The Creation Museum - A visit.

[michaeledward]

So, on Monday afternoon, I got a call telling me to catch a plane to Cincinnati on Tuesday. As I was driving around the city, I passed Exit 11, and a sign to 'The Creation Museum'. In the last week or so, we had seen a television show that pulled some fossilized sea shells out of the earth under the grass near the Creation Museum.

It was a powerful confluence, but, my class was scheduled until 5:00 PM each day, and the museum closes at 6:00 PM each evening. I didn't think I would have the opportunity to go. Even though I thought it would be interesting.

For those who have read my posts here, it is no secret that I was raised in the Roman Catholic Church. I became involved with an evangelical music ministry in my youth. I am a born-again Christian, who has abandoned all of these beliefs for a heavily athiestic bent of agnosticism.

But, still, I was curious.

Good fortune struck. My client told me to cut my class short by a half a day, so that other corporate activites could take place. I ended up with a half day free before my homeward flight.

I arrived at the Creation Museum at about 1:00 PM this afternoon. I was surprised how many cars were parked in the parking lot. As I walked toward the entrance, I noticed the grounds, while not yet completely landscaped are just glorious. The plants are beautifully maintained. They have several man-made streams bubbling their way to a large man-made pond; perhaps 6 acres or so. The dinosaur topiaries are a bit odd. But, I've been to Disney, and seen goofy topiaries before (both goofie and 'Goofy', if you get the pun).

Several large bronze statues adorn the entrance; a deer, a giraffe and a stegosaurus.

It costs twenty bucks to get in, but if you give them your name and address, they'll take a couple of bucks off. (I can afford the two bucks to stay off that database). There is a "planetarium" show for an extra five bucks.

The entry portion of the building is beautiful. And while I didn't ask, i got the distinct impression that most of the employees are 'true believers'. I think I got a bit of the 'it's just a job' vibe from the girls at the food court. Speaking of, the food concessions seemed exceedingly reasonable for this type of venue (2.69 for a very nice hot dog. 4.99 for cold sandwiches).

The first attraction I visited was the planetarium. This facility was built in 2007, but it was definately not the latest in projection technology. The seats reclined well, and were comfortable. The projector, however, was never quite in focus. During the 22 minute presenation, I heard at least three accusations that 'secular scientists can't sufficiently explain' a particular fact. (for example, Blue colored stars are hotter, and burn out quicker, and therefore, how can they be as old as claimed. - answer, not all stars were created at the same time). (for example 2 - star formation has never been witnessed - answer, we have had telescopes for a mere 400 years). Perhaps most interesting, at the end of the projection, there were three credits in the film. Apparently, all of the computer generated images were created by a single person. I think it would have been better to leave it uncredited.

There is a 'walking tour' through the museum. Except, that it isn't a walking 'tour'. It is a painfully slow, non-guided assembly line. Television monitors present literal biblical ideas, next to photos that say 'Man's view' vs 'God's View'; from how canyons are formed, to fossilized animal remains, to animal life.

There was a four minute movie that reads the first chapter of Genesis in a dramatic fashion. The translation they used was not the King James I am used to. Some of the grammar was awkward. To get into this short theatrical presentation, you have to wait in 'Graffiti Alley' and the 'Culture in Crisis' rooms ~ without knowing what you are waiting for. These two rooms are designed to present the worst aspects of the human condition.

Then you enter the primary tour area. Adam and Eve, with the deer, and foxes, and bears, and dinosaurs. You learn that the Tree and the serpent are the reason death exists. That hiding behind fig leaves was insufficient, so animals were killed for more discrete dressing. That animal sacrifices are poor attempts to redeem ourselves before god. And that these animal sacrifices are insufficient to the task.

We see Methuselah. We see a very small portion of Noah's Ark. We get an explanation of how even the youthful, small sauropods were included in the Ark.

All leading to the 'Last Adam Theater'. I did not want to see that theater presentation, and the staff person did not really like the idea that I would skip such an important part of their museum.

There is a hall of dragons. Which is really some rather nice statues of dinosaurs presented for the children of Christians. And a Bookstore.

I believe that everyone in attendance at the museum today ~ and there were many ~ is a true believe coming to have his beliefs validated. Earth 6,000 years old. Noah's Flood 4,300 years ago. Jesus Good. Everything Else Bad.

When I left, I called my wife, and told her I needed shower. I certainly didn't go with an open mind. But, I also didn't go to mock peoples beliefs. But, most of the people in this building are just scary to me. I think they are dangerous.

