Creation Museum a threat ?


#1

It appears some people regard the Creation Museum’s display of dinosaurs and humans living together as some kind of threat. Now before anyone throws out the “it’s not science” argument, I want to point out that these people hold that there is evidence of ancient people carving and painting dinosaurs and dinosaur and human footprints being found together.

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.

Thanks and God Bless,
Ed


#2

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.


#3

Agreed. And Fundamentalists/Evangelicals do it (turn people off from Christianity as a whole) with more than just this – yet they, of course, get the most media attention.


#4

I agree.


#5

And most seriously, when children are brought up with the idea that this is valid science and then learn about the holes in “Creation science” later on, they will be hard pressed not to become skeptics about Christianity as a whole, or even about claims of truth, period.

I am speaking from personal experience here. One of the reasons I am very quick to say “a pox on both your houses–how am I to know which of you is right?” in any intellectual conflict is that I was thoroughly indoctrinated in creationism (not so much from my family as from the textbooks we used in homeschooling) and then had my belief in it (at least in its 7-day literal form) demolished later on. Those fundamentalist textbooks seemed so convincing and scientific at the time–it makes me a bit slower to trust any apparently impressive collection of empirical evidence.

Edwin


#6

I don’t think it’s THAT big of a threat. The Da Vinci code book is more of a threat than the Creation Museum. There are ‘holes’ in 7-day Creationism. There are ‘holes’ in evolution. If I were around there, I’d go see it.


#7

Yes, there are holes in creation science, but there are also holes in a godless model of evolution. Too many things have to evolve at once for it to work.

I have no problem with a model of evolution that does not exclude God from the process. But this could not be proven in a laboratory, could it?

Trying to prove God is like trying to prove a Beethoven symphony or classic statue.


#8

And here is an excellent example against the idea that the Theory of Evolution has no spiritual implications to Christians. And I would like to ask Theistic Evolutionists when and how they think God contributed to Evolution. Any mention of the phrase “God did it” regarding any gap in Evolution only invites angry verbal responses from Evolutionists. At no point will the science or the believers in that science cut you any slack about adding God to science. You’ll get no support from them.

Since Evolution is the primary recruiting tool of atheists, I have no confidence in any of the evidence. Based on my own research, enough questions remain to lead me to conclude that the Theory of Evolution is a deception. Evolutionists will always tell you they have evidence but no proof (proof is for alcohol, they say). Nice play on words.

To my brothers and sisters in Christ, you were led to Christ because the Father drew you, not because of your belief or unbelief in evolution. And what miracles performed by Jesus Christ do you accept or reject? And does the meaning of a certain word in Genesis make you think evolution took place? And what of Romans 1:20?

“For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:”

The secular world seeks after man’s knowledge, not God’s knowledge. Look for yourself. Find out for yourself. The secular world lives in darkness.

