Please Think Of The Children: Mont. Public School Had No Business Sending Kids To Creationist Attraction

Jun 9, 2015

by Rob Boston

You might have read yesterday about Americans United’s latest victory. It’s one I’m especially pleased to see: Officials at a public school in Glendive, Mont., were going to send third-graders on a field trip to a local spot run by creationists. AU’s attorneys put a stop to that.

The facility in question is called the Glendive Dinosaur and Fossil Museum, but I have too much respect for real museums to use that term for it. In this post, I will refer to it as the “Creationism Indoctrination Center” (CIC).

The CIC is run by an entity called the Foundation Advancing Creation Truth. On its website, one  reads the following: “The mission of the Foundation Advancing Creation Truth (FACT) and its related ministries is to glorify God as Creator and Sustainer, emphasize man’s accountability to Him, to affirm God’s revealed and inspired Word as the preeminent source of truth and authority, and to challenge mankind to think through the assumptions and consequences of the humanistic concept of evolution and its underlying premise that the earth is billions of years old.”

Also check out “What We Believe,” which is essentially the CIC’s statement of faith. It’s all here: six-day creation, the Book of Genesis is literally true, there was a worldwide flood, etc. See, that’s how you know you’re not dealing with a real science museum here. Real science museums don’t have statements of faith.


Read the full article by clicking the name of the source located below.

23 comments on “Please Think Of The Children: Mont. Public School Had No Business Sending Kids To Creationist Attraction

  • @OP – The facility in question is called the Glendive Dinosaur and Fossil Museum, but I have too much respect for real museums to use that term for it. In this post,

    Glendive Dinosaur Fossil Management?
    Humans with fossilised dinosaur brains, really should not be allowed near 21st century educational establishments.

    I will refer to it as the “Creationism Indoctrination Center” (CIC).

    “The mission of the Foundation Advancing Creation Trrrooofff (FACT)

    “Futile Advocates for Cretinist Thought” perhaps?



    Report abuse

  • 3
    aroundtown says:

    A consistent fact to expect out of my country these days, not walking upright into the future but groveling to the lowest common denominator to perpetuate a god delusion to appease common sense. Please assume I am not trying to steal this observation from you Richard, just pointing out an obvious fact.

    Duck and weave, bob left and right, but this crap will continue to be pushed into your face with unending abandon. Asking please don’t doesn’t seem to be an option for these supposed religious good-fellows as they attempt to shove this crap down your throat at any given opportunity, and if your a child, oh well, just another victim for the taking to their mind.

    They always hope you will be a good little capitalist with a broken moral compass that will support their campaign of continued gain. Please pass the plate and give till it hurts folks, the good lord needs the cash!!!!!! Somehow that celestial freak is always broke and needs money, Human money, but the bottom line is it never gets to heaven, only into the pockets of the godly heathens. Amen, and pass that plate again brothers and sisters, and thank god for you religious fools who support tax breaks for religious folks like us, for we are truly thankful for your stupidity and tithing. Give till it hurts you fools.



    Report abuse

  • @OP link- The school principal, John Larsen, told the Billings Gazette that the kids are given an edited, “secular” version of the standard tour that doesn’t contain references to religion. But the museum’s director admitted to the Gazette that even during his so-called “secular” tours he presents creationist teachings, such as that all animal species appeared at once, and dives directly into the religious foundations for those teachings in response to student questions.

    “Secular biology”, to a cretinist, is the pseudo-science of “Intelligent Design”, which dishonestly pretends it is not based on religion!
    They have no understanding of real science, real biology, real palaeontology, real geology or real astronomy!



    Report abuse

  • Perhaps it is evolution. Is this how the species divides into two? One goes off to expand knowledge of the world and how it works with the idea that there are problems to solve and advances to make while the other goes off to read a book by candle light, muttering about how new everything is and occasionally popping out to check on what is going on so the book can be reinterpreted accordingly. After while they stop interbreeding, one gets aversed to sunlight and develops very short sight and the other nearly dies laughing at them. No need to get angry folks, but it is time to think of an effective competing narrative, with appropriate community structures, festivals and etc., to oust churches from the fabric of society, as a means to keep the kids out of harms way until they are old enough to laugh with you.



    Report abuse

  • @OP link – Yet, remarkably, officials at a public school thought it would be just peachy to send third-graders from Lincoln Elementary School to this place. School officials admitted that they have been sponsoring field trips to the CIC for the past several years.

    Perhaps an investigation should be carried out to see if entry fees to this religious establishment were being paid, or subsidised, from public school funds? Those responsible held to account perhaps??? Money returned to fund REAL education????



    Report abuse

  • The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.
    Winston Churchill

    Isn’t this just the perfect answer to every Creationists claim… there it is.



    Report abuse

  • Seamus
    Jun 10, 2015 at 10:40 am

    The truth is incontrovertible.

    Ah! but creationists have “other kinds of trrrroooff”!
    Just as the (no) ID(ea) crowd have “other kinds of science”!
    They also have “other kinds of reasoning” and “other kinds of evidence”.

    In the fantasy faith-world of humpty-dumptyism, words can be re-interpreted to mean whatever the believer chooses!



    Report abuse

  • If the Earth is not 4.5 billion years old or so, how do these YECs explain why nuclear power stations work ? Radiometric dating of rocks relies on the same physics as the power stations. These half wits don’t even understand about half life !

    Of course they don’t, – because they can’t !



    Report abuse

  • What’s always bemused me about creationists is that they claim to read the bible literally. And if you claim to read the Bible literally you can’t help but notice something called the Ten Commandments. And on noticing them, and I believe they’re quite explicit and so obvious even I’d heard of them, you can’t help notcing that lying is proscribed, forbidden, very naughty and so on.

    Now some creationists are undoubtedly very stupid. But others – the ones relying on the stupid ones in a Barnum ‘there’s a sucker born every minute’ style – certainly know enough to know that they are lying. For example the claim there are no transition fossils is obviously a lie (one of their many lies) even if you don’t understand how they show evolution. The truth would be ‘there are thousands of fossils that do look like transitions hmmph, so we’ve specifically chosen not to believe them’. That would be honest.

    So how do these so called biblical literalists square lying with literalism? Are they reading the bible literally all the way through and therefore knowingly breaking one of the commandments because it’s far more lucrative and a million times easier than science and facts?

    Or do they only read the first few pages literally and then head for a more metaphorical approach to help them re-interpret the bits about conning folk out of oodles of cash in churches being somewhat frowned upon? The path to righteousness is making money for old rope?



    Report abuse

  • This could go two ways:
    1. the creationists shrink down to a cult of the importance of the Muggletonians.
    2. the USA totally abandons science. It becomes about as important as New Guinea on the world stage.

    I get the feeling there are powers working hard to dumb down the USA to become useful for nothing but consumption. The problem with that is, you can put the bills on the national credit card and do no useful work only so long.



    Report abuse

  • Alice
    Jun 10, 2015 at 2:06 pm

    So how do these so called biblical literalists square lying with literalism? Are they reading the bible literally all the way through and therefore knowingly breaking one of the commandments

    Some of those who have posted here in the past have hardly read any of it at all. They have read children’s Bible story books, and been spoon-fed cherry-picked Bible snippets from preachers.

    because it’s far more lucrative and a million times easier than science and facts?

    Remember “faith” teaches “believing”, so once they know their preachers’ stories are trrrooo, and they know it all, (god-did-it-by-mysterious-ways) there is no need to make a mental effort to study complex subjects.
    They already have “superior knowledge” to those “conspiring scientists”! (Their fundamentalist preachers said so – so that must be right!)

    A bit like references to a “god”, references to “THE BIBLE” or “THE GOSPELS”, can produce an atheist response of “Which one(s)?”



    Report abuse

  • They don’t understand anything about full life, to start with… how can you expect them to understand ”half life” ? lol !

    (Don’t pick on that : just playing with words….)



