The Creation Museum
Moms View Message Board: The Kitchen Table (Debating Board): The Creation Museum
Creationmuseum.org
I just read in The Week about a new museum in KY that depicts Creation as a viable science. It proports in "pseudoscientific" ways that the earth is only 6,000 years old and that humans and dinosaurs co-existed, that actual biology, astronomy and geology support the idea that scientifically the earth was created in six days.
I have a problem with this. I absolutely respect anyone's right to his or her beliefs. I cannot approve of science being twisted to legitimize a religious belief, however. Science - not religion - needs to be proven. When you try and prove matters of faith, you just end up making them sound ridiculous and in need of "legitimacy" (when they stand just fine on their own). If left alone, and taken on "faith" they have much more meaning and impact - at least to me.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that to me a Bible "theme park" trivializes something sacred and brings a matter of faith down to a fantasy level instead of uplifting it as something spiritual and great.
So, what do you think? Creation Museum - good idea? Bad idea?
Ame
Ame, one of our members here has been there twice. She's on vacation right now, but when she returns I'm sure she'll reply.
I think the museum sounds great. I can't wait until my friend takes me there! Go to the website and read 'One Visitor's Review of the New Creation Museum'. It tells alot about the museum and what is there and I think you will get a much clearer idea of what it is about.
I believe that faith and belief do not require "proof", and twisting science in order to "prove" what does not require proof demeans faith. The only proof I need for God and faith is in my heart, and the only proof I need to see is how people act out their faith and have done so over the centuries.
Those who promote "creationism" and "intelligent design", and entities such as this museum only provide ammunition, by their attempts to distort science and fact, for those who would denigrate faith and religion in general. The actions of these promoters only give other people - those who are not sure or who are struggling with what they believe and how to be a believer - more reason to doubt because they make outrageous and easily disproved claims.
For those who tout the "inerrancy" of scripture, I point out that the Old Testament is full of multiple contradictions and multiple versions of the same events. And is translated in different ways by different scholars, so that a passage can be read to mean one thing in one translation and something very different in another translation. For example, there are two very different stories about the creation of human life and gender: Genesis 1:17 and Genesis 2:7 and 18-23 (King James)
Jesus did not ask us to believe Old Testament myths. He only asked that we do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with God, to believe and be baptised, and to take the bread and wine in remembrance.
I'm not sure that science has to be twisted to match faith. For example, I heard John McKay speak several times. He is a creation scientist. This is in essence what he said regarding the flood of Noah. Science will have you believe that an animal is fossilized by lying out in the field and eventually covered by sand, silt, dirt or whatever at a rate of 1/8 inch a year. But in using your brain, you know that if an animal died and lay out in a field, the bones would disintegrate well before it would have time to be covered. Now given the effects of a catastophic flood, an animal would immediately be covered with the necessary organic material in order to preserve it properly.
I went on a fossil dig once with Mr McKay up on a mountain close to where I grew up. He is from Australia. We were digging and found an imprint of an ocean animal in a big rock that was broken open. And it was weird the imprint lay across several of layers. Scientists would have us believe that the layers were put in place over about 3000 years. But how did this small ocean creature stick up like that for 3000 years in order for it to be covered up? And how did this ocean animal get to the top of this mountain?
Cultures from all over the world have stories in their histories that contain a flood that covered their entire land and a man and his family. Even the aborigines of Australia. All cultures don't call him Noah though.
I don't need science to give a big okay to my faith. But I find it fascinating to listen to someone who makes sense to me and it agrees with the Bible.
And one other thing while I'm on my soap box, a question was asked how Noah was able to feed and house 2 of every type of land animal. And an explanation of that made sense to me. The Bible doesn't say that he took 2 adult animals of every kind just 2. It would make sense if they were 2 young animals. It would take alot less room and food to house 2 baby elephants for a year that the mama and papas. That was such a plausible answer to a question that had always bothered me.
Okay, I'll put my soapbox away now. Toodles.
It's hard to comment on this based on the information on their site, at least what I read. I can't quite get a handle on the over all purpose of this place. I mean, are they combining the Theory of Evolution with the teachings of the Bible?
I have to admit, without seeing it, the animated dinosaurs have me thinking "Jurassic Park" or something of that nature, lol. It does ring of a Bible "theme park", but that is, of course, my take on it without actually seeing the place. It will be interesting to hear from someone who has actually toured the museum.
While I don't see where a faith based museum really hurts anyone, I also don't see the point. I thought a place for like minded individuals to get together based on religious idea is part of what church is for. I don't understand the whole creationism thing anyway. I don't understand why faith isn't enough and I don't see why science need to be involved with religion at all. To me, faith is just that. There is no proof, you just have to have faith. I went to a religious school for 6th-12th grade, with religion class everyday. I had a teacher say that a good deal of what is the Old Testament isn't literally true since a good deal of the stories came from a time before there were pen and paper. The example I remember is that instead of parting the Red Sea it could have been a sea of reeds. It's just another idea, because like I said, none of us where there.
