Talk:Creation Museum

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I'm a big fan of the creation museum and Ken Ham but does this really belong in a encyclopedia?

"Ken Ham will defend the Museum against these criticisms on The FOX News Channel’s TV program The O’Reilly Factor on 28th May"

Oh, come on, it won't last more than a day. Someone will quote was was said tomorrow. Give me a break...--AvengingAngel 17:35, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
I'm just not sure whether the page is intended to be a announcement board of AGI events... Remember (as I'm sure you know) this is a encyclopedia.--Tash 17:41, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
OK if I'd left out that last bit, the other section would probably have got zapped. This way, I layed down a marker for someone else to follow tomorrow. I am trying to be even handed here.--AvengingAngel 17:44, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Well... the fill in for O'Reilly really didn't let Ken Ham say that much.... The only really useful museum fact from the interview/mini debate was that the museum had over 4,000 visitors today.--Tash 21:23, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm changing "evolutionist Lawrence Krauss" to "physicist Lawrence Krauss." Kraus's main focus of research and teaching is physics. I'm adding a link to his faculty page as supporting documentation. Outside of academia, he's probably best-known for writing a book about Star Trek. He's written a little about evolutionary biology in the popular press, and he debated a young earth creationist at Case maybe five years ago, but he's still a physicist by trade and reputation.

Clarification: Labeling Krauss as an "evolutionist" is both redundant and deceptive. It is redundant because Krauss's quoted comments make it very clear he favors biological evolution to young earth creationism. It is deceptive because it makes it looks like Krauss specializes in the study of evolution.--All Fish Welcome 00:32, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Is his main argument against the Creation Museum based upon evolution or physics? I am guessing he is more concerned about the conclusions of the Creation Museum in biology than in physics. Learn together 00:42, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

"Demonstrate" versus "show," "illustrate," "present"

I changed "demonstrate" to "illustrate" in the sentence

The exhibits are designed to illustrate that the planet is just a few thousand years old and that man and dinosaurs once coexisted

"Demonstrate" means "1. To show clearly and deliberately; manifest: demonstrated her skill as a gymnast; demonstrate affection by hugging. 2. To show to be true by reasoning or adducing evidence; prove: demonstrate a proposition. 3. To present by experiments, examples, or practical application; explain and illustrate: demonstrated the laws of physics with laboratory equipment." Very few museum exhibits of any kind demonstrate anything. Certainly a diorama that shows humans and dinosaurs coexisting does not demonstrate that they coexisted. Nor does a case of replicas of skeletons arranged in succession Hall of Human Evolution at the American Museum of Natural History "demonstrate" that humans evolved, nor does an orrery "demonstrate" that the planets move around the sun. Exhibits "show" or "illustrate" or "present..." or "exhibit." They don't "demonstrate." Dpbsmith 05:23, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

  • Thanks. Fair enough for me. Now please demonstate your superlative editing skills by actually adding something about the place, rather than concentrating on debunking quotes, okay?  ;-) --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 05:55, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
Point taken. Uh, I haven't added anything useful to the article, but I didn't have anything to do with any debunking quotations, either... the edit I made a few minutes ago is the last edit I'll make to this particular sentence. Dpbsmith 13:18, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
OK, I added something (about the soon-to-open Big Valley Museum of Creation Science in Canada). maybe it should be a separate article... maybe it's not useful... Dpbsmith 13:45, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

sorrrrry, should have read this before I waded in, ooops. Will probably get reverted. Reminder to self. <Always Read the talk page>.--Felix 13:14, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

"The exhibits illustrate that the planet is just a few thousand years old" means that the exhibits prove it.

"The exhibits are designed to show that the planet is just a few thousand years old" means that there is a purpose behind the exhibit.

"The purpose of the exhibits is to convince us that the planet is just a few thousand years old" clarifies the purpose and does not comment on whether they work.

"The exhibits are an attempt to convince visitors to the museum that the planet is just a few thousand years old" is much more near the truth, as many may not be convinced.

Take your pick --Felix 13:24, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, I don't think "illustrate" means "prove." But I'm keeping my promise and will not edit that sentence again. Let me check: "Illustrate 1a. To clarify, as by use of examples or comparisons: The editor illustrated the definition with an example sentence. b. To clarify by serving as an example or comparison: The example sentence illustrated the meaning of the word. 2. To provide (a publication) with explanatory or decorative features: illustrated the book with colorful drawings." Dpbsmith 13:44, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Location "chosen?"

The article says:

a location chosen due to having almost two thirds of the United States population within a 650-mile distance

However, the cited reference says no such thing. It does indeed say that "nearly two thirds of the population of the United States lives within a 650-mile (1,050-kilometer) drive of the Creation Museum" but does not even hint that that was a reason why that location was chosen.

I think it is far more likely that it was chosen for its proximity to the headquarters of Answers in Genesis, at 2800 Bullittsburg Church Rd., Petersburg, KY 41080.

