In the beginning . . . Adam walked with dinosaurs [Creationist Park]

Telegraph.co.uk ^ | 02 January 2005 | James Langton

[PatrickHenry]

With its towering dinosaurs and a model of the Grand Canyon, America's newest tourist attraction might look like the ideal destination for fans of the film Jurassic Park.

The new multi-million-dollar Museum of Creation, which will open this spring in Kentucky, will, however, be aimed not at film buffs, but at the growing ranks of fundamentalist Christians in the United States.

It aims to promote the view that man was created in his present shape by God, as the Bible states, rather than by a Darwinian process of evolution, as scientists insist.

The centrepiece of the museum is a series of huge model dinosaurs, built by the former head of design at Universal Studios, which are portrayed as existing alongside man, contrary to received scientific opinion that they lived millions of years apart.

Other exhibits include images of Adam and Eve, a model of Noah's Ark and a planetarium demonstrating how God made the Earth in six days.

The museum, which has cost a mighty $25 million (£13 million) will be the world's first significant natural history collection devoted to creationist theory. It has been set up by Ken Ham, an Australian evangelist, who runs Answers in Genesis, one of America's most prominent creationist organisations. He said that his aim was to use tourism, and the theme park's striking exhibits, to convert more people to the view that the world and its creatures, including dinosaurs, were created by God 6,000 years ago.

"We want people to be confronted by the dinosaurs," said Mr Ham. "It's going to be a first class experience. Visitors are going to be hit by the professionalism of this place. It is not going to be done in an amateurish way. We are making a statement."

The museum's main building was completed recently, and work on the entrance exhibit starts this week. The first phase of the museum, which lies on a 47-acre site 10 miles from Cincinatti on the border of Kentucky and Ohio, will open in the spring.

Market research companies hired by the museum are predicting at least 300,000 visitors in the first year, who will pay $10 (£5.80) each.

Among the projects still to be finished is a reconstruction of the Grand Canyon, purportedly formed by the swirling waters of the Great Flood – where visitors will "gape" at the bones of dinosaurs that "hint of a terrible catastrophe", according to the museum's publicity.

Mr Ham is particularly proud of a planned reconstruction of the interior of Noah's Ark. "You will hear the water lapping, feel the Ark rocking and perhaps even hear people outside screaming," he said.

More controversial exhibits deal with diseases and famine, which are portrayed not as random disasters, but as the result of mankind's sin. Mr Ham's Answers in Genesis movement blames the 1999 massacre at Columbine High School in Colorado, in which two teenagers killed 12 classmates and a teacher before killing themselves, on evolutionist teaching, claiming that the perpetrators believed in Darwin's survival of the fittest.

Other exhibits in the museum will blame homosexuals for Aids. In a "Bible Authority Room" visitors are warned: "Everyone who rejects his history – including six-day creation and Noah's flood – is `wilfully' ignorant.''

Elsewhere, animated figures will be used to recreate the Garden of Eden, while in another room, visitors will see a tyrannosaurus rex pursuing Adam and Eve after their fall from grace. "That's the real terror that Adam's sin unleashed," visitors will be warned.

A display showing ancient Babylon will deal with the Tower of Babel and "unravel the origin of so-called races'', while the final section will show the life of Christ, as an animated angel proclaims the coming of the Saviour and a 3D depiction of the crucifixion.

In keeping with modern museum trends, there will also be a cafe with a terrace to "breathe in the fresh air of God's creation'', and a shop "crammed'' with creationist souvenirs, including T-shirts and books such as A is for Adam and Dinky Dinosaur: Creation Days.

The museum's opening will reinforce the burgeoning creationist movement and evangelical Christianity in the US, which gained further strength with the re-election of President Bush in November.

Followers of creationism have been pushing for their theories to be reintegrated into American schoolroom teaching ever since the celebrated 1925 "Scopes Monkey Trial", when US courts upheld the right of a teacher to use textbooks that included evolutionary theory.

In 1987, the US Supreme Court reinforced that position by banning the teaching of creationism in public schools on the grounds of laws that separate state and Church.

Since then, however, many schools – particularly in America's religious Deep South – have got around the ban by teaching the theory of "intelligent design", which claims that evolutionary ideas alone still leave large gaps in understanding.

"Since President Bush's re-election we have been getting more membership applications than we can handle,'' said Mr Ham, who expects not just the devout, but also the curious, to flock through the turnstiles. "The evolutionary elite will be getting a wake-up call."

[Just mythoughts]

"Ho boy, where do you propose that this happened then?"

Gee girl, in the area known by the writer as the whole earth.

[shubi]

"You are reading a bronze-age creation myth with modern eyes. There is nothing to suggest that the originators of the bible story meant anything other than literal earth days."

Not true! Gen 2:4 clearly indicates that the "day" of the six days of creation was an indefinite period of time. So is the the 7th day.

I am fluent in Hebrew and a biologist. It is best not to speak of things outside of your expertise when fighting creationists. Then you become just like them. Like a biochemist commenting on paleontology (Behe).

[shubi]

Gen 2:4 is the clincher for indefinite period of time.

Period one, period 2 etc. ;-)

[Just mythoughts]

"I am fluent in Hebrew and a biologist. It is best not to speak of things outside of your expertise when fighting creationists. Then you become just like them. Like a biochemist commenting on paleontology (Behe)."


Very interesting admission one who is fluent in Hebrew standing along the side, knowing full well what is actually written in the original.

[shubi]

Natural selection is one major driving mechanism for evolution. We have found several others since Darwin. Remember Darwin knew nothing of genetics, a mathematical science, especially population gentics (which is what evolution is all about-populations not individuals).

[johnmilken]

People who believe men and dinosaurs walked the earth together are just dumb. I mean...words fail. But we're a broad church here, right? And such folk do add much to the gaiety of nations.

[shubi]

"Someone decided they sounded lovely way back when and added them to what we call the Bible, but the inspired word of God they most likely are not.... My memory is rusty"

Yep rusty.;-) The first two verses of Gen 1 tie to Gen 2:4 and are typical Hebrew thought poetry. Trying to separate what is inspired and what is not inspired is problematic.

However, if you take Gen 1 through Gen 2:4 and compare it to modern science, it is surprisingly close considering the nature of the Hebrew language and the unscientific people who used it.

"Let there be light" could have created everything once you understand Einstein's conversion of matter and energy formula. It is doubtful whether the Hebrews did, but God might have inspired a vision of this and it was written down as best they could. Or you can believe that God is a practical joker and salted the Earth with dino bones and strata going back millions of years to fool us. He also erased all evidence of Noah's flood. Wow, the guy is a card!

[johnmilken]

Oh yes, and [to steal a line from Bill Hicks], if dinosaurs were around with Adam you think they would be mentioned a little more in Genesis. Sharing the Garden with a few T-Rexs surely would've provided enough shock & awe for a fairly indelible impression re. Giant Razor-Toothed Man-Eating Lizards and God's plan.

[shubi]

"standing along the side" ? Nice use of the English language. LOL

[WildHorseCrash]

Have I adequately addressed your challenge?

You have defined your use of "Darwinist" and "evolutionist", and, I believe, limited your objection in this arena to the element of randomness. I trust that is your objection.

Nevertheless, my original point still stands. One may believe in evolution through natural selection (including the "randomness" element which you apparently find to be distasteful) and yet still have a profound belief in God.

Consider reproduction. It is an inherently probabilistic process and chock-full of randomness. King David, for example, was born only because a certain sperm met a certain egg. Each of his antecedents and descendants were subject to the same random process. Would there be any difficulty, in your mind, with God using this probabilistic process to establish the lineage of Jesus as set out in the Bible? Or did God have to personally direct each of these sperm to meet each of their respective eggs?

Your original post, to the effect that Darwinists are trying to exclude God from the act of creation, is simply false. Some Darwinists believe that by studying evolution, they are studying how God did it.

[Thatcherite]

"Curious then that the verses immediately following the disemb-ark-ation appear to describe appalling behaviour on the part of Noah and his family. Or is enslaving grandchildren for minor (non-existent?) offences OK in God's book?"

Well I guess we get the picture of what happens when one drinks too much.

Yes, when you drink too much you order the enslavement of your grandchildren. Bad form.

[Thatcherite]

I am fluent in Hebrew and a biologist. It is best not to speak of things outside of your expertise when fighting creationists. Then you become just like them. Like a biochemist commenting on paleontology (Behe).

You can say that, but I've heard plenty of people (both creationists and not) say that yom always refers to a literal day everywhere else in the bible.

[Just mythoughts]

Thanks!

[Just mythoughts]

"Yes, when you drink too much you order the enslavement of your grandchildren. Bad form."

Well it does make one wonder why Ham was not 'enslaved' instead of the child, since Ham committed the offense.

[safisoft]

Noah's Ark believers are FUN. They believe that God committed terracide in a completely stupid way (and then erased all the geological and genetic and archeological evidence that he had done it) that required millions of miracles when He could have just zapped all the sinful people, or created an epidemic and just made Noah and family immune.

Add our Master, to the list of those you think are "fun". Y'shua [His Hebrew name] spoke of Noah in literal terms.

