"To ensure its financial health, the Creation Museum raised admission prices on July 1, (2012) to $29.95 for adults, up from $24.95."
The Creation Museum opened its doors to the public on Memorial Day (May 28) 2007. Not long after that, a family from my church made the 530+ mile trek from Raleigh, North Carolina to Petersburg, Kentucky, where the 60,000 sq. ft. facility is located. They were among the 404,000 visitors during the first year of operation. The $27 million museum was funded through private donations, and it's likely that many who bankrolled Ken Ham's dream came to the Creation Museum to experience it for themselves. What has happened to the attendance numbers since then?
Last year CityBeat published an article entitled Creation Museum Attendance Drops for Fourth Straight Year, highlighting what appears to be a downward trend. According to the article:
The Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky., created quite an uproar in 2007 when it opened with exhibits showing early humans co-existing with dinosaurs. Five years later, the public fascination with that take on paleoanthropology seems to be fading.
This week, the museum told CityBeat that attendance for the year ended June 30 came to 254,074. That amounts to a 10 percent drop from last year’s 282,000 and is the museum’s fourth straight year of declining attendance and its lowest annual attendance yet. The $27 million museum drew 404,000 in its first year and just over 300,000 each of the next two.
Apparently, museum officials have not been all that concerned because attendance exceeded the estimated 250,000 by over 4,000 in 2012.
The CityBeat article goes on to state:
On its 2011 federal income tax return, Answers in Genesis reported a 5 percent drop in museum revenue to $5.1 million. Worse, AIG slumped to its first-ever financial loss — $540,218. As of deadline for CityBeat’s print edition, AIG hadn’t provided financial results for fiscal 2012, which ended June 30. Zovath said the museum itself isn’t losing money.
To ensure its financial health, the Creation Museum raised admission prices on July 1, to $29.95 for adults, up from $24.95.
I don't know about you, but I believe the admission price, PLUS travel, lodging, meals, etc., make such a trip cost-prohibitive for many families. One has to wonder whether the Duggars paid the admission fee when they visited.
Recently, Tim Challies published a post entitled Why I Am a Six-Day Creationist, which mentions his recent visit to the Creation Museum. It was his first time, and he spent a couple of days speaking at a conference held there. That post has generated quite a few comments, as you might imagine. We are left wondering how much he was paid to speak and whether he self-promoted while there.
And today Challies has given another shout-out to the Creation Museum in his post Worshipping at the Creation Museum. Here he raves about the planetarium:
Of all the exhibits I saw there, the one I may have enjoyed most was the planetarium. The planetarium is a state-of-the-art theater that allows you to recline and gaze up into “space.” The presentation there is meant to display just some of the beauty and vastness of space and in it all to display the obvious hand of a designer who means to make a statement about himself (and, by comparison, to make a statement about us as well).
What is it with all these infomercials?
It has been fascinating to watch the Creation Museum's latest strategies for attracting visitors. For example, last June it added a zip line. Just two months later a worker tending to the zip line was struck by lightning. Fortunately, he sustained only minor injuries. An insect exhibit has also been added. It will be interesting to see what happens to the attendance numbers in the years to come. Has the Creation Museum reached a saturation point?
In case you're not familiar with Ken Ham who heads up Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum, you might benefit from watching this CBN interview which aired prior to the museum's opening.
And here is an interesting introduction to the Creation Museum.
We will continue to monitor the situation. In the meantime, have any of you been to the Creation Museum, and what were your impressions?
Lydia's Corner: Job 12:1-15:35 1 Corinthians 15:29-58 Psalm 39:1-13 Proverbs 21:30-31
The link “Worshipping at the Creation Museum” is broken.
Have never been and not sure I want to, either.
@ yewnique:
Have never been and would not go were it free and they paid my transportation. Why encourage the nutty?
Noah will save the Creation Museum!
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20121120/NEWS06/311200035/
It makes me sad. Especially when people are told by pastors, bloggers, and the likes of Ken Ham that this is the way to understand the Bible – if we’re really going to believe it – and their listeners go on to reject Christianity along with it.
If we’d only be honest with our hermeneutics and accept that God worked through ancient storytelling, as opposed to scientific history [ http://anirenicon.com/2013/07/27/love-for-the-bible-led-me-to-evolution-2-scripture/ ], then maybe people would reject Christ for his rhetoric about enemy-love instead of these shenanigans.
Ooops. Looks like Noah’s coming up a bit short. Hope God holds off the rain for a while:
The new exhibits have gone in as the ministry’s ambitious Noah’s ark-themed park has stalled, with about $13 million raised out of a $24 million goal. The Ark Encounter project, which would include a massive replica of the vessel, was unveiled about two years ago, but its opening has been pushed back indefinitely. Ham said he hopes the big boat can open by 2016.
http://www.durangoherald.com/article/20130816/LIFESTYLE06/130819642/0/Lifestyle06/Creation-Museum-adds-attractions
@ NC Now:
Thanks for letting us know. Not sure what happened, but it's now fixed. 🙂
@ JeffT:
$13 million can be put to better use, surely.
Sadly, with all the time spent debating six-day creation, what has been lost in the debate is the teaching of Genesis. The purpose of Genesis 1-3 is not to provide a description of the process of how the universe was created. Instead, its purpose is to explain that there is one God and God alone is responsible for creation, a radical departure from other religions of the time in the Ancient Near East. Even more importantly, Genesis 1-3 establishes what the relationship should be between God and humans, among humans, and between humans and the Earth:
• Humans were formed ‘out of the dust of the ground’ meaning we are part of the Earth and connected to it.
• Unlike all the other creatures, God ‘breathed’ life into humans, creating us in his own image, establishing what is supposed to be an intimate relationship. By doing so, God created all humans in his own image, not just rulers – from the mightiest to lowliest of human beings we are all equally in God’s image.
• All human life is precious. We were not created to be pawns of the gods and, with Genesis 4 (Cain and Able), we are all brothers and sisters who are to be each other’s keeper and to kill another human being is fratricide.
With the overwhelming scientific evidence disproving a young Earth, it’s time to admit that six-day creation is not the point of Genesis 1-3, there is something very much larger being taught here.
Just my $.02
I wonder how this would compare to attendance at Disney or other attractions?
yewnique wrote:
The scripture says the love of money is a root of all evil. I would add that the love or concern of other peoples money is not rooted in Christ. Playing the what if game with other peoples money can be fun though. Lets take a medium sized Bible belt town and calculate all the money spent on buildings,land, utilities, salaries,and anything else associated with the institutional church and then add the statement “I can find a better use”, in Jesus name of course. 🙂
This post hands down lets me to post a link to another classic post on Ken Ham.
A few years back, Chaplin Mike at Internet Monk did some awesome analysis on Ken Ham. He not only hit it out of the park, he hit a grand slam!
This is my all time favorite post at Internet Monk – it's called "The Disney-ization of Faith"
@ Rich Kelley:
Well, maybe, but consider this.
If you are saying that the money that the institutional churches in whatever-town America is all “their money” that is not exactly accurate. There is no property tax paid on church property, so the local governments must make up the difference by increased taxes on individual and business properties. If the clergy salaries get preferential tax treatment with gimmicks like housing allowance, then this impacts the taxes of everybody else. You see where I am gong with this. And then, if in addition to this, the churches take the attitude of “you don’t have the right to criticize” in an area like money, whoa now. You step on my toe and then deny me the right to holler? Good luck with that.
There is also a theological aspect to this. When Jesus talked about the judgment, he does not represent that the people who poured their lives and resources into traditionally religious behaviors (even up to casting out demons) and those he “knows” but rather those who aided him in the persons of the hungry, naked and such. But the churches, too often, uses guilt-inducing approaches on their people to extract money for exactly those lands and buildings and such and then, what?, say that no one dare to object? Because it is all “their money” now?
So, people should ignore the inequity of their financial (tax) advantages, and ignore the theological misrepresentations that they propagate? To what purpose? Surely it is not some kind of mutual deal where we just all agree to be complicit in each other’s poor choices (I almost said sins), because I want to hide my own?
Sure sounds like it.
Anyhow, I love what Pope Francis is saying to the RCC folks right now. Hope it makes a difference. And I love what TWW is saying along some of the same lines. Hope it makes a difference.
@ Allen O’Brien: I have seen too many of my kids’ friends reject the faith because they were told we live on a 6,000 year old earth. Ham refuses to see his complicity in this matter, blaming people like us for causing the kids to leave. Now he is spending his money to put up billboards attacking atheists. Wow, with tactics like this, he will continue to contribute to rise the rise of secularism in the US.
JeffT wrote:
Your entire comment was excellent.
@ Nancy: I plan to write a post next week encouraging people not to donate to their rich church. They don’t have to leave. They just need to stop giving and give it to Christian ministries serving the downtrodden.
@ dee:
Precisely
@ Allen O’Brien:
O’Brien is it now? I had a grandmother who was born a Daugherty. Proud of it.
I have traveled a parallel path to your road. Here is a problem to be faced.
Whichever path one chooses regarding the understanding of scripture, including but not limited to the creation narratives, one invariably will challenge the actual faith in Jesus of some people. This is a religious fault line today, and it has huge implications for evangelical christianity. A lot of folks do think the the Danvers statement is a hill to die on. I think that they are incorrect, but I do not want to see them dead. But how can one compromise truth, whatever one sees truth to actually be? It is as vital as the I Am statement about Truth. This is a game stopper and a deal breaker.
I am convinced that Jesus is the Truth. But I am not able to see truth in the arguments that Al Mohler et al use to try to deny an old earth. Nor can I see how one can worship a god as God if and only if that god limits himself to my understanding of him. That looks like a sign and symptom that something is terribly wrong with man’s understanding of deity. Look at what God did in the Job chronicles. He reached out a hand to Job in his problems, but He did not reveal his secrets to Job.
Is that not what we have in this issue? Is it not correct to say that God reaches out to man today, but that He refuses to totally explain Himself? IMO we have to avail ourselves of His reaching while contenting ourselves with ambiguities in some areas. The internal disquiet of ambiguities should not dissuade us from commitment to truth. Or from commitment to Truth.
But either way, O’Brien, you will always have internal struggles in this area, and there will always be people besides yourself who are hurt by that. Best wishes and happy traveling. I have found this path both challenging and exciting.
—Grandmother
I’m with JeffT on this one, though he stated it more eloquently than I could have.
I’ve never been to the Creation Museum, and I wouldn’t go if it were free. I’ll also do everything in my power to see that the kids I’m responsible for in my church’s youth group never get taken there again, either.
NC Now wrote:
Is that “Worshipping AT the Creation Museum” or “WORSHIPPING the Creation Museum”?
My regular writing partner is a burned-out country preacher. A few years ago, he claimed that as a pastor, he got some sort of complementary tickets to the Creation Museum. Some sort of mass-mailing to pastors. For the record, he is NOT a YEC but has to pose as one or his congregation (which would make Pilrgimage to the Creation Museum) would turn him into a pile of rocks.
And on an Internet Monk thread some years ago, someone commented “We have the Vatican Observatory and Pontifical Academy. They have the Kentucky Creation Museum.”
@ JeffT:
This was a great comment, Jeff. It echoes pretty much everything I’ve thought about the subject for years now. Why are so many Christians insisting on reading the Bible as a science textbook. It was never meant for that!
@ JeffT:
THIS! Yes. So often this debate rips apart friendships when the fact is that God never intended for it to do more than to challenge the polytheistic ideas of the day. It is not HOW God did it but that he DID
Nancy wrote:
He has been covered in the news saying many things, which item are you talking about?
I wonder what Ken Ham’s house looks like?
Nicholas wrote:
Compared to yours, mine, or Steven Furtick’s?
every time I see the title “Creation Museum,” I get uneasy, because whatever else it might be, the place is NOT an actual museum. (former worker in real museums here….)
it’s a theme park.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Probably closest to Furtick’s. Or Ed Young’s.
JeffT wrote:
I agree with what you said, I’ll add that when you take something that I consider spiritual and try to combine the flesh, the results are everywhere to be seen around us. Over 30,000 denominations out there, and I’m sure The “old, new” argument is one of the many things that cause the divisions. Paul asked us to work out our difference, sorry Paul, we can’t do it, too much knowledge and pride out there. 🙂
JeffT wrote:
From one of the pics, the layout of the theme park seems to have changed a bit since the news first surfaced over at Internet Monk three years ago. (http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-disney-ization-of-faith – check the comment thread for some real snarking and Defense of the YEC faith.) The HUGE reflecting lake at the center of the theme park is gone, replaced by some sort of fountain/garden arrangement. They’ve added what looks like a replica of the Etemenkani Ziggurat of Old Babylon in one (SE?) corner, next to what has to be the “First Century Village” where the Gospel Presentation and Altar Call will take place.
Oh, and their Ark still has rounded lines, a distinct bow and stern, complete with RAM bow, prominent sternpost, and tumblehome. Like it was intended to maneuver under (nonexistent) oar or sail.
Decades ago, I saw something about a Noah’s Ark model at some East Coast maritime museum. The museum curators reconstructed the Ark not as a giant ancient ship but as a flat-bottomed barge with squared-off ends, basically a raft hull with two additional levels of box on top extending out to the edge of the raft with maybe a walkspace all around for a “deck”.
Their rationale was that “Ark” meant “box” and that the Ark didn’t need to maneuver, only float. So they went with a giant raft-hulled box as that would have been the simplest to build at low-tech. No curves or fancy carpentry.
@ Nicholas:
I am not a Catholic, and I am not aligning myself with any side of any specific issue that they be differing from each other on at this time. However, as you mention, Pope Francis has been in the media right much and that puts his comments in the common marketplace–thus I feel free to comment.
