The Perot Museum More of A Sci-Fi Museum than Science Museum
By Jesse Morrell
After visiting the new Perot Museum of Nature and Science that opened in Dallas TX, I made these remarks online on various websites:
“I took my son and daughter to this new “Perot Museum of Nature and Science” and as soon as we started our tour I wished we didn’t. It was full of anti-creation propaganda. All over the place were promotions for the Big Bang, evolution, etc. It mentioned “creationists” by name in a negative way right from the start. It taught that birds evolved from Dinosaurs because they have similar bones, and that everything somehow magically evolved over billions of years from a single molecule. Instead of, “In the beginning God’ it was “In the beginning a single molecule.” I can’t believe rational people buy this stuff. It offered zero proof for any of its wild claims. It as a whole bunch of fairytale propaganda apparently funded by God haters. It even had a picture on the wall of Charles Darwin and Richard Dawkins! I was very disappointed. I also took my family to the Creation Science Museum in Kentucky and was glad I did. We need more Museums like that.”
Contrary to some of the comments made on the ‘Reddit’ website, I am not alone in my beliefs. This initial post on my face book quickly received 81 “Likes” from various people across the world with over 500 comments.
A few days later after I made these initial posts, I received this email:
Hello, my name is Brad Pearson and I’m a writer with D Magazine in Dallas. I came across one of your comments about the Perot Museum in Dallas, and I was hoping to speak with you about it, since the museum’s become a pretty important tourist destination in the city. If you’re interested, feel free to email or call me back. Thank you for your time.
The next day, Bradford already decided to post an article about my comments. It was called, “Someone Has Been Trolling the Perot Museum Online, Calling it ‘Fairytale Propaganda’” He wrote, “As you can see above, Morrell did not enjoy his visit to the Perot Museum. He called it “fairytale propaganda” and was stunned that a science museum included photos of Charles Darwin and Richard Dawkins. Imagine that, a science museum with photos of scientists. The above screengrab is a Google review Morrell wrote, brought to the attention of the masses via Reddit. Redditors got a good laugh at Morrell’s expense, but thought he was nothing more than a troll. Wrong.” He also said, “spoke with Morrell via email yesterday, and he agreed to answer some questions about his visit, his beliefs, and why he was surprised that a science museum mentioned science. I haven’t heard back yet; I’m not holding my breath.”
Of course, I have never turned down an interview.
These were the questions that he sent me with my full answers:
1. “Do you live in the Dallas area? If yes, where? I saw on your website that you might live in Connecticut; I just wanted to double check.”
I live with my family in the Tyler Texas area. I am originally from Connecticut. I have been traveling the country speaking on university and college campuses full time since 2005. I have spoken on over 100 campuses. For many years I was living on the road as I traveled but just settled down in East Texas permanently about a year ago. East Texas is now my home base I travel from. I have been street preaching in Dallas and Fort Worth for the past ten years. And now, the public sidewalks around the Perot Museum look like a great place for me to start giving Creation and Intelligent Design presentations.
2. Why did you decide to visit the Perot? Do you visit many museums?
My wife and I are homeschooling our children. We travel the country for ministry and enjoy visiting many museums and zoo’s on our travels as part of our homeschooling. The Science Museum was a field trip for my three year old daughter and one year old son. They started school earlier than most children. Both can already count. My daughter is already spelling.
3. What did you expect to see at the museum?
Seeing that it is a museum of nature and science, I was expecting to see facts relating to nature and science. My children have visited many science museums all across the country where they have interactive teachings on the law of cause and effect, law of gravitation, the design of the human body, the solar system, atoms, cells, etc. In the other science museums which I have taken my children to across the country, there was no apparent agenda to propagate the evolutionary and naturalistic worldviews of atheists. Science has existed long before the theory of evolution came around and much science can be taught without these unverified and unverifiable theories. Theology itself was once considered the Queen of the Sciences. Sir Isaac Newton was one of the greatest scientists of all times and he did not believe in evolution, of course, but was a theist. He said, “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being.” Ben Stein did a fantastic job in his film, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” showing that many great and leading scientists in the modern world believe in Intelligent Design as an absolute fact. They said that the more they research as scientists; they more convinced they are of Intelligent Design.
