Talk:Creation Museum

Reqphoto

Yeah, some more pictures would be really cool. Perhaps a better one of the front of the building, and pictures of the lobby and some of the displays, preferably with some of the animatronic dinosaurs. If anyone visits the Creation Museum, please take your camera! One or two more good pics would help out the article. Jacob1207 03:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Reads like a brochure

This article sounds like a brochure for the creation museum. I have added reason for controversy as well.Newestscientist 19:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

controversial

The museum has generated a lot of controversy. So I am re introducing the word controversial in the description. Let us discuss if any one think differently.Newestscientist 05:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think that's appropriate. It's a weasel word. --Creashin 04:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
• The museum is clearly controversial. See, for instance, here and, anyway, the whole point of the museum is to present an alternative to the scientific theories accepted by virtually all scientists. How is that not the epitome of controversy? The word should be returned to the description. I respectfully disagree with my colleague's statement that "controversial" .constitutes a weasel word in the present circumstances. If the Creation Museum cannot properly be called controversial, I would ask my colleague if there is any subject that he feels could be so called. Jacob1207 20:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jacob. I like your edits and how you've contributed to the article. You're making it better. Please see just below for my reply on the word "controversial." --Creashin 17:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kudos. In line with your suggestion below, how about we say something to the effect of "the museum has been called controversial by many sources" and then put some references behind it? Like [1] [2] [3] [4]. That way, we're just reporting the plain fact of what others have said about the museum and are not characterizing it ourselves. Do you think that'll work? Jacob1207 17:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds better. --Creashin 02:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

My Edits

I've made a number of edits and improvements to this article. If someone doesn't like one or two of them, please discuss them here. Please don't revert all of my hard work, just because you don't like one of my edits. --Creashin 04:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• Just because you make the claim that 'controversial' is a weasle word, does not mean that it is so. You will find this term throughout Wikipedia. Regardless, even though I assume good faith from all editors, it appears from your edits that a POV is being posited. I am not going to revert your edits, but would suggest that you should not take offense if revisions are indeed made in an effort to neuturalize the current tone of the article. SuMadre 02:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality is certainly the goal. However, the word "controversial" could be added to nearly everything under the sun. If the word should be in the article, then perhaps we should quote a news source that calls it controversial. --Creashin 17:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If controversy exists around a subject, that subject can technically be called controversial". What is weasly about that word is how some use it without context to cite the level of controversy: e.g. if only 1% of a group support one point of view and 99% another, the topic is hardly "controversial" on a wide scale, but it is a common practice for those representing the 1% to say that the topic is "controversial" to make it sound as though more oppose the commonly accepted or proven point of view. Thus the context is important with this word - as many others that describe an action or balance between two parties. THEPROMENADER 10:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

References

The following two links are used as references (currently #4 and #10) but appear to be defunct. Please see if you can find an active link for the facts cited:

• http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19426054.700-the-creationist-museum-of-misinformation.html
• http://www.kentucky.com/471/story/40019.html

Otherwise, the statements in question might need citation needed tags. Jacob1207 02:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• The first one still works. Only the excerpt is available for free. It is available for subscribers or those with appropriate athens login. Newestscientist 07:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

Removed the entire section. Two trivia points were just spam about Ham's promotional appearances in the media and the remaining two were both: a) non-notable and b) non-neutral. 69.248.24.164 02:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The material may be worth re-incorporated back into the article in some way. For reference, the section was as follows:

== Trivia ==

• On Monday, May 21, 2007, Ken Ham went on Fox and Friends to promote the upcoming opening of the Creation Museum.
• Skybus Airlines started operating on May 22, 2007 and every flight goes through their hub in Columbus, Ohio. Many believe their $10 flights will increase the museum's attendance, as it sits just an hour from Columbus.
• On Wednesday, May 30, 2007, Ken Ham will make an appearance on the Hannity and Colmes television show on the Fox News channel.
• The museum claims two target audiences, Christians seeking scientific evidence to back their beliefs in debates against non-believers, and people of other religions who have not been saved. Perhaps intentionally, this excludes the group of Christians who do not literally interpret the book of Genesis

