Field Trip!

Marcylene

New Member
Answers in Genesis ~ Upholding the Authority of the Bible From the Very First Verse



The following article was taken from the UK's Daily Telegraph

In the beginning . . . Adam walked with dinosaurs
By James Langton in New York
(Filed: 02/01/2005)

With its towering dinosaurs and a model of the Grand Canyon, America's newest tourist attraction might look like the ideal destination for fans of the film Jurassic Park.

The new multi-million-dollar Museum of Creation, which will open this spring in Kentucky, will, however, be aimed not at film buffs, but at the growing ranks of fundamentalist Christians in the United States.

It aims to promote the view that man was created in his present shape by God, as the Bible states, rather than by a Darwinian process of evolution, as scientists insist.

The centrepiece of the museum is a series of huge model dinosaurs, built by the former head of design at Universal Studios, which are portrayed as existing alongside man, contrary to received scientific opinion that they lived millions of years apart.

Other exhibits include images of Adam and Eve, a model of Noah's Ark and a planetarium demonstrating how God made the Earth in six days.

The museum, which has cost a mighty $25 million (£13 million) will be the world's first significant natural history collection devoted to creationist theory. It has been set up by Ken Ham, an Australian evangelist, who runs Answers in Genesis, one of America's most prominent creationist organisations. He said that his aim was to use tourism, and the theme park's striking exhibits, to convert more people to the view that the world and its creatures, including dinosaurs, were created by God 6,000 years ago.

"We want people to be confronted by the dinosaurs," said Mr Ham. "It's going to be a first class experience. Visitors are going to be hit by the professionalism of this place. It is not going to be done in an amateurish way. We are making a statement."

The museum's main building was completed recently, and work on the entrance exhibit starts this week. The first phase of the museum, which lies on a 47-acre site 10 miles from Cincinatti on the border of Kentucky and Ohio, will open in the spring.

Market research companies hired by the museum are predicting at least 300,000 visitors in the first year, who will pay $10 (£5.80) each.

Among the projects still to be finished is a reconstruction of the Grand Canyon, purportedly formed by the swirling waters of the Great Flood – where visitors will "gape" at the bones of dinosaurs that "hint of a terrible catastrophe", according to the museum's publicity.

Mr Ham is particularly proud of a planned reconstruction of the interior of Noah's Ark. "You will hear the water lapping, feel the Ark rocking and perhaps even hear people outside screaming," he said.

More controversial exhibits deal with diseases and famine, which are portrayed not as random disasters, but as the result of mankind's sin. Mr Ham's Answers in Genesis movement blames the 1999 massacre at Columbine High School in Colorado, in which two teenagers killed 12 classmates and a teacher before killing themselves, on evolutionist teaching, claiming that the perpetrators believed in Darwin's survival of the fittest.

Other exhibits in the museum will blame homosexuals for Aids. In a "Bible Authority Room" visitors are warned: "Everyone who rejects his history – including six-day creation and Noah's flood – is `wilfully' ignorant.''

Elsewhere, animated figures will be used to recreate the Garden of Eden, while in another room, visitors will see a tyrannosaurus rex pursuing Adam and Eve after their fall from grace. "That's the real terror that Adam's sin unleashed," visitors will be warned.

A display showing ancient Babylon will deal with the Tower of Babel and "unravel the origin of so-called races'', while the final section will show the life of Christ, as an animated angel proclaims the coming of the Saviour and a 3D depiction of the crucifixion.

In keeping with modern museum trends, there will also be a cafe with a terrace to "breathe in the fresh air of God's creation'', and a shop "crammed'' with creationist souvenirs, including T-shirts and books such as A is for Adam and Dinky Dinosaur: Creation Days.

The museum's opening will reinforce the burgeoning creationist movement and evangelical Christianity in the US, which gained further strength with the re-election of President Bush in November.

Followers of creationism have been pushing for their theories to be reintegrated into American schoolroom teaching ever since the celebrated 1925 "Scopes Monkey Trial", when US courts upheld the right of a teacher to use textbooks that included evolutionary theory.

In 1987, the US Supreme Court reinforced that position by banning the teaching of creationism in public schools on the grounds of laws that separate state and Church.

