Creation Museum a threat ?

[Jack_Fisher]

creation science is bad science and an embarassment, makes us look like uneducated goofs. no one is going to learn anything about quantum mechanics or relativity, or paleontology, or chemistry from the Bible.

we shouldn’t let science teach morality, we shouldn’t try to pry science out of the Bible.

 

[a_priori]

I cannot for the life of me understand why there is so much heartburn surrounding this issue on the part of Christians. God created everything. Period. Ok, we’re all safe.

The process of natural selection is not negotiable. Ask anyone with a multi-drug resistant infection if they believe in natural selection and the answer will (or should) be obvious. It turns out that the best observable and theoretical evidence at this time points to concept that the universe is very old and that there is an evolutionary component to how we got here.

Why is this so unsettling to some people? Does any scientific discovery or theory knock God off the throne? No. His position as creator is hardly that tenuous.

God does not expect us to turn off our brains. It does not honor Him when we start with a conclusion (young earth/stark creationism) and then squish the facts to make it all fit.

The physical world is one of uncomprehensible beauty and it all came straight from the “mind” of God. We, of all people, should yearn to peel back the layers to appreciate Him in what has been made.

“Since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made…” Romans 1:19-20

If we do not appreciate discoveries in areas like cosmology and the quantum world, we are poorer men indeed. (Poorer Christians as well, IMHO.)

Contemporary scientific thought on our origins may ultimately prove to be wrong. But let’s appreciate what science is showing us and enjoy the ride.

I agree with the above post by Jack Fisher. The Bible is not the place to go to understand science.

 

[darthsmozers]

I have followed this thread and I doubt I understand most of what you all are discussing. However, I wonder a few questions that perhaps someone may clarify for me.

1. If the week-long creation story is to be taken literally, then how does one fit in the fossil record dating bay wayyyyy before human existance?
2. Where do the dinos fit in?
3. Regarding evolution, are you all speaking specifically about human evolution or any evolution in general (i.e., mammoths to elephants, etc.)

Not trying to jerk anyone’s chain, just simply trying to get a grasp on this conversation

 

[Angela_Tate]

Before anyone answers that last post let me remind everyone that the topic of this thread pertains to the Creation Museum. To summarize, the issues posed were:

It appears some people regard the Creation Museum’s display of dinosaurs and humans living together as some kind of threat.

If this causes a rise in your blood pressure, please consider that adults and their kids have already been to the Museum. What can be the harm?

What will be the ‘dangerous’ consequences of exposing people to this and allowing them to make up their own minds about what they saw? Please be specific.

This is not the place to discuss evolution vs creationism. There are many threads in Apologetics covering that debate.

Please keep this thread on topic or it will have to be closed.

Thank you.

Angela Tate
CAF Moderator
Popular Media

 

[darthsmozers]

Apologies.

 

[pansy648]

At the time I was wondering about checking out the Creation Museum I came across a book in the library called “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief” by Francis Collins"

He was the geneticist who helped decode the human genome and he details how he feels science and belief can coexist. It explains the holes in the fundamentalists beliefs (which may clear up some of the confusion created by the Creation Museum) and how we cannot cram God into a box to help define creation. Very enlightening and good for those of us who have strong beliefs and are also in the midst of a lot of science courses!

 

[_bbq]

At the time I was wondering about checking out the Creation Museum I came across a book in the library called “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief” by Francis Collins"

He was the geneticist who helped decode the human genome and he details how he feels science and belief can coexist. It explains the holes in the fundamentalists beliefs (which may clear up some of the confusion created by the Creation Museum) and how we cannot cram God into a box to help define creation. Very enlightening and good for those of us who have strong beliefs and are also in the midst of a lot of science courses!

I read Collins’ book and found it to be an excellent read. I was particularly drawn to his argument about a “God of the gaps”. He uses this term to refer to people who find “gaps” in our understanding of science and fill those areas in with a belief that God actively operates to connect those pieces. From a historical perspective, one could easily see how someone’s faith could be shaken by advancements in science that show how natural laws actually operate in those gaps. Earth-centered universe for example.

I am very much against the way many Christians have framed the debate between evolution and creation and the debate between science and God. God created all things… including the laws that govern all things. We will never find a scientific law that contradicts God.

He reveals himself to us in two ways:

1. By Revalation - which we understand through Faith
2. By Reason - which we understand though our Intellect

These two modes both lead to the same truth… God Almighty! There can ben no ultimate contradiction between the two. If we find an apparent disconnect, that simply means that we don’t have a full understanding of one or the other. I think that evolution vs. creation fits exactly into this concept.

We should never let science and God be pitted against each other as if one exists apart from the other. Christians who place science and God at odds, have unfortunately strengthened the ability for athiests to affirm their mistaken beliefs.

 

[Orogeny]

Before replying, I want to be sure this is on topic, because I don’t want the thread closed because I think this is a valuable thread. I do not think that the Creation Museum is a threat to my faith, but I do think the concept of insisting on using bad or false science to push a literal reading of Genesis agenda is a threat. Angela, if I stray into areas that you feel are not appropriate for this thread, I apologize and ask that you please delete this reply.

“People don’t believe for a variety of reasons.” I know of only two:

1. “God? Show me God and I might believe in him.”
2. After I asked, Do you believe in God? Reply “I believe in evolution.”

How about I just don’t believe in a supernatural being? How about because I see Christians behaving in inappropriate ways and if God were real, He wouldn’t allow that? How about I refuse to believe in a God that would allow my child to be born with a horrible congenital problem? How about a million other reasons people can come up with/

Your second example is not a reason.

For the better part of 2000 years, all Christians believed that God literally created the earth in 6 twenty four hour days. In the present, most Americans still believe that man was created about 6000 years ago and looks the same today. Are you say they’ve got it all wrong?

Yes, I am. Remember, that for the better part of 2,000 years, most christians believed that the sun and stars orbit the earth. Do you still hold to that position?

Peace

Tim

 

[edwest2]

I read Collins’ book and found it to be an excellent read. I was particularly drawn to his argument about a “God of the gaps”. He uses this term to refer to people who find “gaps” in our understanding of science and fill those areas in with a belief that God actively operates to connect those pieces. From a historical perspective, one could easily see how someone’s faith could be shaken by advancements in science that show how natural laws actually operate in those gaps. Earth-centered universe for example.

I am very much against the way many Christians have framed the debate between evolution and creation and the debate between science and God. God created all things… including the laws that govern all things. We will never find a scientific law that contradicts God.

He reveals himself to us in two ways:

1. By Revalation - which we understand through Faith
2. By Reason - which we understand though our Intellect

These two modes both lead to the same truth… God Almighty! There can ben no ultimate contradiction between the two. If we find an apparent disconnect, that simply means that we don’t have a full understanding of one or the other. I think that evolution vs. creation fits exactly into this concept.

We should never let science and God be pitted against each other as if one exists apart from the other. Christians who place science and God at odds, have unfortunately strengthened the ability for athiests to affirm their mistaken beliefs.

It is the atheists who are staunchly anti-God and have scientists among them who want very much to take science outside of the realm of impartiality to make it solidly anti-God. By pointing that out, coupled with pointing out how a secular media is resembling more and more a revived Sodom and Gomorrah, that Christians need to understand.

We are living in a culture that is obsessed and bombarded with sexual imagery, where the killing of the unborn on demand is OK, where “no fault” divorce is OK, where having various kids with various men is OK, where kids acting like pushy, foul mouthed jerks to their own parents is OK. Do we honor the God of Creation or the god of science? And did you see who was standing outside of the Creation Museum in protest? Atheists.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Orogeny]

Before replying, I want to be sure this is on topic, because I don’t want the thread closed because I think this is a valuable thread. I do not think that the Creation Museum is a threat to my faith, but I do think the concept of insisting on using bad or false science to push a literal reading of Genesis agenda is a threat.

I want to expand a bit on my post. I believe that a literal belief in the Genesis creation story is fine. I don’t have a problem accepting that as part of one’s faith. However, if you want to believe that, I think you do your own position great harm by trying to come up with science to “prove” it. The scientific evidence we have regarding the creation of the universe, the earth and the development of life on earth is completely, 100% opposed to the Genesis version. Please note that when I say “opposed”, I don’t mean it in a philosophical sense. Rather, there is absolutely no scientific evidence to support a literal reading of Genesis, but there is a massive, massive amount of evidence to support an old earth, an older universe and the fact (yes, fact) that life has evolved over time.

When one tries to twist science to a religious viewpoint, it does a couple of things. First, it makes a damaging argument against the religous viewpoint once the errors are pointed out. After all, if you say that I must accept a 6 day creation event and the earth is only 6,000 years old, once I learn that science has shown that is absolutely not true, where does your credibility go? If that is my argument to evangelize someone, what will happen once they see my error? Will it lead them to the Church? I would suggest that the opposite is true.

Second, it makes the person look like a zealot that is opposed to reason. That is definately not a requirement for being a christian.

I would recommend that if you believe in a young earth and creation as written in Genesis, make you point from a faith-based vantage point and leave the science out of the discussion.

Peace

Tim

 

[edwest2]

Hi Tim,

You mention believing in a literal 6 day creation and then having the evidence pointed out against it means I am opposed to reason.

What I think most Christians miss is the whole concept of “reason” and how it has been artificially separated from God and faith. Here is the web site of the group behind the protest at the Creation Museum

rallyforreason.com

I think the words rally for reason says it all. You’ll note the majority of the sponsors listed are atheists. If I bring someone to the Catholic Church, not only only will he have to believe in God, but also that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. How “reasonable” is that?

Sorry, your example about me being opposed to reason, even though you indicate it’s OK for me to believe certain things by faith, doesn’t hold water. Pope John Paull II wrote a book about Faith and Reason. It seems you are saying faith is not reasonable at all. It also appears to me that most of the people who are standing up for reason are atheists (I’m not saying you are). And the next step is, believe evolution, believing in God is not reasonable.

Do you see where the conflict is?

When I witness, it’s about the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. When I was doing street witnessing, it was about presenting the Gospel. Evolution never entered the picture, but others, mostly atheists, very much want their version of reason to enter into the picture.

Go to any reputable science web site. You’ll always see the phrase Theory of Evolution., not fact. Also notice the careful wording behind the evidence, essentially: “We have evidence but no proof… proof is for alcohol.”

And by the way, I’m not trying to give you a hard time, I’m just explaining my position.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Orogeny]

If I bring someone to the Catholic Church, not only only will he have to believe in God, but also that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. How “reasonable” is that?

Go back to my clarification post and read the first sentence I wrote. I would confront you if you claimed that we should or could prove the transubstantiation through scientific testing. It is a miracle - it is outside of natural law.

Sorry, your example about me being opposed to reason, even though you indicate it’s OK for me to believe certain things by faith, doesn’t hold water. Pope John Paull II wrote a book about Faith and Reason. It seems you are saying faith is not reasonable at all. It also appears to me that most of the people who are standing up for reason are atheists (I’m not saying you are). And the next step is, believe evolution, believing in God is not reasonable.

Good try, but that is not what I am saying. Faith is reasonable. Trying to prove faith by twisting science is not. That is why the Creation Museum is a threat.

When I witness, it’s about the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. When I was doing street witnessing, it was about presenting the Gospel. Evolution never entered the picture, but others, mostly atheists, very much want their version of reason to enter into the picture.

You shouldn’t run from science as it is the study of God’s creation. When you do, you set up the situation I described in my previous post.

Go to any reputable science web site. You’ll always see the phrase Theory of Evolution., not fact. Also notice the careful wording behind the evidence, essentially: “We have evidence but no proof… proof is for alcohol.”

Yep. I know you have been told this multiple times, but…

Evolution is a FACT. How it occurs is the theory you mention.

There is no proof in science. I don’t really care if you accept that or not. It is true.

Peace

Tim

 

[edwest2]

Very well Tim.

The Creation Museum is a threat. Wow. I’m recalling all the vague things I’ve heard from unbelievers about this. Back to the Dark Ages. The Enlightenment doesn’t matter. We (meaning the US) will be back to burning witches. If the Christians/Fundamentalists gain the upper hand, a Theocracy is coming!

Wow. I’m for none of those things.

God bless,
Ed

 

[tvdxer]

The harm is that things like this turn people off of Christianity. When intelligent people see so many Christians opposing evolution, which is obviously a sound scientific theory, they see Christianity as being opposed to science and intelligent thought.

I agree.

I don’t accept the present atheistic view of uncontrolled, creatorless evolution wholesale as many do, but I do not deny that evolution was a tool that God may have used in the process of creation for whatever reason. As far as I know, the Creation Museum presents the young earth creationist view, which teaches that the world is only 6,000 or so years old - something I think could easily be debunked by modern science.

 

[Orogeny]

Very well Tim.

The Creation Museum is a threat. Wow. I’m recalling all the vague things I’ve heard from unbelievers about this. Back to the Dark Ages. The Enlightenment doesn’t matter. We (meaning the US) will be back to burning witches. If the Christians/Fundamentalists gain the upper hand, a Theocracy is coming!

Wow. I’m for none of those things.

Nor did I ever claim you are. Why do you continue to try making your point by referring to what “unbelievers” and “atheists” say? Is that the only reason to have that museum?

How about things that “believers” say, like why make up science to support the faith? Why ignore all the evidence contrary to the false science pushed by the museum?

Peace

Tim

 

[abu_kamoon]

I think it is sad that “science” is used for political purposes. Much of what passes for science is not science, it is propaganda.

Today, we keep hearing about Global Warming. If you look at some of the magazines for 25 years ago, they were predicting that we were entering a New Ice Age. So, which is correct?

Neither. It is a case of “science” proving some argument by assembling all the data that fits, and rejecting anything that doesn’t. Real science doesn’t work that way.

In the same manner, evolution is a political argument. It was the basis for both Nazism and Communism. This is not to imply that evolutionists fall into these groups. Rather, it illustrates how “science” has been used, and is still being used to promote political thought.

Does anyone think that our politicians are immune to the type of criminal behavior exhibited by the Nazis or the Communists? Why would they be? There are always people who will do anything for power, and we have our share of them here.

I guess the real question that I am asking is, why is it so important for our politicians to see evolution in the schools, the museums, mass media and everywhere else they can manage it? They will tell you because they want to promote science.

Why would we believe them? Do they seem that interested in seeing that kids graduating from our public schools can read? No, most of them couldn’t care less! All they care about is themselves.

If evolution were science, it would not be controversal. Nobody argues against the theory of gravity. Nobody challenges the idea of most materials expanding when they are heated. Science is based on observation.

Evolution is anything but science. Evolution has given science a bad name, because it’s believers call it science. Like the New Ice Age, and eventually, Global Warming, evolution’s days are numbered.

 

[bpbasilphx]

<<Today, we keep hearing about Global Warming. If you look at some of the magazines for 25 years ago, they were predicting that we were entering a New Ice Age. So, which is correct?>>

I distinctly remember that, even the cover pictures on TIME and NEWSWEEK asking “Are we headed for another ice age” during the winters of 76-78.

 

[Koru]

uhh… there’s a pretty big contradiction with what good Catholics are supposed to believe and the theory of evolution.

We are to believe that through Adam’s sin, death came into existence (there was NO death before Adam’s sin)… yet evolutionists say that dinosaurs (or if you prefer the original term “dragons”) became extinct BEFORE the Original Sin?! This doesn’t even include the hundreds of thousands of other life forms that are said to have become extinct before the sin of man.

The reason the Church doesn’t teach one side explicitly or even either side at all is because specific knowledge of how God created all things isn’t necessary for salvation. If one honestly puts their faith in this completely illogical theory, i suggest you find out what the early Church Fathers believed and taught regarding creation as well as reading this free online document:

The Evolution Cruncher:
evolution-facts.org/Downloads/Evolution%20CruncherP.pdf

 

[tvdxer]

uhh… there’s a pretty big contradiction with what good Catholics are supposed to believe and the theory of evolution.

We are to believe that through Adam’s sin, death came into existence (there was NO death before Adam’s sin)… yet evolutionists say that dinosaurs (or if you prefer the original term “dragons”) became extinct BEFORE the Original Sin?! This doesn’t even include the hundreds of thousands of other life forms that are said to have become extinct before the sin of man.

The reason the Church doesn’t teach one side explicitly or even either side at all is because specific knowledge of how God created all things isn’t necessary for salvation. If one honestly puts their faith in this completely illogical theory, i suggest you find out what the early Church Fathers believed and taught regarding creation as well as reading this free online document:

The Evolution Cruncher:
evolution-facts.org/Downloads/Evolution%20CruncherP.pdf

Where in Genesis is it written that death did not exist for species other than humans prior to the fall? As far as I know, Adam and Eve’s sin brought death for humans.

I really think this Creation Museum will do nothing more than give Christian bad and inaccurate press. Thankfully we Catholics are not usually associated with the hardcore (by that I mean young earth) creationist crowd.

 

[rciadan]

Can someone please show me the “science” that proves evolution? It seems that anyone who actually believes the six day creation story is labeled as unsceintific or treated as a simpleton.

I suggest you read St. Basil’s “Hexamiron”,a series of nine homilies on just this subject. BTW, he is one of only 33 “Doctors of the Church”.

The scientific “facts” put forward by the young earth crowd are no less “proven” facts than those proposed by the evolutionist.

I am not a scientist; but, I am wary of anyone who tells me they can “know as fact” that a rock is 600 milion years old, or that it takes 400 million years to do what I can watch being done in California on the news in the space of a few minutes…