If you’ve been following this site (e.g., here and here), you’ll know that the National Trust got into hot water when it put up some creationist views (for “balance”) at the Visitor’s Centre exhibit at the Giant’s Causeway in Northern Ireland. Many of us objected on the grounds that that creationist material gave false credibility to a scientific “controversy” about the age of the earth, and was at any rate included only because of pressure from creationists. Our emails to the Trust were rebuffed politely (see second link above), with the trust asserting that it was by no means giving young earth creationism a boost.
That, however, was belied by the boast of the creationist Caleb Foundation, which lobbied for the creationist inclusion (for a hearty chuckle, read the Foundation’s “statement of faith”):
We fully accept the Trust’s commitment to its position on how the Causeway was formed, but this new centre both respects and acknowledges an alternative viewpoint and the continuing debate, and that means it will be a welcoming and enriching experience for all who visit.
This is, as far as we are aware, a first for the National Trust anywhere in the UK, and it sets a precedent for others to follow. We feel that it is important that the centre, which has been largely funded out of the public purse, should be inclusive and representative of the whole community, and we have therefore been engaged in detailed and constructive discussions with the Trust in order to secure the outcome we have today.
Now, however, reader “Bonetired” informs me that the National Trust may be rethinking their unwise move. Their website now states this (my emphasis):
The display in question focuses on the role that the Giant’s Causeway has played in the historical debate about how the earth’s rocks were formed.
Our intention in this section was to provide visitors with a flavour of the wide range of opinions and views that have been put forward over the years.
Our intention was not to promote or legitimise any of these opinions or views.
Unfortunately, elements from this part of the display appear to have been taken out of context and misinterpreted by some.
A spokesman said: “Having listened to our members’ comments and concerns, we feel that clarity is needed.
“There is clearly no scientific debate about the age of the earth or how the Causeway stones were formed.
“The National Trust does not endorse or promote any other view.
“Our exhibits, literature and audio guides for visits to the Causeway stones and this renowned World Heritage Site all reflect this.
“To ensure that no further misunderstanding or misrepresentation of this exhibit can occur, we have decided to review the interpretive materials in this section.”
If the National Trust wants any credibility, at least in its commitment to the truth, it had better just deep-six the young-earth stuff. Yes, as the Caleb Foundation crowed, it was a first for the National Trust in the UK. Let it now be a last. There can be no compromise with the fact that the Giant’s Causeway is old.
Lawl. “Clarity” isn’t what’s needed. The constant farcical showing of ‘balance’ that continually puts any crackpot wingnut’s favorite mythology alongside the overwhelmingly vast amount of scientific knowledge that unequivocally demonstrates the age of the world and how its life forms diversified. It makes the enterprise of sharing actual knowledge with the population at large a rather hardscrabble affair because there exists some strange knee-jerk inclination to always want to present ‘alternate’ views (or ways of knowing?).
Um, that should have read ‘diversified needs to stop’.
Many thanks Jerry … much appreciated. Will keep everyone up to date as to developments. A member of the FB group (CS)has been invited to write a new description which avoids the creationist guff ….
https://www.facebook.com/groups/263351503764526/
There is a strong feeling that the group will continue, albeit possibly in a different form, to fight against future loons.
“future loons”
These people give actual loons (genus Gavia) a bad name.
The hope is full removal. Unfortunately we may just see a wishy washy statement beside the offending display stating that the national trust does not support or endorse the creationist view and accpets science then you really have to go why did you include it in the first place?
Who was involved in the discussion? Was any politcal pressure brought to bear on the NT? Was funding used to pressure them into accpeting this “compromise” and why in a historical section to they need to have a modern context beyond the science is settled.
If they do end up changing it expect the cry of persecution from creationists to be loud. This was always a win/win scenario for them
It’s the way they make you feel like a person!
Dear McKevitt
Thank you for getting in touch about the new Giant’s Causeway Visitor Centre.
We have been receiving a large number of views via email and social media expressing concern that the Trust is somehow endorsing or promoting creationism in our new interpretation at the Giant’s Causeway.
Our new exhibition and outdoor audio guide clearly set out the science of the Causeway’s formation and shaping – that the Causeway is around 60 million years old.
There is one small exhibit in the visitor centre which briefly references creationism. It was our intention to present this view in the context of an historical debate about the age of the Earth.
However we recognise that many people have written to us concerned that the wording of the exhibit suggests that there is an ongoing debate in science about the formation of the Causeway – we are trying to listen to these views and take account of them. The National Trust is very clear that there is no debate in science.
The Trust’s approach is focussed on our visitors and members. We always try to respond to their feedback about how we present information and stories where we can. We have therefore decided to review the interpretative materials in this small section of the Visitor Centre.