A science museum, for example, can have an interactive exhibit showing the laws of aerodynamics. Rather than trying to teach wild theories like dinosaurs evolving into birds, a science museum can show the wonderful design of birds which enables them to fly. It took our finite minds thousands of years to learn the laws of flight, yet these creatures with low intelligence can do it naturally. This shows that an intelligence greater than ourselves engineered these wonderful creatures. Their innate instincts for flight patters and migration are also a marvel reflective of the intelligence of their Creator.
Instead of an unbiased presentation of scientific facts, I found that the Perot Museum had an obvious bias against creationism and intelligent design and designed many of its exhibits to propagate the theory of evolution to the minds of vulnerable children. The fact that they had pictures of Charles Darwin (who was a racist), and Richard Dawkins (an outspoken atheist) on their wall, promoting them as great scientists, but neglected to mention or display a picture of Sir Isaac Newton, shows the museums blatant bias.
4. Why were you so surprised that a science museum included big bang references as opposed to creationism? Not to be disrespectful, but that’s exactly what I’d expect at a science museum.
Secular or naturalistic science limits itself to empiricism as their epistemology. Given this limited and presupposed epistemology, the question of the origin of life or the origin of the universe is beyond its scope or reach. The origin of life or the origin of the universe was not something that anyone, except our Creator, observed or experienced. The origin of life and the universe cannot be empirically tested. None of our five senses could prove that the “Big Bang” ever occurred at all.
The Perot Museum stated that at one time, billions of years ago, all of the matter in the universe existed in a single molecule. This was their ultimate presupposition, instead of Genesis 1:1, they assumed “In the beginning a single molecule.” From that single molecule, everything magically evolved over billions of years. Of course, none of this was proven by the museum. It was simply stated. Even if, at one point, all of matter existed in a single molecule, this cannot be empirically shown or proven. We cannot touch, taste, see, or smell all of matter existing in a single molecule, nor can this hypothesis be observed, tested, or reproduced. It is unverifiable.
The Big Bang does not even qualify as a scientific theory, as that which qualifies as a scientific theory must be observable, testable, and reproducible. The Big Bang is not observable, testable, or reproducible. The Big Bang is not, therefore, a valid scientific theory. It is, in the final analysis, mere speculation and imagination.
And for the Big Bang to be promoted as an argument against God, as the Perot Museum present it is itself a fallacious argument. Even if all of the universe existed in a single molecule that exploded, this does not necessarily exclude the existence of a Creator and Designer at all. They are trying to explain the “how” but the “how” does not necessarily exclude the “who” that was behind the “how.”
5. How do you define “rational people”? Christians who believe in creationism?
A rational person is the antithesis of an irrational person. It is irrational to refuse to acknowledge the obvious. Therefore, a rational person would be willing to accept what is plainly the truth. That there is an infinite Creator and Designer of all the finite existences in the universe is an obvious truth. The rational rightly acknowledge this, the irrational foolishly deny it.
First, we know logically by law of cause and effect that anything that had a beginning had a cause. Anything finite had a beginning. Therefore, anything finite had a cause. Finite cause and effect necessarily implies the first cause. The first cause, by definition, must be self-existent. If the first cause had a cause, it wouldn’t be the first cause. Therefore, the existence of anything finite is absolute proof of the existence of the infinite. The finite could not exist apart from the infinite. Our finite existence is absolute proof that there is a Creator.
The existence of the Perot Museum itself is proof that there is a God. The Perot Museum had a beginning and is therefore finite. The existence of finite cause and effect necessarily implies the first great and infinite cause. Therefore, the existence of the Perot Museum proves the existence of God. In the same way, the existence of an atheist and of any argument presented by an atheist against God, in fact, proves that there is a God.
