Talk:Creation Museum/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Reqphoto

Yeah, some more pictures would be really cool. Perhaps a better one of the front of the building, and pictures of the lobby and some of the displays, preferably with some of the animatronic dinosaurs. If anyone visits the Creation Museum, please take your camera! One or two more good pics would help out the article. Jacob1207 03:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Reads like a brochure

This article sounds like a brochure for the creation museum. I have added reason for controversy as well.Newestscientist 19:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

controversial

What an awesome and imaginative museum. It's like Jurassic Park meets the Bible! I'm just glad a Chrisitian, and not some Jew (I'm looking at you, Steven Speilberg) came up with this fantastic money-making idea. However, I have one complaint: Why is the museum in Kentucky? Move this bad boy to Florida and add a few rides (The Noah's Arc experience; you're welcome) and I guarantee that Disney is going in the toilet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.158.5 (talk) 22:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The museum has generated a lot of controversy. So I am re introducing the word controversial in the description. Let us discuss if any one think differently.Newestscientist 05:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think that's appropriate. It's a weasel word. --Creashin 04:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
• The museum is clearly controversial. See, for instance, here and, anyway, the whole point of the museum is to present an alternative to the scientific theories accepted by virtually all scientists. How is that not the epitome of controversy? The word should be returned to the description. I respectfully disagree with my colleague's statement that "controversial" .constitutes a weasel word in the present circumstances. If the Creation Museum cannot properly be called controversial, I would ask my colleague if there is any subject that he feels could be so called. Jacob1207 20:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jacob. I like your edits and how you've contributed to the article. You're making it better. Please see just below for my reply on the word "controversial." --Creashin 17:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kudos. In line with your suggestion below, how about we say something to the effect of "the museum has been called controversial by many sources" and then put some references behind it? Like [1] [2] [3] [4]. That way, we're just reporting the plain fact of what others have said about the museum and are not characterizing it ourselves. Do you think that'll work? Jacob1207 17:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds better. --Creashin 02:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It's articles like this that just should consist of the title "Controversies" without pretending to be an article on the actual substance of what is being wiki'd. Once again, articles like this prove that I mostly read wikipedia for all the dirt, gossip, controversy and other BS that makes its way in every page because this site has long ago thrown out any hint of writing an article that doesn't have the obligatory slander section. 68.5.97.134 (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

My Edits

I've made a number of edits and improvements to this article. If someone doesn't like one or two of them, please discuss them here. Please don't revert all of my hard work, just because you don't like one of my edits. --Creashin 04:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• Just because you make the claim that 'controversial' is a weasle word, does not mean that it is so. You will find this term throughout Wikipedia. Regardless, even though I assume good faith from all editors, it appears from your edits that a POV is being posited. I am not going to revert your edits, but would suggest that you should not take offense if revisions are indeed made in an effort to neuturalize the current tone of the article. SuMadre 02:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality is certainly the goal. However, the word "controversial" could be added to nearly everything under the sun. If the word should be in the article, then perhaps we should quote a news source that calls it controversial. --Creashin 17:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If controversy exists around a subject, that subject can technically be called controversial". What is weasly about that word is how some use it without context to cite the level of controversy: e.g. if only 1% of a group support one point of view and 99% another, the topic is hardly "controversial" on a wide scale, but it is a common practice for those representing the 1% to say that the topic is "controversial" to make it sound as though more oppose the commonly accepted or proven point of view. Thus the context is important with this word - as many others that describe an action or balance between two parties. THEPROMENADER 10:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

References

The following two links are used as references (currently #4 and #10) but appear to be defunct. Please see if you can find an active link for the facts cited:

• http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19426054.700-the-creationist-museum-of-misinformation.html
• http://www.kentucky.com/471/story/40019.html

Otherwise, the statements in question might need citation needed tags. Jacob1207 02:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• The first one still works. Only the excerpt is available for free. It is available for subscribers or those with appropriate athens login. Newestscientist 07:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added links to the full articles, archived elsewhere. Enjoy. --profg 18:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm kinda new to this but I was looking through the references and I can't see the fifth one. There seems to be a problem with interacademies.net. If people can't find the reference is the sentence still supposed to be there? Or is it supposed to say "citation needed"? I figured one of you people would know...just thought I'd bring it up... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.136.222.144 (talk) 00:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

"5. ^ IAP STATEMENT ON THE TEACHING OF EVOLUTION..." -- it's there all right. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Trivia

Removed the entire section. Two trivia points were just spam about Ham's promotional appearances in the media and the remaining two were both: a) non-notable and b) non-neutral. 69.248.24.164 02:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The material may be worth re-incorporated back into the article in some way. For reference, the section was as follows:

== Trivia ==

• On Monday, May 21, 2007, Ken Ham went on Fox and Friends to promote the upcoming opening of the Creation Museum.
• Skybus Airlines started operating on May 22, 2007 and every flight goes through their hub in Columbus, Ohio. Many believe their $10 flights will increase the museum's attendance, as it sits just an hour from Columbus.
• On Wednesday, May 30, 2007, Ken Ham will make an appearance on the Hannity and Colmes television show on the Fox News channel.
• The museum claims two target audiences, Christians seeking scientific evidence to back their beliefs in debates against non-believers, and people of other religions who have not been saved. Perhaps intentionally, this excludes the group of Christians who do not literally interpret the book of Genesis

Jacob1207 03:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the trivia section was good for the article. However, if consensus says it isn't, then the info in it should be absorbed into the article. For instance, the bit about SkyBus was particularly interesting. --Creashin 17:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Creashin that there are some good facts there that are worth preserving in the article. I think the SkyBus blurb could go well in the part discussing the museum's location. The bits about Ken Ham's appearances could be brought up in context of the museum's promotion. Jacob1207 17:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Second paragraph

Anonymous users, and a few registered ones, keep modifying the article's second paragraph. It originally read as given below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s"> of Genesis. Consequently, the exhibits assert that the planet is just a few thousand years old and that man and dinosaurs once coexisted. In contrast , scientists state that the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old, and that the dinosaurs became extinct 65.5 million years before human beings arose.

Users keep modifying the final sentence to indicate that only "evolutionary scientists" believe the statements which follow, or that those statements are only "opinion" etc, etc. None of those changes have been given explanations, either in an edit summary or here on the talk page. Can we generate some consensus on this issue? I think the above version is the best and think that requesting semi-protection might be a good option. But I think we'd need to have some consensus that those changes are disruptive before doing that. (I dunno, I've never requested semiprotection before). Thoughts? Jacob1207 18:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the whole "in contrast" statement shouldn't be there at all. It reads like orignal research to me. A cited sentence or two summarizing criticism of the museum itself would be better here, and more on topic. -- MisterHand 19:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Original research? Uh, no. There's a reference there. Of course, if you would like, we could post all 10 million or so references published in peer-reviewed science journals about the age of earth, dinosaurs, etc. Orangemarlin 19:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The cited reference does not refer to the museum at all. Rather than making arguments within this Wikipedia article, we should be citing arguments that have already been made against the museum. There are plenty out there, so it's not a difficult endeavor. -- MisterHand 19:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Creationists and other delusional biblical literalists should just be honest and admit the truth; they are a tiny fringe religious movement, more akin to an eccentric religious cult than some sort of scientific movement.--Filll 19:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Either way it needs a serious re-write. Many fundamentalist Christians use 'Evolutionary scientists' as a broad term to describe any scientist who thinks the Earth is 4,7 million years old; that evolution is real; that the universe is even older; and that supernatural Biblical events such as the Great Flood never occured. It's also very wrong to state that only scientists 'believe' the Earth to be this old. What about people who believe it and are not scientists? --Safe-Keeper 21:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

In what way does it need a serious rewrite? The very term "evolutionary scientists" is ignorant, inaccurate, insulting and pejorative. What if instead of creationists, we wrote "knuckle-dragging cretins"? Or CREaTioNists? This sort of language has no place here, even if it were accurate. And it might help if people learned a bit of science if they were going to be editing an encyclopedia. Our best scientific understanding is that the earth is 4.7 BILLION years old, not 4.7 million years old. Some people do not know there was a difference between a billion and a million? I think that this is because they both have an "illion" in them. (I am always impressed by the level of intelligence and education that fundamentalists display) And it would help if anyone editing here knew what evolution was. In fact, it is real, since it has been observed repeatedly in the laboratory, in the field, and in the fossil record. But I suspect you are confused between the fact of evolution and the exceedingly well supported theory of evolution which is accepted by well over 99.9% of all biologists. Science by definition does not include the supernatural (see Evolution as theory and fact). Also, anyone talking about the supernatural has automatically left the domain of science. The age of the earth is not a "belief". Belief is for things like religion that are taken on faith. The age of the earth is a conclusion/prediction drawn from a set of scientific theories and a huge amount of scientific evidence. I do not believe the text says anything about people that actually subscribe to the accepted scientific theories, nor does it have to.--Filll 21:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely a contrast. Group A says the Earth is about 6000 years old, Group B says it's about 4.5 billion years old. Those two statements contradict each other, they contrast with one another. The meaning of the two sentences isn't changed if "in contrast" is left out (it'd still say "Group A thinks alpha; Group B thinks beta"), but I do think the phrase helps the article flow from one idea to the next and is good prose. I also agree with Filll. Sometimes small minorities have been proven right. But whether or not a tiny minority is correct, they do themselves no favors by acting as if they're not a tiny minority, which is something that is easy to verify. While there are, obviously, a lot of YECs among the general population (especially in the USA), there are virtually none among scientists. Jacob1207 20:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a reminder, this is an article on the Creation Museum. It is not an article on the general debate between creationism and evolution. So again, criticisms should be limited to those levied against the museum itself, not those against creationism in general. -- MisterHand 21:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but to maintain an neutral point of view, should state clearly what is scientific and what is not. This museum does not contain much in the way of science, but we are being nice, and not mentioning such information. We have edited to include the mere mention that science does not agree with the basis of this museum. Orangemarlin 21:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

My point is that these need to be sourced to criticisms against the museum itself, not against creationism in general. That's all. It should be easy, since the museum has been the target of much criticism lately. -- MisterHand 22:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Orangemarlin. We need to have a clear statement that the claims made within the museum go against what science (and history!) tell us. If we want a reference more directly tied to the museum, how about this one from the already used Peter Slevin Article, "A Monument to creation":

But in this latest demonization of Darwinian evolution, there is a sticking point: For the biblical account to be accurate and the world to be so young, several hundred years of research in geology, physics, biology, paleontology, and astronomy would need to be very, very wrong.

