So, I ended up with a couple hours to kill on the tail end of the reunion and morbid curiosity led me to the Creation Museum. I promised you folks a recap, and so here it is.
My original plan was to try and get kicked out, but between a sneaking suspiction that witchcraft might still be a criminal offense in Kentucky and the fact that the person standing behind me in the ticket line was a hulking dude that I was not sure I could take in a fight (and when I say this, do consider who I have thought I could take in a fight) wearing a T-shirt that said "Fight Socialism" in the kind of bolted-on metal pseudo-blackletter font you might expect to see "Spin̈al Tap" written in, I decided to resort to plan "b" of visiting the museum in an orderly fashion and then posting a scathing rebuttal from the safety of my own home.
But before I talk about the museum itself, let me clarify some things about myself so you can understand the lens I was viewing it through.
- I'm a big fan of the Scientific Method. While I do tend root for challengers to widely-accepted theories (for example, I'm hoping to see Modified Newtonian Dynamics beat out Dark Matter), I want the battle to play out in a purely scientific arena and not a cultural or political one. Evolution I acccept as fact. It's scientifically sound. I'm sure nature has some more curveballs to throw at us, and we'll have to revise the textbooks a few times on some of the exact processes, but that's the kind of stuff we'll uncover by means of glorious science (SCIENCE!).
- While I do consider myself spiritual, I've never had trouble reconciling my religious and scientific beliefs. Abdul Bah'á can say it better than I can.
- I know a thing or two about science, but I also know a thing or two about scripture. This might surprise most of you, but I'm actually rather fond of the Bible stories. Not so much the lengthy sections about begetting or the laundry lists of things that can get you into hell, but the accounts of the people and the things they did. About part-way through the museum I realized that had they just stuck to Genesis and not tried to science it up, I probably would have enjoyed it... but then again, it wouldn't have been crazy enough to have gotten me in the doors.
- This shouldn't surprise you at all, but I'm also a big fan of meme-splicing -- and I'm using the word "meme" here in its original, broader, sense of a cultural meme, not in the more recent sense of an Internet meme. The idea of blending science and religion, though the results would not have a place in any scientific arena, does not offend me aesthetically. Quite the opposite, actually. As a comparison, the History Channel documentary series Ancient Aliens makes claims that are every bit as far out there as what the Creationists spin, and sure, I've caught them a few times fudging the history and the science to make their point but I don't care because that series is entertaining as fuck.
Without further ado, my review...
The Good
- There were a couple spots where they managed to use the whole setup to teach a genuine good life lesson. They had these ordinary-looking rocks that glow under UV light, and accompanied it with a message about how ordinary-looking people could shine, too. They had a bit about how since we're all really distant cousins since we originated from the same two people, we shouldn't be racists or xenophobes. I can get behind that.
- Adam and Eve were dark-skinned, and it kinda looked like they tried to make the two of them look like an amalgomation of the world's different races, so kudos for that. Noah, Moses, the apostles, and such all actually looked like Middle-Easterners, too, and not Caucasians.
- The full-scale sections of the Ark, I'll have to admit, were kinda cool just to see. I guess they based it on Greek ship-building.
The Amusing
- I have to give them points for effort. There was someone who actually ran a computer simulation about what would happen to global climate if massive amounts of divinely-conjured rainwater were suddenly added to the Earth's oceans.
The Peculiar
- I guess poison dart frogs weren't poisonous before the Sin of Adam?
The Sketchy
- I love me some dinosaurs, but they really did seem tacked on as a way to get kids to want to go to the museum. I kind of thought they were going to claim they died in the flood, but then they showed Noah loading them onto the Ark and never really did explain why they aren't here anymore.
The Bad
- Their "that's our story, we're sticking to it" agenda caused them to miss some interesting opportunities. Did you know that there's some geological evidence that Noah' flood may have actually freaking happened? I bet a lot of you didn't¹. And if you went to the Creation Museum, you still wouldn't know... because the geological stories start three thousand years earlier than their 4004 BC story, and are typically limited to a single sea. (Perhaps they also didn't want people to be intrigued by this and then learn about Manu, Deucalion, and Utnapishtim, and their respective floods as well)
- There were parts where they just clearly got the science wrong. Noah, for example, was able to fit the dinosaurs onto the ark because there were "only about 20 kinds of dinosaur." Also, I'm not able to think of a specific example but there were a couple spots where they claimed that "scientists have no explanation" for something that they actually do have an explanation for. Also, there were some flagrant misuses of the Anthropic principle.
- Not only did they get their science wrong, but their history was kinda shaky, too. Not only did they completely gloss over the complex and storied (and at times messy) processes which brought what we know today as the Book of Genesis to be what it is, but they were really stretching Luther's Sola scriptura philosophy out of its original context to appropriate it for their own purposes.
- While they did respond to the question of the discrepancies between the distinct Genesis 1:1-2:3 and Genesis 2:4-25 creation stories, their response was little more than "DEVIL DEMONS HATES GOD AND SPEEK TEH LIES!!" The same response was presented for the gap and day-age interpretations of Genesis 1.
- There are spots they don't even have their own story straight. They frequently cited 4004 BC as the year for Genesis 1:1 and 1 AD as the birth of Christ, even though the Ussher chronology which popularized the 4004 BC date assumed a 4 BC birth of Christ, placing His birth an even four millenia post-Creation.
