Since we’ve been discussing Adam and Eve, I thought this article on the Creation Museum in Northern Kentucky would be a good follow-up. The picture is the Adam and Eve display in the museum, which is a multi-million dollar facility with state of the art exhibits. It is sponsored by the Answers in Genesis ministry of Australian educator Ken Ham.
The article is called “Dystopia in Kentucky.”
The museum is a very popular destination already. It’s one of the major tourist draws in the Cinci region. Obviously they get a lot of church groups, but they just get a lot of crowds: adults, senior adults, vacationers, school groups from all over and kids who want to see Dinosaurs.
Friends who have been there tell me it is less a presentation of science than a presentation of Genesis. The point is evangelism more than education.
The article makes plain one of the things I’ve noticed most often about this kind of presentation: you can’t trust anything a public school teacher or a public education source (like PBS) ever told you. History is different than you were told. Science is different. Astronomy is different. It’s all very conspiratorial and it’s meant to teach children especially to talk back to their teachers and to challenge them when they make any claims to historical or scientific knowledge that don’t back up AIG’s interpretations of the Bible.
One of the motivations for the museum is to counter the kinds of presentations done at zoos and museums around the country. In a way, it’s kind of a propaganda race to see who can claim the minds of young people.
AIG has a bit of an advantage in today’s environment. All education is highly politicized and presented with an agenda. Everyone is making a point beyond just a presentation of dinosaur bones or animal behavior. The Creation Museum is a way of hitting back at what these fundamentalists feel has been a one way conversation in most places every since the Scopes Trial.
The Internet Monk Archives 
Cheers!
I made with photoshop animated myspace pics.
have a look at them:
http://tinyurl.com/5aqbgn
Thanks a lot 4 your website 😉 xxoxo
LikeLike
Regarding the assertions that there is no evidence for dark matter and that science has never observed it:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/08/080827-dark-cluster.html
and…
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060822-dark-matter.html
Hubble photographs always leave me in complete awe of the complexity and beauty of God’s creation.
LikeLike
> “I think that many of you are misreading Nedbrek’s comments. He is decidedly *not* making belief in Young Earth Creationism a test of Christian orthodoxy.”
Perhaps I wasn’t clear (I think I was, but who knows), but in no way did I intend to accuse nedbrek of that.
> “Now, *some* of the aforementioned people might say that it is theologically *inconsistent* for Bible-believing Christians to not hold to YEC. However, that is very different from actually declaring those Christians to be heretics.”
I am sure that that is the official position of AIG. But in practice, what it communicated to me was something along the lines of “only morons try to be evolutionists and christians at the same time.” So, while I’ll grant that there’s a technical difference, I can’t say it feels any better to be on the receiving end of it. In fact, I almost wish they would call me a heretic; it would be easier to deal with than being thought of (seemingly) as a second-class christian.
I don’t say YEC people are “confused” or “inconsistent,” I say they disagree with me. For them to call my view on creation “inconsistent” shows that a) they don’t understand my view, and b) how large the scale of the problem in reconciling a YEC viewpoint with an OE viewpoint is. IOW, all the ways they can imagine reconciling the two views probably are inconsistent–but I don’t believe any of those things. If that makes any sense.
LikeLike
Christopher Lake,
Now, *some* of the aforementioned people might say that it is theologically *inconsistent* for Bible-believing Christians to not hold to YEC. However, that is very different from actually declaring those Christians to be heretics.
I’m with Ky boy. I have heard Ken Ham speak, met him briefly, and was on the AIG mailing list for a while. (One of the mailings they sent was about the “dangers” of Hugh Ross. I’m not Ross’s disciple either, by the way.) AIG may not actually come out and use the H-word. But they have absolutely no patience for anyone with a differing opinion on this issue.
Don’t forget– there are also many Theistic Evolutionists who treat Young Earth Creationists in a *very* unloving way, while not actually declaring them heretics.
Sad but true, but as someone who tends to be just confused on the whole topic, I find the YECers are generally far less patient with me.
LikeLike
Christopher Lake
“The more high-profile YEC subscribers whom I’m aware of do not make it a test of Christian orthodoxy. I’m referring to Albert Mohler, John MacArthur, R.C. Sproul (who more recently adopted the position), Kurt Wise (professor of theology and science at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary), and even Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research.”
A problem is the high profile guys aren’t sitting next to me in the pews. (Well we have chairs.). And as much as anything else this has stopped many of us from inviting our friends to church. They’d break out into giggles at best and maybe hysterical laughter when they run into the AIG fans and wall postings and class curriculum.
And if you don’t think the AIG is a bit over the top, you should get the 3 or 4 DVD “debate” they put out on the issue. K Ham, H. Ross, and two others.
David
LikeLike
Ky boy,
The more high-profile YEC subscribers whom I’m aware of do not make it a test of Christian orthodoxy. I’m referring to Albert Mohler, John MacArthur, R.C. Sproul (who more recently adopted the position), Kurt Wise (professor of theology and science at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary), and even Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research.
Now, *some* of the aforementioned people might say that it is theologically *inconsistent* for Bible-believing Christians to not hold to YEC. However, that is very different from actually declaring those Christians to be heretics. Many Christians have inconsistencies in different things that they believe (probably including me!). That fact does not, in and of itself, make them heretics.
Yes, some YEC subscribers are loudmouth firebrands who are eager to make this issue a test of orthodoxy. The more thoughtful YEC’ers do not think and behave in this way though.
Don’t forget– there are also many Theistic Evolutionists who treat Young Earth Creationists in a *very* unloving way, while not actually declaring them heretics.
LikeLike
Christopher Lake
“I think that many of you are misreading Nedbrek’s comments. He is decidedly *not* making belief in Young Earth Creationism a test of Christian orthodoxy. He has specifically stated as much. Any commenters who are simply not reading Nedbrek’s posts in light of *their* past bad experiences with YEC, or YEC adherents, should be able to see that fact. I wish that people would be more careful to respond to what others are actually saying…”
As one who directed a lot of posts at Nedbrek I in no way shape or form felt he felt this way. I just felt his comments on science were mostly not even close to right. But the topics converge as I was just pointing out that YEC and many of it’s follower’s do make agreeing with them a tenant of salvation. And if you listen to them on videos of speeches and such that others and YEC puts out this becomes clear. Even if some position papers on their web sites try and confuse this issue. If Nedbrek feels YEC is right on their science but not their theology well that’s what I understood him to say.
But I still disagree with him. 🙂
“I just wish that more Christians who subscribe to OEC or TE would accept that not *all* YEC’ers (perhaps not even most) are firebrands who would declare all non-YEC Christians as heretics. Not even AIG goes that far (and thank God for it)!”
But the firebrands are the ones walking around whacking folks with their biblical baseball bats. Many of them pastors and seminary professors and students. In the small group / WW III incident I mentioned there was ONE family who would discuss things and disagree. The rest, many of them drop ins during the sessions, would basically say “sorry, you arer a heretic” in evasively polite ways and not even remotely subtle ways.
Your approach is either a very silent majority or a very silent minority.
From what I’ve seen.
LikeLike
“Science” is not monolithic — there are the more “empirical sorts”, where anyone can read your article, go back to their lab and redo the experiment to see what results they get. I don’t see any big arguments erupting in this kind of science – which is why even YECs can use an i-Phone without cognitive dissonance.
And then there are the more “historical sorts”, where you collect evidence, and then tell a story to explain it. THIS is where the arguments arise – as anyone who has subscribed to Biblical Archaeology Review knows. Lots of fun, if you keep in mind that there is no way to demonstrate that one story is correct and another false.
It’s true that evidence matters, and when we are working in the field we call “science”, we ought to stick with the most logical explanation available for the evidence currently in hand. Otherwise, there will be constant battles, with whoever is mot powerful sticking the “heretic” label on those with whom they disagree, and booting them out of the fraternity.
I’ve got to say that a young earth is simply not the most obvious, not the most logical, explanation for the data available from radioactive minerals. So, when working in geology, one had better learn the standard explanations and terminology and not waste time trying to convince people it’s all an illusion of some kind.
However, the same is true for the spontaneous generation of life, and its subsequent diversification of forms by some random means. This is simply illogical, and the only reason that Darwinists teach it is because it’s compatible with their world-view.
It seems to me that a strict Darwinism, and the more literal understanding of the Genesis Creation accounts, are rival belief systems, and neither fit very well into a robust scientific enterprise. The truly “scientific” view is the “intelligent design” perspective – now being vilified by the Darwinists (and sadly, by some Christians who reject the literal reading of Genesis) as “Creation dressed up in a cheap suit”.
Creationists who want to work as scientists can’t be constantly haranguing their colleagues and students about their understanding of the Genesis story. But strict Darwinists are equally wrong to be saying that the only scientific way to look at Origins is through the lens of materialism. The universe (and this earth)
look very old…..life and its diversity look designed,
as even Richard Dawkins freely admits. Thus, scientists ought to accept the most logical story concenring age and origins…..and keep their private beliefs to themselves *when working as scientists*.
Naturally, what scientists choose to actually believe is their own business, so long as they do their work competently (this is why Steve Gould [RIP] was willing to sign Kurt Wise’s doctoral thesis, bless him). I’m a young earth creationist because I don’t know how to tell the Story of Redemption in a coherent and convincing manner with a “developmental Creation”, and that story is what I’ve built my life around. It’s far more important to me than any ability to explain the current scientific evidence in a way that pleases
*anyone* on this earth.
Having said that, I freely admit that God may have done His creating in some way that I’m unable to divine, and for reasons of His own, not Himself very clearly. I’ll be asking plenty of questions when I see Him, believe me. I’m happy to accept Theistic Evolutionists of all sorts as my brothers in Christ, but I won’t be spending much time around them if they insist on calling me names, making it plain they think they’re somehow intellectually superior because I read Genesis more literally than they choose to.
LikeLike
I think that many of you are misreading Nedbrek’s comments. He is decidedly *not* making belief in Young Earth Creationism a test of Christian orthodoxy. He has specifically stated as much. Any commenters who are simply not reading Nedbrek’s posts in light of *their* past bad experiences with YEC, or YEC adherents, should be able to see that fact. I wish that people would be more careful to respond to what others are actually saying…
For myself, I am not settled on the issues of Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, or Theistic Evolution. I do have major problems with TE, when it comes to Biblical exegesis. I can see the points of OEC but also find holes in it, in terms of exegesis. To me, it seems that when Genesis is read not just literally, but logically, it seems to “point” more toward YEC. I could be wrong in my understanding though.
I just wish that more Christians who subscribe to OEC or TE would accept that not *all* YEC’ers (perhaps not even most) are firebrands who would declare all non-YEC Christians as heretics. Not even AIG goes that far (and thank God for it)!
Sorry for the copious abbreviations! 🙂
LikeLike
Just wanted to say, regardless of which side of this question we come down on, we’ve got to see this thread as a testimony to the great job Michael does of attracting a readership from all segments of the evangelical/post-evangelical/post-whatsitwhosit world. Way to go, iMonk.
LikeLike
Daniel Smith said:
“how do you know God didn’t create you yesterday, but give you the memories of your life and appearance of whatever age you are?”
Deckard said:
Memories. You’re talking about memories.
LikeLike
Peter is a true man of God and we should do a pray for him at this dificult time for him.
God bless
Steve in Toronto
LikeLike
Steve in Toronto
“This article might add a bit to the discussion. It’s by Dr. Peter Enns (former professor of Old Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia)”
Given the last few years of Peter Enns life I think he deserves an honorary place in the “Alone, and Not Alone” discussion.
LikeLike
Steve in Toronto just pointed out the new book “The Bible, Rocks, and Time” by Young and Stearley. I’ll second his endorsement. This book is a strong, but respectful, rebuttal of young-Earth creationism, and one that I highly recommend to anyone who believes that the Bible requires us to believe that Earth is only 6000 years old or that Noah’s flood is responsible for most of the geological record. The authors, both geologists, are committed to the core beliefs of Christianity.
Some endorsements of the book can be found here: http://geochristian.wordpress.com/2008/09/11/the-earth-rocks-endorsements/
LikeLike
This article might add a bit to the discussion. It’s by Dr. Peter Enns (former professor of Old Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia) http://peterennsonline.com/2008/10/21/review-of-the-bible-rocks-and-time/ it a review of a book by a couple of Calvin Collage geology professors.