I have no clue as I would need to see it first hand.. But I can say that my Aunt, my Uncle, their daughter and her husband went last week and they all loved it. Said it was very interesting and the detail to the displays was very cool.. So if I got a chance to go, I would love to check it out.. Would it sway my faith, no..
I was at the museum yesterday, so perhaps I can shed a little light on this subject and answer some questions. I'll try to hit on everything others have said, so this will be long -- sorry about that...
First, the concept behind the Museum is a little different from the perception some seem to have here, so let me try and explain that. It is not twisting science to try and prove the Bible nor does it purport anything in pseudoscientific ways... it also is not trying to combine evolution with the Bible -- what it does is present the same evidence that any other museum of this sort would present, such as a geological museum, or an archaeological display in a museum, etc. There are fossils, dinosaur bones, a display of what an archaeological dig site looks like and how the excavations are done, etc. There are animatronic dinos to show what we believe from archaeological findings each dino would have looked like, and their behaviors, diets, etc. Just like any other dino museum, right?
Here's the difference, and the entire point of the museum. Creationists and evolutionists all have the same evidence available to them. We have the same fossils. We have the same geological formations, such as caves, and canyons, and rock layers, etc. We have the same archaeological findings. The difference is in the perspective with which they look at the evidence.
An evolutionist already has the mindset (based on their belief that there is no God, or that if there is, He did not perform any miraculous acts of creation) that the earth is billions of years old. Therefore, when they look at the evidence, they make it fit their belief system. A creationist already has the mindset (based on their belief of the Bible) that the earth is thousands of years old. And so when they look at the evidence, they make it fit their belief system.
As far as which one is valid, there is no REAL proof either way, and the museum acknowledges this. The Creation Museum shows that there are two sides of the story, and neither can be proven. We have the SAME evidence, and the reason creationists and evolutionists often argue and go round and round and neither ever convinces the other is that they don't recognize that the reason for the differing opinion has nothing at all to do with the evidence, and everything to do with one's presuppositions.
So the museum cannot and does not try to disprove evolution nor does it try to prove creation. What it does is show how these presuppositions cause us to interpret the evidence that we have. Each exhibit therefore has two signs -- one tells how the fossil or bones or geological formation or whatever is explained if one believes in billions of years, and the other tells how it is explained if one believes in thousands of years. Both explanations are presented simply, logically, and scientifically. Both explanations are equally likely to be true. The one you choose to believe is entirely based on your presuppositions. The idea therefore is not to try to convince you that evolution is wrong and creation is right -- it's to try to help people understand WHY there is a debate at all, and recognize that presuppositions are the real issue, not the evidence. Neither explanation has any more "proof" than the other scientifically -- so that's where faith comes in.
The Bible is presented as the source for the presuppositions that Creationists have, and faith is still required to believe it. What the world wants you to think is that Christians are stupid for believing the Bible when science supposedly disproves it, and what the museum wants to show is that there really are very valid and logical explanations of the evidence available to us that actually align perfectly with the Genesis story, so you really can have faith that the Bible is true and still maintain your intelligence...
Therefore, the point of a "faith based museum" -- this one, anyway -- is not at all a place for like minded individuals to get together based on religious ideas. It's a place to present to all people, regardless of their backgrounds or beliefs or "like-mindedness", a different perspective regarding the origins of mankind and to help evolutionists and creationists alike understand the other's beliefs and the reasons behind those beliefs. It's designed to open minds and promote critical thinking, rather than trying to close minds and brainwash people into believing something for no other reason than that you believe it so you want them to believe it too.
Now, on another note, as for whether or not the Old Testament is literally true, that's a faith based thing. Either you believe it is or you don't. But a good deal of the stories coming from a time before there were pen and paper? Well, pen and paper sure, but certainly the vast majority of the Old Testament was written during a time when they were indeed writing utensils... by the fourth chapter of Genesis, these people are already advanced enough that they're building cities and working with brass and iron so I'm sure they had some sort of writing system by then!
The Red Sea vs. Sea of Reeds thing neither proves nor disproves the truth of the Old Testament, it only proves that modern day translators aren't 100% sure what the original Hebrew term "yam suph" is referring to -- yam is clearly sea, but the suph may refer to a name or a description. I'm not sure how this is an example of the Bible not being true.
As far as the other examples given, this goes back to the same thing that evolution vs creation goes back to -- it's all about your perspective. I have no difficulty reconciling anything in the Bible that some people think is contradictory. The example you give -- Gen 1:27 simply says that God created man in his own image, and that He created them male and female. Genesis 2 simply expands on that by explaining that God created the man first, and then created the female from the man. There is no contradiction at all from my perspective. There is from yours. The same is going to be true with any example you give -- if you believe it, it is easy to reconcile any supposed contradictions, and if you don't, it is easy to find things that look like they might contradict each other. It's all about perspective.
And that's where faith comes in. Whether you believe in Creation or evolution is not going to be based on any scientific evidence. Rayelle says it well when she says none of us were there. It actually requires just as much faith to believe in evolution as it does to believe in creation -- none of us witnessed creation so we have to have faith that what God says happened in Genesis is what really happened. Likewise, none of us were there to witness the big bang, or creatures forming via evolution over a period of billions of years. You have to have faith in what your science teachers tells you to believe that it's what really happened.
Back to Rayelle's comment about not seeing the point of a faith based museum, though -- the point is not to convince anyone that the earth is young. The point is about Biblical authority. Here's why.
If Genesis isn't true... if it's just a bunch of myths that we don't have to believe... if we can just pick and choose which things in the Bible we want to believe, then the whole foundation of our faith is totally shaken. Once you've undermined the authority of the Bible by saying that man's ideas get to dictate whether or not the Bible is true, then what difference does it make what the Bible says about anything? If man can decide the Bible is wrong about the origins of the earth and mankind, then they can decide whatever they want about sin, about morality, about salvation, etc. And indeed, they have.
So the point of the museum is to show people that there are two sides to the story, to explain the underlying reasons why those sides differ, and to demonstrate the critical importance of Biblical authority to believers. Whether or not you believe the Bible and its description of the origin of the earth or anything else is entirely up to you; the museum's goal is to provide you with information that isn't really available or explained well at very many places so that you can make an informed, yet still faith-based decision, as to what you believe.
Proof - how about carbon dating? If carbon dating works with a fair amount of accuracy in telling the age of bones and other carbon based items where we pretty much know how old they are - bones in Roman catacombs, Egyptian mummies - how does it suddenly stop working on dinosaur bones and fossils?
Ginny i can actually answer that question. With items that are thought to be fossils, there is very little carbon left. So when a museum gets an dino bone, the actual carbon test is different, it assumes a certain age period and the carbon analysis goes from there.
There are several studies that have shown given the same bone with info or without info on age have come back with very different results.
The fact is, science talks about the ear being very very old (not sure of the number), but most of that dating comes from earth layers and other geolicical information.
I haven't been to the museum, although there is a similar one in glen rose.
I have to say for me the jury is still out. I have no problem with the concept that my God is capable of creating the earth in 6 days, and each story in the Bible being very accurate. Whether He did or not, doesn't really bother me. I think if he could create the earth He could also leave whatever scienctific data he wanted. I believe He "is the man" and really could do whatever he felt like needed done. But ultimately for me it doesn't really matter, because the big picture is clear enough for me.
And because I know Ginny likes sources 
Radiocarbon dating is a radiometric dating method that uses the naturally occurring isotope carbon-14 (14C) to determine the age of carbonaceous materials up to about 60,000 years[1].
-from wikipedia
I was trying to find more source, but when you google carbon dating dino bones you get a lot of ultra creationist sites and I don't consider those valuable resources.
But if carbon dating only last 60k years, then we can't rely on it for dino bones. Also there is geological data (and all religions agree) there was a big flood, this has to mess with carbon dating. I think if we learned anthing from the challenger explosion, science and math has it's limits, and tempurature and time can greatly affect the performance of items. (there big issue was the o rings were test under certain temps of take off, the temp was below by about 10 degrees and obviously the o ring couldn't still perform).
///So the museum cannot and does not try to disprove evolution nor does it try to prove creation. What it does is show how these presuppositions cause us to interpret the evidence that we have.///
Which is where is goes wrong and gets frustrating.
It frames the debate between evolution and creationism as a debate of equals, a matter simply of interpretation. That's simply not the case and in framing it that way I really feel it misrepresents both science and religion.
Science is the study of the natural world through our senses or extensions of our senses. Creationism, right off the bat, assumes a supernatural force that simply can't be evaluated with our senses. With our feelings? Of course. But once it's about feelings it's no longer science.
So Creationists start with the presumption that there's a God. I think that's fair and it's a presumption I share...But it ain't science.
Do scientists start with presumptions? Of course. Previous scientists have done work that later scientists can feel safe in accepting. But that work has had to have been reviewed by peers. It has to have been tested, observed, replicated, logical, and capable of predictions. This is the very basic stuff of science and to put the presumption of creationism on and equal playing field is simply sophistry and demands a willfull misunderstanding of science.