Jacob1207 03:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the trivia section was good for the article. However, if consensus says it isn't, then the info in it should be absorbed into the article. For instance, the bit about SkyBus was particularly interesting. --Creashin 17:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Creashin that there are some good facts there that are worth preserving in the article. I think the SkyBus blurb could go well in the part discussing the museum's location. The bits about Ken Ham's appearances could be brought up in context of the museum's promotion. Jacob1207 17:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Second paragraph

Anonymous users, and a few registered ones, keep modifying the article's second paragraph. It originally read as given below:

The museum presents an account of the origins of the universe, life, mankind, and man's early history according to a literal reading of the book<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s"> of Genesis. Consequently, the exhibits assert that the planet is just a few thousand years old and that man and dinosaurs once coexisted. In contrast , scientists state that the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old, and that the dinosaurs became extinct 65.5 million years before human beings arose.

Users keep modifying the final sentence to indicate that only "evolutionary scientists" believe the statements which follow, or that those statements are only "opinion" etc, etc. None of those changes have been given explanations, either in an edit summary or here on the talk page. Can we generate some consensus on this issue? I think the above version is the best and think that requesting semi-protection might be a good option. But I think we'd need to have some consensus that those changes are disruptive before doing that. (I dunno, I've never requested semiprotection before). Thoughts? Jacob1207 18:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the whole "in contrast" statement shouldn't be there at all. It reads like orignal research to me. A cited sentence or two summarizing criticism of the museum itself would be better here, and more on topic. -- MisterHand 19:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Original research? Uh, no. There's a reference there. Of course, if you would like, we could post all 10 million or so references published in peer-reviewed science journals about the age of earth, dinosaurs, etc. Orangemarlin 19:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The cited reference does not refer to the museum at all. Rather than making arguments within this Wikipedia article, we should be citing arguments that have already been made against the museum. There are plenty out there, so it's not a difficult endeavor. -- MisterHand 19:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Creationists and other delusional biblical literalists should just be honest and admit the truth; they are a tiny fringe religious movement, more akin to an eccentric religious cult than some sort of scientific movement.--Filll 19:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Either way it needs a serious re-write. Many fundamentalist Christians use 'Evolutionary scientists' as a broad term to describe any scientist who thinks the Earth is 4,7 million years old; that evolution is real; that the universe is even older; and that supernatural Biblical events such as the Great Flood never occured. It's also very wrong to state that only scientists 'believe' the Earth to be this old. What about people who believe it and are not scientists? --Safe-Keeper 21:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

In what way does it need a serious rewrite? The very term "evolutionary scientists" is ignorant, inaccurate, insulting and pejorative. What if instead of creationists, we wrote "knuckle-dragging cretins"? Or CREaTioNists? This sort of language has no place here, even if it were accurate. And it might help if people learned a bit of science if they were going to be editing an encyclopedia. Our best scientific understanding is that the earth is 4.7 BILLION years old, not 4.7 million years old. Some people do not know there was a difference between a billion and a million? I think that this is because they both have an "illion" in them. (I am always impressed by the level of intelligence and education that fundamentalists display) And it would help if anyone editing here knew what evolution was. In fact, it is real, since it has been observed repeatedly in the laboratory, in the field, and in the fossil record. But I suspect you are confused between the fact of evolution and the exceedingly well supported theory of evolution which is accepted by well over 99.9% of all biologists. Science by definition does not include the supernatural (see Evolution as theory and fact). Also, anyone talking about the supernatural has automatically left the domain of science. The age of the earth is not a "belief". Belief is for things like religion that are taken on faith. The age of the earth is a conclusion/prediction drawn from a set of scientific theories and a huge amount of scientific evidence. I do not believe the text says anything about people that actually subscribe to the accepted scientific theories, nor does it have to.--Filll 21:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely a contrast. Group A says the Earth is about 6000 years old, Group B says it's about 4.5 billion years old. Those two statements contradict each other, they contrast with one another. The meaning of the two sentences isn't changed if "in contrast" is left out (it'd still say "Group A thinks alpha; Group B thinks beta"), but I do think the phrase helps the article flow from one idea to the next and is good prose. I also agree with Filll. Sometimes small minorities have been proven right. But whether or not a tiny minority is correct, they do themselves no favors by acting as if they're not a tiny minority, which is something that is easy to verify. While there are, obviously, a lot of YECs among the general population (especially in the USA), there are virtually none among scientists. Jacob1207 20:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a reminder, this is an article on the Creation Museum. It is not an article on the general debate between creationism and evolution. So again, criticisms should be limited to those levied against the museum itself, not those against creationism in general. -- MisterHand 21:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but to maintain an neutral point of view, should state clearly what is scientific and what is not. This museum does not contain much in the way of science, but we are being nice, and not mentioning such information. We have edited to include the mere mention that science does not agree with the basis of this museum. Orangemarlin 21:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

