“Science is fact. And since fact is superior to your holy book, then science is right and you are wrong.” How many times has that argument been foisted by people who cannot acknowledge their own biases? It would be way too simple to think that because it is based in fact, any time science seems to contradict faith then it must mean that faith is wrong. But the question is in the word “fact,” which has its own set of definitions and connotations that may intentionally mislead even its supporters.
Tag Archives: Creation Museum
It has been more than 6 months since I became an incognito Christian and joined a group of more than 300 atheists as they toured the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky on August 8, 2009.
The response to my reflections have been overwhelming. To date there have been more than 14,000 hits on “Scarlet ‘A’ for a Day” alone. The experience has generated much open dialogue and has challenged me in more ways that I can express.
In case you missed them, here is a comprehensive list of my posts about the experience:
- What Do You Get When You Cross 300 Atheists and the Creation Museum? – A brief introduction to the event with a list of other accounts of the trip and a link to national news coverage.
- Scarlet ‘A’ for a Day – My own reflections on being at the museum, how visitors responded to us, and brief encounters we had there.
- A Skeptic’s Creation Museum Video Tour – A video chronicle of conversations that some of the atheists/agnostics had during the day.
- And This Atheist Was a Walking Christian Tract – Encounter with a skeptic who wore a t-shirt that visitors found offensive, but not for the reasons you may expect.
- Atheism at the Creation Museum – How museum curators mistake moralism for Christianity.
Another trip to the museum is planned for the end of the month. This time it will be a group of friends and I will be going as a Christian with good critical-thinking skills. We shall see if anything of interest comes from that perspective.
A few months ago I wrote a post in response to the lecture that I witnessed at the Creation Museum in Petersburg, KY. The talk was titled “The Ultimate Proof of Creation,” but was actually an attack on the moral character of atheists. Seated among a predominantly atheist audience, I was appalled and embarrassed at what was being said. In my post I made quite a feeble attempt at a response, but wrote out of anger and with a lack of substance.
In the lecture, Dr. Jason Lisle asserted that there is no morality outside of Christianity, and further that an atheist has absolutely no reason to be moral because he does not believe in God. As the king of logical fallacies, Dr. Lisle has been stewed in his own soup with this assertion. It is quite easy, in fact, to discount his claim and give full credence to the atheist on her ability to choose to do the right thing in every circumstance without God’s divine direction.
I like feeling good, and it feels good to think that I am right. And when I think I am right I want everyone to agree with me. True, I do appreciate strong and challenging arguments, but at the end of the day it is nice to be able to settle in with people who share my position on the issues that I spend so much time thinking about.
As much as we hate to admit it, our emotions play a role in our perception and certainly in our rhetoric. The question is not whether or not it is there, but how much is there and how it plays out.
While I have been critical in regard to Answers in Genesis (AiG) and specifically in regard to Dr. Jason Lisle, I think that he is dead center in his argument regarding emotion. In his post on the Fallacy of the Question-Begging Epithet, he talks about how some people use emotionally charged content in a seemingly intellectual discussion, which in essence serves by undercutting the character of the other person.
There certainly are people on both sides of any argument who use this strategy, so we all may have something to learn. However, many are quite aware of this as an issue and I appreciate when they do temper their own emotion when they are holding a conversation on something that they are obviously passionate about.
Unfortunately, as an illustration, Dr. Lisle used a cartoon that definitely appears to include a characterization of PZ Myers who lead the trip to the Creation Museum last month. Admittedly, I would agree about some of Myers’ tactics, but using such an example is in some ways engaging the epithet itself.
Is faith really at odds with reality? It would seem that this is the exact impression that 300 special visitors to the Creation Museum got as they wondered its halls which consistently rejected or misrepresented scientific evidence and replaced it with a document several millennia old. This particular document is in fact the Bible, and when it comes to its own academic study, well, the reaction tends to be the same when evidence comes up.