Posted on 01/14/2007 5:31:07 PM PST by Tim Long
PETERSBURG, Kentucky - Ken Ham's sprawling creation museum isn't even open yet, but an expansion is already underway in the state-of-the art lobby, where grunting dinosaurs and animatronic humans coexist in a Biblical paradise.
A crush of media attention and packed preview sessions have convinced Ham that nearly half a million people a year will come to Kentucky to see his Biblically correct version of history.
"I think we'll be surprised at how many people come," Ham said as he dodged dozens of designers working to finish exhibits in time for the May 28 opening.
The $27 million project, which also includes a planetarium, a special-effects theater, nature trails and a small lake, is privately funded by people who believe the Bible's first book, Genesis, is literally true.
For them, a museum showing Christian schoolchildren and skeptics alike how the earth, animals, dinosaurs and humans were created in a six-day period about 6,000 years ago -- not over millions of years, as evolutionary science says -- is long overdue.
While foreign media and science critics have mostly come to snigger at exhibits explaining how baby dinosaurs fit on Noah's Ark and Cain married his sister to people the earth, museum spokesman and vice-president Mark Looy said the coverage has done nothing but drum up more interest.
"Mocking publicity is free publicity," Looy said. Besides, U.S. media have been more respectful, mindful perhaps of a 2006 Gallup Poll showing almost half of Americans believe that humans did not evolve, but were created by God in their present form within the last 10,000 years.
Looy said supporters of the museum include evangelical Christians, Orthodox Jews and conservative Catholics, as well as the local Republican congressman, Geoff Davis (news, bio, voting record), and his family, who have toured the site.
FROM 'JAWS' TO EDEN
While the debate between creationists and mainstream scientists has bubbled up periodically in U.S. schools since before the Scopes "monkey trial" in nearby Tennessee 80 years ago, courts have repeatedly ruled that teaching religious theory in public schools is unconstitutional.
Ham, an Australian who moved to America 20 years ago, believes creationists could have presented a better case at the Scopes trail if they'd been better educated -- but he's not among those pushing for creation to be taught in school.
Rather than force skeptical teachers to debate creation, Ham wants kids to come to his museum, where impassioned experts can make their case that apparently ancient fossils and the Grand Canyon were created just a few thousand years ago in a great flood.
"It's not hitting them over the head with a Bible, it's just teaching that we can defend what it says," he said.
Ham, who also runs a Christian broadcasting and publishing venture, said the museum's Hollywood-quality exhibits set the project apart from the many quirky Creation museums sprinkled across America.
The museum's team of Christian designers include theme park art director Patrick Marsh, who designed the "Jaws" and "King Kong" attractions at Universal Studios in Florida, as well as dozens of young artists whose conviction drives their work.
"I think it shows (nonbelievers) the other side of things," said Carolyn Manto, 27, pausing in her work painting Ice Age figures for a display about caves in France.
"I don't think it's going to be forcing any viewpoint on them, but challenging them to think critically about their evolutionary views," said Manto, who studied classical sculpture before joining the museum.
Still, Looy is upfront about the museum's mission: to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ with nonbelievers.
"I think a lot of people are going to come out of curiosity ... and we're going to present the Gospel. This is going to be an evangelistic center," Looy said. A chaplain has been hired for museum-goers in need of spiritual guidance.
The museum's rural location near the border of Kentucky, Ohio and Indiana places it well within America's mostly conservative and Christian heartland. But the setting has another strategic purpose: two-thirds of Americans are within a day's drive of the site, and Cincinnati's international airport is minutes away.
The project has not been without opposition. Zoning battles with environmentalists and groups opposed to the museum's message have delayed construction and the museum's opening day has been delayed repeatedly.
The museum has hired extra security and explosives-sniffing dogs to counter anonymous threats of damage to the building. "We've had some opposition," Looy said.
Wow, you really do need help.
Keep it up, you are entertaining in a sad kind of way.
Woo Hoo! I love it! It reads like Bill Clinton's personal Bible.
He's got the Ten Commandments whittled down to three.
My apologies. I pinged a doppelganger.
"By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported,—and that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become,—that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us,—that the Gospels cannot be proven to have been written simultaneously with the events,—that they differ in many important details, far too important, as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eye witnesses;—by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation. The fact that many fake religions have spread over large portions of the earth like wildfire had some weight with me. But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure of this, for I can remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans, and manuscripts being discovered at Pompeii or elsewhere, which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct."
( Charles Darwin in his Autobiography of Charles Darwin, Dover Publications, 1992, p. 62. )
Charles Darwin (1809-1882)
"I think that generally (& more & more as I grow older), but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind."
