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)

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
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.

Comments
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
February 25, 2014
February
02
Feb
25
25
2014
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT
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
February 25, 2014
February
02
Feb
25
25
2014
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT
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/
scordova
February 25, 2014
February
02
Feb
25
25
2014
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT
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
February 25, 2014
February
02
Feb
25
25
2014
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT
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.
JGuy
February 25, 2014
February
02
Feb
25
25
2014
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT
lifespy
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
February 25, 2014
February
02
Feb
25
25
2014
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
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
February 25, 2014
February
02
Feb
25
25
2014
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT
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.htmlscordova
February 25, 2014
February
02
Feb
25
25
2014
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT
Sal
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
February 25, 2014
February
02
Feb
25
25
2014
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT
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
February 25, 2014
February
02
Feb
25
25
2014
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT
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
February 24, 2014
February
02
Feb
24
24
2014
09:53 PM
9
09
53
PM
PDT
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
February 24, 2014
February
02
Feb
24
24
2014
09:47 PM
9
09
47
PM
PDT
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. -QQuerius
February 24, 2014
February
02
Feb
24
24
2014
06:52 PM
6
06
52
PM
PDT
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
February 24, 2014
February
02
Feb
24
24
2014
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT
Sal
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/compromiseJGuy
February 24, 2014
February
02
Feb
24
24
2014
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT
Ken Ham is a con artist, IMO. Sorry to offend but I just had to say it.Mapou
February 24, 2014
February
02
Feb
24
24
2014
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT
. . . 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
February 24, 2014
February
02
Feb
24
24
2014
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT
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
February 24, 2014
February
02
Feb
24
24
2014
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT
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
February 24, 2014
February
02
Feb
24
24
2014
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT
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
February 24, 2014
February
02
Feb
24
24
2014
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT
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
February 24, 2014
February
02
Feb
24
24
2014
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT
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
February 24, 2014
February
02
Feb
24
24
2014
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT
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
February 24, 2014
February
02
Feb
24
24
2014
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT
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
February 24, 2014
February
02
Feb
24
24
2014
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT
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
February 24, 2014
February
02
Feb
24
24
2014
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT
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
February 24, 2014
February
02
Feb
24
24
2014
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT
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://uncommondescent.com/news/jesus-christ-our-intelligent-designer/
That's an example of YEC bad behavior.scordova
February 24, 2014
February
02
Feb
24
24
2014
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT
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
February 24, 2014
February
02
Feb
24
24
2014
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT
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
February 24, 2014
February
02
Feb
24
24
2014
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT
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
February 24, 2014
February
02
Feb
24
24
2014
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply