Estimated reading time: 3 minute(s)
My Dad told us a while back that he’d really like to take us to that there new Creation Museum in Kentucky, put together by the folks at Answers in Genesis. We agreed, wanting to see it ourselves, and picked today as the day we would all go check it out.
First, it was a hot day, and there were LOTS of people with the same idea as us. 🙂 It was packed! Far more than I thought it would be on a Friday morning. But perhaps this is still a holiday weekend?
We did get to see Ken Ham wandering through the lines as we were waiting to pay to get in. Didn’t get to chat, but it was kinda cool/funny seeing him around there.
The place was just really well done. It was like Disney, but for the Bible. We even watched a fun “interactive” movie where the seats vibrated and we were sprayed by water and stuff. Very cool.
Overall, I think it might have been a good thing that I didn’t get to read too many of their displays, or watch/hear too many of their video presentations at each station. I mean, I really enjoy this stuff – even enjoy the Creation science stuff… but… I’m not really a big supporter of AIG. I don’t hate them, like some people (or at least, totally eschew anything they might say just because it is they who say it) but I am definitely not an AIG fan boy. 🙂
We were thinking on the way home that Ken Ham and AIG’s stance on the “young earth only” creation model is rather like the guy (who also has a society of “guys”) who really thinks the Bible says the earth is at the center of the universe, and all else revolves around it. (Our sun included.) This dude thinks the Bible says just that, and that if we accept anything different, we’ll be throwing out everything else in the Bible too. To him geocentricity is foundational, and to AIG, 6000 years is foundational. To me, both of those ideas are putting too much emphasis on one thing, that doesn’t really affect the veracity of the whole Bible.
I might actually lean more toward a “young earth” idea, but it would not crush me to think that God created the Earth first (perhaps even “Billions of years” ago?) and then brought animals and people into the picture in the much more recent past. Or, really, any scenario that has God creating us is plausible to me. I just think the way he did it is a non-issue.
One interesting thing that I noticed – and I might make some folks mad here – is that I might now instinctively not trust Christians. There were a couple times today that I noticed that, but the first was the greeter lady. She was overly happy and friendly, which is to be expected in her position. She’s a greeter. That’s her job. But I guess I either know the behind-the-scenes, or could just hear it in her tone/voice – there is an agenda. Christians just have an agenda. They are friendly for a reason. They help for a reason. They want something from you.
It’s too bad I feel that way, but as I said, I had that impression/feeling a couple times today in Christian-land.
Overall, it was fantastic. I would go again. I would like to go again. Very impressive collection of stuff they have there. I might want to NOT go with at least our three and one year olds… 🙂 That might be a bit more conducive to actually experiencing the whole thing… 🙂
So, a big thanks to Grandpa Tom for footing the bill and taking us out to see the Creation Museum. Fun way to spend a Friday! 🙂
I’m curious as to why “the way he (sic) did it is a non-issue” with you when the Bible, specifically Genesis, goes into such specifics/details of how He did it?
-heent
Heent – actually, scripture says nothing about HOW he did it, it’s not a science textbook, it’s poetry. It doesn’t describe a mechanism, it describes intent, the “Why”, and like Greg says, that’s ultimately more important than “how.”
I don’t buy into a young-earth model at all, I think that there is too much in the way of evidence to show that the earth is more than 6000 years old. That number was only figured by a medieval pope who added together thet ages of the prophets. Also, the hebrew word for “day” is mistranslated in Genesis 1, it should be “age” (though it’s contextual, so it’s possible it means “day”). Besides, I don’t think God’s trying to fool us. He’s not the sort to go “hah, fooled you!” by way of dino bones, strata layers, red-shift, and the TONS of other things we observe in nature to show an older earth.
But again, the HOW isn’t the point, it’s the WHY, and I bet that’s a more interesting discussion anyway.
Greg – why didn’t you take the extra two hours and come visit us?! We’re in Lexington!! 🙂
Chris,
Does not the Bible say God formed man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life? Doesn’t it say He took a rib from man and made woman? Doesn’t it specify He made such and such on this day and such and such on another day (“age” if you prefer)? I find it very difficult to agree that scripture says “nothing about HOW” He did it. We may not get scientific jargon, but we definitely get a little methodology.
Also, the importance of “why” and “how” is subjective/a matter of opinion…what may be more important to you (I assume “why” from your comment) may not be more important to me.
-heent
heent – it sure does. It also says lots of other things, but you don’t read every part of scripture the same way because that’s not the way its authors intended it. For example, if you were to read John 1:36 literally, John is telling us that Jesus is actually a sheep; but we know it’s a metaphor, it alludes to a very strong symbol that we understand to mean something specific.
