Get A Job At The Kentucky Creation Museum

The Kentucky Creation Museum has a list of available jobs. (Sorry, nothing in management; those positions are already filled by the best and the brightest, like the least dull of all the dull knives in the kitchen drawer, I guess.) The question is, are you qualified to work in the fast-paced highly controlled –and I do mean highly controlled– world of creation science? And do you have the proper documentation? Here’s what you’ll need:

Items needed for possible employment:

  • Resume
  • Salvation testimony
  • Creation belief statement
  • Confirmation of your agreement with the AiG Statement of Faith

Prospective applicants may be wondering – Now where the hell do I get a resumé? Seriously, what is a salvation statement or a creation belief statement? Will I need a pastor to sign off on all this paperwork? How about a notary public? Does the notary also have to provide proof of his or her own faith? How and where do I confirm? Is there a form to download? And is drawing blood involved in any of these affirmations?

Darn, I must not be qualified because I don’t even understand the freaking requirements. Damn you, Ken Ham, for running such a tight ship… I mean Ark.

P.S. In this economy, I can imagine someone falsifying their creation-belief salvation confirmation thingies just to gain employment. For shame, for shame! But hey, they just might fit in with the other bearers of false witness.


Filed under Trawling For Creationism

14 responses to “Get A Job At The Kentucky Creation Museum

  1. darwinsbulldog

    One must believe in order to clean a damn toilet!

  2. Stephen

    Of course the Creation museum is going to want people who believe in a young Earth to work there. What about that does not make sense to you people? The evolutionist museums want the people who work there to be unquestioning of the evolution dogma, though in their case most probably look at what schools the person went to (are those schools towing the line on the Darwinian dogma), or they just assume that the people applying are unintelligent enough to swallow whatever is fed to them as truth.

  3. darwinsbulldog

    If I were to apply for a job to work in a food eatery at a traditional natural history museum, I would not be asked whether or not I accept evolution.

  4. Stephen

    Well, put the shoe on the other foot for a minute. If all the museums in the country taught a creationist viewpoint, and there was only one evolutionist museum, don’t you think that the people running that museum might prefer to hire people who agreed with the theory of evolution?

  5. darwinsbulldog

    If it were that way, I do not think hiring practices would discriminate based on evolution-acceptance for a position in housekeeping or food service. I can understand it for, say, education positions or curators. But in order to clean toilets or make food at the Creation Museum, you must sign a statement of faith. Ridiculous.

  6. thedarwinreport

    Signing a statement of faith is just ridiculous. And your hypothetical is silly –creationism is pure religion while evolution is based on good science.

  7. thedarwinreport

    Evolution has been scrutinized by scientists for over 140 years –it’s their job to be brutal and critical. They’ve torn it apart and over-analyzed it to the degree it is now accepted as fact. The greatest rivalries are within science. While creationists on the other hand have only applied the most cursory and shallow analysis to a caricature of evolution.

  8. Stephen

    To paint it as a difference between religion and science is ridiculous. For a theory to be proven scientifically it must be observable and testable. We cannot reliably observe or test either creation or evolution, therefore neither theories are scientific. What it really comes down to is faith. The question is where do you place your faith? I place mine in the belief that all the wonders of the universe were designed by an intelligent creator, while you believe that an unquantifiable nothing exploded in space, and that through random chance this explosion caused all the galaxies, stars, and solar systems to coalesce and for planets to form. Then water magically appeared and there was some sludge that mysteriously appeared after some rain hit some rocks for millions of years. Then, through some infinitesimally random chance there were some molecules that spontaneously appeared and through some more equally improbable random mutations all the other life on earth appeared. This is like saying that if I took a bunch of nuts and bolts, put them in a bag, and shook them for a few million years that a Chevy Camaro would appear, an equally improbable circumstance. My faith is in a creator, yours is in a fairy tale.

  9. thedarwinreport

    First off, your comment is a list of creationist misconceptions, not a legitimate critique of evolutionary biology as it stands. So, I think it’s safe to assume that you haven’t done research on the subject, beyond collecting talking points from a creationist’s website.

    Second, evolution isn’t a random process. That’s the main creationist misconception. It’s not analogous to a “Chevy Camaro” or a “747” coming together by chance. Natural selection is the opposite of chance, hence the word “selection.” For within any given population exists variation, and not all individuals of a population survive to reproduce, especially if they don’t suit the environment. Therefore, a sort of natural, unguided selection occurs. Characteristics that are beneficial are kept and ones that are harmful are lost. It’s an incredibly wasteful process, but no intelligent guide is required.

    Third, evolution is certainly testable. For example, strings of unique DNA from shared genes between dramatically different species can only be explained though evolution. The hemoglobin genes in humans are filled with mutational copying errors; they are also found in chimpanzees, and the only explanation is common ancestry. It’s like two strangers picking identical numbers hundreds of digits long; either you’d suspect ESP, or suspect the more rational explanation, that they know one another and are cheating. (DNA often mutates by duplication errors, so a common creator can’t be the explanation.)

    Evolution is also testable through the fossil record by where and when (age of rocks) fossils are found. For example, a paleontologist can make the educated prediction where an intermediate fossil of a particular type will be found. A recent famous discovery involved paleontologists searching for an intermediate between fish and land animals. Based on the age of the rocks and previous fossils finds, they were able to discover a brand new intermediate creature.

    And I’d remind you that the bible has god blowing life into a clump of dirt by magic. Sounds like a fairy tale to me.

