Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Journalist wonders, why Creation Museum inspires rage, whole foods scams don’t (sky fell last night too, by the way)

arroba Email
Michael Schulson
Michael Schulson

It feels odd. There is now one other hack on the planet (at Daily Beast) who asks questions like this:

If you want to write about spiritually-motivated pseudoscience in America, you head to the Creation Museum in Kentucky. It’s like a Law of Journalism. The museum has inspired hundreds of book chapters and articles (some of them, admittedly, mine) since it opened up in 2007. The place is like media magnet. And our nation’s liberal, coastal journalists are so many piles of iron fillings.

But you don’t have to schlep all the way to Kentucky in order to visit America’s greatest shrine to pseudoscience. In fact, that shrine is a 15-minute trip away from most American urbanites.

(Update: My goodness, 441 comments as of 11:28 am EST. So far as I got, reading, Whole Foods is a conservative plot. … [Fetch the IRS?] )

I’m talking, of course, about Whole Foods Market. From the probiotics aisle to the vaguely ridiculous Organic Integrity outreach effort (more on that later), Whole Foods has all the ingredients necessary to give Richard Dawkins nightmares. And if you want a sense of how weird, and how fraught, the relationship between science, politics, and commerce is in our modern world, then there’s really no better place to go. Because anti-science isn’t just a religious, conservative phenomenon—and the way in which it crosses cultural lines can tell us a lot about why places like the Creation Museum inspire so much rage, while places like Whole Foods don’t.

Michael Shulson’s definitely worth a read, though he doesn’t seem to see that there is no True Centre of science. On the contrary, there are many questions that few ask because they are afraid of the financial, career, or philosophical consequences of trafficking in evidence that does not support the establishment view on a given question. And the “rage vs. stage” phenomenon Shulson notes is known elsewhere as corrupt journalism. But we all knew that.

The unasked questions are of course the interesting ones, and quite often the ones that advance science. This is certainly true in fields Uncommon Descent covers (see, for example, The Science Fictions series at your fingertips).

It is doubtless also true of questions around food. That is, there may be lots of French-for-fertilizer in the whole foods movement, but only the dominance of Big Pharma in medicine could create a situation where more attention is paid to a few doses of a single drug, when treating illness, than to the outcome of four decades of eating large quantities of specific substances several times a day. it would therefore be useful to know whether, on the whole, people who strive to follow a balanced diet (which sometimes results in getting scammed) have worse or better health than people who live on the best-selling fast food choices. I’ll pay attention to any well-conducted research in the area, otherwise the jury is out around here on whole foods. – O’Leary for News*

See also: Our moral and intellectual superiors ask, should creationists be (allowed to be) scientists (The creationist was the only guy who even wondered what exactly was in a given, nearly incomprehensible chart, advancing the current received opinion, and guess ruddy what?)

Follow UD News at Twitter!

* For the record: I try to follow the Canada Food Guide and do not make efforts to find whole foods.

I enjoyed David Snokes book on YEC/OEC. I recommend it highly. Splatter
Ken Ham has been a lightening rod for controversy all of his life. Secularists mock him. Old Earthers are usually condescending. I suspect some of his abrasiveness is a reflection of the environment he has become accustomed to. This does not dismiss anything, but I think he deserves a little more credit within the Christian community. I agree that YEC funding is best spent on research, but theme parks/museums drive funding. I think the Creation Museum is a valuable icon, but I dont have much use for the Ark Park either. bevets
lifepsy: The manic, unnatural hoops that opponents have to jump through to try and get around it speaks for itself.
Maybe Yahweh Elohim wanted mankind to have a body of writings such that that the main point of human existence, rebellion and redemption could be understood by any normal eight year old living in the bronze age. How much contortion and hoops did the preceding paragraph require? CentralScrutinizer
JGuy, interesting about the Biblical "phone number" pattern, and yes I definitely see the light to dark pattern... It seems to me every major narrative in the Bible is about God's people rejecting and failing him, falling into darkness, only to be rescued again by faith.. On the subject of codes.. something Missler pointed out in the Torah (first 5 books of the OT) He has a theory on a code of 7's being found everywhere in the Bible. (7th letters, and multiples of 7's revealing additional information within the overt text) He has tons of other examples of this, but here is a particularly interesting one... In the Torah, in the beginning of the original Hebrew books of Genesis and Exodus, every 49th letter (first sequence of four) translates to TORH (Torah) In Leviticus, the same pattern spells YHWH (Yahweh) In Numbers and Deuteronomy the same pattern spells HROT (Torah backwards) Thus, within the Torah, you have: TORH - TORH - YHWH - HROT -HROT Which could be interpreted as a statement about scripture in general, that reading it forwards or backwards always points back to God, the real author. lifepsy
JGuy: But geocentrism doesn’t seem to lead to any doctrinal issues or compromises
How does OEC lead to doctrinal compromises? Adam/Eve, sin, death, redemption? None of those are compromised by an OEC view any more than the geocentrist view does, because the core theme of the OT is that A) some rebellion occurred, B) a proxy needs to pay the price for this rebellion. That Jesus seemed to support the literal Adam/Eve/sin notion, literal flood, whatever else, is entirely beside the point. Jesus was admittedly IGNORANT of some things, namely, when he would return to earth. ("No man knows the day or the hour, not even the son of man, by the Father only") He may have had (like YECs) a kindergarten view of creation and human history, while at the same time, understanding the core point which is the central theme of the OT: A) some rebellion occurred at some time on some level of reality, and B) Jesus was the one to pay the penalty for it. Other than that, love your neighbor as yourself. You can hang the law and prophets on that one. CentralScrutinizer
JGuy, on Geocentrism and Coriolis (and other phenomena) you might find this paper interesting written by two distinguished physicists. The authors developed a rudimentary theory working on Mach's Principle (that local physics are governed by the large scale structure of the universe) and basically demonstrated that the same local physical phenomena would manifest whether or not there was a rotating local body within a fixed cosmic shell (heliocentrism), or the cosmic shell was rotating around a fixed local body. (geocentrism) http://homepage.ntlworld.com/malcolmbowden/barbour.htm “Gravity and Inertia in a Machian Framework” Julian Barbour and Bruno Bertotti 1977 p.95 "...If local dynamics is subjected to a transformation corresponding to an accelerated and rotating frame of reference, the usual apparent forces show up in the equations of motion. Since, however, [the equation] is derived from a relative configuration dynamics, just the same forces are obtained if one starts from an accelerated and rotating mass shell. The Machian origin of apparent forces is now clear and explicit... Thus, according to this model, the bulk of the matter of the Universe is receding from us, or approaching us... " I am certainly no expert on this subject matter, but things like this indicate to me that alleged irrefutable scientific proofs of a moving Earth might not be the case... lifepsy
That it seems that speaking of the old age creation view, in a general sense, as a compromise might be admissible or tolerable if it could be shown (perhaps by survey) to be the majority reason behind the view is to abandon a strong case for natural reading in lieu of scientific consensus
I'm sorry but I take serious offense to this because that means you'd be labeling me compromiser especially in light of the fact I was deprived of an opportunity to study at the Evolutionary Informatics Lab at Baylor under Dr. Marks because of Darwinists persecutions and that it is a matter of public record that Darwinist cronies were plotting at Pandas Thumb and Wes Elsberry's ATBC to have me tossed from JHU. The insinuation is that someone doubts YEC because he's kissing up to mainstream beliefs and not thinking for himself. I don't like my character being publicly trashed in this way, and I don't like seeing the character of other ID participants here at UD and in the ID community being trashed that way either. Whatever happened to "follow the evidence wherever it leads", instead I hear the mantra, "label Christians who follow their conscience as compromisers if they disagree with YEC or are mistaken, we'll ignore the evidence, pretend there aren't serious problems with YEC that might make a believer or non-believer have a different view. And by the way, we'll get on Sal's case for upholding the reputation of a widow and criticize Sal for highlighting the truly ethical compromising behavior of Ken Ham because Ham gets his YEC right even though Ham gets his ethics wrong." I accept YEC today because I think that is where the evidence leads, but it is not without some serious problems. Personally, when I think of the Creation Museum, I feel disgust like I would to the empires of some televangelists. scordova
Scordova, yes I still more or less hold to that interpretation. (You might want to look into Machian Physics by the way) I believe Genesis strongly implies Geocentrism, and that additional verses allude to it as well. While that is my personal view, I accept that I could be misinterpreting it. I do not believe the issue compares with YEC - non-YEC, as it does not involve directly contradicting chapter upon chapter of historically written narrative and testimony throughout the entire Bible. I never said my view was infallible. When I first became a creationist, I believed in an old Earth, so of course I recognize that my view is fallible. Scordova, omni-skepticism or playing devil's advocate doesn't necessarily make your position more reasonable. Anyone can go around saying "Yea, well maybe you're wrong about that." Maybe the whole Bible is just a book of fairy-tales like some atheists say, right? We can't say they're wrong, can we? Our opinions are fallible after all. From where I sit, the apologetics for Young Earth Creation, being expanded upon for decades, (Biblically speaking), is overwhelming and I have yet to see the opposition put a chink in its armor. The manic, unnatural hoops that opponents have to jump through to try and get around it speaks for itself. lifepsy
Creationist physicist and cosmologist, John Hartnett, has an interesting post THE COSMOLOGICAL PRINCIPLE AND GEOCENTRISM that discusses geocentrism from both a science and scripture perspective. He is not a 'geocentrist' but rather has a developing cosmology that is 'galactocentric' or 'near-galactocentric' (his words). Included in his blog are scriptures used to support geocentrism as well as some that contradict it. I'd never noticed the anti-geocentric verses before as I've never given this subject serious study. In particular as some scriptures contradicting the notion that the earth is immovable. At any rate, it's a blog well worth the reading. RWalk
In the above list of the structure, it might be better to replace "Main" with "Major". But I guess the connotation is the similar enough. JGuy
lifepsy @ 46 I agree on hints of a fractal nature. Such large patterns in the bible are very interesting to me. I enjoy seeing them as it reveals a thread of harmony. On your side note. I agree on your observation. This is reminiscent of something I have come to find myself repeating over time as I learn or perceive more... God is not acting arbitrarily. The bible has a large scale structure. Let me describe what may be a lesser known structural feature. Oent hat can even help you in bible studies :) One case of nice symmetry, imo: Here is the Old Testament "phone number" :P: 593(5)593 5 - Main Historical Books 9 - Pre-Exile Historical Books 3 - Post Exile Historical Books - 5 - Inner Life books. (i.e. poetic & inward thinking) - 5 - Main Prophecy Books 9 - Pre-Exile Prophecy Books 3 - Post Exile Prophecy Books Now you can know if you have a bible study in the book of Haggai (the 37th book), for example, that it is a post-exile prophecy book. So, you then know what to expect better what you start reading from it. By the way, if you didn't notice, even the Old Testament has the fractal pattern of light to dark. History(past/gloom/dark)-then-Prophecy(future/hope/light). There is also a structure to the New Testament. But I forgot how it was exactly.... It was something like "Manifestation" (i.e. the Gospels), "Proclamation", "Application"(?)..and one or two more more major categories. JGuy
Joe @ 44
JGuy- FYI there are Orthodox Jews who say the “days” of the Creation week were not 24 hour days. See here
I'm not disagreeing with that. I was referring to how a 24 hours day is defined or delimited - especially on a day to day basis today. i.e. The day starts with evening and ends with morning. Whether a Jew has an old earth or young earth view is irrelevant to that basic structure - they would only differ on the DURATION of the days of creation week, not the overall structure of evening then morning (dark then light). JGuy
correction: "in lieu of scientific consensus" more accurately would be: "for reason of scientific consensus" JGuy
Yes, I believe the Bible teaches Young Universe, Young Earth. That is the natural reading, but I wouldn’t treat my interpretation as Gospel and label other Christians as compromisers for seeing things differently.