Not sure how to tweak the wording... this factoid does not seem to me to be lead-paragraph stuff. Dpbsmith 06:59, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

I do vaguely remember seeing a quote saying that it *was* why the location was chosen - something about how 2/3 of the pop. could get there with a day's bus ride - perhaps they built the headquarters when they built the museum? Anyway, perhaps we can find the quote, which will solve the problem. Will look. --Hsmom 07:16, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
It looks as if I was wrong in thinking Answers in Genesis' headquarters preceded the museum. This 1999 article says Ham is "a former Australian biology teacher... In 1994, Ham moved from San Diego to Cincinnati and founded Answers in Genesis, a religious organization whose members believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible." But Petersburg, KY is about thirty miles from Cincinnati, and I have to think that the location was influenced by proximity to Cincinnati.
The figure of "650 miles" just seems weirdly arbitrary to me. Dpbsmith 09:07, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
While I haven't tried looking for a reference, I can confirm that the location was chosen because of its accessibility to much of the U.S. population. Philip J. Rayment 09:33, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
Here we go: Hamm says the site chosen for the new facility is in Florence, Kentucky, a choice not immediately obvious to most. "A lot of people say to us, 'Why would you build a creation museum like that? I mean, this is a world center, and people are going to come from all over the world here. Why would you pick northern Kentucky?'" he says. But AIG's president points out that nearly two-thirds of the U.S. population is within a day's travel of the museum's location. "Actually, northern Kentucky is part of the Greater Cincinnati area," he says, "and the museum property where the facility is being constructed is just two exits west of Cincinnati's international airport. We have a great international airport here. In fact it's a Delta hub."[1] I'll let someone else figure out how/if to work this into the article. (And whether 650 miles (BTW not mentioned in this source) is "within a day's travel".)--Hsmom 19:30, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
And another, slightly different, from Ham's native Australia: The museum's site has been chosen for its strategic location. It is six kilometres from an airline hub, Greater Cincinnati International Airport, and near Florence, Kentucky, headquarters of the Answers in Genesis worldwide ministry. As Ham explains, "One of the main reasons we moved there was because we are within one hour's flight of 69 per cent of America's population."[2] --Hsmom 19:36, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
Hey, wait, what's this? He says it's "six kilometres from an airline hub, Greater Cincinnati International Airport." But the big Cincinnati airport seems to be CVG, which is named Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport, and Google Maps gives the distance to Petersburg, Kentucky as ten miles, not six kilometres.
The museum's map and directions confirm this... they say "eleven miles" to the exit.
If nobody objects, I'd like to use this wording, pushing the details into a footnote, and avoid the issue of how the site was chosen:
The museum is located ten miles from the Cincinnati airport, just off I-275, in the town of Petersburg, Kentucky.[3]
If anyone does object, OK, leave it as it is but add the references Hsmom turned up.
P. S. I'm not saying it's not a good location. I'm just objecting to the implication that it was selected out of the entire United States because of its strategic location. I think the likelihood is that Ham selected it for convenience to where he was already located, and perhaps affordability, and wishes to point out that it happens to be a good location that is nowhere near as remote as it sounds. Dpbsmith 20:38, 31 May 2007 (EDT) P. P. S. It's closer to the Cincinnati airport than the Cincinnati Art Museum. Dpbsmith 21:04, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
Ten miles is sixteen kilometres; perhaps the reporter or someone misheard or something. And Ken Ham was working for ICR in California before starting Answers in Genesis in the U.S., so existing location was not a factor. (Incidentally, the move to the Cincinnati area was made before the museum property was obtained; AiG was in another location in the area initially, were offered or nearly bought a property for the museum, but that fell through, then they got this one, and relocated their headquarters to it as well as built the museum.) Philip J. Rayment 22:24, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
Well, that's my point. They had located in Cincinnati before looking for a location for the museum. Or was the museum already being planned when Cincinnati was chosen? Did Ham really take out a population map of the U. S. and systematically look for a central location, based on some predefined criteria?
The odd thing is that several of these newspaper stories say the museum was (e.g.) "chosen for its strategic location" but this seems to be the reporter's summary of what Ham said, not a direct quotation.
Yeah, I'm obsessing about this way too much, but at the moment I'm thinking the museum is in a good location, but that there is not yet any basis for saying that it "was chosen" for its strategic location, and, oddly, not even a basis for saying "Ham says it was 'chosen for its strategic location'". Dpbsmith 05:56, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
One more for the mix: From the Creation Museum Project Summary page of FAQs: Why did you choose the Cincinnati area? Almost 2/3 of America’s population can drive to Cincinnati in one day (within a 650-mile drive)! In addition to those 185 million Americans, millions of Canadians in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec can also drive here in one day. Most convenient, the museum will be close to I-75, the busiest north/south interstate in America, and for those who might fly here, the Cincinnati Airport is only two exits away.[4] Sounds like this was a "talking point" used when soliciting funds for the museum. FWIW, at an average of 55mph, 650 miles is almost a 12 hour drive, with no breaks. (Again, I'll leave it to Dpbsmith and the rest of you to work out how/if to use this.) --Hsmom 09:28, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
DBSmith, see here, and read the paragraph with "March 1994" in it. Philip J. Rayment 09:40, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
That "1994" paragraph is perfect. Thanks for humoring me. Will add the ref to the article if nobody else does it first. Dpbsmith 11:58, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
  1. Agape Press - Creation Museum Will Show Gospel's Scientific Truth, By Mary Rettig, October 21, 2004[1]
  2. Sydney Morning Herald - Onward the new Christian soldier, January 17, 2005 [2]
  3. Ham says people sometimes ask "Why would you pick northern Kentucky?" but answers that two-thirds of the U. S. population lives within a 650-mile drive or an hour's flight.
  4. Creation Museum Project Summary - FAQs - 10 most-asked questions about the future Creation Museum [3]


Should a reference to ICR be made under other creationist museums? What do you guys think? Learn together 11:46, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't really think that other museums should be in this article, as long as it's primarily about the AiG one, but as long as others are included, then ICR's museum definitely should be included. Philip J. Rayment 12:20, 31 May 2007 (EDT)