The people that do trek to the Ark will view it as a life-changing experience, because it validates the way they already look at the world. It’s a matter of how many people make the trek. I’m not nearly as pessimistic about the movement as you are. The Creation Museum is still very popular.
1 Like
Wow. What a contrast.
Rev. Vander Zee has captured the delight that God takes in His creation beautifully. He builds faith. He highlights the hand of God at work right throughout the history of the universe. He presents it in a way that leaves you lost in wonder, love and praise. He points you straight to the Saviour, Jesus Christ.
The creation.com article, by contrast, reads like something straight out of the mouths of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.
Thanks, @johnZ, for not thinking of all of us as Satan or the Serpent despite the disagreements that we will continue to have. By your very presence here you show some moderation that is becoming all too rare. Creation.com promoters it would seem have managed to work themselves up to quite a froth on this and I think Biologos folks should take care not to get drawn into any reciprocal behavior of that sort, other than to note ‘over-the-top’ claims where they are found.
They [authors at creation.com in the article discussed] accused Biologos of many things, some of which I was curious about. But as I was attempting to investigate, I discovered something interesting about their links. When they would state that Biologos says ‘such-and-such’ (an active link on their site), the link would never lead to the Biologos site where ‘such-and-such’ was allegedly promoted. The link always went to another Creation.com page with their elaboration on how ‘such-and-such’ should be understood. Is it standard practice on creation.com to always stay inwardly focused and never refer to any ‘unfriendly’ sources even to help make their case? I had no idea they lived in such fear of any/all inquisitive exploration.
2 Likes
God is bigger
Your vehemence and sarcasm belies your attempt at objective response, Old Guy. You can’t use ISIS as refreshing, because you don’t believe it. I can use challenges to evolution as refreshing, because I believe it, and because evolution, like ISIS, has at its root, a philosophical and religious antagonism towards Christian faith. Even though there are moslims who do not attack Christians, and even though there are evolutionists who do not attack Christianity, the fundamentals of evolution and of Islam, are antagonistic towards some basic principles of Christianity. Evolutionism is an attempt to remove God from the equation, and ISIS is an attempt to make Mohammed superior to Christ.
If you were not antagonistic, you would be able to decipher a reason. If humans descended from a common ancestor, then it would make sense that the ancestor would have a variety of genetic characteristics. In the case of color, we would expect an intermediate color which would allow the future segregation of races. Whether this is entirely accurate logically or not, it is not an unnatural presumption. Your assumption that the people of Africa have never changed since the beginning of humanity is not more reasonable.
Many creationists could and did say that Nye won the debate, but also said that their debate did not convince them to change their mind, because Ham simply did not respond with some well known rebuttals. In many other cases, creationists have clearly won debates, and Ken Ham is not the most knowledgeable creationist by a great margin. If evolutionists hang everything on one debate, they are perhaps a bit too gleeful.
This again reveals an ignorance of the argument. There are many many kinds of animals that did not need to be on the ark, eg. fish, bacteria, insects, whales, dolphins, etc. Nor did plants have a requirement to be on the ark.
As for what Ken Ham does with the ark… of what relevance is this? Is this some kind of covetous envy thing for you? Having seen the 1/3 scale ark in Europe a few years ago, I found the experience beneficial, to give some perspective of what the ark might have resembled. The full size models both in Europe or on Ken Ham’s farm are hurting no one, even if they are not exact in every detail.
Is it important to you to rebuff or quantify these statistical claims? why? Do you have numbers that would likely invalidate their claims? I think the point is that they have lots of science PhDs, and are unaware of a christian organization that has more, although perhaps they are not including some christian colleges in the group of organizations.
This is like saying that the USA created ISIS, which believe it or not, is a conspiracy claim by some. In fact, YEC ministries do respond to evolutionists, and also to TE, because these exist. YEC do not create them. In fact, it is as much in reverse, that biologos and similar organizations are a response to YEC. Claims like this are diversionary, speculative, emotional, and attitudinal. The real situation is obvious, and the disputes and discussions are real. (Fear-ist - now there is a word 
Every site has their own policy regarding links, Merv. But the only link I found on Lita Cosner’s article with reference to biologos had in its first paragraph this: On their website’s front page, BioLogos has two articles to coincide with the start of the school year in the US. Many parents are sending their children off to school and university, and many Christians are worried about the effects of evolutionary teaching on their children’s faith.
The first article seems aimed more at parents. ‘Allaying Parental Fears about Evolution Education in the Public Schools’ is a narrative about a conversation between the author and a concerned parent whose child was learning evolution in public school. The author ended up convincing both parents that evolution and Christianity were compatible, and even better (in their view), the parents became ‘evolutionary evangelists’, spreading their newfound view in their church.
This may not be a link, but it certainly references the article and gives the title.
They explain their response: Lest you think this is too harsh, it might be worth reading our initial report on Biologos called Evolutionary syncretism: a critique of Biologos, but just to summarize a few points:
The Apostle Paul (and the other apostles) was wrong when it came to Genesis.
