Ham's Creation Museum

[Jase]

No I don't find that dishonest, my own personal experiences back that up. Does that mean that everyone who doesn't accept Genesis as truth will become a homosexual, want an abortion, surf for pornography, etc., obviously no. It does however, I believe, make people more susceptible to doing those things. I personally believe think the association is fair and is born out when you look at society.

Until you look at the fact that the most fundamentalist Christian nation in the world probably commits just as much if not more sins than other societies... There goes your theory.

 

[KerrMetric]

Funny, I have some personal experience where the first 3 girls knocked up in a certain high school were Baptist pastor daughters. That Southern Baptist upbringing seems highly correlated with underage intercourse in Johnson County Missouri.

 

[Gwenyfur]

LOL Howdy Neighbor, I'm in Jackson County MO

 

[£amb]

Well, Ham's Creation Museum is open this weekend.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/arts/24crea.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

What are people's thoughts on this?

My father is interested in seeing it. So, I'll be taking him there so he can check it out.

 

[crawfish]

No I don't find that dishonest, my own personal experiences back that up. Does that mean that everyone who doesn't accept Genesis as truth will become a homosexual, want an abortion, surf for pornography, etc., obviously no. It does however, I believe, make people more susceptible to doing those things. I personally believe think the association is fair and is born out when you look at society.

I see the absolute opposite. Some people who have deep, sinful desires often try and use orthodox religion as a method of suppressing those desires. The stronger those inner lusts, the stricter their outward religion will be. When the inevitable happens - inevitable because rather than trusting in God and admitting publicly of their sinful nature to receive help, they push it down and try to hide it - they end up leading a secret life of trying to satisfy those lusts. Then they get caught.

I think this view is more than held up in light of the many pedophile priests, Pastor Ted, Jimmy Swaggart, and tons of others.

People who are confident in the forgiving nature of God are often less orthodox and more likely to make public their own personal sinful natures.

 

[Galle]

Knowing what I know about people, I think this is an incredible way to reach them. It will show God and His creation in a very real and effective way. His glory and honor will be properly shown and His Word will be promoted.

Since when is God's glory and honor properly shown through falsehoods? Since when is God happy that we propagate such falsehoods, even if it's ostensibly in service of Him? Practically, when the people who are "reached" by AIG learn that they were reached through blatant falsehoods, what do you think will happen to their belief in God? When atheists and other non-believers see this, just what do you think they conclude regarding the accuracy of Christianity? Just what do you think they conclude regarding the morality of Christians?

 

[crawfish]

Funny, I have some personal experience where the first 3 girls knocked up in a certain high school were Baptist pastor daughters. That Southern Baptist upbringing seems highly correlated with underage intercourse in Johnson County Missouri.

Preacher's sons and daughters often rebel against the expectations that go with being in such a position. They get into more trouble precisely because they're expected to get into less; they feel they need to prove something.

 

[KerrMetric]

LOL Howdy Neighbor, I'm in Jackson County MO

LOL.

My wifes mother was a Prof. at CMSU which I now believe is called U. of Central Missouri.

The high school in question was Leeton High School in Leeton, Missouri - a few miles south of Warrensburg.

I'm in Pasadena not Missouri.

 

[Gwenyfur]

ick Leeton...that's just a spot in the road...blink you'll miss it! LOL

Got my CJ degree from CMSU way back when ...

 

[Digit]

What about those people who are turned away from Christianity because they associate it with the museum's rediculous belief that fire-breathing dragons were once real?

Hey Mallon,

I actually left this thread thinking no good could come of it if I continued to debate, yet oddly was just reading an interview with a creationist scientist, and this one area sort of jumped out at me. Have a read:

====
Where do you find your biggest opposition comes from?

My biggest opposition, by far, is from 'Christians' who have accepted theistic evolution as a compromise—'Christian' colleges and seminaries.
​

And yet they would be aware that your ministry is bearing much fruit?

We are seeing people won to Christ. I can give you example after example of universities, secular universities, where they have had us in, even paying us to come in and present creation. Overwhelmingly the audiences are large. We were at one university and a longhaired, hippie-looking young man who asked very intense questions, just 'spat' his questions out. And he came up afterwards, and with tears in his eyes pushed his way through the audience right up to the front. When I was finished, he said, 'Nobody, but nobody, has ever told me about a Creator before: thank you for coming!'
​

There are some people who also say they are talking about a creator and science, but they get very angry with ministries like yours and that of the Institute for Creation Research and Creation Science Foundation because of our strong uncompromising stand on issues like the recency of creation, the world-wide Flood and so on.