Of what I have read, the answer is “a lot of it.” Specific to this post and some previous discussions on TWW I would mention that he seems to be emphasizing getting rid of administrative corruption, focusing on the poor, evangelization and inclusion of the marginalized, leading simpler lives and not getting exclusively focused on just a few issues but having a broader approach to faith and practice.
@ Rich Kelley:
Oops,Rich, I meant to reply to you. Now I better check and see what Niicholas said and see how badly I messed that up.
Ummm…Tim, that’s not state-of-the-art. That’s pretty much just a normal, run-of-the-mill planetarium. Glad you enjoyed it, but it’s hardly unique, unless I’m missing something here.
And FWIW, a basic membership for five people at the Boston Science Museum costs $120 a year…and I’m pretty sure it comes with four guest passes to boot.
Could it be that the simplest explanation (via Occam) is probably the best one? Regular folks who were once middle class are now starting to slide toward the down-strata as it were, which of course means less and less disposable income. When faced with a choice between Ashley or Jason’s tuition at Ole Miss or Clemson, or Bama’ vs. a trip to Ham’s theme park, which one do ya spose’ they’ll pick?
Nancy wrote:
:)I’m not catholic either. When ever the pope or any worldly famous person gets the attention of the news, I have found that what ever they are talking about, regardless, it has to do with image and control, and in the case of the pope control for sure. As long as the catholic church has been around and looking at their assets and power, they should have taken care of world hunger decades if not a centry ago. Making it an adgenda item in the popes speaches puts him in the same catagory as the politicians in Washington D.C. The two political parties being liars and damn liars.
Nancy wrote:
I couldn’t agree more.
And when I hurt, it’s for the people turned away from faith. I have the inclination that many more people would give Christianity a shot if they didn’t see it couched in Ken Ham’s terms, but what you’re saying is true- people reject it for a whole host of reasons either way,
I was reared on Kent Hovind’s Young Earth Creationism VHS tapes. Turns out he’s serving 10 years in prisoner for tax evasion.
You can set him free here if you’d like – http://freehovind.com/index
Allen O’Brien wrote:
Almost aspirated my spaghetti reading that. 🙂
He’s just so “special,” isn’t he?
One of my kids, who doesn’t accept our faith, and their spouse visited the Creation Museum which they found hilarious. However, the visit reinforced their atheism rather than moved them towards faith.
The oft misattributted to P. T. Barnum “No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.” but originally due to H. L. Mencken provides the best explanation for the Creation Museum: the pursuit of the almighty $ rather than the Almighty Lord. This also applies to many of the other excesses documented on various recent TWW posts.
oldJohnJ wrote:
I had a feeling we would hear from you on this post. Thank you for this comment. It reinforces the concerns that I have had for years.
Allen O’Brien wrote:
I have to admit, Hovind is a character who makes me laugh as opposed to cry. I heard that he believed that he had an airtight reason why he didn’t have to pay taxes. He though he was smarter than both scientists and the IRS. He lost on both counts.
Rich Kelley wrote:
Rich Kelley wrote:
Do you mean that “…concern of other people’s money is not rooted in Christ” unless you are talking about the Catholic church? In other words, don’t criticize the protestants in the Bible belt, but the catholics are fair game?
Surely I have misunderstood you.
Nancy wrote:
Slight tangent to the thread topic, but only slight, because you’re quite right – a 144-hour creation is indeed made an issue fundamental to salvation by a vocal subset of believers.
I think there’s a rule of thumb to the quality of one’s Christian theology that can be stated thus. How many kinds of people must go to hell so that I can spend eternity with Jesus? The fewer, the better I have understood Jesus.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
As we sometimes say in the south, “Preach it, brother.”
Science Confirms It
The third reason I am a six-day creationist is that I believe this is what science tells us. I believe science confirms a literal six-day creation and a young earth. I find the science demanding millions or billions of years less compelling than the science supporting a much less ancient universe. Even though so many people today scoff at even the suggestion that the world may be young, I find the old-earth science built upon very shaky and ever-shifting ground."
Facepalm.
[[MOD Edit: to make it clear Caleb was quoting someone else]]
Caleb W wrote:
One of my friends, KOATAP (Knower of all things astrophysical) is going to write a response. We all had a good laugh over Sunday buffet last week.
@ Nancy: Ditto!
@ Caleb W:
I guess that’s his opinion? . . . yet it’s written as a statement of fact with no proof offered on his part as to why he believes that statement.
I was in disbelief when I read that as well.
Allen O’Brien wrote:
“Just like Lyndon LaRouche, Except CHRISTIAN(TM)!”
Bridget wrote:
Because Young Earth Creationism IS FACT! FACT! FACT!(TM)
Internet Monk traced it to the Industrial Revolution and Age of Reason; one side effect was the Bible ceased to be the Old Stories of God’s dealings with Man and began to be treated as a “Spiritual Engineering Manual” of FACT FACT FACT.
“When you point at something with your finger, the dog sniffs your finger. To a dog, a finger is a finger and that is that. And today we cultivate that doglike state of mind.” — C.S.Lewis (from memory)
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Read that Hovind guy’s bio on wikipedia. That is one weird dude. Funny comparison to Lyndon LaRouche.
Nancy wrote:
Surely you have. 🙂 One statement was made at 07:28am today and the other made at 2:09pm today.
This doesn’t have to do with the museum, but I’ll never forget one Sunday service in one of my long ago attended churches (not CLC). They were sending out a mission team to Indonesia, and the team’s task for the week was to teach pastors about creationism vs. evolution. I was shocked. They were sending missionaries to a country that is about 98% muslim and they’re focusing on creationism?!
Caleb W wrote:
Caleb, please give a reference to the science supporting YEC. While I’d strongly prefer something from the science peer reviewed literature, I am open to anything you might consider definitive.
Allen O’Brien wrote:
Yeah, I hear you. When you get to the point where YEC is a point of orthodoxy you are prolly guilty of “barring up the gates of heaven” a la certain villians in the gospel stories.
@ Bridget:
It is so bizarre. He acts like scientists have nothing to do with science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_societies_explicitly_rejecting_intelligent_design
And that is just a list rejecting intelligent design. YEC is something else entirely.
If Challies wants to say he is YEC because that is how he interprets the Bible, then he has to acknowledge that he disregards the scientific opinion of the vast majority of scientists. To invoke “science” is empty rhetoric.
@ oldJohnJ:
I was quoting Tim Challies and expressing disbelief at his statement. I do not think that “science” supports the YEC position.
I have enjoyed reading this debate. Having read many debates between YEC and OEC I have come to various conclusions, one being how important it is to respectful of other people’s viewpoint on this matter and try to understand their arguments, albeit quite complex on occasions.
As a scientist who has worked in neuroscience for over 30 years I think it is reasonable to say the following; The scientific community (if there is such a thing)overwhelmingly believes in an old earth and that evolution in some form did take place. This is because the scientific evidence is so strong.
The only way to get round the evidence is to try to pick holes in it and point out some discrepancies in findings, but this approach does not work because fails to see the bigger picture. For example, I have heard Ham rubbish old universe estimates because the approximately 14 billion year estimate might be out by 2 billion years.
Ham I think does not understand that most scientists are in the end after the truth, and will finally reject ideas if there is enough evidence to disprove them. Eventually, they break ranks and a new viewpoint emerges.
Nothing remotely like this has happened with the old earth notion and evolution – quite the reverse as dating systems have multiplied and corroborated each other and evolution has been strongly supported by genetics in recent years. Within this, YEC sometimes point to a scientific conspiracy based on atheism, but this is not convincing and suggests a lack of full understanding of the overall scientific commmunity. The current scientific framework is based on Christian values stemming from the early scientific revolution and the search for truth parallels Christian assumption of ultimate truth; in this respect, all scientists may be closer to God than they realise.
A second way to get round the evidence to say that God is all powerful and, although scientific evidence points towards an old earth, God can change physics etc to make it just seem so. This applies to the age of the universe, where the speed of light coming from stars provides clear evidence of a very old universe. God can just change the speed of light over time and the problem is solved. Of course this approach cannot be refuted because ultimately God is all powerful; but an argument against this is that deceiving us is not in His nature and so God, although all powerful, would not go against his nature.
Nevertheless, I am more sympathetic with the second approach since it does not involve trying to rubbish current scientific understanding unconvincingly.
Recently I met a biologist who nearly lost his job because he taught OEC in a university in the USA. He is a Christian, a theistic evolutionist in the same vein as the geneticist Francis Collins, who first sequenced the genome. Equally I realise it is true that if you are a declared YEC elsewhere it might be difficult for you to find a university or research establishment to work in and be taken seriously.
We do need tolerance for different opinions on this matter if they are genuinely held. In my view it is wrong for people with OEC Christian beliefs to be condescending about those with YEC beliefs. Equally, it is wrong for people with YEC beliefs to doubt the faith of Christians with OEC beliefs and there are many very
good accounts of how genesis fits with recent scientific understanding.
Belief in YEC should not be a millstone around necks of Christian believers.
Finally, I personally wouldn’t pay money to go and see a YEC theme park! I can see God creating the (current) earth without travelling from the south of England.
Former CLC’er wrote:
When all you have is a YEC hammer, EVERYTHING looks like a Darwinist nail.
Caleb W wrote:
My apologies. I missed the quotes in the comment I replied to.
pcapastor wrote:
The comparison was from dubious memories of run-ins with LaRouchies.
However, the Hovind Theory described in the bio… All I can say is it the WEIRDEST combination of Horbiger’s World Ice Theory and Velikovsky that I have ever heard. (And I’m an aficionado of the weird.) And Hovind’s “$250,000 offer” echoes Cyrus “Koresh” Teed’s cash offer to anyone who could Disprove (to Teed’s satisfaction) Teed’s offbeat variant of the Hollow Earth (i.e. “We Live on the Inside” — naturally nobody was able to disprove it to Teed’s Satisfaction…)
Caleb W wrote:
If you have a reference/link for this I’d be most appreciative.
I’m with Caleb and my family would like to go to the creation museum but we cannot afford it. If it were cheaper, we probably would. It does bother me that the cost is prohibitive. I personally think planning to spend big money on an ark replica is SILLY and a waste of money. But I have been watching a video series by Ham and I do not find him offensive at all. I have read Jonathan Safarteri and found him rather interesting. I do think that the “old earthers” do not have all the answers either, and there is a lot of twisting in hermaneutics to justify Genesis in light of evolution/old earth. Note that I am NOT SAYING anyone is saved or not saved on this issue!!! But there are a LOT of holes in evolutionary theory…there are really no transitional forms, living things which mutate go in a DOWNWARD direction and are usually sterile, Christ speaks of issues mentioned in Genesis in a literal way. Hey – I will respect your opinion even if I disagree….but there are HOLES in the old earth issues which I do not hear mentioned.
@ oldJohnJ:
No problem. Here it is:
http://www.challies.com/articles/why-i-am-a-six-day-creationist
@ justabeliever:
I just want to clarify that I do not endorse the YEC position.
justabeliever wrote:
Yes there are. That statement that keeps being passed around is from decades ago.
justabeliever wrote:
Not always.
justabeliever wrote:
There are a boatload transitional forms. Go ahead and google it. That unfortunately is an old talking point, one I used to believe. And then I started to actually look into it. To my chagrin, I found I was wrong. So did my husband.
justabeliever wrote:
I have no idea where you learned this. It is not true. Of course, there are mutations that occur that are incapable of life. Those die out. But there are mutations that are positive and continue.
Caleb W wrote:
Thanks for the link. However there is only the claim you originally quoted. There is no referencing of specific science results to support the claim. I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised.
FWIW I believe present science gives an excellent description of the universe God created.
The best line I ever read/heard in regards to all this was:
It is impolite to ask a planet her age.
Sometimes I think little things get made into mountains so that an individual can be famous for dying (holding to that belief) on that mountain. It mostly ends up making people look silly when their “mountains” turn out to be nothing more than a few grains of dirt. Besides, I have better things to waste my time on, like finding a job so I can get off unemployment.
oldJohnJ wrote:
And no comments allowed. So the statement looks authoritative to those who don’t know much about science but are big in their faith.
If you are gonna believe in old earth stuff, or evolution, you will have to believe that you can “pick and choose” which parts of Scripture you believe are inspired. If God created the earth good, and there was no death until the fall of Adam, then there would be nothing dying or changing. If Genesis 1- 11 are myth or story or just suggestions, then you are chipping at the foundation of biblical authority as these passages are mentioned elsewhere in the NT and the OT. If you believe in a local flood…read again the chapters in Genesis. It reads EVERY LIVING THING that had the breath of life in it perished…does not sound like a large area but rather the entire earth. The “plain” reading of Genesis reads “day” as “night and day” and the pattern of “evening and morning.” SO….if you disregard Genesis as literal or true….how do you determine what other parts of the Bible are true?
Literality is the lowest form of “truth”. Jesus taught in parables that are true not because they are literal, but because they teach truths about humanity and our relationship with God. The creations accounts (there are two differing accounts) are parallel to ancient middle eastern creation myths extant in the time of the exile, when the book we have as Genesis was put into writing. The differences are of interest, because Genesis talks about one God, not multiple gods, and posits an intimate relationship between God and his creation, as in “molding” humanity and assuming a form that allowed for conversation between God and human. And I believe that Genesis is true, just not literal. It is true in what it teaches about God and his desire to be in fellowship with us, about our rejection of that relationship, and the consequences of that rejection. And preachers for decades have told preacher stories that are illustrations of truth they are teaching. Genesis is of the same genre.
justabeliever wrote:
So, was God discussing the death of man or the death of animals or the death of plants? It seems rather obvious to me that God was discussing the death of man after man had the “breath of life” breathed into him and became a creature who would live in eternity.The horror of death is seen when that which was meant to be immortal and to never die, was condemned to die.