I think it might be nice to tour the facility at my own pace. Which is the way I usually tour a museum. But, here, patrons are channeled through each exhibit. There is no exploration or discovery. Guests must follow the prescribed timeline, else the material would not make sense. So, I was always stuck behind somebody not moving as quickly as I would have liked ~ or ~ they were obstructing something that may have been interesting to examine, but I didn't want to be in a cattle-line. There is no easy way to 'come back to this exhibit later'.

One last note. As I mentioned, the grounds, while still being worked, are quite attractive. I walked the grounds a bit, and encountered a groundskeeper. I complimented her on her work. She quitely thanked me on behalf of the four person team that works the grounds. I was a bit surprised that she did not offer her god the credit for the beauty of the flowers and plants. While I was not attempting to bait her, I have noticed in the past that often people will give god credit where his hand is presumed (such as the creation of the pretty plants on the grounds). That, I found, interesting.

 

[Steel Tiger]

I think it might be nice to tour the facility at my own pace. Which is the way I usually tour a museum. But, here, patrons are channeled through each exhibit. There is no exploration or discovery. Guests must follow the prescribed timeline, else the material would not make sense. So, I was always stuck behind somebody not moving as quickly as I would have liked ~ or ~ they were obstructing something that may have been interesting to examine, but I didn't want to be in a cattle-line. There is no easy way to 'come back to this exhibit later'.

I'm not surprised that they don't let people wander through at their own pace or look at what they want when they want. That would allow people time to think about what is being presented.

As you say it is not for people with an open mind, but for those who wish, or need, to confirm their own beliefs.

 

[Flying Crane]

Thank you for the overview. I had recently seen an article about this museum and had some curiousity about what it might present. It seems my views probably parallel your own in many ways as well.

 

[Empty Hands]

...I heard at least three accusations that 'secular scientists can't sufficiently explain' a particular fact. (for example, Blue colored stars are hotter, and burn out quicker, and therefore, how can they be as old as claimed. - answer, not all stars were created at the same time).

Creationists "refuting" science by mis-stating the theories they are refuting? Big shocker.

(for example 2 - star formation has never been witnessed - answer, we have had telescopes for a mere 400 years).

What do they think all those nebulae with young hot stars are?

 

[Andy Moynihan]

So, on Monday afternoon, I got a call telling me to catch a plane to Cincinnati on Tuesday. As I was driving around the city, I passed Exit 11, and a sign to 'The Creation Museum'. In the last week or so, we had seen a television show that pulled some fossilized sea shells out of the earth under the grass near the Creation Museum.

It was a powerful confluence, but, my class was scheduled until 5:00 PM each day, and the museum closes at 6:00 PM each evening. I didn't think I would have the opportunity to go. Even though I thought it would be interesting.

For those who have read my posts here, it is no secret that I was raised in the Roman Catholic Church. I became involved with an evangelical music ministry in my youth. I am a born-again Christian, who has abandoned all of these beliefs for a heavily athiestic bent of agnosticism.

But, still, I was curious.

Good fortune struck. My client told me to cut my class short by a half a day, so that other corporate activites could take place. I ended up with a half day free before my homeward flight.

I arrived at the Creation Museum at about 1:00 PM this afternoon. I was surprised how many cars were parked in the parking lot. As I walked toward the entrance, I noticed the grounds, while not yet completely landscaped are just glorious. The plants are beautifully maintained. They have several man-made streams bubbling their way to a large man-made pond; perhaps 6 acres or so. The dinosaur topiaries are a bit odd. But, I've been to Disney, and seen goofy topiaries before (both goofie and 'Goofy', if you get the pun).

Several large bronze statues adorn the entrance; a deer, a giraffe and a stegosaurus.

It costs twenty bucks to get in, but if you give them your name and address, they'll take a couple of bucks off. (I can afford the two bucks to stay off that database). There is a "planetarium" show for an extra five bucks.

The entry portion of the building is beautiful. And while I didn't ask, i got the distinct impression that most of the employees are 'true believers'. I think I got a bit of the 'it's just a job' vibe from the girls at the food court. Speaking of, the food concessions seemed exceedingly reasonable for this type of venue (2.69 for a very nice hot dog. 4.99 for cold sandwiches).

The first attraction I visited was the planetarium. This facility was built in 2007, but it was definately not the latest in projection technology. The seats reclined well, and were comfortable. The projector, however, was never quite in focus. During the 22 minute presenation, I heard at least three accusations that 'secular scientists can't sufficiently explain' a particular fact. (for example, Blue colored stars are hotter, and burn out quicker, and therefore, how can they be as old as claimed. - answer, not all stars were created at the same time). (for example 2 - star formation has never been witnessed - answer, we have had telescopes for a mere 400 years). Perhaps most interesting, at the end of the projection, there were three credits in the film. Apparently, all of the computer generated images were created by a single person. I think it would have been better to leave it uncredited.