I agree, and think the accusations should be toned down when speaking regarding specific people(s) - unless the case is a provable intentional compromise. I should verify more myself when speaking with people to avoid this issue more. Perhaps, at best, one can expect that a particular view will be statistically more likely the result of compromise. That brings up this point again. That it seems that speaking of the old age creation view, in a general sense, as a compromise might be admissible or tolerable if it could be shown (perhaps by survey) to be the majority reason behind the view is to abandon a strong case for natural reading in lieu of scientific consensus (I'm tentative on that usage but it's generic exceptions can still be expected). This is probably why I don't have such a serious issue with it talks about compromise - i.e. I don't usually see it as very personal attack. And if a person reacted that it wasn't based on compromise, I'd accept that and drill down for answers - I'd expect it likely though to find at the root a compromise.... Even if one was taught old earth creation & metaphors from their youth because of teachers compromise, it would be an inherited compromised view. That's not to say that person is intentionally compromising... but the view is still a compromised one (i.e. even if unwittingly). That doesn't necessarily mean that person compromised, but their position/view could still be at least an unwitting compromise. But there are other cases that could make it more complicated as an issue. So, again, it seems it should be used more carefully. I'm open for correction either way. JGuy
I don't think a plain reading of scripture lead one clearly to any kind of geocentric view. It seems to me that it could have a kind of aesthetic appeal for some. But in that sense, saying X is created special, and therefore it being in the center has as aesthetic is a bit too subjective. For example, I described earlier something I felt was persuasive to me about how the day was also a model or type when defined as darkness then light, but I don't promote it as a lesson to take from scripture as the intention of scripture, but prefer to preface my description of the pattern as an bias or opinion of mine. But if I were to want to consider things aesthetically, a heliocentric one would be arguably more appealing for a couple quick poetic/appealing/aesthetic reasons in scripture: Because the earth going around the sun, where teh sun might act as a type for Jesus being the center of our lives (mankind on the earth)...or..Because being geocentric in the center of the universe would feel like being stuck in one tight corner - I'd rather think I was flying through space and not trapped in a single point :P (like I said, it's just arguments of what is aesthetically appealing) - though admittedly having a central reference point would be cool if we ever mastered deep space travel (but I doubt that will ever come to pass). Another aesthetic issue is such symmetry isn't something I see in scripture usually, because often it seems things God makes is more interesting... arguably a bit off centered... for example, Jesus appearing, doesn't happen until the 40th out of 66 books - I realize one could argue all scripture points to Jesus, but this is arguably the most critical manifestations in time. So, why not the manifestation being in the center? Perhaps the end of the 33 book or beginning of the 34th?...More lack of symmetry is where we see the Israelites camped in a cross shaped pattern around the tabernacle, even though it is orderly and even oriented north-south-east-west, it is not symmetrical numbers of peoples per camp. Seems more interesting (aesthetically) not being perfectly symmetrical.... And another reason is that geocentrism wouldn't be much different than helio-centrism because it's just a frame of view difference - though it would seem far more complicated to think about planetary orbits with this view. But geocentrism doesn't seem to lead to any doctrinal issues or compromises. I don't think it can be proven. But I find a cople of their experiments as interesting. My biggest issue, form a physcis point of view, is the observation of the Coriolis effect. Not to get too tangential... but seems to me that the yec starlight problem would be childs play compared to explaining the observation of the Coriolis effect on earth if it was a geocentric universe AND the earth was non-rotating earth. I suppose the obvious fix is for the earth to rotate...but then that means the stars etc are not moving around the earth... then the fix is a combination of both rotating? Anyway... what am I talking about this for I forgot. JGuy
Let me point out something regarding geocentrism. Suppose a child was raised up in a home that insisted on geocentrism as being what the Bible declares as true, and thus the implication is, if the child discovers evidence to the contrary, he will lose his faith. He then learns about central forces in simple examples like spinning objects and then orbital mechanics and celestial mechanics. He then realizes, the Solar system is heliocentric according to principles of gravity which can be measured in the lab and the physics of central forces. The Sun's gravitational field exerts a central force on the Earth and thus the Earth orbits the sun. The now grown child concludes, "the Bible is wrong because it taught geocentrism, and the Solar system is clearly heliocentric." The natural reading of Genesis is young earth, but as LifePsy pointed out, so is geocentrism the natural reading of the Bible. God gave us minds and the ability to explore the Earth and parts of the heavens to help us interpret his word correctly. And it seems a geocentric interpretation of his word is the wrong interpretation. Goes to show how much trust we should lend to theological hermeneutics versus actually examining physical evidence. :roll: Yes, I believe the Bible teaches Young Universe, Young Earth. That is the natural reading, but I wouldn't treat my interpretation as Gospel and label other Christians as compromisers for seeing things differently. I had a dear friend, Dr. Caroline Crocker. She is ambivalent to the age of the Earth question. She was dismissed from her position at George Mason for dissenting from Darwin. She is married to an Episcopalian minister and has been a professing Christian for years. She has suffered for speaking her consciences and defending the truth of ID. I find it disgusting she gets labeled a compromiser, especially by believers who have suffered one fraction the persecution she's suffered for the sake of truth. scordova
Scordova, yes I personally believe scripture is alluding to Geocentrism, but I don’t think it’s something the Bible says enough about either way to be an issue of compromise, and so I will not accuse anyone of compromising for accepting heliocentrism.
Apparently you are softening your stance, and I commend you for that because on August 13, 2013 you said:
This subject and research is very related to Geocentrism. I believe the Earth is stationary, because I think the Bible is pretty clear about it (most notably in Genesis). The surprising thing is that once you go looking for proof that the Earth is in motion, you come up empty handed. Copernicanism has always been rooted in a great deal of philosophy, and Heliocentrism, though perhaps an elegant theory, is not the irrefutable fact that it is made out to be. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/physics/vodka-the-return-of-the-aether/#comment-468386
A plain reading of Genesis tells us that the Earth is special in a physical sense.. The firmament (heavens) was created around it, the Sun, Moon, Stars(planets) were created for it. Earth was created before the Sun, no hint of ever being ‘set in motion’. I think part of understanding God’s Word is reading it the way it is written.
I know I won’t be winning any popularity contests, but I feel justified in interpreting Geocentrism from Genesis. I don’t see how a heliocentric model can be salvaged from a plain reading of the creation of the heavens and the Earth. This is additionally supported by sixty or so Biblical verses that say the Sun is in motion, or that the Earth is does not move. You can argue that these are written from the perspective of someone on Earth, but they still support the clear geocentric implications found in Genesis. And in the Bible, there is not a single mention of any kind of motion or ‘procession’ or ‘course’ of the Earth. We are told the Earth “hangs on nothing” (Job 26:7), so God is in fact giving us scientific facts about the Earth’s relationship to the cosmos.
If you are now softening your stance in light of your previous comments 192 days ago, that's a good thing and I commend you for that. Heliocentrism proceeds from straight forward application of mechanics of central motion which can be applied to as simple a system as the slingshots used in Biblical times. I don't see why we have to prejudice our basic empirical observations by our potentially fallible reading and interpretation of the Bible. I would think, maybe God gave us eyes and minds to explore nature as it is, and that exploration will lead us to the correct interpretation of scripture on matters such as heliocentricism, the flood, or age of the universe. Even Jesus gave us a formula for believing his words by studying his works first if we don't believe his words. That tells me the Lord has high regard for the abilities he's given us to investigate empirically the world around us. You were apparently convinced of your infallible understanding of the scriptures regarding geocentrism. I'm just pointing out, we do our best, we hold to certain beliefs, but no one except God is infallible in understanding his words. If the meaning of God's word was occasionally hidden to his own prophets and apostles, how much more so we in the present day should be on guard in presuming our understanding is infallible. What you were so certain as being a clear interpretation you apparently don't feel is quite so clear today. I appreciate you changing your mind, but it goes to show, maybe it's not such a good idea to go around insisting your understanding is clear and correct and that you are not possibly mistaken. I have my beliefs, but I surely don't go around insisting my understanding of the Bible or reality is infallible so much so that I call others compromisers. scordova
JGuy, your last post reminded me a lot of Chuck Missler's teachings which I find fascinating. He talks about how every book and sometimes even chapters and verses in the Bible contain references to the whole, both in terms of prophecy and referencing past scripture, and how this amazing integration can be seen as a type of self-authentication code that it is beyond human design. Kind of like a fractal design. Chuck Missler - How We Got Our Bible https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE7fnqPpWMA On a side note... this made me think about how this kind of pattern relates to living things, how we can start from one point in biodiversity and find connection points that lead across the whole spectrum. (and how such a phenomena can be misconstrued as the product of common descent) This would be in stark contrast to some caricatures of Creation, which say God should have created life completely unique from other life just because he had the ability to. lifepsy
Scordova, yes I personally believe scripture is alluding to Geocentrism, but I don't think it's something the Bible says enough about either way to be an issue of compromise, and so I will not accuse anyone of compromising for accepting heliocentrism. On the other hand, to accept millions of years of successive stages of life leading up to humans, and to deny the global flood, leads directly to the compromising of whole chapters in Genesis and numerous direct references contained throughout the rest of the Bible including the testimony of Jesus Christ. The Bible could not be any clearer about Creation being six literal Earth days, Man being around since the beginning of that Creation, and about the reality of the worldwide flood/the Ark of Noah. Also, 2 Peter 3:5-6 tells us specifically that people will eventually show up mocking and denying that the flood ever happened. lifepsy
JGuy- FYI there are Orthodox Jews who say the "days" of the Creation week were not 24 hour days. See here Joe
A couple of points that are often overlooked . . . - It's believed that most of the red shift comes from the inflation of space-time, especially near the beginning of the "big bang." I've also read that the velocity of inflation exceeded the speed of light. This means that one can imagine a scenario where stars that are 100s of millions of light years away did not start there---in fact they might have been only a light year away 10,000 years ago. - Time is not fixed. It slows down as you speed up. So, it's entirely possible from an observer moving close to the speed of light that a 1000 years is as one day . . . or a billion years is a day. - It's possible that the Genesis account provides an Earthly perspective. Perhaps the atmosphere was saturated with water vapor that cleared up on day 4. I'm just saying that it's possible. - I find it amazing that immersed in an anthropomorphic belief system, where the sun and moon were gods and goddesses, driving chariots of fire, battling each other with the elements (fire, water, earth, and air) . . . that Genesis calls the sun and moon "greater and lesser lamps." -Q Querius
Hi Jguy Thank you for your point of view, it is much appreciated. The verse I was thinking of was John 9:4. Christ (the Creator), is the man. Regarding post #41, the phrase "Evening and Morning" (the creative pause), is given at the end of each creative day (evolutionary pulse). Light was created on the first day, so the light and heat source was present before the sun was formed, so perhaps the earth was just hurling through space and was caught up by the sun's gravity on the 4th day. The spacing of heavenly bodies was probably much different in the beginning as well. Of course, there are many possible explanations, and the context where words are found in scripture, such as night, day, dark, light, etc., determine the intended meaning, as you know. A day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as a day to the Lord, therefore, it could be that time (a day), is a matter of perspective and position. Hopefully, one day, Christians will come to a consensus on these very important issues, because without unification, we have no chance of getting the truth out of captivity, IMHO. littlejohn
Based on the preponderance of the evidence, each day and night represents a vast amount of geological time, where there was a sudden burst of creativity, AKA and evolutionary pulse (from morning to evening), then a long pause (from evening to morning).
