|
|
|
|
T W I N
C I T I E S
C R E A T I O N
S C I E N C E
A S S O C I A T I O N
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8/15/2006
To the Director
Denver Museum of Nature & Science
2001 Colorado Boulevard
Denver, Colorado 80205
Greetings,
I visited your beautiful museum recently while visiting friends and relatives in Denver. It has many wonderful features and is very "user friendly."
I have one complaint, however, and hope you can take it to heart.
I expect a pro-evolutionary bias from museums just as I am not surprised when I see it in academia and the media. It saddens me that the contrary evidence is not given a hearing but it does not surprise me. I have corresponded, discussed and debated with the many individuals regarding usual objections and find them all wanting, but I understand how a person could get caught up in the politically correct view without thinking it through.
What angers me, however, is dishonesty in the presentation of the evidence. The film at your museum that introduces evolution implies that the origin of life from natural forces acting on molecules is well established. The truth is that no biochemist or molecular biologist will make that claim -- even those who continue to believe in evolution.
They feel that it MUST have happened because of their bias that life HAD TO occur without supernatural intervention, but they now will invariably say, "We have no theory." Would it not be a bit more forthright to tell the unsuspecting museum-goer, including many innocent children, what those working on the forefront of the field know?
Then stepping around the corner of the exhibit, I find the reconstruction of "Lucy" to show completely human feet, when it is well known that she had ape-like feet. It is true that one small text near the model showed what were supposed to be the bones of Lucy's feet as more ape-like, but tried to make them look transitional. The model, which everyone looks at and remembers, however, shows feet like those that you would see at the beach or pool. This is blatant deception and you ought to be ashamed.
Also, the peppered moth exhibit gave no clue to the controversy over fraud in the original study. Moths do not rest on the bark but under leaves. The pictures in the study and the data on consumption of moths of dark or light variations were made with dead moths glued to the trunks of trees. And after it is all over, they are still moths. And now the light phase is making a comeback. It was not progress but variation and no new features or information were added, as evolution would need in spades to progress from protozoa to people.
I enclose a paper I read at a conference debating the place of teaching intelligent design in the schools. See www.tccsa.tc/articles/id_in_schools.pdf. I also urge you to educate yourself on the other side of the issue. I run the website for Twin Cities Creation Science Association (www.tccsa.tc) and we have links to at least 135 other sites. The book Icons of Evolution by Jonathan Wells is another good place to start. I could even send you a copy if you wish.
I would be happy to interact with you regarding these matters.
Sincerely,
Ross S. Olson MD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|