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."

[D Edmund Joaquin]

What about a triple-personalitied one

Now I see more clearly. Either he's Roseanne, or he's channeling her show. Shubi, go up on the roof and turn the antenna north

[Lucky Dog]

… Gravity is subject to the identical criticism [that it is both a theory and a fact] … physicists regard gravity as both a fact and a theory…

Bad luck, you contradicted something that I didn't say. Read my posts more carefully. I said a theory of gravity had only recently been proposed, not by Newton.

Sorry, please forgive my misunderstanding. I am afraid I missed your point on this post. I quoted you directly in the portion you had bold faced.

Perhaps, you could refer me to a cite wherein the word "gravity," meaning the phenomenon of apparent attraction of masses, is referenced meaning, in addition to the phenomenon, an explanation of how it works and calling it the “theory of gravity.” I am aware of certain postulations of “unified field theory” or cosmological theory wherein “gravity,” the observed phenomenon, is proposed to be the result of extensions of quantum theory. However, I have never read of nor heard of this or any other postulations referred to only as “gravity” using this single word, or the “theory of gravity.” However, I am more than willing to stand corrected if you can send me the reference.

[D Edmund Joaquin]

I worked in Haiti for awhile setting up a faith based health program.

Voodoo ergonomics

[tx_eggman]

Thank you Eggy, now saved for future reference. I don't know about you, but I'm certainly impressed, maybe as much as a figcake

Figcake?? Damn, you're easy. I've barely reached bran muffin level

Shub, if you're reading this, it's written in a secret code we've had to come up with because you're such a - to use your own words - Formidable Foe.

I just had a Pauline ... no, that's not a strong enough picture, make it Paulette moment, an ephinany if you will ... Shub, you don't mind if I address you as Fo-Foe from now on, do you?

[Lucky Dog]

..a theory must do two things: make a provable claim and make predictions, which both Newton and Einstein's theories of gravity most assuredly do.

I think there may be some misunderstanding here. I never said that anyone's theory (Newton, Einstein, et al) did not predict or explain the phenomenon known as "gravity." My point is a semantic one.

There is a distinction between a theory and an observed fact (phenomenon). The word, "gravity," refers to the phenomenon and not the theory, apparently unlike the word, "evolution."

As an aside, I have read Hawkin's book, A Brief History of Time. However, it has been such a long time that I could not recall any direct quotes. Therefore, I am reticent to contradict your assertion. However, I will say that I do not recall any such reference as you have proposed.

[I Gig Gar]

Personally I believe science when it comes to this discussion (No, I don't think they're a bunch of athiests...I believe they're simply scientists), but I also believe in God.

I just don't believe the bible.

That being said...I've got a friend who is a Born Again and enjoy having conversations with him on the subject. He's some kind of religious where they believe the bible is absolutely, positively literal. He says dinosaurs are nothing but really old animals that got very big because they lived so long. I guess somewhere in the bible it says people used to live 500 or 600 years. So...He says it makes sense the animals did too...And simply grew huge over time. Of course he can't tell me why humans didn't get huge.

[D Edmund Joaquin]

in a secret code

Hanks-tay, egg-tay

[D Edmund Joaquin]

Actually, some humans did get huge. If you read the bible you would know that

[bondserv]

Now I see more clearly. Either he's Roseanne, or he's channeling her show. Shubi, go up on the roof and turn the antenna north

You're killing me here.

[tx_eggman]

I also believe in God. I just don't believe the bible.

Without entering the creation/evolution mosh pit I'd like to addrress these two statements - which are really just another way of saying the God you believe in isn't the God of the bible.

The sticking point of Christian faith is what theologians call "the scandal of the particular". That is , that there is only one way to God.

Jesus made the same claim - "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father but by me."

I don't think my belief system is at odds with this. I believe that human beings have an eternal soul. I've also come to believe that there are many paths to many "Gods".

If you want to wind up with what Budda had to offer ... walk that path. If you want what the pantheism of the Hindu belief system offers... go right ahead. If you want to march to your own drummer, following as best you can your concept God, knock yourself out.

The "scandal of the particular" though, means that if I want to have relationship with the Being that Jesus referred to as "Father", I have to acknowledge my brokenness and need for forgiveness and entrust Jesus with my life.

The only way to that God and what He offers is through faith in Jesus. The claim of the God that Jesus called "Father" is that He offers eternal life in relationship with Him. The second person of this triune God demonstrated the validity of this offer by laying aside His own diety and becoming a man, offering himself as the sacrifice for my sin and then, as the firstborn from the dead, being raised by the Father to the same eternal life He offers to all. As an added bonus, because I'm forgiven, I can and do have an ongoing, cognitive, emotional relationship with this God right now.

So, at the end of this 70 or 80 year part of the life of your eternal soul, if you've followed the path of a God other than the one Jesus called Father, you may or may not get what your God offered, I can't vouch for their ability to deliver. You won't, however, get what the God that Jesus called Father has offered, in fact, since you wanted something else, you'll be separated from that God forever.

[shubi]

Words can have more than one definition depending on context. So you need to understand the context in which the fact of evolution and the Theory of Evolution are imbedded.

You might be able to come up with " a semantically pure" definition for each meaning, but not for both at the same time. I doubt however that anything is sematically pure, if I understand you. Therefore, you want an impossibly high standard, which the Bible falls far more short of than science.

[I Gig Gar]

Here's my basic problem with what you believe...

Take a preist, a pastor, a rabbi, a muslim cleric, a hindu monk, and any other "Holy Man". I know two things for sure about these people...

1) They are good people with good souls...The absolute best society has to offer.

2) Each of them thinks their's is the "One true way".


But...We have a problem, Houston...


ONLY one of their ways can possibly BE the "One true way".

So...

I'm supposed to believe the rest of these good, holy men are going to burn in hell for all eternity?

Nope...Sorry. Aint gonna happen.

So...

I don't think "Man" really does know what the "One true way" is. Of course if you've convinced yourself that yours is the one true way (And I'm sure you have), then great! Whatever makes you content and keeps you as a positive member of society...More power to you. And my God Bless you.

[D Edmund Joaquin]

Therefore, you want an impossibly high standard, which the Bible falls far more short of than science.

[D Edmund Joaquin]

Is the Ark real, Shubi

[shubi]

AIG says their's is "bible-based", too.

Taking illogical positions that contradict what any reasonable person sees is plainly true is somewhat cultish, wouldn't you say?

There is no need for you to argue against science if you interpret Scripture rationally.

The reason the Roman Catholics have the magisterium is to avoid several different bible-based interpretations of the same verse. I don't agree with your take on some of the Bible. I have given evidence of how I think Genesis should be interpreted. You disagree. But my interpretation is just as "bible-based" as yours-probably more.

[D Edmund Joaquin]

Is the Ark real, shubi

[shubi]

Biologist and Dr. of Ministry-a Renaissance man! ;-)

[shubi]

It might have been a raft with a few goats, a camel and a cow on it. ;-)

[D Edmund Joaquin]

And that's all?

[shubi]

Humans are getting gigantic now because of the blessings of McDonalds and KFC. ;-)