As vast geologic times.... then where: "Day" 3. "night" occurs, then vegetation appears. "Day" 4: "night" occurs, then the sun appears. Problem: This means the "night" on "day" four was a vast geologic period of time without a sun to grow the vegetation and fill the earth. Was probably pretty cold to boot. JGuy
BTW: Isaiah 40:3 starts immediately with comfort & the prophecy of John the Baptist... this was fulfilled in: The book 40 (Matthew 3:3). Just saying :) JGuy
littlejohn @ 36
The evening and morning represent a pause in the creative act, because God does not work in darkness (can’t recall the reference).
I'll give my two cent at the end of this comment..but first.. it would be interesting to know the reference you are referring to. For now, I find this difficult... before God spoke light into existence... wasn't it dark? :P Consider Psalm 139 "7 Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? 8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.9 If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea;10 Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me.11 If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me.12 Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee." ... Anyway, on the light and dark. Here is a type I gather from it. The day begins with evening and ends with morning. The Jews still recognize days like this today. In the west, we usually have the notion that morning (light) starts the day, and ends with evening (dark). Here's the type about the day structure I use - but I'm not saying that this IS what scripture says..it's just intuitive pleasant if not persuasive to me: The day is designed dark before light. And this, to me, is a general type for darkness BEFORE light. This theme occurs through the bible. In fact, the structure of the whole bible has this pattern. Old Testament has historical events (e.g.past looking, things like the fall) and the people were living under a very legalistic system... But Messiah arrived where we start the New Testament section of the bible (40th book)..and with Jesus comes hope & comfort (future looking). So, I see the day is designed at the start reflecting this model... darkness preceding the light... And the six day creation week, though literal, might act as an interesting parallel to all history.. with day four bringing the sun (designed to bring light to the world), like-wise, (by a yec calendar) Jesus (the light for a world in darkness) arrives at the end of the fourth millineum. The book of Isaiah is divided in the same way.. gloomy for the first 39 chapters, and hope/comfort starting from the 40th chapter. There is an over arching pattern to me, but I'd rather not get into that here. It's not explicitly stated, just compelling to me. JGuy
Joe at 33 Correction where I wrote: "but I expect that God would make a covenant where it involved Abraham and someone other than Abraham’s real wife anyway." Should read: "but I would not expect that God would make a covenant where it involved Abraham and someone other than Abraham’s real wife anyway." JGuy
Sal @ 31
And how about you JGuy, do you welcome being labeled a compromiser by a geocentrist?
I don't think anyone argues the bible makes either claim. But... in the hypothetical: I'd welcome it if it were true. But, you see, I agree that one shouldn't falsely accuse another individual of compromise. Anyway, I might be different than most in how I would feel about being labeled. I'm a YEC after all! :P It kinda comes with the territory. But granted, that is mostly from people that think science has proven old ages, and isn't relevant to compromising scripture. On compromising scripture explicitly, I have not been accused of it as far as I can recall (I wonder why?). Wait, actually, Mapou has pretty much made broad accusations against YEC - even somehow connecting it with the devil. But knowing his views, it's easy to discount the claims and counter his position. BTW: There seems to be some kinds of disconnects going on here. 1. The seriousness of compromise. Can a person that views scripture as authoritative, that actually compromises, still be considered a Christian if he/she is not repenting of the compromise? If not, then why does Ken Ham et.al. argue that old earthers are still among those that are Christians? If so, then how serious a sin does one need to do regularly to have his/her faith questioned? 2. Can a broad label of compromising be applied to people groups? For example, if it is known that the majority of people that have an old earth view, say 51%, is due to compromise at some level, then would it be fair to make general statements that old earth views compromise scripture (and letting it be inferred that here might be exceptions to the rule where people are ONLY mistaken). Ifso, then that not only can explains general claims of compromising by such as AIG, but absolve claimants of falsely accusing... in other words, it's made to mean more often than not that is is a result of compromising. So, just asking if that can be done...and if that is how AIG et.al are making such general claims. On the directed personal attacks. It matters more what is known of the person. I know you made a complaint about calling IDist compromisers. I agree, there may be an problem with that, since not all IDist are even Christians in the first place - but I don't know all the context of that. JGuy
drc466 You raise an interesting point with the written words, morning and evening. The KJV reads "Evening and Morning", and I think the order of wording is critical. There is much evidence that the entire Bible is written as a parable, and I think the interpretation of the 6 days of creation is as follows: The evening and morning represent a pause in the creative act, because God does not work in darkness (can't recall the reference). Nevertheless, I believe the evening and morning represent darkness, where God paused after each creative act. Based on the preponderance of the evidence, each day and night represents a vast amount of geological time, where there was a sudden burst of creativity, AKA and evolutionary pulse (from morning to evening), then a long pause (from evening to morning). Anyhow, just my 2 cents worth. littlejohn
I'll take a shot too...
OK a question for our resident YECs- why does a creation day have to be 24 hours? Why can’t it be that God was bound by physical laws and terraforming was the only solution?
There are several reasons to accept the literal translation - the use of the words "morning" and "evening", the fact that they were enumerated as distinct periods of time, the fact later in the Bible God even based one of the first Ten Commandments on the numbered days of creation (remember the Sabbath to keep it holy). Also - if it doesn't mean 24 hours, what does it mean? Were they all the same length, or different lengths? If the days were figurative, does that mean that the details were also figurative? If the timeframe was > 24 hours, how did the plants (day 3) survive the thousands/millions of years until the Sun and Moon were created (day 4)? What was the Earth doing without a Sun to rotate around? Floating through space? Is the order of the non-24-hour time periods wrong? If you don't accept the days as real 24-hour days, you pretty much have to throw the whole thing out as some kind of mysterious poetic post-modern abstract morality play that has no relationship to reality whatsoever. Why include all the details, if the details are wrong? drc466
I’d like to add a possibility to explain the light of distant stars. It has to do with stretched further dimensions in the sense of the Kaluza-Klein Theory and the exquisite but nearly unknown theory of Burkhard Heim, a German physicist. If the cosmos is actually a 5-D or even a 6 –D or even higher n- D- Fabric, there is perhaps the possibility that light reaches us from distant stars without increasing the c-value, the velocity of light, from the perspective of a 4-D-fabric. In this case it should be considered that photons are actually not crossing the 4-D-Fabric of Space and Time, but are crossing a higher-degree- fabric of additional dimensions. The trajectory through the 4-D-Fabric of space and time is -as quantum mechanics is already proposing- in reality non-existent. What can be measured is not the trajectory of photons in the 4-D-Fabric, but only the arrival of photons and their interaction with masses/energies within the 4-D-fabric. Indeed, it seems to me that this proposal is in accordance with the Quantum-analysis by Friedman, especially regarding his interpretation of the photon trajectory as an integration of all possible trajectories through SpaceTime. This sort of reckoning accounts also for the entanglement problem. And, it is supported by the strange phenomena of quasi-crystals with their higher dimension- symmetries. The problem of the light from distant stars then narrows down into a discussion of the real topography of the 4-D-manifold within a higher-dimensional fabric. The inhabitant of the 4-D-world would always measure the c-value within the local manifold in accordance with the special and general relativity and associate a certain travel time to the light from distant stars. From the perspective of the 5-D-Fabric light is travelling on a higher-dimensional trajectory, which leads us to a totally different actual time in the 5-D-frame. This would open up a solution for the (space probe) Pioneer anomaly: Within the flat local topography of the solar system the measured distances would be in accordance with the c-value. If the topography is bent or curved at the edges of the flat solar system region, light would travel the shorter trajectory through the 5-D- fabric, which would make Pioneer appear to gradually slow down. Another simple experiment might demonstrate the validity of the argument: According to the general relativity theory, the signals of a satellite coming from the opposite side of the orbit around the sun, or of a big planet, should slightly vary in travel time when passing close to the sun or the big planet, because the trajectory is bent. However, according to the proposed theory there should be in fact no difference in travel time. Rather, the signal should be arriving sooner than expected. Indeed, this "accelerating" effect is measured when satellites are orbiting big planets. halloschlaf
Thank you JGuy- that was genuine, sincere and I really appreciate that. I don't have any rebuttal- I wasn't looking for an argument. I really just wanted to know what YECs thought although the Ishmael- Isaac part has nothing to do with that. Joe
I'll take a shot...
OK a question for our resident YECs- why does a creation day have to be 24 hours? Why can’t it be that God was bound by physical laws and terraforming was the only solution?
I think it's clear God is not bound to physical laws. Multiplying fishes and bread to feed thousands.. Was God bound then to the recipe process at the local bakery? Obviously not. :) Then there's the walking on water... So, of course it didn't have to be 24 hours because of any limitations where God was bound to some kind of physical laws - unless had to be 24 hours because it would somehow nullify His overarching perfect plan. But it should be interpreted as regular days because there are several lines of textual evidence. And there is at least this reason why it would be literal days: it established a pattern for us to live by (a weekly cycle of work and rest; see chapter on ten commandments in Exodus). Given that we are speaking about God. One might ask not "Why did God create everything so fast, in six normal days?", but "Why did it take so long?". :P
How easy do you think it would be to erase many generations (from the Bible) and then make it seem as there aren’t any gaps?
Why would anyone want to erase passages from scripture? If you want to maintain scriptural integrity, then not easy at all... arguably impossible w/o serious issues remaining. If you mean to re-interpret these generations in some other way (say as odd metaphors), then not easy at all - you'd have to make compromises to intentionally do so, imo.
