Would you take your children to visit the Ark in Kentucky?

[RebeccaJ]

I don’t understand why many Catholics have the whole idea of creationism in general under fire. If it’s not disruptive to faith, if it’s in both Scripture and Tradition, if it has the historical beliefs of Christians behind it, and it does have all of that, why could it be bad?

Think that practically every Christian and Jew before the early 1800’s or so believed in creationism!

I guess it comes down to, what do you mean by “creationism”. Yes, I believe God created life, but no, I don’t believe dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time. Some confuse the two, ie, that God created life AND that means, all life started at exactly the same time.

Genesis only gives a number of days, which can be taken literally as 24 hours, or, it can be understood as, there was an order to creation.

BTW, “intelligent design” isn’t looked at with favor by the Church, because it describes God as some sort of super alien who sat down like human engineers and contractors and did up a design-build of creation. The Church has always taught that creation is a mystery, along the same vein as the Sacraments are a mystery. There is an action of the Holy Spirit involved. “God breathed.” We would call this a miracle.

This doesn’t mean that science can’t peer into what science can peer into and see what God has made. Whether it’s microscopic observations or peering into the beginnings of the universe with football field sized space telescopes. It doesn’t change what the Church teaches regarding: all life falls under Creation.

Being an action of God, creative action itself cannot be laid out on a table and examined under a microscope. Science observes what has been created. It does not observe God’s action of bringing nothing into something.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Personally, I am a little perturbed about the unicorn and the dinosaurs on the ark. I would not take children there unless I could explain how the Catholic views the story of Noah’s ark (Catholics inherited our approach from the Jewish traditional understanding). I would be sure to explain how our views differ from the ‘bible alone, literal translation’ version presented at this theme park.

Would you visit? How does your religion approach the story of Noah?

arkencounter.com/

Regarding the “Ark”…it’s a sham, really, since it uses modern techniques and material and is highly doubtful the thing would actually float. Let alone, the problems of load and ballast on a high sea. Yikes. Could be a good object lesson in critical thinking. Otherwise, no, I’d say time could be better spent on a real boat, whale watching, fishing or any other fun activity that doesn’t involve Disney-fied Bible rides.

 

[Porknpie]

Regarding the “Ark”…it’s a sham, really, since it uses modern techniques and material and is highly doubtful the thing would actually float. Let alone, the problems of load and ballast on a high sea. Yikes. Could be a good object lesson in critical thinking. Otherwise, no, I’d say time could be better spent on a real boat, whale watching, fishing or any other fun activity that doesn’t involve Disney-fied Bible rides.

Agree. Would have been much more fun to watch (and visit) if they had constructed the ark with a small family, women and children included, using tools of the day, culling trees from a nearby forest.

Now I would have paid to visit such an ark.

To pay to visit this one? Nah. :nope:

 

[Hatikvah]

I guess it comes down to, what do you mean by “creationism”. Yes, I believe God created life, but no, I don’t believe dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time. Some confuse the two, ie, that God created life AND that means, all life started at exactly the same time.

Genesis only gives a number of days, which can be taken literally as 24 hours, or, it can be understood as, there was an order to creation.

BTW, “intelligent design” isn’t looked at with favor by the Church, because it describes God as some sort of super alien who sat down like human engineers and contractors and did up a design-build of creation. The Church has always taught that creation is a mystery, along the same vein as the Sacraments are a mystery. There is an action of the Holy Spirit involved. “God breathed.” We would call this a miracle.

This doesn’t mean that science can’t peer into what science can peer into and see what God has made. Whether it’s microscopic observations or peering into the beginnings of the universe with football field sized space telescopes. It doesn’t change what the Church teaches regarding: all life falls under Creation.

Being an action of God, creative action itself cannot be laid out on a table and examined under a microscope. Science observes what has been created. It does not observe God’s action of bringing nothing into something.

Well, there is Young Earth Creationism and there is Old Earth Creationism. Both have been historic views in Christianity, actually. Both Origen and Augustine notably held to taking the six days as allegorical, though not the creation itself (such as Adam coming from the ground). Neither accept human macroevolution, from one species to another (e.g., a primate to an “australopithecus”). There are not relevant theological differences between the two.

Then there is flat-out Darwinian Evolution, Theistic Evolution (neither of which are biblical or in tradition), and very minor forms of evolution that have been discarded. The prime issues with either form for a Christian to hold is that original sin is a flat out “design problem,” and it paints God as a Being Who does not make everything “very good”, and it makes humanity a “development.” It also does not hold that humanity was once on the greatest of terms with God.

