what's a few million years between friends?
Tom Loftus reports in Saturday's C-J...
Naturalists from Kentucky state parks are planning a trip to the Creation Museum in Boone County to see firsthand what they are up against. Since the museum opened about three months ago, the naturalists who teach visitors about the ancient natural history of the parks have been challenged more frequently by people who have visited the Creation Museum, said Carey Tichenor, chief naturalist in the Department of Parks.
Naturalists? That reminds me of a joke: A pastor, his wife and their four-year old, Johnny, are vacationing at the beach. One day, driving around, the parents see a sign which says "Naturist Trail" and they think it might be fun to see what Nature will offer along the path. So, they drive down the dirt road and then, to their horror, they see three nude people biking toward them. The father realizes, now, what "naturist" means and tries to turn around on the narrow path. But all he can do is get turned sideways, giving their child a full view of the bikers. Hoping the child didn't notice anything, the parents don't say anything. But the child says, "Daddy, did you see that? They weren't wearing a helmet!"
And there might be millions of years of difference between what a tourist is told one day at the museum and the next day at a state park. "At places like Cumberland Falls or Natural Bridge -- where we're interpreting geologic history based on the scientific evidence that has been provided -- we talk about going back into hundreds of thousands, even millions, of years," Tichenor said. "The theory of creationism is that the world is only 6,000 years old."
Well, this is a troubling start. Out of ignorance or for rhetorical purpose, Tichenor is repeating a misperception not likely to be corrected at the Creation Museum. In fact, there are a variety of theories of "creationism"-- "young earth" creationism to a variety of "old earth" creationisms.
Plans call for as many as 18 park naturalists to visit the museum on Nov. 1. Tichenor said group-rate tickets will cost taxpayers about $338. He said those attending will drive to Georgetown in state vehicles, and then ride to Boone County in two park vans. He did not have an estimate for the cost of gas for the trip. He said those attending will buy their own lunches.
"We think this trip is worth the nominal expense so we can see it directly, so that when we have these visitor encounters we can speak from experience," Tichenor said. "If a visitor talks about a particular exhibit, then this naturalist will know what they are talking about."
If the government is going to be in the business of providing these services, this seems like a good investment.
Tichenor emphasized that the park naturalists do not want to try to dissuade park visitors from their religious beliefs. "We will tell the person if they want to believe what they saw at the Creation Museum that's fine and good," he said. "And then we explain to them why we are saying what we say at the park -- which is interpreting the scientific evidence produced for the site."
However, the Creation Museum has no qualms about trying to change the scientific beliefs of the park naturalists. "I hope they can carve out some time to meet with some of our Ph.D. scientists," said Mark Looy, spokesman for the museum.
I like both parts of this-- the efforts at persuasion on both sides. And I love the confidence of the spokesman for the Museum. It'll be interesting to see whether the naturalists take up the scientists on their offer.
3 Comments:
Eric, you're right, the misperception that creationism means young earth creationism is unlikely to be corrected at the museum—Ken Ham and company's party line is 6,000 years. And given the millions of dollars that Ham and his people are spending in what amounts to a direct attack on science, it is entirely reasonable that the state would spend its resources to educate the public and defend science.
Dr. Hugh Ross embraces the day-age angle.
http://www.reasons.org/
I'm not sure I agree with William on the reasonableness of the state funding science education.
If they get it wrong on the science of economics, they can get it wrong on the science of origins.
Meanwhile, I'm wondering how the Ussherites explain the annual layer of snow fall recorded in the Arctic Circle.
endiana.com, might I very gently suggest that the reliability of economics is not as high as the reliability of the natural sciences?
No offense, Eric. </grin>
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home