When I had a conversation with Megan Fox, the science “skeptic” who audited an evolution exhibit at the Field Museum, one of the most interesting moments to me was when she said she planned to visit the Creation Museum.
No kidding, I thought. I would *love* to watch a video of you going through those exhibits.
I wanted to know if she would apply the same sort of “skepticism” over there. It would be a breeze, really, since there’s plenty to criticize. (I would know. I’ve been there twice.)
My hopes weren’t exactly high… but I was still curious.
Well, Megan has finally started posting videos of her trip:
In short, she got taken in by them. She believes that it’s really a museum, on par with actual science museums, and it’s therefore presenting information that’s just as valid. Because the exhibits are beautiful — and they are — she hardly questions what they’re saying.
Was there any criticism of the exhibits? The only thing I heard her question in the first video was the “authority” with which they spoke. She didn’t get how they “knew” something happened exactly, say, 4,350 years ago. (Spoiler: That’s because they don’t.)
Almost immediately, she dismisses that line of questioning because, you know, they did their own research so it must have some validity to it. Plus, she adds, “nobody was there,” so how would we know for sure?… perpetuating Ham’s favorite Ignorance Motto.In fact, if you’re Ken Ham, Megan is the ideal visitor to the museum: Someone who just accepts what she’s told because it has the appearance of legitimacy and it more or less fits her current worldview.
I asked Megan what she thought of her trip there, compared to the one at the Field Museum (and the Smithsonian, which she also visited for an upcoming video series). What did she take away from the experience? She told me:
The Creation Museum doesn’t pretend to be something it is not. It is a mission field and its goal is to convert you. I appreciate how upfront about that they are, unlike the rest of the Natural History museums whose goal is to convert you to Darwinism and atheism but they lie about it and claim it’s just a scientific fact and anyone who doesn’t believe can go to Hell (not the Hell of the Bible but an atheist created Hell of exile and humiliation where they try to destroy the life of anyone who disagrees with their creation story.) Each world view has its own creation story. For creationists it is the story of Genesis. For atheist Darwinists it is the god of primordial soup and the common ancestor. Neither is provable. Both are theories but only one is willing to admit it.
Actually, the natural science museums’ exhibits are provable, to the best of our abilities. They’re based on data that experts in the field have collected and analyzed and, yes, debated. It doesn’t matter what their religious beliefs are because their faith is irrelevant when it comes to examining the evidence and following wherever it leads.
Unlike the Creation Museum staffers, they don’t start with a bunch of assumptions that cannot be challenged and force everything to fit into it, even if it means distorting all the facts.
But if you live in a world where science is part of some wider anti-Christian propaganda machine, than reality itself becomes part of the conspiracy.