And seeing that Ishmael was Abraham’s son and born before Isaac, how could Isaac then be Abraham’s only son? Methinks Ishmael was the one to be sacrificed and Abraham’s reward for following God’s Command was to be able to have a baby with Sarah (Isaac).
I think the expression reads 'only son' might translate better to being 'unique son', but I could be wrong. I'm pretty sure this is what is meant where we read similar expressions. Anyway, yeah since Abraham was married to Sara, not Hagar, then Ishmael was not a unique son in that sense. Perhaps, the covenant played a role in that expression, I don't think so, but I don't know for sure off-hand... but I expect that God would make a covenant where it involved Abraham and someone other than Abraham's real wife anyway. JGuy
lifepsy, And I find the argument behind YEC-based accusations of compromise to be very strong, and so I am in agreement
You are a geocentrist if I'm not mistaken. You then believe those who claim the Earth orbits the sun are compromising the Bible do you not? So, as far as I can tell: 1. Ken Ham 2. JGuy 3. majority of YECs are heliocentrists. Do you feel comfortable calling them compromisers? And how about you JGuy, do you welcome being labeled a compromiser by a geocentrist? And how about you Frampton71, do you welcome Ken Ham and friends being labeled compromisers for accepting heliocentrism -- which by the way isn't the natural reading of the Bible, but you had to look to science to get heliocentrism. Ken Ham helps circulate rumors to trash the reputation of a widow, A WIDOW, for his financial gain. That was a widow that was once his personal secretary. And then I get vilified for pointing out what is a matter of public record. Here is what a scholar had to say about Ken Ham:
I think it could also be argued that Ken Ham is more in the business of apologetics (arguing the case for Christianity) than he is in the business of promoting creation science these last few years. I find this particularly troubling because he never had any scientific credentials but his Biblical credentials are even more shaky. Here we have one of the most prominent spokespersons for Christianity who has no Biblical or scientific training. I know of many lay Christians who are self-trained experts but in my opinion Ken Ham is not one of these as he continues to demonstrate his lack of training in both of these areas. That he should be the one that many are trusting for their defense of their faith should be very disconcerting to most Christians. http://thenaturalhistorian.com/2013/07/04/evaluating-the-state-of-creationism-creationist-finances-ken-ham/
OK a question for our resident YECs- why does a creation day have to be 24 hours? Why can't it be that God was bound by physical laws and terraforming was the only solution? How easy do you think it would be to erase many generations (from the Bible) and then make it seem as there aren't any gaps? And seeing that Ishmael was Abraham's son and born before Isaac, how could Isaac then be Abraham's only son? Methinks Ishmael was the one to be sacrificed and Abraham's reward for following God's Command was to be able to have a baby with Sarah (Isaac). Joe
Probably the most relevant stuff from wikipedia regarding Enns mode of thought on the bible etc..:
Inspiration and Incarnation[edit] Enns garnered significant attention for his 2005 book Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament. His stated purpose for writing the book is “to bring an evangelical doctrine of Scripture into conversation with the implications generated by some important themes in modern biblical scholarship—particularly the Old Testament—over the past 150 years”.[15] Enns’s primary audience is those readers who find it difficult to maintain their faith in God because “familiar and conventional” evangelical approaches often mishandle the challenges raised by modern biblical scholarship.[16] Enns writes that evangelicals commonly take a defensive posture to new ideas, and that such defenses are “exercises in special pleading, attempts to hold on to comfortable idea despite evidence that makes such ideas problematic. It is precisely the ineffectiveness of certain ways of thinking about the Bible that can sometimes cause significant cognitive dissonance for Christians who love and want to hold on to their Bible, but who also feel the weight of certain kinds of evidence”[17] Enns looks at three issues raised in modern biblical scholarship that he feels are mishandled by Evangelicals: (1) the strong similarities between the Old Testament and the literature of other ancient societies; (2), theological diversity among the Old Testament authors; (3) how New Testament writers interpreted the Old Testament in inventive ways that reflect Jewish practices of the time.[18] In all three cases, the Bible behaves in ways that don’t seem very “inspired,” but rather very “human.” Enns argues for an “incarnational” understanding of the Bible as a way to take seriously these types of challenges. This model draws an analogy between Jesus and the Bible: “In the same way that Jesus is—must be—both God and human, the Bible is also a divine and human book”.[19] The Bible is not “an abstract, otherworldly book, dropped out of heaven. It was connected to and therefore spoke to those ancient cultures….precisely because Christianity is a historical religion, God’s word reflects the various historical moments in which Scripture was written”.[20] Enns feels that the problems raised by the “human dimension” of the Bible for many evangelicals “has less to do with the Bible itself and more to do with our own preconceptions” of how the Bible “ought” to be[17]). Enns advocates an incarnational model to help evangelicals reorient their expectations of Scripture and so come to peace with new developments in their understanding of the Bible. Inspiration and Incarnation has been endorsed by such notable scholars as H.G.M Williamson, Bill T. Arnold, Bruce Waltke, David W. Baker, Tremper Longman III, Joel Green and others for its creative approach to solving the modern problem of the Bible. Among scholars, it has also met with criticism by D. A. Carson, Paul Helm, and G. K. Beale, who claim it abandons the traditional evangelical doctrine of biblical inerrancy. For links to these reviews and Peter Enns's responses to them, as well as his general defense of the books' thesis, see iandibook.com, the official web site of the book. Controversy[edit] Enns's book, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament, proved controversial at Westminster Theological Seminary (WTS). WTS President Peter Lillback expressed that it "has caught the attention of the world so that we have scholars that love this book, and scholars who have criticized it very deeply…. We have students who have read it say it has liberated them. We have other students that say it's crushing their faith and removing them from their hope. We have churches that are considering it, and two Presbyteries have said they will not send students to study under Professor Enns here."[21] The general content of Inspiration and Incarnation was taught by Enns over his fourteen-year teaching career at Westminster Theological Seminary. It was only after the book’s publication in 2005 that a lengthy controversy ensued in the wake of major administrative changes, most notably the election of Peter Lillback as president in 2005. The main point of contention was whether the book was within the theological boundaries of the Westminster Confession of Faith. Westminster faculty members take an oath that their teaching will be in line with that confession. Lillback initiated a series of regular faculty meetings ("Faculty Theology Fellowship") to discuss Enns and his book. Those meetings, moderated by Lillback, took place over a two-year period and led to the preparation of two written reports, at Lillback's direction, to aid the faculty in determining whether or not Enns was in violation of his oath. (It should be noted that, although Westminster has had a Board of Trustees for some time, it has historically been governed by its faculty, particularly in theological matters.) These reports were written by the two field committees: the Historical and Theological Field Committee, composed of faculty members generally opposed to Enns's book, and the Hermeneutics Field Committee, composed of members generally favorable towards Enns's ideas. After both committees reported their findings in the form of written reports, as well as written response by each committee to the other's report, faculty members William Edgar and Michael Kelly prepared a motion (known as the Edgar-Kelly Motion) declaring that Enns's writing and teaching were within the bounds of his faculty oath. All official documents used in these faculty debates, including both field committee reports and the Edgar-Kelly Motion, can be downloaded from the Westminster Theological Seminary web site here [1]. The motion was approved by the faculty, 12-8, in December 2007. Despite the work of these committees and the resulting faculty vote, President Lillback referred the matter immediately to the Board of Trustees. On March 26, 2008, the Board of Trustees at Westminster Theological Seminary voted 18–9 to suspend Enns from his position effective May 23, 2008.[22] Though the faculty voted 12–8 that the work falls within the parameters of the Westminster Confession of Faith,[22] the chairman of the Board said that a majority of the members on the Board at that time felt the book was incompatible with the Confession.[21] As of August 1, 2008, Enns and the seminary agreed to part ways.[23] Following the Board's vote, nine trustees resigned from the board. In September 2011, Enns's contract with BioLogos was not renewed. As January 2012, Enns has been on the faculty of Eastern University (St. Davids, PA) teaching in the biblical studies department.
I would like to say I don’t believe there is anything inherently wrong with accusing someone of compromising on the Bible. They may not necessarily be correct in this accusation, but they should be allowed to make it and also be expected to defend the accusation, and I even encourage such accusations, so long as they are reasonably defended and proponents are not actually censoring rebuttals.
Agree. If they can defend the accusation. This is related to why I was bringing up the issue of who the people are that are being directly addressed. Granted, I do think AIG et.al. tend to be generic in calling it compromise, but that may be justified if the majority of reasons people opt for old ages is because they fear science more than the risk of reading in malleability to scripture. Which can't be too difficult in some cases since Hebrew words, as I understand it anyway, can have multiple meanings. Anyway, on the main point, consider who Ham addressed here that was considered 'mean and ungodly': Here is what Hame wrote and said: Blog: http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2011/03/15/another-compromiser-speaking-at-homeschool-conventions/ Audio: http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2011/03/25/listen-to-this/ Here is the profile of the person he was speaking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Enns .... I'm only laying out what is publicly available. And arguing that we can ask questions: (1)For what identifiable reasons would this particular scholar not read scripture in a way that is apparently the most internally consistent (i.e. Adam being a real man)? The wiki site has some leads on that. And if you can find that he is trying to get the bible to agree with science. Then that is technically making some compromise per definition #3 in one of my above comments. I think it all boils down to how strong a case he can make for a metaphorical Adam based on scripture alone, in contrast to the case for a real man Adam. Let's suppose for a moment that it was a tie. Which I would argue it is not. Then would allowing science to play a part in breaker the tie be any kind of compromise? I kinda think not, but other opinions or thoughts would be interesting to know. JGuy
I would like to say I don't believe there is anything inherently wrong with accusing someone of compromising on the Bible. They may not necessarily be correct in this accusation, but they should be allowed to make it and also be expected to defend the accusation, and I even encourage such accusations, so long as they are reasonably defended and proponents are not actually censoring rebuttals. And I find the argument behind YEC-based accusations of compromise to be very strong, and so I am in agreement. The Bible clearly leaves no wiggle room for millions of years of plant/animal successions before man (whether intelligently designed or evolved), and no wiggle room for people trying to get around the global Flood (both of these issues being tied together). I believe the compromise on these issues leads to far more rejection of God's Word and Jesus Christ then acceptance, by many orders of magnitude, and so I believe the accusations are fully warranted. Of course forum administrators have the freedom to censor whoever they want, if they don't want to hear these accusations. I would agree however that YEC's should not fear puzzles and enigmas that are hard to explain. Discussion of such matters should be welcomed, and definitely not censored. They should not pretend challenges do not exist, but honestly face them. lifepsy
I know many long-age Christians. They don’t think about origins, they don’t care about origins. They aren’t particularly analytical, and are usually heavily “right brained”.
