Creationism Museum Says Darwin Got Something Right
The Associated Press
Published: March 17, 2009
Updated: 06:46 pm
LOUISVILLE, Ky. - A controversial Kentucky museum that trumpets the Bible story of creation and rejects evolution is making room for an odd guest: Charles Darwin.
A new exhibit at the Answers in Genesis Creation Museum argues that natural selection — Darwin's explanation for how species develop new traits over time — can coexist with the creationist assertion that all living things were created by God just a few thousand years ago.
"We wanted to show people that creationists believe in natural selection," said Ken Ham, founder of the Christian ministry Answers in Genesis and frequent Darwin critic.
The exhibit might seem peculiar to many who have watched the decades-long battle between evolution scientists and creationists, who take the Bible's Genesis account as literal truth.
But the idea that creationists can accept natural selection "isn't really new in creationism, though it's interesting that Answers in Genesis would have an exhibit on it," said Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, Calif.
The $27 million museum has drawn international attention — and, the ministry says, more than 650,000 visitors — since its opening in Petersburg, Ky., just south of Cincinnati in 2007. Its exhibits match the high production value of popular natural history museums. But in its version of history, Adam and Eve are considered the first humans, Noah rescues humanity from a worldwide flood and early man frolics with dinosaurs.
Ham said the new exhibit features live blind cave fish, models of bacteria and recreations of Darwin's famous finches, whose variant beaks helped inspire the British naturalist's theories on natural selection.
Darwin proposed in 1859 that new species appear through the process of evolution. He attributed evolution to natural selection, when randomly occurring traits — like the change in body color of a beetle — give a species a survival advantage over competitors.
Ham said he agrees that natural selection can give an organism an advantage in its environment, but creationists do not believe that the process can lead to new species, such as fish evolving into amphibians.
Visitors to the exhibit are greeted by a large sign that reads: "Natural Selection is not Evolution."
"The exhibit is to clearly show that natural selection is not a mechanism to change one kind of animal into a totally different kind," Ham said. For example, he said, dogs can develop new traits from one generation to the next, but they remain dogs.
Ham isn't the only creationist who holds that view. A Web site, CreationWiki, developed by the Northwest Creation Network, says natural selection "explains the mechanism by which traits are selected and organisms adapt to their environment." Like Ham, the Mountlake Terrace, Wash., group argues that natural selection is only responsible for "small adaptations."
But Scott, whose organization advocates evolution education, said the fossil record proves that one type of body plan can give rise to another through evolution. She said the recently discovered fossil Tiktaalik — a prehistoric fish with some traits like those of four-legged animals — shows an adaptation toward a life on land.
"We have a gradual transition of vertebrate fossils from those who swim to those who have stumpy fins to those who can function well on land," Scott said.
Ham acknowledged that creationists share only a limited common ground with Darwin, and he remains a staunch critic of evolution.
"In regard to Darwin's overall idea, that there's no supernatural involved in formation of life, and that there's a mechanistic, materialistic mechanism to evolve creatures — he's totally wrong," Ham said.
-
Comment by Morgan Matthew on March 18, 2009 at 5:40pm -
"In regard to Darwin's overall idea, that there's no supernatural involved in formation of life, and that there's a mechanistic, materialistic mechanism to evolve creatures — he's totally wrong," Ham said.
haha /sigh
-
Comment by Nelson on March 18, 2009 at 6:39pm -
"...Darwin's explanation for how species develop new traits over time..."
uh, that's a total misrepresentation of Darwin and of the ToE. he didn't posit natural selection as the mechanism for the development of new traits over time. he didn't know that the mechanism for variation within a population was gene mutation because DNA wasn't known but he was well aware of the variation within species. what he did was posit natural selection as the mechanism for how species gave rise to new species over time.
he theorized that the organism's environment would favor certain of the variations within a population and that the organisms possessing the best variations would compete better for resources and be more likely to pass on those traits, the mutation(s) that gave the organism that competitive edge, down to the next generation.
natural selection isn't responsible for the development of new traits, that's what mutations do. natural selection is the mechanism that favors those traits that are best suited to facing the environmental pressures the organism comes under.
clear evidence that they a) don't even understand evolution as they reject it, b) that they understand it and are flat out lying, or, c) a combination of both
-
Comment by MightyMateo on March 19, 2009 at 3:45am -
LOL, I love that picture! Is Ken Ham the same deuche that was interviewed by Bill Maher? Sounds like him.
-
Comment by Rev. James Thomas Hicks, D.D. on March 19, 2009 at 5:55am -
We advertise a lot of bullshit here in Kentuckistan. Bring the Kids!
-
Comment by SabreNation on March 19, 2009 at 10:39am -
This is nothing new. Creationists have been trying to twist the theory of evolution to fit into their deluded fairy tales for as long as it has been accepted as fact within the scientific community. It's the same chain of events that we've seen for every scientific theory that has challenged religion.
Step I - HERETIC!!! BURN!!! YOU KNOW NOTHING!!!!
Step II - What over 90% of scientists who actually spend years studying this stuff agree with you? OK... well you're still wrong but we won't try to burn you alive now.
Step III - You have mountains of evidence proving what you say is right, no kidding? Well, see if you twist that evidence juuuust the right way the Bible could still be true while making room for the evidence you have.
Step IV - Really? Irrefutable evidence that not only proves you're right but that what the bible says could definitely not be true? I see. Well I guess they were just speaking in metaphors when they wrote that part.
Lets just hope we can get over the step 3 hump we've been stuck on for some 70 years now and get on to step 4 realy soon. Eventually they'll be backed into a corner and all but the hopelessly insane hardliners will say that the whole creation story was just a shortened metaphor for how God "molded" nature as he wanted to help "His children" emerge as the dominant species and actually the 7 days were billions of years because each day for God is equal to a billion years for humans or some other rubbish like that.
-
Comment by Aric on March 20, 2009 at 12:25am -
What? You mean that museum I went to with dinosaurs and people coexisting was for creationism? I thought it was a Dinotopia museum!
In all seriousness though, Ham's attempt to turn religion into an actual science is just absurd.
-
Comment by Kirstin on March 20, 2009 at 4:44am -
Aric you are right. Absurd.
-
Comment by Sniz on March 23, 2009 at 1:16pm -
Ummmm if god was the omniscient creator of the universe, wouldn't organisms not require the ability to adapt to environmental changes. If all organisms are his prefect creations...wouldn't he have been able to anticipate adaptations they'd need and have created them accordingly in the first place...
I'm just saying...
-
Comment by Johnny on March 23, 2009 at 1:55pm -
Just to play the other side Sniz, the creationists confronted with that logic usually blame man. Man's sin in the Garden of Eden cause the animals to have to change, and some became evil; so because we let evil into the world animals gained the ability to adapt. Ugg, I feel all dirty now after playing the other side.
Comment
What's new today
Forum
Do Men have the right to a "financial abortion"
Started by Adam in Small Talk. Last reply by Rocky john 5 minutes ago. 132 Replies 0 Likes
Blog Posts
Fantastic and Courageous Act by Arizona Law Maker!
Posted by Robert Karp on May 23, 2013 at 10:33am 0 Comments 0 Likes
Events
Services we love
Check out our new mobile/tablet version of Think Atheist! www.ThinkAtheist.com/m
© 2013 Created by Morgan Matthew.
You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!
Join Think Atheist