The Creation Museum 2: Men in White

Along with the rest of my crew, I entered the theater. Not just any theater, mind you, but a special effects theater. This meant that at certain points during the film your seat would vibrate ominously and a small spritz of water would shoot out from the seat in front of you. More on that later.

The film was Men in White, a light-hearted romp in which Satan's minion's, i.e. scientists and college professors, receive their comeuppance from a couple of well-informed, clear-thinking, super-cool angels, named Michael and Gabriel. It was the familiar creationist story -- the one where they're the folks who know what's going on and all those dullards who spent their best years earning PhD's would have done better reading thier Bible's instead.

As the film opens an animatronic young woman named Wendy sits before a campfire with her back to the audience, pondering the mysteries of existence. “Does anybody even know I'm here?” she asks. “Did God create all this, or did we just invent God?”

Angels to the rescue! Our heroes appear on the screen to reassure the young woman that God did, indeed, create all this. “The whole enchilada,” no less. Not specific enough for you? Okay:

He created the light and the dark and the skies and the seas, the land and the plants and the birds and the trees, the Sun and the stars ...

and sundry other things that didn't come out with sufficient clarity on my little recorder. After rattling off this little list, the angels expressed disbelief at the idea that our young heroine thinks believing in God and creation means you have to reject science. What a silly bint. Doesn't she know that God loves science? Doesn't she know that God wants us to understand how he built everything? (“Everything” includes neutrinos, eagles and the Milky Way, in case you were wondering.)

The angels begin to fear Wendy is not listening to them. Indeed, we hear her speculate that, “Life is probably just a big accident. The predictable result of an infinite number of matter/anti-matter asymmetric collisions.”

What. A. Moron. She's lucky to have two such perspicacious angels around to set her straight. She's obviously spent too much time listening to “the culture.” I suspect that's code for people like me.

There follows a montage of clips of various scientist and teacher stereotypes lecturing in a style that is either painfully boring or frighteningly dogmatic about the importance of evolution and all of its soul-destroying corollaries. “What if I don't believe your idea?” asks one reasonable young man. “Well then you're in violation of the Constitution of the United States' separation of church and state!” shrieks a Wicked Witch of the West like schoolmarm. Looks like my suspicion was correct.

For me this was a very useful way to start my afternoon at the museum. As regular readers of this blog are aware, I spend a considerable amount of time attending creationist conferences and presentations. And since I am cursed with both the ability and the willingness to look at things from the perspective of people with opinions different from my own, all of this exposure occasionally leads to bouts of Stockholm Syndrome. Maybe, I start wondering, it's unfair for me to go into their hidey holes for the sole purpose of later writing snide accounts of my experiences. Maybe I should just leave them alone. If they want to live according to their own idiosyncratic religion, who am I to pass judgment on them?

Then I see things like Men in White, and like a bucket of cold water I am reminded of a fundamental truth of creationism. They are not wasting even one single second worrying about presenting their opponents fairly, or of understanding the views they criticize with such venom. There is no stereotype so crass, no argument so foolish, and no misrepresentation so egregious that they won't use it if they think it will give them a rhetorical edge. There isn't a college professor, scientist or teacher on the face of the Earth who behaves anything like the caricatures on the screen, but one suspects that fact means nothing to them. Their shameful behavior does not justify similar behavior on the part of their critics, of course. But it is useful to be reminded that while I worry about fairness and open-mindedness, there is absolutely none of that sentiment coming the other way.

Back to the film. Dismayed that poor Wendy has succumbed to the despair to which secularism always leads, they launch into a “multimedia presentation” intended to set her straight. They begin with a brief recounting of the events of “creation week,” as they refer to the days in Genesis One. The most amusing part of this came when they included mushrooms among the plants created on day three. At the end of this we have God's perfect creation. Animals? Didn't die! Neither did people, of course. There was no disease. No destruction. No genetic mutations (!!) Man was without sin and could walk “right there” with God.

