Posted on 12/07/2010 8:55:07 AM PST by wmfights
A proposal to build a theme park that would feature a life-size replica of Noah’s Ark has set off a controversy in Kentucky that is worth watching. Within days, the controversy had spread to the pages of The New York Times and USA Today.
So, who’s afraid of Noah’s Ark? Lots of folks, it seems, but the editors of the state’s two largest newspapers, in particular.
The “Ark Encounter” is a major project to be undertaken by a partnership led by Answers in Genesis, the group that built the Creation Museum in northern Kentucky — an attraction that has now recorded over a million visitors by some reports. The attraction, also to be built in Kentucky, is to include live animals and a 100-ft tower of Babel.
The partnership has applied for incentives under the Kentucky Tourism Development Act, and Governor Steve Beshear announced plans for the park at a news conference in the Kentucky State Capitol.
Then . . . the deluge.
The Courier-Journal of Louisville editorialized that the project would amount to “creationist tourism” that would embarrass the state by featuring “a fundamentalist view resting on biblical inerrancy [that] indirectly promotes a religious dogma.”
The editors asked, “Why stop with creationism? How about a Flat-Earth Museum? Or one devoted to the notion that the sun revolves around the Earth?”
An op-ed column in the same paper lamented with frustration the fact that the proposed theme park was just another reminder that “only 39 percent of Americans believe in the theory of evolution.”
Meanwhile, the state’s second-largest paper, the Lexington Herald-Leader, declared: “Anyone who wants to believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible has that right.” But, the paper added, the state would be embarrassed by appearing through its governor to embrace “such thinking.”
The paper reported that Daniel Phelps, president of the Kentucky Paleontological Society, called Gov. Beshear’s support of the project “embarrassing for the state.”
The editorial boards of the state’s two largest newspapers seem to be very embarrassed indeed. Gov. Beshear kept his comments fixed on economics: “The people of Kentucky didn’t elect me governor to debate religion,” he said. “They elected me governor to create jobs.”
The proposed theme park is expected to attract 1.6 million visitors in its first year, bringing a $250 million annual economic impact within five years.
The most interesting aspect of this controversy isn’t the proposed theme park, but the panic among the commonwealth’s self-appointed guardians of evolutionary theory.
So who’s afraid of Noah’s Ark? Now, we know.
Is it using tax dollars?
No theme park should ever get tax dollars.
While I agree with you, it happens all the time. Tax breaks and incentives are given to companies to lure their business (and jobs) to a city. If some are getting their panties in a wad over a boat, then stipulate in the contract that no incentives will be used for that section of the park.
The state offers grants for developing real estate that then pays property taxes.
If it's not true, what does the NYT have to worry about, right?
The incentives are for any business not specifically for this. So that shouldn’t be a problem.
Something that applies to all companies shouldn’t be a problem.
Whats next cutting taxes only for non-Christans?
If the creationist museum isn't pulling in anywher near that then why should they believe the theme park will do better?
We’ve got a mosque going up courtesy of federal grants at Ground Zero, but the New York Times is afraid of a Noah’s Ark replica in Kentucky.
Makes perfect sense. /s
I think this is a great idea. i hope the funding is obtained regardless if it gets government help or not. As long as such a program exists I have no problem with a Christian group applying for it.
If someone wants to start such a business, shouldn't they be able to? If it succeeds, good for them. If it fails, so be it. Why is this editor so afraid of someone starting a business?
“..self-appointed guardians of evolutionary theory.”~ Mohler, Jr.
“Which theory of evolution are you talking about?
“...What is the significance of such a theory? To address this question is to enter the field of epistemology.
A theory is a metascientific elaboration distinct from the results of observation, but consistent with them.
By means of it a series of independent data and facts can be related and interpreted in a unified explanation. A theory’s validity depends on whether or not it can be verified; it is constantly tested against the facts; wherever it can no longer explain the latter, it shows its limitations and unsuitability. It must then be rethought.
Furthermore, while the formulation of a theory like that of evolution complies with the need for consistency with the observed data, it borrows certain notions from natural philosophy.
And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution.
On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based.
Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist, and spiritualist interpretations. What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology.
Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider _the spirit_ as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person. ...”
Excerpted from:
Theories of Evolution
John Paul II
Copyright (c) 1997 First Things 71 (March 1997): 28-29. Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, October 22, 1996
05/25/2007 “http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1839540/posts?page=22#22
There's big money invested in evolution.
I didn’t see any outcry on the Titantic museum in Branson.
Exactly right!
Because it challenges their humanist orthodoxy. It drives non believers up the wall that their confused view is not blindly accepted by all. Imagine the damage it does, to their world view, when children can walk inside a copy of Noah's Ark and see how large it was and that it could accommodate a large number of animals.
Flood mythology is found in every ancient culture on the planet from American Indians to China. In every one of them, only a few humans survive and those humans try and save as many plants and animals as they can. Chances are good those myths are everywhere because there was a cataclysmic event in antediluvian history. Why the evolutionists are so bigoted in their beliefs is beyond me.
Well, building the Ark was controversial the first time around.
Its my understanding from both AIG and Ark Encounter that the ark portion of the park is to be funded entirely by donation, not tax dollars. From the URL under FAQ under "How will it be funded?" is the following statement:
The bulk of the Ark Encounter will be built by the limited liability company (LLC). The Ark structure itself will be funded through donations.
"Individuals may make tax-deductible donations through the “Ark Pegs, Planks, & Beams” program, which gives everyone the opportunity to sponsor an actual peg, plank or beam that will be used to build the Ark. Sponsors will receive benefits that include a certificate of authenticity and special invitations to behind-the-scenes tours and grand opening events. Through the Ark website (ArkEncounter.com), all sponsors will have the opportunity to see the general location where their sponsored peg, plank, or beam is located in the Ark."
I've been watching the total donations rise - they've been given $20,000 pretty much just since the park was announced less than a week ago.
I thought we already did that. It's called "multiculturalism" (you know, science is white, "western," and male and must never replace the creation myths of the "indigenous pipples").
One minute us rednecks are being piled on by the rationalists. The next we're accused of importing alien western science and rationalism to "Turtle Island." And funny thing, the rationalists and the "indigenous pipples" never seem to encounter each other. Instead they just take turns beating up on us rednecks.
Just like the ol' time rasslin'--the "heels" never feud with each other.
Uhhh, the creationist project has already been done, several years ago. It has brought millions of dollars of tourism money to the state and been a smashing success on every conceivable level. The ark project has nothing to do with creationism, to the contrary, it could better be described in a context of destructionism. Finally, if it is half as successful as the creation museum was Kentucky will be much the better for it.
The partnership has applied for incentives under the Kentucky Tourism Development Act,
There's the problem.
So, a few atheist editorialists are embarrassed. Screw ‘em.
Well, then so other than they don't like the idea, what's their problem?
“How long can you tread water?”
They have the same problem liberals have - crush any dissent, silence any opposition, oppress anyone who disagrees.
You know you just shouldn't be allowed to build something that might cause people to doubt evolution and start becoming creationists who have the audacity to actually begin to believe in God???? /s
bttt
No I hate to tell you folks but this is not the embarassement to Kentucky it is you and your obivious over reaction that is the embarassment to Kentucky! Once again free thought and speech ends with the left!
Tell them Ark display includes a rainbow, that’ll shut them up.
The family stopped at the Creation Museum a couple of years ago. IMO, it was worth the stop but I don't think that I would go back. However, I will go to the Noah's Ark park if only to annoy people like the ones who wrote this article.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.