Yours truly at the gates of . . .It was not until I arrived at Cincinnati and started reading a tourist brochure that I was reminded about the existence (and relative proximity) of the Creation Museum. I simply had to go there and see it for myself.

As you pull into Bullittsburg Church Road, Petersburg, Kentucky, you are greeted by a large white stone gateway adorned with a silhouetted Stegosaurus. The Creation Museum’s uniformed security officers point you in the direction of parking and you join the couples, families and groups (mainly church groups, going by the number of church buses in the car park) making their way to purchase tickets. An adult ticket will set you back $US23.27. I must admit that I was very uncomfortable adding to the coffers of this place or those of “Answers in Genesis”, the group behind the Museum, but for reasons of research and curiosity I paid up.

The notice on the back of the ticket explained that “loud, disrespectful, destructive, obscene or abusive behavior or inappropriate dress will not be tolerated”, so I was on my best behaviour. I also made sure I was dressed. I was concerned about my ability to remain quiet and polite, but at this point I honestly felt like this was going to be a bit boring. I was mistaken.

One of the first displays included a geologic timeline.  In many ways it was unremarkable. It was colour coded and included all the usual geologic time periods – Mesozoic, Jurassic, Triassic, etc – and I was surprised. I didn’t think such a timeline would have a place here; I was sure the designers would be committed to a young earth belief system. Then I noticed that there were no actual numbers on the diagram – no dates, durations or positions relative to the present. This was my first indication of how this was going to work. The Museum makes liberal use of scientific terms, theories and concepts, but with gaping holes, glaring omissions and flawed logic, or simply twisted beyond recognition.

The first actual mention of timelines and the past came shortly afterward, in a room about fossils and palaeontology. The many explanation panels outline how the bible is the best source of information about dinosaurs, fossils and pre-history in general.

“Using the bible as your starting point, see if you can figure out how old this fossil is . . .”

You see, God created everything in six days. Apparently he kept a diary of this momentous achievement and was happy to share it, just as soon as the people he had created developed written language. God created people on the 6^th day, first Adam then Eve. Adam and Eve had children and their children had children (there were clearly very liberal incest laws), and those children had more children, etc, and the bible details their lives, including how long they lived for.

“ . . . by adding the ages of Adam, his sons, their sons, and so on, we can see that the earth is about 6,000 years old.”

“A flood might explain why we find billions of dead things, buried in rock payers, laid down by water, all over the earth. Can you think of an event in the bible where tons and tons of water flooded the whole earth? Noah’s flood, when God judged the world.”

According to the bible (and the Creation Museum) Noah’s flood was about 4,350 years ago, but was that when dinosaurs died out? Well, no, because there were dinosaurs on Noah’s ark.

Just in case visitors become over-excitedRemember I’m on my best behaviour.

Noah had two of every type of land animal on the ark. This included two of every type of land dinosaur and apparently there were about 50 of those. So Noah’s ark had two of every kind of land animal (including 50 kinds of dinosaurs) and Noah’s family on board. If you are wondering how they attracted all these animals to the ark, well “God sent them” – and not even a T. Tex is going to argue with God. The Creation Museum has a whole room dedicated to the construction of Noah’s ark, as outlined in the bible. It was a vast vessel, but even so it must have been pretty squeezy. Apparently they took a lot of young animals, which would have saved some space.

Obviously most of the individual dinosaurs were killed in the flood, but I’m not sure about their actual extinction. There must have been some proposed explanation for the decline of the dinosaurs, but I missed it – there was so much to see.

Dinosaurs and people - together at lastThe bedrock of the Creation Museum and young earth creationist beliefs is a literal acceptance of the bible. This is cannot be challenged, so if something doesn’t “fit” it’s the something that must be altered, not the bible. This is very different philosophy to science, which demands that ideas and theories be challenged and tested rigorously. I don’t agree with creationism, but I recognise the right of others to believe it. What I find really difficult to reconcile is a person’s preparedness to deny the processes of science, but take advantage of a standard of living that has grown from science and subsequent technology. The Creation Museum uses video displays, air conditioning, amplified sound, cash registers and animated mannequins (albeit not very good ones). Visitors to the Museum arrive in cars and buses, they wear clothes (many of them even before they read the back of the ticket), they eat processed food, I presume many of them refer to weather forecasts and I’m sure most of them access medical facilities and pharmaceuticals when necessary. In case you become nauseous or your head starts to ache . . .The Museum Shop even stocks pain killers and anti-inflammatory drugs. Humanity permitted to use its “God-given” attributes to develop new knowledge and technology from scientific enterprise, but not to develop new understandings about the origins of the universe, the earth and life.

A video is on loop in one of the first rooms in the Museum. It is a fairly patronsing affair featuring 2 men who claim to be scientists, apparently at a paleontological dig. One (the one with very few lines, as it happens) is a scientist who does not believe the bible; the other views all his data/observations through a biblical lens. He explains how “our starting points usually lead us to different conclusions”. Ok, but why no details of what happens next – the discussion and argument that is so much a part of science? Science is not like politics. It’s not really good enough to agree to disagree. The nature of the debate that surrounds a scientific conjecture dictates both the strength of the conjecture and the direction of scientific understanding. I also feel that science would be less enjoyable if you were restricted by one text that cannot be challenged or even adjusted. So much of your time would be spent trying to retrofit a new observation into a biblical text no matter how awkward that is. My own schedule meant that my visit to the Creation Museum did not include a session in the planetarium. I was particularly looking forward to their explanation of the age of the universe, given the light we see from distant stars and the speed of light, etc. I have since learnt that – because the universe is about 6,000 years old – the reason light from distant stars has taken so long to reach us is because the speed of light has been changed of the last 6,000 years.

The Creation Museum has a specific display dedicated to comparing conclusions from rational human to the bible. Concepts such as evolution, cosmology and palaeontology are covered, but the message is the same in each case. The bible is better than humans. All knowledge and truth is laid out in the bible. If humans reach a conclusion that differs from the bible, the humans are simply wrong. I sensed a certain pride at these efforts to expose the silliness of humans in even attempting to explain the universe. You can’t fight God armed only with observation and logic.

Here is an account of a conversation I overheard while at an information panel about the big bang. This was between an teenager (perhaps 17 or 18 years old) and an older friend or relative, perhaps in her early thirties. I don’t know who they were, so let’s call them Chuck and Mary-Lou.

Chuck: Oh yeah, the big bang. I find that so hard to grasp.

Mary-Lou: Yeah, I know.

Chuck: I mean who came up with that little gem?

Mary-Lou: I dunno – some scientist

Mary-Lou did not actually gesture to indicate quotation marks when she said, “scientist”, but that was the intonation

They both laugh

Adam and his sheepPersonally I didn’t actually laugh until I entered the Garden of Eden. Here we see Adam and Eve enjoying a serene existence, surrounded by all manner of animals (including dinosaurs, of course). Eve sits in the undergrowth, her long hair strategically concealing her breasts. Adam sits opposite her, smiling, his modesty secured by a well-placed knee and a sheep (seriously).

The information panel at the beginning of the Garden of Eden explains that we can’t be sure exactly what the animals in the Garden of Eden would have looked like, but they might have been something like this. That suggests that animals might have changed over time, which suggests that the Creation Museum might support Darwinian Evolution. Don’t be ridiculous.

The Creation Museum - and the Answers in Genesis group - are extremely selective in the evidence they choose to accept and even they could not deny that there have been some changes to morphology and dimension in both animals and plants over time. Selective breeding for example has given rise to different animal breeds and agricultural crops. Domestic dogs are used as a specific example of this, but that’s as far as they’ll go. In Genesis there are several references to the creation of animals and plants each of which will “produce more of its kind”. Several displays at the Creation Museum explain that this means that God created all the various types of plants and animals and from these others have developed, but they are still the same “type”. So cows begat cows, roses begat roses, chimpanzees begat chimpanzees, mushrooms begat mushrooms, etc. The Museum is happy with a certain level of natural selection as broadly defined by Darwin, but assumes that every “type” of living thing was created “ready made” by God.