I don't think we need to quote that, I think we could use it as an additional reference to that sentence. Opinions? Jacob1207 22:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate to be more specific when it comes to the opposition to the museum's viewpoints. I see nothing wrong with saying something like "many scientists", "current, secular, scientific thought" or something to that effect. In fact, I think it would improve the article. The amount of people who believe something isn't relevant to its factuality, so why not stick to accurate and factual reporting? I think it'd simply be wise to say exactly who believes what instead of referring to numbers who believes the opposite viewpoint of the museum. --Creashin 02:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Not many. Not secular. ALL scientists, over 99.6% in the US, and probably more like 99.99% in the world, do not dispute that Evolution by natural selection and/or genetic drift is a fact. That's accurate. And that is factual. No weasel words allowed. Orangemarlin 02:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Where did you get these figures? Not that an appeal to authority or numbers makes a fact, but I am curious. 91.2% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

We can back this up with copious statistics and references. But I think that indicating how this is NOT a science museum, but more akin to a church or other religious institution is crucial and NPOV. If you want a ton of statistics, just look at Level of support for evolution. --Filll 03:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Saying the Creation (science) Museum is not a science museum is a POV. AIG is home to numerous scientists and creation science is obviously a branch of science in general. This museum just extends their viewpoints on science and creation. --Creashin 05:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not a science museum. Science requires the scientific method which Creationism does not use. Therefore, it is not science. Pretty easy logic. Don't worry, we don't care if your G_d is part of the museum, that's the business of making money for the Creationists. Just don't say it's science. Orangemarlin 09:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Not according to any respectable peer-reviewed Science Journal, or the US Federal Court system including the US Supreme Court or any major science body in the US, or well in excess of 99% of the scientists in relevant fields. It is NOT at all obvious and in fact it is WRONG. However, you are free to disagree with the US Supreme court if you like. Just not in Wikipedia. Thanks.--Filll 05:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong with saying, "current, secular, scientific thought"? Since science is self-correcting, theories have certainly changed over time, and rejecting special creation is certainly a secular concept, it would seem that "current, secular, scientific thought" would be extremely accurate and good for the article. And perhaps my proposal of "many scientists" should be changed to the actual percentage that you quoted, with a valid source link, of course. --Creashin 03:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Science is by definition secular. There is nothing else. No religious science. No creationist science. It is a fallacious term and comical in the extreme. It is like having a shade of white called black. I personally have no problem with calling it current or even modern science. The current text, if someone has not changed it, includes a link to the article with statistics.--Filll 03:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Filll. I have no problem saying "modern science" or "current science" (scientific consensus does change with time). But saying "secular science" is silly. Firstly, science is value-neutral, neither arguing for or against purely religious or spiritual views. Secondly, there are many people of faith, including many Christians, both scientists and laymen who have no problem accepting "millions of years" and evolution. C. S. Lewis, the well-known Christian theologian, accepted evolution. AiG presents a false dilemma here and it greatly annoys me how they use the terms "evolutionist" and "atheist" interchangeably. More on topic, I think the opening section does need something indicating that the museum's contents are contrary to (modern/current, if you want) science. That would be totally NPOV and is necessary to have a solid opening. Jacob1207 06:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The branding of all scientists, and 90% of US Christians, and all nonChristians as atheists is an example of intolerance and hate-speech by AiG and similar organizations. They should be held up to extreme ridicule and hostility and called out on this. They are NOT behaving as Christians and are just common hate-mongerers, like most of the rest of Christian fundamentalists.--Filll 12:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

More than that, science can include religion. I'm in fact religious. I just don't mix it in with science, because I'm pretty secure in the knowledge that religion is not going to be destroyed by science. I don't think that G_d suddenly doesn't exist because some humans completely misinterpret the intent and meaning of the Bible, because some humans think that their interpretation is right, and everyone else is wrong. And the rest of Jacob1207's commentary is dead on. Thanks. Orangemarlin 09:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Good words, fellas. However, I haven't seen AIG use atheist and evolutionist interchangeably. This is something a very rookie evangelist would do. As for using the word "secular" or not, part of the problem with implying that all scientists believe the evolution of species happened is that they don't. Yes, most do, but some don't. So, we can't say that "scientists believe the age of the earth is 4.5 billion years old" or that "scientists say the evolution of species happened." We need to find a way to indicate or account for those who don't; even if it's just by adding a word or two, to make it accurate. --Creashin 01:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an atheist. The science behind evolution meets all of the intellectual standards set by myself and others. And about 99.6% of scientists in the US, and probably 99.99% of scientists in the world accept that theory of evolution. In a world of greys, that's as close to black and white as you can get. Orangemarlin 01:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Walk through the museum link

I think it was an accident because I couldn't find it in the edit history, but someone had deleted the walk through the museum link I added. It was hard to find and it isn't on the creationmuseum.org web site. I had to find it via Google, but it's very informative, so I think it should remain. Anyone else? --Creashin 01:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I suspect it was deleted by accident.--Filll 01:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

How is this "POV"?

The following sentences were removed from the article as "POV":

This has created controversy and debate from scientists who say the museum's exhibits contradict geologic theories about the age of the Earth, as well as biological theories about evolution. Over 2000 educators have signed petitions protesting the museum. .

Reference

Discussion

Please explain how this could possibly be construed as POV? -- MisterHand 14:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, because 99.6% of scientists in the country accept the science and research that has brought the Theory of Evolution to its current state. 2000 educators is POV, because it makes it seem like there's a tiny little nonsensical uprising in the country against the museum, so who cares. I do. If the Academy of Sciences puts out a press release saying this museum is a bogosity, then I'd go with that. You're choosing the absolutely worst reference possible to make it appear NPOV, but in fact it isn't.Orangemarlin 14:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You're assigning sinister motivations to other editors that simply aren't there. There are two separate petitions, one signed by 2000 educators, the other signed by 600 educators. That's pretty significant if you ask me (most scientists are just laughing the museum off and going on their way). The point of the paragraph isn't to diminish the controversy, but to demonstrate it. Again, this paragraph should focus on the museum itself, not on the general debate between evolution and creationism. If you've got a better source speaking to the criticism of the museum itself let's see it. -- MisterHand 14:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The real problem is the [t]his has created controversy and debate from scientists part, since that suggests that there is some scientific controversy here which, of course, there isn't. The people behind the scam museum claim that they are presenting "science". When someone makes such an obviously nonsensical claim, it's correct to explain why it's nonsense. There's nothing wrong with mention of the petition (which has over 3500 signatures), but as it is presented, it creates a misleading impression. Guettarda 15:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. How can we word this in a way that shows that there are scientists against the museum, without using original research and verifying the museum's claims ourselves (which is how the current version reads). Again, this is an article about the museum -- not about the creationism debate in general. -- MisterHand 15:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by and verifying the museum's claims ourselves? Guettarda 15:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

And what do you mean by "original research". And I completely agree that it is an article about the museum, and it should be stated that the museum presents, to the best of my knowledge, nothing that could be consider science, and the POV of the article would lead the casual reader to believe that everything in here is science, and there are a few whiners out there that disagree. BTW, I am assigning not motivation to the editors other than the standard stuff I assign to all editors who believe in Creationism. Orangemarlin 15:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If our "response" to the museum's claims is a reference citing evolution and geologic evidence to the contrary, that's original research if the sources don't reference the museum itself. We as editors shouldn't be deflating the museum's claims. Instead, we should cite experts who say "The museum is wrong and here's why". In other words, the source in the intro shouldn't be a general overview of evolution -- it should be a direct retort to the museum. Which was exactly what was trying to be accomplished above. Please read the guidelines at WP:NOR. -- MisterHand 15:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

While NPOV says that we should present all sides fairly, it doesn't say that we have to write like a cable news "debate" of "he said, she said". We are here to write an encyclopaedia, not an "equal time" debate. So while it's trivial to find a supporting source (e.g., here), it's really irrelevant. Just about all the news coverage of the amusement park "museum" do exactly that - point out that its assertion flies in the face of all scientific data. To not do so is to fail NPOV, because what we end up doing is presenting AiG's talking points as if they were true. Guettarda 15:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The article shouldn't be evaluating AiG's talking points. Of course, if those talking points are under fire (and these certainly are) then that controversy should be covered. -- MisterHand 15:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It isn't a "controversy" to cover. The version you were reverting to presents AiG's talking points as if they were facts. Presenting talking points as if they were true violates NPOV. If AiG claimed that Petersburg was on the moon, would we say "This has created controversy and debate from scientists who say the museum's [claims] contradict geologic theories about the location of Petersburg"? Not unless we were writing copy for cable news. Guettarda 18:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

(ri) OK, this sentence, "Over 2000 educators have signed petitions protesting the museum. [5]." is poorly written and lacks any value unless the educators are identified (mostly university level), protesting is a loaded word, and you need to explain why they signed the petition (and not in Ken Ham's words. Realistically, this would be better placed in the body of the article, after all of these problems have been addresses.

This is also a bit skewed, "This has created controversy and debate from scientists who say the museum's exhibits contradict geologic theories about the age of the Earth, as well as biological theories about evolution." The form reverted to by OM is much clearer, and does away with excess verbiage, some of which is a bit POVish (for example, the use of "theories" is inappropriate. •Jim62sch• 15:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I know that creationists dismiss evolution as a "just a theory", but of course scientists know that the term "theory" holds more weight than is normally assigned to the term. To avoid confusion, however, this could be worded better. -- MisterHand 15:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think if we spent too many words on issues like that, this article would not be about the Creation Museum but about Creationism in general. After reading all of the comments here, I have no clue if we have consensus on what is POV and what doesn't belong in the article???? Of course, I'm usually confused about all of this. Amusement park. ROFLMAO. Orangemarlin 19:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I was objecting to the use of "theories", plural, as in multiple geologic and biological theories. Besides, it would be better to say evidence, because it's not so much the theories (1 each for biology and geology) that are being contradicted, but the evidence. In any case, this museum isn't offering much in the way of science, it's just theology for the Walt Disney crowd.

Anyway, OM has a good point: let's be careful with this article, or it will become just another creation-evolution debate (and we have enough of those already  ;) At this point, this article really shouldn't be much longer, just tighten up what's already there. •Jim62sch• 20:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: I think the current intro looks pretty good. It avoids original research and retains neutrality. I have to laugh at the accusation that I was trying to portray the museum's claims as fact with my edit. I guess when you're truly neutral, both sides think you're nuts. ;) -- MisterHand 23:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You mean that you're not nuts? I thought you were, especially getting involved in any article like this one. I take drugs for it. Orangemarlin 23:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey for a nutjob, not a bad lead!!! LOL. Uh oh, someone might take me seriously. BTW, do you think that "apologetics" might be a bit POVish? Seems harsh. Orangemarlin 23:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I think it's fine to call AiG an apologetics organization, they self identify as such: "Answers in Genesis is an apologetics (i.e., Christianity-defending) ministry."[5] I don't think it's POV even in context of talking about the museum. Jacob1207 04:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It figures. Apologetic seems pejorative to me, but if they like then they can use it. Orangemarlin 05:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

OMFG. There's a crucifixion scene? I'm blaming you Jacob1207 for putting that in there for me to read. Orangemarlin 07:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow a crucifixion scene! How scientific! Clearly this is a scientific facility that has NO resemblance to any church or religion ! Oh how stupid of me...--Filll 22:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's perfectly fine to call the museum controversial, but only if we also add that description to the Wikipedia article on evolution. After all, about half of Americans doubt the theory. This has been documented by reliable polls. I'll find web links, and show them to you if you want. JBFrenchhorn 08:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well of course the Wikipedia article on evolution has a section on controversies such as [6] and even numerous articles on Wikipedia focused on this very issue. So what is your point?--Filll 14:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ken Ham head shot.jpg

Image:Ken Ham head shot.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I have added the following fair use rationale:

• Image is a promotional image of the subject, Ken Ham;
• Image is very low quality;
• There are no other images of the subject available for use; and
• It is used in the encyclopedia to identify the subject in his own article and other closely related ones (i.e. Answers in Genesis and Creation Museum)

Does that look good? Jacob1207 04:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Evidently it wasnt. The immage was delete, I have removed the link. -Icewedge 06:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Consistency

I feel this article could be developed alongside Psychiatry: An Industry of Death. Both museums promote views at odds with accepted scientific knowledge; if we can figure out how to phrase NPOV for such cases, then both articles can be written to the same standard. Endomorphic 00:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

AiG Advisors

How does this article fit in this category?--Filll 05:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Images

Jonathan M. Gitlin from Ars Technica just wrote an article about the museum with a companion flickr set. I messaged him and he has agreed to change the licenses to CC-BY or CC-BY-SA so we can use some for this article and the commons. I will transfer some soon when I have time (and when the licenses are changed but, if anyone else gets to it first please post the category so we don't get duplicates (and watch out for 2D images). gren グレン 15:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Gitlin posted some of his pictures of the museum on flickr, where a user named anti.0918 posted a comment on an image of a display in the museum that apparently incorporates several CC-SSA images hosted by wikipedia, wondering if the museum properly acknowledged the license. mac 00:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Tax Exemption

Does anyone know if this museum enjoys the tax exemptions typically extended to religious buildings such as churches and parochial schools? --Lbeaumont 18:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, [is tax-exempt]. I presume the museum would be too, they're not tryin to make a profit with it. Does anyone else have more explicit info on the point? Aren't other private museums tax-free? Jacob1207 03:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

so are my tax dollars paying to promote this type of disinformation? --Lbeaumont 13:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I would imagine so, yes. And they are also involved in lobbying the public school systems to introduce proselytizing for their personal screwball religions at tax payer expense, so you will personally pay to recruit Hindus and Moslems and Buddhists and Jews and Catholics to their extremist hate-filled fundamentalist views. And if you read their literature, they claim that because they are being restricted from doing this, their religious freedom is being harmed and infringed upon. It is amazing. By them being prevented from using my tax money to spread intolerance and hate and attack other religious faiths, they are being discriminated against? Incredible. Just incredible.--Filll 13:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Fundamentalists make me angry. They target the children at this museum, trying to convert them when there young and unable to see the absurdities of young earth creationism. On a different note we shouldn't be using the talk page as a forum. -Icewedge 08:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No, your tax dollars are not paying to promote anything at the Creation Museum. Being "tax exempt" does not mean an organization is "tax funded" by any stretch. --profg 20:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course it does. They make use of police protection, paid by tax money. They make use of public roads, paid by tax money. They make use of fire protection, paid by tax money. Many times some of sewer service and water service and other services are paid for by tax money. All the other services provided by the state such as defense and the benefits of assorted regulations and the advances in government-funded R&D are used by tax exempt organizations. So yes, your taxes are helping to support them in many ways, some fairly direct, and many other less direct ways.--Filll 22:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if this was costing taxpayers a dime in the end. Whatever the cost is, I am sure it is more than offset by the amount of money that 200,000 museum visitors and 50 protesters have brought to the area. DennisF 17:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well this is very complicated and arguing about it based on no information is like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. --Filll 17:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Or about how my tax dollars are paying to promote the disinformation being disseminated at the Centerville Museum, which is also tax-exempt. After all, there's police around, and roads, and firemen, and sewers -- why, they're robbing me blind! :-) --profg 20:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes we can stop all science in the US in all the Universities and corporations and government and all the research and development in the country, just for you.--Filll 04:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

First paragraph needs work

I don't think controversy should be in the opening paragraph of this article. Putting it there, especially with such biting crititcism, seems like POV pushing to me. What if on the Smithsonian Museum of Natural history page, someone wrote "The Smithsonian asserts that the planet is billions of years old, a view which over 50% of Americans dissagree with"? EVERY scientific and religious idea is controversial to certian groups of people, so lets keep the controversy in it's own section.

Also in the first paragraph- Two christian groups oppsing a museum does not constitue "several". Even if this POV pushing statement stays, it needs adaquate sources to back it up. Let's try to keep our personal beliefs off the talk page and DEF off the article guys! Masebrock 05:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The lead provides a summary of all pertinent topics in the article. The controversy and criticism are probably the most notable thing about this church sorry museum, no wait, church, and need to be covered in the lead ornis (t) 05:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. The controversy and criticism is the most significant aspect of this article, so it should be at the top. However, the controversy and criticism should not be exaggerated to promote the opposing viewpoint. Specifically, using the words "several Christian groups" implies that there are numerous Christian orginizations that oppose the museum, while in reality the Christian opposition to the museum is very small. Numerous local church's websites could be used as refrences for this. Also, like I mentioned before, let's not turn the talk page into a debate over beliefs. Whether you agree with the information the museum provides or not isn't relevant to the discussion. Masebrock 06:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, AiG do describe themselves as an apologetics ministry, so it's not just my POV. Anyhow, your last change looks good, I have no issues with clarifying the nature of the religious organisations that oppose the CM. ornis (t) 23:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The Creation museum purports to be a "museum" which is a scientific entity. As such, it is subject to WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE rules. The dominant scientific view of this museum must therefore be presented, in the body of the article and in the LEAD.--Filll 14:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

"In contrast to the overwhelming scientific consensus..." is not a neutral statement. When I edited this, my edit was changed in less than a minute. My edit was "In contrast to the opinion of many in the scientific community...". The person that changed my edit alleged that I presented a non-neutral stance. Nothing could further from the truth unless one is intellectually dishonest.Verb356 (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

We are not trying to be neutral, we are trying to present a neutral point of view -- you need to read WP:NPOV carefully. Dougweller (talk) 06:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the first paragraph is heavily anti-Creationism and needs to be reworked. It should start with a statement from the museum founders about what they are trying to accomplish. Give them a chance to speak. Then have one sentence about the criticism, followed by an objective description of the building, attendance, etc. That's enough for the lede.
I agree with the critics that scientifically Creationism is nonsense, but this lede is all on one side and makes Wikipedia look biased. The criticism material can be moved into its own section. Also the criticism and controversy section is getting too long. Perhaps it could be split into two or more sections about criticism from scientists, from other Christians, etc.--Margin1522 (talk) 06:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Image section

Do we really need the gallery of images? Some of them are just plain unnecessary like the duplicate parking lot view. -Icewedge 07:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there only needs to be one shot of the outside of the building. I'll try downsizing the gallery to show only photos that show the nature and tone of this museum, and leave one outside shot to help describe the size. Masebrock 16:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Unicorns & POV

There is a line under the "controversy" section which says:

"While obviously intended to be humorous, the idea is nonetheless directly supported by the Bible, with the King James Version mentioning the fantasy beasts a total of nine times."

I have attempted to edit this to:

"While obviously intended to be humorous, the idea is nonetheless supported by the King James Version of the Bible, mentioning the fantasy beasts a total of nine times, though various scholars note that this is not the most accurate rendering."

