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.
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…
At first glance I thought you wrote “multi-million dollar fallacy” instead of “multi-million dollar facility”. I stand by my first reading.
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!?”
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.)?
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.
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,
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.
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.
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
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Jean
“This story is written from our perspective, so that we can understand it.”
Or more so the perspective of the tribes leaving Egypt.
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.
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…”
“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.
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
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.
Are there blogs that promote the prosperity Gospel and rail at the Jesus Christians?
Just a question.
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!
It seems that Adam and Eve (in the painting) have been tangoed!
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
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…”
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.)
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
*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…
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:
….
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.
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?
>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.