Secondly, the obvious design and laws of the universe are indicative of intelligence. Physical laws, like any law, necessarily imply the mind of a Law Giver. There can be no design without intelligence. All of the physical laws of the universe are a reflection of the intelligence of God. Adaptation to our environments, also known as micro-evolution, is reflective of the intelligence of our Creator. The solar system, eco-system, digestive system, reproductive system, etc, are also proof that our designer who engineered the universe is intelligent. Sir Isaac Newton said, “In the absence of any other proof, the thumb alone would convince me of God’s existence.” Our minds have been so constituted that we cannot help but to be impressed with the intricate complexities and obvious design of the universe. Therefore, the knowledge of God is an inescapable revelation. This can account for why every culture in every continent has recognized a Creator and why those who verbally deny the existence of such a Creator are such a minority.
Thirdly, any coherent worldview must begin with Genesis 1:1. There is no adequate foundation or basis for the universe or the human mind as we know it apart from an infinite and intelligent God. The rational cannot come from the irrational. The intelligent cannot come from the unintelligent. Life cannot come from non-life. The contrary has never been empirically observed or proven, nor is it logically feasible. The effect cannot be greater than the cause. The fact that we are intelligent and personal beings necessarily means that the first cause cannot be an unintelligent or impersonal thing. The existence of any finite and rational being necessarily proves the existence of our infinite and intelligent God. The atheist or naturalistic scientist cannot account for the reason and intelligence that they themselves use otherwise. They acknowledge that they have an intelligent mind and engage in its exercise every day, but they cannot account for its existence because they refuse to acknowledge the God to whom they owe their existence and design.
“ The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.” Ps. 19:1
“The heavens declare his righteousness, and all the people see his glory.” Ps. 97:6
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools…” Rom. 1:18-22
6. What evidence do you have that your vision of the Earth’s beginning is the correct version? And what about the theory presented by the Perot Museum is so wrong?
Ultimately, the knowledge of God is an a priori truth, as opposed to an a posteriori truth. That is, the knowledge of God is a necessary prerequisite for any coherent worldview. The Scriptures never attempt to prove God, but assumes Him as the Creator of the universe from the onset, and addresses men in such a way as to imply that they already know God exists. There are necessary presuppositions, or starting points, that are taken for granted before any rational or intelligent discussion or meaningful discourse can take place. The Infinite Creator, presented in the Scriptures, is the only adequate foundation for finite existence, human intelligence, reason, the laws of logic, absolute or objective morality, etc. As a first truth, the existence of God is self-evident and needs no proof, but must necessarily be presupposed from the onset.
In order to engage in a debate or in a rational discourse, I assume from the onset that I exist. I also presuppose that I have an intelligent mind, that the laws of logic exist, etc. It would be foolish to try to logically prove logic. It would be unreasonable to try to reasonably prove reason. These are simply taken as first truths from the onset. And as God is the necessary prerequisite for my own existence and for the existence of reason and logic, God must be presupposed from the onset before any debate or rational discourse can take place.
All worldviews have ultimate presuppositions or first truths. For example, in atheism the epistemology of empiricism is taken for granted as a first truth. Empiricism states that all knowledge is to be acquired through the senses and consequently assumes that reality is purely physical or material. (It, therefore, begs the question of the existence of the invisible God whose essential nature is spiritual.) This epistemology of empiricism is presupposed not proven. It is not a conclusion but a premise. In fact, by its own standard it cannot be proven. Empiricism itself is not a physical substance or materialistic in its essential nature. Empiricism is conceptual, a mere idea of the mind. So while Empiricism is presupposed or taken as a first truth in the worldview of an atheist, it is an unfounded and self-contradictory one. The Infinite God who created us is the only adequate starting point for any coherent worldview.
The laws of logic, which any atheist attempts to use when he reasons, are also themselves conceptual and have no physical substance. The laws of logic cannot be handled or experienced through our five senses nor can they be empirically proven. For an empiricist to use the laws of logic, therefore, contradicts his own epistemology. It is unreasonable for them to engage in reason, since reason is not physical and therefore cannot exist in their worldview. It is only reasonable for us to engage in reason if we presuppose that we were created in the image of a reasonable Creator and do not limit ourselves to the material world as the only possible existences.
In other words, God is true because of the impossibility of the contrary. We cannot account, as already stated, for our finite existence or intelligence apart from God. Furthermore, empirical science presupposes the accuracy and reliability of our five senses. Every one of us do every time we drive a car. Reading, writing, walking, talking, etc, all presuppose the accuracy of our five senses. Going to the Perot Museum itself, and creating and presenting its exhibits, presupposes their accuracy. This we take as a first truth.
However, if there is no intelligent design to our human body, but we are the product of mere time and chance and are nothing more than the random accidence of the universe, we have no rational basis or intelligent foundation to trust in the reliability of our senses. The atheistic evolutionist assumes the accuracy of his senses, but he has no basis for doing so.
However, if we were created and designed by an intelligent God, who endowed us with the gifts of our senses to know and experience the material world, then we have a rational basis to trust in their reliability and accuracy. Apart from the presupposition that there is a God, there is no basis for the senses used in empirical study and research. Unlike a creation scientist, an atheistic scientist is, therefore, an oxymoron and a walking contradiction. An atheist will presuppose the accuracy of his senses and his own intelligence, but he has no basis in his worldview that validates this presupposition.
Now, as to question as to why the theory presented by the Perot Museum is wrong. The majority of my disagreement was with their theory that everything in the universe evolved over billions of years from a single molecule that exploded in a big bang. As already stated, the question as to the origin of the universe is beyond the scope of empiricism and cannot be verified using the scientific method. For an empirical scientist to speculate as to the origin of the universe, he necessarily forsakes his own epistemology.
One exhibit stated that dinosaurs are still around today, only they exist as birds. Their argument for this position was that the bone structure of the dinosaurs and modern birds are similar, since they are both hollow. In addition, they said, certain dinosaurs had feathers. Therefore, they reasoned, birds evolved from dinosaurs. Of course, this is not shown anywhere in the fossil record. To make up for this lack of evidence, they argued that such bones hardly fossilize because they are fragile and hollow.
I on the other hand, believe that the fossil record does not support their theory because it didn’t happen and because fossils do not record the evolution of creatures over millions of years. Most of the fossils that we find today are the product of the great flood which occurred thousands of years ago.
This argument of birds evolving from dinosaurs because of similarities was clearly fallacious to me. Similarities between two creatures do not necessitate the logical conclusion that one of them evolved from the other. Especially if the similarities are nothing more than hollowed bones and feathers. There are much more similarities than that between a Ford truck and a Chevy. But these similarities do not necessitate the conclusion that the substance of one evolved from the substance of the other over billions of years. Rather, a common design reflects a common mind or designer. The same applies to birds, dinosaurs, and any other creature. Any similarity between them does indicate macro-evolution, but a common Designer.
Facts are interpreted by a person’s presuppositions and worldview. The same fact can be interpreted in two totally different ways. The similarities between creatures that we see in the natural world are interpreted by the naturalistic atheist as evidence of evolution only because they first presuppose an evolutionary perspective of nature. It is not the facts which are in dispute, but the interpretation of the facts based upon presuppositions. And, as has already been shown, the atheist or empiricist has no adequate starting point while the theistic presupposition is an absolutely necessary perquisite to a coherent worldview.
What the exhibits at the Perot Museum showed was that it is detached from reason and logic in its bias against God. They are advancing the fairytale propaganda of atheists like Richard Dawkins, whose imagination has run wild in vanity and foolishness. It would do our society much good, especially in the realm of science, to resurrect and relearn the laws of logic.
Furthermore, what museums like the Perot Museum fail to educate the public with is that the evidences that have been set forth for the theory of macro-evolution have been later found out to be fraudulent. Fossil fragments are found and then reconstructed using artistic license by those who want to try to make up for the lack of evidence for macro-evolution. “Lucy” is just one of the many examples of the evidences set forth, and taught in public schools, as empirical evidence of evolution. Scattered fragments were found very far apart and reconstructed, with the help of plaster and artistic license, to create a missing link. The only reason she was proclaimed as a missing link was because she supposed “could have” walked uprightly. This again shows how some scientists are biased in their analysis of the facts and illogically interpret similarities as proof for macro-evolution. Only later it is discovered that Lucy was nothing more than an ape. Many other supposed “missing links” have also been shown to be fraudulent. There is not a missing link, there is an entire missing chain. Macro-evolution is nothing more than a man-made religion that requires blind faith.
Even more recently, through DNA study it has been shown that there is no real difference between Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals, as many have been taught in public schools. Neanderthals were a group of people that had common facial and bodily features, which to us appear primitive, but they were really nothing more than a people group, like Asians, Africans, Europeans, Native Australians, etc.
What is startling is how the secular masses look at scientists as if their word is infallible. Scientists function as the high priests of our secular society. In debates and arguments, the statement “It is science” or “science says” is supposed to be an argument that settles the dispute. However, secular scientists have to keep reinterpreting the facts when their beloved theories are shown to be impossible. Scientific text books used in public school are always being updated to be new and improved. Science once taught that the earth was flat. Now, Pluto is not even a real planet! What was once promoted as scientific fact is later shown to be science fiction. This is because they do not have an adequate starting point and worldview through which to interpret the facts. The modern scientists, who have an apparent axe to grind against Christianity and an obvious bias against God, have proven themselves to be anything but credible and reliable.
Lastly, this is an excerpt from one of my ministry newsletters stating the arguments I presented at Yale University against the ridiculous theory of maco-evolution:
One of the arguments used against Christianity and the Bible on university campuses is the modern theory of evolution. When this was brought up on campus, I told the students that I had four objections to evolution. I have a logical objection, an empirical objection, a scientific objection, and a moral objection.
My logical objection to evolution is this. In a science text book, whenever macro-evolution is discussed, micro-evolution examples are used as proof for macro-evolution. Macro-evolution is the massive change or alteration of one special into another. Micro-evolution is minor changes, alterations, adaptations within species. When a person tries to prove macro-evolution with micro-evolution examples, this is a logical fallacy. Small and minor variations do not mean that massive or large alterations also occur. That would be equivalent to me saying, “I know how to rebuild the engine of a car. I’ll prove it to you. I’ll show you how I can build a bicycle.” There is no logical connection. To try to prove the one by showing the other is to make a logical fallacy.
My empirical objection to evolution was this: if we are going to limit our knowledge to our five senses, as many college students claim they do, then according to this view of epistemology we cannot believe in evolution because its process has never been empirically observed. If it is “blind faith” to believe in something that cannot be verified empirically, then it is blind faith to believe in evolution! When it comes to the origin of life all together, we cannot even address this issue nor have any beliefs on it at all if we are going to limit our epistemology to empiricism.
My scientific objection to evolution was this: effects cannot be greater than their cause. A cause is always equal to, or greater than, their effects. If it were not so, the cause would not be an adequate cause of the effects. It is scientific law that effects cannot be greater than their cause. This is not mere theory. But in the evolutionary process, effects are constantly greater than their cause. We are getting bigger and better as we progress through the evolutionary process (except for birds, which became smaller and more fragile). Therefore, the theory of evolution is at odds with established scientific law.