My point is that these need to be sourced to criticisms against the museum itself, not against creationism in general. That's all. It should be easy, since the museum has been the target of much criticism lately. -- MisterHand 22:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Orangemarlin. We need to have a clear statement that the claims made within the museum go against what science (and history!) tell us. If we want a reference more directly tied to the museum, how about this one from the already used Peter Slevin Article, "A Monument to creation":

But in this latest demonization of Darwinian evolution, there is a sticking point: For the biblical account to be accurate and the world to be so young, several hundred years of research in geology, physics, biology, paleontology, and astronomy would need to be very, very wrong.

I don't think we need to quote that, I think we could use it as an additional reference to that sentence. Opinions? Jacob1207 22:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate to be more specific when it comes to the opposition to the museum's viewpoints. I see nothing wrong with saying something like "many scientists", "current, secular, scientific thought" or something to that effect. In fact, I think it would improve the article. The amount of people who believe something isn't relevant to its factuality, so why not stick to accurate and factual reporting? I think it'd simply be wise to say exactly who believes what instead of referring to numbers who believes the opposite viewpoint of the museum. --Creashin 02:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Not many. Not secular. ALL scientists, over 99.6% in the US, and probably more like 99.99% in the world, do not dispute that Evolution by natural selection and/or genetic drift is a fact. That's accurate. And that is factual. No weasel words allowed. Orangemarlin 02:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Where did you get these figures? Not that an appeal to authority or numbers makes a fact, but I am curious. 91.2% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

We can back this up with copious statistics and references. But I think that indicating how this is NOT a science museum, but more akin to a church or other religious institution is crucial and NPOV. If you want a ton of statistics, just look at Level of support for evolution. --Filll 03:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Saying the Creation (science) Museum is not a science museum is a POV. AIG is home to numerous scientists and creation science is obviously a branch of science in general. This museum just extends their viewpoints on science and creation. --Creashin 05:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not a science museum. Science requires the scientific method which Creationism does not use. Therefore, it is not science. Pretty easy logic. Don't worry, we don't care if your G_d is part of the museum, that's the business of making money for the Creationists. Just don't say it's science. Orangemarlin 09:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Not according to any respectable peer-reviewed Science Journal, or the US Federal Court system including the US Supreme Court or any major science body in the US, or well in excess of 99% of the scientists in relevant fields. It is NOT at all obvious and in fact it is WRONG. However, you are free to disagree with the US Supreme court if you like. Just not in Wikipedia. Thanks.--Filll 05:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong with saying, "current, secular, scientific thought"? Since science is self-correcting, theories have certainly changed over time, and rejecting special creation is certainly a secular concept, it would seem that "current, secular, scientific thought" would be extremely accurate and good for the article. And perhaps my proposal of "many scientists" should be changed to the actual percentage that you quoted, with a valid source link, of course. --Creashin 03:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Science is by definition secular. There is nothing else. No religious science. No creationist science. It is a fallacious term and comical in the extreme. It is like having a shade of white called black. I personally have no problem with calling it current or even modern science. The current text, if someone has not changed it, includes a link to the article with statistics.--Filll 03:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Filll. I have no problem saying "modern science" or "current science" (scientific consensus does change with time). But saying "secular science" is silly. Firstly, science is value-neutral, neither arguing for or against purely religious or spiritual views. Secondly, there are many people of faith, including many Christians, both scientists and laymen who have no problem accepting "millions of years" and evolution. C. S. Lewis, the well-known Christian theologian, accepted evolution. AiG presents a false dilemma here and it greatly annoys me how they use the terms "evolutionist" and "atheist" interchangeably. More on topic, I think the opening section does need something indicating that the museum's contents are contrary to (modern/current, if you want) science. That would be totally NPOV and is necessary to have a solid opening. Jacob1207 06:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The branding of all scientists, and 90% of US Christians, and all nonChristians as atheists is an example of intolerance and hate-speech by AiG and similar organizations. They should be held up to extreme ridicule and hostility and called out on this. They are NOT behaving as Christians and are just common hate-mongerers, like most of the rest of Christian fundamentalists.--Filll 12:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

