGrath's site links to their video debate, hosted on Dawkins' site. Reminds me of the debate between T.H. Huxley and Samuel Wilberforce, which they both claimed to have won!
As for Swinburne, I've only glanced at his book but I recommended it to students in my creationism class as an example of theistic evolution.
Can you elaborate on Dawkins' ignorance of mediaeval theology? I confess I am very ignorant.
Also, I'm greeny with envy at not being able to visit the museum with you!
McGrath complains of Dawkins' ignorance of theology in a much broader sense than just mediaeval! He's got a book called Dawkins' God, which was published before The God Delusion, and which critiques Dawkins' whole approach to religion, and many of his other ideas, particularly his views on memes. McGrath also has a nice comment in there about the role of HPS in his conversion to Christianity (maybe he wouldn't put it in those terms, but I think it sounds nice!)
Lots of people dislike Dawkins' meme talk. Personally, I think it's his tone, he claims far more than is justified but his theory makes a nice model without being ontologically true.
Could you be a little more specific as to which part of theology Dawkins should have known? As I see it, a comprehensive knowlegde of theology is quite unnecessary for discussing the question of whether God exists. So much time is wasted with debates over things like voluntarism and the nature of the trinity.
As I understand it the arguments for the existence of God all boil down to the cosmological, ontological and teleological arguments. Or inference to the best explanation based on something like religious experience or moral "law". (All of which are crap.)
Does McGrath use something else I haven't heard of?
Wow. I must admit, I've read some of Dawkins dissertations, but haven't yet plundered McGrath's view. When do you guys find time to research all this?
I'm feeling quite the moron here:-)
I'm particularly annoyed because some of the most heated arguments I've ever been in have been re: creationism and I am starting to think that all my opinions are reasonably uninformed!
I would love to research what you guys already know, but due to serious time restrictions, I will just read your blog and try to divine some handy hints:-)
-Cath
Post a Comment
<< Home