    And FYI, if a god created life, then that makes man and chimpanzees brothers; they’d have the same father. But if evolution is the answer, then man and chimpanzees are only cousins. Oh, the sweet irony.

  10. thetruth

    Actually, observable science has to be testible, observable, and repeatable, and if it is not, then it is referred to as historical science. Historical science is your interpretation of the past based on natural evidence and cannot even be qualified as a theory because it does not undergoe the required experimentation process.
    Your comment about testing fossils is incoherrent, for you are not testing the past but the PRESENT. If you were digging up dinosaur bones in your backyard, those bones would be existing in the present. Do you agree? If they were in the past then you wouldn’t be able to test them because we exist in the present. If you were to go back in time and OBSERVE that dinosaur then that would be observable science (e.g. observing protists through a microscope) And since you do not have a time machine, you cannot confirm the age of those bones as a scientific fact. That would be historical science ( the kind historians use for interrpreting archeological finds and documents) It’s the exact same concept.
    Oh and F.Y.I. Carbon dating is not even a reliable method to come to your own historical conclusion. Once some newly formed rocks from Mt. St. Helens were sent to a carbon dating facility and came back as millions of years old. We knew, because we had OBSERVED them being formed in the eruption, that they were only 6 years old! How can we trust its reliability if it cannot even date a 6-year-old rock correctly?

  11. thedarwinreport

    Once some newly formed rocks from Mt. St. Helens were sent to a carbon dating facility and came back as millions of years old.

    Rocks are not dated using carbon-14 dating because rocks were never alive. The method involves using organic material. When plants are alive they take in carbon-14, an isotope, from the atmosphere. Only when they are dead, and cannot take in any more carbon, do the carbon ratios change. You are probably confusing rocks with charcoal (burned organic material). And carbon-14 testing is only good for material younger than about 50,000 years.

    And there are many other radiometric tests that show that the Earth is about 4.6 billion years old. The physics is testable and observable.

    “If you were to go back in time and OBSERVE that dinosaur then that would be observable science”

    Do you think astronomy and astro-physics are observable sciences? They are both historical because it takes light-years for the light from stars to reach the Earth. In the case of the Andromeda Galaxy, the light takes 2.5 million years to reach us. Or I guess your god is a deceitful liar.

  12. faith is truth

    All of this back and forth is ridiculous. If you really are a true modern day progressive, you would give all views a chance, and go to view the Creation Museum for yourself, with an “open mind”. But because you have apparently turned from God at some point in time in your life, you can’t be intellectually honest with yourself and look at Christianity as an equal “faith belief”. What you have done instead, is turned “science” into your “faith”, and become blinded by the truths of God’s creation right before your very eyes.
    The real reason for these arguments, is that Christianity deals in absolutes, like salvation, and sin, and repentance, but you reject the truth because you have rejected God.

  13. Rick Swindell

    Creationists have now cited scores of examples of volcanic rocks that appeared in recorded human history having been dated by the best labs at anywhere from a few hundred thousand to about 1.96 billion years. All of these rocks were known to be less than 2,000 years old, many having appeared within the last 200 years. Evolutionists scream at us that we are being dishonest, that it is well known that the radiometric methods do not work with very young rocks, but only with ancient rocks. The methods work with rocks of unknown age, they just do not work for rocks of known age. Why they cannot see what is wrong with this thinking is beyond me. Recently, coals from the Eocene (56 to 37 mya), the Cretaceous (146 to 65 mya) and the Pennsylvanian (325 to 286 mya) have been tested for the presence of, yes, carbon 14. After about 250,000 years there should not be a single molecule of carbon 14 in these samples. Actual values were .26 percent of modern carbon for the Eocene samples, .21 pmc for the Cretaceous, and .27 pmc for the Pennsylvanian samples. This suggests a carbon 14 age of abut 50,000 years for these samples, but the paper presents evidence that the coal is actually much younger than that. Actually there are about a half dozen really reliable methods available for estimating the age of the earth. Most of them suggest that the earth is very young. Remember that there is no evidence in ridicule and slander.

  14. Ron Gjoraas

    Sad to see such arrogance, condescending statements, self aggrandizing, superiority complex and….. I’ll stop there. Why are you arguing? Nobody
    Is really listening. I have been fortunate to have been involved in science, medicine and teaching. I am a Christian and there is not a mortal human that is going to get me to renounce my faith. Now that I have identified who
    I am, start shooting at me. I can tell what generation you are by your uncivil
    behavior. I have spent the last six years serving on a mental illness board.
    Anxiety is epidemic in our enlightened culture. Few people exhibit inner peace, joy or contentment. I wonder why ??? Anger, pride, jealousy, envy,
    lust and greed are common denominators of our culture. Is that evolution
    or reverse evolution??? Oh yes, that is natural selection. I have yet to meet
    a human being that has changed his or her opinion on a subject by using
    the methods and processes exhibited in the discourses presented above.
    I truly feel sorry for those of you that have young children. Actually, I feel
    a special sorrow for the children. Their God is science and technology.
    It will never stop wars, eliminate hunger, control climate, eliminate disease,
    prevent bigotry and racism and give people internal peace and joy. Well,
    I have given you a closing statement that is causing some of you to boil
    over with hatred toward me. See your doctor…… There must be a drug that
    could help control your temper??? Finally, I hate no human being. If you chose to attack me for my statements….Go ahead. I will still love you. My
    attitude is not controlled by what others do or not do, say or not say. My
    attitude is totally determined by me……with the help of God.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s