More than that, science can include religion. I'm in fact religious. I just don't mix it in with science, because I'm pretty secure in the knowledge that religion is not going to be destroyed by science. I don't think that G_d suddenly doesn't exist because some humans completely misinterpret the intent and meaning of the Bible, because some humans think that their interpretation is right, and everyone else is wrong. And the rest of Jacob1207's commentary is dead on. Thanks. Orangemarlin 09:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Good words, fellas. However, I haven't seen AIG use atheist and evolutionist interchangeably. This is something a very rookie evangelist would do. As for using the word "secular" or not, part of the problem with implying that all scientists believe the evolution of species happened is that they don't. Yes, most do, but some don't. So, we can't say that "scientists believe the age of the earth is 4.5 billion years old" or that "scientists say the evolution of species happened." We need to find a way to indicate or account for those who don't; even if it's just by adding a word or two, to make it accurate. --Creashin 01:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an atheist. The science behind evolution meets all of the intellectual standards set by myself and others. And about 99.6% of scientists in the US, and probably 99.99% of scientists in the world accept that theory of evolution. In a world of greys, that's as close to black and white as you can get. Orangemarlin 01:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Walk through the museum link

I think it was an accident because I couldn't find it in the edit history, but someone had deleted the walk through the museum link I added. It was hard to find and it isn't on the creationmuseum.org web site. I had to find it via Google, but it's very informative, so I think it should remain. Anyone else? --Creashin 01:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I suspect it was deleted by accident.--Filll 01:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

How is this "POV"?

The following sentences were removed from the article as "POV":

This has created controversy and debate from scientists who say the museum's exhibits contradict geologic theories about the age of the Earth, as well as biological theories about evolution. Over 2000 educators have signed petitions protesting the museum. .

Reference

Discussion

Please explain how this could possibly be construed as POV? -- MisterHand 14:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, because 99.6% of scientists in the country accept the science and research that has brought the Theory of Evolution to its current state. 2000 educators is POV, because it makes it seem like there's a tiny little nonsensical uprising in the country against the museum, so who cares. I do. If the Academy of Sciences puts out a press release saying this museum is a bogosity, then I'd go with that. You're choosing the absolutely worst reference possible to make it appear NPOV, but in fact it isn't.Orangemarlin 14:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You're assigning sinister motivations to other editors that simply aren't there. There are two separate petitions, one signed by 2000 educators, the other signed by 600 educators. That's pretty significant if you ask me (most scientists are just laughing the museum off and going on their way). The point of the paragraph isn't to diminish the controversy, but to demonstrate it. Again, this paragraph should focus on the museum itself, not on the general debate between evolution and creationism. If you've got a better source speaking to the criticism of the museum itself let's see it. -- MisterHand 14:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The real problem is the [t]his has created controversy and debate from scientists part, since that suggests that there is some scientific controversy here which, of course, there isn't. The people behind the scam museum claim that they are presenting "science". When someone makes such an obviously nonsensical claim, it's correct to explain why it's nonsense. There's nothing wrong with mention of the petition (which has over 3500 signatures), but as it is presented, it creates a misleading impression. Guettarda 15:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. How can we word this in a way that shows that there are scientists against the museum, without using original research and verifying the museum's claims ourselves (which is how the current version reads). Again, this is an article about the museum -- not about the creationism debate in general. -- MisterHand 15:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by and verifying the museum's claims ourselves? Guettarda 15:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