///The Bible is presented as the source for the presuppositions that Creationists have, and faith is still required to believe it. What the world wants you to think is that Christians are stupid for believing the Bible when science supposedly disproves it, ///
The truth is, most Christians aren't creationists. Most Christian denominations don't adopt a doctrine of inerrant literalism. This, to me, is the really offensive part of creationism...That it's a strategy that seems intent on making creationism and Christianity synonymous.
Christianity is rich and diverse. I really resent the way creationists frame discussion about christianity to claim all of us christians as their own.
///so you really can have faith that the Bible is true and still maintain your intelligence...///
I have faith that the bible is true. I don't accept that the bible is completely factual.
///Therefore, the point of a "faith based museum" -- this one, anyway -- is not at all a place for like minded individuals to get together based on religious ideas. It's a place to present to all people, regardless of their backgrounds or beliefs or "like-mindedness", a different perspective regarding the origins of mankind and to help evolutionists and creationists alike understand the other's beliefs and the reasons behind those beliefs. ///
Regardless of their backgrounds? Will a Hindu creationist exhibit be on display in the museum in the future?
/// Genesis 2 simply expands on that by explaining that God created the man first, and then created the female from the man. There is no contradiction at all from my perspective.///
Which were created first? Humans or animals?
///You have to have faith in what your science teachers tells you to believe that it's what really happened.///
No. Because your science teacher can offer you objective, testable and observable evidence to back up his claim.
///If Genesis isn't true... if it's just a bunch of myths that we don't have to believe... if we can just pick and choose which things in the Bible we want to believe, then the whole foundation of our faith is totally shaken. Once you've undermined the authority of the Bible by saying that man's ideas get to dictate whether or not the Bible is true, then what difference does it make what the Bible says about anything? If man can decide the Bible is wrong about the origins of the earth and mankind, then they can decide whatever they want about sin, about morality, about salvation, etc. And indeed, they have.///
Maybe those are questions you should explore? Why do some of us who beleive the bible is myth still put our faith in it? Why do we see truth but not fact?
///And one other thing while I'm on my soap box, a question was asked how Noah was able to feed and house 2 of every type of land animal. And an explanation of that made sense to me. The Bible doesn't say that he took 2 adult animals of every kind just 2. It would make sense if they were 2 young animals. It would take alot less room and food to house 2 baby elephants for a year that the mama and papas. That was such a plausible answer to a question that had always bothered me.///
And what of the passage that has Noah taking 7 pairs of each animal?
Dawn, I so appreciate your posts. I have had many philosophical discussions with family members and friends about the difference between "truth" and "fact". Your "truth" might not be my "truth". Pilate was asking a very good question when he said "What is truth?"
My truths are what I believe. Some of them are based on facts, many are not. When I have facts, it becomes a matter not of belief in a truth, but rather acceptance of a provable, documentable, repeatable fact.
Ginny - Thank you! Are you familiar with Joseph Campbel (http://www.jcf.org)? He wrote and lectured on matters of truth and myth and I just bet you'd really enjoy his stuff. PM me if you'd like some of his lectures to listen to!
Zoie - For a look at how a lot of Christians feel about evolution this is a good site - http://www.evolutionarychristianity.org/ It has lots of recources including sermons and talks on the matter. If you're curious, it could be a really interesting site.
Okay -- first of all, I did not write in any attempt to convince anyone of anything. There were questions posted about the Creation Museum, and some incorrect ideas about what its purpose was and what it contained since nobody who had yet posted had seen it firsthand to know, and I just went there so I did have firsthand information about what the museum is all about. All I was attempting to do was provide information about the museum, not start a debate about evolution vs. creation. You each have the right to believe what you want to believe about the origins of the earth, and I respect your beliefs and am not attempting to persuade anyone of anything. I was merely explaining the purpose of the museum, like I said.
Unschoolmom, I am very familiar with the different beliefs held by Christians and by nonChristians, and know that many Christians do not take the Genesis account literally. My own husband is a Christian but not a Creationist, so I was in no way attempting to say that all Christians are Creationists, and don't feel that my wording of the statement you were responding to indicated that they were. Many people DO think Christians are stupid for believing the Bible, even though some Christians believe it all literally and others do not, and undermining ANY part of the Bible whether all Christians believe that specific part literally or not contributes to that way of thinking.