The Laughable
- There's a 7-minute-long looping video at one point of two brothers, one who is playing violent video games and is portrayed as a desensitized killing machine, and another who is watching Internet porn. It was part of a scene designed to show what happens when you turn away from the Church and follow only secular teachings. I guess the numerous scandals from Born-Agains are the exceptions that prove the rule here?
The Ugly
- There's one room that's clearly designed just to scare children. In the Garden of Eden exhibit, right after the bit about the forbidden fruit, you actually walk down a sloped hallway to the lower level, then turn a corner and there's skulls flashing on the walls and harsh lighting and gravestones and stuff. There was a child ahead of me who was running up excitedly, no doubt hoping there were more dinosaurs around the corner, only to turn around in horror, crying, and grabbing his mother's leg.
- The first couple of rooms they present you with are actually relatively reasonable. They show a simplified but accurate account of the prevailing scientific theories of how the Earth came to be and contrast it against literal Genesis, and then they finish with a statement about how you can make your own choice about which of the two theories you can follow. For a moment, they make it seem like they're not going to think any less of you for being scientific about it. But then right after they show you the awful things that happen when people choose the secular path (you know, they play violent video games, do drugs, get abortions, and do all those other things that religious folks never get caught up in).
- Blatant and unapologetic selective/inconsistent use of science where it suited them and scripture where it didn't. How did genetic diversity recover so quickly post-deluge? Evolution happened, silly. (They don't actually use the 'e' word, but that is pretty much their actual answer)
The Inexcusable
- They had the perfect opportunity to follow up many of their exhibits with a message of environmental stewardship. Throw one of these passages on a plaque, say "Look at this awesome stuff God made, let's be sure to take extra good care of it," and maybe actually use their museum to do some good. Deplorably, they discarded the green angle, probably because it would conflict with their hideous "end times" message. I'm sorry, but even if you subscribe to the end times, the fact that it's over 1900 years past when they first thought the end times were around the corner, couldn't they at least be bothered to try to take care of things for another few millenia? They took some time to throw in some anti-choice and anti-gay potshots into their exhibits, so it's not like they're concerned about being politically neutral, either.
- The people who designed the museum are retaliating against a fight that was never picked with them. Their sad misconceptions are not any more clearly evident than in the hallway where the side of a church is being demolished by a wrecking ball with the words "Millions of Years" carved into the side. I've said it before and I'll say it again: if the idea that the Earth is more than 6000 years old, and that natural processes can produce geological and biological diversity, is enough to challenge your faith, then I have to wonder about how strong your faith was to begin with. I'm sorry you feel that way, I don't want to dump on you, but for the love of all things good and pure, don't take your theological crises out on folks like me.
The Take-Home Messages
The Creation Museum itself may be nothing more than a high-octane disservice to both geology and theology, but that doesn't mean I didn't get anything out of my visit. Just as you need physical exercise to keep your body in good form, it feels like it was a good philosophical, spiritual, and critical thinking exercise to walk down that road for a bit and then clearly and concisely list out everything that didn't sit well with me. I feel like I came out of that place stronger, in a way, and with a clearer picture about where we can go from here.
For starters, it's clear to me now more than ever the importance of supporting proper museums. High production values (of which the Creation Museum can boast) carry with them a certain authority. An ounce of presentation seems to take you as far as a pound of content². It's an unfortunate reality, but one I'm afraid those of us who know better are just going to have to acknowledge and play to. You know how Pluto's recent re-classification found its way into the public eye? It wasn't in scientific journals or Wikipedia articles or textbooks, even though the debate had been rolling for quite some time on those venues before it became widely known. It was Neil deGrasse Tyson's decision to showcase only the 8 planets now recognized as such in a museum.
I also have to wonder if this whole rabidly anti-science attitude coming from the born-agains is a byproduct of how the topic of religion has become a bit of a taboo in our culture. In every other cultural aspect—food, costume, music, literature—you'll see casual, everyday cross-pollination. Religion, for whatever reasons, has found itself in this special, hyper-sensitive nook in our society. The TV shows, movies, and video games I grew up with show off a wide spectrum of cultural legends but more often than not shy away from bringing religion into the mix. It's not surprising, in this age where our cultural works have been industrialized, that producers would shy away from the "r" word to avoid alienating demographics and losing market share. But I have to wonder, if the same Born-Agains that made the Creation Museum had been exposed to a variety of faiths in an everyday setting, would they be so quick to decide that Genesis was meant to be the one true literal account of past events? On the flip side, would your average scientifically-minded-but-not-personally religious folk be able to have better conversations with those of a more spiritual persuasion, were they more familiar with religious customs at a social, non-academic level?
So... that was my experience. I may have, at this point, spent more time writing about the Creation Museum than I spent actually inside of it, so I think I'll sign off. And then send a donation to the museum of actual science in Cincinatti to offset the price of admission paid to the Creation Museum.
¹ I learned this from—you guessed it—Ancient Aliens.
² The presentation-over-content bit is the reason why I've often bet folks that with proper attire and a letter with a nice letterhead on high-grade paper and a raised seal, I could carry a loaded firearm onto an airplane. I've never had the guts to put this theory to the test. Let's hope I never do.
