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."
Scriptural interpretations are not arguments against scientific theories. To argue against a scientific theory you need to provide physical evidence that falsifies it.
Anthony Flew's endorsement of ID applies only to abiogenesis (in which field he is not a specialist). As abiogenesis is currently a "gap" in scientific understanding his opinion is not unreasonable, but IMHO he is as misguided as any other philosopher who thinks that they can either prove or disprove the existence of a deity by reference to the natural world. At one time we understood almost nothing about the universe, and everything was given a supernatural explanation.
The mechanisms of evolution rely on the ability of systems to make imperfect copies of themselves. Living systems are the ones that are self-replicating. A mechanism similar to natural selection has been hypothesized for the development of living systems from non-living matter, but this is a separate hypothesis and has nothing to do with evolution. Whether this hypothesis turns out to be supported by evidence is irrelevant to whether evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life. You can use similar mechanisms to explain why the planets in the solar system move as they do and to investigate the properties of black holes (ie. gravity), but they still are separate theories. The evidence for one doesn't have any bearing on the other.
2. How do the mechanisms of evolution overcome the second law [term used cautiously and advisedly] of thermodynamics or the principle of entropy?
Either you are being intellectually dishonest or you are ignorant of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics (which I believe is the exact same thing as what you call the "principle of entropy) states that the total entropy of an ISOLATED system always increases. The earth is not an isolated system. Isolated systems are defined as those in which there are no energy or matter transfers into or out of the system. There most certainly is an energy transfer from the sun to the earth. Therefore, the second law doesn't apply. Even if you consider the solar system as your system, the second law doesn't prevent evolution. The second law states that the TOTAL entropy of an isolated system must increase. This allows for the possibility of a local entropy decrease in one part of a system so long as that entropy decrease is accompanied by an entropy increase in some other part of the system. If you regard entropy as equivalent to disorder, you are not entirely correct. Entropy actually, while associated statistically with disorder, is a quantity which refers to the "spreading out" of energy. A system with more "spread out" energy has higher entropy. One consequence of this is that any release of energy from a system at high temperature into low temperature surroundings represents an entropy increase. In the solar system, there is such an energy release going on constantly, namely the sun. The sun releases energy from its surface, which has a temperature of 6000K into space which has a temperature of ~3K. This is an enormous entropy increase, more than offsetting any entropy decrease associated with evolution. BTW, evolution isn't the only example of this phenomenon of an entropy decrease spontaneously occurring. The formation of snowflakes from water vapor in the atmosphere is a process in which entropy decreases. This process is associated with the release of the heat of vaporization and the heat of fusion into the atmosphere, however, which is an entropy increase that offsets the decrease.
3. If advocates of the theory of evolution are willing to concede that this theory is subject to challenge and refutation like any other scientific theory, why are they so vociferous in disallowing any competing theory to be put forward?
What other competing theories are there? For an idea to qualify as a theory, it must meet certain criteria. It must explain all known observations, which I will grant to ID and creationism, but it must also make testable predictions which would falsify the theory if not borne out. For example, evolution predicts that all life is related by common descent. New species are found all the time. Evolution predicts that all the new species found will have polynucleotides for a genetic material. If not, then the new species is a falsification of the idea of common descent. Evolution has already survived many experimental tests. Darwin new nothing of genetics, yet his theory predicted that there must be a way that traits were inherited. Furthermore, the proposed tree of life determined by Darwin by an analysis of anatomical features is almost identical to that determined later by DNA analysis. This is predicted by evolution. Numerous other examples of evolution's predictions exist. Failure of any of these would have resulted in what technically would be a new theory (although the basics of the theory would probably not be changed, except in the most extreme examples.) ID and creationism do not share this property of evolution. There is no observation that would render ID false, for example. Presumably, to design humans, the designer must be more intelligent than we are. If that's the case, then we can't ever say that "the designer wouldn't have done this." There is no observation, therefore, that can't be explained by invoking a designer. This renders ID unscientific and hence not a competing theory. The situation is similar for creationism.
4. If advocates of the theory of evolution are not willing to admit that the theory is subject to challenge and refutation, then why do they not maintain that it is a religious belief and take it out of the realm of science
As far as I know, nobody has ever said that evolution is not subject to challenge. However, if you want to challenge it, you must do some work and present some evidence, rather than simply saying "X couldn't have evolved, so evolution is false." You must not make the mistake of assuming that, even were you able to totally refute evolution, that the default "theory" would automatically become ID. As explained above, ID is not a scientific theory and would never be accepted as such by the scientific community. If you want to challenge evolution, come up with an alternative SCIENTIFIC theory and do some research and find some evidence that supports that theory. Remember, if your alternative is actually scientific, it will make some predictions. Do some research to see if these predictions actually hold true. If you do this and actually find a theory that explains observations better than evolution does, then fame and Nobel prizes await. In actual fact, ever since evolution was proposed by Darwin, scientists have done exactly that. The only problem is that no other explanations have made testable predictions that have been found to be true. That has led to the state of affairs today in which evolution is on very firm ground. It has survived all challenges.