God Bless
Steve in Toronto
LikeLike
> “It says that I have to have some expert interpret the Bible for me. If a smart guy who has read a lot can’t figure it out, how successful is God at revealing Himself?”
You’re not the only one with that logic, nedbrek, and I have a few answers to that one.
My primary answer is that Genesis is not a science textbook, and it is not telling us _how_ god did things. Genesis answers _who_ created and _why_ he did so. Its answers to those questions are not too hard to grasp, and, importantly, are very different from those of the other religions of the time.
My second answer is sorry, but God is under no obligation to make things simple enough for everyone who reads it to understand, especially on a tertiary point (with respect to the gospel, anyway) like this one. I’ve found that most people, even those who agree with it, do not understand evolution/age of universe very well.
“It is the glory of God to conceal things,
but the glory of kings is to search things out.” –Proverbs 25:2
LikeLike
Daniel, I think that’s a lot of the problem I have with OE.
It says that I have to have some expert interpret the Bible for me. If a smart guy who has read a lot can’t figure it out, how successful is God at revealing Himself?
Steve, I think there’s a smiley in there somewhere, but we redeem people and people make the culture. That’s a lot of the reason I agree with iMonk on many things (weird, I know!)
Unicorn, Michael and I probably disagree there (I only skimmed it). That’s a whole other thread!
LikeLike
It is probably a lost cause, there are more important things, like evangelism… — NedBrek
I believe IMonk has an essay on just that subject (Soul Winning Uber Alles).
LikeLike
> “Atheists _need_ to have blind faith in an old earth.”
I think I’d get a lot of funny looks if I went around and told this to the atheists/agnostics I know.
And, if it’s possible without being insulting, I’d like to suggest that proficiency in one scientific field doesn’t really qualify one as an expert in others.
I do agree that AIG are effectively hobbyists. I wish they would represent themselves that way, but they don’t. It still doesn’t excuse their shoddy work.
I’m not trying to convince you of an old earth; I don’t think it would be worth it, as you say you’ve already done the research–and there’s plenty of resources online for that, anyway.
LikeLike
“There are more important things, like evangelism…†Well there goes redeeming the culture.
We all have to do much better (both Christian Pastors, teachers, Scientists and Theologians)
God Bless
Steve in Toronto
LikeLike
I do not like green eggs, Ken Hamm.
LikeLike
Thank you all for your deep concern over my scientific well being. 😛
I can assure you that I understand science very well (I worked for eight years in microprocessor research).
I haven’t heard any argument as to how I can know that the earth is old, only that I “must keep the faith”.
Atheists _need_ to have blind faith in an old earth. As Christians, we can take it or leave it. But don’t cede the argument to them, without investigation.
As to the quality of AIG’s investigations. They are effectively hobbyists, with no personnel and no funding. There wasn’t even a creation text book until the 70’s! It is probably a lost cause, there are more important things, like evangelism…
LikeLike
It is “Ham,” not “Hamm”
LikeLike
Nedbrek:
I’ve read a lot of AIG/ICR stuff on geology, and it makes absolutely no sense. It is only a good explanation of the geological record to someone who doesn’t know much about geology. Whether the topic is radiometric dating, sedimentary geology, the nature of the fossil record, or plate tectonics, it is full of wild speculation, ad hoc arguments, sweeping generalizations, and bad interpretations. To teach it to our kids as apologetics could end up having the opposite effect of what is desired.
AIG and ICR are the “good” creationists. There are others, such as Hovind, who are absolutely clueless. No one should listen to them. (AIG has an “arguments creationists should not use” page, that was designed with Hovind in mind).
Keep the faith. Toss the junk.
LikeLike
Daniel:
I was once invited to breakfast by Ken Hamm. With that name, it was too ironic, so I declined.
LikeLike
I’d like to speak up here for the agnostics. We don’t trip over Genesis and then mislay our faith.
Learning and accepting the Documentary Theory opened a new world for me. It was a complicated and rich process lasting several years.
While nedbreck reminds me of what I turned against, the OE’ers aren’t making much of an impression. If I had accepted a literary interpretation of Genesis instead of a literal one it wouldn’t have made a bit of difference.
Give our journey some respect, please.
LikeLike
It’s because Ken Ham told them all about your views… (jn)
LikeLike
As an old earther, one of the things that I really don’t get is how the other team knows so much about what I believe without talking to me. (And no, that’s not an invitation to cross examine me.)
LikeLike
> “While I am more sympathetic to the theistic evolutionary model, I get frustrated with bad arguments against my literal six day brothers and sisters. From their perspective, God did not lie at all. The Earth appears old to us because it was created mature. It makes perfect sense and doesn’t mean God is a liar. It just means that God created supernaturally what would naturally take millions of years to create. I think OEC would gain credibility if they abandoned the argument. Just my two cents.”
Let’s say this is correct for a moment. God created the Earth and universe “mature,” where mature means ~4 and ~14 billion years old, respectively, to the best of our ability to measure it. Since God did this 6,000 or so years ago, that means that he must have fabricated the appearance of 13.999 billion years of age.
Questions: How is this actually different from God creating the whole thing 14 billion years ago, and it proceeding via the laws he set in place up to the present day?
How could we tell where the fabricated age stops and “real” age begins?
How do you know that any age is real? I.e., how do you know God didn’t create you yesterday, but give you the memories of your life and appearance of whatever age you are?
Apologies if this is getting off topic.
LikeLike
Although (as I mentioned earlier) I accept theistic evolution, and don’t really care much about Genesis or creation/evolution arguments, I do see the reason why to some people it is so significant.
For example, “In Adam all die, in Christ all are made alive.”
Or, “The last Adam became a life-giving Spirit.”
This seems to indicate that Adam, a real man, was the beginning of mankind, and was also the one who brought death into the human race. It also indicates that Christ was the last Adam, the last of the Adamic race. I accept evolution, but admit I don’t know how it can be reconciled with verses such as this.
Also, the apostle Paul speaks of the serpent deceiving Eve. Was Paul wrong? And if there was an Eve, did she really come from Adam’s side? Because if evolution is true, there were a lot of females before Eve.
(Unicorn guy, thanks for the book reference. I’ll try to find it.)
LikeLike
🙂
Point taken, I just figured they fit in the Pew Forum category of “Mainline” as opposed to “Evangelical” Protestant, though I’m not sure. Both are small enough that either way they go into the “other” category on the list.
LikeLike
The PCA and OPC are “mainline Protestants?”
Has anyone told them? 🙂
LikeLike
Well, the whole Galileo thing was more political back-biting than repressing science. The Church had no inherent problem with heliocentrism, but Galileo managed to make personal enemies of powerful men. Copernicus published his theories decades before Galileo, and suffered no problems despite being a Catholic priest. This is tangential, however. More info: http://townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2007/11/26/debunking_the_galileo_myth
Brandon is right that Mainline Protestants haven’t had a problem with Theistic Evolution whatsoever. Michael’s point was specific to Evangelical Protestants, however, who do not share a similarly nuanced tradition on this issue.
LikeLike
well, except for that whole galileo thing.
LikeLike
Brandon, Gregor Mendel, the guy who basically discovered genes, was a Catholic priest. Also, going back to quotes from St. Augustine, the church has historically been pretty open to science in general so long as it isn’t being advocated to openly contradict with church theology.
LikeLike
iMonk
[Mod edited]
The first person that comes to my mind from the Reformed tradition is B.B Warfield. The Reformed, Lutherans, and Presbyterians have all thought long and hard on these issues. The PCA and OPC leave room for theistic evolution with certain stipulations (historical Adam and Eve for example). Not a big deal, but I just take exception to that because there are such large numbers of Protestant churches who have dealt with these issues.
To the old earthers:
While I am more sympathetic to the theistic evolutionary model, I get frustrated with bad arguments against my literal six day brothers and sisters. From their perspective, God did not lie at all. The Earth appears old to us because it was created mature. It makes perfect sense and doesn’t mean God is a liar. It just means that God created supernaturally what would naturally take millions of years to create. I think OEC would gain credibility if they abandoned the argument. Just my two cents.
LikeLike
I was happy to see Karl Popper mentioned. Another scientific thinker who is helpful and similar to Popper is Michael Polanyi.
Moving the conversation somewhat, where are we taught and given the tools for critical thinking? Certainly not in our schools. Learning to dissect arguments and discern propaganda from other kinds of information should be the central role of education in my opinion. Since we are not taught this in the schools, we in the church should at least be providing it as part of our religious education. Instead, we are given only another kind of propaganda, though of a less convincing sort than that passed on through the various outlets the world controls.
Christians are called to be a light in more ways than one. We should be out front of the culture in all matters, not in challenging it to conform with ill conceived moralisms, but by challenging the foundations of its certainties through more excellent ones. We must think better than the world does if we are to honor God.
This is no longer the case, but I believe it was once part of Catholic seminary training that students received no theology before they took three years of philosophy. After they had learned to think and reason well, they were deemed ready to study the deep things of God. This seems to give proper weight to what one must be prepared for before taking on the God of the universe.
Another excellent book to look at in this vein is “Proper Confidence: Faith, Doubt, and Certainty in Christian Discipleship” by Lesslie Newbigin. It is also a thin book, so not too hard to get through. It’s not always necessary to use a lot of words to say something well; something I’m still working on.
If any of you know of books that are similar in nature to this one, Popper, Polanyi, or anyone else who writes well concerning the development of critical thinking, please pass it on.
Thanks.
LikeLike
what daniel smith said.
LikeLike
Not to keep harping on this, but… Try to imagine yourself in my shoes for a moment, nedbreck.
The people who taught you to be christian also taught you all this stuff about the beginning of the world (YEC). They also taught you that if you don’t believe that YEC, then you can’t believe the rest of the stuff that’s in the bible, since it stands or falls as a unit (they say).
When you start to realize that you can’t believe in YEC anymore without turning off your brain, you have a real problem, since the YEC people have framed the question as “YEC is true or the bible is false.”
This is what I have a problem with. It sets people’s faith up for failure.
LikeLike
nedbrek, “willful ignorance” is the refusal to know what a theory actually is and is for. You could stand to read some Karl Popper yourself, no doubt.
“If you have forgiveness of sins, and the promise of eternal life, what does the age of the earth have to do with anything?”
Didn’t you read the testimonies of any of these folks? There are at least 5 people who’ve already posted stories about how their CHURCH told them that they probably weren’t saved for not being able to make sense of Creationism. And for every five stories you read here, everybody posting here knows five people who’ve been through the same experience.
Obviously, if a person finds an obviously suspect doctrine they can’t accept, and their church tells them they’re not saved, they’re probably going to doubt the sanity of the people advocating it. Since these people are their TEACHERS, they’re going to doubt the sanity of Christianity.
Come on, man.
LikeLike
As I said, this is an issue we can agree to disagree about.
That also means, you can’t say I am willfully ignorant because I believe in a young earth. As The Scylding says, you can’t prove a theory true (which would include the OE).
Re. falling away, a Christian is not a Christian because he has a Christian family, or upbringing; or goes to church every Sunday or anything like that.
A Christian is someone who has agreed with God that they are a sinner, unable to make themselves acceptable to God.
They have turned from sin, and turned towards God. Trusting in the substitutionary death of Jesus.
If you have forgiveness of sins, and the promise of eternal life, what does the age of the earth have to do with anything?
LikeLike
If it’s so minor, as you put it, then why do you seem to care so much about it?
LikeLike
> “Secondly, those who are saved cannot fall away. If someone apostatizes over a minor issue like this, they were clearly never saved.”
I don’t know what to do with statements like this. It comes across as meaning you’d rather have people like me who differ with you on this point go all the way and call ourselves atheists instead. Surely you can’t mean that?
Also, if you think it’s a minor point, why can’t we agree to disagree about it?
LikeLike
Ok,though I normally stay away from these debates, let me add some perspectives:
I’m a geologist. At one stage in my career, I ran an Ar-Ar geochronology laboratory. I have 10 years of experience as a geologist, mostly exploration.
AIG makes for bad science. Really, really bad stuff. Gross inaccuracies. Simplistic approaches. I read all their stuff for a number of years. It is an embarrasement to Christianity.
But I don’t believe in all the scientific, especially geological theories either. I might use some of them, because they work. But the issue is not truth or falsehood. It is predictability. Anybody who uses the word truth in an absolutest sense, in conjunction with the word science, where it concerns theories or explanations, has no idea whatsoever.
