Posted on 01/02/2005 12:20:11 PM PST by 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."
Apparently, you will accept historical events as factual, notwithstanding that they can't be experimentally repeated. Fine. You've receded from your earlier position. This is progress. Moving along ...
The theory of evolution attempts to discover the history of life on earth, so that we can understand how the species we see today came to be. Evolution is the study of the history of life on earth. But instead of examining documents, gravestones, battlefields, and ruins of cities, evolution studies the evidence that living things have left behind. But it's still history.
As to the "why" question, well, evolution essentially trys to understand what happened, and how it happened. The "why" issue is in the domain of theology.
trys = tries. (A rare typo.)
Let me expand on that slightly:
As to the "why" question, well, evolution essentially trys to understand what happened (those are the facts), and how it happened (that is the function of the theory). The "why" issue is in the domain of theology
Not at all.
There is no logic that dictates the the "beginning" of our human race was the same "beginning" of Gen 1:1.
It is sort of amazing to me how many people who chafe at the Godless doctrine of evolution will then turn their backs on any scripture that gives a perfect explanation for pre-Adamic man.
It is astounding to me that so many people falsely, and knowingly, equate evolution with godlessness. Such fear and panic is a window into their mind - or rather, echoes their fear and panic at having to use their own minds.
The theory of evolution attempts to discover the history of life on earth, so that we can understand how the species we see today came to be. Evolution is the study of the history of life on earth. But instead of examining documents, gravestones, battlefields, and ruins of cities, evolution studies the evidence that living things have left behind. But it's still history.
As to the "why" question, well, evolution essentially trys to understand what happened, and how it happened. The "why" issue is in the domain of theology.
The problem with that line of thinking is that "historical events" have eyewitnesses. These eyewitnesses provided all the forms of documentation you listed. They saw what happened and knew the "how" - and then they told us so.
If we had no written documentation of the Civil War, if all we had left were a few guns, chains, maybe even a uniform or two I wonder what modern historians would conclude? The chances are probably slim that the conclusions would resemble anything close to what we know happened during that period of time.
Without any eyewitnesses, evolution is forced to make assumptions about what "must have" happened in the now-unobservable past. In my opinion they are faulty assumptions.
I would say that you and I are both pretty solid on what we believe and why. I'd like to think you could be convinced with scientific evidence & superb logic that points to a Creator. I'm sure you'd like nothing more than for someone on the opposing side to do the same re: Evolution. But I believe that no matter what evidence you are presented with, your worldview would force you to find a different interpretation of the evidence.
After all, that's really the heart of the debate. It isn't that "creationists" and "evolutionists" have no evidence. Both have the exact same evidence but the worldview each side has determines the interpretation. My contention is that my worldview, based on the Bible, is the most appropriate and best fits the evidence - historically, culturally, and scientifically.
So while you and I, or you and others, could go back-and-forth about "evolutionary" or "creationist" evidence, I think it would be more beneficial to examine what your worldview is and why you believe it to be the best one to use when examining the world (again, historically, culturally, AND scientifically).
Since you are always dealing with the "how" would you mind sharing what you think is the "why"? I mean no disrespect; I'm just curious. Forgive me if you've posted this at length on another thread in the past. These threads tend to get a bit too big to follow thoroughly.
Re: time. In Ecclesiastes 3:15, after the "time for every purpose", God reveals through scripture, "That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already been; and God requireth that which is past." This reveals to us that God's view of time is a "lump sum", not individual events linearly sequenced one after another (as we understand time).
It's extremely important to grasp this concept so as not to fall into the trap of "confining" God to time and space. They (time and space) are creatures much like we are, subject to the command of the Sovereign.
Regards,
Az
1. Having provided you with the references, one an encyclopedia, and the other an article on the scientific method, do you still maintain that either of these are “a creationist crapsite?” If so, please explain your rationale. No….
I accept your apology.
s--I didn't apologize.
2. … If you are not such a human, then exactly why is your opinion on matters not subject to scientific proof any more valuable and worthy of acceptance than any one else’s opinion? Using your criteria, experience, education, wisdom and knowledge are useless to anyone. I reject your assumptions.
It is not my assumption that was under question, but yours (clearly shown by your failure to directly answer my question). You have assumed that your “experience, education, wisdom and knowledge” are so much greater than mine or anyone else’s that you are entitled to make arrogant pronouncements that what others regard as mere theory is not theory but fact. My question is still on the table, as yet unanswered. Care to have another go at it?
s--No, I answered your question. You are disrespecting me and I have seen no evidence you understand the subject we are debating.
3. Who or what “created” evolution (not the theory but the “fact” by your interpretation)? Is this “evolution creator,” if you maintain such exists, bound by the naturalistic processes posited by the theory? If you maintain that there is no “evolution creator,” please explain how the process came to be. Probably indirectly God created evolution. Directly God created everything, but neither you nor I know how He did it and we never will. I posted this same answer to you before.