 

[anon67074017]

I would not take anyone to visit the Ark. I do not want people to see God through the story of Noah’s Ark. I want people to see God as kind, loving, and merciful. The Ark attraction promotes unscientific viewpoints anyway.

 

[GEddie]

Agree. Would have been much more fun to watch (and visit) if they had constructed the ark with a small family, women and children included, using tools of the day, culling trees from a nearby forest.

Now I would have paid to visit such an ark.

To pay to visit this one? Nah. :nope:

The original ark took 100 years to build; with our deteriorated lifetimes no-one would undertake such a project.

And it wouldn’t make sense without somehow floating it. Wait for flood season on the Ohio?

ICXC NIKA

 

[RebeccaJ]

Well, there is Young Earth Creationism and there is Old Earth Creationism. Both have been historic views in Christianity, actually. Both Origen and Augustine notably held to taking the six days as allegorical, though not the creation itself (such as Adam coming from the ground). Neither accept human macroevolution, from one species to another (e.g., a primate to an “australopithecus”). There are not relevant theological differences between the two.

Then there is flat-out Darwinian Evolution, Theistic Evolution (neither of which are biblical or in tradition), and very minor forms of evolution that have been discarded. The prime issues with either form for a Christian to hold is that original sin is a flat out “design problem,” and it paints God as a Being Who does not make everything “very good”, and it makes humanity a “development.” It also does not hold that humanity was once on the greatest of terms with God.

While secular science views evolution as occurring outside the attentions of God, this is not the view the Church take.

m.vatican.va/content/francescomobile/en/speeches/2014/october/documents/papa-francesco_20141027_plenaria-accademia-scienze.html

"Just as the sun shines simultaneously on the tall cedars
and on each little flower as though it were alone on the earth,
so Our Lord is occupied particularly with each soul as though
there were no others like it.

And just as in nature all the seasons are arranged
in such a way as to make the humblest daisy bloom on a set day,
in the same way, everything works out for the good of each soul." --St. Therese of Lisieux

God has been paying particular attention to the souls of humanity, for a very, very, long time. I see no reason to not view evolution itself, as life unfolding, analogous to a flower blooming. We are, ultimately, made from dust. The dust of dying stars, colliding planets and visiting asteroids. I find it really amazing.

 

[RebeccaJ]

The prime issues with either form for a Christian to hold is that original sin is a flat out “design problem,” and it paints God as a Being Who does not make everything “very good”, and it makes humanity a “development.”

This is only a problem if extreme views are taken. Either God is a puppeteer and we are puppets, or, a deistic approach that God set creation in motion then said, “peace out”.

The Church clearly teaches that God created as we are, including creating us as rational creatures, with the ability to reason. This goes off into the philosophical idea of being both fated and free, which is a reasonable and logical philosophic position.

It also does not hold that humanity was once on the greatest of terms with God.

I don’t see why not.

 

[Hatikvah]

This is only a problem if extreme views are taken. Either God is a puppeteer and we are puppets, or, a deistic approach that God set creation in motion then said, “peace out”.

The Church clearly teaches that God created as we are, including creating us as rational creatures, with the ability to reason. This goes off into the philosophical idea of being both fated and free, which is a reasonable and logical philosophic position.

Surely, there are some theological discrepancies between the two categories, but because Theistic Evolution is more of a new view, it must be further detailed and developed as much as it can be – as all doctrine is, and that’s really one of the main roles of the Church, right?

 

[Catholic_farmer]

My family and I went to the museum of natural history locally. We talked about the order of creation, as it’s stated in the bible, and then walked through a timeline going from microscopic aquatic life (“mighty wind sweeping over waters”) to land animals (“and the dry land appeared”). Then, we walked through all the different periods of animal life for hundreds of millions of years (“an abundance of living creatures”). Finally, towards the end, humans appeared. Just as it was written. We talked about how at some chosen moment, humans were gifted with a soul that could know and love God. My degrees are in science, my husband is a physician, and our son loves science. We are very comfortable with our allegorical understanding of the story of creation and how it fits in with the discoveries made by humans. For us, this local trip was far more educational and inspiring than an ark with fake unicorns. I realize and respect that this is not everyone’s take on creation, but I just wanted to present how it’s possible to see God’s work even at the local natural history museum.

 

[John_Lazarus]

The Catholic Encyclopedia insists that it must have at least been sufficiently universal to destroy every single person on earth other than Noah and his family.

Question for those who know:

Is a worldwide flood that killed everything off (besides the denizens of the ark) an article of faith that must be held by Catholics?

 

[Porknpie]

The original ark took 100 years to build; with our deteriorated lifetimes no-one would undertake such a project.

And it wouldn’t make sense without somehow floating it. Wait for flood season on the Ohio?