How much graduate level math and physics have you studied? Are you more left-brained than someone like say Albert Einstein or most astrophysicists?
the fallible conclusions of men to distort that interpretation erodes the faith of many people
As if Ken Ham is infallible! If his interpretation is so infallible and all knowing, how about giving a re-write of Maxwell's equations. You brag about not being right brained, Ok, I've given you a left brained problem. How about some empirical and theoretical answers instead of assertions of you own personal infallibility and Ken Ham's infallibility in understanding reality. You can give proof for the readers of your insight by answering a basic left-brained question that is highly relevant to YEC. Ken Hamism has driven lots from the faith. Ironically, it is an appeal to empirically detectable events, not scripture that maybe the cure for some, even Jesus prescribed that "if you don't believe the words, believe the works". Not everyone comes to faith the same way. Pounding the Bible into people's heads without trying to reconcile it to things they see with their own eyes can help make lots of atheists. Have you ever stopped to think your way and Ken Ham's way of doing business actually hurt some people's beliefs. If I were an atheist and wanted someone like Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker for creationism, Ken Ham would be a godsend (or Darwin send). Any way, you can settle the discussion here, how about a re-write of Maxwell's equations or how about a re-write of relativistic quantum electrodynamics. I'm all ears....or are you going to suggest I get my answers visiting an amusement park and getting entertained. As far as character assignation, I only stated what is publicly available and on record. Ken Ham assassinated his own character and reputation and robbed God's people of money and esteem and gee he's trying to raise $73,000,000 in junk bonds to build a playground to serve as a defense for the Christian faith. I'm not the only Christian seeing warning signs of the Ham empire resembling that of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker. Christianity today reported 6 months ago. Here is another report on Ken Ham's junk bond offering: http://danielsilliman.blogspot.com/2014/01/junk-bonds-raise-questions-about.html scordova
I do take issue with Ken Ham saying acceptance of long ages is an assault on the Christian faith especially when it was the work of one of the greatest creationist physicists, James Clerk Maxwell, that results in the distant starlight problem. He didn’t create that problem because he came up with a compromised theology, it proceeds from simple observation and calculation which is described here:
Why should Maxwell's work make it especially the case that you have an issue with Ham making an argument against long ages? Maxwell might have been a young earth creationist anyway. I know of no creationist today that would argue that Maxwell had a compromised theology just because he discovered something that lead to a new time question problem. If you read the literature, you will find that the yec scientists actually take on the problems head on, they don't sweep them under the rug. In fact, for the helium zircon evidences, they went out of the way to prove that a billion and a half years worth (today's measured decay rate) of Uranium decay actually HAD occurred. They didn't throw a towel over it and say it doesn't exist - granted this did work in favor of the end result... Anyway, point being, if Maxwell made a discovery that made another problem to solve, then sobeit is what I expect the young earth creationist scientist response would be... it's not like it will change their plain reading of scripture as a result. They'd simply have to figure it out. JGuy
Scordova, I'm guessing with all the personal attacks and attempts at character assassination that you've logged on this thread, one should not take up too contrary a position to YOU. Well at least we know what kind of person YOU are. I think in a few short posts you have made it clear that no matter where Ken Ham sits on the moral totem pole, you're at least one notch below it. For someone who seems to spend so much time studying and recording the imperfections of the humans that run creationist organizations, perhaps you should spend more time actually understanding their mission. While you agree with their positions, you disagree with how they broadcast it. Be clear about something, Ken Ham and his organization believe that compromising on the straightforward interpretation of Genesis by allowing the fallible conclusions of men to distort that interpretation erodes the faith of many people. I don't think anyone would disagree that AIG is correct on this front. The number of people and the impact is debatable. The fact that "any" number of people lose their faith due to what AIG defines as compromise is an absolute fact. For these reasons, their mission to battle compromise is a legitimate position to take, and not in any way immoral or unethical. You may disagree, but the position is a defensible one. Debating things like baptism or pre/post tribulation is not the same thing. These are debates about scripture, within scripture. At no time do these theological debates incorporate ideas from outside scripture. AIG nor any other YEC organization of any prominence believes that a YEC view is a litmus test for salvation. Rather, the belief is in providing rebuttal to people who are in danger of LOSING their salvation from scientific challenges to their faith. I know many long-age Christians. They don't think about origins, they don't care about origins. They aren't particularly analytical, and are usually heavily "right brained". For these folks, their faith never waivers, and they are not the group AIG exists for. By contrast there are huge numbers of very left-brained people that ask the very logical question...If Genesis can't be trusted, then why should any of the rest of the Bible be trusted. To put a finer point on it, AIG exist to rebut the following quote which elegantly explains the dilemma. That this is not a dilemma in YOUR mind isn't the point. "Now that we KNOW that Adam and Eve never were real people, the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve, there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin, there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation, there is no need of a savior. And I submit that puts Jesus, historical or otherwise, into the ranks of the unemployed. I think that evolution is absolutely the death knell of Christianity." -Frank Zidler AIG provides answers to these questions, and yes, challenges the church to take a look at the reasons young people leave the church in droves...a good bit of it IS compromise. see Already Gone.. http://www.amazon.com/Already-Gone-Todd-Hillard-ebook/dp/B0029O0CR6 Tell me scardova, what do you do in defense of the faith up in your ivory tower when you're not raining grenades down on those that actually are defending the faith? Thanks. Frampton71
I have my professed beliefs, but I'm reluctant to insist I'm right to the point I will call others that disagree with my interpretation of reality as "compromisers". Preachers through the ages have been quite convinced their theology is right and immutable, but given the diversity of opposing views, surely not all of the preachers who are so convinced of their infallible understanding of reality can be right. Example -- look at all the diverse views about Christian Baptism or Predestination or gifts of the spirit... I have my beliefs, but I'm quite willing to admit I could be wrong in some of my beliefs. I believe in a literal Adam, a great flood, and the recency of humanity. I strongly suspect the Earth and Solar System are young, there is weak evidence the stars are recent but then we have the distant starlight problem. I see no benefit in rushing to judgment on these issues as if they were on par with acceptance of moral requirements outlined in the Bible. When the thief on the cross was granted forgiveness and welcome into God's kingdom, I didn't see much in the way of the Lord interrogating the theif about his various theological views, much less the age of the Earth. I do take issue with Ken Ham saying acceptance of long ages is an assault on the Christian faith especially when it was the work of one of the greatest creationist physicists, James Clerk Maxwell, that results in the distant starlight problem. He didn't create that problem because he came up with a compromised theology, it proceeds from simple observation and calculation which is described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations And not one YEC has given a slam dunk rebuttal or rewrite of those equations. Saying the Bible doesn't agree with it doesn't count as much of an explanation especially when the equations help us make use of electricity magnetism, and thus we get empirical proof every second of the day of the veracity of those equations. If the equations are wrong, give me a re-write, otherwise why isn't it fair game to ask if the Bible really disagrees with the equations. Further, the Bible teaches that even the prophets and apostles didn't always grasp the meaning of what was told them, it was hidden from them, and arguably in some cases they misinterpreted what was said to them. Did that make them compromisers because they didn't understand or that they misinterpreted what the Lord told them? I think not. I postulate the natural reading of Genesis to mean a certain thing, and thus it is worthy to investigate it if that interpretation is correct. I believe YEC is correct interpretation, but I also believe my understanding is fallible, whereas others seem to be quite self-assured their understanding of what the Bible says is beyond reproach. I try my best, I'll even teach what I believe is true, but I certainly wouldn't want my interpretations and beliefs to count as gospel. I see no benefit to rushing to a final judgment on matters of the age of the Earth. We can hold beliefs, we can promote those beliefs, but I don't think we have to insist our beliefs are the final word on matters of the age of the Earth and Universe to the point we label those that hold differing views as compromisers. Such a mode of doing business I view as bullying. The one thing I will insist on as being final is that there is no salvation in Charles Darwin. scordova
If this Schulson asks people to SCHLEP to real america then its already its a wasted trip. its hopeless for ethnic peoples to understand main street USA. Saying christian doctrines and conclusions are anti-science is just hostile identity/religious bigotry. They know very well we are not and do not see ourselves as anti-science. They are just bad and dumb and the issues of origins is case in point. Who needs ya? Who are you? Robert Byers
I hold a similar opinion JGuy. Unfortunately, there's a lot of indoctrination in the name of religion, and now it's also being done in the name of science. In both cases, there's a fundamental distrust and disrespect for the individual. The good news is that there are many wonderful things to be discovered both in scripture and in nature. But they are and should always remain separate---wisdom is eternal, knowledge is always changing. I think your last paragraph is right on. -Q Querius
Sal, Did you notice the link in the dispute you posted. http://www.CreationOnTheWeb.com/dispute Visiting it... the page reads reads: "CMI and AiG are pleased to inform you that the dispute between the ministries has been settled to their mutual satisfaction. Each ministry is now focused on its respective mission, having put this dispute behind them in April of 2009." On the amusement park idea. I'm not really for it (though I do like the basic creation museum idea). But I'm not going to commit any judgement on their vision (haven't really looked into it that thoroughly anyway) and say they should study stars with the money instead. Ken Ham isn't a scientist - but a science educator - so I suspect the park idea was probably more for children (I don't know) and in his area of expertise. If something else were to be done with the funds (if that could even be allowed), my opinion, building an outreach ministry to the needy (widows and orphans) would be more glorifying to God than parks or studying stars. JGuy
Accusing believers in the Bible of being compromisers is awful thing if they sincerely view the Bible as authoritative. They can be mistaken, but that doesn’t make them compromisers.
