As a native Ohioan and longtime creationist watcher, of course I’m morbidly fascinated with (and dismayed by) the opening of the new Creation Museum just outside of Cincinnati. I’m not going to give a full response to its ridiculous “science;” others have done that across the blogosphere (collected by PZ here). However, you may have seen the New York Time’s particularly bad piece on the museum opening (if you haven’t, you can find it here), where the writer–instead of commenting on the atrocious science–lauds the museum’s “daring” more than once, for example. Well, John Hawks has dug up a reason why, perhaps, the reporter was so uncritical:
So I got to thinking, hmmm…. Why did the Times send their culture reporter [Edward Rothstein] to cover this museum in such a friendly way, when they assigned science reporter John Noble Wilford to cover this year’s opening of the new Human Origins Hall at the American Museum of Natural History? I mean, they’re on the same subject, right? Shouldn’t they get the same reviewer?
And then I saw Rothstein’s article from today’s paper — reviewing another new exhibit at the AMNH:
They lure children into dank swamps and devour them. They live in caves or among high rocks or deep in dense forests. They are covered with scales or thick fur. They have hands at the ends of their tails or a single glaring eye. They exhale fire, cause hurricanes with their wings or feast on human eyes, teeth and nails. They might also whimsically help the unwitting, but they are almost all mercurial, unreliable, tricksters.
Such are the mythic creatures of our earth.
Ah-ha! This is all becoming clear now. The Times wasn’t really softballing the Answers in Genesis museum. It’s just that Rothstein covers the unicorn and dragon beat!