The Lexington Herald-Leader has an article on the Answers in Genesis creation museum set to open in a couple of months:
But Eugenie Scott, a former University of Kentucky anthropologist who is director of the California-based National Center for Science Education, said the information provided in the museum 'is not even close to standard science.'
Scott visited the museum recently as part of a British Broadcasting Corp. radio program. Although she didn't get a tour, she saw enough to know that the museum will be professionally done. And, she says, that's worrisome.
'There are going to be students coming into the classroom and saying, 'I just went to this fancy museum and everything you're telling me is rubbish,' ' Scott said.
Daniel Phelps of Lexington, president of the Kentucky Paleontological Society, says the museum will embarrass the state because of the 'pseudoscientific-nutty things' it espouses, and because it portrays evolution as the path to ruin.
"...not even close to standard science"? What she means is that it's not even close to standard naturalism which masquerades as science.
I can also understand that a professional presentation of the scientific evidence of creation would be worrisome for a disciple of evolution; it threatens her religion of secularism. There is indeed a great likelihood that once students see the problems with evolution theory, and see scientifically plausible creation theories, they'll see evolution theory for the rubbish it is.
What will be embarrassing is that the "pseudoscientific-nutty things" held by materialism and naturalism (such as everything from nothing, outright violation of natural law without supernatural influence, star formation from incoherent gas, life from lifelessness, irreducible complexity, etc.--all without supernatural causation) will be exposed as scientifically untenable.
0 comments:
Post a Comment