Religion defines Science
The Dinosaur Den suggests the Bible does not mention dinosaurs because the term wasn't invented until the 1800s. Some signs make accurate claims (that humans and dinosaur bones have not been found together) while others suggested less logical negative evidence that dinosaurs could still exist. Click for a larger image. (Photo credit: C. Thomas IUPUI Earth Sciences).
What happens when Religion attempts to define Science? Pseudoscience and the Creation Museum.
The Creation Museum is a good example of pseudoscience; where information that doesn't follow the scientific method is purported as science. Remember that science can only know the natural, physical universe through observation and measurement. While the ideas presented at the Creation Museum are logical in terms of philosophy, the ideas are not logical in terms of science.
In the picture above, the question is: “Is it possible that a living dinosaur still exists on earth in some remote part of the world?” If we think, we can certainly determine a scientific study to test this. Our hypothesis could be: “If we observe a living dinosaur, then it exists.” If we can observe a dinosaur or dinosaurs and count them (measure them), then we can know that they exist.
With technology such as camera phones and satellites roaming over space, canvassing the Earth thousands of times over, it would not be difficult to find a living dinosaur, if one or a herd of them existed. However, the phrasing of this question is more along the lines of philosophy: the question is phrased “is it possible.” Because, as the McLelland states, “scientific explanations are probabilistic,” no scientist can ever say with 100% certainty that a dinosaur does not exist, and seriously, based on DNA evidence, some scientists would say that dinosaurs do exist but in an evolved form (ever watch the ending to Jurassic Park?). So is it possible? Yes. Yes only because there may be an infinitesimally small probability that even with all of our technology we may not be able to detect (or observe) the one living herd of brontosauruses still roaming the Earth. But is it probable? No.
November 2004 cover of National Geographic. Click the image to go to the article. You can also view the response from Creationists magazine and decide if their evidence is real, imagined, or out of context. To answer the question: No, Darwin was not wrong.
But because the question on the exhibit is stated to evoke a kind of scientific logic: “We found extinct plants, therefore, we could find extinct animals still alive” it gives a sense of credibility to the belief that dinosaurs still exist. This type of inductive logic is not science and can never be science because, again, science can only know through the scientific method. Science can only know what is observable and measurable. It is the equivalent of saying, “I found a penny on the ground; therefore, I could find a million dollars on the ground.” Sure, it is possible, but not at all probable. The idea is more formed out of a hope or belief than anything that science can support.