I am confused by your Hindu creation exhibit comment, and think you misunderstood what I was saying in that paragraph. I was responding to someone's comment that she didn't see the point of a faith-based museum, assuming that it was intended as a place for like minded individuals to get together based on religious ideas, since church already fits that purpose. I was explaining that this museum was NOT designed as a gathering place for Creationists, but rather was designed for ANYONE of any belief or background to come and see a different perspective on the origins of the earth. This does not mean every belief and background is represented; it means that the museum is for those of any belief or background who are interested in seeing TWO ways of viewing the evidence side by side so they can make up their own minds about what they believe after seeing both sides of the story instead of just being brainwashed with one side. Since many religious establishments DO present only THEIR side of any issue and attempt to convince people to agree with them, I think it's wonderful that the Creation Museum is presenting both sides of the debate in such an open-minded way and letting people use their brains to decide for themselves. If their perspective is wrong, and evolution is indeed correct, then what harm is being done by sharing their thoughts and letting people decide for themselves what they believe? There IS scientific evidence to support the claims (the exact same evidence evolutionists use to support theirs, as I said before) and very logical explanations, so it's not like they just made up some crazy stuff and threw it out there. So where's the harm, and why is it that in a world with the view that all religions are good and okay and everyone should respect everyone else's beliefs, Christians who take the Bible literally are the exception and everyone gets all upset if they want to share their beliefs too? I truly don't get it. I understand if someone is shoving stuff down people's throats, but this museum does not do that. First, nobody has to go to it. They're only presenting their side of the story to people who have CHOSEN to go and listen to it, they aren't stopping people in the streets or knocking on doors and giving them info they didn't want. And secondly, as I said, they provide BOTH viewpoints and let you decide, instead of simply shoving only theirs down your throat or trying to prove the other side wrong. So why the uproar? What are they doing that is so wrong and offensive to people? If you don't want to hear the Creationist viewpoint, then don't go! Problem solved!
Quick answers to a couple of non-related questions and I'll end, because a debate over beliefs is NOT what I'm after here... if you believe in evolution, or theistic evolution, or anything else, I'm not here to attack your beliefs or try to persuade you to change your mind. If you think the Bible is full of myths but you have faith in God anyway, that's fine. I'm not attacking you or your beliefs. I'm only answering your questions, and I don't expect for a moment that you'll change your mind based on my answers. And again -- that's fine!
Did God create man or animals first? Well, both were created on the sixth day. It appears from Chapter 1 that animals were possibly first, or man and animals could have been created at the same instant. Chapter 2 is an expansion of the creation of mankind. Ch 1 is a chronology and simply states that we were created. Ch 2 is written to provide more details about our creation. And most scholars agree that the tense of that verb should read that God HAD formed, not God formed. If it's NOT, then there is a true discrepancy that huge between chapter 1 and chapter 2 -- and realistically, what author is going to totally screw up his own story by mixing up the order regardless of if they're writing a fairy tale or a nonfiction account, and regardless of whether the author is only human or if he's divinely inspired?
As for Noah and the 7s, that instruction was for clean animals only and there are only a handful of land animals listed in the Law that are considered clean. Even taking those into account, the likely number of animals that would have needed to go on the ark fills less than half of it, based on the Biblical measurements.
But for both of these questions, if you don't believe it, you're not going to believe it no matter what I say, so it doesn't really matter.
One question for you, unschoolmom... you said I should explore it, so I will, right now. :o) You indicated that I should ask, "why do some of us who believe the Bible is a myth still put our faith in it?" I'll bite -- why do you? :o) (Lest my tone be misinterpreted, I'm honestly asking the question and am not being sarcastic or anything here. I'm certainly open to hearing what you believe and why you believe it.)
I don't put my faith in the Bible. I put my faith in God, and part of God's story is told in the Bible. The Bible, for me, is a history of the development of faith and the development (evolution, perhaps) of God's relationship with humanity and humanity's relationship with God. The Bible tells of moving from a punitive, frequently unkind God who often seemed irrational and who placed strictures on every facet of human life to a God who makes few and very simple demands (or seemingly very simple - the longer I live the more I realize that doing justice, lovig mercy and walking humbly is really not all that simple) and who offered a sacrifice that every human being finds incomprehensible, in order to compellingly demonstrate the love of God for each of us.
I saw this site when I was look up carbon dating. It is from Syracuse University in NY.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt/age.html#dating
It refutes the idea that carbon dating is inacurate.
My really big problem with these museums ( I have since found out that there are now several) is that they do twist science to support one point of view over another.
They have turned a faith story into literal history and are using "facts" to prove it, but discounting "facts" that refute it.
By creating a bible theme park they have demeaned my faith (making it Mickey-Mouse or Flintstones, as one museum official described their exhibit - Yes, he actually said they had a lot in common with the Flintstones! That galls me.)
I would have no problem with a museum of biblical archaeology rooted in sound scientific principal and excavation. This place is more of an animatronic story-telling ground masquerading as a place of science and history.
For those who enjoy it, great. I mean no disrespect. However, just as those who believe may say what they like, I, too, have a right to disagree and state that these places disturb and offend me on the levels of intelligence and faith.
To each, his or her own.