During all of this there was happy, triumphant music playing, and the angels were speaking in delighted tones. That stops on a dime, when Michael says, “Until the rebellion.” Things suddenly become considerably more somber. The world began to suffer. Everything that's gone wrong with the world started right then, we're told. “And so it began. Humanity's legacy of hate, anger, murder and deception.” Who knew that eating a forbidden fruit was just a gateway drug into far worse transgression?.

Well, clearly there was only one thing for it. Best just to destroy the world with a global flood and effectively start all over. This is where the special effects kicked in. The seats started vibrating in what I think was meant to simulate the violence of the flood, but really felt more like getting an electric shock. And then came the spritz of water from the seat in front of me. The adorable five-year old girl sitting nearby spoke for me when she said, plainly puzzled, “I just got wet, Mommy.”

As for me, I launched into MacGyver mode. The map of the museum handed to us after paying our admission was worthless as a map, this wasn't the cavernous AMNH after all, but it did make a convenient device for covering up the offensive water jet. I spent the next few moments patting myself on the back for my cleverness, and thinking about the one whole employee whose job it is to make sure that the water tanks in the seats remain full.

Now for the science. You ready? We were asked to ponder certain natural oddities that fall neatly into place in the light of the Bible. Marine fossils on mountain ranges? Those mountains were once covered with water! Volcanic dust in ice cores? Just think of all that volcanic dust in the atmosphere after the flood! The similarities in the DNA found in all living things? God made it so that all living things can live and eat in the same world. Isn't this fun?

Whereas everything falls into place when you start from the Bible, starting with ideas about “goo to you” evolution forces you to interpret everything through that one, blinkered, lens, called “billions of years.” Evolution, you see, does not make sense unless you also have billions of years with which to work. It was an interesting moment in the film, and it represented a theme that appeared over and over again. Most of their scientific fire was aimed at the question of the age of the Earth. Evolution, for the most part, was only attacked obliquely. They were far more interested in arguing for a young Earth than they were in arguing against evolution.

Several minutes had gone by without a vicious stereotype appearing on the screen, and it is possible the audience was getting restless. Anticipating that fear, the filmmakers now presented a fake news broadcast in which a pretty halfwit named Suzee Teevee interviewed one Professor Ed. U. Cation. Get the idea? So meticulous was their attention to detail that a fake stock ticker crawled along the bottom of the screen. One stock was “Hate” with an arrow pointing up, another as “Love” with an arrow pointing down.

Anyway, Professor Pompous was lecturing with familiar dogmatic certainty about the marvels of radiometric dating, much to the delight of the insipid, giggling anchorwoman. It was quite possibly the first example I have seen of a television news personality getting it right on a question of science.

Our friend Wendy was impressed by the Professor's dogmatism. The angels? Not so much. Radiometric dating? Pshaw. That's a method based on “a ton of assumptions.” Rest assured that further studies are suggesting far younger ages for the Professor's rocks. Might have been interesting to see the bibliography on that claim, but alas, no references were provided.

“And there really can be no questioning of Charles Darwin any more,” intoned the professor, “I mean virtually every thinking person on the planet agrees wholeheartedly with virtually everything he ever said.” I'll let you imagine for yourselves how they responded to that one. All I can say is, do not be like that nitwit Wendy who thought the professor might have a point. She came in for a serious angelic dressing-down for that bit of foolishness.

Moving ahead a bit, the angels whipped out two of the standard tropes of young-Earth geology: Helium dissipation in zircons and errors in radiometric dating on rocks of known age. I won't belabor the minutiae of these arguments here. Go here and here for information about the helium, and here for some information about radiometric dating.

On the subject of radiometric dating, the angels were keen to point out that it was a dating method based on assumptions, as if that were enough to show that it is false. But when it comes to their own dating methods, based on vastly more dubious assumptions, suddenly they were all credulity. As Wesley Elsberry notes, consistency is not really a strong point of creationism.

Having refuted a century's worth of accumulated geologic wisdom in ninety seconds of screen time, the angels got down to business. “Of course there is one place that you must never, ever bring out any of these observations, any of this science, any of these questions.”