I obviously failed to understand that you posted a reply to me in those words. Please accept my apologies.
I believe in a Creator God, but I don't have to believe nonsensical Bible misinterpretations to do it.
You have entered into the world of faith with this comment. What you chose to believe is certainly your option. However, your choice to denigrate the beliefs of others is nothing beyond rude arrogance. I chose to disagree with your beliefs and will attempt to politely convince you that you may be in error. However, sinking to the level of insult in the area of faith is counter-productive.
s--So, you don't believe in God. I see no insult in my statement, unless you consider truth an insult.
4. As I think you will find that the topic is still listed in the legitimate scientific community as the theory of evolution not the natural law of evolution, how is it you feel that you have the authority to pronounce it fact rather than theory?
Science does not really use the concept of Law anymore, except perhaps in math where definitive proofs are possible. A theory in science is the highest status of scientific knowledge.
It is not a guess or a hunch. Creationists try to demean the word theory by applying the colloquial meaning to the word. If you want to argue science, you must use the terms of science as science defines them.
Please note the following quote from a dictionary definition (not listed as a colloquial definition):
noun: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena (Example: "A scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory")
It would seem that, again, your experience, education, etc., is at variance with others. Do you have reproducible, scientific experimental results that incontrovertibly verify the “theory of macroevolution?” If so, could you please refer me to them. If not, will you concede that the “theory of evolution” remains potentially subject to valid scientific dispute?
s--Your definition is not the scientific definition. Here is an explanation of the scientific definition and a link that might help you understand the subject of evolution and scientific theory.
Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.
- Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p. 434
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
Creation is not included in the Theory of Evolution. It is just not there. When creationists say it is there and argue against it, it is a strawman. In fact, it is a classic big fat elephant in the room strawman.
I seem to recall the Mueller experiment (sorry, the name may be hyphenated but I cannot recall the other chap at the moment) as part of some biologist’s attempt to, in fact, do just what you say is not the case. Nonetheless, I will accept that you do not include it in your understanding of the theory. However, you are lumping all creationists into the same generalization. It should be obvious to you from posts on this thread, alone, that such is not the case. Perhaps, just as you refuse to be lumped in a generalization with which you disagree, you should limit your statements to that which you know and have clearly identified when making generalizations about others, even if they are “creationists.”
s--Ulrey abiogenesis is a hypothesis. The experiment was not successful. Creation is not in the Theory of Evolution and it is not my "understanding" only. It is all science's FACT that CREATION IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION.
Go through the whole talk.origins site and educate yourself on science. Then we might have a productive discussion instead gratuitous snide remarks.
Were there breedings and births on the boat? Were they inundated with rabbits? Maybe that's what the lions ate.
Ecclesiastes 3:14&15 already summed up your post.
And I love ya too!!! ;-)
This has been beaten to death over dozens of threads. What you call macro-evolution is nothing more than the cumulative effect of numerous instances of micro-evolution, which I assume you accept. You accept micro-evolution because you can literally see it happening from one generation to the next. You can't live long enough to see the cumulative effect of tens of thousands of generations -- except in the case of bacteria.
But macro-evolution doesn't need to be experimentally reproducable, any more than the history of France does. There's an enormous body of evidence that these things have happened. And I doubt that we'll make any more progress this evening.
Gen 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought [them] unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that [was] the name thereof.
We have a few contextual restraints:
1. Adam lived a specific number of years and died -- doesn't sound mythological.
2. God created one of each of the living creatures out of the ground for Adam to name -- The beginning requires naming of animals.
3. It wasn't good for Adam to be alone -- meaning there were no other people in existence, hence the creation of Eve.
4. The Bible always treats Adam as the first man -- Consistent with all of scripture, Paul makes it crystal clear for us in:
1Cr 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit.
&
1Cr 15:47 The first man [is] of the earth, earthy: the second man [is] the Lord from heaven.
5. If death occurred prior to Adam's disobedience, then the cross is irrelevant as a remedy for sin.
Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
One would have to go against a mountain of scripture to tweak the facts to discount Adam as a real man at the beginning of the creation of our universe. Many Christians are afraid to discount the Word of God in favor of ever changing scientific thought. Especially theories that differ from a common sense view of reality.
Ah ... no eyewitness, therefore no possibility of knowledge. This is the operative principle which drove the OJ jury to its conclusion.
Tell me ... there is a great circular depression in the ground near the town of Winslow, Arizona. It has the name of Meteor Crater (but don't let that prejudice you in what I'm going to ask). As far as I know, there are no eyewitnesses to the creation of that depression in the ground. So ... where does that leave us? We'll never know what caused it, huh?
Since you are always dealing with the "how" would you mind sharing what you think is the "why"? I mean no disrespect; I'm just curious. Forgive me if you've posted this at length on another thread in the past.
Science doesn't have any means of learning the "why" of evolution. And I'm not a theologian. I have no opinion about this. At least, none that I could rationally defend.
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.