It IS a fact that the allele frequencies of the gene pools of populations of organisms change over time. That is the definition of the term evolution. Therefore evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is the theory that uses the fact of evolution to explain the diversity of life. It states that the variation over time in the gene pools of a population of an organism can lead to the formation of new species, and that all of the different types of organisms that exist came into existence in this manner. That is the theory of evolution. Actually, both are subject to challenge. In science, facts are simply observations that have been made repeatedly. They are subject to challenge. For example, new observational methods might be developed that lead to different observational results from the old methods. As a simple example, it was once taken as fact that the planets were simply stars that moved. Once telescopes were invented and spectroscopy was studied, we found out that this was not true. Planets and stars are actually very different things. The confusion in the case of evolution comes from the fact that the same term is used for both the fact and the theory. Both are subject to challenge, though, and both have been challenged by scientists over the last 150 years. The modern theory of evolution is actually a different theory from that put forth by Darwin, so these challenges have been at least somewhat successful. The changes are in the details, however, and thus far nobody has successfully challenged the basic principles of evolution.
If you have the letters ABCDEFG and then a mutation occurs and you now have ABCDEFGH, is there not new information? Not all mutations are point mutations (ie. changes in a single base pair), there are additions and deletions as well.
and duplications ABCDEFGHABCDE
"The flood happened we are told for a specific reason, in Genesis 6:2 this "the daughters of men" should actually be the daughters of 'the' Adam - Heb. h'adamah, not the same word, Adam used in the first chapter of Genesis."
It is the same word. Ha is the definite article the. You are saying that the word President is not the same word when used with the-the President.
Your other remarks are weak do to similar gaps in knowledge.
"Check out what this word "beguiled" really means, and you will see, well maybe."
Whatever you think beguiled may mean, evolution is a fact and there was no world wide flood.
That does add just a bit more information, doesn't it?
There are also passages that are figures of speech. We know for example, that the rising and setting of the sun, or the four corners of the earth, cannot be taken literally. There is nothing in the context to say these are not literal; we judge then to be non-literal because we have independent knowledge that they are not literally true.
But how do we have this independent knowledge? From historical texts we know that many people once took them literally. I will bet that few posting here have independently confirmed the heliocentric theory of the planetary system. So why do we now assume that the Bible is engaging in figurative speech?
The answer is that we have hundreds of years of accumulated research by the science establishment, and most of us accept the authority of science over the literal word of the Bible. The evidences of our senses, combined with centuries of accumulated reason, inform our interpretation of the Bible. We do not take, as an article of faith, the rising of the sun.
Shubi, I have a few questions, all along the same line, that I'd like to ask in order to understand where you are coming from.
Did Jesus walk on water, raise truly dead people to life, restore sight to truly blind people, etc.?
Did Jesus speak to the elements and they obey Him when He calmed the storm?
Did God use Peter, in Acts 9, to raise a truly dead person to life.
Were the handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched Paul in Acts 19 used to actually heal people who were sick and to drive actual demons from those afflicted by them?
Bottom line, Shubi: Is there interaction between the natural (what can seen, felt, touched, tasted or bought down at the 7-11) and the supernatural (that which cannot be explained by science) on this planet we inhabit?
After the serpent beguiled Eve and Eve informed God that the serpent beguiled her, then God cursed the serpent, who formerly wasn't a belly crawler, to crawling on his belly and eating dust.
A change took place at that point.
I know you are trying to do some convulsions to make it say something else. Unfortunately the scripture consistently presents the fact that the serpent beguiled Eve in the Garden of Eden, which led to Adam choosing to disobey without having been beguiled, thus passing on original sin through the "seed of man". Hence, Jesus Christ being the "seed of the woman" and not having the taint of original sin. Born of a virgin.
It all ties together neatly, without convolutions. As God intended, even a child could understand from reading it.
Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
Death was conquered on the cross defeating Satan's dominion over man. A critical blow executed by the "seed of the woman" Jesus Christ, thus described as "bruise thy head". Jesus Christ died on the cross, however conquering death, He resurrected from the dead, described in Gen 3:15 as a non-critical blow "bruise his heel".
This literally is how it happened.
What adds information?
What does your interpretation of the Bible have to do with AIG making a museum full of distortions and prevarications?
Duplication of a sequence adds a bit of information. (Later mutations may add more.)
"Bottom line, Shubi: Is there interaction between the natural (what can seen, felt, touched, tasted or bought down at the 7-11) and the supernatural (that which cannot be explained by science) on this planet we inhabit?"
Yes. But this has nothing to do with the fact that AIG is calling something a museum that has few facts in it.
Gen 1 is poetry, too. So, bondserv should take that all figuratively.
"I know it is easy to see them that way as often the message is hated and the hatred for the message is transfered to the messenger"
Yeah, there is nothing like accusing someone of hate, when trying to evangelize them.
What does this have to do with the fact that AIG is a fraud?
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.