Agreed. It is wrong to falsely accuse people - that is clear. I'm pretty sure this isn't about me, but if I ever did, I was wrong and apologize. And agreed that they can be mistaken or mislead. But I won't readily agree that this means a compromise has not occurred. One issue that needs not be brushed aside is that much of the scripture on these key points seems clear is so much more internally consistent in the literal that it shouldn't be ignored as such. Even you (Sal) made the point that Adam reads so much more clearly as a real person using the genealogy in Luke. And that is compounded with so many other factors. Adam not being literal causes a lot of problems. And for someone to be a scholar - such as the person Ham addressed in a so-called "mean spirited and ungodly" manner - not to see that, seems very odd. Questions to ask are: What mistakes would a person make that leads to thinking Adam is a metaphor? e.g. Indifference?... And if one is a scholar, Why would he/she ever side with the less internally consistent interpretation? And is that answer resulting from a mistake or decided by compromise or both? (see definition #3 below) compromise: 3. "something intermediate between different things: The split-level is a compromise between a ranch house and a multistoried house." 9. "to make a dishonorable or shameful concession: He is too honorable to compromise with his principles." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/compromise JGuy
Ken Ham is a con artist, IMO. Sorry to offend but I just had to say it. Mapou
. . . A spectacle like the Creation Museum has a pretty limited audience. Sure, 46 percent of Americans profess to believe in creationism, but how many are enthusiastic enough to venture to Kentucky to spend nearly $30 per person to see a diorama of a little boy palling around with a vegetarian dinosaur? The museum’s target demographic might not be eager to lay down that much money: Belief in creationism correlates to less education, and less education correlates to lower income. Plus, there’s the possibility of just getting bored: After two pilgrimages to the museum, a family of four would have spent $260 to see the same human-made exhibits and Bible quote placards. Surely even the most devoted creationists would consider switching attractions for their next vacation. Trouble in Creationist Paradise
PS The reported is obviously biased, but I think that part he got right. I'm not going to waste that sort of money just to see a statue! That said, Stern said something revealing:
Happy Darwin Day! Celebrate and be condemned to eternal damnation. Mark Joseph Stern
Mr. Stern, your words may be more prophetic than you know. scordova
More on the Junk Bond offering by Ken Ham Kentucky’s Faltering Ark Theme Park to Be Shored Up With $62,000,000 in Junk Bonds Issued By Nearby Town
The 800-acre amusement park is supposed to feature a life-size Noah's Ark built by Amish craftsmen, a walled city, a zoo featuring Noah's animals, a Ten Plagues Ride, a Tower of Babel, a first-century village, an aviary and a children's area. An initial feasibility report, written by Britt Beemer, a friend of Answers in Genesis founder Ken Ham, predicted the Ark Encounter would attract more than 1.2 million visitors in its first year. However, the bond offering documents note that "there is no assurance that the Borrower will be able to successfully market its themed attraction ... in numbers that provide significant, consistent cash flow." Attendance at the Creation Museum has declined each year since it opened in 2007, from 394,185 that year to 236,583 in 2012, according to the bond documents. Before the bond offer, the Ark Encounter had raised $14 million out of $73 million needed for the first phase of construction. The project's total cost has been estimated at about $150 million. Fundraising has been slow because of the recession, said Mike Zovath, who is heading up the project for Answers In Genesis. Originally, the park was scheduled to be finished by 2014. Now organizers think they'll start construction in the spring.
If I want to go for amusement like this, I think I'll go to Disney World instead. The declining numbers in visits to the creation Museum are in contrast to Ham's spin that all was well and fine. If one wants amusement, go to Six Flags or Disney World, if one wants to learn about YEC, one can get lots of free online technical articles from CMI. I don't see the Museum as a good investment of God's money, and I wouldn't necessarily interpret dislike of the Museum as solely rooted in dislike of creationism. There are probably creationists who think the YEC circus (ahem YEC amusement park) is an unwise waste of money for the cause of YEC. Creationism will be furthered by science and research, not worldly amusement parks, imho. scordova
Ken Ham is pleading for 29 million dollars: Christian Post
In a recent fundraising letter, Answers in Genesis (AiG) President Ken Ham claimed that the organization's theme park's current financial woes were "an indication of the immense spiritual battle we are in." To open the Kentucky attraction, which would include a full-scale, 510-foot-long model of Noah's Ark, AiG must sell $29 million in unrated municipal bonds by Feb. 6 to avoid triggering the redemption of the $26.5 million of bonds that have already been sold.
Now note Ham denied having financial troubles and took issue with Christianity Today for reporting Creation Museum troubles:
http://www.wnd.com/2013/07/magazine-in-hot-water-over-noahs-ark/ Christianity Today, the prominent magazine founded by evangelist Billy Graham over 50 years ago, has come under fire for allegedly misreporting the public’s enthusiasm for the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky. Ken Ham, founder of Answers in Genesis, or AiG, the ministry behind the Creation Museum, published a blog post blasting the magazine for an article that reported the Museum’s revenues have fallen and funding for its planned “Ark Encounter” project is lagging. .... In recent times, we have seen a concerted effort by secularists who are so opposed to AiG that they spread such misinformation concerning revenue and attendance about the Creation Museum, Ark Encounter and AiG in general,” Ham writes. “It’s sad that Christianity Today is now a party to this spreading of misleading and false information – and primarily to a Christian audience.” The controversy stems from an article in Christianity Today’s June edition spotlighting eight relatively recent attempts by various ministries to build life-size replicas of Noah’s Ark, including AiG’s “Ark Encounter.” “Answers in Genesis hopes to build a $73-million theme park with a full-scale ark and zoo,” Christianity Today reported. “Despite heavy media attention, funding is slow, and revenues from AiG’s nearby Creation Museum have declined.”
Uh, so in June Ham says, no problem, but then in February reports being in dire straights? :roll: 73,000,000 theme park? :shock: See this from Bloomberg:
Noah’s Ark Risks Collapse Without Bond Buyers by February A Kentucky theme park to be built around a full-scale replica of Noah’s Ark may sink unless investors purchase about $29 million in unrated municipal bonds by Feb. 6. ... Industrial-development bonds are considered the riskiest municipal debt because they account for the largest proportion of defaults in the $3.7 trillion municipal market. Williamstown issued the bonds without a rating, making the prospect of repayment even less clear. The first phase is estimated to cost $73 million, offering documents show. About $14 million had been raised before the bond sale, which was supposed to make up the difference. Instead, Ark Encounter has had no institutional investors buy its bonds, Ham said. “The associated complications and struggles have been beyond our control,” said Ham, who cited impediments such as atheists registering for the offering and disrupting it. “I urge you to please prayerfully consider the options and help us get this bond offering completed.” The documents cite at least 39 risks to buyers, including that Answers in Genesis has no obligation to back the debt. Bondholders’ sole revenue stream would come from money spent by visitors. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-03/noah-s-ark-risks-collapse-without-bond-buyers-by-february.html
Let's be careful not to equate rage against creationism as necessarily the same as indifference to Ham's empire. By the way, Noah's had 3 son's, and one of them he cursed -- guess the name of that cursed son. scordova
Now take this with a grain of salt as I am by no means a biologist, but I buy organic as much as possible, because I don't trust Big-Aggro or the short 90 day studies they produce that show no difference in the overall health of animals when fed GMO foods. Sometimes it can take years for toxins to bio-accumulate in animals, and for noticeable symptoms to arise Monsanto in particular has a track record of dastardly deeds... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrea-brower/gmos-kauai-tpp_b_3883371.html I did read an article about a long term study in France that showed a link between GMOs and tumors in rats. That study was retracted (coercion might have been a factor, but that is speculation). Here is the original. http://www.motherearthnews.com/natural-health/gmo-safety-zmgz13amzsto.aspx Tell me this, How can you publish article after article about how what was once considered Non-coding or "junk" regions of DNA is definitely not junk , but be fine technology that injected genes into plants when that section of the DNA was still considered junk. Am I wrong on this?? fryether
Accusing believers in the Bible of being compromisers is awful thing if they sincerely view the Bible as authoritative. They can be mistaken, but that doesn't make them compromisers. A compromiser has an extremely negative connotation about someone's moral character. That's not the same as being mistaken. It's right to challenge someone's understanding of issues, it's wrong to insinuate because someone is mistaken that they are "compromisers". I don't like that ID proponents who have suffered enormous persecution are being accused of being compromisers. I've been accused of that when I criticized some of the deep problems in YEC, and I didn't appreciate the label of being some sort of ungodly compromiser trying to appease my critics and gain approval from worldly authorities. I challenged Sarfati to explain distant starlight problem and how he would restate Maxwell's equations. He just labeled such challenges as compromise for raising the issue. Theologians and Bible scholars have been mistaken before, and I don't appreciate them insisting someone is a compromiser trying to appease the non-Christian world because they have legitimate questions. I didn't appreciate Ken Ham saying belief in an Old Universe is an attack on the Christian faith, as if believers in an Old Universe are actively plotting to subvert Christianity. He could solve the problem if could reconcile measurements with his theology. Instead he just demonizes the doubters as enemies of the faith -- behaving just like Darwinists. Instead of actually trying to find solutions to Electromagnetic Theory, Astrophysics and General Relativity, he builds amusement parks and labels people who accept an Old Universe (like many here at UD) as enemies of the Christian faith. I'm glad the Home Schoolers banned him. I guess I'm bitter because most of the people in the movie Expelled we're believers in an Old Universe, and I don't like them being labeled compromisers. They sacrificed their careers as matter of conscience to what they believed is true. That was holding fast to their morals and ethics which is more than I can say for Ken Ham in light of his money grabbing behavior and insinuation of rumors about his opponents wife (witchcraft and necrophilia). I vigorously defended his claims about YEC, but I don't condone his more unsavory personal conduct nor demonization of those that disagree with him. That he would even allow such awful insinuations to float around regarding his former-personal-secretary-turned-wife of his opponent, I don't think speaks well of him, nor of his lavish salary that's 4 times the median income gained mostly through donations. So Journalist maybe inherently hostile to the Creation Museum just like they might have been inherently hostile to Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker because they were Christian evangelists, but lets not pretend Ham hasn't done a few things to add fuel to the fire like Jim and Tammy Faye. I've never said anything publicly that was very flattering of the Creation Museum myself, in fact, I've said a few negative things about the whole circus (ahem, I mean amusement park). scordova
p.s. All that said. I do think it's still something that can be discussed. I now you alluded to not being able to discuss the matter around certain people. I think all these things should be searched out. Just for me, it's resolved. And I agree with you that people can make mistakes. It just seems that sometimes mistakes should be harder to make (i.e. less frequent). In the case of the age of earth, only one view is correct (unless there's a medium aged earth theory lol), but views 'coincidentally' seem to diverge largely with people where there is some an affinity for certain popular 'scientific' ideas, and others that buck that trend. Some ideas of which, we should find as outright bankrupt - e.g. Darwinian evolution. JGuy
Let's suppose we have a context of believers, and with all other things being the same where there are differences now, but we ALL agree that the bible interprets to read that the earth is young and Adam & Eve were literally the first couple (so basically a YEC endpoint). From there. How could one consider Adam as a metaphor or the six day's as six eras making up billions of years, if it wasn't done in a way that was actually compromising scripture? Seems like it would leave a contradiction by any other reason. I hope that would appear as a non controversial case where we would end up with compromising scripture - after all, everyone would previously agree and don't for extra-biblical reasons. Now, roll back the hypothetical assumption that we all agree in that context... but that we can at least agree that a plain reading of scripture leads to a yec view. And i think this is largely the case. If you have issue with this, consider that even Hugh Ross (if I am not mistaken in my recollection) has before said a plain reading would mean a global flood - but that he doesn't hold this view. Now ask, from there, for what specific reason would anyone consider Adam as a metaphor or the six day's as six eras making up billions of years? There would have to be a reason for this... and if it comes from outside of the bible, then it clearly means that the something outside the bible is influencing the plain reading of scripture. This is arguably compromising. And I don't mean it in a mean way... it can simply mean they are willing to let popular views of science influence something that would have been interpreted differently if that science hadn't been popular and present to begin with. In a nutshell, I'm saying one might be describable as compromising scripture, but not described in such a way that it should be taken as unkind or ungodly. I can understand how that does come off as tough. But I wouldn't call it a necessarily self-righteous or mean spirited. As you probably would guess, knowing me long enough around these blogs, I have Christian friends that are old earthers. And I don't come down on them in unkind harsh ways (I don't think). They know my position. And I might give the merits of keeping things as a historical narrative in Genesis. And leave it as an open question to whether it is an issue of compromise. But I don't take it out unkindly. Anyway, I meet with one brother weekly who happens to be an oec, and we discuss spiritual matters with each other - to help each other. He is open to yec, but it seems only if science points that way (hmm, why?). Anyway, we continue to meet weekly and are still brothers acting as iron sharpening iron. :) JGuy
However, I don’t think the journalistic obsession with Creationism in general and the Creation Museum in specific, has much (if anything) to do with the politics, personalities and power-plays of YEC. Articles about the Creation museum and creationist tend to be more along the lines of “can you believe how stoopid these people are”, and less “can you believe how nasty these people are”.