Jesus was similarly wrong.
Biologos’ founder Frances Collins claims that modern genetics proves that Adam and Eve were not real historical people (again, this compounds the implication that Jesus and the NT authors were wrong).
As we said in that article:
“But BioLogos’s consistent syncretism goes beyond the “blessed inconsistency” which we believe enables a person to be a Christian evolutionist.
I realize that biologos would disagree with this, and would say the statements are incomplete, or reveal an incomplete understanding of what biologos is trying to say. But picking on the fact of whether one site or the other provides links or not seems rather beside the point.
But those people aren’t enough to carry the ongoing costs of operation. First, to be a “success”, the tourist attraction needs to do more than preach to the choir (although, admittedly, it is vital to keep them happy and onboard.) Secondly, as an outreach, it must appeal to the curious, those who might not have given a lot of thought to the topic but are open to seeing for themselves. Long-term, that group has to be visiting in generous numbers or the economics fail.
My pessimism is based on conversations I’ve had with demographers who do that sort of analysis. They claim that the Creation Museum is already dependent upon AIG’s general fund for its survival. They say that many of the “faithful” have already been to the Creation Museum and have no reason to return. Not all of them will even see sufficient reason to visit the Ark Park because of the obvious overlap in message. (Also, more and more people have told me that virtual reality and even on-line tours of various attractions take away some of the must-see appeal of such traditional point-of-destination tourism.)
I predict that the Ark Park [Yes, I know that it is the Ark Encounter or whatever. Force of habit.] will be drawing from the AIG general fund even faster. It will take a while but eventually the Ark Park will be Ken Ham’s “Heritage USA”. I’m not saying he will oversell lifetime partnerships. I’m saying that massively expensive, ego-driven monuments always overbuild. (Just look at Ham’s plans for the next phases of the Ark Encounter.) And unlike an Epcot Center or Disneyland (which have much much greater geographical advantages), return-rates to a Creation Museum and Ark Encounter are an entirely different animal.
Yet, what few talk about is the next generation virtual reality technologies which are going to render expensive facilities largely irrelevant and blasse. Indeed, I fully expect virtual reality franchises to start appearing soon at the major tourist destinations, so that everywhere one finds a traditional Ripley’s Believe it Or Not “museum”, there will be some sort of 3D virtual reality “Planet Everywhere” (or whatever the name will be) where one will pay a reasonable admission fee to enter a “chamber” (both for individuals and entire families) and visit a series of ever changing destinations which will make another visit in the offing when one vacations there again three year’s later. This summer it might be “The World of Julius Caesar” (perhaps with commercial tie-in to the HBO movie based on the series ROME) and “Voyage to America with the Pilgrims” and next summer it might be “The Age of Discovery” and “The Voyage of Noah”. Why build huge facilities when a modest retail space near the City Aquarium and Science & Industry Museum can offer far more interaction and more amazing sights? I predict that in another ten to twenty years, a lot of big scale tourist attractions will prove to be very poor return-on-the-dollar investments. (Within seven years, Ham will be scrambling to cover operational costs and needing larger and larger subsidies from the AIG general fund. However, I’ll grant that the huge boost from his local city and county guarantees which made his construction possible have taken him further than I would ever have thought possible.)
I just don’t think the numbers can pan out long-term. Survival will depend on enormous general fund subsidies. Therefore, any funding for actual scientific research—as in his much publicized and then forgotten Baraminology Project—will continue to be postponed. One might expect that the Ark Encounter would include some sort of determination/compilation of the specific “baramins” of animals which were on the ark (and subject to Ham’s brand of hyper-evolution diversifying them sufficiently in the 200 years after the flood as he claims), but unlike a real science museum, there won’t be any “discoveries” of this sort by museum or “flood geology” staff. Ham hopes that by telling the public that only NEPHESH animals were on the ark, this will somehow shrink the ark population to manageable proportions. But if he ever actually quantified any of this, sharper visitors might even pull out their cell phone calculator apps and start figuring out square-feet-per-baramin stats.
Yes, it is possible that Ham will know when to stop his expansion and stay within the demographic boundaries of reality. But I doubt that his personality will allow for this. Many have learned far too late that there can be a very fine and difficult line-to-see between “faith” and hubris. I predict that Ham will overbuild. As with most ministries of AIG’s type, there’s nobody on his Board of Directors in a likely position and inclination to try and keep his feet planted on the ground. I have a lifetime of experience watching such ships hit their icebergs—even when they are spotted from many miles away. (Unfortunately, I’ve sometimes even watched from the deck as it happened.)
It appears to me also that with the Ark Park, Ham has jumped a "kind " of shark.
1 Like
wut.
A hominid at a point in the evolutionary timeline before the imago dei. Evidently the author felt the depiction could be construed to mean “black people don’t have souls.” Or something.
True enough [that my point may be beside whatever points are broiling all around this article and the reactions.] But I still note with sadness how attacked and besieged so many U.S. Christians must be feeling to lock themselves so firmly behind high walls. When the fortress/warfare mentality takes over and fear casts out love, then truth (and the pursuit thereof) becomes the first casualty. I know that in a spiritual sense there is warfare, the legitimate warfare against the principalities and powers that Paul speaks of, the warfare that does not use the weapons of this world. When people isolate themselves with such totality (far beyond the normal prudence of simply steering clear of spiritual junk-food) it is never a good sign for where they are headed.
I worship with, and highly respect many people who would probably line up more with your views than with mine, John. And I do see in them so much Spiritual fruit (even as they interact with me – some of them knowing I don’t come out where they do on some of these issues); but none of that is apparent in this particular reactionary article. In all fairness, personal relationships are a different venue than web sites and blog world where tones and shrillness so easily spiral out of control.
Still, for the creation.com site’s sake, I hope and trust that it does better toward engaging the culture in others of its venues. If this article is representative, then the site receives more honor from your association and defense of it than it reciprocates back to you. Work on them. Get them to take their eyes off themselves and look around for a bit like Paul did at Mars Hill – even finding praiseworthy points of connection. What’s the worst that could happen?
Hmm. (Scratch that last question. No Christian should eagerly ask that while standing in the shadow of the cross.)
Here’s another of those tactical “somethings”
CMI’s Facebook pages keep revisiting the idea that the public must be constantly reminded that Darwin’s famous book had the full title On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured RACES in the Struggle for Life.
No matter how many times they are reminded that the word races in the title refers to varieties of organisms and Darwin’s book said nothing about Caucasians versus anybody else, the word race is considered invaluable propaganda gold. Too good to give up.
It is much like the claim that Hitler loved Darwin and the Theory of Evolution. The fact that there is zero evidence that Hitler knew much about Darwin’s theory and the fact that all of Darwin’s books (and evolution textbooks in general) were on the Nazi’s banned book list, the propaganda is just too useful to give up.
I have so many atheist colleagues and friends who know Young Earth Creationist ministries not for their theologies but for their reputation for telling these false stories and fictional factoids. So they have often asked me, “Why are so many Christian ministries willing to tell deliberate lies?” They refuse to attribute these tactics to ignorance. They assume the tactics are just deliberate pathological lying.
These kinds of behavior are tremendously damaging to the Great Commission.
I have no words.
You aren’t supposed to think about it very hard. Just let the truthiness sink in.
3 Likes
Good points, Merv.
I saw it the other day. I felt depressed.
I looked at other articles on Creation.com by the same author. She seems very very angry. And she seems to want everybody else to be just as angry at the Christian she condemns. (Perhaps she even thinks them not Christians at all.) I noticed a lot of twisting of words.
I assume the original author meant “This only true God does not ONLY exist in our time and space…” Perhaps it could have been better stated. But to say that this is deism and a creator who is “removed from his creation” doesn’t seem to grasp deism at all.
When I look at the many anti-Biologos articles by that angry author at Creation.com, I felt it was more vendetta than honest reflection. She seemed to ignore the many beliefs shared in common. There is an attitude at Creation.com and its Facebook pages that seems driven by bitterness, even before they started focusing on Biologos.
I recently read an article about CMI bragging that they employ “more PhD scientists than any other Christian organization”. Yet, that boast is never quantified. I would think that there are Christian universities which employer more scientists. Or does Creation.com define “Christian organization” so narrowly that CMI easily “wins” the competition.
It just doesn’t feel like an elevated platform for producing a favorable impression from readers.
Let’s face it: That applies to virtually everything one sees on some websites!
(Indeed, that explains why they tend to have such an aversion to clickable links. It is rather difficult NOT to notice what so many have observed. I think some risk going overboard when they call such ministry websites indicative of “cults”. But it is hard to miss the similarities in some of the cult-like tactics, including the fears of exposing their readers to anything educational.)
Unfortunately, I can only say I am ALMOST shocked at the creation.com response. It is consistent with their character to ignore the message and instead, tenaciously focus on trivial and inconsequential items to “rally the troops” against the evils of the heretical Evolutionary Creationists.
1 Like
I’ve had AIG fans explain the racism to me this way: “If we assume that we descended from Africans with dark skin, that requires that they were LESS EVOLVED than we are. So that is an obviously racist statement of white superiority!”
I know that that will provoke laughter but millions of people assume the Theory of Evolution is about a Scala Natura and all that came before was inferior to what came later.
Of course, it never occurs to them that by their logic, today’s Africans would thereby be “parallel” in time and therefore equal in “degree of evolution.” (I know: I shouldn’t try to make any sense out of the senseless.)
On the other hand, another YEC website explained that “If evolution is true, all humans evolved on different branches of the tree of life and therefore differences mean that some will be superior and others would be inferior.” Hmmm. I asked him if the differences between him and his wife had established who was superior and who was inferior but I didn’t get an answer.
With those who are content with such thinking, I don’t think there is much thought beyond the current argument. That is because in their “home team environment”, they can count on everyone agreeing with them. As a result, I’ve seen the most absurd things accepted by audiences without critical thought. (After all, “Judge not lest ye be judged.”)
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.