A reader sent us this picture of a “Creation Museum” and a medical lab side-by-side in Santee, California. Sure, it’s no diapers-and-condoms bundle, but interesting nonetheless.
Photo: LLPFREAK Shots: Creative Science
Photo: LLPPhoto: LLPNaked Self-Promotion
Keep up with the latest Freakonomics news and chatter at Big Buzz. And here's more:
- What to feed your brain and ease your commute? Business Insider says Freakonomics Radio!
- Stephen Dubner talks with Dan Schawbel at Forbes about the Freakonomics phenomenon.
- Freakonomics: The Movie is now on Showtime! It is also available on DVD
and Blu-ray
. You can also watch it on iTunes or Netflix.
- Freakonomics tops Forbes' list of books that rock the "New Author Platform".
- Daily Beast Q&A with Dubner & Levitt on SuperFreakonomics paperback edition.
- NY Mag on Levitt’s new mind-for-hire gig.
- Econ profs rank Levitt as their fourth favorite economist under age 60.
- TIME has named the Freakonomics blog one of "The 25 Best Financial Blogs."
- Freakonomics Radio has hit the air! Find out when our second season of five hour-long specials will air on your local public radio station. You can download/subscribe at iTunes, get the RSS feed, or grab our widget.
When I first saw the picture, I thought “Scantibodies” was a strip joint. That would have been even more ironic than a medical lab.
The founder of the Creation Museum explicitly rejects much modern science. Here he is brainwashing kids: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KwpkzaVjzw
I wouldn’t trust my health to a medical lab that shares a building with a Creationist museum.
Definitely stretching. Got the dander up on some folks tho, and that’s always worth the effort.
Evolutionary theory is the basis for all modern biology and all modern medicine. To reject evolution while embracing modern medicine is a weird dichotomy – not a stretch at all.
Actually Glenn, modern medicine owes much to the scientific method and to genetics but nothing to the particles to people evolutionary hypothesis.
Considering the failure of the evolutionary hypothesis to explain both the origin of life and deal with the enormous odds against complex structures assembling into even the rudimentary components of the cell places it in the camp of requiring greater faith than mine in God. It isn’t as simple as it is made to sound.
Chris, if by “rudimentary components of the cell” you mean something like amino acids, then you know not whereof you speak – they assemble readily. And any argument based on the “odds” being against something happening because it’s unlikely should take into account the millions and billions of years available for complex structures to emerge. Your attack on evolutionary science is both vague and specious.
I don’t really get why this is worth posting about. What goes on at a medical lab that would conflict with creationism? They test samples of blood/tissue/etc for various things. I know several creationists that are nurses, it doesn’t affect their ability to work in the medical field. I know a microbiologist who is an adamant creationist, it hasn’t affected her ability to publish results on West Nile virus and other things she has researched. I know many creationists; none of them have any ethical problem with going to the doctor or having surgery done.