Talk:Creation Museum

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)