AiG just can’t stop crowing about its new creation funhouse, although bloggers who have been here recently (check out Jason Rosenhouse’s reviews here, here, and here [with more on the way!]) have made it clear that it’s long on special effects and short on substance. Although I haven’t been there myself, from what I have seen and heard so far I think Jason is 100% correct when he writes;
None of the displays and exhibits present anything that you can’t also find in any of a dozen different creationist books. With a real natural history museum you might say, “It is one thing to read about evolution in books. It is quite another to be able to see the fossils for yourself.” But with the creation museum there is really no distinction between the creationist literature and what the museum presents. You can read the propaganda in book form, or you can walk through the museum and read the same material presented on colorful placards.
This hasn’t stopped AiG from putting out positive reviews of the museum nearly every day, and in the latest review posted to their website, a curious error is made. Guest-writer David MacMillan III says;
In comparison with the Creation Museum, “world-class” museums—even museums like the Roosevelt Museum of Natural History in New York City or the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C.—seem paltry and commonplace. [emphasis mine]
Teddy has a bit of presence outside the museum and around the entrances of the AMNH (the Theodore Roosevelt Rotunda featuring quotes and depictions of the past president, as well as the famous Barosaurus vs. Allosaurus mount), so I wonder why the author of the article slipped up. Here’s a photo of myself outside the museum almost 3 years ago;
I guess it just goes to show how carefully researched and edited AiG’s articles are.