I cited a scholarly source in this edit, and I believe this to be a npov. In fact, it is the unedited version which seems to show a non-npov, not to mention it leaves out important facts. Please explain what is wrong with this. Ikimasu 19:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I tend to support this change. The KJV is an archaic translation from before access to a wide range of manuscripts, and before more modern translation techniques evolved. Hrafn42 03:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't be surprised if you upset some people though. ornis (t) 03:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes but those people believe in far sillier things than unicorns. ;) Hrafn42 14:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

In Displays and exhibits section...

How does applying for a job at the museum or information about the staff in general have anything to do with displays and exhibits? This entire article needs a lot of work... --StormCommander 03:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I have broken it into a subsection. It still needs some work though. -Icewedge 20:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Cost moved down page

I moved the information on the museum's cost a little down the page so it is not almost the first thing said. I hope nobody objects to this. Steve Dufour 04:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It appears fine :) -Icewedge 01:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

99% of the scientists?

Where does this percentage come from? When I click the link that is supposed to back up this claim, I am taken to another wiki entry about the belief in evolution. The theory of evolution says nothing about how old the universe is or when the dinosaurs were wiped out. Besides, even the linked page says that 5% of scientists are YEC. DennisF 16:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you might want to read more carefully. It says over 99% of the scientists in relevant fields subscribe to evolution. The 5% figure is from a more general poll. At this point, we do not know who is included in the 5%; from past experience with these sorts of data, it could include engineers, surgeons, veterinarians, optometrists, political scientists, historians, philosophers, computer scientists, mathematicians, physicists, and all kinds of other "experts" from fields which have no relevance for biological evolution.

I have no idea what you are talking about with regards to the age of the universe or the cretaceous-tertiary boundary temporal location. What is your point by introducing this? It just sounds confused.--Filll 17:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Biology says nothing about the age of the earth or how long ago the dinosaurs were wiped out. Therefore, what you are calling "relevant" is actually irrelevant. DennisF 18:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you actually even read the sentence on this in the article? The age of the earth and the universe that mainstream science agrees on is disputed by the exhibits in this museum. The date of the extinction of the dinosaurs and the date for human emergence that science agrees on is disputed by the exhibits in this museum. That is what it says. Do you dispute this?--Filll 18:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't dispute that what the museum presents contradicts what the vast majority of scientists believe.

What I am disputing is this 99% figure. What's the source for this? If it comes from a Wiki page about the wide acceptance of the theory of evolution, than it's irrelevant because evolution doesn't tell us the age of the earth.

The science field that is relevant in regards to the age of the earth is geology. Do you have a source that shows 99% of geologists believe the earth is 4.5 byo? I don't question that the percentage, whatever it may be, is approximately 99% but if we are going to put a hard number in an encyclopedia entry, then it needs to be sourced.DennisF 18:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This previously was worded differently and had a reference, which was removed. I replaced the reference and reworded the section.--Filll 19:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the statistic should be removed, it sounds a bit POV and may appear to some people to just be made up. I think a much better phrasing would be "the vast majority" or "nearly all scientists". -Icewedge 14:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The figure is not made up, and replacing it with vague qualifiers would be a violation of NPOV. ornis (t) 14:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not. There are multiple ways to estimate this figure, and they all give roughly the same number (all well over 99%). This is not pulled out of thin air. If you have a WP:RS source that gives other information, please produce it and it will be considered for inclusion at level of support for evolution.--Filll 14:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, the number of scientists that suport the old earth view is probably around 99%. What I don't like is that 99% sounds like a made up statistic. -Icewedge 15:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

<undent>So you would prefer 99.9% which is what the reference actually states? Would you prefer 99.85%, which is what another reference states? Would you prefer 99.992% or even more, which is what the current Discovery Institute petition suggests? The number does not change much even if we include all the petitions/lists of ALL the creationist organizations that keep lists.--Filll 15:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not arging against you Filll, all I am saying is that 99% is the kind of statistic that seems like it has just been pulled out of the hat, not that it is. The statment would sound a lot better if the source for the data was mentioned. -Icewedge 16:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

A wikilink and a citation is not enough for you? You want a second citation? --Filll 16:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Just change the "99%" to "over 99%", cite as many sources as you like just after, and leave it at that. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 16:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not demanding a second citation. It just seems to me that as people read this article it may seem like we just made up the statistic, saying something like "acording to a recent newsweek poll..." would fix this. -Icewedge 16:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I an happy with it now. -Icewedge 16:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the wording is better now. It'd be nice if there was actually a scientific poll study that we could use to back that figure up instead of some guy being quoted back in some issue of Newsweek in 1997. If anybody knows how this person obtained his number (what did he mean by "one count"), I would love to know.

I made a few other edits to the opening paragraph. Some of them to just make it read easier, some of it to reword it so as to give a more accurate picture of what AiG believes. For example, I think AiG accepts that evolution is responsible for some of the diversity we see so I changed the phrase "diversity of life" to "emergence of life". I also changed the mention of the age of the earth from a "few thousands years old" to "6000 years old". Why be vague when we can be more precise? DennisF 16:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Because your edits introduce nonsense into the article. Let's leave the date vague, since some young earth creationists assert an age of 6000 years, some 10,000 years, some 15,000 years and some 20,000 years. Better to slam all of them at one fell swoop. Also, if you put nonsense like "emergence of life" in there you are using the creationist definition of evolution and we are NOT going to promote creationist horse pucky here and play their stupid games with words. A given creationist might accept some aspects of evolution, but they all certainly reject at least some important features of it, so this is stupid to try to split hairs about. And I had not included the Newsweek article previously, but it is now included, as well as the more recent NIH article. Also the link is to the article on WP which includes current statistics, which demonstrate that if anything, support for evolution is growing, not fading. According to creationist liars, the opposite should be true. If you have any, and I mean any, WP:RS sources which survey the professional biologists and paleontologists which show different figures than these, feel free to present them. Otherwise, this is a ridiculous discussion to have; you have no facts or evidence to back up any of your assertions and claims.--Filll 16:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I would avoid putting an excess (or any) "for and against" arguments about creationism into the introduction - leave that for later in the article. Just make it clear that the museum presents world history from a creationist point of view (with perhaps "a view differing with over 99% of the scientific community in brackets after, to stress the phrase's sidenote intent) - this would centre the introduction on the museum and not the creationist "theories". THEPROMENADER 17:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. The creationist nit-picking that goes on in these sorts of articles ends up ballooning the LEADs into unreadable messes because they want dozens of citations for every phrase or sentence, and tons of detailed explanation (see the LEAD at intelligent design which has been forced by creationists to turn into a mess) This article is about a creationist museum that pushes unscientific and anti-science nonsense. Period. And we should not have to tap dance around that fact.--Filll 18:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know I am not a creationist. I was arging against the sentance because I though the way it present the statistic was poor. -Icewedge 18:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh right.--Filll 19:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The beauty of encyclopaedias are their objectivity - facts speak for themselves. Just remember to take a global view of the matter when writing the article - cite all the data and its origins, and the "bunk" of the matter will become clear. It's been tried many times to create a "for" or "against" argument by cherrypicking sources - but if you cite the volume of the sources as well, the fact of the matter becomes clear no matter who's arguing. THEPROMENADER 18:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Filll,

This is an article about the creation museum so your desire to keep the creationist criticisms broad enough to apply to other creationist groups makes no sense here.

Why are you opposed to making the introduction more factual and precise? The museum teaches the age of the earth is 6000 years old, not something vague like "a few thousand years old". That's a fact that I can back up a citation. Will you allow that edit to remain if I put a citation with it?

Please do a google search on "emergence of life" if you think this is some kind of creationist term. I'm not trying to play word games, I'm just trying to present the information in the way that is most clear. To say that AiG doesn't believe evolution gives us diversity is false because they believe that there were only a limited number of created kinds and the broader diversity we see today is a result of natural selection. The wording change I wanted to make, which is much clearer, is to say that they don't believe evolution has provided the "emergence of life". Once again, I can provide citations if that will help my edits stick. DennisF 19:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Even though the creation museum is an AiG project, it serves the entire young earth creationist community, and probably the old earth creationist community as well if they hold their noses. I think quibbling about 6000 or 10,000 years when the standard scientific age is 4.5 billion years is ridiculous.

The "emergence of life" has nothing to do with evolution. That is only a creationist fantasy and a standard creationist straw man. Your statements on this appear to reveal your limited knowledge and POV and extremely uneducated and biased background. You might want to learn about it a bit more before proposing any changes. The nonsense about kinds and baramins and barminology has no relation to evolution, so please do not try to argue that case here.--Filll 19:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Would you please do me a favor? I doesn't appear that you understand the meaning of the word "emergence". Go to dictionary.com and type in the word. You'll even see that Random House's dictionary uses "evolution" as one of this word. AiG, hence the creation museum, accepts that natural selection has provided the diversity we see from a select group of created kinds. Since natural selection is evolution, to say that the creation museum rejects that evolution provides diversity of life is blatantly wrong. If you want to keep the word "diversity of life" in the opening section, then please provide a citation. Otherwise, we need to change to be more accurate or it just needs to be removed. I've attempted to change it to say "emergence of life" instead of "diversity of life", but you just revert it. Maybe just removing the incorrect statement which is missing a citation is the next way to go? DennisF 12:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Look, it's obvious you haven't got a clue what you're talking about, try actually reading up a bit about evolution first, from sources other than your dictionary or creationist screeds. Read and really try to understand the process. It has nothing to do with the emergence of life... nothing. Evolution only deals with life after it has emerged. ornis (t) 12:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Would you recommend that I read this book: The Emergence of Life: Darwinian Evolution from the Inside? DennisF 14:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Just because you can use google to find that one of the researchers in abiogenesis, Sidney W. Fox, has published a book with "Darwin" in the title, does not mean you have some sort of WP:RS that evolution includes abiogenesis. This seems exactly like creationist quote mining; that is, it is ok to lie for Jesus, and there is nothing wrong with being dishonest as long as it brings people to the faith... We have thousands upon thousands of WP:RS that disagree with this position. Have you even read the Fox book? Does Fox claim that Darwinian evolution or the modern synthesis include abiogenesis? Do you have any WP:RS sources that make this argument? I am not talking about creationist strawman arguments. Give me a review article from the National Academy of Sciences, for example. --Filll 14:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

