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.
"We now know that this is far too simplistic a scenario," says Harvard University paleoanthropologist David Pilbeam. "Although climate change is a more likely factor, we simply have too little data to explain such a singular event in human history."
So, what? Science in progress, the investigation is ongoing.
you are corect, I should have seperated the two with quote marks- I failed- but the 'quote miner' article on talkorigins tries to make it look as though people are being deceitful when in fact the two quotes show that Darwin had problems with the lack of transitions which he correctly deduced should be extensive. The article on talkorigins then goes on to imply that Darwin's circular reasoning settled the matter of doubt in his own mind when nothing Darwin stated after those quotes indicates such is the case- simply that he he attempted to play devil's advocate and by proposing somethign that I suspect Darwin himself wasn't even convinced of- namely that transitions wouldn't be recognized. Darwin had done enough investagotory work to recognize that you could infact recognize fossils- that is what he based his whole theory of 'natural selection' on- fossil record observation.
There are many quotes by darwin which expressed his concern with both his hpothesis and the lack of transitions both in his book and in letters he wrote- as I said before talkorigins try to explain them all away by in many cases doing the same thing they accuse others of- quote mining
But alas- this diversion from the topic of the thread really does boil down to nothing but a rabbit trail that will lead nowhere- but let me be clear- although I beleive Darwin had doubts (which talkorigins seems to imply he didn't) I don't think darwin once gave up on his pursuit despite the doubts- that's not at all what I'm trying to sugfgest or imply (althouygh I feel he should have been more honest about the severity of the fact that lack of transitions was somethign that had to be dealt with in an honest manner- not simply brushed aside by stating we couldn't recognize them if we had them)
That assumes his handwriting was legible.
It's assumptions like that that prove evolution is only faith.
581- Yuo can dismiss the serious hurdle of 'too little information' (althouygh if the paleo were honest he would have added, "and too much that argues against what evidence we think we have") as 'science in progress'? Yet you assign the tittle 'faith' to Christian science because they haven't got concrete evidences which can difinitively point to creation, and call their science 'psuedo-science'?
Yes but he smoked opium and had a lobotomy before doing so- so... can we really trust him to have been accurate?
J/k
Pilbeam is talking about the lack of information for the happening of a certain event at a certain place - that's the hypothesis.
So I can dismiss this hurdle as I dismiss the unsubstantiated hypothesis with it - and that's how science works, yep....
Yet you assign the tittle 'faith' to Christian science because they haven't got concrete evidences which can difinitively point to creation, and call their science 'psuedo-science'?
If you'd ever were willing to dismiss a hypothesis - like this global flood thing - it would be less pseudo.
Really? And you've been able to dismiss it baSED on what now? Definitive proof against it? Because last I checked- there is still serious debate with evidences both for and against it in the science realm- Shall we call secular sciece pseudo-science simply because they beleive an asteroid slammed into the earth and wiped out all live practically? Despite the fact that while one 'may have' slammed into the earth that caused a global problem, it can't be determined that animals were around during that time- it can be hypothesised that they were, but evidence is scant and methods used for dating so flawed that nothing difinitive can be presented to end the argument. Seems to me, those on the secular side are allowed their beleifs, and are exempt from the title psuedo- while the Creation side isn't allowed their beleif despiute the fact that beleif aside, their science is as sound as secular scientists... yep....it sure do...
Is that what you call a mere mention, an afterthought really, of the inability to spell; an obsession?
Aren't you concerned that DLR might be insulted that you are more concerned with KP's mention of spelling errors than the claims of libel against DLR?
The definition of naturalism.
Ah, the ubiquitous argument by dictionary.
I find it interesting that an all powerful God should be limited in his abilities by the vagaries of a human language.
Like it is unusual?
If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meagre evidence we've got he'd surely say, "forget it; there isn't enough to go on.""
Now that is impressive, a quote of a mined quote of a quote.
The original quote was from a paper by Richard Leaker from 1981 where he complains about the paucity of hominid fossils at that time:
Biologists would dearly like to know how modern apes, modern humans and the various ancestral hominids have evolved from a common ancestor. Unfortunately, the fossil record is somewhat incomplete as far as the hominids are concerned, and it is all but blank for the apes. The best we can hope for is that more fossils will be found over the next few years which will fill the present gaps in the evidence.' The author goes on to say: 'David Pilbeam [a well-known expert in human evolution] comments wryly, "If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meagre evidence we've got he'd surely say, 'forget it: there isn't enough to go on'." (Richard E. Leakey, The Making of Mankind, Michael Joseph Limited, London, 1981, p. 43)
I also suspect that if you find the original quote by David Pilbeam you will find that he was making the same complaint, that the number of fossils at that time were few and that his quote was made several years before mention in Leakey's paper.
The person you are quoting, without attribution I might add, seems to think that Pilbeam's complaint about the lack of fossils means there is no scientific foundation for human evolution, (which Pilbeam did not say) yet fails to mention that neither Pilbeam, nor Leakey doubted the evolution of humans.
I suspect that if you look you will find that there have been a number of hominid fossils found since that time and many of those newer finds include more than just the skulls.
Of course, there will be competing hypotheses - until one is widely accepted.
Shall we call secular sciece pseudo-science simply because they beleive an asteroid slammed into the earth and wiped out all live practically? Despite the fact that while one 'may have' slammed into the earth that caused a global problem, it can't be determined that animals were around during that time- it can be hypothesised that they were, but evidence is scant and methods used for dating so flawed that nothing difinitive can be presented to end the argument.
So, what's to do? We have to look for more evidence, invent new methods of investigation and enhance our knowledge.
Seems to me, those on the secular side are allowed their beleifs, and are exempt from the title psuedo- while the Creation side isn't allowed their beleif despiute the fact that beleif aside, their science is as sound as secular scientists... yep....it sure do...
To paraphrase a great American: believe, but verify!
I thought it stung - you can tell it by the way it is ignored... Running Wolf got immediately into the "and-now-for-something-completely-different" mode.
I take my bible literally. However, I have not taken the time, sat down and tried to figure out the "time table" myself. The bible does state that most of his people will be deceived. Since He says most, I believe that's "both" sides. Instead of us fighting about who's right and who's wrong, why don't we just ask Jesus when he comes back? He will be back soon, so we won't have to wait for long. Meanwhile, we can save all our good fighting energy against our real enemies.... libs, atheists, actually, they go hand in hand. =)
Hate to break your bubble:
The "Lady Hope Story", published in 1915, claimed that Darwin had converted to Christianity on his sickbed. The claims were refuted by Darwin's children and have been dismissed as false by historians.[120] His daughter, Henrietta, who was at his deathbed, said that he did not convert to Christianity.[121] His last words were, in fact, directed at Emma: "Remember what a good wife you have been."[122]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin
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.