Creationists Defend the Indefensible

THE Glendive Dinosaur & Fossil Museum, located in Glendive, Montana, tells us at their website:

When you visit a major natural history museum today, you will see wide-eyed elementary and preschool children (not to mention their parents and teachers) being funneled into an abyss of scientific deception. No matter whether it’s the study of animals, earth science, or astronomy, the wonders of God’s creation are prostituted for evolutionism. And the end result is just more confusion, mystification, and cynicism in the lives of our young people and adults.

But they have a cure:

[W]e are convinced there are adults, and especially many young people, whom God wants to set free from this lack of knowledge and bondage of deception. Many of them are not attracted to churches for various reasons; yet they may be inclined to see the wonders of God’s creation through visiting a public museum featuring “the rest of the story” about dinosaurs, the stars, the Flood, and the wonders of ancient man, as well as the scientific facts they are not hearing that insist upon creation and absolutely demolish evolutionism’s nonsense.

It is to this end that the 20,000 sq. ft. Glendive Dinosaur & Fossil Museum was built. The Glendive Dinosaur & Fossil Museum houses several full size dinosaur and fossil exhibits plus a myriad of singular fossils, making it the largest dinosaur and fossil museum in the United States to present its fossils in the context of biblical creation. [Emphasis supplied.]

In other words, it’s yet another creationist “museum.” This hall of hogwash has been criticized by some scientists, and the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) — the fountainhead of creationist wisdom, is rushing to their defense. At AIG’s website we read: Paleontologists Target Montana Dinosaur Museum. Here are some excerpts, with bold added by us:

Widely known dinosaur expert Jack Horner told the Billings Gazette, “It’s not a science museum at all. It’s not a pseudo-science museum. It’s just not science…There’s nothing scientific about it.” He also stated, “You can’t have a debate about science and opinion.”

Here’s the article in the Billings Gazette from which that quote is taken: Dinosaur museum presents biblical view of origins. Let’s read on in the ICR article:

Horner did not specify which artifacts in the museum were not scientific, nor what was unscientific about them.

Sneaky. Slimy. Very creationist. The problem isn’t the artifacts, it’s the creationism. We continue:

Mary Schweitzer is famous for having proved that some dinosaur fossils from the nearby Hell Creek formation contain soft tissues, including blood cells.

Sneaky. Slimy. Very creationist. That distortion has been debunked a thousand times, for example, here at the TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims.

Here’s more from ICR:

But Dr. Schweitzer dismissed the museum’s content without any firsthand investigation, stating, “I haven’t been to the museum. But I think the whole subject of a creation-based museum combines really bad science and really weak faith….It’s a misunderstanding of what is a science to begin with …. If you’re doing science, you have to play by certain rules. They’re trying to rewrite the rules of science and call it science.”

That comes from Paleontologists take issue with creation-based museum in the Billings Gazette. Here’s how ICR deals with this criticism:

Significantly, both Schweitzer’s and Horner’s objections appear to be based on philosophical assertions, since no specific scientific finding or claim was addressed.

Sneaky. Slimy. Very creationist. We’ll skip more paragraphs of the same, and get to the conclusion of the ICR article, which we’ll break into two parts to allow for our commentary:

Instead of weighing the evidence for or against the creation model presented at the Glendive Dinosaur Museum, these paleontologists have resorted to poorly thought-out, ideologically oriented fall-back phrases.

That’s something creationists would never do. Here’s the rest of it:

Whereas they repeat misguided mantras that faith and science do not overlap — “faith and science support each other very well, if you let God be God and science be science,” according to Schweitzer — scientific arguments do not appear among their attacks on the museum.

Good grief — those were newspaper interviews! For a creationist sink-hole like ICR to criticize anyone for failing to make scientific arguments is … well, we can’t find the words for it. It’s so far beyond hypocrisy that it can’t be named — except to call it creationism.

Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

5 responses to “Creationists Defend the Indefensible

  1. Can’t say I blame either Dr Horner or Dr Schweitzer for not wanting to give scientific reasons for their objections. Most media outlets don’t have a clue about these things to begin with and make a hash of what the scientist really said. I remember this article that had a paleontologist apparently claiming that all theropods just ate baby dinosaurs. Of course, it didn’t give any of his evidence or anything. After a bit of tracking, I found the original statement and as I suspected it was a hypothesis by the paleontologist to explain the lack of juvenile fossils. He had just made the hypothesis and was starting to get evidence, but the article had made it sound like this was the conclusion and blew it way out of proportion. Of course, ICR wouldn’t know the difference or care anyway.

  2. Albanaeon says: “Can’t say I blame either Dr Horner or Dr Schweitzer for not wanting to give scientific reasons for their objections.”

    In all likelihood, a reporter just called them and asked for a comment on the museum, and no scientific questions were asked.

  3. Just who is this anti-science jihadist behind the Glendive Museum? He makes Ken Ham sound almost rational.

  4. (Dang my weak Google-fu I recall a more appropriate one but can’t find it. )In any case
    Cuttlefish needs a hug

  5. “We approach evolution on the basis that it’s basically not possible,” Kline said.

    Well, that’s convincing.