At a glance, it looks like Fox is applying the universal acid argument to abiogenesis. Great, so what? It still has nothing to do with evolution any more than does memetics. Even if someone applies the mechanisms of evolution to other problems, evolutionary theory itself, deals with a discreet and very specific set of problems. ornis (t) 15:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Creationists arent saying the universe is 6000 years old, or the earth for that matter. There saying that life and civilisation started around 6-10,000yrs ago. The earth before that was "without form". Portillo 01:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You are incorrect. I would suggest you learn some more before weighing in on this subject.--Filll 02:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Portillo is referring to gap creationism which is a belief that AiG and the museum doesn't hold to. Filll, I suggest you go to the creationism entry of Wikipedia and read up before you put other contributors down. I'm trying my hardest to be kind to you. Please try to understand the creationists views better before putting people down. DennisF 12:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

ROFLMFAO.... Filll is one of the main contributors to the creationism article, not to mention the satellite articles, a good many of which he largely wrote. I suggest that you do your homework before you come in here and go shooting your mouth off and making arrogant demands, based on a pretty egregious ignorance of the key issues. ornis (t) 12:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

<undent>Of course there are some creationists who believe in one flavor or another. One narrow creationist belief does not include all creationists. For example, there are Old Earth Creationists and Young Earth Creationists and they do not seem to agree. You think we should use the beliefs of OEC to define what YEC believe? My goodness...--Filll 14:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Filll, seriously, you've gotta admit that DF is correct here -- this article is about the Creation Museum, and the Creation Museum specifies that the earth is 6,000 years old; we're not talking about what "some young earth creationists assert". I'm amazed that this is even being debated. Let's pretend that WP is a real encyclopedia, and use pertinent facts, not broad strokes of generalizations. Thank you. --profg 20:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh brother. 6000 years is not a few thousand years? That is ridiculous...--Filll 04:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Not at all, as you yourself mentioned that it slammed all YECs holdings of the age of the earth, which the Creation Museum and AiG do not at all agree upon. The age given must be relevant to the museum's position, not to creationists in general. It would be fine somewhere on the YEC's page, but not here. Appolose 06:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes i agree, the man stated that "99.9" of scientists believe in evolution, when its simply not true. The poll of "99.85" was taken in 1987 the number has increased drastically since then to more than 5% in 1997 and with 40% beginning that the cells spontaneously combusted as traditional evolution submits and think that "theological evolution is right"

I believe this should be re-worded to be more neutral and not imply one view is right by proving a inaccurate and misleading poll.

Perhaps by siting that "15 years after the modern creationist theory got steam, it has grown to hold 5% of scientists in the relative scientific fields, and increased public view from 44% in 1997 to 55% 2006.

Jade Rat (talk) 04:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC) Jade Rat

To provide a neutral point of view, it should be worded as "the overwhelming majority" or the "vast majority". If a poll is referenced that cites 99.85 (which I do belive is accurate), then there will always be creationists who will want to argue about .1 percent. It would be an ongoing debate forever —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkrup4 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Diversity of life

The opening paragraph makes this statement: "Its exhibits assert that evolution is not responsible for the diversity of life on earth". This statement is without citation and contradict the beliefs clearly described on the AiG website. For example, one of their web articles makes the following statement:

"As creationists, we fully accept the fact that adaptation / natural selection can occur rapidly. In fact, such processes (and perhaps other genetic factors) would have occurred rapidly after the Flood, producing variation within the animal kinds. Such effects are largely responsible for generating the tremendous diversity seen in the living world."

As you can see, AiG accepts that natural selection (one mechanism of evolution) is responsible for the diversity we see. Again, the word "diversity of life" is without a citation that the museum espouses this view and is in direct contradiction with the AiG website.

The phrase needs to be removed from the article or reworded. I have proposed substituting "emergence of life" but it appears word emergence is confusing to some of the other contributors and will likely be contributing to readers as well.

I would like to ask somebody else to make this change, preferably one of the anti-creationists so that this edit will have a better chance of not being reverted. DennisF 14:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course we could go into a big long discussion in this article about speciation, and the abusive and misleading use of microevolution and macroevolution by creationists, and the pseudoscience of baraminology. However, those are covered in the articles linked to this one, and that is not what this article is about, so I think it is inappropriate to discuss this at length here; instead a summary is all that is called for here, and that is what exists.

The bottom line is, this organization, and this museum, does NOT subscribe to the main tenets of evolution, and this statement is in general correct. Sure, creationists can claim that they believe in some limited form of evolution and two or three of the ideas from evolution. However, it is NOT true that most creationists (aside from those who accept theistic evolution, etc), and in particular AiG, subscribe to speciation by the mechanisms of evolution, common descent, the scientific method, standard definitions of evolution, standard definitions of science, the descent of man, standard interpretations of rafts of genetic evidence, laboratory experiments, field observations, fossil evidence and so on. I cannot accept one part of Newton's theory of gravity and deny the other parts, and then claim I accept Newton's theory of gravity. This is just more obfuscation, wordplay and dishonesty.--Filll 15:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. AiG rejects the main tenets of evolution. How about changing the wording of the phrase from "Its exhibits assert that evolution is not responsible for the diversity of life on earth" to "Its exhibits reject the main tenets of evolution"?

If you don't agree with this rewording, then please answer the following question:

Does AiG accept that natural selection produces diversity? DennisF 16:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

In anycase DF, your source is rubbish. To quote from reliable sources guidline "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made." If a source like say, oh I don't know the new york times, says that the CM promotes one position, and AiG says it promotes another, the NYTimes (a reliable source) trumps AiG (a completely unreliable source), even for a statement about AiG's position. ornis (t) 16:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you produce a reliable third source that says AiG rejects the fact that natural selection produces diversity? I've produced my source. Where's yours? DennisF 16:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Using AiG as a source is acceptable according to Wikipedia policy since the article is related to AiG.

I don't see any policy that communicates the idea of one source "trumping" another. I only see a mention that if two sources disagree, then the article should present both views. If you are ok with that, then we can change the opening paragraph to present both sides. Personally, I would prefer to see us removed "diversity of life" and use something else that more accurately reflects AiG's views.

Also, your NY Times source does not say that the museum rejects the fact that natural selection generates diversity. That's what you have implied. DennisF 18:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, AiG is only a WP:RS on some topics. AiG is not a WP:RS on scientific issues, in any way shape or form, and definitely not on evolution. This article is only somewhat related to AiG. The Answers in Genesis article is about AiG. This is about the Creation Museum, not AiG per se. From WP:UNDUE we have to present the material in the same proportion as those in the relevant fields do. Since this museum purports to be a museum and a scientific institution and the overwhelming scientific consensus is not that of AiG, then we go with the scientific consensus for most of our characterization of this facility. My reading of the NY Times article seems to differ with yours. Here is the direct quote from the NY Times:

Outside the museum scientists may assert that the universe is billions of years old, that fossils are the remains of animals living hundreds of millions of years ago, and that life’s diversity is the result of evolution by natural selection. But inside the museum the Earth is barely 6,000 years old, dinosaurs were created on the sixth day, and Jesus is the savior who will one day repair the trauma of man’s fall.

Now my reading of AiG materials clearly demonstrates that this NYT account is correct. And we summarized it and placed it in our LEAD, as appropriate, since this article is not really about AiG and its beliefs. You dispute this?--Filll 18:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I can be goaded into tap-dancing to your tune, but it is pointless. You now are going to claim that AiG believes in the common descent of ALL LIFE ON EARTH? You want a reference to show that AiG does not believe in common descent? You want a reference to show that AiG believes in "created kinds" and other assorted creationist nonsense? Good heavens. Why, except to engage in WP:DE and act as a troll?--Filll 16:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Can't answer an easy question because you know where this will lead, huh? Let me ask it again. Does AiG accept that natural selection produces diversity?

Wikipedia policy says that anybody can remove statements for which no source exists. What source do you have that AiG rejects natural selection? DennisF 18:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Point me to were exactly in the article it says that. Oh wait you can't, because it doesn't say that. You've already been given the source for what the CM promotes, so I'm not really sure what you hope to achieve by badgering the editors here. It seems to me that you are mistaking this page for a discussion forum, why don't you take it to talk.Origins I'm sure they'd love to discuss this at length with you. ornis (t) 18:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a nonsense objection. DF, you know as well as I do that AiG does not accept that the diversity represented by redwood trees, dogs, cats, humans, and parrots was produced by natural selection, or other processes of evolution including mutation. Why are you engaging in this nonsense?--Filll 18:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the quote from the AiG website that I used to support my position? It's at the top of this section. AiG believes that evolution (in the form of natural selection) is "largely responsible for generating the tremendous diversity seen in the living world". I can point you to article after article on the AiG website where they explain their belief that the diversity of life comes from variation within created kinds. No, AiG does't give evolution 100% of the credit for diversity, but they admitt natural selection is "larglely responsible".

A lot of people misunderstand AiG and think their position is that God created every living thing as we see it today (ie. God created the poodle). This is wrong and your statement that "Its exhibits assert that evolution is not responsible for the diversity of life on earth" only feeds that misunderstanding.

Would you agree with me that the statement "Its exhibits assert that evolution is not responsible for the diversity of life on earth" is not 100% accurate? Could this statement be misunderstood to say that AiG doesn't believe in change via natural selection?