( Quoted from Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1991, p. 636. )
Your hole post is taken verbatim - as you should have mentioned - from "Darwinism Refuted", written by Harun Yaha. You should have given a link to this book - or some of his other works, like:
THE HOLOCAUST VIOLENCE,
subtitled: How Did The Nazis Massacre Millions Of Jews, Gypsies And The Disabled?
What Was The Secret Agreement Between Nazism And Radical Zionism?
Frankly, if he distorts the truth here, I'm inclined to be skeptical of his other claims...
I always imagined him having a Pictorial Bible with lots of pictures of a pre-fall Eve....
If you choose to, you can, of course, provide some marginal support for your thoroughly bizarre, conspiratorial claim (that a United States District Judge lied in the body of his published opinion when he summarized the substance of the testimonial evidence).
All you need to do is demonstrate that, preceding the date of the McLean v. Arkansas decision (January 5, 1982), there were in fact scientific articles espousing creationism which were refused publication in a scientific journal.
Have at it.
That means nothing to me.
I believe very firmly that God created and designed the various systems on Earth - including the weather, evolution and the other laws of nature.
Someone else's "definition" of a belief system has no bearing on my beliefs - and I know there are millions of others who believe the same thing that I do.
ooo. a palpable hit.
you do know they don't like to be shown to be allied with muslim fanatics, right?
*grins*
of course, I'm pretty sure Bubba has only one commandment: "Thou shalt not get convicted"
lol 'quote mining' - I love it- you folks do NOTHING but read the links given- ignore the science that is present and systematically pull just the Christian related sentances and use them as some sort of wand to wave and dismiss the facts that are presented- please- do accuse me of 'quote mining' - it's amusing.
Yes, that's the quote- although it seems you've put the two together in an attempt to accuse someone of being dishonest? And you've either misquoted Darwin, or copied someone else's misquote- He didn't just say it was 'the greatest' objection, he also stated it was serious object, and rightfully so ""Why then is not every geological formation full of such intermediate links. Geology assuredly does not reveal any finely graduated organic change, and this is the most obvious and serious objection that can be urged against the theory".
Darwin answered the serious lack of transitionals later in the chapter? That's a new one to me.
This I believe.
I see you are a talkorigins devotee- I also note that they go to great lengths trying to do 'damage control' by explaining away all the objections Darwin had to his own theory- Saying things like 'presumably' or 'Darwin meant htis because____ fill in the blank" . They're attempting to vilify those who use Darwin's own quotes by doing some quote mining of their own. "Darwin must have meant htis because earlier he said so and so" (although I find their links to be quite a stretch at times.
You might find it edifying to actually read Darwin's writings, and to educate yourself as well on the rhetorical style he employed.
mmm yes, the 'rhetorical style' that says "There should be mountains of evidence' (more or less) and then "We wouldn't recognize the evidence even if we had it unless there was a near perfect chain of tansitions' (more or less)
Nothing 'rhetorical' about stating a fact and then dismissing it by stating we couldn't recognize the evidence even if we had it unless...
Of course we'd recognize steps or transitions even without a 'near perfect chain'- And it is my beleif that Darwin knew this unless he simply didn't have access to too many fossils which clearly showed lines of species. But I'm sorry- in one case he admits there should be a lot of transitions, then explains the fact that the fossil records lack transitions which should be present and identifiable away by stating we 'wouldn't regonize them unless..."? That's either blatant denial, or a lack of understanding.
How does this relate to my post?
Yes, that's the quote- although it seems you've put the two together in an attempt to accuse someone of being dishonest?
One quote? Two quotes?
You wrote: Darwin: "Why is not every ge******* and every ******* *** *** such *******? ******* assuredly does not ***** ****** ****** ******* ***** **** ******; and this is *** ***** ****** **** ****** ****** ****** ******* *** ****** ***** the theory.1" End quote-
So you presented this two sentences as a single quote - Pray, why?
And you've either misquoted Darwin, or copied someone else's misquote- He didn't just say it was 'the greatest' objection, he also stated it was serious object, and rightfully so ""Why then is not every geological formation full of such intermediate links. Geology assuredly does not reveal any finely graduated organic change, and this is the most obvious and serious objection that can be urged against the theory".
I'm sorry, yes, indeed, instead of "most obvious and gravest" I wrote "greatest". So, let's see the corrected version - straight from the source:
Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.
Ups, Darwin even had a "perhaps" in it - which you missed... and than this chain/change thing....
But that doesn't mean - necessarily - a misquote - as different editions may slightly differ.
Darwin answered the serious lack of transitionals later in the chapter? That's a new one to me.
Therefore you should read Chapter 9: On the Imperfection of the Geological Record . Yes, the link goes to talkorigins, as they have posted Darwin's "The Origin of Species ".
Virtually every word Darwin wrote -- all his published works, and even his private letters -- are available online in searchable format.
http://darwin-online.org.uk/majorworks.html
Even images of his handwritten manuscripts are available in case there is a dispute over a word or two.
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.