There is a 'walking tour' through the museum. Except, that it isn't a walking 'tour'. It is a painfully slow, non-guided assembly line. Television monitors present literal biblical ideas, next to photos that say 'Man's view' vs 'God's View'; from how canyons are formed, to fossilized animal remains, to animal life.

There was a four minute movie that reads the first chapter of Genesis in a dramatic fashion. The translation they used was not the King James I am used to. Some of the grammar was awkward. To get into this short theatrical presentation, you have to wait in 'Graffiti Alley' and the 'Culture in Crisis' rooms ~ without knowing what you are waiting for. These two rooms are designed to present the worst aspects of the human condition.

Then you enter the primary tour area. Adam and Eve, with the deer, and foxes, and bears, and dinosaurs. You learn that the Tree and the serpent are the reason death exists. That hiding behind fig leaves was insufficient, so animals were killed for more discrete dressing. That animal sacrifices are poor attempts to redeem ourselves before god. And that these animal sacrifices are insufficient to the task.

We see Methuselah. We see a very small portion of Noah's Ark. We get an explanation of how even the youthful, small sauropods were included in the Ark.

All leading to the 'Last Adam Theater'. I did not want to see that theater presentation, and the staff person did not really like the idea that I would skip such an important part of their museum.

There is a hall of dragons. Which is really some rather nice statues of dinosaurs presented for the children of Christians. And a Bookstore.

I believe that everyone in attendance at the museum today ~ and there were many ~ is a true believe coming to have his beliefs validated. Earth 6,000 years old. Noah's Flood 4,300 years ago. Jesus Good. Everything Else Bad.

When I left, I called my wife, and told her I needed shower. I certainly didn't go with an open mind. But, I also didn't go to mock peoples beliefs. But, most of the people in this building are just scary to me. I think they are dangerous.

I think it might be nice to tour the facility at my own pace. Which is the way I usually tour a museum. But, here, patrons are channeled through each exhibit. There is no exploration or discovery. Guests must follow the prescribed timeline, else the material would not make sense. So, I was always stuck behind somebody not moving as quickly as I would have liked ~ or ~ they were obstructing something that may have been interesting to examine, but I didn't want to be in a cattle-line. There is no easy way to 'come back to this exhibit later'.

One last note. As I mentioned, the grounds, while still being worked, are quite attractive. I walked the grounds a bit, and encountered a groundskeeper. I complimented her on her work. She quitely thanked me on behalf of the four person team that works the grounds. I was a bit surprised that she did not offer her god the credit for the beauty of the flowers and plants. While I was not attempting to bait her, I have noticed in the past that often people will give god credit where his hand is presumed (such as the creation of the pretty plants on the grounds). That, I found, interesting.

Let me just say this; that you are a far braver man than I going "behind enemy lines" like that ( In no way is this a dig on any Christian faith, or any religion by itself, but rather those who use it for their own ends on earth).

 

[bydand]

While I tend to disagree with most of your views michaleadward, I thank you for your review and thoughts on this museum. I am a Christian and do believe, but have to agree with you on your perspective of a real "canned" approach taken by most places like this. It just burns my shorts when an idea (even one I agree with) is presented as the cold hard non-bending truth and every other view is WRONG. I had heard of this place and was thinking of taking a side trip during our upcomming vacation to take the Ruffians. Now I will pass for sure and spend that time as another day at the Henry Ford Museum so the boys can see some History they can relate to and use in the upcomming school year.

 

[Sukerkin]

I know you keep 'reputation' disabled, Mike but I repped you anyway .

Whilst it is always good for any concept to be the subject of dialogue and discussion (meaning that to have two sides of an argument is much better than only having one), when one side is only focussed on fairly clumsy naysaying then the process fails .

That said, bydand, whilst you might not want to subject your kids to what sounds like essentially 'propoganda', I would urge you to go and take a look yourself. An intelligent adults perspective, from somebody who accepts the belief system behind this so-called museum, would be a wonderful insight to hear.

For me, this quote from Mike is the one that most reflects my opinion:

"I certainly didn't go with an open mind. But, I also didn't go to mock peoples beliefs. But, most of the people in this building are just scary to me. I think they are dangerous."

Quite right, sir. It's all the more scary that the kind of thinking represented in this supposed place of learning is the same as that which 'informs' the politically powerful in America.

 

[thardey]

As a creationist, I still have to support the direction of this thread. (No, I'm not a traitor!)