I'm not trying to rewrite this artile to make it look like AiG accepts all aspects of evolution. Why can't we work together to find another wording that communciates AiG's rejection of scientific theories without making statements that I consider to be misleading? DennisF 13:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the key point here, and that is that AiG is not a reliable source, even for their own position. As for the second point, no I wouldn't agree, the statement is 100% accurate as anyone not steeped in creationist propaganda can see, the exhibits do assert that evolution is not responsible. A good analogy might be to a racist organisation that says "we're not racist" when their actions and words clearly contradict that. The same applies here, while AiG might say they aren't rejecting all of evolution, their campaigns and actions make it obvious that they do, and there are independent sources that attest to that. – ornis⚙ 13:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

A lot of people think that evolution and natural selection are one in the same. They aren't. Natural selection is just one piece of evolution. AiG accepts natural selection. Even their critics understand that. Here's a link from somebody who rejects AiG's view that went to the museum. On this webpage, they confirm that signage in the museum states that natural selection takes place.

If you believe that all of this affirmation of natural selection that exists in the museum and in many of AiG online and print materials exist solely to make people think they accept it, but their actions state something different, then let's document it in this article. DennisF 14:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is not the place to document exactly what AiG believes and does not believe in detail. One could write a 200 page essay on that and still not cover it all. The bottom line is, AiG rejects the accepted scientific view in biology and lots of other fields. End of story.--Filll 16:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is not about AiG's position. It is about a museum. Anyone who wants to learn about AiG's claimed position and their actual position can go to other articles on WP and go to the references.

We just have to summarize the AiG position in this article, and we do. We have consensus and a reference that we have done so accurately. Just because AiG claims that all the varieties of dog-like creatures, or all the varieties of cat-like creatures, or all the varieties of horse-like creatures, are created by evolution from some proto-dog, or a proto-cat, or a proto-horse. This is not evolution. It does not matter how much you or AiG claim it is; it is not.

William Jennings Bryan, the fiery prosectution lawyer in the Scopes Monkey Trial believed in evolution of everything except humans, but obviously still is famous for not supporting evolution. It does not matter how much you split hairs; AiG is anti-evolution. And it is accurate and reasonable for us to characterize it that way.--Filll 14:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not asking for us to word the intro in a way to make it sound like AiG is pro-evolution. I'm trying to make the point that AiG accepts some aspects of evolution, that being natural selection, and to make the intro appear otherwise is inaccurate.

Please answer this question. Do you consider natural selection to be evolution? DennisF 15:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

At risk of feeding the troll, natural selection is an important (and possibly the most important) mechanism underlying evolution. It is however not equivalent to evolution. The modern theory of evolution also includes a number of other underlying mechanisms (notably genetic drift and gene flow) and sources of variation (notably mutation and recombination). The modern theory of evolution also includes a number of resultant conclusions, such as universal common descent. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous wordplay and efforts to try to trick us into nonsense. This is not a debating society. It does not matter what I believe. Why don't you try talk.origins or some other website if you want to debate.--Filll 16:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You're wasting our time and yours. Stop it now please. – ornis⚙ 16:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I just reworded the intro. If you guys don't like the rewording, please tell me why.

The sentence "Its exhibits assert that evolution is not responsible for the diversity of life on earth, the planet is just a few thousand years old and that man and dinosaurs once coexisted."

Has become: "Its exhibits reject the theory of evolution and assert that the earth and all of its life forms were created in 6 days just 6000 years ago and that man and dinosaurs once coexisted."

I like it. It's still highlights that the exhibits reject evolution yet is more precise about what the museum does assert. DennisF 18:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit war over misunderstanding

Based on the comments from several people who have reverted my edit, it appears everyone thinks I am trying to insert new material into the article. I'm not. I am simply trying to remove an unsourced piece of opinion that reads:

"The second room of the creation museum for example displays a model dromaeosaurid (misidentified as a velociraptor, when in fact modeled on deinonychus, a mistake also made in Jurassic Park) stating that the species was in fact featherless and had no connection to birds."

If this is going to stay in the article, it needs to be sourced. Filll, Orangemarlin, and Hrafn, unless you can provide a reliable source, this needs to be removed. Even if you can provide a source, we need to discuss if it is even noteworthy. DennisF 16:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop the disruptions. It's already cited in what is presently footnote 31 here. ... Kenosis 16:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

No it's not. Please point out where that source states that the Creation Museum has mislabeled one of it's exhibits. DennisF 16:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I imagine, then, that you are referring to the sentence on feathered raptors. Understood then. I put in three references to credible summary sources noting A) the basic issue of raptors and feathers, B) that it's the same mistake made in Jurassic Park, and C) that biologists and paleontologists collectively say they have different evidence than is being portrayed by the Creation Museum in defense of their particular literal reading of Genesis. There are other credible citations available, but I trust these will suffice for now. Please feel free to research further, as far as one wishes, but the sentence is verifiable, verified, and correct as written. The parenthetical note about Jurassic Park is relevant because it references a widely viewed error in the movie that has to do with popular conceptions that are inconsistent with the scientific research. ... Kenosis 18:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's walk through this in small monosyllabic words. 1. Creation Museum displays a dinosaur. 2. Dinosaur is mislabled. 3. Mislabeled dinosaur lacks feathers. 4. All fossil evidence from the Cretaceous indicate dinosaur had feathers. 5. End of message. Do not ever accuse me of edit warring again. My next reply will not be civil. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It strikes me that this and previous postings by this editor are verging on WP:DE or trolling. I would expect him to try to adjust his behavior accordingly.--Filll 17:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Specifically I am referring to the statement that infers the museum mislabeled a deinonychus as a velociraptor. While this may be a valid opinion, it needs to have a citation. I've added a citation flag to it. DennisF 19:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

In the second room of the Creation Museum, we’ll show how natural history museums are putting feathers on a dinosaur raptor … to make him look like an ancestor of birds!here from the main museum article on AIG. Raptor is short for velociraptor, something popularised in Jurassic Park. Yet, like Jurassic Park, the animal has obviously been modeled on deinonychus. If you look at the image provided on the site, you'll see it's head is too broad and powerfully built, just like in JP. True velociraptors had very narrow, upturned snouts.79.72.227.149 09:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but your opinion sounds valid. The problem is, it's WP:OR. We need a citation from a reliable source if it's going to stay. The citation needs to state that the musuem is placing the wrong species name on the exhibit. DennisF 12:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It's entirely possible that this is supposed to be a Utah raptor.  –  ornis⚙ 12:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that tip. I did a Google search on "Utahraptor creation museum" and pulled up several pages with a picture of the dinosaur that looks like the exhibit we are questioning. These web pages refer to it as a utahraptor, not a velociraptor. I then did a google on utahraptor and saw several models that look like the picture of the "raptor" from the creation museum. Again, I'm not an expert so I can't judge the validity of the criticism being leveled here. That's why we need a reliable source to confirm it. If you look at the WP entry for Raptor, you will see that it doesn't imply velociraptor as 79.72.227.149 states. DennisF 14:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Given that raptor is a dab page, that's not surprising. In any case, velociraptor, deinonychus or utah raptor, they're all dromaeosaurids and thus most likely feathered. I'm sure you can find plenty of unfeathered reconstructions in the same way you can still find plenty of old reconstructions showing t. rex leaning on its tail.  –  ornis⚙ 15:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the speculation about precisely what species of prehistoric raptor the museum may have intended to refer to, and adapted the language to the sources, leading up to this edit. Hrafn42 provided the grammatical edit. "Raptor" now links to [[Utahraptor]. The main point is that biologist have long held that birds are descended from certain species of dinosaur raptor, while the Creation Museum is arguing the opposite in its displays in favor of a literal reading of Genesis. ... Kenosis 16:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for making that change. I agree with how the edit is currently worded.

As a side note, AiG doesn't believe a literal reading of Genesis precludes dinosaurs with feathers. See the following quote [this web page]:

Although the evidence for “feathered dinosaurs” has been wanting in the past, and though we’re nowhere near convinced of this study’s findings, nothing in the Bible precludes the erstwhile existence of feathered dinosaurs. What the Bible does indicate is that if feathered dinosaurs were to have existed, they would have been created with feathers; they did not evolve from reptilian scales </tj/v17/i1/feathers.asp> , which are quite different.

It's the interpretation that feathers proves birds evolved from dinosaurs that AiG rejects and thus causes them to be skeptical of the evidence that suggests raptors had feathers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennis Fuller (talk • contribs) 16:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree too much is made of the recent addition of quill knobs to the body of evidence. Years ago, comparative anatomy and cladistic analysis had already placed these relationships into a proper perspective in evolutionary "trees". More recently, protein sequencing analyses between the soft tissue (fossilized and frozen "flesh") of dinosaurs and today's birds provided strong confirmation of the hypothesis that today's birds evolved from prehistoric therapod dinosaurs, to the extent that it is a stretch to even call it a "hypothesis" at this stage of investigation. The discovery of quill knobs is only an additional confirmation -- although it appears to have been something that the Answers in Genesis continues to exploit in advocating its own agenda of Old Testament apologetics. I think the language in the WP article is reasonably deferential to the museum's presentation in light of this, as well as reasonably captures the position of modern evolutionary biologists. ... Kenosis 20:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent reversions

Could people please check the difs 'very carefully before reverting. There have been instances where the reversions have not matched the editors' Edit Summaries, indicating that they are reverting under a misapprehension. I have done it myself here, which is why I immediately self-reverted. I would point out that Profg's "removal" actually added back [a second copy of] material, and Orangemarlin's reversion of it removed this long-standing consensus material (which had been recently, and probably mistakenly, deleted). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, at first I thought OM was wrong, but I saw that profg wanted that phrase in twice, and the OM edit took out one of the two identical phrases and so the resulting article had only one of those phrases. In that case, I agree with OM.--Filll 17:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

How's that again, Filll? (I agree, maybe it's all just gotten too confusing here!) --profg 17:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Double-checked it and yes, Filll is correct. I've corrected my above comments for this. It would've helped if OM had put in an Edit Summary saying that this was deletion of duplicate material. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks for the input. --profg 18:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Profg, being helpful again I see? Hrfan, I always put in edit summaries. What are we talking about here? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing, OM. I certainly always endeavor to be, as I'm sure you also do. :-) --profg 21:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Life imitates The Onion

This was laughable four years ago. 71.248.115.187 14:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Utahraptor forearms

Okay, here's the case for those not well versed in theropod anatomy...