Have you guessed where that is? School, of course! That seething den of secular brainwashing and anti-Christian bigotry made into a God-free zone by liberal militants in black robes. Cut to a classroom setting in which the white jacketed hell spawn of Professor Pompous is doing his best to corrupt the souls of America's youth. But wait! Do I see our two angels, now decked out in the raiment of the youth culture, waiting in ambush in the back row? Oooooh. Someone's about to get a smackdown.

If you've ever seen the classic creationist tract Big Daddy, you know what's coming. It's the standard creationist wet dream in which a boring and dogmatic science teacher parroting caricatures of scientific arguments is totally flummoxed by the relentless logic and boundless patience of some curiously well-informed high school students. I'll spare you the details. Suffice it to say that things did not go well for the poor teacher.

We should probably mention that, not content merely to stereotype scientists and teachers, the filmmakers seem to have some interesting ideas about how modern teenagers speak. Our two undercover angels were constantly using words such as “dude” and “gnarly.” They used the word “like” at least twenty-five times in every sentence. Clearly these were deeply cool individuals.

Five minutes later the teacher had been reduced to a simpering pile of goo, trapped by his own logical inconsistencies. All that was left was the big finale.

GABRIEL: You see, Wendy. Atheistic evolutionists can't see the hand of God, because they really believe there is no God. That's a huge act of faith on their part. But look for yourself, okay. God is clearly evident, just as clearly as you can assume that there is a designer of that chair you're sitting in.

MICHAEL: Right. Obviously your chair isn't just random pieces of wood that accidentally fell into place and glued themselves together. Life, even in its simplest form is way more complex than that. Doesn't it make sense that there should be a designer for life? A designer who is obviously very intelligent. But God is way more than that. He didn't just create the universe. He entered it. And he cares for it and sustains it. He loves it.

And after telling Wendy that God wants to have a personal relationship with her, the angels fly off.

Did it work? Did Wendy manage to resolve her existential quandary? Not quite, but she's clearly getting there. As the show ends we hear her say, “Evolution or creation? I don't know. I guess there could be a God. I don't want people to think I'm stupid.”

That was it from Wendy. The angels reutrned briefly to implore us to study God's world and go spread the Good News. Some Bible verses were placed on the screen. Roll the credits.

Coming Up: Same Facts, Different Worldviews, The Seven C's of Creation.


More like this

The infamous anti-gay legislator from Oklahoma, Sally Kern, was interviewed by the Oklahoma Daily. The story has some fine bon mots, like her definition of evolution: Kern defined evolution to me as "the process of wanting to create something or have something be perfect. Get rid of that which is…
I mentioned I was back in Ohio last week. The occasion was the celebration of my grandparents' 60th wedding anniversary, but while I was in the area, a number of us from Panda's Thumb also met up south of Cincinnati to take our own tour of Answers in Genesis' Creation Museum. (Wesley has a…
After leaving the theater it was time to enter the museum proper. The nice fellow at the door scanned the barcode on my ticket to verify that I wasn't trying to sneak in. He advised me that I should allow at least two hours to see all the exhibits, then invited me to go on in. The museum is laid…
By way of Michael Tomasky, I stumbled across this site hosted by presidential debate moderator Rev. Rick Warren (?!?). Here's what the good reverend has to say about evolution: What about dinosaurs?Question: How do they fit in with the idea that God created the world rather than the world evolving…

I get the distinct suspicion that I would find having my teeth extracted without anesthesia more enjoyable than watching this film.

If you've ever seen the classic creationist tract Big Daddy, you know what's coming.

You beat me to it. As soon as I started reading about the movie (indeed, as soon as I saw a picture of the cool dude angels) I was reminded of "Big Daddy." I had written a letter to the editor arguing against an anti-scientific opinion piece favoring Intelligent Design Creationism, and about as soon as it was published I received a copy of the Chick tract. I think those people really believe that such depictions (paleontology professor as Lenin) are accurate, and, like the redeemed folks in the comic books, I would immediately realize that all scientific research was mere sinfulness and renounce my "intelligent and educated" lifestyle.

By Mark Duigon (not verified) on 23 Jun 2007 #permalink

The other moldy oldie that Mike and Gabe ( as they called each other) rolled out in the classroom scene was the "too much salt in the oceans for them to be old" chestnut. See here. I missed a dab because unlike Jason, I didn't cover the water jet in time and my glasses were sprayed.

I'll get around to listening to my recording of the show one of these days to see if there's anything else to add that I thought noteworthy.

I think I see where this is going. This "age of the Earth" thing is clearly a ploy to discredit the evil atheist ID movement!

By Pseudonym (not verified) on 23 Jun 2007 #permalink

And after telling Wendy that God wants to have a personal relationship with her, the angels fly off.

Not, of course, before leaving her with His phone number...

By T. Bruce McNeely (not verified) on 23 Jun 2007 #permalink

Our two undercover angels were constantly using words such as "dude" and "gnarly." They used the word "like" at least twenty-five times in every sentence. Clearly these were deeply cool individuals.

Ah, that brings me back to the nineties. The way my friends and I talked like surfer dudes from the sixties much amused my father. But 1) we eschewed the use of the word "like", and 2) we had pretty much abandoned any hope of coolness. (This was before geek chic really started.)

By Andrew Wade (not verified) on 23 Jun 2007 #permalink

oh man, i skipped "men in white" when i was there, and your description makes me really regret it. my primary purpose was to photograph the place, so i thought the movie wouldn't be worthwhile. i did sit through the planetarium show--WOW! IMAGINE THE AWESOME POWER OF A GOD WHO CAN VIOLATE THE LAWS OF PHYSICS! later i also skipped "the last adam," which caused much consternation to the creation museum worker who practically begged me to stay and see it: "oh, you NEED to see 'the last adam.'"

Great reviews Jason, I need a stiff drink after just READING about that place.

How clever of you to foil their anti-demon defence system. If you had gotten enough of that holy water on you, it would have been curtains.

Something tells me the health authorities are going to shut that little bit of theatrics down, quite soon. I doubt they are going to be able to control the growth of bacteria and molds in the water. A high enough level of chlorine might make it safe, but would detract from the effect, I'm sure. Any antiseptic efforts might even cause evolution to happen, right there in the theatre.

Anybody interested in protecting the public from the possibility of Legionnaire's Disease, Tuberculosis, etc.?

By JohnnieCanuck, FCD (not verified) on 24 Jun 2007 #permalink

Why would there need to be water tanks in each seat? (That's a really christian way of doing it, I thought at first; then I realised who's running this show) All you would need is a feed from the main (so it's already chlorinated and therefore bacteria-free) via a (hopefully normally-closed, if you don't want a flood every time you have a powercut) solenoid valve.


As a high school teacher, I see the product of this garbage quite regularly. In fact, speaking with the senior counselor, I learned that the two classes that receive the most complaints (and requests for student transfer or accomodations) are American Government, and Biology.

Every year I have at least one student pulled out of my government classes, generally over 1st amendment issues. This year it was about the Dover decision. I was "biased" because I explained the legal decision why ID/Creationism isn't taught in a science classroom. If they wanted biased they should get a load of my actual opinion regarding organized religion ... might make 'em cry ... perhaps even burst into flames just from hearing it.

The scary thing is, crap like this movie does work, especially when people share a basic belief and don't have the time (or interest) to research the actual facts. I've seen, first hand, well educated, genuinely nice and well meaning teachers nod their heads in sympathy when someone lets out that 'God was banned from schools' claim. Is it because they're fundamentalist extremeist wingnuts? Nope, they're generally moderate and even liberals who don't know the details of the case and haven't taken the time to find out. I explain, when the situation presents itself, the actual ruling and ask them, what if you lived in a predominantly non-Christian school district. How would you feel if your son/daughter was required to participate in a Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, or Hindu morning prayer? Their general response is ... "ooooh, no, that wouldn't be right." A few seconds later there is normally a glimmer of understanding.

The key is education at all levels.

By dogmeatib (not verified) on 25 Jun 2007 #permalink

'After rattling off this little list, the angels expressed disbelief at the idea that our young heroine thinks believing in God and creation means you have to reject science. What a silly bint. Doesn't she know that God loves science?'

