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.'"
Peer review is ultimately self correcting. It's not a single person or group doing the review, it's various people and groups throughout the community. That's why methodology makes up so much of a published paper; numerous other people will be replicating your research to determine if your conclusions are accurate. Sure, one or two folks might be in on a conspiracy to further some questionable findings, but it will eventually be discovered.
Creationism vs. evolutionism threads are not the exception to the rule. There are the threads about the Civil War^H^H^H War Between the States and Abraham Lincoln, there are the threads about Linux vs. Windows, Immigration threads, Drug War threads used to be huge nasty things, Keyes and Buchanan threads, there are so many. Certainly these threads are not unique by any stretch. In fact, they used to be much worse a few years ago, and often had post counts in the thousands.
Well stated, for any academic discipline!
I don't think this thread has the legs for 7,000 posts, but it always is interesting. Sort of like the difference between a 4 week vacation, and a stop at a park for a picnic.
They're both good, but for different reasons.
My favorites are the pornography threads -- the battle heats up between the libertarians and the nanny staters.
Nor do any other Creationists. They are like the moderate Muslims and just keep silent.
I am not religious about anything. Indeed, as far as science goes, I frequently entertain iconoclastic ideas and take very little on face value. FWIW, I often like to provoke discussion just because I want to debate ideas, even if I'm not entirely sold myself on a POV I choose to argue (that's not what I'm doing here, though).
Peer review is what it is: peer review. It is not some omniscient automaton minutely cross-checking every detail of every account. It is one of several 'checks and balances' designed to ensure validity over the long run. Just like a peer reviewer for a history tract cannot revisit every citation to confirm accuracy or check for plagiarism, a peer reviewer for a science treatise doesn't repeat the study himself.
To some extent, the peer reviewer inevitably must rely on the reputation of the researcher, whatever the field, because everything can't be done in duplicate and triplicate. An undergraduate has less leeway to 'get away with things' than does a doctoral candidate than does a tenured professor. You get the idea. Well, you probably don't, but whatever. (I say that because I doubt you want to get the idea.)
For instance, I have an enormously healthy skepticism about what I read in religious journals, which must undergo 'peer review'. Do you read science journals with the same skepticism? Or do you receive it as gospel?
I receive nothing as "gospel"... If you had followed my posts over the years on FR, you would probably not doubt that. In fact, I like to have my ideas challenged as forcefully as possible, because it compels me to reevaluate them and improve the accuracy of my world view.
FWIW, I do find it disconcerting that this was not uncovered earlier. The system did fail even if the failure has now been corrected.
Hasn't happened in years, since I finally got PatrickHenry more or less educated in what evolution does say. We on the evo side do actually argue points and correct each other on minor issues. We tend to agree on the major stuff.
There have been evo posters who made me cringe a bit whom I let slide for the kind of reasons you mention. In fact, I tended to Bozo filter one who was banned perhaps two years ago, about the same time a wild group of creationists was tossed. However, I don't countenance fraud.
The fact is, I can't think of an example of fraud in an evo post on FR, never mind me personally exposing one. Even the furniture-chewing guy who was banned was always getting things upside-down but obviously didn't realize it. Several times I stepped into his arguments to clarify things, but I'm always doing that anyway, even if I'm the one messed up.
Yep, youre right.
There are so many things going on here at Fr that I often wonder what am I missing out on.
I just hoped that these would be the the model for the others...I'll keep praying about it.
These writings shed light on acts of God, without which science cannot exist, let alone an orderly universe complete with human intelligence to observe and communicate about it.
Hi Junior. How's it going?
Yeah, I agree that 'peer review' is ultimately self-correcting, but the operative word is 'ultimately'. And that's the worrisome part.
It's taking a long time to correct the biblical errors of the Catholic Church that were committed in the Dark to middle Ages. These errors have been extremely resistant to correction, at least amongst the average person to whom the accepted dogma doesn't come to him/her from a respected journal.
So, while the corrections are ultimately being made, it's the errors that remain imprinted on the formative conscious of the person who learned them (in a class or wherever) and then has gone on with his/her life and never revisited the subject.
You and I are the fortunate ones. On these topics, our curiousity knows no end. On other topics for which we have no curiousity however, I fear we are stuck with whatever we learned 20 years ago (or however long it may have been for you).
I don't think there's a good solution to these potential manipulations though. Ours is a world where a premium is placed on speed, innovation, and discovery. Often the quality of depth is at least partially sacrificed on that altar.
And I will give you a concrete example. About a month or so ago I was arguing quite forcefully in support of the single-origin 'out of Africa' model of Homo sapiens evolution. Now, in light of some articles I've just read the past couple days, I have provisionally suspended my acceptance of that to reconsider the multiregional hypothesis. That doesn't mean I've rejected the former. It means that my confidence level is somewhat diminished and I intend to revisit alternative viewpoints whenever I have the opportunity.
I got off to a slow start. It's not easy when one is raised in the voodoo tradition.
More dishonesty, really? I'm getting really sick and tired of creationists who have the unmitigated gall to tell me that I am rejecting God simply because my religious beliefs conflict with theirs. Give me a break. You can beleive what you want, that's what the 1st amemendment says. However, don't try to misrepresent my beliefs in order to score debating points, especially when what you are debating against is a scientific theory, and attacking the supports of that theory does nothing at all to attack the theory itself.
HMmmm..............
If they get around to choppin' yer head off; let me know.
I'll agree with you that ignorance of the state of the art (in whatever subject) informs opinion to a greater extent than it should. However, we should never cater to this ignorance. Indeed, one of the purposes of these threads is to bring people up to speed on the latest and greatest. On threads on subjects with which I have only a passing knowledge, I try to do a little research before making any statements -- my ignorance has gotten me into trouble more than once.
Hey, Doc, what's up? (I've always wanted to say that)
"Nor do any other Creationists. They are like the moderate Muslims and just keep silent."
Part of the reason for that is the concept that 'an enemy of my enemy is my friend'. The same for the evo camp.
I see some wild-eyed accusations made by evos against Creationists, and (heavens forbid) proponents of ID! Rarely do I see someone within the Evo ping list smack down another evo supporter. Rarely do I see someone within the Creation side take another supporter to task, either.
Perhaps the mood, and histrionics, of these threads could be mollified some if there was some 'imposition authority' within the two camps.
"On threads on subjects with which I have only a passing knowledge, I try to do a little research before making any statements -- my ignorance has gotten me into trouble more than once."
Agreed. My experience too.
Two questions for you:
1) Why do we get smart so late, and old so soon?
2) Why is ignorance so easy? To propagate the human race correctly, ignorance should be really hard.
And one pithy reminder:
Wise men think alike, and fools seldom differ.
That's really admirable. Truly.
I've gone through a similar experience from the other side of the river here.
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.