Yes—in fact there are some allegedly evangelical ministries like that of Hugh Ross which claim to use science to point to the Creator, but they accept totally the evolutionists' viewpoint of billions of years, cosmic and stellar evolution, ape-men before Adam, long ages of death and bloodshed before man and so on.
​

Yes, it is very sad, and can be confusing to Christians who do not have the full picture. The argument they sometimes use is that by taking a stand as we do on the truth of the Bible (as we would claim) one risks 'putting people off' the Gospel. Do you find that this is so?

I find the exact opposite to be true. Incidentally, on the university campuses they may not agree with us, but they expect us to take the Bible literally as true. And I found out that the secular world has very little patience for people who try to fit the Bible into the evolutionary model. They say if the evolutionary model explains everything, why add on the unnecessary hypothesis of God? You should either take a naturalistic explanation or go supernatural, but you can't have both, so they have very little respect for the compromise position.
​

====

Full article here.

Cheers!
Digit

 

[Dannager]

Hey Mallon,

I actually left this thread thinking no good could come of it if I continued to debate, yet oddly was just reading an interview with a creationist scientist, and this one area sort of jumped out at me. Have a read:

====
Where do you find your biggest opposition comes from?

My biggest opposition, by far, is from 'Christians' who have accepted theistic evolution as a compromise—'Christian' colleges and seminaries.
​

And yet they would be aware that your ministry is bearing much fruit?

We are seeing people won to Christ. I can give you example after example of universities, secular universities, where they have had us in, even paying us to come in and present creation. Overwhelmingly the audiences are large. We were at one university and a longhaired, hippie-looking young man who asked very intense questions, just 'spat' his questions out. And he came up afterwards, and with tears in his eyes pushed his way through the audience right up to the front. When I was finished, he said, 'Nobody, but nobody, has ever told me about a Creator before: thank you for coming!'
​

There are some people who also say they are talking about a creator and science, but they get very angry with ministries like yours and that of the Institute for Creation Research and Creation Science Foundation because of our strong uncompromising stand on issues like the recency of creation, the world-wide Flood and so on.

Yes—in fact there are some allegedly evangelical ministries like that of Hugh Ross which claim to use science to point to the Creator, but they accept totally the evolutionists' viewpoint of billions of years, cosmic and stellar evolution, ape-men before Adam, long ages of death and bloodshed before man and so on.
​

Yes, it is very sad, and can be confusing to Christians who do not have the full picture. The argument they sometimes use is that by taking a stand as we do on the truth of the Bible (as we would claim) one risks 'putting people off' the Gospel. Do you find that this is so?

I find the exact opposite to be true. Incidentally, on the university campuses they may not agree with us, but they expect us to take the Bible literally as true. And I found out that the secular world has very little patience for people who try to fit the Bible into the evolutionary model. They say if the evolutionary model explains everything, why add on the unnecessary hypothesis of God? You should either take a naturalistic explanation or go supernatural, but you can't have both, so they have very little respect for the compromise position.
​

====

Full article here.

Cheers!
Digit

That's strange. In all my experience I've found the complete opposite to be true in nearly every case. I've never seen a creationist asked to visit a secular university unless it was to debate a professor, I've never seen an atheist deride me for accepting evolution, and every poll and study I've seen points to young-earth creationists as being viewed as an embarrassment to the faith as a whole, and a major source of deconversion. It sounds like you get exactly what you'd expect from that interview: dishonest answers from an obviously skewed list of questions.

 

[Digit]

*blinks*

So you've never had an Atheist deride you for accepting a theory that their whole worldview is based on? Yeah, that's a real shocker right there. C'mon, that's like saying I've never been derided for believing in God by other Christians. What do you expect, a prize for that discovery?

Other than that, your post is simply disagreeing, and pressing your own unsubstantiated opinions of things. Well, unfortunately that doesn't change anything I'm afraid. On the one hand we have a recognised scientist with his own ministry, and on the other hand a limited and converse experience. I'm unconvinced.

Cheers,
Digit

 

[Dannager]

*blinks*

So you've never had an Atheist deride you for accepting a theory that their whole worldview is based on?

I haven't even encountered a mature atheist who has based their whole worldview on evolutionary theory.

Yeah, that's a real shocker right there.

Apparently the man being interviewed claims that it takes place.