The animatronic Utahraptor has forearms which are positioned in the wrong way. Here is a link with a photo and a video clip...

http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3211737

The palms of the dinosaur are facing downwards. Recent publications by paleontologists (eg. Gregory S. Paul's "Dinosaurs of the Air: The Evolution and Loss of Flight in Dinosaurs and Birds") show that this would have been anatomically impossible for the real animals, as their forearm bones (ulna and radius) could not rotate in this way. Instead, their palms would have faced each other, like a person about to applaud.

Updated restoration with palms facing each other

This isnt a trait found only in dromaeosaurids (velociraptor, deinonychus, achillobator etc), but also other theropods.

Simply put.... (focus on the position of the arms)

Old restoration... http://www.kheper.net/evolution/dinosauria/T_tanneri.gif

New restoration... http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/edu/dees/courses/v1001/images/tryrannosaurus_sue.gif

This recent revision is no different to refuting the outdated tail-dragging kangaroo posture originally thought to be taken by predatory dinosaurs (another mistake apparently made by the museum on one of it's tyrannosaurs in the museum grounds).

To be fair though, it is probably simply due to a lack of input on recent scientific revisions on theropod anatomy rather than active denial (which is the case in regard to feathers)87.102.5.248 23:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Not convinced of recent addition

Looking at the references, I am not convinced that this recent addition:

"a Pteranodon is shown to be perching on it's hind legs like a modern bird, despite the fact that the actual animal's hind limbs were too weak to support it's weight[59][60] "

is really of much value. I think it should be removed unless a better citation can be found. It all sounds pretty doubtful and really not helpful for this article.--Filll 22:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The info is just as valuable as the parts on tail dragging T.rexes and featherless raptors; it all goes to show that the designers behind the models are either ignorant of dinosaur/pterosaur anatomy, or are simply not up to date with current knowledge.

Observe the photograph taken during Phelp's visit to the museum...

http://www.ncseweb.org/images/aig21.jpg

Now contrast it with this...

Unlike those of birds, the legs of pterosaurs were very short relative to their arms. As such, they were probably far less adept at terrestrial locomotion. It has been argued that pterosaurs were capable bipeds, but a suite of skeletal features suggests that this is not the case, and that pterosaurs were obligate quadrupeds. This interpretation has been supported by evidence from trackways. http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/Palaeofiles/Fossilgroups/Pterosaurs/Anatomy.html

1. The pteranodon could not stand bipedally because its legs were positioned wrongly on its body, see Smith [5]... 5. J. M. Smith, Mathematical Ideas in Biology , Chap. 1, Cambridge Univ. Press, (1984). http://www.levenspiel.com/octave/dinosaur4.htm

The sculptor was either ignorant, apathetic or both.Dark hyena 20:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok fair enough. I wish we had better references for this, but put all three citations in there and it should be ok I think. Comments?--Filll 20:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it supposed to be an attack?

From reading this, especially the opening paragraph, it sounds like a rant or attack on young-earth creationism altogether. This is just about the museum itself, not an opportunity to attack any one idea. While there are no blatent opinions in this article, the information chosen here (i.e., "the exhibits are at odds with a vast majority of scientists!") for the opening blurb seem out-of-place. They might fit better in the controversy section phrased slightly differently (i.e., "critics argue that the exhibits are at odds with the majority of scientists.") Just a thought. Bonjour123 02:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The wording "The critics argue..." gives the assumption that the scientists themselves are not the ones who feel the idea is contradictory to modern science. Also, using the word "argue" in that sentence is fallacious, there really is no argument, from a scientific point of view. --Agamemnon2 04:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No, "it is supposed to be" written from the viewpoint of mainstream science, per WP:UNDUE. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

To say "critics argue that the exhibits are at odds with the majority of scientists" or something similar would be POV--even AiG itself admits that most scientists think they're wrong. It'd be verbose and odd to say "everyone says that the exhibits are at odds with the majority of scientists" so just leave it alone and say "they are at odds..." because, well, they demonstrably are. One can claim the scientists are wrong, but you can't say that anything close to a majority of them support young earth creationism. Jacob1207 (talk) 19:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's an attack. But it is very important to point out that the museum is intentionally deceiving people with young earth creationism. It is widely known to be false. It would be no different if an article was describing a holocaust revisionist museum. It is a museum designed to validate the incorrect beliefs of adults, and to trick children who may be learning about biological evolution for the first time. Jkrup4 (talk) 13:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it so that the criticism paragraph comes 2nd. Its unprofessional to start the article with an almost rant-like criticism. Portillo (talk) 03:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The second paragraph is misplaced fused to first. Per our due weight and neutral point of view policies, it is important to document the opinion of the scientific community for articles having to do with fringe theory. I've reverted your change. Auntie E. 05:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Theres plenty of time and space to add the criticism. This is not an article about why the Creation Museum is wrong, it is an article on the Creation Museum and what its intentions are. Portillo (talk) 06:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The changes gave a credulous statement of the fringe view and of its funding, without making clear per WP:PSCI (not WP:PSTS!) the majority view: I've restored a version that gives the creationist aim, and then states the mainstream view before going on to the funding of the museum which is another topic. More about the aims may be appropriate, but the large change proposed fails to meet standards: please present detailed proposals for individual elements of the changes you want, per WP:TALK. . dave souza, talk 08:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC) correct acronymic link to PSCI,. . dave souza, talk 11:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

So the neutral view is to start the article with an almost rant-like criticism. Its almost as if the article cannot wait to get involved in the criticism of the article. Im fine with the article being disproven by science, but im not fine with the way the article begins immediately into the criticism. I hope to fix the article as soon as i figure out how. Portillo (talk) 03:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

science

The scientific method includes aspects of hypothesis, testability, falsifiability, reproducibility, and peer review. The people at AiG who run the Creation Museum do not claim to follow this method. They make it very plain that their views are Biblically based, and they (I use this pronoun very expansively to include all creationists) make observations about the physical and biological world which they believe are consistent with, and therefore lend support to, their views. Also, as noted in other Wikipedia articles, the courts have determined that creationism is not science.

Recognizing this, why do so many people feel it necessary to criticize AiG and creationists in general (and the Creation Museum in particular) from a scientific perspective? This seems to be as relevant as stating that most violinists dislike J.K.Rowling and her Harry Potter books. If this analogy seems strange, that's my point. Let's leave the scientific criticism out of this article, because it does not belong here.

On a related note, if more than 50% of Americans believe in creationism, how is this not a mainstream view? By citing the beliefs of scientists, to the exclusive of the beliefs of people of Biblical faith, you violate the NPOV guideline so important to Wikipedia, by demonstrating a preference for the scientific method over a faith and observation based method. Jwbaumann (talk) 04:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Throughout this family-friendly experience, visitors will learn how to answer the attacks

on the Bible’s authority in geology, biology, anthropology, cosmology, etc. They will also discover how science actually confirms biblical history, and be challenged to consider how the first 11 chapters of Genesis – the first book in the Bible – addresses modern

cultural issues such as racism, same-sex marriage and abortion.

— The Creation Museum: The Main Theme & Vision Statement (my emphasis)

They present their claims as 'scientifically supported', so open them up to legitimate scientific analysis and criticism, which the article should give wP:DUE weight to. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Except that the overwhelming amount of content on the article is about scientific disagreement with the views displayed in the Creation Museum. Consenting scientific views are routinely deleted, and Biblical views (which the Creation Museum bases its message on) are also routinely deleted, even when simply describing the content in the museum. That portion of the vision statement is not an invitation to turn this article into an anti-creation rant - to do so violates wP:NPOV.Jwbaumann (talk) 13:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, I believe you are misinterpreting NPOV. NPOV states that topics will be examined from viewpoints in proportion to their prominence among the relevant experts in the associated academic field. If the Creation Museum never made reference to science or scientific evidence to support its agenda, then it would be treated differently. However, creationism is an attempt to justify religious ideas using science. And therefore, the relevant academic field is in science. And in science, the level of support for creationist ideas is very small. For example, in biology, anti-evolution views constitute way less than 1 percent of the views. The same is true in the earth sciences and anthropology etc. The creation museum promotes a young earth viewpoint which violates many other sciences. So, although it might not be fair, by NPOV, Wikipedia must examine these topics in this way.

By contrast, if you look at an article on Jesus Christ in Wikipedia, you will find very little if any examination of the subject from a scientific view. You will find the views in the Wikipedia article mostly from the relevant academic fields in the area of religious studies however.

There are other Wikis which do not have NPOV. You might be happier considering one of those, like Conservapedia.--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

IP's attempts to remove criticism from lead

User using the IP addresses 75.179.154.141 and 76.233.57.170 is removing criticism from the lead arguing that somehow the criticism is not really a part of the article. According to WP:LEAD the entire article is summarized in the lead, not just the pro issues:

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article.

Removing the criticism would plainly slant the lead. I am asking the anonymous user to respond here instead of edit warring. Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Are we really relying on stuff like this?

When i was checking sources i came across a particularly interesting line that said "99.85%" of all scientists do not believe this. Upon further inspection of the links provided i saw the links pointed to A. this was the results of a poll done in 1987, and B. a pro-evolution individual who said " 99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution " When this is proven false because in 1997 5% of scientists believe in the literal creation and 40% believed in theistic evolution- while 55% believed n natural evolution.

While the US public has skyrocketed over 10% toward literal creation from 1997 to 2006 from 44% of the general public and 5% of scientists- to 55% of the general public.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jade Rat (talk • contribs) 04:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Your source doesn't say what you claim. The 5% figure is for all "scientists" which includes all kinds of scientists, not just biologists and geologists. What the general public believes is irrelevant, because a good percentage believes in astrology. This sentence you added to the article-

"10 years later after according to a Gallup poll the scientific theory began to gain steam."

-is nowhere to be found in the article you cite. Creationism is not a scientific theory. Aunt Entropy (talk) 23:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, pitting Creation against Evolution in a poll about beliefs has no scientific bearing. Science is not about beliefs, nor is Creationism a scientific theory. There is a lot of misinformation being put out there by religious fanatics who are trying to push their religious/ social agenda. Jkrup4 (talk) 13:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

60% of Americans is not correct

There is the statement that 60% of Americans believe the Earth was made in 6 days

The source is a short Australian Broadcasting online article which does not cite any poll or study.

I motion to remove this information, as it is almost certainly false. Only 70% of the nation is even Christian. In any case, if the 60% isn't an exaggerated or made up figure, then it should be kept in mind that the South and the North are two different places. The South already had to be pounded flat by the North because of its brutal religiosity once before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samboring (talk • contribs) 18:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Well spotted. It's a claim made by Ken Ham in an interview, not a reliable source. . dave souza, talk 20:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The information was incorrectly sourced- Good Morning America is a show on the AMERICAN broadcasting channel. I found the video which the information was referring to and added it. The poll was taken by ABC(American) as you can see from the video, not by Ken Ham.Masebrock (talk) 01:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that link, the news broadcaster clearly says that according to an ABC poll 60% of Americans believe that "God created the world in six days", but they don't give any detail about the poll. In the broadcast the reporter says that that the Creation Museum was aimed at convincing visitors that evolution is wrong, and that the Biblical story of life on earth from Adam and Eve to Noah's ark is scientifically verifiable. Ham responds to questioning about scientists dismissing this by saying "where's their proof?" The Australian Broadcasting Company page includes several of the statements in the broadcast, and also describes an interview with Ken Ham, in the middle of which is the statement that the 60% support was why "the museum teaches that the biblical story of life on earth is scientifically verifiable." It's not clear if that's part of his statement, or a reporter's statement. However, Ham is quoted as saying "what we say about science is exactly the same as what they're saying in the secular world except we also showing people that actually, observational science confirms the bible's statements on biology and geology and so on," so he is clearly making the same point, which is worth noting.(see And God created... dinosaurs) I've modified the article accordingly. . . dave souza, talk 09:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Was it an abc reporter saying "thi abc poll..."? If not, we should be looking for an original source still. We should also use the best information, not a fucking abc poll.

Controversy

I think a few more basic controversies could be added to the Controversy section. For example, the Creation Museum states that this picture (click here: http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2006/02/twinsGR210206_450x300.jpg ) proves that God can break the usual laws of nature and suddenly create a child of one race for parents of another race (ie. African parents could have a Chinese child, etc), thus scientifically proving that the Tower of Babel could have occurred.

The museum fails to note that the couple in the photo (both people being already of several mixed races) created two children whose coloring was drawn from different sides of their own heritage: One child taking after the Hispanic/African lineage while the other takes after their Nordic heritage.

The couple did not create a "new race." If they had created a new race, scientists from all over the world would be wanting to study the child. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.17.65.14 (talk • contribs)

If a second-party reliable source can be found that discusses that particular controversy, we can put it in, but otherwise it's considered a type of original research: synthesizing two sources (the daily mail photo and the CM exhibit) to create a new conclusion that the Museum is wrong in this. It's against policy, despite however obviously true the conclusion may be. Aunt Entropy (talk) 04:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

That is so obviously ridiculous it isn't even funny. Can you give me a link to the article? I know I have seen it before. Regardless everyone knows that they didn't make a new race. I am not sure where you got your idea. Arlen22 (talk) 22:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/07/24/news-to-note-07242010#one Arlen22 (talk) 22:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Intro really needs to be sharper.

Do creationists really care what the majority of the scientists say? We know that these types already have dismissed the mainstream scientific community, so wouldnt be be better to say something like, "they say its x, but all evidence is to the contrary like radiometric dating, light from stars, sediment layers ect." Then they cant come back with oh those evil atheistic scientists are just prejudiced against god ect, ect. Vunecal212 (talk) 10:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The bible has never once been disproved wrong. And many times has been proved right. Concerning the thing about light from the stars, if God created the world, he could have the light already started from the star. The flood explains the sediment layers. I do agree however that the intro is pretty flimsy. And I would like to know if there is research concerning the ratio of scientists who believe creation vs. those who don't. Arlen22 (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Neither the article nor this page is the place to debate the merits of creationism. Please stick to improving the article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Arlen22: You are wrong, the flood does not explain the sediment layers. Just compare flood plane geology to what we normally find all over the world. Floods do not create detailed layers like what we see. They mix them all up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.9.188 (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, this page is not the place to dispute the merits of Creationism. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Creation Museum's numbers don't add up

Can we get an independent source for the attendance numbers?

Here's why:

They claim that in two months (60 days) they had 100,000 visitors. That's 100,000 / 60 = 1667 people per day EVERY day (seven days a week).

For the sake of argument say they got 1700 per day. The Creation Museum is open 8 hours per day (9am to 5pm). That makes 1700 / 8 = 212 people per hour through enterence or about 4 people a minute, or one per 15 seconds EVERYDAY, even at closing time.

Keep in mind this is in a building about the size of a few houses. And then there's this report:

I only recall seeing one other guard the entire day. The lot probably would have held 200 cars and was 3/4 full.

So there is basic reasons about being careful on overstating popularity of this place from the owners. Not surprising that the creationists would mislead the public. Agg56tt (talk) 02:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Surprising or not, and it's not for us to comment, they're both a primary source and an unreliable source, so due caution about the claimed figures is appropriate. . dave souza, talk 16:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

User 67.135.49.116 correctly pointed out that Agg56tt threw an insult in at the end of his discussion. Some editors have repeatedly removed 67.135.49.116's observation as poor ettiquette, yet have not removed the egregious insult by Agg56tt, to which he was calling attention. Come on, guys, let's not have a double standard. If you allow an insult to remain, don't censor the understandable reaction to it. Plazak (talk) 02:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

See WP:EQ and more specifically WP:TALK: this page is about improvements to the article, not interpersonal chat. Unfortunately creationists as antievolutionists do have a track record of misrepresenting science, and this specific museum is taken to task for misinformation. As a primary source they've not got a reputation for reliability, and secondary sourcing is needed: see WP:V and WP:PSTS. dave souza, talk 08:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You cite WP guidelines and policies to stifle comments critical of your side's position, yet ignore them when it's convenient in regards to sentiments you obviously agree with. Cute. This entire discussion section should be deleted as it is nothing more than an attempt to smear the Creation Museum, Ken Ham and AiG on the basis that "Creationists are all liars." You start from that standpoint and conclude - WITHOUT A SINGLE SOLID FACT - that they are lying about their attendance numbers. Again, cute. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the article, in the absence of other figures it's entirely reasonable to report the Museum's own attendance figures, provided we state their origin - which we do. If we can find better figures (though from where I don't know) we can use them.

Regarding the logic above, I don't think Agg56tt's analysis stands up. Four visitors a minute is really not very many - its small enough that one turnstile could handle it, and I'm sure they have more than that. Yes, I'm sure that visitor entry drops off towards closing time, but having two turnstiles would more than compensate. You may say the museum is small, but the British Museum, with less than ten times the floor area, handles many more than ten times that number of visitors - and they probably stay longer.

As for the parking lot size, you're taking an obvious antagonist's word at face value. Let's assume that the average person stays about three hours - probably generous given that it's a pretty small museum. Then we're looking at around 600-700 people inside the museum at any one time. If some of those come by bus, and plenty of the rest probably as families, then 200 cars are more than capable of bringing them. So we have no reason to doubt the CM's figures. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Other than for agg's and dave's "Creationists are all liars" angle, of course. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 18:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent the editor's opinions here. It is considered dishonest. Also, the "cute" comments that you made above are not helpful. Unless you can make your arguments earnestly without so much combative snarkiness toward your fellow editors, you aren't going to get very far here. Auntie E. 18:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

If USA Today is given credence, the museum originally had around 500 car park spaces, so assuming a lot of families at 4 occupants per car, and allowing for some buses, 2,000 visitors at one time seems quite possible: since most would be unlikely to stay as much as half a day, then the car park would not seem to be the big constraint, though it seems that they were applying to enlarge the car park. Note also the report that the first weeks saw "packed parking lots and long lines to get in." So, not too implausible. . . dave souza, talk 21:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I visited the museum in 2007 and, on that day, I saw a number of full tour buses (Church groups, homeschool groups, Quakers) disgorge. There was a long line for admission; they were letting people in gradually as people exited. The property is fairly large -- it took several hours to see the whole thing. I don't think their admission numbers are implausible. Jelson25 (talk) 21:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry, Auntie. Do the lines "Not surprising that the creationists would mislead the public" and "creationists as antievolutionists do have a track record of misrepresenting science" have some other meaning than "Creationists are all liars?" And why am I not surprised that one anti-CM editor is defending other anti-CM editors? Be sure to indefinitely defend each others' edits, too. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 19:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

They mean what they mean, not what you say they mean. I don't care what you are surprised at, as you have yet to make a meaningful edit on this talk page toward contributing to the article, instead lashing out at out various editors here. If you have a problem with someone's edit, tell them in a straight tone, do not snark back. That is not helpful. Neither is your exaggeration such as "Creationists are all liars." No one will take you seriously until you dial back the sarcasm. It's a lot easier to ignore you if you are sarcastic rather than sincere. You might be surprised at what you can accomplish here with the right attitude towards this collaborative project. Auntie E. 00:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)