05-22-2005, 08:52 PM #1
$25 million museum to Creation Science stirs controversy
PETERSBURG, Ky. - Ken Ham has spent 11 years working on a museum that poses the big question when and how did life begin? Ham hopes to soon offer an answer to that question in his still-unfinished Creation Museum in northern Kentucky.
The $25 million monument to creationism offers Ham's view that God created the world in six, 24-hour days on a planet just 6,000 years old. The largest museum of its kind in the world, it hopes to draw 600,000 people from the Midwest and beyond in its first year.
Ham, 53, isn't bothered that his literal interpretation of the Bible runs counter to accepted scientific theory, which says Earth and its life forms evolved over billions of years.
Ham said the museum is a way of reaching more people along with the Answers in Genesis Web site, which claims to get 10 million page views per month and his "Answers ... with Ken Ham" radio show, carried by more than 725 stations worldwide.
"People will get saved here," Ham said of the museum. "It's going to fire people up. If nothing else, it's going to get them to question their own position of what they believe."
Ham is ready for a fight over his beliefs based on a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis, the first book of the Old Testament.
"It's a foundational battle," said Ham, a native of Australia who still speaks with an accent. "You've got to get people believing the right history - and believing that you can trust the Bible."
Among Ham's beliefs are that the Earth is about 6,000 years old, a figure arrived at by tracing the biblical genealogies, and not 4.5 billion years, as mainstream scientists say; the Grand Canyon was formed not by erosion over millions of years, but by floodwaters in a matter of days or weeks and that dinosaurs and man once coexisted, and dozens of the creatures including Tyrannosaurus Rex were passengers on the ark built by Noah, who was a real man, not a myth.
Although the Creation Museum's full opening is still two years away, already a buzz is building.
"When that museum is finished, it's going to be Cincinnati's No. 1 tourist attraction," says the Rev. Jerry Falwell, nationally known Baptist evangelist and chancellor of Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va. "It's going to be a mini-Disney World."
Respected groups such as the National Science Board, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Science Teachers Association strongly support the theory of evolution. John Marburger, the Bush administration's science adviser, has said, "Evolution is a cornerstone of modern biology."
Many mainstream scientists worry that creationist theology masquerading as science will have an adverse effect on the public's science literacy.
"It's a giant step backward in science education," says Carolyn Chambers, chair of the biology department at Xavier University, which is operated by the Jesuit order of the Catholic church.
Glenn Storrs, curator of vertebrate paleontology for the Cincinnati Museum Center, leads dinosaur excavations in Montana each summer. He said the theory of dinosaurs and man coexisting is a "non-issue."
"And so, I believe, is the age of the Earth," Storrs said. "It's very clear the Earth is much older than 6,000 years."
The Rev. Mendle Adams, pastor of St. Peter's United Church of Christ in Pleasant Ridge, takes issue with Ham's views and the man himself.
"He takes extraordinary liberties with Scripture and theology to prove his point," Adams said. "The bottom line is, he is anti-gay, and he uses that card all the time."
Ham says homosexual behavior is a sin. But he adds that he's careful to condemn the behavior, not the person.
Even detractors concede that Ham has appeal.
Ian Plimer, chair of geology at the University of Melbourne, became aware of Ham in the late 1980s, when Ham's creationist ministry in Australia was just a few years old.
"He is promoting the religion and science of 350 years ago," says Plimer. "He's a far better communicator than most mainstream scientists."
Despite his communication skills, Ham admits he doesn't always make a good first impression. But, that doesn't stop him from trying to spread his beliefs.
"He'd be speaking 20 hours a day if his body would let him," said Mike Zovath, vice president of museum operations.
Ham's wife of 32 years agrees. "He finds it difficult talking about things apart from the ministry," Mally Ham says. "He doesn't shut off."
Ham said he has no choice but to speak out about what he believes.
"The Lord gave me a fire in my bones," Ham says. "The Lord has put this burden in my heart: 'You've got to get this information out.'"
Information from: The Kentucky Enquirer, http://www.enquirer.com
05-22-2005, 09:29 PM #2Originally Posted by Tock
-Ken Ham's view on Creationism has far less problems than the dying theory of atheistic evolution. I think it is that people are raising objection.
-As far as his view on the age of the earth, I believe both sides have very good arguements, I go back and forth on my view of the earths age constantly.
-There are no logical contradictions reguarding his view on this subject.
-Atheistic evolution has enormous logical and philosphical problems that have no answer.
05-22-2005, 10:07 PM #3
Dr. Mike Behe, an associate professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, was one of those who presented a paper at the 1996 Mere Creation conference
Behe: Once I read Denton's book I was amazed that people believed in evolution when there was this clear argument against it. But let's face it, most scientists did believe in it, and the argument for evolution is best summarized in a book called The Blind Watchmaker [Norton, 1986] by Richard Dawkins. Dawkins' book is fascinating to read alongside Denton's because both of the books use similar examples, but come to completely different conclusions. Denton's uses an analogy to English language that sentences are difficult to put together. Dawkins' has a section where he uses a computer to generate a sentence to show that evolution is easy. I realized these books were addressing a problem very basic not only to science, but knowledge in general; that is, how do you know something; how do you support a theory with evidence; and what extrapolations are legitimate?
In the late 1980's Lehigh University decided to develop a college seminar program for incoming freshmen; the seminars are courses that are supposed to . . . get the freshmen excited about their college careers. So the administration was looking for faculty volunteers to suggest courses. I developed a course which I called "Popular Arguments on Evolution" in which we read Denton and Dawkins side-by-side. It's been very popular with the students. Most students come in believing the standard evolutionary story, but a lot of them, as they leave the course, say that although they still believe in evolution, they now see the issue as much more complex and problematic. As a teacher it's my goal to get them thinking for themselves and not to relying on people's say so, as I once did.
