Ken Ham poses with dinosaur models in his unfinished $25 million Answers in Genesis museum.
Posted on 05/23/2005 3:29:06 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Ken Ham has spent 11 years working on a museum that poses the big question - when and how did life begin? Ham hopes to soon offer an answer to that question in his still-unfinished Creation Museum in northern Kentucky.
The $25 million monument to creationism offers Ham's view that God created the world in six, 24-hour days on a planet just 6,000 years old. The largest museum of its kind in the world, it hopes to draw 600,000 people from the Midwest and beyond in its first year.
Ham, 53, isn't bothered that his literal interpretation of the Bible runs counter to accepted scientific theory, which says Earth and its life forms evolved over billions of years.
Ham said the museum is a way of reaching more people along with the Answers in Genesis Web site, which claims to get 10 million page views per month and his "Answers ... with Ken Ham" radio show, carried by more than 725 stations worldwide.
"People will get saved here," Ham said of the museum. "It's going to fire people up. If nothing else, it's going to get them to question their own position of what they believe."
Ham is ready for a fight over his beliefs - based on a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis, the first book of the Old Testament.
"It's a foundational battle," said Ham, a native of Australia who still speaks with an accent. "You've got to get people believing the right history - and believing that you can trust the Bible."
Among Ham's beliefs are that the Earth is about 6,000 years old, a figure arrived at by tracing the biblical genealogies, and not 4.5 billion years, as mainstream scientists say; the Grand Canyon was formed not by erosion over millions of years, but by floodwaters in a matter of days or weeks and that dinosaurs and man once coexisted, and dozens of the creatures - including Tyrannosaurus Rex - were passengers on the ark built by Noah, who was a real man, not a myth.
Although the Creation Museum's full opening is still two years away, already a buzz is building.
"When that museum is finished, it's going to be Cincinnati's No. 1 tourist attraction," says the Rev. Jerry Falwell, nationally known Baptist evangelist and chancellor of Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va. "It's going to be a mini-Disney World."
Respected groups such as the National Science Board, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Science Teachers Association strongly support the theory of evolution. John Marburger, the Bush administration's science adviser, has said, "Evolution is a cornerstone of modern biology."
Many mainstream scientists worry that creationist theology masquerading as science will have an adverse effect on the public's science literacy.
"It's a giant step backward in science education," says Carolyn Chambers, chair of the biology department at Xavier University, which is operated by the Jesuit order of the Catholic church.
Glenn Storrs, curator of vertebrate paleontology for the Cincinnati Museum Center, leads dinosaur excavations in Montana each summer. He said the theory of dinosaurs and man coexisting is a "non-issue."
"And so, I believe, is the age of the Earth," Storrs said. "It's very clear the Earth is much older than 6,000 years."
The Rev. Mendle Adams, pastor of St. Peter's United Church of Christ in Pleasant Ridge, takes issue with Ham's views - and the man himself.
"He takes extraordinary liberties with Scripture and theology to prove his point," Adams said. "The bottom line is, he is anti-gay, and he uses that card all the time."
Ham says homosexual behavior is a sin. But he adds that he's careful to condemn the behavior, not the person.
Even detractors concede that Ham has appeal.
Ian Plimer, chair of geology at the University of Melbourne, became aware of Ham in the late 1980s, when Ham's creationist ministry in Australia was just a few years old.
"He is promoting the religion and science of 350 years ago," says Plimer. "He's a far better communicator than most mainstream scientists."
Despite his communication skills, Ham admits he doesn't always make a good first impression. But, that doesn't stop him from trying to spread his beliefs.
"He'd be speaking 20 hours a day if his body would let him," said Mike Zovath, vice president of museum operations.
Ham's wife of 32 years agrees. "He finds it difficult talking about things apart from the ministry," Mally Ham says. "He doesn't shut off."
Ham said he has no choice but to speak out about what he believes.
"The Lord gave me a fire in my bones," Ham says. "The Lord has put this burden in my heart: 'You've got to get this information out.'"
He'll claim that links to such papers were presented in a previous post, which he'll reference. When you point out that there were no links in that post, he'll tell you to read it again. Later, he'll deny ever making such a claim.
"People with any brains and any interest in living in an educated society will not stand for this foolishness."
Intriguing statement. So you will buy the blue states votes by muzzling the First Amendment expressions of Bible-believing Creationists (whom you believe are uneducated, brainless fools)?
Welcome to the Brave New World of VadeRetro?