    Report abuse

  • Teaching real science. That is the issue here. I believe that elementary and Jr High school’s science curriculum needs a very clear course about the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. What we teach instead is mainly the results of other scientists findings, not teaching science itself.
    By High School age, children should have a very clear understanding of the path from an idea to hypothesis to Theory. By this time they should have done various experiments in class so they know how to collect data, why it is necessary to change one’s initial hypothesis when the data contradicts it and so on.
    S0 many Creationists continue to think that the meaning of the word “theory” is “guess”, the same way in which journalists misuse the word theory. If there had been real science education, instead of memorizing the names of the planets or whatever, then some of them might not be so vocal and making public fools of themselves.



    Report abuse

  • 15
    Lindsey says:

    Kind of insulting to Paua New Guinea which has an amazing natural history from an evolutionary point of view and is extremely interesting anthropologically! To my mind it has huge value, I’d rather you made a comparison with Australia which is rapidly beginning to emulating the USA with Abbott at the helm!



    Report abuse

  • I concur Lindsey. Australia is in a race to irrationality with a Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, who announced today that he was proud of stopping new wind farms, because they are ugly. We’ll see you yanks in poverty real soon.



    Report abuse

  • hgldr
    Jun 11, 2015 at 12:32 am

    Teaching real science. That is the issue here. I believe that elementary and Jr High school’s science curriculum needs a very clear course about the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

    For comparison, you might like to look at the English Primary School national curriculum.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/425618/PRIMARY_national_curriculum_-_Science.pdf#page=31
    Statutory requirements (11 year olds)

    Pupils should be taught to:

    recognise that living things have changed over time and that fossils provide information about living things that inhabited the Earth millions of years ago

    recognise that living things produce offspring of the same kind, but normally offspring vary and are not identical to their parents

    identify how animals and plants are adapted to suit their environment in different ways and that adaptation may lead to evolution.



    Report abuse

  • I’ve asked myself similar questions. I’ve always thought that they are too stupid or they know that they are lying. However, I recently discovered that one of my high school friends is now a protestant who believes in Genesis. I went to a secular school and she wasn’t even religious back then. Over her years in college, she “found the lord” and now rejects evolution. I always thought she was very smart, but now I hear her talk about how gay is a sin and Genesis is real, etc., and I wonder if my perception of her was completely wrong and I didn’t see her for the closed minded person that she is or if a traumatic experience changed her and fastened her so tightly to this belief that it has pushed her out of the way of reason. If it is the latter, then religion is a more frightening force than I thought. How it can change consenting adults into another dogmatized worshiper… She now believes in the big bang and how the Earth formed, but that this occurred in 6 metaphorical days, since time is relative to God and that Adam and Eve had perfect genes, as they were created “very good” and thus their children had no problem with inbreeding until their genes became more imperfect, then God made it a sin to bed close relatives. I can’t believe this person sat in the same high school biology class as me.



    Report abuse

  • If you are going to make a philosphical argument to advance your cause, the argument must work. I have said before – in philosophy we use words instead of numbers etc to make our points.

    What we say in an argument is vitally important. I do not care if there was a court order on this, because the whole world knows that the American legal system is incomprehensible.

    Now we can make very good arguments to advance the secular cause. If we can make these arguments, why don’t we make the arguments.

    What is wrong here “I have too much respect for real museums to use that term for it”

    I must confess I stopped reading his post at this point. What is a museum – it is not a place of science, but a place of study. a little bit like a library. If you are advancing an argument – even if it is the wrong one – let us remember that a lot of science is advancing wrong arguments – this museum is still a place of study.

    Now let me tell you something even more crazy. Does anyone here actually know what Museum means? NO NO NO NO NO NO you do not know.

    It is the Temple to the Muses – see the word there – “Muses”. Just like in Athens you also have the Parthenon which is the temple to the virgin. The Muses are minor goddesses in Greek theology. They gave all sorts of inspiration to people who CREATE things. Most often you will have heard it attached to poets etc, but other CREATORS also get their inspitation from the Muses.

    So we have a bunch of crazy creationists putting their fossils into a Museum which means temple to the Muses who inspire creations.

    So this is the problem. The ideas you have may be commendable, but the arguments suck.