I’m with Popper: We cannot prove any scientific theories true, we can only prove them wrong. An infinte process of elimination and refinement, and ocassionaly, abandonment.
LikeLike
As I said. WW III broke out.
LikeLike
>If someone apostatizes over a minor issue like this, they were clearly never saved.
This isn’t going to end well if this is the boundary line. We probably need a topic change.
LikeLike
nedbrek,
our star isn’t a first generation star. The fact that you’re even invoking stellar generations is a total concession of the point, by the way. Why even bring that up? We’re only concerned with Earth’s star. If it’s not manifestly the “first generation”, YEC is wrong.
re: the rate of fusion: 2nd law of thermodynamics.
re: time not running backwards: somebody’s theory that it can? I just googled “time runs backwards’ – feel free to enlighten yourself.
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=716
re: Science not telling us history: if science weren’t true for the past, it wouldn’t be true for the future. That’s what science IS a study of – things that, having happened, where recorded and deduced from.
Incidentally, if science was illogical and historically unreliable, how could you possibly trust God? The logic that describes his actions – eg. “God was angry, so he destroyed the city”, would break down.
Which is why I keep saying that YEC is not about trusting God at all.
Re: non-believers hating God: This is the internet, so I’m going to be blunt – you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Whenever I hear somebody say that somebody else was “clearly never saved”, I imagine that they have a head-sized plank where their eye should be. nedbrek, I know you’re a reasonable person, so why would you say something like that?
LikeLike
I apologize for simplifying “the solar system” from “the first solar systems”, the article is here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080731143329.htm (It says, there is no model of first generation star formation, apart from an appeal to dark matter – a substance which supposedly makes up more of the universe than normal matter, yet has never been directly observed)
Re. the rate of fusion: no one knows how much was there to begin with (nor the rate of consumption before it was measured, our physical models are not accurate enough to “run time backwards”).
Re. “you can’t trust science”. First, as Christians, we should trust God and God’s Word. Second, science cannot tell us history, it can only measure things today.
Re. “poisoning the well”. Non-believers hate God, they can’t “hate God more” because of us. Secondly, those who are saved cannot fall away. If someone apostatizes over a minor issue like this, they were clearly never saved.
LikeLike
nedbrek, any YEC’s lurking here,
Can ANY of you counter the arguments and problems raised against Creation “Science” in just this thread?
1.) That it poisons the well against Christianity among people and causes people who disagree to apostasize
2.) that it’s a form of social control instead of a philosophically reasonable position
3.) That it’s inherently hypocritical: “Statements like “You can’t trust science†while talking on an iPhone”, etc.
4.) That it’s an ahistorical exegesis of Genesis (certainly the Jews and Early Christians didn’t force their cosmogony as if it were ultimately true)
5.) That it, and the literalism it’s based on, commutes an anti-historical understanding of Scripture in general, having no insight into the poetic forms and sense of ancient Scripture as they were written
6.) That it’s a textually insufficient read of Genesis: YEC merges TWO Creation stories together, for instance
7.) That its not a testable theory but just the fearful hiccup of a marginalized, undereducated, fringe Christian remainder in the face of a wealthy, atheistic, rationalist Establishment – what Michael rather hilariously referred to as an “ignorance fetish”
8.) That it’s a heretical and schismatic tenet that is wielded to deny Salvation to those who do not accept it
9.) That ALL attempts to defend the idea using don’t stand up to scientific scrutiny and invariably end in equivocation and a relativistic appeal
This is what you have to eat in order to maintain YEC as a dogma. You have to be able to deny, just for starters, 9 requirements of reality and parsimony in order to correspond with Young Earth Creationism.
The only arguments advocating YEC in this thread have centered around “not being able to make sense of the New Testament without it”.
To which I say:
….
LikeLike
*sigh*
Yes, nedbreck, I’ve heard John D. Morris present on his geological theories live, back when I still believed these clowns. No, I’m not convinced this proves YEC, anymore than I think Christopher Hitchens proves that there is no God.
I’d be more impressed with your dark matter point if a.) it wasn’t inflammatory rhetoric designed to make slack-jawed idiots fall into the party line, ‘well, *of course* I believe in God, not dark matter!’, and b.) you had any clue what the hell dark matter even is, which judging from what you’ve written you do not. And there lies the primary problem with YEC proponents, they are consistently ignorant of actual science. Not very convincing, I’m afraid.
If I had a dime for every friend of mine who apostatized from Christianity because of this idiocy…
LikeLike
I said:
“But outside the class WW III erupted. Emails, phone calls, pastors asking AIG fans to sit in our class to keep tabs on us. — Ky boy but not now
Lots of verbal assault on people’s intelligence, faith, salvation, …. You name it.
Two of the more reasoned adult men had to have a sit down with someone at his house to gently let him know he was totally out of line with his comments telling a women she might not be saved if she didn’t get with the AIG program.
Statements like “You can’t trust science” while talking on an iPhone.
It just got out of hand with the YE/AIG folks telling the rest of us they had the TRUTH and we were idiots for not getting it.
LikeLike
nedbrek, my complaint against YEC is that it’s a late-in-the-day emotionalist gasp of religious piety, deserving of all the same credibility as the KJV-only-ists, the Flat-earthers, and the Timecube guy: none.
It is an un-philosophical, irrational piece of religious quietism – and as iMonk keeps saying as he deletes combative comments, a fundamentalist’s idea of a ‘theological litmus test’. It’s not a ‘belief’ – it’s a social norm. What could possibly be further from skeptical inquiry and willing faith than THAT?
LikeLike
I said:
“But outside the class WW III erupted. Emails, phone calls, pastors asking AIG fans to sit in our class to keep tabs on us. — Ky boy but not now
Headless Unicorn Guy
“Keeping tabs on us†as in Thought Police Commissars?
Maybe. It exposed a “secret room” of my 2500 person Sunday attendance church I never knew or had ignored for years. Some of us examined this “room” and have decided to leave. (Next iMonk blog entry reference here!) Lots of issues that the pastors hold as unspoken tenants of the church but will not discuss unless you have come to agree with them. AIG for one. And there are more. Sad.
LikeLike
iMonk, thanks for posting this.
nedbrek,
On science, I heard more from AIG growing up than probably any other source (I was homeschooled).
Their “science” was very detrimental to my faith.
It gave me years of cognitive dissonance trying to reconcile reality and (what I had been taught was) what the bible said.
Fortunately I found a “third way” before being driven completely away from christianity. (I suppose people would call me a theistic evolutionist today)
I’m still very bothered when I encounter the viewpoints you seem to espouse, which are common among American Evangelicals (for lack of a better descriptive; I don’t mean to pick on you).
The reason it bothers me so much is that the way AIG & Ken Ham frames it, it’s his way of reading Genesis, or atheism.
When it became apparent to me that Ken Ham’s “science” significantly diverges from reality, if I had accepted that premise, I would have had to reject Christianity entirely. It was very difficult for me to find resources to help me.
If circumstances had been a little different, I could easily not be a Christian right now because of this issue. I object to making it difficult for those of us who do not accept this reading of Genesis.
I wrote on this subject in more detail a while ago: http://blog.lukenine45.net/2008/04/why-do-people-do-things-they-do.html
To all the AIG & Ken Ham people out there: please, please try to make room in your theology for those of us who cannot read Genesis the same way you do.
LikeLike
nedbrek, yes. Here’s an easy one:
At what rate of fusion is the sun consuming itself at? How much did it start with? How much is left?
Whatever numbers you get: the earth is younger than that.
LikeLike
nedbrek
“How many of those here holding to an old earth have read most of the articles at AIG?”
As I said. When this erupted in my life I and others read AIG extensively along with some of he supporting books such as Humphrys’. The science is bad. Extremely bad. But if you only read the AIG literature they put together a nice narrative. But it falls apart once you dig into it. They include only data they like and ignore or claim all other data is bogus or a lie. Of course the data they like is like .001% or less of the data. Which allows them to claim a conspiracy of “evolutionists”. And on and on and on.
nedbrek
“Radio isotope dating is based on assumptions about the formation of the solar system (which cannot be made to work without assuming “dark matterâ€, a substance for which there is _no_ evidence).”
No it’s not. It’s based on what we can see and observe now about nuclear decay. And the math works. Now your dark matter issues may change a number from 4.2 billion to 4.4 billion but the billion is still there. It never comes out to 5000 to 10,000.
“Distances in space are based on other assumptions (â€dark energy†being the most intellectually offensive).”
No they are measured. You sound like someone from the 10th century claiming no one can measure 1/10,000 of an inch because he can’t do it and doesn’t understand how anyone else could. Or travel in an airplane. Or ….
“Rock formations and fossils are much better described by a catastrophic view.”
Not really. All of these explanations ignore such things as the heat generated which would turn the earth into a sun in some catastrophic scenarios.
The entire point of AIG is that you start with a 6000 year old earth and go looking for data points that fit. And ignore and or disparage all that don’t fit. Then tell anyone who isn’t reading a KJ version and interpreting phrases exactly narrowly as them they are is likely not saved. Or at a minimum an evolutionist.
Some of us have dug into this. Deeply. AIG is a fraud.
What’s ironic is that AIG has a page of things to NOT use anymore to prove a YE as they have decided they were wrong. And yet YE fans keep trotting them out. Moon dust is one I was lectured on recently.
LikeLike
Patrick, I’ve presented OE scientific ideas that I have a problem with (because they have no evidence).
I’ve offered YEC explanations for everything observed, which are consistent with the data, and Scripture.
I’ve presented Scriptural admonitions against the original proponents of the old earth.
Do you have a scientific argument for an old earth?
LikeLike
Sam, you aren’t in the least bit intrigued that a “geographic column” of different layers can be formed by rapidly moving water containing different particle sizes, in very little time?
You find it easier to believe “dark matter did it”, rather than “God did it” when asked where the first stars come from?
LikeLike
nedbrek, believing in a young earth is equivocating the discoveries of reason for piety’s sake. No wonder you left Catholicism.
I can’t say this enough: belief does not make you holy. Absurd belief does not make you holier.
Pietism can be a spiritual disease in this sense: based on the supposition that belief and unbelief are as different as night and day, it drives a person to become ever more stident and odd in what they affirm, so as to distinguish oneself from those with lesser faith.
We live in an age so Convenient, and our educations are so specialized, that we can’t help but notice that our beliefs in one sphere have nothing to do with our performance in another.
What does a Christian construction worker need to know to get by, day to day? Nothing about biochemistry or physics – he’s free to ignore them completely, for pride’s sake if nothing else. Their achievements insult his; their work is largely beyond his educational attainment. Their social standing outstrips his. They have insurance.
But wait, Christianity offers a way to believe that HIS PERSONAL INSIGHT into the construction of the universe is just as good as theirs? And, instead of an arcane and mathematical story that only brilliant atheists can speak the whole of, the depth and destiny of Everything is really this transcendently moral history than even a four-year-old can understand? OF COURSE HE’LL SIGN UP.
For the mere right to an opinion, we feel no shame in completely writing off the advances recorded by generations of scientists, ancient and modern – after all, the only people who could contradict us definitively have based their careers on mere supposition, right?
People rightfully find Christians to be boorish and disgusting for things like that. Christians who believe in anything, just so they can shame the world, have given up a rational faith for a wounded certainty. That’s like burning down your house because it’s wooden and fragile, and moving into a cave. A broken, confused adult might do it and take their family with them, but their children grow to realize what’s been done and come to bitterly repudiate their parent’s fearful mania. They need lives. They won’t live in caves.
Of course not.
LikeLike
Well what can I say?? I see those advertisements on TBN for THE HOLYLAND EXPERIENCE and personally I cringe.
And its funny because TBN has now bought the HOLYLAND EXPERIENCE park. — Caucazhin
Not surprising. (I live in the same part of the country as TBN HQ — it’s that Liberace Layer Cake alongside the 405 Freeway.) General knowledge out her is that TBN’s Paul & Janet are clones of PTL’s Jim & Tammy; why wouldn’t they buy Jim & Tammy’s shtick assets?
LikeLike
One of the issues I have with my fellow Christians is how they, by making non-critical issues critical to the faith, only succeed in creating barriers that separate God and the church from a world that is dying and desperately needs the gift of life it possesses and proclaims. — MDS
Thus holding back healing from a broken Cosmos.