God bless,
Ed


#9

I went to the Creation Museum a couple weeks ago. I am a orthodox Catholic and was invited by a protestant who had a guest card…it was free!
The museum began showing different ways scientist approach things and then after the first display of to mock up archeologists it went into trying to sell the account of creation and the effects of original sin.
I do think that can be good to see for people who are lost, but people who come there for serious science are likely to be turned off.
About 1/3 of the way there were displays on O.T. prophets and an excessive amount of posters trying to hard to illustrate the mentality of “There must be a creator, for everything is so wonderful beyond compare!”. That is good for the believer, but possibly a turn off for the scientist/atheist.
The worst part:
There was actually a display of Martin Luther nailing his infernal papers to the church doors! Wow!..Being Catholic I was appaled and that immediately gave me an entirely different perspective…Yes, there was an entire section dedicated to how the church became “corrupt” and needed “reform”. It wasn’t that I was offended, I have “thick skin”, but concerned at how badly it decieves so many souls and leads them away from the True Faith of Catholicism…it is actually “heartbreaking” realizing the horrible things due to our disobedience (which I recalled at the Adam and Eve exibit later).
One part I liked was the section dedicated to Noah’s Ark. They have a small life size replica of a side portion (about 1/20th of the size?) to walk through which was impressive and I wondered what it must have been like in those days to be with Noah…not that I’d “want” to be there. There were some interesting facts about the Ark and how it was possible…my favorite part.
Then there was Adam and Eve and the garden (before and after), Cain and Abel etc. and a mechanical dinosaur in the area if I remember correctly.
All through out, there were reminders of original sin and it’s consequences when transitioning between sections and themes.
The last part was FINALLY the dinosaurs and early animal life. There were some beautiful displays, but I questioned many of the facts. For example, perhaps it was a misprint, but there was a dinosaur that only was said to reach about 3-4 feet in height and 4feet long yet 900 pounds!? I am probably in the wrong in my disbelief, but more detailed information would have been nice.
That reminded…that the whole museum seemed like propaganda.
There were some good scientific facts, but it seemed more of a sales pitch and the last exibit was…the gift shop!!!..Hundreds of titles…oh what a money maker!
The theater movies were okay but catered to younger audiences. One had a few neat facts and figures, but was really aimed at trying to get people to ask questions about science and try to see God in it all…a good thing, but catered to a young audience…It was neat though that the chairs shook and they spit water at the audience during the water scenes like the ones at Universal Studios type theme parks.
The other movie was about 10 minutes on Christ and the redemption and was decent, but short and the announcers before and after the movie seemed rather “mechanical” (yes, they were real humans, not just displays! :stuck_out_tongue:
Overall, I hope I’m not sounding negative but:
I did go with an open mind and was a little excited to see what was there. In the end it seemed as I stated, like more of a creationism propaganda attempt. I have never completely bought into all of the things that secular science says, nor have I in regards to the creation scientists. I DO believe in creation and God obviously as I am a Catholic sinner praying for heaven. Some things were a reminder of that (my needing God)…But, I honestly was dissapointed with the lack of solid scientific facts and evidence; there was some, but it was weak overall.
I have some experience listening to people like Dr. Kent Hovind and Ken Ham (who are both protestant)…and even then I am having a hard time finding many things they publish useful in the defense of creationism vs. a scientist were I to debate such an issue, but there is too much trying to argue Bible vs. Science since they come from a literal/fundamentalist stance. I must admit though that I find Ken Ham interesting and informative with many things.
I have yet to figure out how protestants are to get unbelieving scientists and ordinary atheists to accept creation science when they are trying to use the Bible that is not accepted by the scientists/aethists to refute science.
There is a man named Ron Wyatt who was an archeologist that went to the Holy Land and made interesting discoveries. I know he is controversial, but I do find much of his work far more interesting and acceptable because he belives in God, but just seems to show what is in the Bible actually happened and lets people decide for themselves.


#10

CrypticWritings, thanks for the review! I’ve been watching the news reports about the museum–I’m on their mailing list–and would like to visit it someday.

Oh my, surely that was a misprint.

There were some good scientific facts, but it seemed more of a sales pitch and the last exibit was…the gift shop!!!..Hundreds of titles…oh what a money maker!

Gasp! You mean…you mean…it ended just like the “Saint Peter and The Vatican: The Legacy of the Popes” travelling museum exhibit did??!! :slight_smile: I saw that in Milwaukee, and there was NO WAY to get out of the exhibit hall without marching through the cramped gift shop, where you could buy most anything with the exhibit’s logo on it, along with a more modest number of actually useful things.

I did go with an open mind and was a little excited to see what was there. In the end it seemed as I stated, like more of a creationism propaganda attempt…But, I honestly was dissapointed with the lack of solid scientific facts and evidence; there was some, but it was weak overall.

I wonder, though, if you went to a normal natural history museum with the same mindset, would it really be any different? For instance, my local museum’s dinosaur hall might have a display saying “75 million years ago, this area was part of a vast inland sea”, but no further explanation about how they deduced that. And I’ve certainly seen propogand-ish enthusiasms about how marvelous the glory of evolution is!

If you can, it might be interesting to put yourself back in the mindset/expectations of visiting the Creation museum, then go to a normal museum and see if it “feels” the same way. Let us know if you do that.