Likewise, Genesis 1 is written in another style, as a poem: “and it was the end of the (first/second/third) day” is a refrain over and over again, likewise is “and he saw that it was Good”. That’s a poem. Poems are not meant to be taken literally, necessarily – if you read “two roads diverged in a yellow wood” literally, you’d think “that’s odd, I don’t know any yellow forests”; it employs metaphor, artistic language.
I’m not saying I know how the earth was made, other than that God did it. But gosh, the dust of the earth sure sounds an awful lot like a metaphor for “earthy stuff” … like stardust that gave rise to planets which gave rise to organisms which gave rise to plants and animals.
Also, I’d point out that it never says “immediately” … it says God made the universe, but it never says how long it took (again, translators have mistaken “day” for “age” in ancient hebrew texts). Also, in the poem, the world is made in a strange order – plants come before the sun, and you get cryptic statements about “the deep,” which in Ancient Hebrew culture was a metaphor for “hell.” You get the same sort of stuff in the NT when Jesus is on the sea of galilee and is walking on the water “over the deep”, which is one reason the disciples are so terrified to see him. There’s more going on than just walking on water, there’s symbolism, metaphor hidden in there too.
Just to clarify – there’s lots wrong with evolutionary theory as well, please don’t mistake me for a bought-and-sold evolutionist, but … I dunno, I see lots more evidence for a very old universe that changes over time than I do for a universe that popped into existence as we see it today. God’s the sort of being that seems to enjoy working with stuff, molding it, shaping it, rather than “poof!” and it’s there. Nor do I think that all of scripture is metaphor, there are lots of things that Jesus actually said and actually did (the gospels are histories, but they’re not all in the same order, another common practice by hebrew authors, grouping stories by relevance to their central themes; only in Luke does it say he gives an “ordered account”). But I DO believe that we have to be careful how we try to read into the text what we want to see – I’ll say it now, I’m open to it if God tells me “yes Chris, I did it in 7 literal 24-hour days”, but I also think that it’s highly unlikely.
Ugh…the good, old non-literalist interpretation that leaves scripture open to mean anything and everything – “this part of the Bible is true, this part of the Bible is just poetry” (though we won’t go as far as to say “fiction”). I notice how no-one who proposes non-literal translation always says some section of scripture wasn’t meant to be “read literally,” but nobody’s willing to say “well that part’s just not true the way it was written.”
The biggest problem I find with that scriptural ideology is that it leaves religious belief open to change with time or “time-lapse hypocrisy” if you will…and most Bible-based religious groups I can think of have done it…”we don’t talk about how we interpreted that part of the Bible back then, this is what we think now” i.e. intelligent design/formerly creationism – many groups, blacks can now join the ward/formerly blacks weren’t part of God’s chosen people – LDS, Armageddon is coming in 1914 (a big old whoops) – Jehovah’s Witnesses, gays can be saved and preach/formerly “men who lie with men shall not inherit the Kingdom of God” – whoever, etc., etc., etc. That “very strong symbol [you] interpret to mean something specific” this decade, might mean something else specifc in the future.
But Chris, you didn’t get back to my arguments regarding the fact that the Bible does say more than nothing (to be taken literally or not) about how He created life when you said it doesn’t. Maybe you’re able to take the non-literal interpretation so far as to say what’s written in Genesis about how the earth/life on earth was created isn’t really even about how the earth/life on earth was created at all – it’s just a metaphor for something totally unrelated. Nor did you respond to my statement regarding which is more important – how or why – is a matter of opinion. Or maybe I shouldn’t interpret your writing literally either?
-heent (Matt)
I think I would be bored with a creation museum. Unless of course they had an interactive section that would let you create matter.
Then again museums usually bore me. I think looking at dead stuff is just not up my alley. Although, when we lived in chicago we went to the science museum and they had a JD combine inside and video games you could play. That was cool… I like video games…
Personally, I believe that God created everything “ex nihilo” from nothing. I think AIG is a bit hardcore. My beef with them is you cannot prove creationism through scientific method. It is not like you can recreate what God did in a science lab. I am not sure we will ever know “how” it happened with details to satisfy the curious among us. Maybe if campbell had paid more attention he could answer 🙂
Campbell, all that ice cream is making you soft…
Holy cow! I didn’t have any idea this post would start a great debate! Yikes!
Chris… we would have LOVED to come meet Aurora (and see you guys too…) but as you’ll notice from my first post today… we were packed full to the hilt! We didn’t even get to see/spend time with all the family we wished we could have. 🙁
Heent… I originally just meant that TO ME it is a non-issue. Perhaps it is an issue for some folks, but I really don’t care how God did it (specifically), I just know that he did make it. And, I think it’s neat that we probably know the order in which he made it… it’s the 24 hour thing that is neither here nor there for me.
That’s all. 🙂
Heeeeent…
I just read the rest of the comments. And, just for fun, I’ll add more. (Though I think you know how I feel about debate on this subject… mostly, it’s been said already.)