And what do you mean by "original research". And I completely agree that it is an article about the museum, and it should be stated that the museum presents, to the best of my knowledge, nothing that could be consider science, and the POV of the article would lead the casual reader to believe that everything in here is science, and there are a few whiners out there that disagree. BTW, I am assigning not motivation to the editors other than the standard stuff I assign to all editors who believe in Creationism. Orangemarlin 15:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If our "response" to the museum's claims is a reference citing evolution and geologic evidence to the contrary, that's original research if the sources don't reference the museum itself. We as editors shouldn't be deflating the museum's claims. Instead, we should cite experts who say "The museum is wrong and here's why". In other words, the source in the intro shouldn't be a general overview of evolution -- it should be a direct retort to the museum. Which was exactly what was trying to be accomplished above. Please read the guidelines at WP:NOR. -- MisterHand 15:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

While NPOV says that we should present all sides fairly, it doesn't say that we have to write like a cable news "debate" of "he said, she said". We are here to write an encyclopaedia, not an "equal time" debate. So while it's trivial to find a supporting source (e.g., here), it's really irrelevant. Just about all the news coverage of the amusement park "museum" do exactly that - point out that its assertion flies in the face of all scientific data. To not do so is to fail NPOV, because what we end up doing is presenting AiG's talking points as if they were true. Guettarda 15:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The article shouldn't be evaluating AiG's talking points. Of course, if those talking points are under fire (and these certainly are) then that controversy should be covered. -- MisterHand 15:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It isn't a "controversy" to cover. The version you were reverting to presents AiG's talking points as if they were facts. Presenting talking points as if they were true violates NPOV. If AiG claimed that Petersburg was on the moon, would we say "This has created controversy and debate from scientists who say the museum's [claims] contradict geologic theories about the location of Petersburg"? Not unless we were writing copy for cable news. Guettarda 18:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

(ri) OK, this sentence, "Over 2000 educators have signed petitions protesting the museum. [5]." is poorly written and lacks any value unless the educators are identified (mostly university level), protesting is a loaded word, and you need to explain why they signed the petition (and not in Ken Ham's words. Realistically, this would be better placed in the body of the article, after all of these problems have been addresses.

This is also a bit skewed, "This has created controversy and debate from scientists who say the museum's exhibits contradict geologic theories about the age of the Earth, as well as biological theories about evolution." The form reverted to by OM is much clearer, and does away with excess verbiage, some of which is a bit POVish (for example, the use of "theories" is inappropriate. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 15:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I know that creationists dismiss evolution as a "just a theory", but of course scientists know that the term "theory" holds more weight than is normally assigned to the term. To avoid confusion, however, this could be worded better. -- MisterHand 15:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think if we spent too many words on issues like that, this article would not be about the Creation Museum but about Creationism in general. After reading all of the comments here, I have no clue if we have consensus on what is POV and what doesn't belong in the article???? Of course, I'm usually confused about all of this. Amusement park. ROFLMAO. Orangemarlin 19:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I was objecting to the use of "theories", plural, as in multiple geologic and biological theories. Besides, it would be better to say evidence, because it's not so much the theories (1 each for biology and geology) that are being contradicted, but the evidence. In any case, this museum isn't offering much in the way of science, it's just theology for the Walt Disney crowd.