I’m not sure how they interpret a platypus (for example) – was it created as it is, with duck-like bill and beaver-like tail, laying eggs like a lizard, but with fur and warm blood like an otter and webbed feet like a duck? The bottom line is that it doesn’t matter how any particular organism developed. If you find a difficult example or there is conflicting evidence, just go with “God made it that way” or at least “it’s God’s will”. If you’re really desperate, there’s always “God moves in mysterious ways”.

The young earth creationists will accept natural selection, but not evolution. There was even a reference to the fact that although we have developed different breeds of dog, they are still all related to each other and to wild dog species (eg wolves). The Museum displays explain that we know this because of developments in DNA technology and our understanding of genetics. However, they don’t accept that studies of genetics and genomics also show the movement of genetic material between species. The display makes the point that none of the various domestic or wild dog types give birth to anything other than “its own kind”. So no chickens in Fido’s litter then – yes, I’ve noticed that too – but evolution is rather more complex than that and the timelines involved are rather longer than a few thousand years.

There is an attempt to explain that if a mutated gene disadvantages an individual organism, the organism will die out, thus eliminating the mutated gene. I don’t remember an explanation of what happens when a mutated gene advantages an organism. To the scientifically literate these are probably the sections that are most strange and frustrating. There are occasional references to papers in Science and Nature, presumably to add a level of scientific credibility to the exhibit. I’m not sure what the authors and editors would think, but I don’t think the Creation Museum exhibition has not been presented for peer review.

A door to paranoiaIn general the Creation Museum is not too defensive. There is, however, a section that does paint a pretty black picture outlining the decline of humanity, especially in modern times, as people move away from biblical teachings. I moved through the crowds to read a guide to attacks on God’s word throughout history, an overview of early evolution in schools trials, a weird “door of paranoia” (my title not theirs) and some video dramatizations about abortion, gossip and other vices that are bringing the world undone. The acting is these is ordinary at best, although working with such ham-fisted scripts would be extraordinarily difficult.

As I said, most of the Creation Museum is presented positively. It tries to make clear explanations, even if these defy logic. There is a variety of themes, colours and moods as you move from room to room. Some of the displays are pretty wordy, but perhaps that understandable. They are trying to explain a philosophy that is at odds with science, wisdom, rational thought and the vast bulk of the world after all.

My biggest problem with the Creation Museum is that is undermines the scientific processes that have been of such benefit to humanity; it denies people the right to think for themselves or at least limits them to a certain range of conclusions. Those whose scientific efforts or rational thought have led them to a position different to a literal interpretation of the bible are presented as - at best - mistaken, possibly arrogant of even malevolent. Because of its strictly bible-based approach to knowledge and learning, and the restrictions this places on thought and understanding, the Creation Museum fosters ignorance, possibly even a disinclination to seek new ideas, perspectives and understanding.

I’m also uncomfortable with the use of the term “Museum”. I feel a museum should explore, celebrate and foster thinking and learning, unencumbered by religion or politics. If the Creation Museum were only about exploring bible stories, I suppose it could become a “bible museum”; if it had an extensive collection of historical artifacts and focussed on conservative Christian beliefs in North America, it might be the “Museum of Traditional American Christianity”. As it is, the term “museum” simply seems out of place. Perhaps they might consider “Young Earth Creation Centre, or “Creationists’ World”, or “Creatopia” . . .

Noah's CafeAs we left, the crowds were still building, the sun was shining and a warm breeze swept across the car park, which was now completely full. I was glad we’d left as early as we had. Thank God, I guess.

The Living Roof at the California Academy of Science. Photo: Mary VailOver the last couple of decades I have been to many science centers and museums around the world. A week ago I visited the California Academy of Sciences. It's not the biggest science museum I've been to, but it has some impressive features. There is a rainforest. On any one level it does not cover a great deal of floor space, but it extends through three vertical levels. This represents the various strata of the rainforest ecosystem from ground to canopy and emergence. There are frogs, birds and butterflies in the main rainforest section and lizards, snakes, ands and spiders in smaller exhibits around the edges. Of course there are also hordes of children running back and forth, tapping on things and screaming. This is exactly what they are designed to do, but mercifully children are rare in a real rainforest. Perhaps the Academy might consider "losing" a few in the forest - it would keep the noise down, produce a more authentic rainforest environment and generally add to the mystique of the display.

One thing that kept bugging me was the fact that you could see right through to the other side of the forest, which weakened the illusion a little, and which doesn't happen in a rainforest. I accept that this is difficult challenge to meet, however. At the base of the rainforest there is a section of the forest floor that is flooded. From above you can see fish, including some massive cat fish. This view point, however is but the tip of the water-berg. Underneath this and around it is the Academy's aquarium. This is an impressive area with a wide range of marine species and aquatic ecosystems. You could spend a lot of time in here, face to face with giant sea bass, sea anemones, piranhas, jelly fish and electric eels. Also an anaconda.

A piranha in the Acaedmy's aquarium. Photo: Mary VailThe Academy also boasts a large planetarium, which was - as always - loads of fun. The screen and sound quality are very good and the seats are comfortable, without needing to lie as flat as some others.

One thing I'd like to see more of in museums is increased interface between the public/visitors and the museum's researchers. At The Academy of Sciences I was pleased to see a lab right on a main public thoroughfare. It had glass walls and I gathered from the items on display on the closest table, that it had recently been used to work on prepared biological specimens. It would have been good to see someone working on these (or anything else), but it was a Sunday and whenever I passed by (several times over a couple of hours) there was nobody there. The real pity was the sign on the door which read something like "Scientists at work, no public entry".

I have a lot of time for a well designed and constructed diorama and I suspect they might be coming back in fashion. The African Hall has several of these. They are simple, but well done. The thespian in me would like to have seen some more "drama", at least in the form of soundscapes, but possibly lighting effects and maybe even some live music. The addition of some live African music in this room would have been fantastic. In addition to the taxidermically presented gorillas, lions, clipspringers and antelopes, the room includes a live penguin enclosure. It drew a big crowds and somehow it did not seem out of place. Indeed on reflection, it a added a little whimsy and a little more of that might not go astray at The Academy in general.

The quality of the food court made me realise how low the bar is at other institutions. So many museums, galleries and science centres have a very limited range of pretty ordinary food at prices that reflect a captive market - in many cases a monopoly provider. California Academy of Sciences have clearly negotiated and planned a better deal. Hot foods, salads, bakery and more. I was slightly heartbroken when I received my scalding hot, massive, weak cafe latte, but I've had worse.

The top of the CAS building is covered in a "living roof". Information panels gave insights into both the plants in the garden as well as the research being undertaken. It would have been great to have some more details about results from the research, but it's a really cool inclusion. The roof adds a lot to the image of the building from a distance as well. When I was there, there was a brass band playing in the adjacent park, which was great fun. I'm told that there is regularly live music there on a weekend and it a makes for a great, lively atmosphere. In fabulous Golden Gate Park, opposite the de Young Museum - brass bands and biology - we need more of it!



It has been unseasonably warm in southern Australia recently. I haven’t really looked into the Bureau of Meteorology’s historical data, but my memory of November is of a month of bright sunny days, followed by rain, followed by wind, then more sun, then lots of cloud cover, etc, etc. Anyway, this current hot patch has had everyone talking about summer. Summer of course means flies. Great. Flies always remind me of a great Australian science story. It’s tale of science, of people and of times past. It’s true, its old and everyone should know about it.

It was a big deal when Queen Elizabeth visited Australia in 1963. The tour was scheduled between 18 February and 27 March – summer and peak fly season.

CSIRO’s Doug Waterhouse had a plan. In fact he had more than a plan – he had a formula. Doug had been studying insects (and insect repellents) for years and was a respected authority in the area. He had developed a new formula and had convinced one of the Queen’s aides to use the product on Her Majesty before she attended a garden party at Yarralumla in Canberra. Apparently the aid wimped out at the last moment and either did not sue the repellent at all, or used it from such a distance that not enough of the spray actually made it onto the Queen. I’m sure she acted with the utmost grace, but – like everybody else – the Queen was bothered by the flies and it seemed that the opportunity was lost.

However if you are seeking to raise the profile of a new product (or probably anything) there is possibly an even better advocate than celebrity (or royalty) – journalists. The day after the garden party, staff from Government House, some members of the Royal entourage and some journalists had planned a golf day. The Government House staff were more than happy to wear Doug’s new formula and it worked like a charm. The journalists noticed and the word spread. Various newspapers picked up the story of CSIRO’s new fly repellent and Doug received phone call from a representative of Mortein – makers of insect repellents – asking for information about his new product. As was the way in those days, Doug freely provided details of the formula. To cut a long story short, Mortein set to work on the new repellent and about a year later, they released Aerogard.

By way of thanks, Moretin sent Doug Waterhouse a dozen cans of the stuff for Christmas. And that’s how CSIRO helped ensure Australians can “Avagoodweekend”.



It has been unseasonably warm in southern Australia recently. I haven’t really looked into the Bureau of Meteorology’s historical data, but my memory of November is of a month of bright sunny days, followed by rain, followed by wind, then more sun, then lots of cloud cover, etc, etc. Anyway, this current hot patch has had everyone talking about summer. Summer of course means flies. Great. Flies always remind me of a great Australian science story. It’s tale of science, of people and of times past. It’s true, its old and everyone should know about it.

It was a big deal when Queen Elizabeth visited Australia in 1963. The tour was scheduled between 18 February and 27 March – summer and peak fly season.

CSIRO’s Doug Waterhouse had a plan. In fact he had more than a plan – he had a formula. Doug had been studying insects (and insect repellents) for years and was a respected authority in the area. He had developed a new formula and had convinced one of the Queen’s aides to use the product on Her Majesty before she attended a garden party at Yarralumla in Canberra. Apparently the aid wimped out at the last moment and either did not sue the repellent at all, or used it from such a distance that not enough of the spray actually made it onto the Queen. I’m sure she acted with the utmost grace, but – like everybody else – the Queen was bothered by the flies and it seemed that the opportunity was lost.

However if you are seeking to raise the profile of a new product (or probably anything) there is possibly an even better advocate than celebrity (or royalty) – journalists. The day after the garden party, staff from Government House, some members of the Royal entourage and some journalists had planned a golf day. The Government House staff were more than happy to wear Doug’s new formula and it worked like a charm. The journalists noticed and the word spread. Various newspapers picked up the story of CSIRO’s new fly repellent and Doug received phone call from a representative of Mortein – makers of insect repellents – asking for information about his new product. As was the way in those days, Doug freely provided details of the formula. To cut a long story short, Mortein set to work on the new repellent and about a year later, they released Aerogard.

By way of thanks, Moretin sent Doug Waterhouse a dozen cans of the stuff for Christmas. And that’s how CSIRO helped ensure Australians can “Avagoodweekend”.

A couple of weeks ago I mentioned a National Science Week event called Hypothesis that’s coming up on at BMW Edge Theatre on Friday 14 August. At the time I promised more details. Well, here you go. Filled with physical feats, Teacup Tumble will perform their acrobatic show, ‘Its Science not Circus’. Join Simon Pampena as he tried to save the world in his hilarious show ‘Supa Mega Maths Battle for Planet Earth’  .

Inspired by the microscopic world, Scale Free Network will bring the very small to life using art – check out the hidden secrets of the Yarra River and take a close look at the beautiful detail of a butterfly tongue. I’ll be your chaperone at 'Speed Meet a Geek' where you will have the chance meet some of Melbourne’s most charming and gregarious scientists.

Jon McCormack, an electronic media artist and researcher will explore artificial life and evolutionary music and art. There will be some fabulous retro TV shows playing including ‘The Curiosity Show and Julius Sumner Miller’s ‘Why is it So’. The Radical Chemists and VICS (Victorian Institute of Chemical Science) give you a chance to examine - in glorious 3D - some of the molecules that our noses and tongues detect when we eat and drink. The Young Australian Skeptics will be on hand to construct and distribute nifty mini zines from the Small Science Collective and Swinburne University’s AstroTour will present a 3D Virtual Tour of the Universe. And one more thing” if you came to ‘Pre-Coital’ in Melbourne earlier this year then remember to bring the green wrist band you received that night – it entitles you to a free drink at the bar. We’ll see you at BMW Edge Theatre on Friday 14 August.