LikeLike
Well, Nedbreck, it just so happens that I have read a ridiculous amount of AIG/ICR material over the course of my life. As such, I feel confident in saying that it’s all a horrific lie and a threat to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. You list all the standard Creationist points, but I hate to tell you that it’s all a flaming pile of poo, intellectually and spiritually. Now, I’m not questioning your sincerity as a believer, but I am saying you’ve been taken in by hucksters and charlatans selling you snake-oil, and urge you to reconsider drinking the YEC kool-aid.
LikeLike
Perhaps a better way to say it is, “why should I believe in an old earth?”
Radio isotope dating is based on assumptions about the formation of the solar system (which cannot be made to work without assuming “dark matter”, a substance for which there is _no_ evidence).
Distances in space are based on other assumptions (“dark energy” being the most intellectually offensive). The Bible says that God stretched out the heavens. That agrees with the evidence (light appears stretched/shifted towards red). Whether this is from direct action, or due to some gravitational effect is unclear.
Rock formations and fossils are much better described by a catastrophic view.
Also, they rely on the assumption of “uniformitarianism”, a point of view eerily like what Peter warned about in 2 Peter 3:4:
“all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation”. That passage describes Charles Lyell very well…
———–
Re. non-Christians mocking YEC, that is to be expected. The unbeliever cannot accept spiritual things, and the idea of God creating everything is the most offensive thing of all.
You cannot convince a person of YEC, present them with the Law (the ten commandments work well), that will bring about the knowledge of sin. Then they will look to the Savior.
After that, YEC will seem natural to them 🙂 Or not – it’s not a salvation issue.
LikeLike
A young earth is nigh on impossible to defend apart from the view that God creates evidence that lead to false conclusions. Can you, Nedbrek, provide data that would lead a disinterested individual to conclude that the earth is of recent origin? In all I have seen, it is only those who have a predisposition toward a young earth and believe the foundation of the scriptures will crumble unless it is so who provide any so called evidence.
God is diminished through such efforts to defend his integrity.
I’m sorry for the confrontational tone of this. One of the issues I have with my fellow Christians is how they, by making non-critical issues critical to the faith, only succeed in creating barriers that separate God and the church from a world that is dying and desperately needs the gift of life it possesses and proclaims.
MDS
LikeLike
How many of those here holding to an old earth have read most of the articles at AIG?
I’m curious, because, I was raised Catholic/Theistic Evolution (trending to even atheistic/”separate spheres”).
It was Hamm and Horvind videos which led me to question my “faith” in an old earth (not that they always give good answers, but they do lead to asking questions).
Upon review of the evidence, I can confidently say that there is no “good reason” to believe in an old earth.
People are certainly free to do so (and atheists must!). But, from a Biblical perspective, a young earth makes a lot more sense (and fits the evidence better than any Biblical old earth explanation).
Feel free to contact me with any questions.
LikeLike
I can see two great risks in the AIG creation museum’s success:
1. Our young people are being set up for a fall. Some of them will figure out that the AIG/ICR story just doesn’t work, and they will leave the faith. — Kevin N
That’s expandable to Christian Bizarro World in general. Not just Evolution/Creation, but pretty much everything. What happens generically when the hothoused Christian kid steps outside the ghetto walls and discovers he’s been spoon-fed lame “Christian Culture” imitations of what’s outside?
2. Non-Christians will continue to think that Christianity is false, not because of the foolishness of the cross, but the foolishness of the bad science of young-Earth creationism. — Kevin N
As was said by St Augustine some 1600 years ago:
“It often happens that even a non-Christian knows a thing or two about the earth, the sky, the various elements of the world, about the movement and revolution of the stars and even their size and distance, about the anticipated eclipses of the sun and moon, about the nature of animals, shrubs, rocks, and the like, and maintains this knowledge with sure reason and experience. It is then offensive and ruinous, something to be avoided at all cost, for a nonbeliever to hear a Christian talking about these things as though with Christian writings as his source, and yet so nonsensically and with such obvious error that the nonbeliever can hardly keep from laughing.
“The trouble is not so much that the erring fellow is laughed at but that our authors are believed by outsiders to have held those same opinions and so are despised and rejected as untutored men, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil … How are they going to believe our books concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven when they think they are filled with fallacious writing which they know from experience and sure calculation?
“There is no telling how much harm these rash and presumptuous people bring among their more prudent brethren when they begin to be caught and argued down by those who are not bound by the authority of our Scriptures, and when they then try to defend their flippant, rash, and obviously erroneous statements by quoting a shower of words from those same Sacred Scriptures, even citing from memory those passages which they think will support their case ‘without understanding either what they are saying or things about which they make assertions’.”
— St Augustine, De Genesi ad Literam (On the Literal Meaning of Genesis), circa AD 400-405, Book 1, Chapter 19.
(And anyone who responds to this with “That’s NOT Scripture!” needs to be tracked down and punched in the throat.)
LikeLike
Treebeard:
Here’s the book I mentioned in my last post:
Evolution & Creation
by Rev William Kramer, CPPS
Published by Our Sunday Visitor c.1986
ISBN 0-87973-511-2
I found it a good overview of the fight circa mid-Eighties and a simple understandable presentation of Theistic Evolution and the direction the RCC was taking at the time. Don’t know if its still in print after twenty years, but I vaguely remember picking it up in a Catholic bookstore (Paulist Press, I think).
And more miscellanea:
But outside the class WW III erupted. Emails, phone calls, pastors asking AIG fans to sit in our class to keep tabs on us. — Ky boy but not now
“Keeping tabs on us” as in Thought Police Commissars?
You can be Protestant and still believe in Theistic Evolution. — DP
And wind up a pile of rocks on the lawn of the Creation Museum in Kentucky.
Get a clue, DP. We’ve got a Christless Gospel going around where Young Earth Creationism (TM) has kicked Christ off His throne. IMonk fully expects his denomination to enshrine Young Earth Creationism as ex cathedra dogma within five years, and half this thread has stories about “If You’re Not YEC, You’re NOT Saved!”
As a Catholic, I don’t have to give myself a Holy Spirit lobotomy until all that remains is “He Loved Big Brother”. Or go to ground like in “Silent Running” by Mike and the Mechanics:
“Swear alliegance to the flag,
Whatever flag they offer;
Never let on what you really feel…”
LikeLike
The following is something I posted to another site where an argument was made that the Biblical faith and the science of evolution are incompatible. The leadership of our church has recently confronted this question as well. My response below…….
If it somehow becomes possible in the future to prove evolution as a fact that any thinking person cannot deny, will it mean our faith and orthodox Christianity will crumble into dust? I just can’t buy this argument on any level. How is this any different than the church’s hardline stance maintaining that the Biblical data clearly shows the earth to be the center of the universe, leaving no room for science and any evidence for a Ptolemaic solar system? Undoubtedly, this sort of thing did and does shake some peoples faith, for there still are people that argue for a flat earth. Are they fighting for God, or their right to remain defiantly ignorant?
Modern science arose from the Christian mind of men and women that were driven to study the earth and universe, believing it was possible to learn about it because their God was one of laws and order. Of course the study of science made God seem to be less and less necessary to many, however this is not a fault of science per se, but of man and his sinfulness. We will use every excuse available to deny God. Let’s not make the mistake of creating escape clauses that make it easier for us to side-step our own guilt through the creation of scape goats.
On the other hand, science is not infallible. The accepted scientific “truths†of a particular time become the myths and fallacies of later periods. It is simply a practice and technique for the study of matter, time, energy, and the processes that are involved in their interaction.
So do I “believe in evolution� The scientific evidence leads me to postulate that some degree of evolution is highly probable. But asking do “I believe in evolution†displays the error of many who view science through a religious lenses. I never hear anyone ask someone if they believe in calculus. It’s a silly question. I do not “believe†in evolution. I believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; that they existed before time, are together one God and the Creator of all that is, that as God they will bring our present age to a close at some point in the future, and that Christ will then establish His Kingdom on earth and in heaven for all eternity. This I believe.
It is possible to study science, sift data, and establish conclusions relating to the data without displacing God from his throne. Do I believe in this? Hmmmh? Probably the wrong word to use; I think I would say that I am convinced this is true.
MDS
LikeLike
It seems that Adam and Eve (in the painting) have been tangoed!
LikeLike
Ky, I don’t think so, but I’m definitely looking for them now! There are Young-Earth blogs that call people heretics, and I’ve heard people in real life say that if God isn’t blessing you, you’re probably going to Hell. The prosperity gospel is pretty old though; there are probably polemical books out there defending it!
LikeLike
Are there blogs that promote the prosperity Gospel and rail at the Jesus Christians?
Just a question.
LikeLike
Behind 90% of the people who read this blog (??) and and then complain about comment moderation is the same complaint: My posts on Osteen. Or to be more accurate, my posts on Osteen’s non-Gospel being swallowed as THE Gospel.
The logic goes like this: Since I’ve posted contra Osteen, I’m a hypocrite to moderate my own blog.
Yeah, I’m working on that one, too. If I see the logic in it, I’ll let you know.
So to the brother who wasted my time in getting me to write a civil letter letting him continue to comment with a minor effort at growing up- I’ve now got you on the spam list. It gives my “spazing” delete finger a rest, and I don’t have to waste my time imagining you actually wanted to communicate.
LikeLike
All: I hate to delete any comments, so let me be very clear. I had to delete two comments by someone.
No one gets to examine other persons in the conversation for orthodoxy. No one here is joining your church. No one here is trying to be your pastor. This is an open discussion. No one gets to adopt the standard or orthodoxy for another person. We aren’t running a trial or an inquisition.
If you believe you are the standard of orthodoxy and you have permission to judge the rest of us based on whether we answer your questions the way you want, then I’ll go ahead and turn in my paper. You can mark it with an “F.”
Let’s not revisit this kind of post again please. If you need to play theological prosecutor, IM is not the blog you’re looking for.
And for the record, when you start addressing me like you have the right to judge me, and you get to taunt me for being “nervous” over your questions, you’re finished here. Grow up.
peace
MS
LikeLike
“I think there isn’t a position you can hold that doesn’t require some level of faith. You just appear more “rational†if a majority of the public backs you.”
Sherri and Mark, rationality is for Everybody to exercise. Anybody can study biology and paleontology, review the relevant data, and have educated opinions.
Faith, however, isn’t a matter of opinion. It’s a matter of will and a mystical thing. Devotion to a notion, rather than acceptance of an idea.
People accept evolution because it explains things and answers their rational questions with information and implies the techniques that can help us learn more.
Faith isn’t like that. Believing in Genesis as objectively authoritative is not like asking questions – it’s like Not asking questions. To demand that a myth be True indeed is to be completely incurious about how things actually are.
Science isn’t about faith. Knowledge isn’t about faith. Those aren’t the same thing.
Just because true things and untrue things both come in books, doesn’t mean that everything is relatively untrustworthy, except for this one book that For The Love Of God We Can Never Deny Anything About On Pain of Sin.
Equivocation like that isn’t rational. Not as rational as “the majority of people”, certainly.
LikeLike
Then we can look up and talk about what we see up there. Even more mileposts. Billions of them. — Ky boy but not now
No, SAGANS of them.
“Beeeeelyons and beeeeeelyons…”
LikeLike
Rage may have been a poor choice of words. I was reacting to posts that appeared to me to be saying that if Ken Ham expresses his views and seeks to persuade others millions will lose there faith. It must be really different where you live then here in California. Here if someone gets too upset about a pastor’s view on creation they just can drive down the street and find another pastor with views that they find more compatible. Since I serve in a university church I have Phd’s and Masters degree in Sciences who attend my church. I have Phd canditates in Math and Philosophy who atend my congregation. Some of these agree with me on YEC some disagree with me. It is no big thing. I myself have been all over the board on this issue in my life. I have believed in guided evolution, then YEC, then Old Earth Creationism, then back to guided to evolution and now in midlife I am back to YEC. I have been a believing Christian through all the permutations of my belief on this locus of theology. I am currently a young earther because I have had increasing difficulty making sense of the NT with an old earth view. Most old earthers see death, decay, entropy, disease, suffering before the fall of Adam. I simply think the NT narative is more coherent if you believe in YEC. I am not saying people who believe differently are not Christian. I certainly was Christian when I held other views.
LikeLike
Jean
“This story is written from our perspective, so that we can understand it.”
Or more so the perspective of the tribes leaving Egypt.