Anyway, OM has a good point: let's be careful with this article, or it will become just another creation-evolution debate (and we have enough of those already  ;) At this point, this article really shouldn't be much longer, just tighten up what's already there. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: I think the current intro looks pretty good. It avoids original research and retains neutrality. I have to laugh at the accusation that I was trying to portray the museum's claims as fact with my edit. I guess when you're truly neutral, both sides think you're nuts. ;) -- MisterHand 23:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You mean that you're not nuts? I thought you were, especially getting involved in any article like this one. I take drugs for it. Orangemarlin 23:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey for a nutjob, not a bad lead!!! LOL. Uh oh, someone might take me seriously. BTW, do you think that "apologetics" might be a bit POVish? Seems harsh. Orangemarlin 23:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I think it's fine to call AiG an apologetics organization, they self identify as such: "Answers in Genesis is an apologetics (i.e., Christianity-defending) ministry."[5] I don't think it's POV even in context of talking about the museum. Jacob1207 04:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It figures. Apologetic seems pejorative to me, but if they like then they can use it. Orangemarlin 05:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

OMFG. There's a crucifixion scene? I'm blaming you Jacob1207 for putting that in there for me to read. Orangemarlin 07:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow a crucifixion scene! How scientific! Clearly this is a scientific facility that has NO resemblance to any church or religion ! Oh how stupid of me...--Filll 22:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's perfectly fine to call the museum controversial, but only if we also add that description to the Wikipedia article on evolution. After all, about half of Americans doubt the theory. This has been documented by reliable polls. I'll find web links, and show them to you if you want. JBFrenchhorn 08:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well of course the Wikipedia article on evolution has a section on controversies such as [6] and even numerous articles on Wikipedia focused on this very issue. So what is your point?--Filll 14:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ken Ham head shot.jpg

Image:Ken Ham head shot.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I have added the following fair use rationale:

• Image is a promotional image of the subject, Ken Ham;
• Image is very low quality;
• There are no other images of the subject available for use; and
• It is used in the encyclopedia to identify the subject in his own article and other closely related ones (i.e. Answers in Genesis and Creation Museum)

Does that look good? Jacob1207 04:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Evidently it wasnt. The immage was delete, I have removed the link. -Icewedge 06:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Consistency

I feel this article could be developed alongside Psychiatry: An Industry of Death. Both museums promote views at odds with accepted scientific knowledge; if we can figure out how to phrase NPOV for such cases, then both articles can be written to the same standard. Endomorphic 00:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

AiG Advisors

How does this article fit in this category?--Filll 05:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Images

Jonathan M. Gitlin from Ars Technica just wrote an article about the museum with a companion flickr set. I messaged him and he has agreed to change the licenses to CC-BY or CC-BY-SA so we can use some for this article and the commons. I will transfer some soon when I have time (and when the licenses are changed but, if anyone else gets to it first please post the category so we don't get duplicates (and watch out for 2D images). gren グレン 15:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Gitlin posted some of his pictures of the museum on flickr, where a user named anti.0918 posted a comment on an image of a display in the museum that apparently incorporates several CC-SSA images hosted by wikipedia, wondering if the museum properly acknowledged the license. mac 00:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Tax Exemption

Does anyone know if this museum enjoys the tax exemptions typically extended to religious buildings such as churches and parochial schools? --Lbeaumont 18:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, [is tax-exempt]. I presume the museum would be too, they're not tryin to make a profit with it. Does anyone else have more explicit info on the point? Aren't other private museums tax-free? Jacob1207 03:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

so are my tax dollars paying to promote this type of disinformation? --Lbeaumont 13:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I would imagine so, yes. And they are also involved in lobbying the public school systems to introduce proselytizing for their personal screwball religions at tax payer expense, so you will personally pay to recruit Hindus and Moslems and Buddhists and Jews and Catholics to their extremist hate-filled fundamentalist views. And if you read their literature, they claim that because they are being restricted from doing this, their religious freedom is being harmed and infringed upon. It is amazing. By them being prevented from using my tax money to spread intolerance and hate and attack other religious faiths, they are being discriminated against? Incredible. Just incredible.--Filll 13:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Fundamentalists make me angry. They target the children at this museum, trying to convert them when there young and unable to see the absurdities of young earth creationism. On a different note we shouldn't be using the talk page as a forum. -Icewedge 08:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