Y'shua said: As the days of Noach were, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days which were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noach entered into the teivah [ark], and they didn't know until the flood came, and took them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. Matthew 24:37-39

[safisoft]

Wait a minute, there was a creation on the sixth day but 'the' Adam was not created on the 6th, he was created on the day after the 7th, the day after the Creator rested.

Only people reaching for a theory read it that way. Anyone familiar with Semitic languages and story-telling can see quite clearly that Adam was created the sixth day. Not only that, the references back to the literal six days are mentioned as the the memorial for the defining sign of God's people: the Sabbath. Deny the literal six day creation account and the fall of man, and you need to start ripping whole pages from the Bible. The people who have preserved the Scriptures as the Word of G-d have read this each Sabbath for millenia.

Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day is a Shabbat of solemn rest, holy to HaShem... Therefore the children of Yisra'el shall keep the Shabbat, to observe the Shabbat throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between me and the children of Yisra'el forever; for in six days HaShem made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.'" Exodus 31:15-17

The whole nonsense that yom does not represent a day is a ananchronistic reach. Even my three year old knows that "evening and morning" is the definition of a day. When the sun sets he starts saying, "It's tomorrow now".

[safisoft]

Or is enslaving grandchildren for minor (non-existent?) offences OK in God's book

LOL! You are the one who keeps bring up the "original" and you don't know what is said in those verses? Pick up a copy of the Talmud and read what those closest to the event think was the "minor offense". Yes, the "original" as you put it, tells the story, but like many who have grasped at that straw for too long, their preconceived ideas evade the account in the "original" language. Just a suggestion: put down your "Strongs" and learn the language before you start speaking of things you do not understand.

[Lucky Dog]

You have defined your use of "Darwinist" and "evolutionist", and, I believe, limited your objection in this arena to the element of randomness. I trust that is your objection.

You are essentially correct for the most part.

Nevertheless, my original point still stands. One may believe in evolution through natural selection (including the "randomness" element which you apparently find to be distasteful) and yet still have a profound belief in God.

The “randomness” element you cite is a limitation on God and you are correct in that I object to it. It is not that I do not believe that God created the probabilistic process or that He does not allow it to operate. It is that I do not believe that it is a constriction on His Divine Sovereignty and His ability or desire to interfere with it when He chooses.

The “randomness element” (as a restriction upon God’s ability to act independent of it) appears to be the equivalent of the “God is dead” argument or the “God created everything and then walked away from it leaving it to run on its own” argument. If God is bound by the “randomness element,” then it is impossible for Him to interfere in human events to answer prayer, punish sin, reward righteousness, bless the faithful, etc. The net impact of such an argument in terms of human morality is the same as if there is no God but “Probability.” The implications of this position go back to my first post (#75) on this thread:

“The ultimate quarrel between creationists and Darwinists is less over the meaning of words and “six days” or “young earth” versus millions of years or “old earth” than is it is over the existence of God. Darwinists try to exclude God from the act of creation and creationists insist that such is impossible. If we allow the Darwinist to succeed, the implications of excluding the Creator are morally, philosophically and legally profound.”

Consider reproduction. It is an inherently probabilistic process and chock-full of randomness. King David, for example, was born only because a certain sperm met a certain egg. Each of his antecedents and descendants were subject to the same random process. Would there be any difficulty, in your mind, with God using this probabilistic process to establish the lineage of Jesus as set out in the Bible? Or did God have to personally direct each of these sperm to meet each of their respective eggs?

I make my living as a statistician. Consequently, as you might imagine, I have no objection to any “probabilistic process,” except as some wish to apply it in the context of a limitation a Sovereign God. As to whether God “had to personally direct” (although the correct terminology, in my view, is chose to personally direct) each sperm to meet a respective egg, the answer from my perspective is a definitive yes. To believe otherwise would mean that God could not have “known” us before birth as the Bible says He does.

Your original post, to the effect that Darwinists are trying to exclude God from the act of creation, is simply false. Some Darwinists believe that by studying evolution, they are studying how God did it.

To the extent that “Darwinists” believe that evolution as a creation mechanism (and, hence, the Creator) is bound, or limited, by the mathematical laws of probability and statistics (i.e., purely naturalistic mechanisms), Darwinists are “trying to exclude God” as a Divine Sovereign. Either God can be, and is, a supernatural force in human lives and events, capable of interfering in nature on behalf, and because, of man’s prayers or sinfulness or He is bound by natural laws and, hence, not sovereign.

I await your counter argument, sir.

[nmh]

More claptrap from ignorant, agenda laden atheists doesn't make it so!

Again, there is NO objective evidence to support your godless fantasy. Dream on, though ... don't let reality get in the way.

[nmh]

A sane person can not support a hypothesis that has no scientific principles to support it. Never mind there is NO evidence to support it.