Prof. Lisa Park Boush on the Creation Museum

Prof. Lisa Park Boush on the Creation Museum January 28, 2014

The quotation comes from an article that I came across recently, although it was written several years ago, about the reaction of paleontologists who visited the Creation Museum. Dr. Park is also quoted in an article in the New York Times on the subject.

"Don’t be afraid to read God’s Plan For All, Bob. You might be the victim ..."

153 Fish – The Definitive Explanation
"I think technology has made us better critical thinkers.The fact that it is so easy ..."

Research and Truth-Seeking in a Post-Truth ..."
"You may want to see an easy to read version of universal restoration. Google the ..."

153 Fish – The Definitive Explanation

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

TRENDING AT PATHEOS Progressive Christian
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Just Sayin’

    Focused on fear? Not “winsome” and “irenic” then?

  • David Evans

    Dr. Sato asked an excellent question in the New York Times article. Why does the museum assign some dinosaurs to the Jurassic, others to the Cretaceous? I thought YECs didn’t believe the conventional ordering of the geological column.

    • Yes, when you define geological periods to mean something like Tuesday through Saturday of a particular week, when supposedly no processes were at work that were not at work the week before, then keeping the terminology is at best confusing and at worst disingenuous.

  • gimpi1

    Personally, I believe Mr. Ham should be doing time for fraud. My scientific knowledge is not that high, but as the wife of a geologist, I know enough to know young-earth creationism is not just bunk, but willfully ignorant bunk. Mr. Ham has to know he’s pulling a scam. He should be regarded as a con-artist and treated accordingly.

  • The quote would seem to implicate the prophet Ezekiel, Jesus, and the apostle Peter as well – since they all invoked the name of Noah as a warning against ungodliness.

    • I don’t follow your logic or see what in the quote you are referring to. But the geological record shows there was never a global flood, and so if admitting that past human beings could be wrong about this is incompatible with your religious beliefs, perhaps your religious beliefs need to change. But many have found that, even if treated as a metaphor or parable, the point does not have to be jettisoned altogether.

      • The quote suggests that the Creation Museum, or the idea behind it, evokes fear. I don’t know of any religious tradition in the world today whose belief that God created the universe is supposed to cause its adherents to be fearful. So I looked at the graphic, and the only thing I could think of that Lisa or you (or whoever created the graphic if it was someone else) might be referring to is Noah’s flood, which was a judgment against sin. As you yourself admit, that point would not have to be abandoned even if one understood Noah’s Flood as a metaphor or parable. The point, of course, is to be fearful of sinning because it provokes the judgment of God. You sound like you think the point is valid; she sounds like she doesn’t. Please explain.

        • So basically you don’t know what kind of stuff is in the Creation Museum, you made something up to fill in what you don’t know, got really upset about what you imagined to be the case, and then posted your comment?

          • So you are saying that it is the exhibits in the Creation Museum (though not Noah’s Ark) about which Lisa is speaking? Why then does the graphic have Noah’s Ark and the rainbow as the backdrop?

          • Maybe because the Creation Museum often uses Noah’s Ark as an icon? Did you not see the big words “Creation Museum” spelled out twice in the graphic?

          • So, stitching together what you and James are telling me, Noah’s ark is not at all indicative of the contents of the Creation Museum, nor is it at all intuitive what sort of exhibits might be in the Creation Museum, and only those who have actually been to the museum are qualified to understand the quote.

          • If someone says something about the Creation Museum, and you know nothing about the Creation Museum, then there is a reasonable chance that you might understand misunderstand the quote. Obviously.

          • Does your sentence read exactly as you want it to read?

          • I fixed it. But there was a reasonable chance that you could have understood the quote. But it would have involved your taking the time to find out about the subject the quote was saying something very brief about, for context.

          • Why do you resist saying what it is about the Creation Museum if not Noah’s Ark that Lisa thinks instills a fear that is not Christian?

          • Because the article that the quote is from, which is linked to in the blog post, provides the necessary context.