LikeLike
I think most of the struggle and division comes from people assuming that the first three verses of Genesis occur during the first day. That is not specified, and there is simply nothing in scripture to verify that assumption. Millions of years very well COULD have passed in between “the beginning” and “Let there be light” (for which there is plenty of scriptural support to suggest that this was the Big Bang, and I can buy that. I mean, it’s not like He just flipped a switch), and “the first day” when God took a dark, shapeless earth — one on which dinosaurs might even have roamed until they were snuffed out by a meteor — and molded it into something suitable for human life and created the concept of “day.”
This story is written from our perspective, so that we can understand it. If it was written from HIS perspective, and we tried to understand it, most likely our brains would explode. That doesn’t even mean it’s a metaphor. It’s just the dumbed down, condensed version.
And this is interesting – I don’t even pretend to understand it, but my husband, the Armchair Physicist, was recently trying to explain to me some String Theory findings that the universe is actually constructed of sound. Which makes perfect sense for a universe that was spoken into being.
@ThatOtherJean –Hee! I’m glad you enjoyed it.
LikeLike
Mark: “Bottom line, I know many atheists who point to evolution as their biggest stumbling block to faith in God.”
And I know a number of people interested in Christian religion who find young-earth creationism completely eliminates a number of denominations from consideration. Fortunately, it is possible to believe in both Christianity and evolution.
Jean–Heeee. Thanks for the LOL link.
LikeLike
I’m not calling God a liar. But if we have dating methods that track back incredibly accurately for 100, 1000, 10000 years etc… then what are we to think when they point to 100000 or more years?
Nuclear decay is incredibly accurate over long periods of time. And we have mileposts from all over the globe which all line up. 1000s of them. So if the earth is really only 6000 years old, these mileposts where all set up to point to a past that never existed. And yes I realize the paradoxes you can get into by talking about God created the past 14 billions years 6000 years ago. But now we’re back to the start of my post.
Then we can look up and talk about what we see up there. Even more mileposts. Billions of them.
LikeLike
J E Harden
“I realize that some home-school for reasons that lead to isolation, crippling their children form being effective witnesses for Christ.”
What I obviously failed to make clear is that I run into families that more often fit the mold of what I just quoted from your post rather than what you did and still do. What you did and are doing with home schooling is fine. Great even. What most that I know do with it is a dead end.
On the good side is a family at our church who home schools but participates in city baseball leagues. My daughter (yes daughter) plays in these leagues. But most of their home school associates will not take part in anything that isn’t home school / church (SBC) related. Period. They are hiding. And that’s bad.
LikeLike
DP:
If you’re a mainliner, yes. But try saying you believe in ANY version of ANY kind of evolution if you are an evangelical and see what happens.
I can’t even talk about evolution within a species.
But what really makes me angry is the YEC opposition to ID and especially to using the Big Bang as evidence for God.
That’s narrow beyond narrow. They don’t view the rest of the Bible with this kind of rigid fundamentalism (Try Leviticus out for a drive Dr. Hamm).
The Catholics are light years out in front of us on this issue, as they are on anything that requires real thought and analysis. We have some exceptions, but overall evangelicals have an ignorance fetish.
MS
LikeLike
I must apologize… I misstated my question. It should have said: Why do people have no problem believing in a God who made things happen like a virgin birth, resurrection from the dead, etc., yet have trouble believing he could do something that takes a very long time in a very short time?
Doing something in a very short time would not make God a liar. I do not presume to know how or when the earth was created. I have a lot of questions regarding many things. If I required answers to all of them to believe in God, I simply would not be able to believe.
I really like what Mark said: “I think there isn’t a position you can hold that doesn’t require some level of faith. You just appear more “rational†if a majority of the public backs you.”
Taking a hard stand on something that none of us can be certain of seems to cause division. I would rather humbly admit that I don’t have all the answers.
LikeLike
I haven’t had time to read all the above posts . . . but most of them. I didn’t see any comments about or mention of “Expelled” and (without trying to take this thread on a tangental direction) was wondering what the opinion was about that film? I would love to hear what those in higher education or research think.
I saw it Sunday night at the same church that I watch (unfortuantely) Mr. Hamm’s video serious. I found the film to exceeded my expectations.
LikeLike
This is only tangentially related, but have you seen the LOLCreashun Contest that self-avowed agnostic and scifi author John Scalzi held after his visit to the museum last year? Some of the entries are pretty irreverent, and it’s definitely not recommended viewing for those easily offended by innuendo, curse words or LOLCats. But there’s also some funny in there, and it’s an interesting insight into what non-believers think of the place.
LikeLike
One of the students in our local high school who is a pastors daughter asserted this week that dinosaurs didn’t exist because they are not included in the account of creation in Genesis. This is what happens when you ask your children to fight battles that they are not armed to fight and that do not fall under their responsibility.
I hope that we have taught our daughter the difference between being respectful and skeptical rather than silly and obnoxious.
I believe that God created the universe. I do not understand how the scientific evidence we have today meshes with the account we have in the bible.
I am certain that the arrogance on both sides (creationists and atheistic evolutionists) is not good for furthering our knowledge of God or of the universe He created.
LikeLike
I’m an engineer who has grown more towards YEC over the years. I think there isn’t a position you can hold that doesn’t require some level of faith. You just appear more “rational” if a majority of the public backs you.
I can’t believe what passes for scientific conclusions in science publications these days, related to biology/anthropology and evolution.
Get it wrong? no worries, you can backtrack and the scientific community will say you’re “exploring theories” but if you have a YEC bent, none of your conclusions can be met without some level of derision.
You can conclude that the CM is a big waste of “God’s money” but look at any old cathedral in Europe and try not to say the same thing.
Regarding the “old look” comments. We can’t assume God made things look old unless we have something “old” to compare to.
Bottom line, I know many atheists who point to evolution as their biggest stumbling block to faith in God.
LikeLike
“Theistic Evolution is currently accepted by the Catholic Church, so inquiries from current Catholic sources might be a good place to start. (Yes, IMonk, another reason to swim the Tiber…)”
You can be Protestant and still believe in Theistic Evolution.
LikeLike
Rick:
Let’s not administer that sort of orthodoxy exam in a discussion thread please. No one is responsible to a confession here. We’re just talking across our many divides.
peace
MS
LikeLike
IMonk, I, too, went to government schools and the ones in my state of NM are sadly lacking. This is not due to dedicated teachers, or even administrators, but to a system hell-bent on social engineering rather than education. They don’t call us the Land of Enchantment for nothing! My friends with children in the government schools must be very intentional overseers so that their children receive an education even in the basics.
SottoVoce, I understand the situation with many home-schoolers. My husband and I sent a young man in our church to England’s Labri to help him sort things out and I have used many of their articles and books over the years. Wonderful. We all know home educators who have an overzealous desire to “protect” their children from the world while failing to prepare them to live in the world as Christ’s resident aliens.
Ky boy but not now,
Well, some of the home-schooled do become pastors. My 29 year old son is an associate pastor, very missional, with degrees in English, Classics, and working on his masters in Biblical Exegesis. (Shh, he does not share ideologies with Mr. Hamm.) My 28 year old daughter is a sculptor. Her degrees are in Philosophy and Fine Arts. (geocities.com/allisonstreett) (Shh, she sculpts nudes.) My 24 year old son is a quality control manager in a specialty food manufacturing business. His degree is in Business. He also played D1 basketball without compromising his deep faith. (By the testimony of those he worked with–not “his mother”) (comfortfoods.com) My 23 year old daughter is a writer, teaches in a classical Christian school, teaches literature in an alternative high school, teaches ballet and is a dancer for Elite Dance Studio’s professional company. Her degrees are in Creative Writing and Philosophy. She hopes to avoid seeing her work in the fiction aisle of any major Christian book store should she be blessed with publication. 🙂 I enjoy writing about my children, but that is not the point here. The point is that homeschoolers are routinely vilified by fellow Christians. Why? Why do we predict such dire futures for those who are committed to working hard to prepare their children to truly be salt and light in this world? Why are we afraid to say that we need to protect little ones as we continually prepare them by widening the circle of exposure to ideas and culture as they grow older? Why is choosing a different path than the public/government schools so offensive? My two adopted sons were neglected, abandoned, and abused before they finally came “home” to us at the ages of 10 and 7 three years ago. Home education is the best for them as we endeavor to keep their world small initially for the purposes of healing and learning all they have missed. Three years later they are progressively involved in more and more, including service projects. Regardless of how parents choose to educate their children, parents are accountable for that education. Education encompasses much more than what is offered in school systems be they private secular, Christian, or public. I realize that some home-school for reasons that lead to isolation, crippling their children form being effective witnesses for Christ. I recognize that some send their children to public schools for reasons that lead to abdication, subjecting them to social engineering. Both forms of indoctrination are wrong. I had one son in a Christian school part time in his junior and senior years because I knew we had a gifted athlete and he needed the media attention if he was going to have his gifts recognized enough to be able to play ball college. The school was more of a holding/entertainment arena as it attempted to keep Christian young adults occupied so that the “culture wouldn’t get ’em”. No preparation there! And yet, Jesus, still will finish the good work He has promised to complete in us all. It is not kind to ignore the small-mindedness in which some isolate, some abdicate, some entertain their children. We must all toughen up if we are to be who He has called us to be and it will surely demand sacrifice of us all regardless of the path we choose.
LikeLike
Treebeard:
Theistic Evolution is currently accepted by the Catholic Church, so inquiries from current Catholic sources might be a good place to start. (Yes, IMonk, another reason to swim the Tiber…)
I had a book that explained it in simple terms; unfortunately, it’s not in front of me right now and had such a generic “Creation or Evolution” title that I can’t find it online (over 9000 hits at Amazon.com). I’ll see if I can find it tonight and post it tomorrow.
LikeLike
I am a believing Christian, but have become convinced that evolution is scientifically true. I just don’t see any way around it. So I suppose that makes me a “theistic evolutionist,” although I don’t really know much about the perspective.
I’m genuinely struggling with these issues, so I’m interested in what other people have to say. Here are questions I have:
1) Were Adam and Eve literal, or metaphorical? The New Testament refers to both of them as real people.
2) Did Adam and Eve represent some kind of pinnacle of evolution, where God could now say that these were human beings, capable of making free choices?
3) Did the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil really exist? In Revelation the tree of life appears to be a “sign,” rather than a literal tree.
4) If evolution is true, then there was a lot of death in the world before man even came into being. That seems to contradict death being the result of man’s sin. How can this be explained?
5) If Adam and Eve were not literal people, then at what point in Genesis does it become a literal history (i.e. Cain and Abel, the genealogies, etc.)?
LikeLike
Rick
“And by the way, when I say believe, I mean believe, the same way you believe the earth goes around the sun.”
So how do you feel about this from Joshua 10?
13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies.
Given what many of us know about astronomy the words “stood still” and “stop” here are hard to take literally. But I can feel that something occurred that appeared to the people as if the sun and moon stopped.
As a friend said, “Stopped relative to what!?”
LikeLike
At first glance I thought you wrote “multi-million dollar fallacy” instead of “multi-million dollar facility”. I stand by my first reading.
LikeLike
This could be a long one. So many things to comment on.
Besides the comparison of the Creation Museum’s Adam and Eve to the Rubens one yesterday. I noticed Hamm couldn’t bring himself to show their full bodies or even Eve’s boobs…
How else are they supposed to take it when the museum contains figures of people riding around on dinosaurs? — JonXlin
Yabba Dabba Doo?
One thing I observe in this place, as well as the Hell Houses that iMonk mentioned a few posts ago, is that it lacks in beauty. — Clavem Abyssi
Chalk that up to the all-consuming “Cult of Ugliness” you see everywhere. I saw it in SF from the Seventies on, when Dark Futures replaced Bright Futures in general. One of the corollaries was alien design; in order to show how Serious (TM) your SF was, the alien world and critters had to be Seriously Ugly and Seriously Unattractive. And Christians have bought into the nihilism of the Cult of Ugliness.
Eve looks SO 70’s. This is awesome. — Patrick Lynch
Better SO 70s than SO 50s. Can you imagine a clean-shaven Adam with a Christian Crewcut?
I believe the SBC will adopt a confessional article on young earth creationism within 5 years. — IMonk
After all, these days all there is of the Gospel IS Young Earth Creationism Uber Alles. It’s become God’s Litmus Test.
Further, why would God give us TWO accounts of Creation (Genesis has two) that don’t really correspond? — Patrick Lynch
Especially when the most quoted account (Genesis 1) is structured according to Classical Hebrew POETRY, with its parallelisms and refrain of “And the Evening and the Morning were the Nth day…” That is Classical Hebrew POETIC Structure, not textbook axioms. IT WAS WRITTEN AS A POEM!
Our belief that the universe is rational is predicated on the notion that He didn’t do something in a very short time and then ‘hide’ it.
Saying “God is SOOOOOo omnipotent..†is a fine statement, but when you try to use it to defend somebody’s interpretation of a story against what real people’s observations of the universe have taught them, it doesn’t fit the conversation.
Also, no offense Sherri, but that interpretation is totally nonsensical. You can’t claim that the 7-day theory is true “Just like the Bible saysâ€, and then go right back and try to say, “this wasn’t the Book because God’s playing a trick on us, but on Day 8, God went back and made it look like Days 1-6 took 10 billion years. We see through His trick because we have FAITH.†If you believe Genesis is literal, you have to believe that the story left things out intentionally. — Patrick Lynch
Here’s the thing about the “he made it look old from the start theory.†It makes God a liar. The analogy often used is that he made Adam a mature man, not a baby. Okay, but when starlight hits the earth from 11 million light-years away, and we observe it through our telescopes, we are looking at something that happened 11 million-years ago. At least, we think we are. If God created the universe 6000 years ago, then he intentionally created a false back-story for each and every star, showing events that never, ever happened. — Kirk
This is called “The Omphalos Theory”, after the Victorian-era book by Gosse that first proposed it. (Omphalos is Greek for belly-button, after some idle theological speculation whether Adam had one or not.) One of Stephen Jay Gould’s essay collections has the full story.
A common nickname for this is “Last Tuesday-ism”; if God could create the entire cosmos with a false history and backstory, how do you know He didn’t create it ten seconds ago with all YOUR memories and life freshly-created ex nihilo?
That way lies madness.
The Cosmos is compatible with a Big Bang left to age 13.7 billion years with current physics and chemistry. If you want to look at the true Creation, look at the background setup of physical laws, mathematics, and chemistry.
What Omphalos implies is that God is deliberately leading us into sin (unbelief in Young Earth Creationism) with a deliberate deception (the fake backstory/history of the Cosmos). Believe the divinely-falsified physical evidence and be damned to Hell.
Again, that way lies madness.
Why would God give us an account of what He did that contradicted what He actually did?
That goes against the whole character of God as we know Him throughout the rest of Scripture. He wouldn’t do that. He didn’t. — Patrick Lynch
“Your reading the spell made me visible. What makes you think I wouldn’t play by my own rules?” — Aslan of Narnia, in Voyage of the Dawn Treader
Really, what kind of God would go to that much trouble to make a brand new universe look millions or billions of years old and then be upset with me when I was taken in by his flawless deception? — Kirk
Al’lah, who is not bound by His character, or His own rules, only by His Omnipotent Will. Such has been Islamic theology since al-Ghazali divorced Faith from physical evidence or reason some 800 years ago. And look at the results…
LikeLike
Christina,
Good point. I appreciated your comments. I agree the who is far more important than the how.
LikeLike
Clavem Abyssi
“Still, I’d pay the $19.95 USD for a tour.”
Gregory DeVore
“As a Lutheran 6 day creationist I am surpised about the amount of rage I see displayed at Ken Ham.””
iMonk
I believe the SBC will adopt a confessional article on young earth creationism within 5 years. That will marginalize many of us and further narrow the SBC’s ability to reach anyone outside its narrow cultural confines.”
j. Michael Jones
“Michael, I think it was about two years ago, as I was sitting in our church’s adult Sunday School class . . . watching Mr. Hamm’s video series that I first reaized that I was NOT an Evangelical any more, and there was no turning back.”
Glenn
“iMonk said: “I believe the SBC will adopt a confessional article on young earth creationism within 5 years.†IMONK I really hope your wrong and I disagree. It wasn’t that long ago SBTS had William Dembski teaching Intelligent Design. I know alot of Southern Baptist who love Hugh Ross and follow his teaching. Are they evolutionists?”
AIG is in the business of running seminars and selling teaching material to churches and home schoolers promoting their “science”. I’ll not do anything that builds up this “ministry”.
As to rage at KH, the AIG site basically ends nearly every article, discussion, paper, etc… with a statement that if you don’t agree with us you’re an evolutionist. Yes they do say in other places that Christians might disagree but then call the ones who disagree evolutionists.
Around 2 years ago one of the kids of the small group Sunday School class I’m in basically got thrown out of his 11 grade Sunday School class because he kept asking the teacher questions about the AIG lessens they were being given. This kid is way smart and he was asking logical questions about nonsense science being told by someone who didn’t understand the science good or bad.
Over the next few months I dug into the issue along with others in my class. I read almost all of AIG, most of what Hugh Ross had on the web, read other postings, talked to a lot of folks, and even bought AIG promoted Russell Humphreys’ book “Starlight & Time” which claims to show a scientific way the universe was created in 6 days of Earth time. (Earth time is a big deal here.) This book is repeatedly touted as showing how a 6 day creation works via science. I was less than convinced. In our class we have several folks who could teach astronomy at the university level, a world class mathematician, and many others with science and engineering backgrounds. Only one of the folks with this background supports the AIG view of things. And as best I can tell he supports it not from belief that they are right but a fear that he has to say Genesis 1 is literally true.
One of our class leaders thought it would be a good idea to spend 8 weeks with the Ken Ham, Hugh Ross, DVD debate and discussion. I disagreed. We did it. Classes never got down to name calling. Barely. But outside the class WW III erupted. Emails, phone calls, pastors asking AIG fans to sit in our class to keep tabs on us. And what came out of it is the KH / AIG position is that if you don’t believe in the AIG version of things you really don’t understand atonement and are most likely not saved. It got ugly at that point. Imagine someone coming up to you and telling you if you don’t believe in a 6000 year old earth you are NOT saved. Out of this we discovered our pastoral staff said that they were open to various interpretations but in practice anyone not on the AIG band wagon was wrong and needed to be shunned until put right.
This is on top of the issues that AIG uses very bad “science” to prove their points. Taking 5 data points out of 10,000 and saying the 5 are right but the others wrong because they point to the wrong conclusion. And as to all the folks citing Humphreys’ book, very few have read it and hardly any would understand it. Its scientific explanation of things includes two times where God redefines physics to make it all work. And even if you buy these miracles, the other “science” ranges from poor to bad. The entire AIG curriculum is full of stuff like this. And the kid getting thrown out was not the only one. We discovered many teens had walked out of the church over the way AIG was presented.
My family is leaving our SBC church in a few weeks. Others have left and are leaving soon. This was a big part of a “last straw”. We’re raising our teens to be intellectual midgets while telling them they have truth to back up their concepts. Sad.
Sorry for the length.
LikeLike
Here’s the thing about the “he made it look old from the start theory.” It makes God a liar. The analogy often used is that he made Adam a mature man, not a baby. Okay, but when starlight hits the earth from 11 million light-years away, and we observe it through our telescopes, we are looking at something that happened 11 million-years ago. At least, we think we are. If God created the universe 6000 years ago, then he intentionally created a false back-story for each and every star, showing events that never, ever happened. (And here’s a mind-bender for young-earth creationist–if I could go to that distant star and train a very powerful telescope on the Earth, what would I see? Did God create a false back-story for us?)
For the analogy to hold, God would have had to have created Adam at age 30 with detailed memories of what he had done in his life up to that point, even though he had done nothing at all.
Really, what kind of God would go to that much trouble to make a brand new universe look millions or billions of years old and then be upset with me when I was taken in by his flawless deception?
LikeLike
Sherri,
Maybe it’s not a problem for some people to believe in a virgin birth or resurrection from the dead because these things are strictly matters of faith. There is no physical evidence that either of them actually happened; it is only that the Bible says they did. There is, however, overwhelming scientific evidence that the earth is billions of years old. Why would God leave physical evidence that lies?
LikeLike
ndidi said,
…someone once said that the story in Genesis was more about Who made the world, not how long it took, or exactly how it came about. Something like that. Today, I hold that closely to my heart.
This is actually a point my brother, Bill Griffin, a doctor in Hebrew, makes. The point (he says) of the Genesis narrative is that God made the heavens and the earth, as opposed to “gods”. He also will go on at length about the textual arguments against taking the Ussher approach to dating the creation, concluding that Adam & Eve lived far longer ago than, say, Ken Ham would assert.
Personally, I guess you’d call me an Old Earth creationist. On the one hand, I see scripture stating quite plainly that God created everything. On the other hand, I have enough background in astronomy, geology, bible, and biology to opine that:
1) The earth really is older than 6,000 years;
2) Some species lived long before others;
3) [2] does not threaten the notion that God created it– even Genesis describes it as progressive;
4) Natural selection is observable, whereas to date progressive evolution (understood as a biochemical, genetic process) is not;
5) The order of creation given in Genesis 1 makes sense from a biochemical perspective, and the descriptions make a fair amount of sense from the point of view of an observer standing on the earth (not the same as an observer in space).
6) When one studies the incredible complexity of biological systems and their interactions on the molecular level, logic does not allow me to believe that these things could develop this way through random mutation– no matter HOW many years you postulate.
But those are merely my personal conclusions. I could be wrong, and one day in the Kingdom I hope my understanding will be somwhat enhanced… Many of my Christian associates are embarrasingly Young-Earth (embarrassing because their understanding of the “other” side is so incredibly naive and uninformed). And they are not sympathetic to my opinions, so I usually keep them to myself. It’s funny: young-earthers think I’m probably a heretic, and secular science-types would think I’m a naive fool for believing in creation in any form. Sigh…
Read Phillip Johnson’s book if you haven’t.
LikeLike
Sigh… the biggest problem I have with Answers in Genesis is the fact that they have misled so many people into believing that Ken Ham has a real doctorate in science. Now I can’t swear that the videos did say that (we watched them all in middle and highschool bible class) but we were certainly told that by our professors, and I’m pretty sure the videos did refer to “Dr. Ken Ham” – and I don’t believe in refering to people as Dr. if they only have an honorary degree – sorry – its just not ethical. When I got to college and beyond and found out that he didn’t (and that Dr. Dobson didn’t believe in a literal 6 days of creation) it was quite shocking!
LikeLike
My bad
Not “Age of Rocks” but “The Age of the Earth”.
LikeLike
I visited the Creation Museum almost within the first month of its opening with my family. They were dazzled; I was less so.
My review was a five part piece at my website here, here, here, here, and here.
No matter what you think about Hamm, the accomplishment was amazing; however, as many note, it is an evangelistic piece rather than a pure “science” piece. No ID allowed, apparently.
My view (per my last link) is that it is also bad evangelism. The whole area appears more of a comic book than a true museum. (I noted a rather strange similarity between Hamm’s displays and some Chick comic books from decades ago.) Also, the whole thing seems more childish than anything else. The video shown “Men in Bibs” (which may be replaced now) gave a bumbling view of angels that is at such odds with Scripture that it is hard to believe a Christian put it together.
But as a “wax museum” of the Genesis account, I have to still admit, it was pretty impressive.
LikeLike
Our belief that the universe is rational is predicated on the notion that He didn’t do something in a very short time and then ‘hide’ it.
Saying “God is SOOOOOo omnipotent..” is a fine statement, but when you try to use it to defend somebody’s interpretation of a story against what real people’s observations of the universe have taught them, it doesn’t fit the conversation.
Also, no offense Sherri, but that interpretation is totally nonsensical. You can’t claim that the 7-day theory is true “Just like the Bible says”, and then go right back and try to say, “this wasn’t the Book because God’s playing a trick on us, but on Day 8, God went back and made it look like Days 1-6 took 10 billion years. We see through His trick because we have FAITH.” If you believe Genesis is literal, you have to believe that the story left things out intentionally. Why would God give us an account of what He did that contradicted what He actually did?
That goes against the whole character of God as we know Him throughout the rest of Scripture. He wouldn’t do that. He didn’t.
Further, why would God give us TWO accounts of Creation (Genesis has two) that don’t really correspond?
I think the answer is that he didn’t give us the Truth about the universe, he gave us stories about it.
You can’t save the literal interpretation with piety. You can only choose not to think about its problems for the Greater Glory of God.
LikeLike
Sherri
“Why do people have no problem believing in a God who made things happen like a virgin birth, resurrection from the dead, etc., yet have trouble believing he could do something in a very short time and make it look like it took a very long time?”
