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."

[bondserv]

You sound locked into the idea. I will leave it at that.

[bondserv]

How do you know whether the stars were cast to earth, or whether this is a figure of speech, or a metaphor?

Isa 28:10 For precept [must be] upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, [and] there a little:

As the Isa 28:10 passage above states, the Holy Spirit used a sophisticated encryption method to distribute the truths contained in the scripture. "...here a little, [and] there a little:". Our modern understanding of information preservation has enabled us to transmit information over a hostile medium.

The "...here a little, [and] there a little;" method forces a person to regard the entire scripture as a whole in order to circumvent misrepresentations of the meaning intended by the source. Many cults have arisen from the tendency of people to disregard portions of scripture. Basing doctrines on a less than grounded representation of the entire revelation. Similar to algorithmic methods of distributing the same information in multiple places to insure integrity, the goat herders from 2,000 years ago may not have realized their complicity in the overarching project.

So Regis, my final answer is:

Jos 1:8 This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success.

1Ti 4:15 Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all.

[Lucky Dog]

Unfortunately it [“evolution”] is both, because the same word is used for two things.

Thank you for your very well constructed reply. I sincerely appreciate your efforts at a civil discussion and your willingness to politely repeat your self for my benefit. Nonetheless, the portion of your remarks I have extracted and shown above, illustrates my point perfectly.

Forgive me if you think I am straining for semantic purity in the definition of “evolution.” My demand for such semantic purity of those advocating “evolution” as a “fact” stems, in part, from similar demands made of me. Please note below how some on this thread have been critical over the semantics I used when encapsulating the entropy principle. Note the exchanges below:

[from my post] Sir, the entropy principle, simple stated [emphasis mine and not in original post], is that all systems (without intervention) progress from organization to chaos or from more complex to less complex, if you will

[reply to my post] Go look up "closed system", "heat transfer", and "The Sun" and you just might learn why it doesn't apply to the Earth, the sustainment of life, or the process of evolution.

[different reply to my post] You've stated the second law incorrectly.

The quarrel of these responders seems to revolve around my stating all systems (without intervention) rather than the term “closed system.”

After being referred to a reference cite by one of these responders, I replied with the following:

[from my subsequent post] I ask you to explain how the following quote from your own cite is materially different from my statement:

[excerpt from the referenced cite included in my reply] There is a tendency in nature to proceed toward a state of greater molecular disorder. This one-sidedness of nature produces irreversible processes. (p. 347)

That response of mine generated the following (excerpted) post from one of the previous posters:

[reply to my post] We simply question your motives, your education, and/or your native intelligence…

…Other than your manners (generally meaning a lack of the usual foaming-at-the-mouth outrage that anyone with a lick o' sense could ever espouse the godless, liberal, atheist-causing, basic-communist-principle, Nazi-belief-inducing, Quetzoquatl-producing, Yog-Sothoth-aligned theory of evolution) and your vocabulary and writing style, you sound like the run of the mill, Creationoid, fundamentalist, nutjob to me.

Now, I will admit that a potentially interesting debate could have easily ensued over my statement concerning applicability of the entropy principle to the process of evolution. Some who disagreed with me could have postulated that “evolution” does not, in their analysis, take place “without interference,” i.e., it occurs in an “open system” rather than a “closed system.”

However, these posters apparently decided that a personally insulting attack over semantics was more appropriate. Consequently, I hope you will please excuse my insistence on semantically “pinning down” a very exacting definition of evolution as an observed fact (e.g., gravity) versus a theory explaining an observed fact (e.g., Einstein’s Theory of Relativity). Saying that evolution is both a fact and theory subjects it to the semantically valid criticism that word used to mean to conflicting things (i.e., immutable fact or changeable theory) creates confusion rather than scientific clarity.

[shubi]

"Saying that evolution is both a fact and theory subjects it to the semantically valid criticism that word used to mean to conflicting things (i.e., immutable fact or changeable theory) creates confusion rather than scientific clarity."

So what? It may not be clear to you, but it is clear to us scientists. Because you cannot accept a truism makes it no less true.

[Lucky Dog]

Well, I'll guess I'll just leave you with a few "truisms" to think on:

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

"We have grasped the mystery of the atom and rejected the Sermon on the Mount....The world has achieved brilliance without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants." --5-Star General Omar Bradley

"To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible." --St. Thomas Aquinas

[shubi]

To save time, I post an excerpt of something I posted to someone almost just like you:

In any event, having you talking about theology and unable to admit any science that contradicts it is not worthy of discussion. I would advise you not to participate in threads where science is involved and you might lose your "faith".

You also might consider that if biology destroys your faith, your faith may need some improvement. It is illustrative of what I have noticed about many on your side of this "debate". They are afraid to accept the facts of science because they are afraid they will lose Salvation.

If they really understood Christian theology, they would know God's Grace does not work that way. It matters not if you believe science or not, you are only saved through belief in Jesus Christ.

God doesn't care if you think yom is 24 hrs or the Ark was real. He doesn't care if you think evolution was created by Him , either. He only cares about one thing.

[Angry Enough]

Excuse me? What picture?!

[tx_eggman]

Thanks Shubi, I've been wondering for years what lol meant.

I can die in peace now.

[KimmyJaye]

When this article was first posted there was a picture of President Bush in his flight suit. It was part of the campaign for donations. I didn't realize at the time that the photos' alternated.

Anyways, the photo in question was Bush in the flight suit. ;-)

[Angry Enough]

Woof. I had that as my background for awhile. *sigh* A real man. What a nice idea!