My moral objection to evolution is this: the holocaust. The very idea of the “Arian Race” or superior humans presupposes the evolutionary process. In the Bible, all men are created equal. But in evolution, you can have a higher evolved group of human beings. Charles Darwin book was not “The Origin of Species” as it is referred to today. It was originally, ‘The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.” And what was the “Favored Race” presented in his book? White people, whom he argued were more evolved than black people. Darwin’s theory spread like wildfire because, at the time, people were looking for a justification for slavery since Christians were seeking to ban it. Hitler was a firm believer in Darwin’s theory. Hitler’s Youth were brainwashed with the theory of evolution. Darwin’s theory of evolution gave birth to the idea of the Arian race, which lead to the extermination of millions of people thought to be inferior to those who have been more evolved. Evolutionary philosophy has killed millions.
7. Mr. Morrell, I’m truly interested in your viewpoint, and do not want to be seen as disrespectful, but why would you go to a museum that is so antithetical to your beliefs, and expect any less?
Science itself is not antithetical to my theistic beliefs. In fact, natural science is really the child of theism. In the ancient world polytheism had dominance. Under the belief of polytheism, the elements of nature were all controlled by different gods. There was the god of fire, the god of water, the god of sex, the god of the sun, etc. And often, the gods were at war with each other and changing. The ancient world had a view of the universe that consisted of anything but uniformity in nature.
However, through the Judeo-Christian worldview, a monotheistic perspective of nature replaced polytheism on a grand scale. With the underlining presupposition that there was one Sovereign God who created the heavens and the earth, who established and upholds its laws which He set in motion, there became a rational basis for the belief in the uniformity of nature.
Scientific law is based on nothing more than the uniformity of nature. And the uniformity of nature is based upon nothing more than a monotheistic worldview. If we take away the basis for the latter, we necessarily take away the basis for the former. Take away monotheism, and natural and empirical science doesn’t have a basis to stand on but becomes nothing more than an unfounded presupposition itself.
Granted, I do not expect a secular science museum to be like the Creation Science Museum I took my family to in Kentucky. However, not every secular science museum I have gone to has had an agenda to brainwash children with macro-evolution propaganda. When I go to a science museum, I expect to find scientific law not science fiction. The law of gravitation, the law of cause and effect, the laws of aerodynamics, and the laws of physics are examples of what I expected to find at the Perot Museum. We can study the solar system, eco-system, digestive system, reproductive system, without indoctrinating our children with wild theories like evolution.
Macro-Evolution, which is unscientific and unverifiable with empirical methods, is hardly scientific theory let alone scientific fact. Unfortunately, much of the Perot Museum has shown me that it is really a Sci-Fi Museum. If I wanted Sci-Fi, like the Perot Museum presented, I would watch Planet of the Apes or the X-Men. However, if I want scientific facts, I will apparently have to go elsewhere than the Perot Museum.
It is far from being unreasonable to believe that all that we see is the product of the intelligent mind of an infinite God, but it requires a lot of blind faith and imagination to believe the fairytale that everything magically evolved over billions of years from a single molecule, with no intelligence from a Creator or Designer at all. “In the beginning God” is a far more reasonable starting point for a coherent worldview than the irrational assumption of, “In the beginning a single molecule.”
In conclusion, the existence of God is not the real question. Neither is evolution. The existence of God is an obvious fact and the evidence lacking for evolution is laughable and it is a wonder that it is taught in any rational society. The real problem is that our society is wicked and sinful and chooses to live in hostility towards God. If Darwin had not invented in his imagination the theory of evolution, another argument would have been created in our society against God. In an attempt to protect its sin, society attacks God. Sinners are unwilling to have God rule over them as the rightful Moral Governor of the universe. They therefore hid behind any excuse they can find for not submitting and serving Him. Yet despite man’s open rebellion and treason against God, the Lord has been very merciful and good to us. He even became a man in Jesus Christ and died for our sins to provide a substitute for the penalty that we deserve. Now God can offer pardon to our rebellious race, in consistency with the honor and authority of His law and the good of His moral universe, if we will simply repent of our sins and turn back to Him.