I have yet to figure out how protestants are to get unbelieving scientists and ordinary atheists to accept creation science when they are trying to use the Bible that is not accepted by the scientists/aethists to refute science.

Has anyone here seen the “Journal of Creation” (previously known as TJ, Technical Journal, Creation Ex Nihilo) creationontheweb.com/content/view/3873/91/ ?

It’s far more formally scientific, mostly college-level or beyond, than the more popular-science level of Creation magazine, or apparently the museum.

Mainly, they don’t so much use the Bible as the beginning, end, and only source, or to refute science. They use the Bible as the source of their framework that the earth is young and species were separately created, THEN within that framework, do the scientific facts support or refute it? Can the facts of geology and paleontology be explained by a 10,000 year old earth and cataclysmic flood? How do we account for old starlight (several competing theories on that, most involving relativistic physics equations that are beyond me)?

It’s a shame if the museum didn’t take that approach more than a gee-whiz approach.


#11

Interesting report, CrypticWritings.

It’s obvious that this “creation science museum” has an agenda, and it’s not just dealing with evolution. Admittedly the Mediaeval church was a mess, and the Reformation was the fruit of its accumulated mistakes, but just WHAT does this have to do with creationism?

And I wonder how many Protestants have actually read the 95 Theses. One of them says, “Apostolic pardons [indulgences] are not to be lightly despised.”


#12

I thought about that a little. I haven’t been to our natural history museum in a long time. I did find it rather fascinating as a child and perhaps that fascination is what will have an impact on children in regards to creation science when they grow older and motivate a curiosity. That sort of thing is needed with the way the past couple generations have allowed childrens minds to be corrupted and misled.
Perhaps an improvement I would recommend for the Creation Museum is to have some scientists or trained persons (if it is affordable) available by certain exibits for questions.
Maybe they could trash the Martin Luther/church reform exibit I despised and replace with/add in an area for question and answer! :thumbsup:

Thanks, I looked at the website. I like what you say about how they approach their scientific work so I will look at the website some more as I am able.


#13

It makes me wonder also. I was standing there looking at the display with disgust and remember both my protestant friends trying to explain to me (as if I didn’t know anything about him at all), how exciting his “reforms” were. :banghead:
Oh, if only they knew the truth!:wink:


#14

Would you mind very much if Hillary Clinton were represented clothed as JP2 ? :slight_smile:

That would be no more inaccurate than showing men & dinosaurs together. As you so rightly say, “What can be the harm ?” :smiley:

At least Hillary Clinton & JP2 lived at the same time :slight_smile: - which is more than can be said for men & dinos. Granted, she has not yet been elected Pope (unlike JP2); but why let facts spoil things ?


#15

God is irrelevant to Science, so it is utterly wrong to [try to] drag Him in to scientific activity. It is wrong - & impossible; because He is “already” Present. But not in a way relevant to the sciences as sciences, from their own vantage-point - only from His.

In that sense, God has no more relevance to evolution than to the multiplication table. To discover the value of four times four or 19 times 65 or ninety times nine or thirty times three, one does not say one’s prayers - one multiplies the numbers together. Prayer is not an appropriate method for multiplication, just as yoga is not; just as yoga has no place in the study of evolution, which is why it is not a method for the study of it. But yogis don’t go around complaining of the anti-yogic bias of evolution; so why should Christians ?

To try to drag God Almighty into the sciences is in any case extremely bad theology - God is not in evolution, nor in the universe, in those ways, because He is not an object. He is God. If only people would read Rudolf Bultmann, who constantly rejected the tendency to treat God as an object, they would see why treating God as an object is so wrong. Or there is this religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=2075&C=1917 from Emil Brunner - including:
[LIST]
*]God is not something in the world, the eternal being, the divine inhabitant of the world. God is not in the world at all, the world is rather in God. God is not within your knowledge, your knowledge is in God. If your question were answered, “Yes, there is a God,” you would depart with one more illusion, for you would then suppose that God is in a class with other objects.
*]That, precisely, is what God is not – if He is really God. God is never in a class, never something among other things. He can never be named along with other things. Planets, mountains, elements are objects of knowledge. God is not an object of knowledge. It is only because of God that anything is to be known at all.[/LIST]On that at least, whatever their other differerences, Barth, Bultmann, & Brunner speak as one: St. Thomas would have approved. Creationism OTOH is heretical, & superstition - it makes the Living, Eternal, Transcendent Creator of heaven & earth into some rotten little idol :frowning: - or would, if it were able to.