RI: What is the basic theme of Darwin's Black Box?
Behe: In science, a black box is a machine or device or system that does something, but you don't know how it works; it's completely mysterious. It may be mysterious because you can't see inside or because you just can't comprehend it. To Darwin and to his 19th century contemporaries the cell was a black box. The cell which we know now to be the basis of life was simply too small, and the science of the day had no tools to investigate it; microscopes of the time were still rather crude and people could see only the outlines of a cell. So, many scientists thought the cell was rather simple, like a blob of microscopic jelly.
Since that time, science has shown that the cell is an extremely complex system containing proteins and nucleic acids and all sorts of miniaturized machines. In my book I go through a number of these machines and argue that Darwinian natural selection cannot have produced them because they have a property called irreducible complexity; that is, they consist of a number of parts, all of which must be present for the machine to work. Irreducible complexity is like a mousetrap which has a number of parts, and all the parts must be present before it can work.
RI: Have you heard from Richard Dawkins?
Behe: No, I haven't heard directly from Dawkins, but I have heard indirectly about what he thinks about my book. A public TV show named "Think Tank" was interested in setting up a debate between Dawkins and myself. They asked if I would be willing to participate, and I happily said yes. And they approached Richard Dawkins, but he refused to appear with me, saying he was insufficiently versed in biochemistry to address the issue. But then the TV show asked Dawkins to appear by himself on the show, which he did. During the interview, which I had an opportunity to see recently, the show host asked him about my book. He seemed to grasp the idea of irreducible complexity pretty well. However, he said it was cowardly and lazy of me to come to a conclusion of intelligent design, and he said that if I thought for myself I would realize that there must be a Darwinian explanation out there somewhere, and I should get off my duff and go out and find it.
Certainly Richard Dawkins is entitled to his strongly held opinions. But, in fact, from the evidence, I think intelligent design is the best explanation. And it's not a matter of whether I like the idea or not, or whether I like to sleep late and am lazy, rather it's that Darwinism is barking up the wrong tree and I think a better scientific explanation is design.
I hope to meet with Richard Dawkins in the future, though.
An analogy I like to draw is to physics: many physicists were unhappy with the idea of a big bang because it seemed to have clear theological implications. Nonetheless, physicists embraced it as a legitimate scientific theory and built on it. I see intelligent design the same way; it may have religious implications but it's a clear scientific theory based solely on observations of biochemical systems that we should embrace and build on.
05-23-2005, 02:03 PM #4
Im thinking that the day that evolution is proved to be true, what will the religious people say then... Burn the witches?
05-23-2005, 10:28 PM #5
Probably, "Burn the Scientists!"
Proof or no proof, fundamentalism is a disease of the intellect that resists cures consisting of doses of reality.
05-24-2005, 05:55 AM #6Writer
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
The problem is that they made a "Creationism Museum" not a "Science Museum" and what that tells me is that they will not change their position, regardless of new data or information. A good scientist reserves the right to alter her theory when new data is presented. You'll note that this museum was built to push one particular point of view...to "save people" and such....thus, when new data appears they will either ignore it, dismiss it out of hand, or warp it's meaning to fit their agenda.
As for Evolutionism dying, Books...I will remind you that it is the prevalent theory right now in Anthropopology and Biology...i.e. it is taught in every credible University in the entire country, while Creationism is not taught anywhere as the prevalent scientific theory. If Evolutionism is "dying" and is taught everywhere....then what is Creationism?
05-25-2005, 09:10 PM #7Associate Member
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
Burn the scientests?
I think when the lord comes back and dose proclaim that his Father created it, it will be the evolutionts that will say burn the scientests (not that they are soley responsible for our unbelife, but what the hell we will have to blame someone.) for they are the ones that taught us this.LOL
05-26-2005, 12:02 PM #8
Tell you what, give me a phone call when Jesus decides hes coming.
05-27-2005, 04:56 AM #9Associate Member
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
All my life i was taught evolution and i belived it, nothing else wae presenented to contradict it . Since i have became a christian I always hear how closed minded and intolerant I am, OK, now I have had my mind opened up and considered and i emphisize considered another perspective, now I am ridiculed.
Ken Ham has done a good job in presenting his view, others and now mine of how creation came about,
Remember brothers of body building,should any of us or our familys go to war we will pray only to GOD.not charles darwin.
05-27-2005, 11:09 AM #10
Thats a covering your bases statement. If I was to run into sniper alley, I just might say "God help me" or simply "Syndicate dont **** up" and the outcome is likely to be the same. Yet I guess I wont get a cool, saved by a miracle thing if I pray and a bullet grazes me.
05-27-2005, 03:33 PM #11Junior Member
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
faith is just that....faith that you know the "truth". everyone is free to believe their own truths.
in this case, i have faith that science has the upper hand.
05-27-2005, 03:34 PM #12Junior Member
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
also, Creation Science seems like an oxymoron to me.
05-27-2005, 03:54 PM #13Writer
Originally Posted by STONES2
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
Keep praying...it's working...
07-21-2005, 09:13 PM #14Associate Member
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
It's been a while but did want to retort to hookers statement about the jews and Joan of arc, etc.
It is better to call upon the lord and be saved eternally and if die at the hands of men so be it . to be absent of the body is to be present with the LORD.
07-21-2005, 09:16 PM #15Originally Posted by STONES2
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)