So here we are with the Kentucky creationists

I plopped down in front of the news last night for my daily dose of war, horror, crime, politics and cats-stuck-up-trees, when I saw something almost more frightening than all the above put together. You can read the full story here but, in a nutshell, a new museum has opened, a natural history science museum only - yup welcome to Kentucky - it is presenting national history as it is described in the Bible: the six days, six thousand years, God-created-it-as-it-is way of seeing the planet.

Now this is not an anti-Christian rant, nor is it a God-aren't the fucking Americans thick post(that comes later). No, I think that this creationist museum goes far beyond the themes of belief or national stupidity, and can be classified as dangerous.

So what is this museum like? Well, I saw some pictures on the news. There are , like in any natural history museum, several scenes (with plants, little rivers and rather awful automated mannequins) that depict the evolution, no damn, obviously not that, well the er, development of the World over the last 4 billion, no sorry, shit, 6000 years. It is rather ghastly. In one scene (depicting the Real Garden of Eden) Adam and Eve are splashing in a waterfall like in some ghastly shower gel ad. In another scene, a strange mechanical little boy in skins is sitting next to a dinosaur; in another the mammoths and the dinosaurs and the elephants and the rest are being piled on to the Ark. A film explains how God made the Grand Canyon and how, towards the bottom of the rift it is possible to see 'third day rocks', you know, the ones God made mid-week. The list goes on, as the people behind the museum fly literally translate every word of the Bible in to some hideous, plastic-and-plant little scene.

Now as a scientist (social scientist, but scientist nonetheless) I can quite see the point of having "alternative theories" to test our beliefs. Without these doubts, we'd still be living on a flat planet that is the center of the Universe (the fact that the Universe is infinite does make us the center of the universe, like every other point of it, but that debate's for another day). Science's methods dictate that we formulate a hypothesis, that we then test in order to reject or validate it. That is the way it is done, and so one can have little against those primary hypothesis, such as the one that states "God created the World and all things on it in six days, roughly 6000 years ago". However, once the hypotheis is rejected, usually in favour of one that, without necessarily being the truth certainly explains the evidence a lot better, then it is time to move on.

Coming back to our Kentucky creationists who, by the way, hope to get 250 000 people per annum through these museum doors, there is I believe something a lot more sinister about their "hypothesis" and one which in my view has a disastrous effect on humanity. I was struck by a chick on the news yesterday, a fat woman, married to a fat man with two fat kids who were waddling through the exhibits. The incredulous French journalist who was obviously wondering what the hell he had done to deserve being sent here was asking whether they actually believed any of this tosh (they were at this point next to the boy and pet dinosaur scene). Fatsy drawled "Yeah sure, evolution doesn't make sense, creationism makes sense". Fatso acquiesced.

Stop. You see this is where it bothers me. It makes sense? Hang on. Now I do not underestimate the power of the Bible in any country and certainly not in rural America, but to say that it makes more sense than what they can witness everyday out of their own bloody window is rather disturbing. because, you see, evolution does make sense, and not only does it make sense it is comething almost tangible if you look in the right places. What does "evolution" mean? It is defined as

1.	any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.

2.	a product of such development; something evolved: The exploration of space is the evolution of decades of research.

3.	Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

4.	a process of gradual, peaceful, progressive change or development, as in social or economic structure or institutions.

and lots of other things that have othing to do with our subject
Now, my point is that evolution is something that is visible and tangible. The stalagtites and stalagmites in caves are getting longer. The drops of water over the years have eroded away that tiny piece of rock. The ice caps are melting because it is getting hotter. Evolution is pretty obvious to anyone who sticks their head out of the window. The fact that the neighbour's pure-bred dog has a weak heart, due to the fact that over the years that fault in the genetic line has been reinforced so as to become symptomatic is evolution. The fact that insects no longer fear the chemical sprays that the good folk of rural America pour over their crops is evolution. Children are born with two heads and no arms because of dioxides in aforesaid chemicals is evolution. As for natural selection, the fact that the weakest of every litter usually dies, that only the best camouflaged insect in the forest survives to reproduce, that only those who can adapt to feed themselves in times of climate change (and don't you dare start saying there is no such thing) survive, all of these strenghts also reproduce amongst themselves


There are billions of examples, which over a long time span have never contradicted the theory of the evolution of the species that Darwin presented over two hundred years ago, and what I find partiularly disturbing is not the belief in a higher being (I myself believe in God and that s/he is the ultimate architect) or even a good healthy dose of scientific doubt. But what I do find disturbing is that people would rather believe a collection of scrolls (Yes ladies and gentleman, that's what the Bible is, remind me to tell you an anecdote at the end of this post) that go a long way back to the time when people believed a solar eclipse was the sign of the wrath of God, rather than the overwhelming evidence that we are the results of a long term, gradual tweaking of the gene pool. It's like saying that we give birth to babies and that therefore babies remain so forever, that we painted the wall white so therefore no mould can get through.

Now, that anecdote, from Bill Bryson's very easy and interesting book on the English langiuage, Mother Tongue, which is about a rather dim American congressman, who, quite seriously said "If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it's good enough for me". To all those who take the Bible literally, has it ever occured that you are believing translated scrolls from 6000 years ago over your own eyes?