Since then, however, many schools – particularly in America's religious Deep South – have got around the ban by teaching the theory of "intelligent design", which claims that evolutionary ideas alone still leave large gaps in understanding.

"Since President Bush's re-election we have been getting more membership applications than we can handle,'' said Mr Ham, who expects not just the devout, but also the curious, to flock through the turnstiles. "The evolutionary elite will be getting a wake-up call."



© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2005. Terms & Conditions of reading.
Commercial information. Privacy and Cookie Policy.
 
Creationism and Intelligent Design, while interesting, are not founded on scientific principles, which is why they shouldn't be taught as part of the science curriculum.

Philosophy, yes. Science, no.
 
Dark, much of what is creationism is founded very well on scientific principles. Creation isn't accepted in SOME instances because it is so secure that evolution has to be set aside completely, and you know, we can't force public school goers to accept a science that shows God.
It's their choice... :-

So, i don't mean to be contentious, but I was hoping that maybe you had a good example, im sure there are a few. I'd just like to know.
biggrin.gif
 
A good example of what?

I'm sorry, but creationism may be FOUNDED on scientific principles, but it doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny. Again, that is why it should not be considered scientific curriculum.

That is why it's easier to sweep it all under the rug of "Intelligent Design". The problem there is that the Intelligent Designer could be anyone or anything, not necessarily the God of the Bible. Once more, the Intelligent Designer theory has a fundamental flaw in its logic, proving it rather unuseful.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I'm sorry, but creationism may be FOUNDED on scientific principles, but it doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny.  Again, that is why it should not be considered scientific curriculum.

I agree that creationism doesn’t stand up to the scientific scrutiny of man. However, neither does evolution which is considered scientific curriculum. Doing a quick search I found several sites that show, using “scientific scrutiny”, many holes in evolution. That is why it is called a theory. There is no scientific proof for it, yet because it is not based on God, it is ok to teach in our schools. People, who accept evolution or any other theory that is out there that tries to explain creation, accept it on their own faith. Using the scientific method evolution, along with every theory that tries to explain creation, has not and can not be proven.

As Christians we accept the Biblical account of creation on faith. Hebrews 11:1 says, “Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” I accept the Biblical account solely on faith. I do not need the proof of man’s scientific method to tell me whether or not it’s true, I rely simply on God’s word. Those who do not believe in God cannot understand this because they require proof based on man’s methods.

I found some interesting things here: http://christianity.about.com/gi....zu=http

I did not fully explore this site but did find a few interesting pages.
 
The fact that there is not enough evidence for evolution to be proven with scientific vices is not at stake here; the point is that it is founded on scientific principles, whereas creationism is not.
 
And on what assumption are you basing your opinion that creationism is not based on scientific principles?
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Which scentific principles has evolution gone through? Last time i checke dit is still at the theory stage..which means it is a guess.

Again, of course I am not saying it can be 'proven.' But it is a scientific theory, 'scientific' being the operative word. This is just petty semantics though...

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]And on what assumption are you basing your opinion that creationism is not based on scientific principles?

Creationism is a philosophical belief based upon the assumption that life and the universe were too intelligently created for God not to have been the creator. That's not science.
 
I find it amazing that time and time again we are lambasted for believing in evolution when, time and time again, I remind you that there is a HUGE difference between micro and macro evolution. There is no scientific basis for darwinian evolution. There IS evidence and proof for micro evolution. Do I believe that darwinian evolution should be taught as fact? Heck no.

As far as creationism is concerned, I don't believe it is based on scientific principles because the ultimate starting point, God, cannot be proven by scientific means. Thus, creationism is a huge finger pointing to someting that can't be evidenced. How, then, are you supposed to rationalize that in a scientific way?

That's why Christians are shying away from "creationism" and are beginning to embrace "intelligent design". Unfortunately, the intelligent design theory is an illogical argument. And even if one were to subscribe to that theory, the designer could be anyone, not necessarily God.