Agreed that creationism (and Christianity in general) will be offensive to many by nature. I was pointing out however part of the rage and resentment goes beyond the inherent offensiveness of the Gospel to the ungodly, YECs associated with the Museum have also needlessly offended some of their Christian brethren. Ken Ham's conduct didn't endear him and his Museum to certain YEC quarters and his criticism of ID hasn't endeared him to certain ID quarters. So we can't attribute all of the rage against the museum to Darwinists. Some of it is needless polemics and money grabbing by Ham himself. From Wiki: Legal Controversy AIG and CMI
A legal and personal dispute broke out between the Australian and US arms of AIG in 2005, involving claims of unethical dealing in the handling of magazine subscriptions and autocratic leadership on the part of Ken Ham. AIG, in return, accused the leaders of the Australian ministry of "spiritual problems",[2] asking, in correspondence to the Australian CEO Carl Wieland, if he had issues with immorality, and enlisting a former enemy to exhume decades-old allegations[3] of witchcraft and necrophilia against a CMI staffer (now Wieland's wife). A brief analysis of the situation is described in an account in the Reports of the National Center for Science Education.[4] In March 2006, the ministries split, and the offices in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and South Africa, "by unanimous vote of their respective Boards, rebranded" as CMI.[5] Only the US and UK offices still retain the AIG brand. A lawsuit was filed on 31 May 2007, by CMI in Supreme Court of Queensland against Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis, seeking damages and accusing "unbiblical/unethical/unlawful behaviour" in Ham's dealings with the Australian organisation.[6] CMI produces Creation Magazine and the Journal of Creation, formerly distributed by the US and UK AIG offices to their respective countries prior to the split. The Australian group maintains it was disconnected from all its American subscribers when the US office "announced on its web site (without telling us, the publishers) that it was ceasing to distribute both of these publications (and simultaneously announced its own magazine)." [7] CMI further alleges in the lawsuit that AIG misrepresented their own magazine to subscribers as a replacement of Creation. CMI is claiming $252,000(US) in damages for lost revenue by misleading and deceptive conduct in relating to lost subscriptions.[8] The case also concerns use of the trademark "Answers in Genesis" within Australia, and alleged misuse by Ken Ham of his position as a director for the Australian group to cause it detriment. Answers in Genesis has had little to say in public to these accusations, but in comments to news reporters Ken Ham dismisses them all as "totally preposterous and untrue".[6] When a Christian publication attempted a telephone interview of Ken Ham and mentioned the dispute, he hung up. When the editor of that publication attempted to meet Ham at the opening of the Creation Museum, the response was "abrupt and aggressive" and the matter was again shut down.[9] Creation Ministries had made a large collection of documents available detailing its side of the case.[10
Ok, the question is why Journalist don't like the creation museum. The easy answer is journalists hate creationism, but that's not the only reason the museum isn't universally loved. Just because I'm a creationist doesn't mean I fawn over convicted felon YEC Kent Hovind's dinosaur adventure land. I've defended (and sometimes criticized) YEC more than anyone at UD, but I most certainly don't approve of the Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker circus of some YEC promoters. YEC will do fine without a YEC amusement park, imho. That said, a really well done Noah's flood movie will get people thinking about the fossil record. Unfortunately, I'm not sure the movie in March 2014 will do the trick... scordova
If one has a pony in a race, one's opinion about the race is not to be trusted. This goes for anybody who makes a living from what they preach. This includes both religious preachers and Darwinists/atheists. The battle between YECs/Fundamentalists and atheists/Darwinists reminds me of the turf wars between narcotics cartels. Mapou
Wow. If only this involved sex and violence, instead of science and religion, we could package and sell it at the checkout counter. Rats. Am still not convinced that these outliers are the reason the Friends of Yak's Milk Butter vilify design in the universe. More at issue there. News
Here were some YECs doing their usual demonization routine:
The tragedy of the ID movement, however, is that it stops far short of honoring God’s written revelation, the Bible…. Apart from the revelation God has given to us of Himself in the Bible, everything in the universe remains a “black box.” Not even the Intelligent Design Movement can penetrate this box, because they have officially denied the Lord Jesus Christ https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/news/jesus-christ-our-intelligent-designer/
That's an example of YEC bad behavior. scordova
YEC author Jonathan Sarfati was banned from UD years ago because of his behavior. Sarfati wrote the book: Refuting Compromise I took issue with him saying, people can be mistaken, but it does not make them "compromisers" in the moral sense anymore than someone making an honest mistake. That's demonization of other people and a false accusation. DaveScot tossed Sarfati from UD for his rude authoritarian self-righteous insulting behavior. Ken Ham was banned from the home school conference for similar behaviors. It's right to call someone out for their mistake, but its wrong to accuse them as morally lax because they make honest mistakes. Regarding Ham's work, how does building an amusement park for tens of millions of dollars necessarily further the YEC or ID case? Do I want the next generation saying, "I came to accept YEC as true after visiting the YEC amusement park." Think I'm overstating my case, the Creation Museum bills itself by saying, "prepare to believe", as if an amusement park will instill lasting conviction over difficult questions.
Prepare to Believe The state-of-the-art 70,000 square foot museum brings the pages of the Bible to life, casting its characters and animals in dynamic form and placing them in familiar settings. Adam and Eve live in the Garden of Eden. Children play and dinosaurs roam near Eden’s Rivers. The serpent coils cunningly in the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Majestic murals, great masterpieces brimming with pulsating colors and details, provide a backdrop for many of the settings. http://creationmuseum.org/
As if watching a Disney movie will make you believe the characters are real. In Christendom you have people like Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker and Ted Haggard in contrast to other servants of the Lord who live far more noble lives but who are in virtual obscurity. YEC has its Jim and Tammy Faye's too, and one of them is in federal penitentiary... scordova
Sal, Huffington Post title linked: "Ken Ham Banned From Convention Over 'Ungodly And Mean-Spirited' Remarks" ...ouch! that's harsh, let's read more... (from the HP page links to--->) Article titled: "Founder of Creation Museum banned from convention" http://www.kentucky.com/2011/03/24/1682122/founder-of-creation-museum-banned.html Hmmm... less severe title. My question is... What did Ham actually say that was so ungodly & mean that it got him banned? Is it anything like this which was linked from that article: http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2011/03/25/listen-to-this/ Ifso, that amounts to him saying "so-and-so is compromising scripture". Not anything new from Ham (if you read any of his blogs), but more importantly, I don't think anyone should call that particularly mean or ungodly. If anything, he's sticking with the plain interpretation of scripture the way he believes God has clearly communicated it. My end point isn't about that, it's about linking to Huffington Post's heavily claims when the facts aren't actually bad... People reading the title preceded with "dirty laundry" often aren't willing to follow up and instead read the title and ignore actual facts. This can spread unjustified level of discontent with certain Christians from an arguably trivial point. JGuy
Sal, You're opening comes off as arguably a broad characterization of those that believe the earth is young. Seems pretty unfair to characterize yec as an unkind 'lot'. Correct my interpretation of your point if needed. BTW:Wiki regarding the Huffington Post: "The Huffington Post was launched on May 9, 2005, as a liberal/left commentary outlet and alternative to news aggregators such as the Drudge Report." I'm not very confident they would be collating the most favorable pieces on Christians. Much-less where the Christians views are unpopular with the world. When should we ever want to spread arguably trivial "dirty laundry" about people? That's different than criticizing theology, worldviews or one's methods of science. JGuy
Sal, I'm going to have to agree/disagree with you. First, I agree that (unfortunately) many high-profile YEC'ers have not behaved very well. Like the stereotypical philandering evangelist, I chalk some of it up to the type-A personality types involved. Entrepreneurs like Ken Ham tend to be hard-charging, passionate, true-believers that accomplish great deeds, and sometimes commit great mis-deeds. I will say, anecdotally, that my experience has been quite different than yours - I've found YEC'ers to be quite collegial, and I've yet to personally meet a person with a strong positive opinion of evolutionary theory who I would like to spend much time with. (Many UD commenters are exceptions to this, of course). However, I don't think the journalistic obsession with Creationism in general and the Creation Museum in specific, has much (if anything) to do with the politics, personalities and power-plays of YEC. Articles about the Creation museum and creationist tend to be more along the lines of "can you believe how stoopid these people are", and less "can you believe how nasty these people are". In support of my belief, I will refer you to the other groups of people who journalists also tend to ridicule - global warming "deniers", pro-life demonstrators, IDists, Christians in general, etc. While you may feel that some of these groups bring it on themselves, I rather believe that everyone basically is drawing from the same gene-pool, and the mix of good and bad in any given group larger than a PTA meeting is going to be rather consistent across belief systems. Journalists will find reasons to attack what they do not like, regardless of the behavior of the people who hold that belief. Lastly - given your view of the need to be more "loving and tolerant and open minded and empathetic", your posts airing YEC dirty laundry hold a certain amount of irony, don't you think? ;-) drc466
To get a picture of the occasional circus in YEC activism, from the CMI website:
From: Creation Ministries International (Australia) – formerly Answers in Genesis (Australia), previously Creation Science Foundation. April 2006 [See footnote re modifications made late May 2010] Nearly 20 years ago, our ministry prepared a detailed information pack, one which for many years now we did not think we would have much use for again. The contents of that pack are now in the form of two readable (or downloadable) pdfs, about 2.7 megabytes each. 1.The full text of the booklet Salem Revisited by Margaret Buchanan 2.The remainder of the documentation The pack was originally prepared in response to the aftermath of a horrific attack (February, 1987) on our ministry (then called Creation Science Foundation) by Mr Mackay. The mechanism of attack involved a monstrous series of allegations without evidence—the basis was alleged ‘spiritual discernment’, involving ‘black cats’ and similar. These slanderous allegations concerned Margaret Buchanan, at the time a well-regarded Christian widow working for the ministry as Ken Ham’s personal secretary. John said she had been ‘specially sent by Satan’ to undermine him and the ministry, involved in covens, attending séances, etc.—never was there any eyewitness testimony or other evidence, merely ‘discernment’. When his attempt to sack her and take over the ministry failed, due to the Board’s refusal to violate biblical principle, Mr Mackay resigned. This was followed by a campaign of widespread innuendo and slander, involving actual fabrications which if accepted would tend to bolster his claim of ‘demonic infiltration’ of our ministry and thus would tend to undermine public confidence in our ministry. This included the bizarre and incredibly offensive claim thatMargaret had claimed to have had post-mortem intercourse with her late husband (!).1 Sadly, these horrific sins have never been repented of, nor forgiveness sought, nor restitution offered—despite a Baptist church excommunicating Mr Mackay and urging people to respect this decision in the Lord. [IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION NOTE, ADDED 2013, RE EXCOMMUNICATION: The excommunication letter featured in the compilation herein (No. 2 above, pp. 31–34) was issued by the then Redlands Baptist Church. Years later, this dissolved and some time after that a new church formed under the same name. Of course, this is a totally different body, and so does not have any record of John Mackay being excommunicated, hence enabling a cunning campaign of claiming that "CMI is spreading the devil's lies—check for yourself that Redlands Baptist Church has no record of excommunication of John Mackay!". To this date of July 2013 there has not been the slightest indication of any repentance, either towards the ministry or the church or any other victim. Offers of meeting have never been withdrawn by CMI.] When Ken Ham left ICR in about 1996, the rumour mill from this source again swung into action; the story this time was that Margaret was to blame for this ‘split’, somehow using demonic ‘powers’ to damage another creation ministry. Again, the real ‘target’ of the rumours was clearly public confidence in our ministry; if it could be undermined, it would be more likely to leave the Australian ‘creation public’ diverting the support in other directions. It might also be seen as a ‘vindication’ of the original offensive actions. Currently, the issue has surfaced again in the context of the recent tensions between the Australian ministry and AiG-USA, with John Mackay’s newsletter suddenly urging supporters to pray for the ‘attack’ the US ministry is allegedly under. In fact, it appears that new alliances are being forged, and talk of ‘reconciliation’ is being used to rehabilitate Mr Mackay in creationist circles—again the aim appears to be to undermine the Australian ministry, only from a different angle. Reconciliation is a wonderful and most desirable thing, but can never occur except on a biblical basis; the original slander must be withdrawn, and there must be a repentance and forgiveness sought from the main victim, Margaret, for a start. No one likes to keep things alive that are best forgotten, but to cover up serious sin or attempt to sweep it under the carpet can never earn God’s approval. There is a cost to taking a strong stand in defence of truth and integrity, not the least being that it can easily be misrepresented. However, we will quietly but persistently maintain our stand, especially as the ugly stain of these rumours is encouraged to resurface to once again undermine the ministry—until and unless these seriously sinful actions are dealt with under the cross, not whitewashed for ‘political’ convenience or excused on the basis of any ‘personalities’ involved. Anything less would not only dishonour God, it would ultimately be running away from our responsibility of Christian love to the perpetrator himself.
