I agree to the current Privacy Policy. You're almost done! Please follow the instructions we emailed you in order to finish subscribing. An attraction of Answers in Genesis. All rights reserved. Weather provided by OpenWeatherMap cc-by-sa. The debate was hatched after Nye appeared in an online video in that urged parents not to pass their religious-based doubts about evolution on to their children. Ham rebutted Nye's statements with his own online video and the two later agreed to share a stage.
Pseudonyms will no longer be permitted. By submitting a comment, you accept that CBC has the right to reproduce and publish that comment in whole or in part, in any manner CBC chooses. Please note that CBC does not endorse the opinions expressed in comments. Comments on this story are moderated according to our Submission Guidelines. The museum, so far, does not seem as militant as I was expecting. This exhibit does not say that creationism is the correct choice where, obviously, it must be — this is the Creation Museum , but instead seems to be trying to only allow creationism to be equal to evolution" Lynn This respectful contrast continues in a series of exhibits on fossilization and the history of life.
For example, a diagram of the "Evolution Tree" shows common ancestry for all living things, whereas the "Creation Orchard" shows diversification within a number of separately-created "kinds". Creationism is thereby presented as a legitimate alternative science rather than a non-science or anti-science perspective. This represents a simple but powerful harmony for those trying to reconcile Christian doctrine with science.
What likely escapes even the most sympathetic visitors is the modernness of the creationist theories being presented in the museum. Elsewhere I have summarized the latest historical modeling by young-earth creationists Heaton The museum presents no history of creationist thinking — only the latest conclusions of prominent young-earth model builders. For example, the old notion of special creation of species is never mentioned anywhere in the museum. Ironically, while creationists tend to disparage Charles Darwin, they have fully accepted the primary conclusion of his Origin of Species : that similar species are related and have a common ancestor.
Modern creationists simply put limits on how far evolution can go in a young-earth timeframe. This allows them to accept the undeniable evidence for microevolution while dismissing macroevolution. Only a general outline of their perspective is illustrated. Other modern efforts by creationists exhibited in the museum include Catastrophic Plate Tectonics, the rapid formation of coal, the post-Flood ice age, and the carving of the Grand Canyon by the catastrophic draining of post-Flood lakes.
Once again the theorists and the history of their research are not covered, but only a general outline of their conclusions. I was disappointed that the pros and cons of these models are not developed in the museum as they are to some degree in the creationist literature see Wise I got the impression that the scientific aspects were being downplayed compared to the larger Christian story.
However, Wise informed me of delays in several scientific videos that are yet to come on line, so this part of the museum may be expanded. One video currently online includes an interview with creationist Michael Oard discussing his modeling of the post-Flood ice age.
The museum fails to acknowledge that Oard is an ardent critic of the Catastrophic Plate Tectonics model, exhibited just a few feet away. Creationism is presented as standardized doctrine worthy of uniform acceptance throughout the museum, while in reality this is hardly so. Creationists hold radically divergent views on basic factual issues, such as which rock layers were deposited by Noah's Flood.
Balanced treatment? Are the scientific merits of creationism and evolution presented fairly in the museum? This is perhaps the most important but also the most complicated question to answer. Science and its underlying assumptions can be addressed at many levels. At the most basic philosophical level, science makes assumptions that deserve questioning, and supernatural intervention is within the scope of philosophical consideration. But the exhibits of the Creation Museum are not aimed at science's philosophical assumptions but at its empirical successes.
The comparative results of "Human Reason" and "God's Word" presented in the museum in no way meet the same scientific standards. Young-earth creation models are a hodge-podge of religious and scientific components judged mainly by scripture. The model presented in the museum includes familiar scientific elements such as microevolution, plate tectonics, and an ice age not mentioned in the Bible, but not contradicting it , while other equally well-established scientific conclusions such as the Big Bang, the antiquity of the earth, and the close relationship between humans and apes are rejected simply because they cannot be harmonized with a literal reading of Genesis.
This is a biblical worldview with a few scientific elements thrown in for show. The creation model presented in the museum represents a reconciliation that holds true to the Bible, but this does not mean that the fit is good or that the conglomeration is scientific. In the primary literature some creationists have willingly admitted the scientific drawbacks of their models see Heaton ; Wise , but the museum presents creationism as a fully developed, unified model that covers all the scientific and scriptural evidence.
Untrained visitors will be deceived by this presentation. To be honest the museum needs to admit frankly that creationism is not scientific and that its attempts to incorporate scientific findings are meager at best.
Despite the portrayal of the creationist and evolutionary models as equal scientific alternatives throughout the museum exhibits, there are subtle suggestions that creationism holds a better fit with the data.
For example, in an exhibit on coal formation, the "problem" of clay layers within the coal is mentioned, and visitors are told that the young-earth model has a simple explanation for this while the old-earth model does not. The proposed explanation for the clay is not provided, nor is the reported "problem" for the old-earth model.
In reality the same explanation, such as a storm with turbid runoff, would be adequate to explain the clay in either model. Sleight-of-hand tricks of this type are far more egregious in other museum presentations, particularly the major video productions.
For an extra fee visitors can watch a show in the Stargazers' Planetarium. This show includes an excellent presentation on the scale of the universe, including many recent astronomical findings, and light-years are used as the unit of measure. The show invites the question of how light could have traveled millions of light-years if the universe is only about years old.
But visitors are assured that there are several simple explanations for how light could have traveled more quickly in the past and that many astronomical features, such as spiral galaxies and near-star Jupiter-like planets, cannot be explained by old-universe theories. In reality young-earth creationists have made no meaningful progress in resolving the starlight problem, and there is little agreement on the matter.
The deadline to sell the bonds is February 6, two days after the debate with Nye. Ham told msnbc on Monday he couldn't talk about the bonds because "our underwriters issued a gag order on us," but he claimed that the Creation Museum is holding the debate at a loss. The Creation Museum will be able to sell dvds of the event, which are already available for pre-purchase on their website.
Ham wouldn't answer questions about what Nye was getting paid for the appearance, but pointed to reports showing that Nye's regular speaking fee is between fifty to seventy thousand dollars. With so little to gain, at least financially, one might ask why Ham is going so far as to hold the debate in the first place.
The answer may be that any forum that presents evolution at parity with young earth creationism is a moral victory for creationists. Ham dismisses this kind of argument as mere intolerance from atheists.
Both Nye and Ham are adept public speakers--and between Nye's fee and Ham's opportunity to present young earth creationism on equal ground with evolution, it's a win-win situation, at least for the two of them.
Ham says he doesn't care who "wins," just that people's minds are opened. If we can accomplish that it's worth every cent of money and all the time we've spent," Ham said.
IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser. Share this —. Follow msnbc.
0コメント