ICXC NIKA

Perhaps less than 100 years… depending on the ages of Shem, Ham, and Japheth when construction began. :hammering:

 

[pnewton]

I would not go to anything so full of errors, portrayed as information. The only use I see in it is a humorous parody of fundamentalist error gone mad.

 

[Micosil]

Question for those who know:

Is a worldwide flood that killed everything off (besides the denizens of the ark) an article of faith that must be held by Catholics?

Catholic Answers Forum - The Flood of Noah

Details of the flood (e.g. its coverage, when it took place) are questions for science, not theology.

Catholic Encyclopedia - Deluge

The geographical universality of the Deluge may be safely abandoned

Neither Sacred Scripture nor universal ecclesiastical tradition, nor again scientific considerations, render it advisable to adhere to the opinion that the Flood covered the whole surface of the earth.

The Deluge must have been anthropologically universal, i.e. it must have destroyed the whole human race

 

[cfauster]

Another thread is dealing with the shape of the Ark but also, of course, broader issues.

As noted by others here, the Catholic church has excellent resources.

I like how the USCCB puts it:

How should modern readers interpret the creation-flood story in Gn 2–11? The stories are neither history nor myth. “Myth” is an unsuitable term, for it has several different meanings and connotes untruth in popular English. “History” is equally misleading, for it suggests that the events actually took place. The best term is creation-flood story. Ancient Near Eastern thinkers did not have our methods of exploring serious questions. Instead, they used narratives for issues that we would call philosophical and theological. They added and subtracted narrative details and varied the plot as they sought meaning in the ancient stories. Their stories reveal a privileged time, when divine decisions were made that determined the future of the human race. The origin of something was thought to explain its present meaning, e.g., how God acts with justice and generosity, why human beings are rebellious, the nature of sexual attraction and marriage, why there are many peoples and languages. Though the stories may initially strike us as primitive and naive, they are in fact told with skill, compression, and subtlety. They provide profound answers to perennial questions about God and human beings.

Here are a few more:

catholicbridge.com/catholic/ratzinger_creationism.php

inters.org/geology

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14048772&postcount=23

 

[Padres1969]

No, I’d rather take them to a museum. Creation Science doesn’t do much for me.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

 

[StephieNorthCo]

My sister and I are starting a cross country driving trip to attend a family function in Ohio. Since we are going to be in the neighborhood, we plan to visit both the Ark, and, the Creation museum this coming weekend.

Blessings,
Stephie

 

[arthra]

Would you visit? How does your religion approach the story of Noah?

I wouldn’t visit the “Ark”. We had an interesting parallel to this situation a few years ago… There was a sculptor who built a Tyranosaurus Rex and a Brontosaurus along a major freeway in Cabazon, California. It was featured in a Peewee Herman movie and appeared on some TV ads. In the past few years or so a creationist took over the Dinosaur exihibit and incorporated his own creationist material.

But as to Noah… Baha’is believe in Noah…

*"Among the Prophets was Noah. For nine hundred and fifty years He prayerfully exhorted His people and summoned them to the haven of security and peace. None, however, heeded His call. Each day they inflicted on His blessed person such pain and suffering that no one believed He could survive. How frequently they denied Him, how malevolently they hinted their suspicion against Him! Thus it hath been revealed: “And as often as a company of His people passed by Him, they derided Him. To them He said: ‘Though ye scoff at us now, we will scoff at you hereafter even as ye scoff at us. In the end ye shall know.’”[1] Long afterward, He several times promised victory to His companions and fixed the hour thereof. But when the hour struck, the divine promise was not fulfilled. This caused a few among the small number of His followers to turn away from Him, and to this testify the records of the best-known books. These you must certainly have perused; if not, undoubtedly you will. Finally, as stated in books and traditions, there remained with Him only forty or seventy-two of His followers. At last from the depth of His being He cried aloud: “Lord! Leave not upon the land a single dweller from among the unbelievers.”*1]
[1 Qur’án 11:38.]

~  Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 6

We believe the Ark and Flood are symbolic.

“The statement in ‘Seven Days of Creation’ certainly cannot be considered authoritative or correct. The Ark and the Flood we believe are symbolical.”

(From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer, October 28, 1949: Bahá’í News, No. 228, February 1950, p. 4)
(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 508)

 

[edwest2]

From Catholic Answers:

"While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.

"The Time Question

“Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.”

Ed

 

[GEddie]

Perhaps less than 100 years… depending on the ages of Shem, Ham, and Japheth when construction began. :hammering:

Nope, it was 100 years. Gen. states that Noah was 500 yo when he got the command to build, and 600 when the rains came.

ICXC NIKA