In A Tale of Two Museums the Evangelical Ecologist gives the following challenge to those of us who are Christians and accept the theory of evolution. (Yeah, that’s why we use “theistic evolutionist”–it takes less time to type!):
But clearly its not a scientific method thats being debated here, though I suppose thats part of it. At the root of the difference between these two museums is an infinitely divergent world view. One museum unabashedly acknowledges God as Creator and the Bible as a competent standard to establish the context for mans place in the history of the biosphere. The other, not.
So to those of you espousing the evolutionary view, before you condemn in toto what the folks in Kentucky are doing, I offer this challenge: Gather like-minded souls together, raise $25 or so million dollars, and build a museum on a Biblically-based evolutionary model that expressly brings mankind closer to the Creator rather than driving people further away from Him.
But I have several problems with that challenge. First, the museum in Kentucky is not about acknowledging God as creator. If it was, they could do just that. It’s about acknowledging one interpretation of Genesis as superior to all forms of science. It is the scientific method that is being debated here. Young earth creationism is profoundly anti-science of all varieties.
Second, I don’t need the new Museum. I do not desire a science museum that acknowledges God. Where should it do so? Should there be an addition to each sign that says, “And God did it?” One of the great values in science is that anybody can do it, if they’re willing. Results must be replicable. A Muslim, a Jew, a Hindu, a Christian, an Atheist all should be able to come to the same scientific conclusion. If they can’t, it’s either a bad conclusion, or one of them is not doing science.
I’m going to stick with the my own knowledge that my heavenly father made all this and let the science museums stick with describing it.