    In this case the author has started out with a sentence that is simply not true. This does not help his whole argument later on.

    And this ladies and gentlemen is why we must start making our arguments accurate.

    Edited by moderator to remove off-topic content. For the rules and ethos of the site, please take a look at the Terms and Conditions via the link at the foot of the page.



    Report abuse

  • Andy
    Jun 13, 2015 at 11:13 am

    If you are going to make a philosphical argument to advance your cause, the argument must work.

    So in the real world, it is probably better to use a scientific argument.

    I have said before – in philosophy we use words instead of numbers etc to make our points.

    An obvious limitation compared to science which uses words, numbers, equations, formulii, diagrams and video.

    What we say in an argument is vitally important. I do not care if there was a court order on this, because the whole world knows that the American legal system is incomprehensible.

    Evidence presented however is only incomprehensible to those who cannot understand it.

    Now we can make very good arguments to advance the secular cause. If we can make these arguments, why don’t we make the arguments.

    Many of us do!

    Dawkins is big in the USA and yet tiny in Europe…Why?

    He is a fellow of the Royal Society – a top world leading scientific body! Hardly “tiny”!
    Europe is generally much more secular and scientifically educated, so there is less confrontation or need for campaigns.
    He is probably best known in England for presenting TV documentary science programmes.

    This is simple – he is an evolutionist and not a philosopher. In academic circles – in philosophy we laugh at him. This does not mean he is wrong – it just means that the quality of his argument is poor to say the very least.

    That’s OK! Scientists laugh at would be philosophers too, but unlike philosophers, scientists can usually agree in concise statements, on what is supported by evidence and what is not!

    So what is wrong here “I have too much respect for real museums to use that term for it”

    In other words this dishonest pseudo-museum is full of misleading wrongly labelled nonsense posing as educational material.

    I must confess I stopped reading his post at this point.

    Ah! You totally missed the point that museums are supposed to honestly inform the public!

    What is a museum – it is not a place of science,

    Sorry to have to point out basic dictionary definitions, but a Natural History Museum with fossils and animals, IS a place of science!

    but a place of study. a little bit like a library. If you are advancing an argument – even if it is the wrong one –

    Non-fiction study material in reputable libraries, does not wilfully or negligently circulate wrong information.

    let us remember that a lot of science is advancing wrong arguments –

    In the context of a bunch of muppets disputing radiometric dating and disputing the world scientific consensus of astronomers, geologists, and biologists on the age of the Earth and the Universe, , this is a pathetic attempt at an argument!

    this museum is still a place of study.

    No it isn’t! It is a promotional site for delusional propaganda and disinformation!

    Now let me tell you something even more crazy. Does anyone here actually know what Museum means? NO NO NO NO NO NO you do not know.

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/museum
    Origin of MUSEUM
    Latin Museum place for learned occupation, from Greek Mouseion, from neuter of Mouseios of the Muses, from Mousa
    First Known Use: 1672

    Not really used in this context in Ancient Greece then!

    And this ladies and gentlemen is why we must start making our arguments accurate.

    Really???

    It is the Temple to the Muses – see the word there – “Muses”. Just like in Athens you also have the Parthenon which is the temple to the virgin. The Muses are minor goddesses in Greek theology. They gave all sorts of inspiration to people who CREATE things. Most often you will have heard it attached to poets etc, but other CREATORS also get their inspitation from the Muses.

    I don’t think anyone seeks inspiration by making sacrifices to Greek goddesses these days!

    That may well be amusing to play with rambling words, but it has nothing to do with modern museums, or getting to the point or purpose of a Natural History Museum as an educational establishment!

    This is the same as the God Delusion. Nothing in it was new except Richard Dawkins inability to construct philosphical arguments.

    . . . Or perhaps your inability to understand scientific arguments based on modern neuroscience and psychology?

    In this case the author has started out with a sentence that is simply not true. This does not help his whole argument later on.

    Really?? I thought the term “God delusion” was a perfectly clear psychological description, for which neuroscience has provided some evidence.



    Report abuse

Leave a Reply

View our comment policy.