What on earth are you babbling about? The explanation for him is that he's a charlatan. Yes, shocking as this revelation may seem to you, charlatans exist.
This sweeping under the rug of "well, isn't it nice that science showed that science was wrong" is awfully convenient.
Science didn't show that science was wrong. Please refer back to my post #110 about this statement. What science showed was that a scientist was wrong. To be more precise, it showed that a scientist probably fabricated claims.
If you're going to call Christians to task for the Ken Ham's of the world, you've got to answer for the Prof. Protsch's.
You have your answer, and only in your fevered imagination was anyone evading it.
Nice "Christ-like" ad hominem attack, there, Brother! </SARCASM> I'm sure our Lord is proud of you for that one!
I firmly believe that God Almighty DID create all there is -- and that Genesis I describes his mighty works perfectly well. All I did was describe your misinterpretation of the Hebrew "yom" -- which leads you to to assume a nasty and aggressive posture of defense of your sinfully puny opinion of the majesty of our Creator and His works.
BTW, you never responded to my #50. FYI, all but two of those "spots" are not stars, but galaxies at least as large as the one of which our Solar system is but an significant speck.
And don't give me the "We and Earth must be the center of God's Ceation, because he sent His Son here to save us" bit.
I praise the Lord that He did come to save you (and me) -- but he did so because we were sinners...not because this miniscule corner of His creation is "special".
But not by you. How do you explain the scientific climate that allowed such a fraud to be accepted dogma in evo texts, and became a significant 'branch' overnight, when science is supposed to be so dogged about it's 'peer review'?
I'd love to hear your explanation.
Read post #125, and jump in on your detailed explanation, if you wish. The more the merrier.
nmh is a known liar, hence his demonstratably false claims. See my previous post for a past example of his shameless dishonesty.
Did somebody violate the poor baby's First Amendment wights? How? By saying the poor baby didden tell da twoof?
Who is muzzling you? You make claims. The claims are exposed as false. You come back dumb as a stump on another thread with the same BS. And so proceed.
That is the nature of the contest: whether a lie truly can circle the world while the truth is pulling its boots on. I might be tempted to muzzle you, but I can only show the lurkers that there are no good pennies in the little piggy bank of creation/ID mantras.
I beleive in a God that created this universe from nothing. Those that want to believe that the universe created itself, and that they are descendents of slime can celebrate their beliefs as well.
Hey Dimensio, how's it going?
I haven't been on one of the threads in a while. Good to see you're still pulling for your home team.
That's an odd, unfounded claim you've made, isn't it? Have you ever asked my opinion on whether I put up with Christian frauds? Have you ever read anything in any of my numerous threads that would indicate that?
Then why, in the name of intellectual honesty, would you promulgate a lie in the form of an accusation?
Tsk, tsk, tsk.
We need to go to the 'quiet time' corner, so we can let all of our feelings out without disrupting the class.
It's fascinating that you admit the truth of my suspicion when you said "...I might be tempted to muzzle you,..."
That's how totalitarianism is conceived.
We should remember all the times you've exposed creationist frauds. Since nobody thus far seems to, it should be a trivial exercise to link some of the many cases of this.
I suspect you'd make a crappy King of the Universe as well. Fact remains, your complaint is something that never happened.
I am all for civility, and I try to keep my cutting remarks to a minimum, but neither side is particularly innocent of offense. However, I do not believe if these threads were made more polite through agressive moderation that they would attract more than a minority of posters.
You've heard it, you just don't like it.
He got away with it for a while, then got caught. System works. It's also self correcting. His stuff won't be in new books nor will it be referenced in new articles.
Scientists recognize the fact of bias, human error and human frailty. We correct mstakes as fast as we find them. We also don't care. If it was one time carelessness, grants diminish or disappear; if it was fraud, jobs do. Speed of acknowledging error and working on corrections helps a bit if it was carelessness. Done. Next.
And your answer to my question was...................................................................................?
(still waiting)
Like pretty much any other field, someone who is determined to misuse his 'authority' will be able to do so for a time. Your utterly bankrupt argument can be exposed quite easily by analogy: Bill Clinton's misdeeds as president were not an indictment of the presidency or of our constitutional system, but rather an indictment of the man.
This scientist obviously made a name for himself by conducting proper science, and then misused the authority he'd thereby been granted for whatever unknown reason (perhaps for personal renown, or perhaps for nationalistic reason, or whatever).
I wait with bated breath. Whatever that means.
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.