You can find out more about this here:
http://ntpressoffice.wordpress.com/2012/07/18/giants-causeway-visitor-centre-interpretation-statement/
We hope this addresses your concerns.
Regards
Customer Enquiries Team
Dear Mr McKevitt,
Just a quick note to apologise for the fact that our last email to you didn’t have your proper title at the front, as per your ‘ps’. I can assure you that we are trying to read and reply to all emails personally. We are dealing with a very large volume of correspondence on this issue. We are a small team in Northern Ireland, please bear with us.
I will pass your specific comments on to my colleagues who are undertaking the review. I hope that it will go some way to dealing with your concerns.
Best wishes,
Andrew on behalf of the NI Customer enquiries team
Interested parties can comment on the NT site:
http://ntpressoffice.wordpress.com/2012/07/18/giants-causeway-visitor-centre-interpretation-statement/
The National Trust obviously had a serious believer in the media department.
I am going to post these two links without any comment.
https://www.facebook.com/jim.wells.5015
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Wells_(politician)
This is accomodationism of anti-science rather than accomodationism of non-science. It’s disturbing and in my own letter (posted elsewhere here in JC’s first link above) to the trust I noted “Give them an inch, they’ll take a mile”!
Such remarks might belong in an exhibit devoted to the ->history of<- science, but that is not the National Trust's mandate (as I understand it). They're supposed to be about science, period!!
What a relief. It’s good to see the sane folks over in the UK working to stop the stupid before it gains a foothold, unlike in the US where it has been allowed to fester, like a disease, and now runs huge chunks of government and the flow of grotesquely large sums of money. If only the mindset was there early on in this country to not just stop the theocrats at the door, but meet them there angrily with a can of mace and slobbering pit bulls.
We do our best!
Nice nickname! Very funny Frank Herbert Dune reference.
Do they have other mythological explanations at the exhibit? And are these explanations grouped together? If they want to include the various explanations people have come up with over time that’s fine. But don’t put the Celtic or Norse or Whathaveyou explanations presented in one area or in one way and the creationist ones another – and certainly creationist views should not be contrasted to with or in anyway associated with, juxtaposed against known science.
Okay, I found this: Here is the audio transcript: “Like many natural phenomena around the world, the Giant’s Causeway has raised questions and prompted debate about how it was formed.
This debate has ebbed and flowed since the discovery of the Causeway to science and, historically, the Causeway became part of a global debate about how the earth’s rocks were formed.
This debate continues today for some people, who have an understanding of the formation of the earth which is different from that of current mainstream science.
Young Earth Creationists believe that the earth was created some 6000 years ago. This is based on a specific interpretation of the Bible and in particular the account of creation in the book of Genesis. Some people around the world, and specifically here in Northern Ireland, share this perspective.
Young Earth Creationists continue to debate questions about the age of the earth. As we have seen from the past, and understand today, perhaps the Giant’s Causeway will continue to prompt awe and wonder, and arouse debate and challenging questions for as long as visitors come to see it.”
NOT AT ALL ACCEPTABLE.
And there is no way to take this “out of context.” I don’t have much hope that without continued and growing pressure they will change this. They need to be totally honest about what they did, why they did it and they need to undo it.
It would be out of context if prefaced by the phrase “We’d be silly if we said….”
“Unfortunately, elements from this part of the display appear to have been taken out of context and misinterpreted by some.”
Don’t tell me they were actuallay surprised.
This may be the right time to infect readers with an important meme: when some fundie yaps about “teaching the controversy”, the correct reply is “there is no controversy.”
The Creationists got it all wrong. The Causeway was built and then destroyed when Finn McCool broke it apart to keep Benanonnen from coming back. There was great disagreement between the two giants and when “Ben” walked over the causeway to Ireland, he looked into a baby carriage where Finn was lying in disguise. Finn jumped out and Ben took off back to Scotland. Finn ran after him hurling pieces of the causeway at him destroying it completely. Everyone in Ireland knows that. So they should post that too so that visitors will also know exactly how the current causeway was created.
It has the myths, it also has a huge amount of the science in various displays. It had an historical section with various characters giving sound bites on the historical debate, then changes to the present tense with something from the Discotute or AiG.
Hmm, balance. How about:
“Oh, and by the way, some people think the Giants’ Causeway is only thousands of years old, but they’re ignorant.”
It was Finn McCool
http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/the-national-trust-remove-creationist-exhibit-from-the-giants-causeway-visitors-centre-2?utm_campaign=share_button_modal&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=share_petition
While the letter is not the best it would help if it got to 5000.