EDIT: Also note that science doesn't shy away from the use of "theories", unlike religions that jump right past any form of logical rationalism and embrace ideals based on "faith". The difference is that theories are elastic. They can bend and change in the face of new evidence. Science doesn't say this is the way it is, so there! Science accepts new information and welcomes criticism, which in turn makes it stronger. Faith does not welcome change or criticism easily. As an example, take a look at the Dark Ages. Adequately named for the stranglehold that Christianity had on the world. When science was embraced we entered the age of Enlightenment. See a correlation?
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Genesis1315 @ Jan. 14 2005,10:31)]
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]There IS evidence and proof for micro evolution

Not to be rude, but Where?
Before I answer, do you understand the difference between micro and macro evolution?

Macro is Darwinian evolution, the theory that one species can evolve into another. Micro evolution is change inherent in a species. Finches are a great example of this. There are many different types that have evolved to take advantage of their environment. Darwin spent years studying finches. Micro evolution can best be described as natural adaptation. There are many, many other examples that are as close as a google search away.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ([toj.cc]hescominsoon @ Jan. 14 2005,10:32)]I am a christian and i am most assuredly not moving away form creationsim. Could you give examples of Christians moving away from creationism?
Absolutely. Open up a newspaper. Check the trends regarding the separation of church and state and our public schools. The push for creationism has given way to a push for intelligent design.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ([toj.cc]hescominsoon @ Jan. 14 2005,10:32)]I am a christian and i am most assuredly not moving away form creationsim.  Could you give examples of Christians moving away from creationism?
I would not say that Christians are 'moving away' from creationism, but rather justifying the idea with a different set of evidence. Think about it logically: before there was no such 'intelligent designer' theory, and now there is. Thus there must be some movement in that direction from the purely creationist camp.
 
Good point Mr. Bill, I think heiscomingsoon mistook the "moving away" as denying creationism. Instead, I meant it as an evolution from creationism to intelligent design.
 
How is it unbiblical? It's exactly the same thing as creationism, minus naming the creator, which you believe to be God.

That, however, is what makes it more palpable to the school system.
 
Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.  II Timothy 3:5

The Intelligent Designers are not much better than any others looking for a theory other than that of Creation.  I would like to ask those same people who they say Jesus Christ is.  They may call themselves Christian, but are they saved?  It bothers me that someone would think that it is okay to seek "the god of your understanding," and still call themselves Christian.  That is simply one step away from leaving God out completely.  They are dangerously straddling the fence!
 
So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.  Revelation 3:16
 
Interesting.

I see the Intelligent Design issue differently. I picture it as Christianity cloaked in Political Correctness. Much like the early Christian Church bent and twisted their beliefs to make them more palpable to the pagans, I see Intelligent Design doing the same thing. It's like a baby step. Once people embrace ID, they are one step closer to Christianity.
 
I feel that you may be correct in your assumption, perhaps that is what others think they are doing, trying to draw the lost to Christ. Does that make any sense? We want to win those who may believe in something besides God, so we won't mention Him! As the coming of the LORD draws near, I think it is time that we weigh our lives. There will be a falling away in the end times, that is prophesy. We need to take a stand! While there may be those that think ID may bring others to the LORD, it is simply another lie of the enemy. We must choose whom we serve and I simply don't see anyone truly after God's heart that would want to leave Him out of the equation. It is God that brings us unto Himself, I see the political correctness aspect only pulling others away from God. God says that we can look at the things that He has made and know that He exists, and we are without excuse because of this. Truthfully, and I am not certain how it works in this instance, but usually being politically correct has its monetary gain. The end time church will draw together as one. There is not a problem with Christians coming together in love and worship, all the while magnifying our Redeemer Jesus Christ. No, the way the end time church will have everyone join hands, I believe, is to allow everyone to worship "the god of your understanding." A Christians main focus should be to win others, sadly, many people label themselves as Christian, but they truly do not know Jesus Christ as Saviour and Him Crucified. If I may borrow one of your expressions, DV, the ID theory is hooey! To clarify, if we are going to speak of Intelligent Design, that is fine, as long as we name The Intelligent Designer, the One True God. Otherwise, we just have one more theory for confusion. The Bible plainly identifies the author of confusion.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Genesis 1:1

It is the way God chose to begin His Love letter to each individual, the Bible, God's Holy Word. ID is just another attempt to change and pervert the Word of God.
 
Back
Top