While at the Creation Museum I had the opportunity to see a representation of the crowning jewel of human evolutionary thought, Lucy. Yet accompanying these bones were not the usual interpretations by modern science. At the Creation Museum, scientists and artists took the biblical worldview as a guide to understanding these bones. From personal experience, it was stunning. It was an amazing visual backed up by solid facts. This is one exhibit everyone should go out of their way to see, creationists and evolutionists alike. Below is a section of an article describing this monumental exhibit.
Using the latest in holographic technology, the Creation Museum, as a part of its fifth anniversary celebration, has opened a new high-tech exhibit on human origins last Saturday [May 26, 2012]. With striking holograms, this state-of-the-art exhibit is designed to expose the scientific bankruptcy of the evolutionary interpretation of the famous so-called ape-woman “Lucy.”
Perhaps more than any other fossil, Lucy is presented as “exhibit A” for evolutionists in their attempt to show that humans evolved from an ape-like ancestor. Through the scientific research of the Creation Museum’s Dr. David Menton (PhD, biology, Brown University) and the artistic talents of Doug Henderson and his crew, the museum has created a stunning holographic refutation of Lucy. (The technical name for this Lucy creature found in Africa is Australopithecus afarensis.)
“I expect that scientists, both evolutionists and creationists, will make a trip to the Creation Museum to see this exceptional exhibit, not only because it refutes Lucy as an ancestor of ours, but also due to its use of remarkable holographic technology,” declared Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis and the museum.
In a highly visual way, the exhibit conclusively shows that the fossil bones of Lucy belong to a knuckle-walking, ape-like creature. Menton points out that many evolutionists such as the well-known researcher Donald Johanson, the discoverer of “Lucy,” admit that Lucy’s V-shaped mandible was very ape-like, nothing like that of a human. In addition, Israeli scientists reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science that it may not be our ancestor, for its lower jaw bone resembles a gorilla’s.
In the new museum exhibit, a number of Lucy heads have been created, cast from the same mold. Each head, however, is given different skin and eye coloration, as well as variations in the amount and color of hair. This was done to demonstrate how significant artistic license can be employed by researchers in interpreting what Lucy resembled as they “put flesh to the bones” of the creature. There simply isn’t enough information found in the fossil bones for anyone to determine what Lucy looked like.
“An imagination-rich artist can have a very powerful influence over what the viewer concludes about the evidence presented,” Menton observed. “That is one reason why our Lucy exhibit is placed in an area of the museum that demonstrates to visitors that a person’s starting point, or bias, influences their views.”
“Ultimately, with this excellent display, we want to show museum guests, once and for all, that this knuckle-walking creature needs to be discarded as a ‘missing link’ in human evolution,” Menton concluded.
Designer Henderson described the technology used in the exhibit, “We have used holograms of the actual bone models of Lucy, as opposed to simply exhibiting a 3D physical model. Holographers tell us this is the first time they have seen holography used to take a virtual ‘look inside’ a creature for the public to view. I call it a 3D X-ray.”
Every few months, the Creation Museum (located west of the Cincinnati Airport) adds new exhibits to present the case for the Bible’s authority and accuracy, including creation. Last year, Menton’s striking exhibit on homology—comparing humans to apes (and to other creatures)—used the technology of lasers to point out the differences between humans and animals. Menton’s latest exhibit may create even more of a stir in the origins debate, for Lucy is treated with near reverence by some scientists.
It’s sad that so many children are being lied to about science by the creation museum.
Teach your theology, fine. But don’t lie.
I teach my theology, and you teach yours. (what is taught as science is much more akin to religion these days) Both have very serious implications derived from our perspectives on the origins of humanity.
Unfortunately, I do not have enough faith to trust in a fickle, inconsistent system like Darwinian evolution. Instead my weak faith must use the logic and reason God gave me to see creationism as the only consistent system that takes into account the facts of the world around us.
it’s good to chat again NotAScientist. 🙂
“(what is taught as science is much more akin to religion these days) ”
No, it’s not.
“Unfortunately, I do not have enough faith to trust in a fickle, inconsistent system like Darwinian evolution.”
Well, that’s good. Because faith has zero place in science. At all.
While I fully respect you and your rights to your opinions, I also fully disagree.
“Naturalism is the view that every law and every force operating in the universe is natural rather than moral, spiritual, or supernatural. [NotAScientist: please correct me if this is not what I understand your beliefs to be.] Naturalism is inherently anti-theistic, rejecting the very concept of a personal God. Many assume naturalism therefore has nothing to do with religion. In fact, it is a common misconception that naturalism embodies the very essence of scientific objectivity. Naturalists themselves like to portray their system as a philosophy that stands in opposition to all faith-based world-views, pretending that it is scientifically and intellectually superior precisely because of its supposed non-religious character. […definitely the vibe get in our conversations.]
Not so. Religion is exactly the right word to describe naturalism. The entire philosophy is built on a faith-based premise. Its basic presupposition—an a priori rejection of everything supernatural—requires a giant leap of faith. And nearly all its supporting theories must be taken by faith as well.
Consider the dogma of evolution, for example. The notion that natural evolutionary processes can account for the origin of all living species has never been and never will be established as fact. Nor is it “scientific” in any true sense of the word. Science deals with what can be observed and reproduced by experimentation. The origin of life can be neither observed nor reproduced in any laboratory. By definition, then, true science can give us no knowledge whatsoever about where we came from or how we got here. Belief in evolutionary theory is a matter of sheer faith. And dogmatic belief in any naturalistic theory is no more “scientific” than any other kind of religious faith.”
full article found at: http://www.gty.org/blog/B100427
Just like religion, there is good science and bad science. I am so thankful for scientists who understand its limits and do not try to develop myths in the name of “science”. This is why I am thankful for Ken Ham and the Creation Museum, because they are helping the general public see the difference between the two.
Pingback: 6-String Salvo August 10, 2012 « Mike Lee
Article is shows extreme amount of bias. Only discusses mandible, yet fails to mention other bones found which are extremely ‘human like’.
My friend, the mandible alone is discussed here, but all the others bones in much more detail in other places. This is not the venue for a dissertation. But did you know that science shows an extreme amount of bias by rejecting any notion of non-naturalistic explanations of the origins of life. Academia has reset the rules so as to exclude any hint of the supernatural and promote only one philosophy, namely Darwinian naturalism. Do you realize that no one is able to have pure objectivity when interpreting data. Your presuppositions will color your conclusions. At least Christians own up to their presuppositions. (God is real) What are yours? Do you believe that “matter” is eternally existent without beginning? Or do you hold that absolute nothingness can produce something which can then organize (by unguided natural processes) into ultra-complex, rational, moral, life?
Thanks for commenting. I look forward to the conversation.
Some scientists have admitted, that “Lucy” was a pygmy Chimp. What is really bad, is how evolutionists have taken the few bones of a very partial skeleton of “Lucy” and made an entire creature out of those bones, with all the characteristics that only an over-active imagination could invent… which is far from being scientific.