Ame
There were also unclean animals on the ark per the Bible which I believe is true.
2 Take with you seven [a] of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. Gen 7:2-3
I still think if they were young animals, there would be plenty of room.
My intelligence begs this question, though - and if you have the answer, then please tell me - if Noah took the animals that he could, wouldn't there be a huge jump in the fossil record after the flood, of animals and species that did not make it? Wouldn't there be a way to prove that whole species died out and that all species today - all over the world - are related to the same sets of animals that survived the flood? Couldn't DNA testing find common ancestors, much like it has found for humans using mitochondrial DNA?
I can't help it . The faith is there - but the brain works overtime when we get to questions of "proof".
Ame
Ame
I don't know about the fossil record. But there is geolicial proof (or at least suspicion) that there was a big flood. I took a mythology class in college and the one thing that struck me as odd was that every major group has a recorded data of the flood, the length who survived and such changed, but each religion tells a pretty similar story.
There is no geological proof that there was a big flood. I've seen this many times on creationist sites but this is something that the geological community would not support. Ther are claims of evidence by creationist but again, they are often vague, strained and unsupported by most geologists.
When you read these claims, be sceptical. Demand sources and supporting information.
Zoie - I think Ginny summed it up really nicely.
Sometimes I tend to think that literalism is almost idolatry. That people worship the bible rather than God. People adore the binding and the paper and most of all the words, but miss the spirit. They get bound to literal truth while greater truth gets ignored.
To me, with a literal reading, the serpent in Genesis is an objective, real and evil serpent. With a mythical reading you get access to metaphor (the serpent is our own propensity for mischeif and selfishness). You also get, since you're not assuming God handwrote the bible, access to textual and historical criticism which can tell you marvelous things about the roots of christianity and Judaism. Like the idea that Genesis myths were probably edited together from two traditions. Like the idea the the first creation myth was a liturgical statement of faith written much later then the second one. Like the idea that the serpent was most likely borrowed from the epic of Gilgamesh where he was actually a friendly figure.
I find that kind of stuff exciting. That religions evolve and borrow from other faiths and that the divine runs through humanity (as the Adam and Eve story put forward) and not simply Christians.
"They get bound to literal truth while greater truth gets ignored."
That is such a great statement, Dawn and I couldn't agree more. I've always felt we all have the truth within us. It's been my goal to be still enough to hear it.:-)
This thread has me thinking. Why is this so important to us? Knowing the answers, having the facts? I know for me, I don't like unfinished business, unanswered questions. Yet, I ask myself, if I had all the facts, without any doubt, would it make a huge difference in how I live my life?
Ame, I had no idea there were so many of these museums! I had never heard of them before your post. From what I've read on these places, I am feeling much as you do. If they had left the Bible and religion out of it, no problem. I can't even verbalize exactly what bothers me. Okay, I'm thinking along the lines of the talking Jesus dolls that caused a bit of a stir at the holidays. Hope I don't offend anyone, but this type of thing seems tacky to me. Taking someone sacred and turning Him into a toy. These museums give me the same feeling, or at least what they are portraying online. "Wax museum" comes to mind. Just my opinion. Just from what I've heard and seen on the various museum sites does not entice me to visit one or pay the hefty entrance fee. While some visitors were quoted as coming away from the experience with stronger belief in the Bible, I'm pretty certain I would not be inspired by these museums.
I think I get the Jesus doll analogy. When he's a talking doll he's reduced to cuteness and cliche. If you're a christian, Jesus should engage you in many different ways. A saviour and a comfort yes, but also an intellectual challenge, a call to action. Instead of expressing faith by loving your neighbour you do it by buying a talking doll.
Maybe it's the same thing with these museums for some of us? It's reduced how we dicuss faith and how others view us to a debate over whether the bible is fact. We're not talking about the demands placed on us by the gospel, we aren't engaging biblical scholarship in all it's facets, we're not reaching out to other faiths or groups to find common ground...We aren't primarily occupied with loving our neighbours and embracing those around us, least of all fellow christians. Instead, a museum goes up, charges admission and mines the Bible for dinosaur references rather than the really important stuff of faith and life.
And honestly, I really don't think this is a debate either side will win by talking science. Science doesn't address faith. that's why scientists can't argue away creationism and creationism can't work in a scientific paradigm. I think instead we need to talk myth and theology, biblical criticism and faith.
Yess! Nicki - that's it exactly! Great analogy.
It's as though these places bring the Bible down to the level of a carnival or theme park - a toy, a triviality - rather than a sacred text with many, many layers of meaning and many different levels of "truth". I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels that way.
Ame
Here's a paragraph from a column by Stanley Crouch in the Scramento Bee that, given our discusson, really hit home for me.