          • But you showcased the quote in a graphic as if it made sense on its own. If a quote needs its context to be properly understood, perhaps you ought not to have framed it as if it belonged in Bartlett’s.

          • It is a paleontologist talking about her impression of the Creation Museum. Really, it ought not have been this difficult for you to understand.

          • I’m supposed to understand from the quote what it was about the Creation Museum exhibits, aside from Noah’s Ark, would arouse fear?

            I can understand why such a person might disagree with the exhibits in a Creation Museum, but I am completely perplexed about why she feels those exhibits would inculcate fear in the museum’s visitors. And I am even more perplexed about why you won’t tell me what it was or else remove the showcased quote since you’re tacitly admitting it’s not self-explanatory.

            (Or you could leave the quote as is, and just add some words, such as: “Do not attempt to understand this statement without reading in the context found at the link.”)

          • Yes, if you knew enough about the Creation Museum to know what a paleontologist who is a Christian would find objectionable, then you would have understood it. If you knew that they use the ark in the logo because they subscribe to Flood geology, but are still looking for funds for their ark park, that too would have avoided misunderstanding. In short, the only way not to understand the quote is to read it and interpret it even though it pertains to a topic about which you don’t care to inform yourself. And so my question remains why you would do that, and why you would go on at length in this embarrassing fashion after having done so.

          • James,

            I tried to walk away from your blog once before and you encouraged me to stay. This time I won’t be persuaded.

            Since you are a biblical scholar, I thought you could be helpful in understanding how to integrate faith in the Bible with faith in evolution. If you do have a way of successfullly doing that, I’ve been unable to discover it.

            I have probed you on your ongoing verbal war against Christians who struggle with evolutionary orthodoxy. You seem just as opposed to ID as you are to YEC. This surprises me because the latter rejects evolution outright while the former embraces many aspects of it. You act as if evolution is as straighforward as 2+2=4 and therefore that people who don’t accept it deserve to be ridiculed and mocked.

            Since I have been unable to achieve reasonable dialogue on these issues with you and others here, it’s merely a drain on my time and yours for me to pursue the issue further. I leave you to yourselves. I’m moving on.

          • I will not try to persuade you otherwise. Your attitude of unwillingness to inform yourself about views other than your own, and your twisting of the statements of others, has seemed troll-like of late. I will however always regret that you missed an opportunity to learn, and to enrich the understanding of others, because of the way you approached things here.

          • You don’t have to see the museum; you could just, (oh, I don’t know, I’m just grasping at straws here) click on the provided link and read about the quote in context.

            And, yes, actually, Noah’s ark goes hand in hand with the the sorts of exhibits you find in the Creation Museum; evolutionary science doesn’t leave much room for a literal interpretation of the ark tale. The fear factor comes into play when Creation Museum exhibits blame everything from sexual promiscuity, crime rates, and abortions on the science of evolution.

    • Daniel Webb

      Historical figures invoking myths doesn’t mean the myths then become true. If you read the greek epics like the Iliad or the Odyssey you’ll see that no only do they contain mythical figures but they often refer back to myths from many many years earlier. Even though the epic may refer to an event that actually happened with real people like the Fall of Troy–it doesn’t mean that King Priam was actually placed upon the throne of Troy by Hercules (or that Hercules was even a real person.) Myth just becomes interwoven with history, and we shouldn’t see that and proclaim it to be correct.

      • So if Gen 1-2 is a myth, what else in the Bible is a myth?

        • Daniel Webb

          Leviathan fighting god would be a myth, wouldn’t it? Since god is without form, I think it would be safe to say he didn’t have a battle with a sea creature.

          You’ve got this strange idea that something must be literal in order for it to be used by god.

        • Quite a lot of it. No worries, though; historians and archeologists don’t pick on the bible exclusively. There’s a lot of mythology in the histories of Herodotus, the natural history of Pliny the Elder, and many other ancient writings.

        • • Unicorns.

          Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee? ~Job 39:9-10

          • The brother of Zeus, Hades.

          “You will be brought down to Hades.” ~Mt. 11:23

          Just for starters.