And do not forget, God said “If you eat from the Tree, on that day you shall surely die.” Plain reading would seem to indicate that Adam would die on that day. He didn’t. Yet he would die on day. The palin reading is not as plain as you might imagine. I have a high view of the authority of the Bible, BTW.
Why couldn’t it mean a local flood? There is nothing in the wording that negates that it could have been applied to the known world. For those who lived in that part of the world, everything perished.
I have no trouble with determining what in the Bible is true. For example, I still believe God is the Creator, that he gave man the breath of life which made him immortal, far different from the animals. I have no trouble with the Cross and Resurrection and I believe He will come again. I believe all that is in the Nicene Creed as do all those who are Christian and OEC or EC/TE. We find it incredibly easy, simple, in fact.
As for Genesis being literal-God did create all those things mentioned. So, it combines both literal and poetic. Love it.
@ justabeliever: Let me get you started on the transitional species. Here is one of my favorites.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatfish
Then, go on to Google the transitional species. There are a ton of them.
Rich Kelley wrote:
As long as the catholic church has been around and looking at their assets and power, they should have taken care of world hunger decades if not a centry ago.
Rich, your comments above are distinctly out of place in the context and testimony of the current Pope, his lifestyle, teachings, aspirations for the RCC. I am not a Roman Catholic, but I haven’t heard any “social justice” mindful Christians being anything but enthusiastic about Pope Francis.
Seriously, have you read anything about his ministry in South America? Have you done any due diligence about what is going on at the Vatican since this Pope has been elected?
I believe all the angels in Heaven are rejoicing. It may be that the RRC of the future will be demonstrating the gospel better than many evangelical Protestants. Some believe that day is already here.
justabeliever wrote:
Is the circumfrence of a circle 3 times the diameter?
Are there pillars holding up the earth?
Does the sun literally rise and set?
Oh, have you changed your mind about the science you mentioned earlier?
dee wrote:
As you well know Dee, we’ve been round this asteroid a few times, and I’m still one of the few contrarians (here at TWW) on this topic. Nonetheless, it would behoove me to tread carefully on thin ice with a good pair of snowshoes so to speak or I could find myself exiled to the outer perimeter with only Jimmy for company.
So here goes anyway.
If kids reject the faith because of what Ham and others of his tribe say, what does that say about their purported faith or even faith itself? In my opinion if faith must rely upon an air-tight Euclidean proof box with all bogeymen (Ham included) removed, it’s not faith at all.
Muff Potter wrote:
KH and AIG has created a Sunday school curriculum where you are told you must believe in 6000 years or you’re not really a Christian. Tell a child this for 10 to 15 years who then studies science and why should they believe anything their “church” has told them.
NC Now wrote:
Because they’re free to pick and choose by their own conscience and reason what they believe or disbelieve. Isn’t that what critical thinking is all about? It’s a two way street no? They can also apply the same process with what their Profs. tell them.
NC Now wrote:
If you round to the nearest whole number, it is.
(Which is what I think happened; whoever wrote it down just rounded off the numbers.)
justabeliever wrote:
That is a rigged argument, and I’ll show you how it’s rigged:
1) Take some change from your pocket.
2) Set two coins on the table top with some space between them. This represents two fossils in an evolutionary sequence.
3) YEC points to the space between them. “Where’s the transitional form?”
4) Put a coin between the two. That’s the transitional form.
5) YEC points to the two spaces between the three coins. “Where’s the transitional forms?”
6) Put a coin in each of the two spaces. Those are the transitional forms.
7) YEC points to the four spaces between the five coins. “Where’s the transitional forms?”
8) Lather, Rinse, Repeat.
9) Lather, Rinse, Repeat.
10) Lather, Rinse, Repeat until you run out of coins. There are only a finite number of fossils in existence.
11) YEC points to ALL the spaces between the coins and crows in triumph.
I, too, am a six-day creationist.
I believe God created Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays. But Sundays clearly evolved.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
And still are!
justabeliever wrote:
I note your choice of words: Not, which parts of Scripture you believe are literal, nor even which parts of Scripture you will accept or obey, but which parts of Scripture you believe are inspired. This word-choice implies that not to believe in the literal truth of a given passage of scripture is the same as rejecting the inspiration of scripture. As others here have pointed out, that’s simply wrong.
I have never encountered (in person or otherwise) a Bible-believing Christian who did not pick and choose which parts of Scripture they accepted as literal. They get around this by declaring that such-and-such a verse “obviously” isn’t meant to be taken literally, that the Scripture says x but “obviously” really means y, and so forth.
Sometimes, when we try to “correct” others concerning the Biblescriptures, we can kid ourselves into believing that they will ultimately be judged according to the measure with which we judge. They won’t, of course; but we will.
A few years ago, when my seventh grade Science class was studying the Grand Canyon, there was an intense serve of awe and wonder. As we made models of river erosion, and researched plate tectonics, the kids often talked about how humbling an experience it was. These are urban students in a “godless” public school by the way. While we were all amazed at the power of slow changes that carved out this canyon over millions of years, we were also amazed at the incredible beauty of this change, such as metamorphic rocks. My faith in God was strengthened! In addition, when the kids learned of ocean animal fossils buried in layers of desert sand in Arizona, some actually asked me if a Noah flood were possible. My point is, when we give room for the mystery, and let people make logical conclusions themselves, God is honored. Let us reason together…
Erik wrote:
*sense of awe
Robin wrote:
You know, this is precisely the argument that Mohler uses and which I find lacking. I think that the argument itself is lacking.
To say that something could happen and that therefore it did happen, or that one can assume that the conclusion that it did happen is reasonable, in the absence of evidence, is not an argument at all since it skips all the steps of argumentation. The classic definition of begging the question is to state a premise one way and then come back and state the conclusion another way but saying the same thing, thus having the premise and the conclusion “prove” each other. He is saying that God could do something, therefore God could have done that thing. The words in between simply state that, in fact, it is possible for God to do anything including this thing. That is not an argument. It is begging the question, in the classical sense. It may be a statement of faith, but that was not the question in the first place.
My second problem with this is with the whole approach to the issue of Bible vs scientific evidence. Christianity has consistently said that there is evidence that Jesus in the Christ. The evidence they cite includes OT prophesies, the miracles of Jesus, and mostly Jesus’ resurrection. Ev-i-dence. They defend their faith with evidence. But, when they look at scientific evidence, admit that it is there, and then discount the role of evidence in decision making, and that is what they do when they substitute speculation (what God might have done) for evidence, then they make their entire claims for the legitimacy of evidence look like lies. In other words, to “win” the issue of the age of the earth they are willing to undercut their arguments for the incarnation. Come on, gentlemen, you either do or you do not believe in the role of evidence in decision making.
To me, it is worse than this. I have seen some of the lists of academic degrees some of them have. How come they don’t see what they are doing? Do they see? Do they know they are propagating a non-argument and jeopardizing their arguments in other issues? IMO that if they do know, and if they had a better “argument” they would state their better argument.
And related to all that, but not quite the same, they attempt to refute science with theology, but when some atheist scientist categorically states that lack of scientific evidence to the contrary it can be stated that there is no God, they retort that science and theology are two separate things and that science cannot possibly prove that there is no God based on the limitations of the methodology of science itself. There is no mention of the methodological limitations of theology. In other words, they want everybody to drive only in one direction on a two-lane road.
So, what does indeed happen to the prototypical young person who ventures off to the university and has the great aha moment about the faith as it was taught to him? We must not do that to people.
IMO, evidence, logic and experience can take somebody both to Jesus and to an old earth. But trying to ignore any of that will leave some people wandering blindly in the woods with nothing but and empty water battle and mosquito bites.
Elizabeth wrote:
Your comments affirm this.
NC Now wrote:
Please, I would very much like to see this.
A commenter on my blog has vehemently denied that YECs (like Ken Ham and AiG) ever say that one must believe in YEC to be a Christian, and that in fact, YECs say that one CAN believe in evolution and still be a Christian.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Reminds me of this clip from Futurama: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxrxnPG05SU
(Moderators, kindly remove if my posting that violates comment guidelines.)
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Well, perhaps, but I think this is actually a confusion of what “literal” means. “Literal” does not exclude the use of metaphor, imagery, etc. The literal meaning of a metaphor is what the author intended us to understand by the metaphor. It is not a denial of literal meaning to understand a metaphor as a metaphor. And for the most part, there isn’t much debate about it. Most passages of Scripture are generally agreed on in the main.
On the Creation Museum itself, I have been there (someone else paid for it). It was well done artistically and technically. The display of the ark and how big it was is instructive. I thought the planetarium exhibit was also very interesting. The one I saw was on the size of the universe and the types of stars.
There is actually very little science for the most part in the display section. I was surprised by that. There was more scientific stuff in one of the movies I saw, and in bookstore of course.
Overall, I thought it was decent, but I think the price was already too high, and I think it will be difficult to sustain since it is a “one-time” kind of thing as it currently stands. An amusement park has “return value,” since you can go back to ride the rides. A museum such as the creation museum has no real return value, even if you are a YEC. When you add in the cost of travel, lodging, meals, etc. I can’t imagine doing it if we weren’t already there and someone didn’t give us tickets.
If someone believes the gospel and that God created, the approach is good, IMO, if you don’t like the YEC position. It does clearly explain the gospel, and that is a good thing.
yewnique wrote:
I am a YEC and I would affirm that one can believe in evolution and still be a Christian. I have never encountered anyone who doesn’t say that.
@ Gene:
I did once, in an editorial in a newspaper of all places. It was no one well-known though, just some guy who wrote in to the paper. I don’t keep track of YEC bigwigs so I can’t comment on any of them.
dee wrote:
Dee, are you including the primate to human transitional species?
Greg
There do appear to some be transitionals in primate to human. Google transiational species.
Here is where things get awkward. I do not believe that primates slowly evolved and then, one day, “poof” became human via evolution. The Bible clearly tells us that at one point God breathed the breath of life into man. That event, similar to other miracles, involved God taking a being and giving him an immortal soul, along with other characteristics such as self awareness, etc. and differentiating him from an animal. Those who believe in evolution and are creationists (I will not cede that term to the YE crowd) believe that God is the Creator of the process and Creator of the stuff that makes up the universe and our DNA.
The Mormons make a fatal mistake in describing God. They describe Him to look like us-he is a man/god. Legs and arms and lungs do not define a man. Those are shared by animals. The same goes for eyes, lungs, hair, brain, etc. What makes us who we are is a direct intervention of our Creator. It is that soul which He alone gave us.
Gene wrote:
Unfortunately, i have. But it is done in a way to leave room for plausible deniability. If you go the AIG and read Ham’s post on “It’s Not About the Age of the Earth” you will see that he says those who do not see things in his peculiar way are in danger of denying the doctrine of the atonement.
Think about it. Without the atonement, one is not “saved.” I have heard Ham do this with people in debates-in particular with Hugh Ross. The subtle insertion of possible heresy, for which people got burned at the stake, is passive aggressive. There is a reason that even some homeschooler’s groups disinvited him to speak.
@ dee:
Dee, so what you are saying is that God took an evolved species that was not human, and placed a soul into it, making it human?
@ dee:
I’ve seen/heard the same strategy. Ham will say that this is not a “salvation issue”, but his rhetoric undermines that assertion. In his post “Compromising Christians Don’t Like Evolution Versus God Film” he says:
“For years, Dr. Ross has been compromising the book of Genesis with millions of years and other evolutionary ideas. (Though he does not believe in biological evolution, Dr. Ross accepts cosmological evolution, like a very old universe, the big bang, etc.). He has misled so many people in the church and he will one day have to give an account regarding his compromising stand on God’s Word.”
Gene wrote:
That has been a source of critique of the museum. Museum’s have displays-fossils, bones etc. Go the National Museum of Natural History (Smithsonian) and you see actual examples, pictures etc. It is not a mock up or diorama with a mom making dinner while a dinosaur romps nearby.(Can you imagine that at the Smithsonian?)
If the actual science that he purports is “true” was displayed, he would be embarrassed because visitors could than point to the problems with his supposed proofs.Newspaper article would be written. It is better to keep that stuff on the down low and pass it off through his materials to churches sympathetic to his POV and willing to overlook the scientific problems since science is “hard.”
@ Greg T: “Could have” is the operating phrase. I am still not sure. One thing I am not going to do is get into the soul less hominid debate. I know my limitations-both Biblically and scientifically. It is something I have considered though and do not see it precluded. One thing I do know, legs, arms and lungs do not define a human or the soul.
It is vital to understand that I believe that God has intervened in the process and that His will and plan has been carried out in whatever process that he used. When I gaze at my hummingbirds or the mountains, I sense God in and through the process.
I often sit around and think about this stuff and wonder. For example, when God created Adam “out of the dust” could that” dust” be the building blocks of this world which would include DNA?
God took Adam and placed him in the Garden. What was going on outside of the Garden-there was a whole planet out there. Was the Garden the only place with life? I imagine not but I do not know.
@ Caleb W: Ham has been particularly virulent, IMO, with Hugh Ross. Ross is a soft spoken gentleman and has outclassed Ham in many ways. I watched the debate between the two. Guess who came off loving and kind and who came off angry?
@ yewnique: We have no problem with links so long as they are not super gross. We get to define “super gross.” 🙂
yewnique wrote:
Semantics, word games…see my comments further down.
dee wrote:
So you don’t want to defend your own beliefs about creation, yet you freely criticize those who hold the YEC position.
Jesus said this:
Matthew 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
It’s not just the James MacDonalds and Ken Hams of the world who practice hypocrisy, you might just find it a little closer to home.
Greg T wrote:
I am more than willing to defend my beliefs about creation and lots of other things. Good night-look at this blog. I can take it on the chin with the best of them. i have been called all sorts of names so hiding behind a computer is not in the cards for me.
I have said it before, and will reiterate, I am an OEC that tips towards evolutionary creationism. My thoughts are in transition. So, start with OEC-I am there, totally. I routinely defend that POV.
I am still working on my thoughts on issues like soul less hominids. There are few people on the planet who do not *evolve* in their thinking. And, I am impressed that you understand all of the science that surrounds this issue so that you can call me a hypocrite. I wish I was that advanced. But, with my limited IQ, it will most likely take me beyond when I am called home to formulate all of my thinking.
To say that one does not know enough to jump into a debate is not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy would be pretending I know a lot about it and merely cutting and pasting the thoughts of others on the subject which would be quite easy for me to do since I read tons on the subject. I am trying to be somewhat honest.
Finally, on the subject of hypocrisy, my pastor says we are all hypocrites in one way or another. So, what else is new?
@ dee:
Hypocrisy is applying a standard of judgement to others that you are not willing to apply to yourself. If you don’t understand this, you probably shouldn’t criticize others since you will condemning yourself in the process, if Jesus is to be believed.
Some (I emphasise some) YEC believers may not necessarily say a person with OEC beliefs cannot be Christian, but they make it fairly obvious they have a poor opinion of them – if you taken them seriously by focusing on some of their statements.
For example, Ken Ham argues that the OEC person has an attitude that is ‘destroying the church in America.’ (it seems quite a faux pas to me, a serious one).
This is in an article by him on the web (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/1998/01/23/young-earth-not-issues) in which he says of people who have accepted in outline the current longevity dating methods as follows: ‘..you have told people to accept man’s dating methods, and thus should not take the first chapters of Genesis as they are written, you have effectively undermined the Bible’s authority! This attitude is destroying the church in America.’
He also accuses Christian leaders who believe in OEC as being puffed up by pride. He writes in the same article ‘Academic pride is found throughout our culture. Therefore, many Christian leaders would rather believe the world’s fallible academics, than the simple clear words of the Bible.’ The cause of belief in OEC is pride…. PRIDE (another faux pas).
I believe in biblical authority. But in my view, Ken, you may be claiming to defend biblical authority whilst only really defending your own authority in terms of how to interpret scripture.
But this is nothing new in history – people using scripture to establish their own authority and then accusing people who disagree with them of pride and destroying the Church.
On the other hand Ken, again from the article (if you are reading this – I hope so – read more Wartburg Watch everyone!), you are scoffed at by ‘a majority of scientists.’ You relate this to the abuse Christians are told they will receive for believing the Gospel. It is a pity that people scoff – better to engage with the arguments.
A good short video on genesis is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bKa92eLkQM which sets out how scripture should be viewed in relation to Genesis by well known academics and theologians (not puffed up ones – at least I think so – have a listen Ken).
@ Greg T: But I do. I provide a forum, which I pay for out of my pocket (Look-no ads!), in which people are allowed to point out my hypocrisy, stupidity, and general boorishness to their hearts content. Try that with one Ham, MacDonald, Driscoll ,etc. So, I believe I go above and beyond others in providing a place in which Greg T and others can call me a hypocrite. How many Christians are willing to put themselves out in to the public marketplace by allowing comments to hear what people think of them?
numo wrote:
numo wrote:
Maybe “carnival” is a better word.
@ Dee:
Or not so subtle. Come to think of it, I’m pretty sure I once read Ken Ham actually accusing Hugh Ross of teaching the kenotic heresy by denying YEC. Which is really funny because when you’ve actually encountered the actual kenotic heresy in person (which I have), you know that they’re worlds apart.
dee wrote:
You can count me as one of those Christians. The Holy Spirit impressed upon me a while back that if I was going to judge the beliefs of others, then I had better be willing and ready to have my own beliefs judged. We are all hypocrites, but that doesn’t excuse the need for repentance from our sin of hypocrisy. What I am seeing from you seems to be an attempt to justify your hypocrisy.
I visited in June 2011. Combined trip with a wedding of a second cousin and the USAF Museum in Dayton with my parents. I can’t remember the admission price, but the experience was OK.
I’m a YEC, but I get more of a high seeing a four prop, four jet B-36 mounted for display than a mechanical dinosaur. 🙂
@ Greg T:
Could you define the ‘standard of judgement’ that Dee is placing on others but not herself?
@ Caleb W:
To say that Dee is not ready to have her beliefs judged is just silly. You should look around the blog before making accusations like that. Moreover, she told you what she thinks and where she is uncertain in the previous comment! One does not have to have Ken Ham vintage certainty in order to criticize Ken Ham.
@ Caleb W:
Sure. Dee criticizes the YEC position because it is not scientific, but what little of her own belief she is willing to talk about is not scientific itself, not to mention the fact she doesn’t want to talk about her beliefs while she talks about other folks’ beliefs.
@ Greg T:
So, I was just ironing some pillowcases, ruing the day that I bought “wrinkle resistant” pillowcases. These pillowcases gave up their resistance when confronted with my Kenmore dryer. However, my wrinkle free pillowcases do pretty darn well in the dryer. Semantics caused me to lose about 5 minutes each week while I iron. However, during this time, I contemplated our discussion.
You said
“Matthew 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.”
if this verse means what you appear it take it to mean, then you, too are judging me. However, let me get you off the hook.
But we are to judge the actions of others. For example, a man who commits adultery and is involved in a church, should be called to account for his actions. But, to do so involves judging his actions. The Bible tells us to judge a lot of things. So, since i believe in the consistency of Scripture, that verse must not mean what some might think.
In fact, it is my understanding that this verse has to deal with judging salvation which is to be left in the hands of our most merciful Savior. In fact, in the area of Genesis, there sometimes appears to be judgement on the salvation of those who do not adhere to one particular view of creation.
I believe the Bible is God’s revelation. I absolutely do. And, I also believe that creation is God’s revelation. I absolutely do. What God has created proclaims His glory, so, as a scientist, I investigate creation to see more of God’s glory. They are not opposed to each other! I see this when I read the first chapter of Romans. But pride sneaks into the most well-intentioned humans, and they introduce a division that doesn’t really exist.
Are people aware that Martin Luther denounced the ideas that scientists such as N.Copernicus proposed concerning heliocentricity?
John Calvin even asked, “Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus above that of the Holy Spirit?”
Puritan John Owen, who has become some sort of hero in the “gospel-driven” circle, called it “contrary to Scripture”.
John Wesley said it “tended towards infidelity.”
I point this out because I hear more Luther, Calvin, and Owen quoted in the institutional churches I’ve attended over the past 20 years than actual quotes from Holy Spirit.
The very nature of Science demands that nothing be certain. We have no facts, just most logical conclusions based on the evidence at hand. New evidence can always change our conclusions. Empirical scientists need not protect their precious doctrines. There seems almost more of a childlike faith among the scientists I know than I witness in dogmatic theologians. When it comes to understanding God’s creation, we begin with the premise that we may never even come close. The universe is infinite. Humans are finite.
Two people I don’t really care much for, but they make some good points.
John MacArthur on allegorical interpretation of the Bible:
“But once you tell me what it says is not what it means, then you can tell me it means anything. Because if I can’t get the meaning out of the normal use of the language, how in the world can I get the meaning?”
Richard Dawkins on allegorical interpretation of the Bible:
“But theology as opposed to Biblical history and literature — when you argue about the true inner meaning of the trinity, or the transubstantiation, and try to come up with some symbolic meaning — I think that is a total waste of time. I mean, a good satirical parallel might be to suppose that one day in the fullness of time science discovers that the DNA double helix is false, that we got it all wrong, and DNA is not a double helix. Now, any scientist would say, “Right, pity about that, but we’ll now work on finding out what it really is.” My satire on theology would be: “Ah, but in some other sense the DNA double helix surely has some meaning for us. What is the DNA double helix trying to tell us in the world today?” Maybe the twisting of the two strands of DNA has some significance for the uniting of human beings one with another — we must set aside the purely mundane issue of is it true, which is crude and facile — we are not talking about truth in any simple sense — we want to find the underlying symbolic truth. There never was an underlying symbolic truth. Either it’s true or it isn’t.
At the present we think DNA really is a double helix. If ever that’s found to be false we throw it out of the window and we start again, and we don’t try to rediscover some inner symbolic meaning, which is exactly what they’re trying to do with things like the Book of Genesis. They have thrown it out as historical fact, which is what it always was thought to be, and which many of its authors presumably intended it to be — and they have now replaced it with a symbolic meaning: the true meaning of the Book of Genesis is this that or the other. You know the kind of thing I’m talking about. I think that it is a waste of time. I think it’s nonsense.”
Greg T wrote:
I talk about the expressed belief of others. I told you that I do not know what i believe about the issue of soul-less hominids. I am reading, trying to think it through. I am glad that you have the capacity to instantly understand these complexities. I do not.
So, Ham states certain things that he believes are true. I can comment on those because they are what he believes. Now, if Ham said he didn’t know what he believes on the subject of pound cake recipes, for example, then I could not critique him on his current fascinating with Paula Dean’s pound cake recipe because he hasn’t come to a firm conclusion.
However, this discussion is making little sense to me but I will do my best.
Greg T wrote:
They said the same thing about Galileo. So what? Knowing that the sun does not revolve around the earth doesn’t change a thing.
@ Erik: Great comment! Loved the historical quotes.
Greg T wrote:
Have you actually read this blog beyond my beliefs in OEC? Good night! you know far more about my beliefs than about the beliefs of most people. I truly do not understand what you are saying. I am not trying to be stubborn. Chalk it up to inferior intellect, whatever but I am happy to tell you what I believe.
@ dee:
1 Corinthians is clear that believers have to judge one another to some extent. Matthew 7:1,2 is simple, don’t pass judgement on others that you yourself are guilty of.
@ Erik:
Thank you Erik, Excellent comment. I totally agree. And love Romans 1 for exactly how you mention it.
Dee, have you ever considered that you are undermining the faith of some believers by ridiculing their faith and calling for an allegorical interpretation of Genesis?
@ Greg T:
You are a boor. I have known Dee and Deb for four years, have visited with them over a meal, and know them to be caring, giving people who started a blog because of the abuse they have seen of Christians by so-called leaders and pastors. They are passionate about churches being more concerned about pedophiles than about their victims, about churches that practice shunning and other punitive practices on people who merely ask questions as they seek to understand, and about abusive misinterpretation and misapplication of the scriptures.
Greg T:
Interesting quote from Dawkins, but as has been pointed by philosophers
(Christians and Atheists), he is brilliant on biology and popular communication but weak on metaphysics, hence confusing scientific and other forms of knowledge. He comes unstuck when debating with philosophers, which is why he refuses to debate with William Lane Craig. More thoughtful approaches found from scientist/ theologians such as Polkinghorne and Alistair McGrath.
Greg T wrote:
If their faith is founded on Six Day Young Earth Creationism instead of the person and work of Christ, it isn’t much of a faith to begin with.
But then, Jesus Christ got thrown under the YEC bus some time ago. And under the End Time Prophecy bus. And under the Biblical Manhood/Womanhood bus…
Greg T wrote:
Kind of like how YEC undermine the faith of others by insisting on it be interpreted literally?
@ Robin:
My point with those two quotes is that allegorical interpretation of Genesis fails in both camps.
Greg T wrote:
Well, I do not have a 16,000 square foot house, an airplane, not do I see provision, I have never been a pedophile, and have never participated in a rigged church discipline situation.
@ Greg T: So you say. That is your way of wording it. There are thoughtful, smart Christians who disagree with you. So, who gets to judge the “fail?”
Arce wrote:
Thank you for clearing up the time line. We were debating how long we have know you. Bill calls you our longest blogging friend.
dee wrote:
Thank you, I was waiting on this to be brought up. So you have no problem sacrificing the Literalists for the sake of the non-Literalists?
dee wrote:
By what authority do you judge the “fail” of Driscoll, MacDonald, Ham, etc.?
dee wrote:
Which has nothing to do with your criticism of the YEC position.
Greg T
I see your point – thanks.
As you say both are in the unhappy with allegorical interpretations.
Polkinghorne once said that some YEC and Dawkins deserve each other. This is somewhat unkind and was only meant in a light hearted manner, but there a little truth here. Dawkins relies on the literal interpretation of creation to make his polemical oontrasting utterances more dramatic. Some YEC proponents are helped by having Dawkins by as an iconic scientific atheist (villain; bogey man – see what happens if you listen to scientists – see where it leads – atheism) to point at. They promote each other, perhaps not intentionally.
But both in a way cannot see a certain literalism or dogma – some YEC believers stuck with not seeing beyond the literal account and things like the historical context of the texts and the literary devices used (Sun and Moon on day 4, for example – how would that work?); Dawkins is fixed within his materialistic world view – cannot break out of the scientific paradigm when dealing with knowledge.
So thank for the quotes, which bring this comparison neatly into focus.
@ Greg T:
This is turning into baloney. As usual, the YEC debate avoids the science and goes after attitude, personality, authority, etc. I get where you are coming from. Unfortunately, it is the same old, same old talking points.
I am now going to my bottom line: You can defend YEC most effectively by saying you are a Biblical literalist. We will all agree to disagree-just like methods of baptism, the number of sacraments, eschatology, whatever.
When it come to the science, however, one must be willing to back up and stand behind the purported science at AIG. As usual, this discussion has nothing to do with the science.
So, Greg, please feel free to defend *your* view of Scripture as I will defend *mine.* In the end it is faith and I know you really, really, really believe that you are right and that I am a hypocrite with no authority. I got it. I agree with you, in fact. We are all hypocrites in one fashion or another and only God has the ultimate authority.
@ Robin: Ham likes to point to this. He uses Dawkins to defend his literalist interpretation. I have found this whole thing rather amusing because Dawkins is basically saying that the Bible is silly and outmoded. The more people claim the literal interpretation, the more ammo Dawkins has about Christians being embarrassingly dumb.
dee wrote:
Dee, I should have used written “By what standard do you judge Driscoll…”, then I would have been a little clearer. What standard are you using to determine that the conduct of these folks is wrong?
Greg T wrote:
Dee, I know this is not an easy question, but it needs to be answered.
@ Erik:
Yep. Yep. Yep. Well said.
Greg
I do not. Literalists will always remain literal. There is nothing I can do to change their minds. They will be the ones to always stick around.
Evolution only works as an explanation for the diversity of life on our planet if the planet’s age is exceedingly old. Consequently YEC folks MUST have a YOUNG world. The most incontrovertible evidence for an old earth is radiometric dating. An excellent and readable introduction to this topic is Radiometric Dating, A Christian Perspective, Dr. Roger C. Wiens at the ASA web site: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/wiens.html A number of non radiometric dating methods are also outlined. The article lists many sources of additional information. This article can also be considered as a good model of how to argue scientifically.
There are two ways YEC supporters might confront radiometric dating. First, show that the underlying science is wrong. Second, find fault with each paper using radiometric dating showing the claimed dates are inaccurate. Since the science supporting radiometric dating is the same science that has produced the computer revolution of the last 50 years the first approach is very unlikely to be productive. The second method is what users of radiometric dating do to each other as part of the peer review process, especially if the stated age disagrees with your pet theory. Both approaches would have to be accepted by the scientists involved.
For TWW newcomers the ASA is the American Scientific Affiliation, an association of professionals in science and related disciplines who also profess Christian faith. I am a member of the ASA.
Greg
Same standard that Justice Stewart used.
dee wrote:
“I know it when I see it”
But what if another person sees it differently? What I am getting at is shouldn’t you be appealing to the Bible to determine right and wrong?
continuing: If Genesis is not science then what is it? An alternative interpretation of Genesis chapters 1-11 is given in “Dinosaur Religion: On Interpreting and Misinterpreting the Creation Texts”, CONRAD HYERS, Department of Religion, Gustavus Adolphus College, St. Peter, MN 56082, From: JASA 36 (September 1984): 142-148. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1984/JASA9-84Hyers.html
Simply stated, what could a text talking about 20th century science say that is meaningful to a prescientific nomadic culture? The answer to the meaning of early Genesis must be found in what God was saying to his chosen people: Worship Me. Not the things I made. Not the things you make. Monotheism, not idolatry or polytheism.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
HUG, you might enjoy this link from Elizabeth Stapel’s math site on the arcana and lore of pi in the Bible. It’s one of those uncomfortable ‘anomalies’ (like the Antikythera mechanism) that doesn’t support the present day presuppositions of some Bible scholars that the ancients were ‘unsophisticated’, and moved primarily by whimsy rather than reason:
http://www.purplemath.com/modules/bibleval.htm
dee wrote:
Is allegorizing the resurrection of Jesus fair game? Science says that is impossible also.
Greg T wrote:
I’m pretty sure you don’t want my answer since you addressed this to Dee.
But I have my own answer.
I judge Driscoll by a way more merciful and reasonable standard that what he will ever be able to judge me.
http://frombitterwaterstosweet.blogspot.com/2012/05/surprise-comment-made-my-day.html
Greg T wrote:
But a fair number of scientists believe it.
Greg T wrote:
Hmm, why do you think you needed to remind me? If you read this blog, it is clear that i believe in the Bible. So, armed with that knowledge, why do you think I answered that way?
@ Greg T:
Do you believe that the earth literally has four corners?
@ Greg: I think I know where you are going and let me nip it in the bud. Just because God can do something, does not mean that he did it. Yes, God could create the world in 6 days and then make it look old to play the cosmic game of “Tricked ya” but I do not think He did.
Caleb W wrote:
I lived in New Mexico. There is a place with four corners on this earth. New Mexico, Arizona, Utah and Colorado. I have a picture of me with hands and feet in four states! 🙂
@ Dee:
I agree. I do not think that the slippery slope argument has any merit. As far as science is concerned, the 6-day creation story and the resurrection of Jesus are different things. It is not incompatible to accept evolution and yet believe in the miracle of the resurrection.
Muff Potter wrote:
“funny” thing about this. A few months ago, I was in a place where the local CCM station was being played, and I heard Ham shilling for his shiny new “how-to” books (etc.) for parents whose children had “left the faith.” (Likely as a result of the *other* stuff Ham sells.)
If you can’t make a fast buck or two one way, you can make it another. Ham has the bases covered. [feels sick]
Dee wrote:
You mean they take the New Testament literally, and don’t make science the final judge of the resurrection? When are you going to start criticizing this irrational behavior?
Caleb W wrote:
lol
@ dee:
This is because they believe that God was a man at one time, but became a god. check some of the ex-Mormon sites for more info.; their beliefs really are the red-headed stepchild of early 19th c. evangelicalism, in many ways.
Dee wrote:
In other words, just because God said He did it, doesn’t mean He actually did it.
@ Julie Anne: Or “street fair,” maybe?
I think “Disney-ization” is either HUG’s phrase, or else the one used over at Internet Monk, which HUG linked to. At any rate, I didn’t come up with it, but it’s a fairly good description!
Bec@ Greg T:
Does the earth have four corners, Greg?
In my last comment I should have said:
‘both in a way cannot see beyond a certain literalism or dogma’
OEC defend their viewpoint against Dawkins et al and Ham et al
YEC defend their viewpoint against OEC and Dawkins …. and… oh yes. Dawkins defends against OEC and YEC, except that he won’t debate with YEC and he doesn’t dare debate with William Lane Craig (OEC) (as said because before) – he is too smart a philosopher.
QEC would rather not have to deal with YEC or Dawkins, but they do – on the whole graciously – see Polkinghorne on Youtube – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IngvMROfvCM and also Alistair McGrath http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LGm0iWPC80.
To me it is interesting that out of the three QEC has more respect from many mainstream academics – many atheists find Dawkins too strident and lacking in depth. Some of the YEC are not respected because their poor application of scientific knowledge and lack of insight into their own shortcomings in this respect.
It is a pity that Christians end up being divided (don’t mean disagree) over this issue. That is perhaps my criticism of the Creationist Theme Park, because it cements one viewpoint – what about instead a museum of science relating to great scientists who were Christians? I would travel to the USA to see that.
@ Greg T:
YEC requires us to believe that the material world and its ‘appearance of age’ is a cosmic deception. The resurrection does no such thing.
Caleb W wrote:
http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c017.html
@ Caleb W: Everyone who is a follower believes in God as Creator. The reason the majority of Christians who are scientists believe in an Old Earth is because they see God as consistent in His revelation to us. So, as we explore this planet, God reveals Himself to us in a clear manner, not changing things up to confuse us.
Creation is confusing enough. Why the universe and even multiverses? Vastness beyond imagining. Dimensions, perhaps as many as 13. The “whys” just upon viewing the universe is both confusing and inspiring. The universe itself is testament to the complexities of God. God does not need to “test” us on our own little planet.
I think He has given us as much as we can understand and will be able to understand. The “dust” that Adam was created from was something that satisfied our ancestors and now, as we comprehend DNA, etc, gives us added info. And imagine what our grandchildren will understand that we do not.
And now we know the earth revolves around the sun. God is just letting us know that allegory and poetry are part of His revelation.
Greg T wrote:
Highly inappropriate response.
Makes me think it’s not worth discussing anything with you.
Proverbs 29:9 When a wise man has a controversy with a foolish man, The foolish man either rages or laughs, and there is no rest.
Not saying you are a fool here.
But I AM saying that you responded like a fool to Caleb.
Greg T wrote:
It is totally rational.
@ Greg T: It is interesting. The ancients believe there were four corners. Now that we know it is not true, we have an explanation that the Bible doesn’t really mean this. It was all a big misunderstanding. Thank heavens we have really smart people in 1997 who can selectively let us know which part of the Bible was misunderstood. But not the age of the earth, no sirree!
@ numo: I agree. What I was trying to say is that there are those who believe that anything with two arms and legs and the ability to use tools defines what constitutes a human.
@ Greg T:
I’m not a literalist either. Good.
Anybody else ready to move on from the Greg T show? Surely there must be more productive comments and arguments to pursue.
Erik, your earlier comment about scientists often being childlike in their faith is accurate. I was raised by a scientist father and only narrowly avoided becoming one myself due to intense boredom with the math aspect. Some of my favorite memories involve traveling the country with my family and experiencing my dad’s joy as he shared with us the many ways our wonderful Creator molded our world. My family laughed and smiled more when we saw an alluvial fan for the first time than we did at Disney World – we had just seen God’s marvelous hand at work. I will gladly tell you that I learned more about my faith in God from my college science classes (especially geology and oceanography) than I did from my New Testament class. One last thing – scientists do not fear being proven wrong by another scientist. Science and faith are not mutually exclusive.
numo wrote:
Internet Monk.
@ Mara:
Thanks Mara 🙂
@ dee: Gotcha!
and, like Mandy, I’m ready to move on. 🙂
Mara wrote:
Mara, you are calling me a fool for laughing at what I perceived to be an irrational statement. Don’t insult me and then claim you’re not.
@ Greg T: You’re just trolling now.
and I will not feed you, Mr. Under the Bridge Guy.
numo wrote:
Did the Holy Spirit lead you to say that?
numo wrote:
In the Early 19th Century, Upstate New York (“the Burned Over District”, burned over by Revival after Revival) was the Weird Religion Capital of the US, much like California is today. There were HUNDREDS of offbeat religions (and X-Treme versions of Christianity) popping up there. The Mormons, Spiritualists, and Seventh Day Adventists are just the Big Three who survived. Most of these offbeat religions and cults died off pretty quick — like the one Naturist (Nudist) commune that didn’t survive its first Pennsylvania winter.
Don’t know if its related, but John Nelson Darby also invented Dispensationalism and Pre-Trib Secret Rapture around that time.
One thing about the Book of Mormon is its resemblance to a popular form of proto-science fiction of the time: The Mystery of the Mound Builders. As white men started expanding inland from the coast, they came across large earth mounds (analogous to packed-earth Mesoamerican pyramids) from the vanished Mississipian culture of around 1000 years before. Since the redskin savages couldn’t possibly have built anything so sophisticated, the myth of The Mound Builders began. A lost race — a Lost WHITE Race — which built the Mounds before vanishing (presumably overrun and wiped out by the red savages). The only controversy was where this Lost White Race came from — Celts? Anglo-Saxons? Vikings? The Lost Tribes of Israel?
This became the Ufology of its day, like an 1820s version of Eric Von Daniken’s Chariots of the Gods. And crossed over into popular fiction of the time. In this respect, the Book of Mormon falls right into the tropes of The Mound Builders.
I’ve always like this quote from Kenneth Miller:
“In obvious ways, the various objections to evolution take a narrow view of the capabilities of life – but they take an even narrower view of the capabilities of the Creator. They hobble His genius by demanding that the material of his creation out not to be capable of generating complexity. They demean the breadth of His vision by ridiculing the notion that the materials of His world could have evolved into beings with intelligence and self-awareness. And they compel Him to descend from heaven onto the factory floor by conscripting his labor into the design of each and every detail of each organism that graces the surface of our living planet.
Sadly, none of this is necessary. If we can accept that the day-to-day actions of living organisms are direct consequences of the molecules that make them up, whey should it be any more difficult to see that similar principles are behind the evolution of those organisms. If the Creator uses physics and chemistry to run the universe of life, why wouldn’t He have used physics and chemistry to produce it, too?”
dee wrote:
Handwave, handwave, handwave…
Like a Dungeonmaster who’s painted himself into a corner and got called on it by his players.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy: Very much agreed on the links with the whole Mound Builders thing!
America has (imo) pretty much always been a haven of religious (and related) kookiness, which – I guess – is what naturally happens when there’s real separation of church and state. (As well as immigrants to a new continent allowing their imaginations to run riot.)
Greg T wrote:
I went out of my way to make sure you knew that I wasn’t insulting you.
I was trying to advise you that if you give laughing ridicule as an answer, don’t expect to be taken seriously by anybody, especially reasonable people who art trying to have an honest debate with you.
I advise that you go learn how to debate and come back.
Don’t flatter yourself thinking that you actually know how.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy: The Spiritualist Church still has their big HQ (Lily Dale Assembly) in Western NY, and they send people over to Chataqua to try and covert the Methodists (and others) who go there for the summer.
Greg T wrote:
Standard comeback. Totally predictable. Equating YEC with the Resurrection as (in the words of a Rev Dodgson) one of the Impossible Things Alice must believe before breakfast.
And from Augustine, in “The Literal Meaning of Genesis”:
“Even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now it is a disgraceful thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.”
@ Mara:
btw my last comment WAS an insult.
Hope someday you will figure out the difference.
Mandy
Great observation and lucky (Blessed?) you to have such a father. I work as a scientist, but also have other work experiences. The thing I value about science is that what matters in the end is what is true, not how things can be spun to achieve a certain end. This does not mean science is the arbiter of all truths, the mistake some scientists make. But I think the search after truth is an activity that mirrors faith. Many great Christian scientists of the past were inspired by the thought that God was revealing to them His creation – long may this continue.
The matter has been raised about the issue of some people getting hurt by pursuit of this issue. Apparently these people get hurt if their side of the argument does not prevail. I get that. People do get hurt, either way. Permit me some thoughts and one short illustration of spiritual damage to a human being.
The Bible says a lot of things that some people do not want to hear. Surely we can agree on that.
The Bible also says some things that some people hang on to for dear life, apparently.
There are also things in the Bible, culturally linked and/or poorly understood that most of us really don’t much think about at all.