I said above that the “how” does not really matter to me, just that God did make it. But you’re right, the Bible does say some specific things. I do believe God made a man and then a woman just straight up like that. I don’t think that we came from a long process of micro to macro organisms over several versions and species. I think God made the basics of what is out there today. I’m sure it has “evolved” over time and adapted to various environments… but I still can’t intellectually buy macro evolution (from a single cell to a fish to a chimp to me….)
So yeah, I guess in a sense, some of the “how” is there. But Jen thought it was neat that one of the things mentioned about the 4th day (when God made the sun, moon & stars) was that they were made to help measure time. She said, “What if there was no ‘time’ before that?” Does it matter if days 1-3 were 24 hours, or millions of years? I thought that was an interesting idea.
Look… point is, no one can ever know EXACTLY how stuff came to be, whether by the Bible or by “science” (which I still don’t think are mutually exclusive)… So, I guess I just don’t “sweat it”. The AIG guys really really do. It matters a LOT to them. And that’s the part I just don’t necessarily agree with.
Oh well. That’s my two cents. I really was just commenting on the visit to the museum… not on Creationism or any other idea. 🙂
And Drkmstr… the ice cream is not making me soft… 4 tired and crazy children might be, but not the ice cream. 🙂 I challenge you to visit a museum with 4 tiny, crazy, tired children and pay any closer attention… 🙂
“I originally just meant that TO ME it is a non-issue”
Funny that you have to clarify. It’s your blog so I hope you’re writing about what things mean “to you”.
Charmagne
The only museum I’m interested in seeing the Pro Football Hall of Fame. I guess that’s kind of a museum.
I’d be interested in the creation museum if there was a Skyline next to it. I’d just use it as a landmark to find Skyline!
Yeah! We want to take the family down to see that once a bronze Thurmanator head is in there. Maybe even wait one or two more years or so to get Bruce and Andre in there too? Maybe Tasker? Maybe Scott Norwood? 🙂
There was no Skyline… the museum was in the middle of nowhere! But, Skyline is never too far away down there…
true that… I think Irisa would be a treat in a museum like that. I could picture here climbing onto a dinosaur or something if we turned away…
stick to children’s museums. we should all go to the strong museum in rochester sometime. Then dads could eat ice cream, (mom’s too) while kids play 🙂
Sounds good to me! The more ice cream the better. 🙂
The pugs would love it there.
what would be perfect is there was a skyline and a graters ice cream.
plus why are the word verification crap letters so hard to read sometimes. makes me mad
I think Ryan and drkmstr are getting a bit side-tracked here…
Thanks for keeping it light, guys. 🙂
I guess my biggest problem with the Creation Museum and AIG in general is that they’re so passionate about a story told three times in scripture (and only once is it told the way they have it … and then only kinda). They spent millions of dollars to build this museum, which by all accounts is normal for a museum, but they did it to put their view on creation out there for people to see and touch. That’s all fine, but … is it really that important? Is it so important that people believe the exact creation story (as opposed to “God did it, we’re not exactly sure how”), as opposed to spending all that money on other things … like working to eliminate poverty, working to better our environment, missionary salaries, cancer research – I can think of a TON of other uses for it.
Poverty is mentioned all the time in scripture, and while Jesus didn’t really comment much on how creation happened (he talks about the creaTOR, not the “how”), he spent lots of time telling (and showing) people about caring for the poor, the orphans, the widows, refugees, etc.
I guess, Heent, that I feel that the “why” is so much more important because scripture thinks so. I don’t think that Genesis is really a “how” – I mean, it sort of is (though “dust of the earth” is a bit vague, don’t you think?), but it just isn’t. Face it, it really is poetry, even if you want to read the poetry like an instruction manuel. I’m not saying it isn’t TRUE, just that it’s not a scientific description (which didn’t exist when the text was written anyway).
Take, for example, Jesus’ parables. We all know they’re not really events that happened, but that they’re stories with a point to them. Jesus used them to teach. But we never accuse him of lying when he told them, even though they were stories that never ACTUALLY happened. This is why it doesn’t matter if Genesis 1 is scientifically accurate or not; its writers weren’t concerned with that, they were concerned with articulating God’s brilliance as creator; they were concerned with celebrating the grandness of God’s plan for the world, not setting to account the exact way in which it was made.
By the way, I attend Asbury Seminary in KY, and several of my professors are evolutionists; evolution, for them, is a story that strengthens their faith, because in it they see at work the hands of their creator. AND – they will be the first to admit that nobody can be quite sure HOW God did it, only that He did. They’re ok with the mystery.
Chris,
Five chapters up, same book as we’ve been talking about, Genesis 6:14-16…
14″Make for yourself an ark of gopher wood; you shall make the ark with rooms, and shall cover it inside and out with pitch.