And I found out that the secular world has very little patience for people who try to fit the Bible into the evolutionary model. They say if the evolutionary model explains everything, why add on the unnecessary hypothesis of God? You should either take a naturalistic explanation or go supernatural, but you can't have both, so they have very little respect for the compromise position.

Perhaps you should consider what you've just posted before making sarcastic remarks like that.

C'mon, that's like saying I've never been derided for believing in God by other Christians. What do you expect, a prize for that discovery?

Again, the interview that you posted claims that atheists do not respect theistic evolutionists for their compromise viewpoint.

Other than that, your post is simply disagreeing, and pressing your own unsubstantiated opinions of things.

From what part of "every poll and study I've seen" did you get unsubstantiated from? I can understand your fervent desire to deny that your preconceived, closely-held religious beliefs are so ridiculous to observers that they turn them off from the entire faith. It's certainly not something I would be proud of or comfortable discussing. But, unfortunately, it's the truth.

Well, unfortunately that doesn't change anything I'm afraid. On the one hand we have a recognised scientist with his own ministry, and on the other hand a limited and converse experience. I'm unconvinced.

First, my comments were based off poll and study results, not personal experience (though my personal experience certainly supports my position as well). Second, I'm not trying to convince you. I'm well aware that, as a Christian fundamentalist, it's depressingly likely that you will not allow your entrenched viewpoint to be changed regardless of the evidence against it. It's the same malaise suffered by the 31% of Americans who insist that the Bible be taken completely literally, word for word. You cannot afford to allow yourself to listen to challenge lest you be made uncomfortable by the mental conflict it causes, but the rest of the people reading this thread (any of the usually 40-70% guest population that makes up this board's readership at any given time) are often here to learn about the issue. It's the lurkers we debate for.

 

[Digit]

I haven't even encountered a mature atheist who has based their whole worldview on evolutionary theory.

Apparently the man being interviewed claims that it takes place.

He works in a ministry organisation, and therefore it's one thing to say you believe in evolution, and not be derided for it, and another to believe in theistic evolution. You specifically said...

I've never seen an atheist deride me for accepting evolution...

... you believe in evolution, and have never been derided for it by non-believers. So really, there are two points. One is it evolution or theistic evolution, and two, ministering to people, and simply telling them your viewpoint is another deal altogether. My boss was perfectly happy to hear my viewpoint, yet not so accepting or tolerant when I witnessed to him.

Perhaps you should consider what you've just posted before making sarcastic remarks like that.

Or, perhaps you should consider what you believe in and post/relate it to people correctly before trying to completely refute another's claims without any real support to do so.

Again, the interview that you posted claims that atheists do not respect theistic evolutionists for their compromise viewpoint.

Yup, and I would hasten to add that it's not a blanket statement about every single last one, it's based off of his experience.

From what part of "every poll and study I've seen" did you get unsubstantiated from?

From the part where you put a full stop after it. Lets see, when I say, "Every poll and study I've ever seen says God is alive and real." do you think that will win any Atheists over? Or, do you think they will demand to see some evidence of that fact?

I can understand your fervent desire to deny that your preconceived, closely-held religious beliefs are so ridiculous to observers that they turn them off from the entire faith. It's certainly not something I would be proud of or comfortable discussing. But, unfortunately, it's the truth.

I actually am proud of my position, and I have no issues talking about it with people. I do not declare that I know everything about it, but it does make a great deal more sense to me than any others offered, and is certainly more biblical. But you're right insofar that it's far easier to slot in a theory that's accepted by the masses, to somehow make you feel comfortable around them, whilst also proclaiming faith. If there is one thing life has taught me through experience, it's that often the path of least resistance, is the wrong one...

First, my comments were based off poll and study results, not personal experience (though my personal experience certainly supports my position as well).

May we see?

Second, I'm not trying to convince you. I'm well aware that, as a Christian fundamentalist, it's depressingly likely that you will not allow your entrenched viewpoint to be changed regardless of the evidence against it. It's the same malaise suffered by the 31% of Americans who insist that the Bible be taken completely literally, word for word.

There are some things that are presented in the Bible in such a way as to make it impossible to take it figuratively, and indeed common sense dictates that God would not inspire someone to write the Bible in such a way that only those intellectual enough could fathom it's real meaning, it's completely contradictory to the nature of the book. It's meant to be take at face value, word for word as it says it is, unless obvious. Figurative text often includes words such as, 'like', 'appeared' and so on. Or is told in a way as to illustrate a story that very clearly never took place, yet has deeper meaning.