Scientists have to be good at being scientists - otherwise, they are like those who adulterate food by adding all sorts of out-of-place or dangerous ingredients - like glass to bread, in order to sell the customer the full weight, but not the full loaf. If religious people object to their results - too bad; if they do, that shows lack of faith :frowning: Scientific truth is as sacred & inviolable & holy as that of any Church dogma, for all truth is God’s.


#16

Your dogmatic sounding words do not change things. The Bible clearly states that God created. I did not write the Bible.

As to the very vague replies about what could be the harm, it clearly shows to me that the secular world wishes Christians would simply stay in their buildings and leave them alone. Please, they say, don’t mention God and science in the same breath. But it was not that long ago when many scientists and inventors did just that. The first telegraph message sent by Samuel Morse was: “What hath God wrought?” So no rewriting of history, please.

As far as men and dinosaurs living together, I think there is good evidence for that.

God bless,
Ed


#17

Miraculously at the beginning, and through providential guidance throughout the entire process. Perhaps there were some direct miracles along the way as well.

Any mention of the phrase “God did it” regarding any gap in Evolution only invites angry verbal responses from Evolutionists. At no point will the science or the believers in that science cut you any slack about adding God to science.

Because science is not about discerning divine activity. It is about finding natural explanation.

Since Evolution is the primary recruiting tool of atheists, I have no confidence in any of the evidence.

This is not a logical argument. One could say with equal truth that Creationism is a recruiting tool for atheists, since many people who grew up as creationists abandon faith in God when they discover that creationism (in the sense of six-day young-earth “scientific creationism”) is bogus. I was talking to such a person just a few weeks ago.

The secular world seeks after man’s knowledge, not God’s knowledge. Look for yourself. Find out for yourself. The secular world lives in darkness.

All knowledge comes from God–there is no “secular.”

Edwin


#18

The Creation Museum certainly is a threat to the religious doctrine of evolution. Special Creation is not science, and neither is evolution. They are competing beliefs concerning our origins.

The idea of Special Creation is derived from the Book od Genesis. Evolution is the imaginary belief that given enough time, one type of creature can “evolve” into another. No one has ever seen evolution, no one has ever found the transitional forms between the various species. And yet, we are told this is science!

All of the Latin terms for the “missing links”, and the various ages evolutionists like to talk about may sound scientific, but they are all based on assumption. That assumption is that life can come into existence, and “evolve” into various life-forms by the action of nature. Again, no one has ever seen this happen, and scientists have been unable to duplicate it in the laboratory, but this is supposed to be science.

Like astrology, phrenology and alchemy, this “science” will go the way of all dumb theories.


#19

Corruption of Church leaders brought on the Protestant Reformation. And corruption among churchmen has brought us the curse of Modernism, with all of its novelties, paramount among which is, evolution.

I believe that Catholics who accept evolution are weak in faith. This is my opinion. I come to this conclusion because the is no overwhelming evidence for evolution. In fact, there is NO evidence for evolution. There is just the arrogant assumption that we got here as a result of natural forces.

Why would anyone who believed that God created us, accept the ridiculous idea that one animal can change into another? Where is the mechanism? Random mutations? When did random mutations ever contribute to the survivability of a species, let alone, a new species?

Fifty years ago fruit flies were subjected to radiation. This radiation produced random mutations. Did it contribute to the survivabiliby of the offspring? Well, that experiment WAS science. And it didn’t support evolution.


#20

I’m late in the game regarding this argument. Would you mind explaining this view? I’m confused :shrug: Thanks!


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.