That’s the he created it “old” theory. Ken Hamm and AIG don’t agree with it at all.
I’ll let someone have that point of view but then you have to accept that God is telling us a “lie” to some degree. There are many many many ways to date the age of the earth. “Age of Rocks” is a book on some of them. They all point to 4 billion plus years. Did God intentionally deceive us? Maybe. But I don’t buy it. And not only did he create the Earth to be old he created billions time billions of things to look this way. Times billions.
But I’ll agree that’s a reasonable position to take compared to AIG.
LikeLike
Just a question:
Why do people have no problem believing in a God who made things happen like a virgin birth, resurrection from the dead, etc., yet have trouble believing he could do something in a very short time and make it look like it took a very long time?
LikeLike
“The CM is much more evangelistic, than scientific..”
Could it really be any other way?
Creationism is a funny thing to me. It’s not a theory, it’s belief in a story. Because of that, the derision that YEC’s try to have for Darwin is very interesting to me: by treating science as a rival narrative instead of a way to work, they seem to hope to undermine it’s truth claims.
Some spectacular paranoia develops that way. Of course, since Creationism doesn’t, as science does, produce new knowledge, none of that paranoia is ever lighted upon. In the end, you either believe the story is literal history and strain not to defile your mind from any other source, or you realize that the only difference between belief and un-belief in Creationism is what you allow yourself to think about.
Thought control is the ultimate form of piety.
LikeLike
Ranger
“I wonder what Adam used to keep his beard so neat and trimmed, and why he doesn’t have any chest hair? Is that in the presentation?”
Don’t forget the conditioner that it appears Eve uses regularly. 🙂
My favorite way to respond to these depictions is to say that I figure Jesus (and maybe Adam) most likely looked like a young Yasser Arafat. Most folks have no come back.
LikeLike
iMonk,
I visited the CM on Oct 31, 2008 with the intent of writing a review for my church. Being an old earther and having a BS in physics and astronomy and an MS in Optical Science I thought I could at least contribute to the discussion in those areas. My knowledge of biology and geology though non-zero, is much more limited. I will not bore your readers with my rather lengthy review (if you are interested email me: mort_chien@yahoo.com).
The CM is much more evangelistic, than scientific, though its intended audience seems to be nominal Christians of the benighted variety not on the YEC reservation, or those waivering, or those YECs who want assurance that they are “right”. Very little science is presented. The planetarium show took 4 shots at modern astronomy, all of which were weak and refutable but would leave a non-scientifically educated person with the idea that astronomy is very confused about the life of a star or galaxy. If their treatment of biology and geology is similar, well …
I have a delemma and would appreciate feedback. If Ken Hamm genuinely believes what he claims, it would seem his motives are commendable even if his science and hermaneutic are flawed. My biggest concern is that by equating YEC with pure Christianity, and by harshly putting down all other interpretations of Genesis, substantial barriers are raised to the gospel – especially among college educated and the scientifically literate who may feel that they must commit an act of intellectual suicide to become a follower of Christ (if YEC is part of following Christ).
There are many respectable Genesis literalists – RC Sproul comes to mind. There are others like Francis Schaeffer or Wayne Grudem who either were/are uncommitted to a particular creationist view, or who are old earthers, or even (gasp) theistic evolutionists.
So how does one criticize Hamm fairly without trashing him. How does one charitably deal with a brother or sister in Christ on this issue.
Respectfully,
Mort Chien
LikeLike
atruefaith
“There is no conscious conspiracy in the various history and science communities throughout academia.”
I used to feel this way until I read through my kids 7th or 8th grade biology book. It seemed that every other paragraph started with a sentence that began with “Due to evolution …” And in many cases the point was flat out wrong even to someone who would be a total evolutionary biologist. It was basically a mantra.
It was a rant and I’m sure it had the desired result of the book authors. Some kids came away thinking evolution explains everything.
My son bought a tee shirt that said “Darwin Lied” and wore it during the most heated moments. So did my daughter 2 years later. 🙂
Says he who, along with his kids, thinks AIG has it all wrong.
LikeLike
iMonk
“With all respect to homeschoolers- and I do respect all of you who diligently and seriously do that work- here in Ky many homeschoolers are making the decision strictly to avoid the teaching of evolution…”
I know a lot of home school families. And the issue I have is similar to iMonk’s but really broader. Most of them talk about “hiding their kids from the secular world. Where are these kids going to work when they get to their 20″s. Pastors in fundamentalists churches?
And I also know others who just felt it was a better way. But they are a distinct minority of the ones I know.
LikeLike
WIth all respect to homeschoolers- and I do respect all of you who diligently and seriously do that work- here in Ky many homeschoolers are making the decision strictly to avoid the teaching of evolution, and that based on AIG and Kent Hovind’s rhetoric blaming all sin in young people on the teaching of evolution. The vilification of public schools is broad and shallow. We are going to have millions of young people from home and private schools abandon the faith over this issue, not to mention unable to comprehend the scientific worldview or the actual claims of various scientific theories.
LikeLike
Just one note: I’m a public school boy with great respect for public schools. When discussing your personal motivations for homeschooling or private schoolong, please be respectful of the choice many make to attend public schools as Christians or to work there as teachers.
Don’t unfairly mischaracterize public schools here at IM. (Not that anyone has. Just want to remind.)
peace
MS
LikeLike
SottoVoce,
LAbri was a great resource for me too, after a failed missionary experience 20 years ago and I was teetering on the edge of my old agnosticism. I eventually moved to Rochester, MN (for five years)to be around them. I still consider their annual conference in Rochester as the one place a year were I go and speak what I really, really think around Christians without seeing horror on everyone’s faces . . . and of course I feel the same here at Mikie’s little Internet Cafe.
LikeLike
J E Harden: I believe what Michael is referring to (please correct me if I’m wrong) is the tendency of some families to pull their children out of public schools precisely because of the creation/evolution debate. They see it as an incredible threat to their children’s faith and adopt a fortress mentality–get those kids out of that situation and keep them in the home where they can be taught without any “poison” coming in from the outside. It’s a reaction to secularism pervading our education system. This debate has become a major factor, even THE decisive factor, when many parents decide how to educate their children, and when it comes up in a school things get ugly. I believe that is the point.
I was a homeschooler myself (for reasons that don’t have much to do with my faith), and I’ve wanted to be a scientist for years. I was brought up in the six-day mentality and defended it ardently until I went to college and realized that I couldn’t make it work anymore. I got tired of trying to explain why so many brilliant people were actually stupid, or just “weren’t looking at it right”, or were maliciously covering up everything that supported my position. Really tired. I almost walked out on God over it. But He led me to a place called L’Abri where I spent a month studying the interpretation of Genesis and various views on creation. And I wound up an old-earth Creationist who is very comfortable with ambiguity on the exact details of “how” God created the earth and who is not considering throwing in the towel any time soon. That’s my story. And I infinitely prefer the place where I am now to the place where the Creation Museum’s story nearly took me.
LikeLike
I can’t agree more that education systems are 99% propaganda. In a lot of ways I think that Christian schools are often worse than public schools because they’re often more reactionary. There are a few shining stars within both the public and private systems that still want to teach children to think for themselves and come up with their own ideas. I really appreciate those examples.
I homeschool my children because I want to do just that. I never want to submit my children to this kind-of manipulation for their minds, from Christians or from non-Christians. I want to teach my children to think.
LikeLike
I attended a young-Earth creation seminar last month, and it deeply saddened me to see this stuff being presented, and eagerly accepted, as apologetics. The errors and faulty reasoning abounded in the presentation, but most people didn’t have the background to be able to critically assess what was presented. I can see two great risks in the AIG creation museum’s success:
1. Our young people are being set up for a fall. Some of them will figure out that the AIG/ICR story just doesn’t work, and they will leave the faith.
2. Non-Christians will continue to think that Christianity is false, not because of the foolishness of the cross, but the foolishness of the bad science of young-Earth creationism.
I am an old-Earth creationist, yet believe in the truthfulness of Scriptures, the reality of our fall into sin, and our need for a savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. Rejecting young-Earth creationism hasn’t made me soften the core doctrines of the faith one iota.
LikeLike
By the way…even denim jumpers and head coverings are not predictive of how someone thinks. Grace over all judgments, please, especially those made at a distance.
LikeLike
Michael, sorry, I have no desire to get you into trouble. It already happened to me…
I was invited to help a small church whose pastor had relocated. Their stated intention was to be a “community” church, which around here means, “Major on the majors, minor on the minors, and have the wisdom to know the difference.” One man was leading a class using AIG materials, and I told him I thought the way the subject was approached by AIG violated the spirit of what it means to be a community church. It was fine for us to present different views on such matters, but to present one interpretation and say that all others are wrong and unbiblical was not what we were looking for. Unfortunately, the aftermath of that (along with other factors as well) led to me resigning and the church disbanding. It was the proverbial straw.
Just one more “friendly fire” incident in the great culture war.
LikeLike
What is the relationship between “homeschooling ascending in your denomination” and you being indicted for your opinions? I have home-schooled four children from K through 12th grade. All have graduated with honors from secular colleges and universities. I am now homeschooling our two adopted sons. I fully expect my young sons to be able to discuss theological and other issues without getting hateful, raging, ostracizing others, becoming arrogant, or compromising their faith as they follow the example of their adult brothers and sisters. Everyone who home-schools is not a fundamentalist. We don’t all wear denim jumpers and head coverings. We don’t all think America is the promised land. We don’t all think on one track. And we are not all pleased to have our children insolently reply to teachers or others who teach evolution, “Were you there?” as Ken Ham encourages. The government schools, especially in my state, are terribly lacking. I consider it my responsibility as a parent to see that my children are educated, know how to think, and how to find out what they do not know with Christ at the center of it all. I am not afraid of ideas, worldviews, conservatives, liberals, heathens, pagans, or otherwise. I have home-schooled my children to prepare them for whatever calling God will have for them in this life as they do the good work that He has prepared for them since the foundations of the world… whatever that may be. Please try not to classify all home-schoolers alike. The task is difficult and rewarding. We do not all share the same educational philosophies. Often our understanding and ideas even grow and change over time as we study with our children. Imagine That!
LikeLike
Rick,
You said, “What I don’t understand is how so many that are responding would say they believe the Gospel, but don’t believe the account of the Creator given in the Bible.” The point that Christians disagree on here is not about belief or disbelief in the beginning of Genesis, but rather it is disagreement about particular understandings of the genre, purpose, and meaning of the Creation account in Genesis. Genesis begins with a pre-scientific, theologically oriented, poetic account of Creation written in a particular place at a particular time to a particular people. To attempt to construct any scientific theory from those passages is to do violence to the genre and the primary thrust of the opening of Genesis.
The truth that Genesis puts out there is that the Universe is not an accident of chaos, but the deliberate, ordered relational system of all existence established solely by the work of a single Almighty God who made all things good. Humanity was given a place of preeminence in this good work and then set about botching it; but even then God responded by demonstrating both His impeccable justice and infinite mercy. It’s about the character of God, and our relationship with Him. Our focus should lie there. Any beliefs we may form about the relationship of science to this truth should be held loosely and never be held up as an obstacle to reconciliation with God.
There are many resources that provide a deeper exploration of this discussion, but one I would suggest is Mark Driscoll’s sermon on Creation. He is an Old Earth Creationist who contends that discussion about the specific method of Creation should be regard as an in-house debate of minor importance among believers.
It saddens me how often we as followers of Christ (myself included in this) get sidetracked in majoring in minor issues. We add unnecessary baggage to the offense of the Gospel and distract people from focusing on Jesus. “For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.”
LikeLike
This place actually isn’t a museum, if we go by the dictionary…
“mu·seum (myo̵̅oÌ… zē′əm)
noun
an institution, building, or room for preserving and exhibiting artistic, historical, or scientific objects
Etymology: L < Gr mouseion, place for the Muses or for study < mousa, Muse”
LikeLike
“I believe the SBC will adopt a confessional article on young earth creationism within 5 years.” IMONK I really hope your wrong and I disagree. It wasn’t that long ago SBTS had William Dembski teaching Intelligent Design. I know alot of Southern Baptist who love Hugh Ross and follow his teaching. Are they evolutionists? Of course not, but William Dembski, Hugh Ross and their ilk have made major inroads in the SBC and I don’t see people reverting back to YEC anytime soon. But I could be wrong!
LikeLike
Rick, does it matter? How does trying to defend Young Earth Creationism make anybody a better Christian?
I fail to see how taking Genesis literally actually invites God into your life more than those of us who don’t. Is He more with you than with others?
If you can answer that, I’ll believe anything.
LikeLike
Michael, I think it was about two years ago, as I was sitting in our church’s adult Sunday School class . . . watching Mr. Hamm’s video series that I first reaized that I was NOT an Evangelical any more, and there was no turning back. I had struggled with the Evangelical church for 15 years, and now I finally knew where I stood.
It came as one of our dear elders (and I was an elder at the time) responded to my disagreemen with Mr. Hamm, said, “Well my Bible says the earth is 6 thousand years old and created in 6 days. If you don’t believe my Bible then you can’t believe in Christ!” I felt a great sadness that day.
It is too bad that the Church has allowed non-essentials to divide us. I would never, ever have considered Charlie anything else but a dear brother . . . even if he believed that all the fossils were put into the ground by Satan just to fool us.
As others have said, I am concerned (and the reason I was raising public opposition to Mr. Hamm) is that if we lie to our youth about science, and then they realize that it was a lie, then they will believe that Jesus was a lie too.
LikeLike
iMonk and others,
One thing that I cannot connect the dots on. I think the most of us would agree that the Gospel is about believing God and what he says about our sins and his Son’s atonement for them. The only act we can perform that can possibly save our souls is to BELIEVE God. Of course, we all know that even in the old testament, Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him as righteousness…
What I don’t understand is how so many that are responding would say they believe the Gospel, but don’t believe the account of the Creator given in the Bible. Can someone explain to me their method of discerning which parts of the Bible should be believed?
My thoughts are that God has shown that He puts the very highest premium on BELIEF, even to the point that our eternal future rests on it. Jesus referred to many of the figures in Genesis – was he naive enough to believe it?
LikeLike
“A person generally comes to faith based on a handful of beautiful experiences in his life, either in prayer, liturgy, art or even a poignant moment of life…If Dostoyevsky said ‘Beauty will save the world’, it was also Read who said ‘Ugliness is the only sin’, which is strangely true.” – Clavem Abyssi
Man, that’s good.
LikeLike
I believe the SBC will adopt a confessional article on young earth creationism within 5 years.
That will marginalize many of us and further narrow the SBC’s ability to reach anyone outside its narrow cultural confines.
Homeschooling is ascending in my denomination. Schools are already suspect. I can’t discuss anything having to do with science or cultural issues with my students because it will wind up indicting me. In fact, this comment may wind up indicting me. Why do you ask these questions? 🙂
LikeLike
As someone married to a public school science teacher (biology major), I’ve grown accustomed to the perennial demonization of science by some Christians and to the politicization of the creationism issue. There’s a lot of silliness and misrepresentation and fear-mongering that does nothing to honor our Lord and Savior, and I certainly count the creation museum as a prime example of that. I devoutly hope for more books like “The Language of God” by Francis S. Collins, who is both a strong and devoted Christian and headed the human genome project.
LikeLike
Michael, where do you see discussion on this issue heading? What are we to make of people like John MacArthur giving his blessing to this museum and the teachings of AIG. I have heard you say that it has been an issue for you with some of your colleagues. What will it mean for those of us who are evangelicals and who want to pastor churches but come up against hysterical opposition because we take a different view?
LikeLike
Gregory,
I will admit that I do get emotional…not hateful, but very emotional. I’ve seen many souls who use this as a wedge where there doesn’t need to be. I suppose the argument could be made that they would use anything, but does that excuse giving them the bat with which to beat us?
And because I can’t resist the bait…
I believe the Biblical explanation given is, “Then God said: ‘Let there be…'”. That doesn’t qualify as “how”. It tells me that God created X out of nothing. Let me rephrase. It tells me [who] [did] [what] out of [non-what]. My question is how did he? One can say that God created the Earth to go around the Sun. How? By using a law of gravity to keep her on her track. We can then delve into the physics and look at the paths of the planets and the beauty God wrote into mathematics.
While I’m not saying that God couldn’t create everything fully formed in a flash, it is not the way he works in the world. Everything is ordered by a beautiful logic and flow that is breathtaking to behold. To see the forming of a child within the womb, or a caterpillar into a butterfly is amazing and breathtaking, and above all ordered and reasonable. The caterpillar doesn’t go into it’s cocoon to become an elephant, nor does one plus one ever equal seven.
The creator of mathematics and logic created a world to be explored and understood. We seek to understand our surroundings and one of the ways we do that is by asking how. How was the sun made? I know God made it, but how did he make it? I see that other stars are made within clouds of gas reacting to very logical laws of gravity, is that how ours was made?
To deny this image of God in us (reason) is a great folly and does harm both to the one who believes it and to the ‘innocent’ one who is lead to reject religion because they recognize the harm done by rejecting reason.
LikeLike
Rage?
Rage?
Who said Hamm and company couldn’t present their point of view?
LikeLike
As a Lutheran 6 day creationist I am surpised about the amount of rage I see displayed at Ken Ham. So you dont agree with him. Build your own museum. It seems rather imperialistic for you to insist that the only view on Genesis that can be presented is your own. If you think Genesis does not show us how God created then who is stoping you from teaching your doctrine. Those of us who believe that Genesis tells us both the who and the how will continue to teach our doctrine also. Get over it!
LikeLike
I have grown up holding to a creationist view, but don’t really have a thought about the doctrine of creation and don’t care to at this time. I’ve been curious about Theistic evolution for the faith/science debate reason, but haven’t had time to study it.
But darn if putting creationism into a museum doesn’t make it look really absurd! But then again, from an outside perspective, I guess a lot of Christian thought looks absurd.
LikeLike
I wonder what Adam used to keep his beard so neat and trimmed, and why he doesn’t have any chest hair? Is that in the presentation? Does Genesis say that somewhere in its apparently multilayered text?
Of course, AIG and proponents will say its a sin to not take the Bible literally, but their often allegorical readings of Genesis betray their edict.
LikeLike
SORRY MONK I originally posted this on the wrong page so Im posting it again here where it was suppose to go…
Well what can I say?? I see those advertisements on TBN for THE HOLYLAND EXPERIENCE and personally I cringe.
And its funny because TBN has now bought the HOLYLAND EXPERIENCE park.
Superficiality breeds superficiality…
Is nothing sacred anymore??
This is just the kind of amunition the ENEMY loves.
Reducing the whole message of salvation and the Son Of God to a theme park ride.
In Bill Mahers movie Religulous he goes to the park sits down and has a talk with the guy who walks around all day pretending to be “JESUSâ€.
Kind of like when you go disneyland you can shake hands with Mickey Mouse.
Nothing like having a beer with the Son of God after a hard day of dying for your sins.
If our faith is to be reduced to a superficial theme park mentality or a ride at disneyland than our faith is in very very deep trouble.
LikeLike
Just curious – Has anyone out there read a point by point response to all of the points in Lee Strobel’s “The Case For A Creator”? If even part of the information he presents is correct, one need not be a Christian, a creationist, stupid, or whatever term you choose to intellectually accept and/or believe in a Creator.
LikeLike
Creationism is one of those things that gets me on a soap box real quick.
I majored in a scientific field and the atheists in that field loved to throw Creationism at me as a “see, Christians are dumb.” It was the most frustrating thing to explain again and again that no, you don’t have to reject reason to have faith, nor do you have to reject faith to have reason. Arg!!
Science asks “how…?” and religion asks, “why (or who)…?”. They are two very different questions! The answer to “how was the world created?” is not “God created it.” That’s NOT how, that’s who. Scientists want to know HOW He created it.
Inquirer: “How was the painting made?”
Art Historian: “Leonardo painted it.”
Inquirer: “No, I wanted to know how it was made.”
Art Historian: “I told you, he painted it.”
Inquirer: “NO, did he use a small brush? Did he mark out the lines in pencil, chalk, red ink? Did he use oil, acrylic, or egg tempera?”
Art Theorist: “Obviously oils were used, and when we look at the image in UV light we can see…”
Art Historian: “Blasphemy!! Leonardo created it!! Your art theory is wrong!”
Art Theorist: “My theory is wrong? Obviously your history is wrong!”
Inquirer: “So either the theory (reason) is wrong or history (faith) is. Well, I can see the results of the theory, it makes sense…the history must be wrong.”
In the same stupid way Creationism drives people away from God.
LikeLike
Eve looks SO 70’s. This is awesome.
LikeLike
As the writer aptly notes, the place does evoke a vaguely Orwellian atmosphere. “Who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present, controls the past.” I suppose they would argue that secular museums do the same thing, except with an agenda that is so pervasive that it escapes detection in most people.
One thing I observe in this place, as well as the Hell Houses that iMonk mentioned a few posts ago, is that it lacks in beauty. If their intention is to capture the minds of children in such a way that it stays with them into their adult life, they are failing, despite the massive amounts of money they pour into it. A person generally comes to faith based on a handful of beautiful experiences in his life, either in prayer, liturgy, art or even a poignant moment of life. A person does not really “start” believing something, but rather, they come in contact with something so beautiful that they cannot resist or stop believing. If we’re to be honest, there would not be a single bit of Marian devotion in the Church, were it not for thousands beautiful works (and not just visual art) featuring the Blessed Virgin. If Dostoyevsky said “Beauty will save the world”, it was also Read who said “Ugliness is the only sin”, which is strangely true. This museum seems plastic, lifeless, pre-fabricated, industrialized, condescending, pedantic and ugly. Because of this, I fear it will not have the intended effect, which is a pity because the doctrines it hopes to expound are intoxicatingly beautiful and ought to reach out to all people, no matter how they goodthink the Bible at that moment.
Still, I’d pay the $19.95 USD for a tour.
LikeLike
Honestly, I thought this was a follow-up on the “Are You Offended?” thread. 🙂
But, now that I think about, yes, I guess I am. Man, how many mouths could have been fed, or Bibles printed, with the money that went into that place?
LikeLike
There is no conscious conspiracy in the various history and science communities throughout academia. Yes, there is revisionism, presumption and a bent towards the philosophy that there is no God, but if it’s a conspiracy, it’s a very open one that Christians refuse to engage thoughtfully. A museum like this does nothing to advance the Gospel, but it does advance the caricatures that all Christians are nothing but a bunch of paranoid dolts – and often not without good reason. Is there any truth in this museum? I’m sure there is but at the end of the day it’s the curators, and the rest of us who hold Christ dear, who are pounded for proposing gross absurdities rather than allowing scientific evidence to lead to conclusions and ultimately confirm biblical truth – even if it’s outside AIGs presupposed paradigm.
Brad
LikeLike
Michael – I’d argue that this sort of divide and conquer approach was actually triggered by a sea-change in the way the *church* sought to interact with science. Much of the science influenced propaganda has been a reaction to that original change in mode, rather than an attack out of the blue.
But then I would say that, I believe in Theistic Evolution, which makes me a apostate to many of my evangelical fellows.
LikeLike
Oh, Michael. Do not get me started. I have been “shunned” for being a biology major, and believing the “crap” that I have been taught in college and would have to revisit throughout my future career as a medical examiner. I have been told by some preterists that I have bought into the “science lie” and that all I’ve learned is lies. If I speak (or type) too much, I’ll get agitated, and I seriously don’t want to get angry today.
But you made a good point – how people see everything as having an agenda behind it. It’s very sad, and reminds me of people who are currently having heart attacks over some microchip information that, to them, has something to do with the End Times.
I used to think like that, but honestly, I just can’t. I can’t remember who said it, but someone once said that the story in Genesis was more about Who made the world, not how long it took, or exactly how it came about. Something like that. Today, I hold that closely to my heart.
LikeLike
This place is seen as a complete joke by most atheists and a lot of Christians who don’t subscribe to “creationism”. How else are they supposed to take it when the museum contains figures of people riding around on dinosaurs?
I think it’s damaging to speak so authoritatively on creation as to put up a museum that contains your own views. When some of these kids grow up they’re going to go through a spiritual crisis when they learn that this view of creation isn’t necessarily the truth. It’s going to put into doubt everything else they’ve been taught by their parents and the church.
I should know, I went through a similar experience. One of my good friends in high school just plain rejected everything and went hardcore naturalist secular humanist. It was sad. These people are destroying the very thing they’re trying to protect (the faith of their kids) with this stuff.
LikeLike