You cannot afford to allow yourself to listen to challenge lest you be made uncomfortable by the mental conflict it causes,

Actually, my comfort level has naught to do with it, as I have rethought several things recently due to new findings. I am fallable and am well aware I can be wrong. I do not even go so far to say that I am not wrong about this, as it is quite possible that I could be. If anything, I would bounce that retort right back at you, as you seem fairly entrenched yourself. However at the end of the day, I can put forth a viewpoint that is complete and whole, satisfies the deeper questions of life and doesn't require you to be a scientist to understand.

...but the rest of the people reading this thread (any of the usually 40-70% guest population that makes up this board's readership at any given time) are often here to learn about the issue. It's the lurkers we debate for.

I find it difficult to learn when you have a rigid framework that everything must coincide with, or else it is simply labelled wrong. As you appear to have, and as you have labelled the Dr who was interviewed.

And out of interest, it's good interview practice to have the questions lead on from one to another, in a friendly and non-formal interview, as this is. If it was a debate I would say otherwise.

All the best,
Digit

 

[Dannager]

He works in a ministry organisation, and therefore it's one thing to say you believe in evolution, and not be derided for it, and another to believe in theistic evolution. You specifically said...
... you believe in evolution, and have never been derided for it by non-believers. So really, there are two points. One is it evolution or theistic evolution

There's no difference. I accept the same evolutionary theory that atheists do. I just also happen to believe in the existence of God.

and two, ministering to people, and simply telling them your viewpoint is another deal altogether. My boss was perfectly happy to hear my viewpoint, yet not so accepting or tolerant when I witnessed to him.

What does this have to do with the discussion at hand?

Or, perhaps you should consider what you believe in and post/relate it to people correctly before trying to completely refute another's claims without any real support to do so.

Again, what? You're not making a lot of sense here.

Yup, and I would hasten to add that it's not a blanket statement about every single last one, it's based off of his experience.

And my point was that his personal experience does not apply to the community as a whole (indeed, I question the veracity of his personal experience - I doubt it accurately describes his encounters with secularists over the years but rather represents a specific selection of encounters that helps him promote his viewpoint).

From the part where you put a full stop after it. Lets see, when I say, "Every poll and study I've ever seen says God is alive and real." do you think that will win any Atheists over? Or, do you think they will demand to see some evidence of that fact?

Ah, apologies then. I, clearly incorrectly, assumed that you meant my position was actually unsupported by fact rather than lacking support provided in the post.

I actually am proud of my position, and I have no issues talking about it with people. I do not declare that I know everything about it, but it does make a great deal more sense to me than any others offered, and is certainly more biblical.

It is not at all more biblical. It simply works better with a literalist interpretation of the Bible (an interpretation that, itself, is horribly flawed).

May we see?

I'm actually unsure as to how to look for the studies I have seen (most of them have been provided here at one point or another, or on IIDB and similar sites). In the process of looking, though, I found that simply Googling "reasons for deconversion" provides a bevy of testimonies for reasons people left Christianity. Very prominent among them is the disconnect between the fundamentalist view of the world around them and reality itself.

There are some things that are presented in the Bible in such a way as to make it impossible to take it figuratively, and indeed common sense dictates that God would not inspire someone to write the Bible in such a way that only those intellectual enough could fathom it's real meaning, it's completely contradictory to the nature of the book.

What? First off, the Bible can only be read by most people after it's been translated from the original text (a number of times), which requires someone (indeed, many someones) with a significant intellectual capacity. Second, intellectual strength is not required to glean the moral and spiritual messages that the Bible was given to us for. It's only the factual details that become problematic, and they are completely unimportant to the intent of the Bible.

It's meant to be take at face value, word for word as it says it is, unless obvious. Figurative text often includes words such as, 'like', 'appeared' and so on. Or is told in a way as to illustrate a story that very clearly never took place, yet has deeper meaning.

The Genesis account clearly never took place, but has a deeper meaning.

Actually, my comfort level has naught to do with it, as I have rethought several things recently due to new findings.

Your comfort level still has a lot to do with it.

I am fallable and am well aware I can be wrong.

If only it were that simple. People are very easily able to admit their own fallibility. The problem is that even these people continue to see the Bible itself as infallible, not realizing that their interpretation of it is what allows them to read it in the first place.