The Creation Museum isn't part of a scholarly scientific enterprise, it's almost pure hype. I'd say the best part of the Museum are the scholars like Danny Faulkner who work there... The real advancement of YEC isn't by Ken Ham, but by people like Ariel Roth, Mark Armitage, Hugh Miller, John Sanford, etc. scordova
Part of it is YECs themselves, the leaderships harbors some of the nastiest people I've ever met in Christendom. I accept YEC surely not because they are the most loving and tolerant and open minded and empathetic lot in Christendom (they are not). PS Why do you think, though I'm a YEC I hang out in ID and even atheist circles? The atmosphere is much more collegial and respectful of diverse philosophical viewpoints and doubts and questions can be raised without fear of being labeled a heretic. Here is some dirty laundry http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/24/ken-ham-banned-from-conve_n_840084.html
Ken Ham banned from Home School Conference The Lexington Herald-Leader: Ken Ham, the man behind the Creation Museum and the future Ark Encounter amusement park, has been disinvited from a homeschool convention in Cincinnati next week because he made "ungodly, and mean-spirited" comments about another speaker, according to the convention's organizers.
It's true some one as mild mannered and nice as Michael Behe is hated, but YEC leadership make themselves sometime unnecessarily odious. In prior years, there was a lot of shoddy science and dogmatism. Thankfully that has changed, there has been slowly a cultural change to openness and welcoming of difficult questions and doubts and dissent. A good example was the YEC Baraminology Study group which welcomed evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg and philosopher of biology Stephen Meyer. Sternberg, who was not even at the time and ID proponent was allowed to be a reviewer and editor of YEC publications. That was huge that YECs were actively welcoming secular review! But, there is still stratification in the YEC community. You have the activists (like Ken Ham) and then you have the true scholars like John Sanford, John Hartnett, Danny Faulkner, Russ Humphreys, Marcus Ross, David Dewitt, Robert Carter, Paul Nelson etc. More Dirty laundry: Trouble in Paradise
As of 2004, the US market for creationism was at least $22 million — as measured by adding up donations to and purchases of products and services from ten of the largest creationist groups. Of that amount, Answers in Genesis accounted for 59%, making it clearly the dominant player in US creationism (Lippard 2007). But in October 2005, Answers in Genesis (AiG) suffered a schism. This became public at the end of February 2006, when the groups in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and South Africa that had operated under the AiG name rebranded as Creation Ministries International (CMI), while the US and UK groups continued as AiG. (As the naming gets complicated, I will refer to the different countries' groups as AiG–US, AiG–UK, and AiG–Australia to distinguish them from the overall AiG organization prior to the split.) .... the causes of the split have now become known — revealing Machiavellian maneuvering by Ken Ham and AiG–US as they fought measures to distribute power and add accountability (successfully), attempted to seize the assets of AiG–Australia (partly successfully), and tried to gain complete control of AiG–Australia (unsuccessfully). These documents also reveal surprising details of the Australian group's 1987 split with co-founder John Mackay, which include accusations of demonic possession and necrophilia. ....
and more http://lippard.blogspot.com/2006/11/more-from-behind-scenes-of.html
Unfortunately, a number of people have contacted us just now, saying they have received a brief email from AiG-USA's chairman [Ken Ham] (which we have seen) that casts serious slurs against our ministry. In effect, it engages in widespread public slander. The email alleges that we have engaged in 'unbiblical' and 'factious' behaviour (a word applied in the NT to those who introduce doctrines contrary to the Gospel, and translated as 'heretic' in the KJV). This is an immensely serious and damaging allegation against an evangelical ministry and one that has not been substantiated, and is totally without foundation; our ministry's doctrine has not changed one iota, either in word or in practice. The email also hints darkly at a 'spiritual problem' as a justification for their breaking off discussions with us. It also refers to a letter the AiG-Board sent us on November 1 to that effect, saying that that letter is available to enquirers upon request. That letter was essentially an expansion of their shorter email; it repeatedly affirmed their own righteousness, and that they were breaking off negotiations until we resolved our 'spiritual problems'. These 'problems' are not specified, which darkens the innuendo ('What? Who?'). Dismayed by this turn of events, we prepared a detailed response that was emailed to each of the Directors on AiG-USA's Board, on 15 November 2006. It outlined and clarified the issues in detail. In it we also pleaded for AiG to urgently withdraw from this action, giving them three days to respond-i.e. to contact us, to make some move to draw back from this abyss, to avoid us making our response public. We have received no response or acknowledgement from AiG, even to this date, some six days later. Worldwide libel distribution The same AiG email defaming our ministry has also been sent out by an Australian creationist running his own ministry, who had split with Ken Ham in 1986 (this man had been excommunicated by an Australian church, a still unresolved issue-see www.CreationOnTheWeb.com/mackay for Ken Ham's own words about the seriousness of these actions against our ministry and an individual at that time). So this defamation has been sent to a substantial worldwide email mailing list, which would include overlap with many of our own supporters. This AiG email was clearly sent to that 'distribution source' by AiG; the covering comments state that 'Ken Ham advises', and refer to AiG's permission for the recipient to spread it still further. (The aim appears to be to encourage as many people as possible to lose confidence in our ministry, and of course AiG will have a commercial 'bonus' in that the more that are encouraged to 'enquire', the more email addresses they will have, making it easier to further undermine CMI ministry in this country.) We deeply regret that AiG/Ken Ham have seen fit to engage in this most serious escalation. Even in the face of this defamation, our overwhelming preference would have been to have had AiG respond to our urgent letter, to continue talks in openness and light as the Scriptures enjoin us to do rather than for us to have to publically stand against the libel [by Ham]. In the absence of any evidence of remorse or willingness to undo this most recent and grave public attempt to damage us, we solemnly, before the Lord, believe we now have no choice but to protect the public reputation of the ministry organisation that has been entrusted to us, in as dignified and God-honoring a way as we can. So we have chosen in the first instance to provide, within this email, a website link (below) to the full text of our formal 15 November response to AiG, which should substantially clarify CMI's position. Of course, we do not know who all the many folk to whom AiG's defamatory comments have been emailed are, or how many times it has multiplied on the internet. So we are sending this email you are reading to the following: 1) To any who actually enquire of us. 2) To our corporation's members (an outer layer of protection which holds the directors accountable), our staff and our volunteer workers/speakers, local reps, etc. 3) To the management of our four national affiliates (CMI offices in Canada, NZ, US and South Africa, as well as affiliates in the UK) for providing to their staff, so that they will be able to answer these allegations as they inevitably spread. Sadly, some mud always sticks, especially when it comes from a 'big name'. 4) To those we know of who are involved in creation outreach of any sort, since we are aware that at least some of these have been targeted with this AiG email and previous ones. 5) To any (including those within AiG itself) that we have reason to believe have been contacted by AiG with similar intent and have likely received similarly misleading statements and views. The link Our letter of response to AiG is reproduced at this link on our site, www.CreationOnTheWeb.com/dispute If you did not receive the AiG email, we ask for your compassionate understanding of the dilemma we were facing; we know from those who have already contacted us that it went out widely to creationists, but do not know exactly who did and didn't receive it. This sorry development will bring shame on the Name of our Lord and Saviour, and give cause for the enemies of God to gloat. Would you please consider committing these matters, which also have the potential do damage to creation ministry in general (even more than has already occurred), to prayer. Yours very sincerely in Christ, The Board of Creation Ministries International Ltd. (Australia) Mr. Kerry Boettcher (Chairman) Mrs. Carolyn McPherson (Vice-Chairman) Dr. Carl Wieland, M.B., B.S. (Managing Director) Dr. Dave Christie, B.Com, M.Admin, Ph.D., FAICD, FIMC (Director) Mr. Fang, Chang Sha B.Sc (hons), M.Sc. (Director) Rev. Dr. Don Hardgrave, B.D, M.A., D.B.S., Dip. Theol, Dip. R.E. (Director)
Many of the documents involved have been removed from the web and the dirty laundry has been somewhat washed over time. My jaw sometimes drops at the shouting matches that were witnessed in the 2008 ICC conference. ICC 2013 was much more ID like in their cooperation with each other. scordova

Leave a Reply