She wouldn't happen to be a bit moist, flinging swords at early medieval bog trotters, would she? I just LOVED the 'Spamalot' take on this. Has to be the definitive version. A truly heavenly Afro-American torch singer. Inspired.

All along, it's been anti-intellectualism. I wonder if the real fear here is that people, given useful education and responsible information, might decide not to breed so much.

If people didn't breed as much, then the multinational corporations might not be able to depend on having ready markets for their "goods and services". Also, if people were capable of critical thought, they might not be as easily manipulated by TV or the Web or this or that scaremonger. (Heaven Forbid!) Makes me wonder if the 'creationism' is just a part of a larger attempt to further 'dummy-down' the intellectual capabilities of the masses.

So, I'm a conspiracy theorist. Hand me my tinfoil hat.

I have a tinfoil hat but I don't wear it often as it doesn't go with any of my clothes. Also, it tends to get damaged when I wear my bike helmet.

Those are pretty dumb angels. After the bad start they get off to, I wouldn't believe a word they say: "He created the light and the dark ...". No way! According to Genesis, God said "Let there be light", but not "Let there be dark". He also "saw the light, that it was good", but he obviously didn't think so well of darkness. I am shocked that these "angels" should credit the benevolent deity with responsibility for darkness: they can only be Satan's minions masquerading as unfallen angels.

Jim Roberts

WTF? It's a Disneyland-ride budget version of a Jack Chick Tract? WTF?

Regarding the presentation's "Men in White": In my Church tradition they are the Archangels, St. Michael & St. Gabriel, the RL models for Tolkien's Valar. Powerful supernatural beings that (to paraphrase Tolkien) men could mistake for gods, "divine awe" effect and all. (According to Lewis -- in the preface to Screwtape Letters -- the standard announcement of an angel appearing to a mortal is "Fear Not", i.e. "Don't be scared of me!" You don't get that reaction to a random "Man in White".)

And portraying them as this presentation did is an insult to 20 centuries of Christian tradition (and I don't know how many more of Jewish tradition).

My parents coerced me into going to the Creation Museum just a few days ago, and I have to say that I found the Men in White film to be really offensive. The rest of the museum was pretty cool, I guess, apart from the depravity of man being exemplified by a teenager playing a video game and some kids yawning in a church service, but I have a hard time imagining who exactly would have enjoyed watching that movie. The special effects (particularly the deafening thunder during the flood) nearly made me curse out loud. I'm assuming the angels were supposed to be humorous, but I was more disturbed by their in-your-face approach. While we were told by a very cheerful worker that the video was meant to be satirical, I think the creators should have had a bit more discretion before deciding to push the caricatures of public school teachers to such an unrealistic extreme. There's absolutely no reason to teach children to approach evolutionists in a snide, self-righteous, and disrespectful manner, especially when said teachers or doctors are undoubtedly far more intelligent than any student.

Growing up, I was taught by my private Christian school that if I voiced one word about the Bible in a public school, I would find myself with some crazed evolutionist science teacher jumping down my throat. It wasn't until I went to a secular college did I realize that, in my own personal experience, Christians tend to be far more closed-minded and self-righteous about their beliefs.

Besides the obvious false stereotypes presented in the film, I find it highly unbiblical that this (and other Christian films I've seen) seem to be encouraging children and teenagers to stand up for what they believe in a manner that is blatantly disrespectful. I cannot fathom why people would assume that disrespecting authority, whether they believe in evolution or not, is in any way acceptable behavior. If the point of the video was to reach out to nonbelievers with the hope of bringing them closer to God, they failed miserably. I can't imagine how offended someone who is an extremely intelligent and learned person and an evolutionist would be, when I'm a Christian and I found the film to be offensive and disturbing. These are the things that only serve to push people further away from the concept of God. It's incredibly stupid and hypocritical of Christians to use such low tactics when attacking evolutionists, all the while accusing evolutionists of doing the same back to them. I can't find any logic in it at all, and I want to apologize on behalf of people who do that sort of thing. Really. I'm sorry. I swear it's not all of us.