[tx_eggman]

Heads up, Shub ... incoming

Link to Another Thread for Ranting

[Lucky Dog]

To save time, I post an excerpt of something I posted to someone almost just like you:

Sir, to my knowledge, we have never met face-to-face, nor have we ever had an audible conversation, nor have we exchanged personal correspondence. Consequently, I can, with confidence, assert that you do not “know” me nor I, you. Therefore, it is absolutely amazing that you can “leap to a conclusion” that I am “almost just like” anyone else beyond a minimal amount of information I have revealed in posts on this thread.

To the extent you may have “electronically chatted” with someone else having multiple degrees, multiple professional certifications, who has taught for more than one university, supervised research projects, likes to challenge (as should any professor of graduate students) those who hold “theory is fact” and does not believe the Bible is “nonsensical,” I suppose that, indeed, you could say you may have “posted to someone almost just like” me. However, the remainder of your post attempts to give me advice on matters of faith and science as though you “know” in detail the tenants of faith I espouse.

Beyond my statement on the Bible, you “know” nothing of my faith. Nonetheless, it appears you think you have correctly inferred a great deal concerning my faith from my statements of challenge in previous posts. Consequently, it may come as a rather huge surprise to you that I do not disagree in principle with any of the statements in your most recent post.

Unfortunately, your use of the personal pronoun, “you,” in stating these principles implies that you, are either inarticulate or, more likely, from the tone of your previous posts, have concluded that the advice is relevant directly to “me,” personally. If this “cognitive leap into the unknown” truly applies to you, it betrays far more arrogance than merely that of ignorance on your part. Consequently, let me recommend a couple of proverbs to you:

Condescension ill suits a man of intellect, educated or otherwise. - Anonymous

O be very sure
That no man will learn anything at all,
Unless he first will learn humility. - Lord Edward Robert Bulwer Lytton

[wireman]

"Everybody be nice."

Nod, nod, wink, wink...

[Thatcherite]

"Saying that evolution is both a fact and theory subjects it to the semantically valid criticism that word used to mean to conflicting things (i.e., immutable fact or changeable theory) creates confusion rather than scientific clarity."

Gravity is subject to the identical criticism. There is a fact of gravity (as described by Newton's Laws and Einstein), and there is a theory of gravity (only recently proposed and only understood by a tiny minority, amongst whom I am unfortunately not included). Do you object to gravity being referred to as a fact and a theory too?

In any case, regardless of your semantic objections biologists regard evolution as both a fact and a theory, just as physicists regard gravity as both a fact and a theory. Perhaps you should start a campaign to have either the fact or theory renamed, but I imagine that that would lead to even more confusion.

The main reason why the semantic argument is important is because so many laymen regard the word "theory" as being analogous to "wild-assed-guess", which is not the case for scientific theories.

[Thatcherite]

Oops, post 794 was to you, not Shubi, I won't repeat it, its right above this one!

[BikerNYC]

Your analogy to gravity is a good one. We experience gravity every day. It is a fact. Newton's Theory of Gravity lasted a long time before Einstien's Theory of General Relativity did a better job at explaining things. Einstein's Theory, however, has weaknesses and, perhaps, String Theory might do better at explaining some aspects of gravity.

[Thatcherite]

Your analogy to gravity is a good one. We experience gravity every day. It is a fact. Newton's Theory of Gravity lasted a long time before Einstien's Theory of General Relativity did a better job at explaining things. Einstein's Theory, however, has weaknesses and, perhaps, String Theory might do better at explaining some aspects of gravity.

I am not sure that you are quite right (except where you say my analogy is good ;) ). Newton didn't have a theory of gravity. All he did was describe what happens. A theory is about how things happen and Newton had no idea; I believe that a theory of gravity has only very recently been proposed.

Darwin's remarkable contribution to science was to simultaneously demonstrate the "what" and propose the "how" of evolution, both the fact and the theory.

[BikerNYC]

I think you are getting into "whys" not "hows." Newton did describe how gravity happens. He had a great idea of how. It happens, he said, because any mass in the universe has the property of attracting every other mass in the universe. That's why there is gravity. And he then went on to postulate the equation that related the force of gravity and the masses of the bodies being attracted.

He could have tried to base his theory on some sort of magnetic repulsion from the heavens that causes things to fall to the Earth, but he didn't.

True, he didn't say why mass attracts other mass, but that's of no particular moment. Einstein theorized that mass warps space and that's why a mass feels an attraction to another mass, but he doesn't explain why it is that mass warps space. It simply does.

String theory suggests that the force of gravity is so weak compared the other forces of nature because the energy of gravitons, and not of other force carrying particles, is able to leach off the membrance that is our universe into higher dimensions. But it doesn't say why this is so. It just is.

[js1138]

As the Isa 28:10 passage above states, the Holy Spirit used a sophisticated encryption method to distribute the truths contained in the scripture...

So you are saying that simple declarative statements in the bible can only be correctly read by cryptographers?

How do you know Genesis isn't encoded, and how do you know the interpretation of Genesis doesn't need to conform to observed reality?

[bondserv]

So you are saying that simple declarative statements in the bible can only be correctly read by cryptographers?

Yes and no. I would posit the idea that separate from having the indwelt Holy Spirit as a result of a belief in Jesus Christ's propitiating death and resurrection, a person will not have a desire to invest the necessary time it takes to study the depths of our Creators chosen revelation to mankind. Listening to a CD that skips around gets frustrating. Without belief, the Bible appears as mostly frustrating nonsense.

God gives believers a 128 bit encryption scheme, whereas non-believers are limited to a 64 bit scheme. The 64 bit scheme enables some discernment of truth, but lacks the transformative power of knowing the source is above reproach. By refusing the basic message of repentance and belief in Christ, the 64 bit person seeks to fill the void in their life with knowledge, material gain, sex, drugs, overworking... the standard stuff the world pawns off as fulfilling.

1Cr 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

1Cr 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

1Cr 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

Rom 10:3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: