Ken Ham's Creation Museum

quote:

---

In America he has the right to present to the public what he sincerely believes to be true as he interprets the evidence which he is observing.

---

I agree, as long as he or she takes no government funding for their museum.I mean, if the Nation of Islam or the Fair Education Foundation (a Geocentrist/still Earth society) or the Institute for Historical Review (a major Holocaust denial organization) wish to have a museum, even if the entire contents of all of those museums contradict much of the mainstream, well-supported science and history they deal with, they should be allowed just as Ken Ham's Creationist museum should be allowed.You would support all of those museums, wouldn't you Buz?

quote:

---

I don't support any museums, nor would I vote for any of my tax dollars to go to them. Imo, they should all be user funded.

---

Yeah, because education about natural and cultural history, preservation of natural and cultural artifacts, and scholarly research into such subjects are not worth funding for the benefit of all citizens.I mean, who would take pride in these as national treasures, and why should my tax money be spent to preserve them and to make sure that everyone can see them?: In fact, I'm with you. I say we simply stop using tax dollars to fund any museums or libraries. Who cares if that means that the ability to see these national treasures and millions of others will stop being free to the public.Only people who can afford to pay to see the Liberty Bell and the Declaration of Independence deserve to see it, right?Edited by nator, : No reason given.

You didn't really answer the question, though.You support the Geocentrists, the Nation of Islam, and the Holocaust deniers in their museums just as you support Ken Ham's, don't you?They are each presenting a different point of view than the vast majority of professional historians or scientists in their respective fields.Just because the Holocaust deniers' and the Geocentrists' views contradict the mainstream consensus view doesn't mean we shouldn't allow the museum, and maybe we should even teach such things in public schools. Equal time, so to speak.Right?Edited by nator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Should anyone be able to setup a 'museum' to promote their own warped viewpoint just because they passionately believe something to be true and have enough money to publicise their beliefs in this way?

---

Yes, but no public fnding.

quote:

---

Should an 'Aryan museum' be allowed to exist that presents 'evidence' in a pseudo scientific manner to illustrate the view wthat there is indeed a master race and that other racial types are inferior?
Should a flat earther museum be tolerated that presents the 'evidence' that the Earth is flat and at the centre of the universe?

---

Yes, but with no public funding.

quote:

---

What is the difference between these examples and the creationist museum in principle?

---

No difference whatsoever.I think these museums are great. It is a way for all of the rational, educated people who otherwise don't realize the threat to reason and education the Creationists pose to finally understand how seriously deluded and wacko these creos really are.Shining a bright light upon such ideas is the only way to expose them.Now, Creationism will be exposed as the silliness it is to far more people than it was before Ham's museum existed.

quote:

---

Well I hope you are right but when reportedly nearly 50% of the American public, including the president and many other major political and powerful individuals, believe in creationism I am less optimistic that this will be the result.

---

Here's what I think.The people who really, truly believe as Ken Ham does will be delighted by the museum, and they always would have been. Those people are, I think a relative minority.The other, larger group of people who report believing in Creationism haven't really thought about it, and when presented with the wacko conclusions of someone who has, like Ken Ham, they will maybe see that what they say they believe is actually pretty silly once you actually examine the logical consequences.I mean, I think he's going to lose quite a few people by coming right out and saying that "incest was OK back then, after the flood."

Well, yes, it could be seen as fraud, but when religion is involved, there's quite a few loopholes.I mean, you can't prosecute people for having irrational religious beliefs and trying to get people to believe them.