First paragraph needs work

I don't think controversy should be in the opening paragraph of this article. Putting it there, especially with such biting crititcism, seems like POV pushing to me. What if on the Smithsonian Museum of Natural history page, someone wrote "The Smithsonian asserts that the planet is billions of years old, a view which over 50% of Americans dissagree with"? EVERY scientific and religious idea is controversial to certian groups of people, so lets keep the controversy in it's own section.

Also in the first paragraph- Two christian groups oppsing a museum does not constitue "several". Even if this POV pushing statement stays, it needs adaquate sources to back it up. Let's try to keep our personal beliefs off the talk page and DEF off the article guys! Masebrock 05:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The lead provides a summary of all pertinent topics in the article. The controversy and criticism are probably the most notable thing about this church sorry museum, no wait, church, and need to be covered in the lead ornis (t) 05:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. The controversy and criticism is the most significant aspect of this article, so it should be at the top. However, the controversy and criticism should not be exaggerated to promote the opposing viewpoint. Specifically, using the words "several Christian groups" implies that there are numerous Christian orginizations that oppose the museum, while in reality the Christian opposition to the museum is very small. Numerous local church's websites could be used as refrences for this. Also, like I mentioned before, let's not turn the talk page into a debate over beliefs. Whether you agree with the information the museum provides or not isn't relevant to the discussion. Masebrock 06:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, AiG do describe themselves as an apologetics ministry, so it's not just my POV. Anyhow, your last change looks good, I have no issues with clarifying the nature of the religious organisations that oppose the CM. ornis (t) 23:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The Creation museum purports to be a "museum" which is a scientific entity. As such, it is subject to WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE rules. The dominant scientific view of this museum must therefore be presented, in the body of the article and in the LEAD.--Filll 14:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Image section

Do we really need the gallery of images? Some of them are just plain unnecessary like the duplicate parking lot view. -Icewedge 07:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there only needs to be one shot of the outside of the building. I'll try downsizing the gallery to show only photos that show the nature and tone of this museum, and leave one outside shot to help describe the size. Masebrock 16:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Unicorns & POV

There is a line under the "controversy" section which says:

"While obviously intended to be humorous, the idea is nonetheless directly supported by the Bible, with the King James Version mentioning the fantasy beasts a total of nine times."

I have attempted to edit this to:

"While obviously intended to be humorous, the idea is nonetheless supported by the King James Version of the Bible, mentioning the fantasy beasts a total of nine times, though various scholars note that this is not the most accurate rendering."

I cited a scholarly source in this edit, and I believe this to be a npov. In fact, it is the unedited version which seems to show a non-npov, not to mention it leaves out important facts. Please explain what is wrong with this. Ikimasu 19:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I tend to support this change. The KJV is an archaic translation from before access to a wide range of manuscripts, and before more modern translation techniques evolved. Hrafn42 03:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't be surprised if you upset some people though. ornis (t) 03:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes but those people believe in far sillier things than unicorns. ;) Hrafn42 14:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

In Displays and exhibits section...

How does applying for a job at the museum or information about the staff in general have anything to do with displays and exhibits? This entire article needs a lot of work... --StormCommander 03:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I have broken it into a subsection. It still needs some work though. -Icewedge 20:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Cost moved down page

I moved the information on the museum's cost a little down the page so it is not almost the first thing said. I hope nobody objects to this. Steve Dufour 04:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It appears fine :) -Icewedge 01:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)