"I have a friend who is a genius in high-tech and keeps himself abreast of all the new discoveries about the nature of the universe. A deeply religious man, he scoffs at the supposed conflict between religion and hard science. "They wouldn't call it faith if it was easy to do," he says."
The column itself is fairly political, but I am posting a link if anyone wants to read it.
SacBee
I have often heard people refer to "the mystery of faith". For me, I want to keep the mystery.
Ame: I'm not sure I fully understand your question. This article MIGHT answer your question at least somewhat, in the part called "What is a kind?" -- I'm not entirely sure since as I said I'm still a little bit confused as to what exactly you're asking: http://answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/animals.asp
To others: for clarification purposes, I'm not in favor of trivializing spiritual matters. I've seen the talking Jesus toys, and the Jesus bobbleheads, and all the marketing merchandise targeted at Christians, who buy it right up. And I'm not going to criticize anyone who chooses to buy those items, because there is no Biblical mand that states "Thou shalt not buy Jesus toys", and I therefore view it as a matter of personal preference, and if someone wishes to buy those things, their intent is probably good and who am I to judge them for doing so? I personally am interested in a personal relationship with the God of the universe, a God who commands the utmost respect and worship -- I'm not interested in turning him into a plaything. I understand those of you saying you don't want Jesus brought down to the level of Mickey Mouse or the Flintstones. I'm with you on that! Neither do I!
I can't speak for any of these other museums mentioned, because I've not been to them. What I was trying to point out originally is that the Creation Museum, in my opinion after having visited and viewed their exhibits, is NOT at all trivializing faith or turning it into a theme park or sideshow. If you've not been to it yourself, you cannot accuse them of bringing the Bible down to the level of a carnival... that certainly isn't what I took away from the museum at all. Nothing was trivialized, and the utmost respect for the Bible's teaching and for spirituality was evident throughout all the exhibits.
The mystery of faith -- Ginny, by all means, you will HAVE to keep the mystery. None of this means that there is no longer any mystery. As I said, the museum itself is not even saying, "Oh, these geological/fossil/etc. findings prove the Bible." You must BEGIN with faith and mystery. You must begin with believing that what God recorded in Genesis is true, and THEN you have the presupposition on which to interpret the evidence you see before you. Without faith, nothing the Creationists say makes a bit of sense -- which is why I said there is no point in arguing evolution vs. Creation because NEITHER side is going to change their mind. The Creation Museum is designed to help those who DO have faith that God created the world, but have been taught and confused that this faith is wrong because science disproves it. The museum wants to show THOSE people that they do NOT have to reject their faith based on science's proof -- the same evidence scientists use to prove their theory can also prove yours, IF you have the faith to believe that it does. Does that make any more sense? Faith is still the critical component.
A definition was given earlier in this thread of science (see Unschoolmom's post of July 25) that is precisely the point of what the museum is trying to convey. By beginning with the presupposition that science is knowledge about our world that must be explained NATURALLY, any supernatural explanation MUST be disregarded -- so what happens if there really IS a supernatural explanation for the origin of the earth? It would thereby be impossible for science to discover the correct explanation naturally because it starts with an incorrect presupposition that it CANNOT have had a supernatural cause. So that would necessitate that science is and HAS to be wrong, IF that is your definition of science... and IF there IS a supernatural influence of some type involved here.
Another issue is that there is a difference between operational science and origin science.
Unschoolmom, you said that for it to be science: "It has to have been tested, observed, replicated, logical, and capable of predictions." Operational science, yes, and great strides have been made in technology, medicine, etc. due to operational science. But how can anyone test, observe, and replicate the origin of the universe? The events of the past, involving the beginnings of all things, are NOT observable or repeatable. Therefore we interpret the evidence left behind BASED ON our beliefs about how the world began. If you believe in a natural cause, you interpret the evidence accordingly; if you believe in a supernatural cause, you interpret the evidence accordingly. Neither has any greater "proof" than the other -- it all boils down to what you believe.
Unschoolmom -- about literalism -- sure, it CAN become idolatry -- but that doesn't mean that it SHOULD be or that that makes literalism wrong. Anything good can be twisted into something bad, but it doesn't make the thing itself bad. And believing a literal interpretation of the Bible (except for where it is said to be figurative) does not mean that one should be ignoring the spirit of its teachings or ignoring the primary truths that Jesus taught. Do some do so? Of course. But that doesn't make it right, and it doesn't make the original belief in literalism wrong either. The person is wrong, not the belief.
And by all means, religions borrow from other religions, etc. A literal interpretation of the Bible doesn't mean you can't see that. Satan's desire from the start was to be God. HE wanted to be worshipped instead of God. Is it any surprise then that his first temptation to mankind was the very thing he himself longed for so desperately? "...when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God". Satan's desire to be like God has run through history and we see it in all the false religions that have sprung up throughout the course of time, that bear remarkable resemblances to Judeo-Christian history and theology, but with those subtle twists and turns Satan is so good at that mark them as counterfeits instead of truth.
Yes, absolutely we should love God and love our neighbors, as these are the greatest commandments, but how does having a museum which points out the deception Satan is teaching, and provides truth and hope for all the people asking the age-old questions of, Why am I here? Is there a God? What is the purpose of life? (questions which are asked at the beginning, reviewed in the middle, and answered at the end of the museum's tour) equate to an assumption that the museum's founders are NOT also following the greatest commandments?
People have different needs. Some people have no need of this museum and what it has to teach, and that's totally fine. But there are some people out there who need desperately the very thing the museum is offering. If we were all identical, and had identical needs, there would be no need for the vast variety of ways that Christians use to reach others. Some are reached through a loving relationship. Some are reached when they are helped with physical needs first. Some are reached through critical thinking and information. And God uses each of us to meet the needs of those He has put around us. He gave those people at the museum the intelligence and skill needed to answer the questions that SOME people need answered before they can accept Him.
Again, I'm not trying to convince anyone that they have to believe it. Believe what you want to believe. Your relationship with God is between you and God, just as mine as between me and God. But I don't understand why there is so much criticism of others who are doing what God has called THEM to do, without even having been there to know what that is. There are assumptions being made about what is exhibited at the museum and why they are there and what the focus is that simply are inaccurate, and I'm just trying to clear up those inaccuracies.
// http://answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/animals.asp//
That's a whole lot of speculation.
//Without faith, nothing the Creationists say makes a bit of sense -- which is why I said there is no point in arguing evolution vs. Creation because NEITHER side is going to change their mind. The Creation Museum is designed to help those who DO have faith that God created the world, but have been taught and confused that this faith is wrong because science disproves it.//
You seem to have a dichotomy construsted that places the faithless (and later, Satan-deceived) science people on one side and the faithful on another. This isn't only wrong, it's insulting. Many, probably most christians, are not creationists. Most have little trouble reconciling faith and science. Creationists represent an extreme and a view that's a latecomer (18th century) to christianity.
//So that would necessitate that science is and HAS to be wrong, IF that is your definition of science... and IF there IS a supernatural influence of some type involved here.//
No. It shows that science is meant to examine and explain the natural world. For a believer that means science can reveal the natural mechanisms through which creation unfurled, but no the creator himself.
If the hammer doesn't tighten the screw, does that mean it's fundamentally wrong? No, it means it's not meant for screws. Conversly, because the hammer won't work with the screw doesn't mean the hammer has decided the screw can't exist. Science can't address the supernatural and so can't come to any conclusion other then there's no evidence in the natural world for it. Some people stop there, others switch tools and use faith to carry on beyond that.
// Neither has any greater "proof" than the other -- it all boils down to what you believe. //
Neither has proof period. Origin of life has some evidence however and given time there may be a good model.
// Of course. But that doesn't make it right, and it doesn't make the original belief in literalism wrong either. The person is wrong, not the belief.//
If creationists approached that belief on the basis of faith, I could almost agree. But creationism almost always leads to attacks and distortions of science (answersingenesis.org is a great example of that). Faith is never sufficient. Science must be cast as Satan's lies even as it's misused to 'prove'creationism. Further, christian views that don't conform must be either ignored (the us vs. them model of either science or faith) or called false.
//...Satan is so good at that mark them as counterfeits instead of truth.//
This is an exclusive view I reject. I also don't accept that satan is anything other than the personification of the evil humans are capable of. A construct meant to be a scapegoat.
//Yes, absolutely we should love God and love our neighbors, as these are the greatest commandments, but how does having a museum which points out the deception Satan is teaching, and provides truth and hope for all the people asking the age-old questions of, Why am I here? Is there a God? What is the purpose of life? (questions which are asked at the beginning, reviewed in the middle, and answered at the end of the museum's tour) equate to an assumption that the museum's founders are NOT also following the greatest commandments?//
I fail to see how labeling some as deceived by Satan is an act of love.
// But I don't understand why there is so much criticism of others who are doing what God has called THEM to do, without even having been there to know what that is. There are assumptions being made about what is exhibited at the museum and why they are there and what the focus is that simply are inaccurate, and I'm just trying to clear up those inaccuracies.//
My beef is not simply with the museum but with creationism as a whole, of which the museum is a tool. Creationism is not about live and let live, you believe what you want and I'll believe what I want. It's about intimidating school districts, distorting science, misinformation, casting fellow christians as false, speaking as if it were the voice of christiandom. It's often about dominionism.
On a personal level it may be something different. On a systematic level it's less religious then political and it's doing a lot of damage.
|
Members