Given that we have those above options for dealing with the Bible, why has YEC/OEC become such a hot button issue in some circles and not in others? Maybe for some people it is all about YEC/OEC, but for me it is basically about understanding scripture, and that does not end with this presently popular issue.
I don’t know about other people, but here is what happened to me. I grew up in a home where the refrain “the Bible says and what that means is…” played in the background just a whole lot. Thing is, I was a smart little kid, and I did not see where some of that was correct. But the atmosphere at home being what it was, I kept my mouth shut. I was not mature enough nor did I have enough information to question each dictum, so this followed me to adulthood. I knew beyond a doubt that some of what I was told was wrong, but I did not know which parts were valid and which not. And, I did not know whether simply some things were misunderstood, or whether the deity himself was an awful person or whether the whole religion thing was a lie. But I sure knew that some of what I was told was at best wrong and at worse terrible.
Years passed, and I came to the conclusion that it all really did not matter. I thought that, for example that any idea of linking love of mankind with God, while it may or may not be true, was immaterial since Himself was basically not solving much of anything, so who cared what He thought or felt.
The cure for this came in an unexpected way. I had not looked at scripture for years when my oldest child wanted to go to Sunday School. In order to protect her from some of the stuff I had believed as a child I tore into scripture, only to find out that much of what I had been told was incorrect. “The Bible says” part was correct, but only some of the “what that means” part was correct. The path from there was pretty long, and there were more than one aha moments along the way, but at last things began to fall into place.
Now, I do not want anybody to have to go through that. If “what that means” is off base then it must be corrected. Do people get hurt in the process? Yes, they do. Should that make one stop in pursuit of truth? No, it should not. Do I think I am correct about everything? Not a chance. My background is in science. You heard what Erik said. We know we don’t know, and we are open to change with new information. But we are not open to forsake the pursuit of truth. Not for anything. And not even because some people may get hurt along the way. Why? Because it is inevitable that people get hurt by falsehoods; they have a fighting chance with the truth. And because Jesus called Himself the Truth. Following a lie, a falsehood, does not lead one to God.
Whoever you are, did I call you a liar? No, I did not. Have I meant to say that our lives are awash in lies and misinformation and incomplete or inadequate information? Yes. Do I think we are too ignorant to know the difference much of the time? You bet. Does that mean we give up the pursuit? No way. But what if somebody accuses you of heresy, of judging, of hypocrisy, of being a trouble maker, of being unsaved and without hope, of having bad breath and dirty shoes (sorry, I got carried away there.) Well, they just do. Keep the faith, baby.
@ Caleb W: Thanks for that, Caleb!
@ Caleb W:
No prob.
I rather enjoy a heated debate and don’t mind a bit of snark.
But outright derision has no place here.
numo wrote:
How far is Lily Dale from the Hill Cumorah, where the Nephites made their last stand against the Lamanites and Moroni son of Mormon buried the golden tablets?
And I remember a LOT of references to Chautauqua from 19th Century sources. Apparently Chautauqua was THE Big speaking circuit of the time.
P.S. Try to scare up a copy of the PBS program “Telegrams from the Dead” from their old American Experience series. (I have a decades-old copy on VHS.) It’s a dramatized overview of 19th Century Spiritualism, starting with the Fox Sisters and “Mr Splitfoot”. Including references to Spiritualism being a “scientific investigation” and not a religious belief, the spiritual superiority of Vegetarianism, and the androgynous metrosexual look (a la Oscar Wilde) cultivated by male mediums. (Now we call them Trance Channelers, and they channel “Entities” instead of Spirits of the Dead.)
P.P.S. And also try to scare up a copy of Arthur Conan Doyle’s short novel “The Land of Mist”. (My copy is part of a paperback anthology “The Lost World and other Stories”.) Last of Doyle’s “Professor Challenger” series (which began with “The Lost World”), it’s basically a 40,000 word informercial for Spiritualism, ending with an “altar call” where Prof Challenger converts to Spiritualism. I consider it a fictionalized snapshot of British Spiritualism circa 1920. (There’s even one reference to “Russelites” — AKA Jehovah’s Witnesses — disrupting a public séance.)
@ Headless Unicorn Guy: There’s the actual place (Chautaqua, NY Institution and resort) and then there’s what was dubbed the “Chautaqua” lecture circuit.
they are independent of each other.
I used to go to concerts at the physical place during the summers, and took many good walks along the lake shore. The thing is, most of the people who go there are older. One of my profs went there to give a slide lecture (he’s a painter) and over half the audience nodded off while he was talking, since the overhead lights were off. (fwiw, I used to doze off during slide lectures myself, and I was a kids, so…)
Good grief, I cannot spell today – it should be “Chautauqua”!
Is it just me or is anyone else creeped out by the animatronic Moses in these videos?
To our readers
Please note how this discussion is progressing. It is pretty typical of certain elements in the YEC. It is most instructive.
dee wrote:
I’m pretty sure God was saying they would die a “spiritual death” which Adam and Eve did suffer instantly when they disobeyed God…not an instant physical death.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy: Per 19th c. spiritualism, I know more than I’d like, due to encounters early in life with some practitioners.
it creeps me out in the extreme.
Mandy wrote:
Don’t worry, Mandy; I’ve been reading everyone else’s comments too.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Hmm… I thought that was Wilde being Wilde! he was a dandy, as were many straight men at the time. I think Wilde would have a field day with terms like “metrosexual.” ; )
@ Greg T:
I think you need a tickle fight.
elastigirl wrote:
Whilst eating sloppy joes.
ForgivenMuch wrote:
I would agree but that is not the plain reading of the text which is much touted by literalists.
Dee wrote:
Would those sloppy joes be made up of YECs you threw into the meat grinder?
@ Dee:
well, let’s see here…. I think it should be tickle fight first (an ambush — you know, make the most of the element of surprise). Then the sloppy joes & cokes.
@ Greg T:
no, the sacred cow of YEC itself.
I hate to say this, but Sloppy Joes are all wrong. They’re a failed attempt at bolognese with garlic bread.
elastigirl wrote:
Faith in the word of God?
@ Nick Bulbeck: not really!
“Leave it to the Americans to vulgarize ice cream”–Maggie Smith, eyeing a hot fudge sundae. Tea With Mussolini
Where sundaes and sloppy joes are concerned, I say hooray for the Americans!
@ elastigirl: ditto!
@ Greg T:
tickle, tickle, tickle…
@ elastigirl: this looks great – http://www.simplyrecipes.com/recipes/sloppy_joes/
dee wrote:
To be fair, it would also be typical of certain elements of “new atheism” as it’s become known here in Blighty, and of Dawkinsism in particular. It may be typical of some OEC-oids or ID-oids as well, though they’re less infamous if they exist.
I think it illustrates the point that there simply cannot be a constructive engagement between YEC and OEC, YEC and ID, or YEC and SECC. They are based on axioms that are fundamentally incompatible.
numo wrote:
Yes, really.
Greg T wrote:
Er – you aren’t quite getting this, are you?
@ numo:
oh…. I’m hungry now!
@ Nick Bulbeck: check the recipe I just posted (at link above).
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
I have an awesome recipe that could change your mind.
@ elastigirl: as am I!
@ Greg T:
since when did the bible become one of the members of the trinity?
@ Greg T:
John 5:39
You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me;
We are to have faith in God, in Jesus as God incarnate.
Faith in YEC doesn’t count.
The creation story points to the omnipotence of God, in whom we have faith.
YEC is a sacred cow telling others that they must have faith in certain process rather in God, Himself.
I don’t have a problem with the world being created in six days. I do have a problem with people believing it. I have a problem with Pharisees blocking the way of salvation to others by insisting that they have accept 6 day creation or they aren’t saved, or make God a liar, or don’t take God’s word seriously etc.
i.e. we have eternal life in Jesus. Our eternity is not dependent one believing in six day creation.
YECs sound like everyone’s eternity is wrapped up in the six days of creation.
It’s not. Everyone’s eternity is found in Jesus Christ who brought the world into existence however He chose to do it and however He chose to tell it.
@ dee: Bring it, Dee!
Nick obviously requires educating in the finer points of American comfort food.
elastigirl wrote:
On the matter of sundaes (which, as I pointed out above, evolved), I happen to agree: this was always God’s heart for ice cream.
I can especially recommend the Coupe Danemark at the Bergrestaurant Penkentenne in Austria. (Which, incidentally, was the first thing our son ordered auf Deutsch.)
@ numo: “an education in.” (I can’t get my grammar straight today…)
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Oh, I get it. Everyone mock Greg and derail this uncomfortable discussion.
Mara wrote:
Should say, “I DON’T have a problem with people believing it.
Too many darn typos. I think it’s time to take my leave.
Greg T wrote:
I’ll take my leave after this.
Uhmmm. Nope.
Everyone realize Greg is a troll and stop feeding him because he is insulting, makes stupid assumptions, and doesn’t make much sense anyway.
numo wrote:
The phrases “finer points” and “American comfort food” make decidedly uneasy bedfellows, if I may so observe.
@ elastigirl:
This seems to happen frequently. We have heard more about a book and words than about who the book and words are trying to point us to.
@ Nick Bulbeck: Oh, but there definitely are finer points here – the sauce for a good Sloppy Joe is a lot more subtle and complex than the one you’ll find on a can of Hunt’s tomato sauce.
As suggested, see the recipe I linked to a bit upthread…
Mara wrote:
Wow!
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
I would think someone from the land of spotted dick and blood pudding would have more discernment.
(hee hee)
Greg T wrote:
Well, if you are going to accuse me of insulting you when all I was did was show you that a certain response was inappropriate then hold onto your butt.
I’ll give you a real insult so you can go back to your cronies and brag about how you’ve been persecuted for your YEC beliefs.
Next time you want to debate here, do so. Don’t ridicule and insult then get all indignant when people throw it back in your face.
@ Greg T:
it’s just that the $$ and emotion that goes in to promoting YEC as dire & non-negotiable could be put to such better use. GOD IS, whether 6 days or billions of years.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
“The phrases “finer points” and “American comfort food” make decidedly uneasy bedfellows, if I may so observe.”
+++++++++
Hey!
@ Greg T: No one is mocking you. They are frustrated. This conversation derailed when you decided to make it personal-go after the character of the person (me-hypocrite), go after the hermeneutic of the person (who is the authority?), overlook someone who is trying to lighten the mood since this is not a discussion that will be resolved here (elastigirl)…There is more but it is not that important any longer.
This is why YEC is frustrating to many. The discussion goes beyond the science, etc and deteriorates into a personality driven food fight.
You did not offer one scientific argument to prove your point. Not one. Even your one Bible verse “fling” was the routinely misused “Judge not” which is meant to be used in salvation issues.
I asked you one question which you did not answer. I tried to draw you into my world to understand me by attempting a dialogue with you but you opted out.
You appear to refuse to believe that we can love the Scriptures, believe that God is the Creator, and have faith and still come to a different conclusion than you.
I am so sorry it ended this way.
Greg
Sorry you offered two other Bible verses to shore up the judge not category while using it to prove me a hypocrite. Next time, you don’t need to prove it sicne we are all hypocrites in one way or another. So what? Its like arguing the “pride” issue. Everyone has pride but we can still talk.
@ dee:
And if I went too far in my last comment to Greg, please feel free to delete it.
I will not be insulted.
Anon 1: not to mention mushy peas…
@ Nancy:
Amen, and again I say, AMEN!
Mara
You were nicer than me. He started off by calling me a hypocrite and went downhill from there.
Nancy wrote:
Awesome, awesome , awesome….
My mother had a famous recipe for sloppy joes. She was always asked to bring it to church suppers and PTA dinners. But when she gave people her recipe, no one could make it. That was because she had certain automatic ingredients based on other ingredients (e.g., add one T sugar for each bayleaf) but the autos were not written on the recipe card. It was just something that she did automatically in every dish. Made all the difference in the taste when it was done. BTW, I cook the same way. And a recipe is someone’s idea of how something should be made, and a good place for ideas, but if you are making quiche, souffle, angel food cake, etc., then you better follow a good recipe exactly.
Couple questions for Tim C here– all free to answer as you think he might…
1: “probably less than ten thousand years old.” I would ask why “probably” and why ten thousand rather than 6 thousand. No way to stretch the geneologies an extra 4k, in my opinion.
2: Why “six day creationist” rather than “seven day creationist”? Is the seventh LITERAL 24 HR PERIOD unimportant? How does the new testament interpret day seven? Literally, or figuratively?
@ Arce:
I think food made with love is more nourishing (to the body AND soul).
ForgivenMuch wrote:
There are believers (Potter included) who don’t sign on to this teaching anymore (but once did) and now view it as total horse-pucky.
…Muff listens gingerly for a hint of ice-crack, trusts his snowshoes and hopes for the best…
numo wrote:
… c’est quoi?
Dave A A wrote:
My understanding is that creation is still in its seven day era since God has rested from creating the heavens and earth. I know, I know. It is open ended
By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.
There is no mention of the sun setting so now it is OK to get figurative.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
I prefer Muir Glen Organic sauce.
Muff Potter wrote:
Dee has already gone through the ice and will be there to catch you. We will both be swimming with the fishes.
I heard once that the atmosphere of the creation museum is very….aggressive, I guess you would say. That it focuses on taking an active stance AGAINST everyone who believes in evolution, rather than just putting out its own message. In other words, the creation museum is not a “live and let live” sort of place.
I wouldn’t know for sure. I’ve never been there.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I grew up in a town in the Southeast corner of Wisconsin which had such a mound in its oldest cemetery (Stephen King would have a field day!)
Anyway, the same attitude prevailed prior to just recently about the Chaco Canyon Kivas in New Mexico. Thought by academics of yore to be just shrines and monuments to their heathenish gods, we now know that they were a very sophisticated astronomical observatory complex. One striking feature of construction is how could they have lain out such precise angular measurements without knowledge of pi and radian measure?