15″This is how you shall make it: the length of the ark three hundred [a]cubits, its breadth fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits.
16″You shall make a window for the ark, and finish it to a cubit from the top; and set the door of the ark in the side of it; you shall make it with lower, second, and third decks.
If that’s not a literal instruction manual, I don’t know what is. Are you going to tell me that can’t be read like a textbook? It’s very scientific…it specifies material types, it specifies units of measure…it’s hardly poetry. Why such detail in a metaphorical, poetical fable that’s not to be taken literally?
-heent
sure it is, but it’s not an account of creation. scripture wasn’t written in the divisions we have it in now, it was written in sections that we can follow if we read the text stylistically. Obviously that part of the account of Noah is specific building instructions. But yes, it’s five chapters later. The text changes flavor several times through there.
Go back and humor me. Try reading Genesis 1 as a poem, see what you think of when you read it that way instead of as instructions on how to create a universe. I’m not trying to patronize or anything, I really think you should go back and read it as poetry, see what it says that way.
by the way, heent, I never said that ALL scripture is a poem, I only said that genesis 1 is poetry. There’s lots of poetic books (read the psalms), there are prophetic books (most of Isaiah, Daniel, and Revelation, for example). Daniel is another good example of a book that’s part prophesy, part poem, and part history. Genesis is like that too.
I re-read Genesis 1 as asked. I believe Genesis 1 (my interpretation of it) is an historical account of a proposed beginning for the creation of the earth and life that dwells on it. While the subject matter may seem more poetic, the words themselves don’t seem any more poetic than a court stenographer’s record of a trial. Does it really matter if you think it’s written poetically? Does poetic style mean you shouldn’t take it literally? Regardless, Genesis 1 does not follow in the same sing-songy/poetic style of say, the Psalms.
Bottom line, you, as so many have before and will after you, are molding (interpreting) the words of the Bible to suit your beliefs and desires (e.g. As the young earth idea has been torn apart by science, Christians have desired a way to justify Genesis 1. Result: intelligent design – the theory was for practical purposes non-existent prior to the late 1980’s, suddenly we have a new idea that fits the Genesis model). I guess that makes sense given the huge component of faith that is desire.
I believe you can prove a part of a text wrong without destroying the credibility of the text as a whole. However, I believe you do destroy the credibility of a text as a whole when you state that parts of it can’t/shouldn’t be taken literally/at face value. Particularly if the author’s aren’t around for reference and the text deals with un-replicable content, no one is able to claim correct interpretation.
Actually, I spent a lot of time with this material. I was a neurobiology major before I became a religion major in college, and so I was exposed to a LOT of material on evolution. I started as a “theistic evolutionist,” but soon became convinced that it didn’t fit scripture because I was reading it like you are, as a textbook. So yeah, I was a “creationist” for a while. I can cite you all sorts of books on the subject, from both angles. There’s a lot of information out there, and some of it’s good, most of it’s crap (on both sides). But as far as I can tell, God made his creation with integrity, and that means that not only does scripture have to have integrity, but so does the planet on which we live; and if the planet is as we observe it, you can’t discount evolutionary theory entirely. As I said, it’s got its holes, but as I see it, so does most of intelligent design theory and nearly ALL so-called “creation science” whose agenda is to prove themselves right instead of figure out what is true.
I’m not saying I know the exact answer. I’m saying I’m working on it. Nailing yourself down on a particular issue that is of little consequence is probably not the best idea, there’s too much at stake. Think of using the evolutionary story to back up scripture as a “contextualization” of sorts. It’s a missiology term that means “telling the story in the language of the hearer” and it requires a lot of hard work to learn the language in question. It’s more about how the person hearing it understands things, and less about how the person telling it hears them.
But that’s ok, there are bigger fish to fry than to keep debating this.
A bar would also be good. Not sure how well that would go over in a place like that though.
I don’t think I’d dismiss Genesis 1 so quickly as just “poetry” and only symbolic. My original point was just that my entire universe does not hinge on the earth being only 6000 years old 🙂 I believe God made it, and he made it that way (what we see in Genesis 1) … but it is rather vague, and I think on purpose. It’s not central to the truth that is found in the whole of scripture. At least, not to me.
But my point was, it is for AIG, and that’s where I’m not trackin’ with them. That’s the part that makes me feel a bit squeemish. 🙂
Heent. Why don’t you come up and debate this on the court? 🙂
Doesn’t anyone want to comment on the state of free agency in professional sports these days?
🙂
26, baby. New record!
Man, if I had the vacation time, I’d be up there to bring it down on you, Scott, Jon, and any other poor soul you can dig up.
-heent
You and the missus and the c-unit have a place to stay, should the vacation time become available. 🙂
Maybe we can reach 30 comments on this post! 🙂
We seem to be stagnating so here’s my contribution.