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.'"
Perhaps you should.
The basic argument is that the current model of Egyptian chronology is flawed.
I see. Well, your link appears to discuss Moses, not Noah. Whatever the case may be, I gave you both pharaohs to work with depending on whichever biblical timeline (that I'm aware of) fits your preferences. Look on the bright side, that gives you twice the opportunity to explain the mystery of aquatic pharaohs!
I'm also not sure about the Pyramids. The second article claims they were built after the flood. I remember reading, but not sure where, that some of the pyramids show evidence of massive water damage. Not sure which is right.
Probably neither.
Creation ping list
See my profile for info
By pushing the teaching of creation as some Christians see it in the public schools, Creationists are indeed using taxpayer dollars. Creationists are also using them in funding these pseudo-debates, legal actions and so on.
There are not a whole lot of scientists from India, China or Japan opposing evolution. They have their own journals to publish in, so if there was a real case, we'd see some fascinating articles from one of these places.
Accepting Creation as an act of faith is an honorable thing. Pushing pseudo-science is not.
There is no reason to be teaching the religion of evolution to kindergardeners.
No one teaches religion to kindergartners (in the public schools), and no one teaches evolution to kindergarteners, either. Although ... adding this claim to the list creationist fatuosities might be a good idea.
One of the things I love about FR is that I learn something every time I log on!
-------------------
According to HistoryBuff.com, you are correct:
-------------------
OTOH, (years ago) I read somewhere that ol' P.T. adopted and adapted the saying after it was directed at him. His version supposedly went:
P.T.B.: "There's one born every minute!"
Sucker: "One what?"
P.T.B.: "Hello, there, Sucker!"
-------------------
True or not, it (like the "Egress" gag) sounds like something PhineasT. would have delighted in doing... '-)
"BTW, it is not for my honor that I believe...instead I give God the honor he deserves for his creation."
I am seriously puzzled by that sentence as a response to my comment that accepting Creation by faith is an honorable thing whereas pushing pseudo-science is not.
My intended interpretation is that is it *because* someone is honorable, not in order to acquire honor.
A lot of what is published on Creation advocating sites is clearly dishonest, and I cannot reconcile that with any religious precepts that I know of outside of the Islamic permission to lie to infidels. Certainkly nothing in Christianity.
Creation Science is practiced by grabbing rocks to throw at evolution. It doesn't matter if one rock says Archaeopteryx is a fake, one says it is just a bird, and another says it is just a dinosaur. You're not supposed to pay attention to that, anyway. You're just supposed to notice he has all these rocks to throw and be impressed.
Either one, but not both
Commie pig!
"Pushing pseudo-science is not."
You mean like your precious little Prof. Reiner Protsch von Zeiten, and his cute carbon-dating hoax?
Evo frauds are so precocious.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1196571/posts
I take this to mean that for me as a Christian to accept Creationism means that I am simply trying to maintain my "reputation" or "good name". IOW, I believe it for my own sake. I wanted to simply take the focus away from me deserving any honor for believing to the one who is honorable because of his creation.
Sounds like with your response you've clarified that. ??
And another BTW, saying "A lot of what is published..." seems a bit much for such a blanket statement of comparing Creationists to extreme Islamofascists.
Doesn't seem to stop you from doing so, for example:
Evolutionists probably take it personally, because their decision to reject God and live the way they want to hangs in the balance.
Sure, it's all about my guilty conscience.
First, the stakes are extremely high. Emotion that you sense, may reflect the stakes rather than "taking it personally".
I tend to disagree. I think you are *over stating* the importance of this issue. People take things personally because personal things are said on these threads. Even on this, an ostensibly conservative website, a majority of posters do not participate in these threads. This indicates a lack of controversiality. The threads often reach into the many hundreds of posts, but it is largely the same group of people.
Most people, including those people working in the sciences, have no problem holding both religious beliefs and scientific knowledge at the same time. There are many religious people working in the sciences, and there are many people who don't "disbelieve" the scientific theory of evolution working in religious venues. As I have said before and I'll say it again, the only conflict between science and religion is that which people make.
The stakes are the reliability of the scripture.
No, because scripture is not science. The Hebrew Bible (and Christian Bible, too) does not speak to scientific issues. It is silent about such things as deoxyribonucleic acid and the inverse square law. Science, on the other hand, is silent on such issues as morality and ethics. The bronze age Hebrews were not blessed with our understanding of biology, geology, and astronomy. Why modern science should be shoe-horned to fit within the constraints bounded by the limits of the scientific understanding of the bronze age Hebrews is beyond me.
If people doubt the reliability of the scripture, they may reject God's plan of salvation with eternal consequences for them. Therefore it is important to refute erroneous claims and interpretations of data that conflict with scripture.
If there's anything that drives people away from faith, it is not science but hypocrisy on the part of the faithful.
There seems to be a general sense among some people that science drives folks away from faith, despite the fact that many people working in scientific fields, including genetics and evolutionary science, hold religious views. Science and religion are neither mutually exclusive nor diametrically opposed. However, this preconceived notion remains. Thus some people seek to re-define science to fit within their individual religious beliefs. The only real conflict comes about when people pit science against religion, but this is a mis-use of both.
But Creationists may take it personally because they feel people are calling God a liar and they love God. It's not unlike saying something bad about your momma.
If science determines that insects preceeded birds, some people need to understand that this is not designed to impugn their religious beliefs. But people though, when they want to, can find insult in anything.
Very nicely said. If the evidence of a 6,000 year-old Earth is so compelling, why is NO ONE outside the Christian, Bible-reading community advancing the same concept?
I wouldn't be suprised at all to learn that he took the phrase and turned it to his advantage. :)
(I was referring to your "Pushing pseudo science ... " statement)
Love your tagline!
As long as Creationists (i.e.; flat earthers) continue to spew their uneducated views among conservatives, we will continue to be perceived by the left as uneducated bumpkins.
Let's see:
A scientist's work is challenged by other scientists and found out to be incorrect. Looks to me as if the system's working just fine.
100.
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.