Mandy wrote:
I left comments primarily directed to Greg T at 1:22P and 1:34P this afternoon (Friday) which he has not responded to. Perhaps he overlooked them in the comment avalanche we had this afternoon. If he has any intellectual honesty at all he will deal with them.
Regarding Ken Ham and YEC: if you lie to me about things I can show in many different ways are provably false (in this case, creationism and the flood), then why on earth should I believe you when you tell me you know the way to salvation?
That said, my mom is a creationist and believes in Noah’s flood. Once, I told her that I could prove to her that the flood was not true with the use of a fish tank and salt and fresh water fish. “Of course,” I said cheerfully, “the fish are going to die and it’s going to stink to high heaven.” My mother was flabbergasted and she did not take me up on my offer. My father, who was listening, told me that I was not permitted to discuss religion in front of my mother Ever Again.
N.B. A worldwide flood would have killed pretty much all sea creatures when the fresh and salt water mixed as water levels rose. It would have become brackish.
Anon 1 wrote:
Well, OK, you have a point on the black pudding (as it is properly known). But check out the real ale (south) and the uisge beatha (north).
Not that I’m not up for trying recipes, of course.
oldJohnJ wrote:
he didn’t answer my one question. Honest debate is not the issue, unfortunately.I have met such people before in a former church.
My family visited the Creation museum a little while back.
Here’s what I remember:
The lobby is nice, photos are taken, backdrops (dinosaur & something else?) are superimposed & the option to purchase photos is given when leaving. There’s one or two impressively large freshwater tanks stocked with fish, turtles, etc.
The entrance is through a narrow, somewhat claustrophobic, tunnel-like dark room. This room is lined with tv screens of sorrow, evil, suffering & morality statements. I remember thinking the pictures were somewhat graphic & even scary for younger children. I think there were moans & cries on audio. I was somewhat taken aback that this was the beginning of a museum for families, toddlers & children. I understood the message, but I felt like the presentation was a little too much. Like we were in hell. Look, we don’t need to experience hell to understand we don’t want to go there. Surely the gospel can be explained better to the few walking thru who don’t profess Christ?
It left a sour taste in my mouth & it was hard for me to enjoy the rest of the museum.
We had fun feeding the liquid nectar to the birds (it’s not included in the entrance fee). The Noah’s Ark exhibit was interesting. The garden of Eden, a little fake. There were other small exhibits which were interesting. Dino movie. The rope bridge outside is fun for kids to walk across.
Overall, the YEC message was a little pushy. At the time, though, we ascribed to that & the reformed beliefs. Now… I’m not so sure about YEC (rejected reformed beliefs). I’m a homeschool mom & YEC is heavily pushed at the conventions, BTW.
@ dee:
Dee, where is your question (time stamp)?
@ Southwestern Discomfort:
I think it’s a little strong or uncharitable to describe Creationist or YEC beliefs as being “lies.”
I disagree with views that the earth is millions of years old, I don’t agree with macro evolution, but I don’t necessarily think in terms of “those are lies,” but that “people look at the same set of facts/ evidences and arrive at a different conclusion, or are starting with different presuppositions.”
-off topic-
I haven’t yet listened to this to find out what it’s about, but I will be listening later this evening:
Mark Driscoll Crashes STRANGE FIRE CONFERENCE
I am going to guess that Driscoll likely showed up to the conference in a hearse to say that “the church is dying.” He did a stunt like that a couple of weeks ago at his church to promote a new book he has. Probably something goofy like that.
——————
~You may now resume fighting about T-Rex dinos, world floods, the age of rocks, carbon dating, fossils, etc. ~ 🙂
dee wrote:
But do you understand the reason for this argument?
The atonement is based on the proposition that the wages of sin is death, and therefore, death is the result of sin. (This is, in fact, what Scripture plainly declares to be the case.) OEC has billions of years of death prior to sin, and therefore, death is not the result of sin. Therefore, the death of Christ doesn’t pay the penalty for sin, because death is not that payment.
Now, if you have correctly characterized Ham’s argument (and I don’t know because I haven’t heard him make it), then he does not say that they aren’t saved, or even that they deny the doctrine of the atonement, but that they are in danger of denying it. I imagine by that he means that they have no reason to maintain it.
I would put it his way: Someone who denies that death is the result of sin has no reason to maintain that death of Christ is the payment for sin. (They have no reason not to deny the atonement, though they may live, believe, and preach the atonement. They are simply inconsistent.)
Regarding the four corners of the earth that someone (I don’t remember who) brought up, the “literal interpretation” of “four corners” is not that the earth is a square but that the compass has four point (corners). That is ancient, not new. It is a metaphor for the entirety of creation. So the literal interpretation of four corners is the entire globe.
Regarding the sea water and the flood (that Southwestern Discomfort brings up), there is no way of knowing what the sea water prior to the flood was like. It would not be unthinkable that (1) it was different, (2) that all sea creatures died save a few that were spared perhaps by Noah (or some other means), or (3) that God sorted it all out. What you have with Southwestern Discomfort is someone saying that the flood story of Scripture can’t be true because it doesn’t fit what he/she (not sure which) thinks must have happened. Yet that is not a good way to do science or theology. It seems better, to me at least, to admit that we simply don’t know.
numo wrote:
It’s news to me that Oscar Wilde was straight! 😮
You may not have been implying that, of course; I wasn’t sure.
Caleb W wrote:
I hate to be a prig, but it would depend entirely upon how you want to construe the word ‘corners’. If we take them to mean four unique points in Cartesian 3-space, we can indeed derive a sphere from them. The only restrictions on the points is that no three of them can be co-linear, and that all four of them must not lie on the same plane.
@ Josh:
News to me too…I thought he was arrested for sodomy or something like that. Which, you know, is a fun(ny) thing to remember when a Quiverfull family we know gleefully quotes The Importance of Being Earnest. 😉 I wonder if they’re familiar with his take on the Salome-John the Baptist narrative…
@ Josh: No, I meant only that a lot of men at the time (straight men) also dressed in a rather dandyish and outlandish manner, though Wilde’s sartorial choices were nothing if not flamboyant.
The artistic and cultural movements in England during Wilde’s lifetime allowed for a *huge* amount of self-expression in dress; people made some memorable, if often regrettable, tailoring decisions.
Greg has started trolling Internet Monk.
Specifically, the MacArthur/Strange Fire Conference posting.
Daisy wrote:
Oh, I am going to flat-out disagree with you on this, Daisy. Seriously, the evidence says the universe is very old, the earth is very old and there are fossils demonstrating the development of creatures. Conversely, there’s no scientific evidence for a young-earth creationist viewpoint. Maybe it’s just my Aspie nature, but when someone like Ken Ham repeatedly (a) ignores the evidence and (b) makes up a story for which there is no evidence (outside of a story written down in old documents for which there is no evidence) then what do we call this person? A liar. Yeah, that’s blunt, but it’s true. If Ken Ham isn’t telling the truth on evolution, why on earth should I believe him when he says he knows the way to salvation? The answer is: I shouldn’t.
YECs like to say that scientists are unwilling to tell the “truth” because they’re so invested in it. What about Ken Ham? He can’t deviate from his position because it would undermine the YEC empire he’s created for himself. This is not true for scientists. Just this week, there was a major discovery of homo erectus skulls in Georgia (former Soviet Union) which have thrown the story of human evolution into disarray (to quote the UK Guardian). Yes, it’s going to cause a lot of disruption in the story as we currently know it. But the way science works, the evidence is examined, theories are tested and the story is rewritten. This CANNOT be done with creationism. You can’t test the theory of creationism, nor can it be rewritten, because it is DOGMA, not science. (I’d also note that the discovery ultimately doesn’t undermine the story of human evolution, either.)
Ken Ham lives in a world where he presupposes the first several chapters of Genesis are literal truth and all facts must be fitted into that framework. If they don’t fit, he discards them. (I have no idea what he would do with the recent homo erectus discovery, for example, if he even mentions it at all.) I do not live in that world, and the facts as I see them don’t fit into the Genesis framework at all. And, not only that, Genesis was not intended as a literal, “scientific” retelling of the origins of things. Ken Ham’s flatly misusing Genesis.
If I met Ken Ham in person, and I wasn’t on company time, I would tell him to his face, nicely, that because he lies about evolution, I can’t believe a word he says about salvation. (I add the “on company time” part because I ran into David Barton in the Dallas airport last year and I was traveling on business. I surely wanted to give Barton a piece of my mind about lying regarding American history, but because I was being paid to travel, I kept my lip zipped.)
Just a light and only slightly tangential note in the midst of this:
I have been trying to figure out which commenters are male and which are female. Sometimes it is obvious, and sometimes not so much. This is just a little exercise for fun, but also it helps me expose to myself my own stereotypes and perhaps biases.
It is easy to tell who comes from a primarily scientific background and who comes from a primarily non-scientific background. It seems easy to “spot” current and/or former fundamentalists, regardless of their current stated positions, by their use of vocabulary and sentence structure and especially argumentation style.
But you know what I cannot detect very easily? Somebody says something really snarky, and I cannot tell if this sound like a professionally grumpy person or just somebody having a temporary tiff. So for fun and personal enlightenment I plan to watch for gender clues and anger clues and see if I can learn something. As an aside, I think I can spot the difference between anger from “I have been hurt and it will not happen again” and anger from “I am better than you and I am mad that you do not acknowledge that.”
Anybody who has clues here about differential anger spotting, help me out.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Please enlighten us more, since I have NEVER commented on Internetmonk, and when I went over and checked out the story, I couldn’t find “Greg” anywhere on the page. Waiting on an apology.
@ Greg T:
Greg, pleased to see you are still following this thread. I left comments at 1:22P and 1:34P this Friday afternoon assuming you were interested in a debate. Please let me know what you think of them.
@ oldJohnJ:
OldJohn, you assumed wrong.
@ Greg T: Old John Jay is a wonderful retired physicist (PhD from Duke). He is well educated and a gentleman. Your response to him was not thoughtful. I am putting your comments into moderation. They will get through when I get around to them.
Nancy wrote:
That’s intriguing! As a former sorta-fundamentalist, I wonder what makes my writing style distinct? As opposed to the ways being a guy, being a technology nerd, and other things, contribute to my writing style (that’s poor grammar, but I’m leaving it because not enough caffeine). That must be a veritable soup of factors to decipher! Anyway, sounds like a fun project. 🙂
Me thinks Paige Patterson is desperately trying to be relevant. He sounds just like Mahaney with that one. Funny how he did not think this way when strategizing for the CR 30 years ago but once has power, it is now “biblical”.
And how convenient the defense SWBTS used in the Klouda lawsuit was that the seminary is a “church” and therefore he could rid of the woman SWBTS had no problem taking her money for a PhD and even hiring her to teach before Patterson took over and decided it was “unbiblical”. Hypocrite.
However, I don’t see him as having much influence anymore. He is just a pompous jerk who needs to retire and go away.
Oops, that ended up in the wrong thread!
Dee, since you are now moderating my comments, this is for you alone. You get mad at my response to John, yet you support Mara when she repeatedly goes on hate-filled tirades against me, and say nothing when unicorn guy posts a baseless lie about me(which I suspect you have the ability to confirm or deny with the blog software). Since you are the blog co-owner, you have the AUTHORITY to moderate the content anyway you choose. Dee, you are exercising your AUTHORITY in the same biased manner as the men you criticize on this site! How ironic! There is a word that describes this kind of behavior, I think it starts with an “h”. Do you know what that word is?
Muff Potter wrote:
…That depends on the most ‘natural reading of the text.’ 🙂
Hester wrote:
Probably not Hester, anymore than the neo-cals were when they tried to hijack Wendell Berry as support for their views on Church membership and hierarchy. They must have soiled their drawers big time when Berry published his essay in solidarity with LGBT folk.
Question: How many times must I let someone call me a hypocrite before I can say “You have made you point?”
dee wrote:
Until you put their comments in moderation? /runs away
dee wrote:
Dee thanks for sticking up for me, even if it wasn’t necessary. I think Greg T’s last response to me confirms what several have said and more, no doubt, think about his motivation for commenting.
@ Southwestern Discomfort: Well, before your flee, what happens when it continues in the moderated comments? How many times should I approve them. I truly do not mind being called a hypocrite but I do find it boring. There is such a thing as a thesaurus
@ oldJohnJ: This is typical of the nonsense that occurred in a former church’s Sunday school class.
@ Southwestern Discomfort:
People can look at the same set of information and walk away with different views on it; it does not mean one group is lying and the other is being truthful.
Gene wrote:
I agree with all that.
I am not a Ken Ham expert, but I have seen enough of his posts or interviews over the years to believe he is not saying non YECs are un-saved, he is only saying that their rejection of YEC and some of what that entails leads – or can lead to – theological problems, such as what you have summarized above.
And that is not the same thing as portraying Ham as supposedly making YEC a “first tier” doctrinal type position.
I don’t believe that is what Ham is doing at all (again, I have not read every thing Ham has ever written, so unless the man explicitly said in some interview somewhere that salvation is faith in Jesus plus a belief in YEC, I don’t think the man is necessarily equating the two).
@ Gene:
The wages of sin is death, spiritual death. But animals without souls do not sin. So their deaths do not relate to sin at all, but to the natural order set in place by the creator. It is a huge extrapolation to say that all death in all forms is the result of sin. And Adam and Eve did not immediately die physically, but lived many years. So the argument you make fails logically, unless the death is a spiritual death of humans capable of sin, and not of plants and animals who do not have self-awareness and a soul. At the point of ensoulment and awareness of choice, humans become capable of sin, and not before, because sin is the choice to go against God.
Daisy wrote:
The problem exists when there is scientific proof. For example, a blood sugar of 300 means the person either has diabetes or a pancreas/liver problem. If I, as a nurse, am presented with this info and choose to ignore it because I do not recognize that such a high blood sugar is anything to worry about, than I am naive or dangerous.
When it comes to Scriptural interpretation, I have no problem with those who interpret Genesis as being literal although I disagree. i do have problems when people then start talking about science as another form of faith.
There is a reason that Ham is disliked by a large number of people, including Christians. He plays word games.
Here is a quote from RTB
http://www.reasons.org/articles/old-earth-creationism-a-heretical-belief
“Ham claims Christians who hold the old-earth view are “worshipping a different God” and he encourages them “to return to the loving, holy, righteous God of the Bible.” While he doesn’t explicitly accuse old-earth creationists of heresy, that is the practical effect of these statements. Are these charges warranted? To answer this, it is important to understand the basis for determining whether a teaching is orthodox or heretical.”
@ Arce:
I disagree. The Bible teaches that sin taints all of creation, not just humanity.
Dee wrote:
It’s still wrong and deeply insulting to classify disagreement in this area as “lie” or “lying. That is very loaded.
Would you like it if YECs flat out classify all old earth beliefs/ arguements as being lies? Probably not. It’s unnecessarily insulting, loaded rhetoric.
You’re certainly not going to convince me away from my YEC views by saying I’m a lying liar and SCIENCE! is totally on your side, etc.
It’s kinda like that lady (or guy?) who used to post here who kept arguing that belief in the Trinity is unbiblical and leads to abuse.
He/she would not back down in that thread, and kept representing any and all who disagreed as being uneducated, deluded, idiotic, etc.
I see the same attitude quite often in anti-YEC commentary (or in pro old age earth that bashes YEC in the process), a refusal to treat the YEC and/or their views with any respect at all, to not even consider they may have a few good points on their side, etc.
Remember how the Anti Trinity lady (or guy?) made you feel in that thread, how she was coming across to everyone? That is the same sort of vibe I get in the Anti YEC postings.
It’s possible some YECs are just as bad and behave that way too, which I do not excuse. But YECs are usually the brunt of insult in conversations about evolution and related matters.
Even people who may share your view on old earth and the like do not always agree 100% in how they interpret the so-called scientific proof.
I would not place as much stock in science as you do, because sometimes people get things wrong, views in science change over the centuries, and then you get hoaxes such as Piltdown Man, etc. It’s not as though science is not without its problems.
Greg T
I get it. You believe I am a hypocrite. I even said I agreed with you. We all are to some extent. Therefore, this is the last comment that I will post in which you call me a hypocrite. As for HUG’s comment-I’ll let him explain. There is a possibility that he is not being literal.
Daisy wrote:
They do and I did not say you were a lying liar. I can’t imagine me ever saying something like that. Daisy wrote:
True science has nothing to do with views. Discovering penicillin is not a “view”, its a fact.
Daisy wrote:
Could you prove this? I would be interested in finding out some facts.
@ Arce: About animals: I do wonder why we are so certain that they don’t have souls. (Am just spectulating; *not* trying to stir anything up here!)
It’s good to see you commenting here again, Arce. 🙂
Arce wrote:
Well, no. It is actually both. It is spiritual death that results in physical death.
I didn’t say that “all death in all forms is the result of sin.” The Bible teaches that is the death of those with a nephesh. So plants are probably not in that, which is why the created world was vegetarian (eat green things for food).
But Rom 8 teaches that the creation was subjected to futility (in other words, it was not always in a state of futulity) and one day will be rescued from it (meaning it will not always be that way). That is because the creation was affected by sin, namely, it brought death, destruction, and decay to the created world.
<blockquote And Adam and Eve did not immediately die physically, but lived many years.
Their bodies began the process of death.
dee wrote:
Dee, isn’t it a bit misleading to say that science behind penicillin is the same as the science behind origins? Those who two entirely different kinds of sciences. One is the experimentation, observation, repeatability, etc. The other is the drawing of conclusions based on the interpretation of artifacts.
Even among evolutionists, two people can look at the same artifact and draw two different conclusions. People cannot do that with penicillin and the way it works.
Which leads me again to say that one major problem with this discussion is that it gets vastly oversimplified. It’s like the guy who said that the science in technology is the same science of origins. That’s just patently false. It doesn’t even make sense. But these vast oversimplifications get repeated as absolute proof, when they are nothing of the sort.
Gene wrote:
Gene wrote:
The “guy” who said that is smarter than most of us so be careful when you use the words “patently false.” You may demonstrate your ignorance when you say such things.
@ Gene: This is the same old, same old argument. Do you not think that this has been answered ad nauseum by OEC and TE?
I challenged someone who sounded a lot like you to spend some time reading sites like Reason to Believe and Biologos. In case you say “Back at ya” I want you to know that I have read ken Ham’s site extensively. That is why I am able to quote him on lots of issues, including the supposed “science” on his site. (Talk about presuppositions and an unwillingness to allow true peer review).
In fact, one of the best things to do is to take various arguments like the “nephesh” and “vegetarian” discussions and compare it with the counterparts on the other sites. Do the same thing with the science. One to one.
It often frustrates me when people claim that they have when their very arguments show they have not. They hen throw out words like “vast oversimplification” as if they *know* the arguments cold.
@ Gene: And on that day you shall surely die. Plain reading…
Dee,
None of that actually addresses any of the issues I raised.
1. The guy who said that may be smarter than the rest of us (though I am not sure how you would know that, or how you would measure it even), but the fact remains that it is not the same kind of science. He probably knows that, if he is as smart as you claim. But even if he doesn’t admit it, it still isn’t the same kind of science.
2. On oversimplification, I venture to say I have spent as much time reading those sites (and the actual literature) as you have. The fact remains that this whole discussion (almost wherever it occurs) contains a lot of oversimplification. If you doubt that, just consider the short blog posts followed by even shorter comments compared to the lengthy peer-reviewed articles, and even lengthier dissertations and other writings. You don’t have to know the arguments cold to know that there is a vast amount of oversimplification to get those longer things in a form where casual observers like us are going to read them on the internet and interact about them on a Saturday afternoon. Something that takes years to achieve cannot be thoroughly explained in these kinds of forums. It has to be simplified, and most often, is oversimplified. It’s the nature of the beast.
3. “On that day you shall die,” is actually a infinitive construct (such as Gen 2:4, not Genesis 1:5, etc, which are absolute forms). It means “in the day of your eating,” which is more likely not immediacy but certainty, which is why the death is communicated by a Qal infinitive absolute followed by an Qal imperfect. Furthermore, the NT makes it clear that physical death, not just spiritual death is in view. So yes, it’s the plain reading of the text … the Hebrew text. As much as you guys like to talk about genre of the text (and rightly so), a little grammar and syntax is also helpful.
In the end, I don’t want to involve myself in a long and unproductive exchange about it. I would simply urge some proper distinctions between kinds of science and a consideration of oversimplifications in argument. An oversimplified argument is not necesssarily incorrect (though it may be). It just doesn’t present the full picture of the complexities. And yes, I think YECs are greatly guilty of this too.
Thanks, Dee.
Eagle wrote:
If you liked that post, you should check out the book “The McDonaldization of Society” by George Ritzer. I highly recommend it. He’s a secular academic, but he’s a sharp guy and his work has -in my opinion – many, many implications for modern Western Christianity, and especially American Evangelicalism.
@ Daisy:
show me how and where. Human sin does taint all of creation, pollution is an example of that, as is global warming, the hunting to extinction of animals created by God. But that does not mean that there was no animal death prior to the fall.
Gene wrote:
If you have a specific reference supporting this statement please provide it,
I have made a similar but much more specific statement in comments to another post: radiometric dating is dependent on the same science (quantum mechanics) as is modern computing and communications technology. At 1:22P Friday in these comments I gave link to a very good explanation of radiometric dating and indicated why challenging it is so important to YEC supporters.
Gene:
A few comments on these and the nature of science:
‘Dee, isn’t it a bit misleading to say that science behind penicillin is the same as the science behind origins? Those who two entirely different kinds of sciences. One is the experimentation, observation, repeatability, etc. The other is the drawing of conclusions based on the interpretation of artifacts.
Not that misleading in my view. It is possible to do experiments to establish information about past events. For example, take the Turin shroud. The hypothesis is that it was created at the time of Jesus. To prove or disprove this (the experiment), take a sample of the shroud and using dating methods to estimate it’s age. Do this several times to create data which can be statistically analysed to produce a result. Replicate the result and then you have established a scientific theory – medieval – this becomes a ‘fact’ when the evidence become sufficiently strong. It is not really that different.
Some YEC believers try to discredit scientific studies of past events by saying is it not ‘science’ based on a narrow concept of scientific enquiry (you don’t seem to be doing, but saying the science is different). Some YEC believers don’t dispute that it is science, but challenge the method (e.g. carbon dating). In other words some implicitly accept it is science, but regard it as poor science – but often the criticism fails to weigh the scientific evidence properly (often due to not being scientists). Some YEC believers both deny is it science but also hedge their bets by saying it is bad science.
‘Even among evolutionists, two people can look at the same artifact and draw two different conclusions. People cannot do that with penicillin and the way it works.’
All science involves interpretation and theory – the degree to which theories become fact depending the strength of the evidence.
Taking penicillin, the theory of action is very strong. You are taking a very strong theory (accepted as fact) and comparing it to something you suggest is more speculative. But not all archaeology in my view is as speculative as your comment might imply (also evolutionary genetics); also not all of immunology is so certain. It depends on what is being investigated.
In my view there is overwhelming evidence that life forms have become more complex over a period of billions of years. The evidence is so strong as to accepted as fact by the scientific community.
OEC believers don’t see this as a problem or undermining the authority of scripture, including Christian’s such as Francis Collins.
Late to the argument as usual… 😉 But as regards the YEC-OEC-evolution debate, I agree that within the church there should be tolerance of one another’s views on this subject. Each position has its own challenges, whether scientific or hermeneutical. I have met people within all camps whom I have deeply respected and others who I felt had just swallowed whichever was their view without thinking it through.
Re the Creation Museum, I think the previous poster who mentioned “return value” has hit the nail on the head. Even established museums such as the Natural History Museum or British Museum (both in London) put on different exhibitions every so often to draw visitors again, and don’t forget London is a big place with plenty of potential visitors. The apparent drop in visitors to the Creation Museum may simply be an economic problem for them.
I was actually in on the discussion earlier but withdrew when I saw that some came here with little to no ability to debate anything.
I like a good debate. But there are people out there who think they are smarter and more skilled at debate than they truly are. Because of this, they won’t learn anything on how to be better at debating. These people employ one logical fallacy after another and are under the delusion that they are somehow winning the argument when all they are doing is proving that they can’t debate themselves out of a paper bag.
So as a public service to all the people who need to learn how to debate better (Myself included. I can always learn more) here is a list on Imgur of logical fallacies.
http://imgur.com/gallery/mBWBD
Okay, I admit it. I go to Imgur to look at funny cat pictures and videos.
Kolya wrote:
I believe I posited the very same thing toward the top of the comments. Most of the time the simplest explanation is indeed the best one.
Daisy wrote:
This is important. Science changes in the sense that newer theories tend to be more comprehensive. The old Newtonian approach works fine for everything we do on day to day basis unless you are using the GPS. Relativity explains more extreme things more accurately than Newtonian approaches. The GPS wouldn’t provide useful accuraacy without using relativity methods of space and time.
More info on science is available on an older post that because of its main subject should give some insight into science and YEC: http://thewartburgwatch.com/2012/09/06/a-tip-of-the-hat-to-a-young-earth-scientist-and-the-biologos-president/
If you have more specific questions, I’ll attempt to answer them.
On the subject of the development of science over time: the following joke did the rounds earlier this year in scientific circles.
If you get that joke, you need to get out more.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
I assume this refers to the recent CERN – Gran Sasso faster than light neutrino episode. Appropriate to this thread was the eventual correction of the claim.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
I need to get out more.
Also, oldJohnJ makes an excellent point, as usual.
oldJohnJ wrote:
Indeedy do.
Josh wrote:
Indeedy do.
Mind you, it would’ve been cool if they really had been travelling ftl.
Dee, your current nemesis, Greg T, sounds an awful lot like the “greg” whose presence on Stuff Fundies Like has garnered him a couple of temporary bans. Not sure if he is the same guy, but the possibility has been floated at the STF forum shout box.
To respond to the original question: My family visited the Creation Museum this summer while driving from Charlotte, NC to MN. Here are some of my thoughts:
1. Campy. Very, very campy.
2. Over priced for what they have there.
3. Some of the information was interesting. The way a person looks at creation depends on their world view. The only thing I am certain of is that God created from nothing.
4. My kids had a great time (they were 8 and 10) Their favorite was the Garden of Eden room on the inside and the petting zoo outside.
5. The portion of the Ark there helps you realize the sheer size of the ark.
6. The gardens are beautiful and peaceful.
7. The zorse and zonkey were a highlight for me.
Will we go again? Nope.
Been there several times, intend to keep going. Price is an issue with several children however… looking for maybe lifetime membership instead. Would like more hands on for younger kids though, especially non-readers.
Anyone referring to this as ‘nutty’ hasn’t bothered to investigate and study creationism for themselves. I guess they just parrot whatever they’ve been taught. Sad the ‘enlightened’ are anything but. For your information many people there have PhDs and the like. I myself have a rather high IQ, so it’s not lower thinking whatsoever. Your silly comments are unknowledgeable and prejudiced however.
@ Leslie: Glad to hear about the iQ. You have obviously not read the number of articles on this site so your comment just demonstrated your ignorance of all that has come before. People with high IQs usually perceive things a bit more thoughtfully.
In my experience, higher thinking is only weakly correlated with higher degrees or a high IQ.