I do not even go so far to say that I am not wrong about this, as it is quite possible that I could be.

I'm glad that you can acknowledge that.

If anything, I would bounce that retort right back at you, as you seem fairly entrenched yourself.

On the contrary, if evidence emerged tomorrow that evolutionary theory is wrong and creationism is somehow accurate, I would switch to the supported explanation. Entrenchment applies to those who reject reality.

However at the end of the day, I can put forth a viewpoint that is complete and whole, satisfies the deeper questions of life and doesn't require you to be a scientist to understand.

Evolutionary theory doesn't require you to be a scientist to understand, and doesn't even try to answer the deeper questions of life. And no viewpoint is complete and whole which actively rejects the evidence.

I find it difficult to learn when you have a rigid framework that everything must coincide with, or else it is simply labelled wrong. As you appear to have, and as you have labelled the Dr who was interviewed.

Digit, nothing needs to coincide with evolutionary theory. There is no requirement in my mind or in any scientist's mind that it happen that way. That's just the way it is. It's a nifty little side effect of being the correct theory that the evidence you end up finding tends to fit.

And out of interest, it's good interview practice to have the questions lead on from one to another, in a friendly and non-formal interview, as this is. If it was a debate I would say otherwise.

I understand, but the "Yes, it is very sad" line in the final question just about kills any illusion of an impartial interview they might have maintained. It's one thing to lead your interviewee. It's another thing to throw him ammunition. If you're just going to agree with him on everything he says, why not just have him write the article himself?

 

[Mallon]

Hey Mallon,

I actually left this thread thinking no good could come of it if I continued to debate, yet oddly was just reading an interview with a creationist scientist, and this one area sort of jumped out at me. Have a read:

Thanks for posting that interview, Digit. Unfortunately, it saddens me for 3 reasons:
(1) This man claims to be a scientist, yet somehow manages to cram the supernatural into his very unscientific explanations.
(2) This man refers to evolutionary creationists as "Christians" (with quotes), implying that they are somehow less Christian than he. That is one of the most unChristian things you can do, and it exemplifies his feelings of self-righteousness.
(3) Converting people to Christianity with creation "science" rather than the gospel message is a sham. Jesus is the rock of our salvation, not creation "science." I fear for the faith of those people this man claims to have helped save, because if they keep digging for answers, they're likely to lose it!

 

[vossler]

I see the absolute opposite. Some people who have deep, sinful desires often try and use orthodox religion as a method of suppressing those desires. The stronger those inner lusts, the stricter their outward religion will be. When the inevitable happens - inevitable because rather than trusting in God and admitting publicly of their sinful nature to receive help, they push it down and try to hide it - they end up leading a secret life of trying to satisfy those lusts. Then they get caught.

Without a doubt much of what you say is true, but I would submit it is so because the power of the Holy Spirit doesn't reside within them and that they are false Christians, people who outwardly live for Jesus but inwardly are spiritually dead.

 

[crawfish]

(2) This man refers to evolutionary creationists as "Christians" (with quotes), implying that they are somehow less Christian than he. That is one of the most unChristian things you can do, and it exemplifies his feelings of self-righteousness.

I got that distinct feeling from vossler's posts, as well. I guess if you hold Genesis as the basis of your faith, you'd have little choice but to feel that way.

 

[The Lady Kate]

*blinks*

So you've never had an Atheist deride you for accepting a theory that their whole worldview is based on?

The theory that the Atheists, by definition, base their whole worldview on is "There is no God." I can honestly say I've never had one deride me for accepting that... mostly because I do not.

Did you have a different theory in mind? Then you don't know much about Atheism.

I've never been derided for believing in God by other Christians.

Now that does happen all the time... I'm derided by Christians who believe in Creationism because I don't believe in their God: A literal Bible.

 

[Digit]

The theory that the Atheists, by definition, base their whole worldview on is "There is no God." I can honestly say I've never had one deride me for accepting that... mostly because I do not.

Did you have a different theory in mind? Then you don't know much about Atheism.



Now that does happen all the time... I'm derided by Christians who believe in Creationism because I don't believe in their God: A literal Bible.

Atheism isn't a worldview, but a larger portion of atheists adopt Humanism, which has a great emphasis on evolution in their worldview, and not just biological evolution either. I was merely pointing out that it's no great surprise that people meet no resistance when proclaiming something that the people they are proclaiming it to, believe in.

It's like me going around telling people the world is round...

Digit