-warning! rant coming up!-

But the idea of standing in prescribed lines, following the argument step-by-step, in the proper order, all leading up to the point of "Jesus = Good" is so indicative of most Christian churches attitude towards science, logic, politics, bleh!

Theres so much faith "invested" in the concept of creationism that it's moved beyond rational thought. The root of the problem is a mis-application of Romans 1:20

"For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities
— his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly
seen, being understood from what has been made, so that
men are without excuse.

People take this to mean that "creation" is the key to proving that there is a God. Then many start to think that creation is the proof they need that there is a God, and they start to focus on the idea of creation, rather than on the teachings of righteousness, forgiveness, and love.

Then, if anyone (with honorable intentions) questions the scientific notion of creationism, they are labeled as "faith stealers", and are lumped into a group of shady characters. I've been told that the whole "evolution" movement is a huge conspiracy by people whose sole purpose is to disprove the existence of God.

The part about these types of museums that really gets me worked up is this: They spend so much time arguing that even though the universe appears to be very old, it really isn't. There are some people who base their entire belief on that thought alone, which is the weakest part of the whole thing!

At this point, I usually point out: "But we can see stars that are at least several hundreds of thousands of light-years away. That means that the light would have taken at least several hundreds of thousands of light years to reach us, which means that the stars appear to be at least that old! That's not even counting the ones that seem to be several billions of light years away!"

"But, even if you believe that God created the universe 6,000 years ago to appear old, then it will appear old, and you won't be able to use the age of the universe as proof of God's existence, because science is telling us that the universe is very old! The only question left at this point is: IF God created the universe to appear old, Then why?"

At this point I usually offend the "True Believers" (the ones who would never think of getting out of line). Now they think that I don't believe in God, or something. (Which I strongly do, as some of you have seen my threads in the philosophy section.)

My belief? God did not leave us enough evidence to prove his existence. In the Bible, Tanach (Old Testament), and New Testament, none of the miracles were ever intended to prove the existence of God. They were either deniable (some other natural explanation could explain it), or they were judgmental (they were undeniable acts of God, but the miracle resulted in the death of those who did not already believe.) It appears that even in the Bible, God chooses not to prove himself. Why? I believe he wants us to know, and imitate his character, not his power.

But when people spoon-feed their flock this "proof-which-is-not-proof", and they tell them that this is their source of faith, it does to honest people what McDojo's do to MA! These "McChurches" give people a security from the wrong source, they sell comfort and safety, and they don't allow you ask honest questions. (Well, you can ask them, but you'd better be prepared to settle for the old "When we get to heaven, we'll know then" answer-which-is-no-answer.)

:soapbox:

If the Bible is true and trustworthy, then I want to test it! If it is right, then it will stand up. I have often realized I am reading it wrong, but I never would stop questioning it, because I might lose one of my "cherished" beliefs. If it's wrong, then why "cherish" it?

It makes me so mad when McChurches don't allow people to question! I mean, don't ask if you're asking as though you already know the answer, but ask honestly! We do that in MA, we do that when we're looking for truth, but we can't do that in the most important beliefs in our lives?

*stops to breathe*

And yes, despite my frustrations, I do believe that Genesis is literal, but this isn't the thread to discuss that. If you want to know (honestly questioning) how I can do that, either PM me, or if there's enough interest, I may start a thread in the philosophy section.

 

[michaeledward]

Thank you, thardey. That is a pretty reasonable post.

My mother believes that her god has the ability to set the universe in motion, from the Big Bang forward. And she uses that to guide her faith.

My father does not believe in macroevolution, but instead believes that homo sapiens are the direct handywork of an all powerful god.

I can respect the differences in their faith, even while not accepting the underlying premise. I recognize their faith empowers them as people. And I would not want to do anything that would undermine their faith.

It would seem to me that even the literalists in Christianity should similarly have their faith respected. It seems that these are three different opinions on the same continuum.

This is one of the reasons I spent the time and money at the Museum. I recognize that people draw strength from their beliefs. And I do not consider my visit a trip 'behind enemy lines', but rather more like a visit to an exotic country; where things generally look the same, but feel a little different.


Some of the 'foreigners' were just plain obnoxious, such as the person who drove 'The Truth' truck. On the frame of a half-ton pickup, someone had built up an oversized plywood panel van. They had photographs of aborted fetuses on the outsides of their vehicle.

Some of the 'foreigners' were, in my opinion, overly committed to their ideas. There were many T-Shirts with messages. Most of these shirts would probably not be welcomed in the Mall of America. But at the Creation Museum, owners would, no doubt, not be singled out for wearing an 'Islam is a Lie' T-shirt, or 'Homosexuality is a Sin'.

Many of the 'foreigners' were discrete and, hmm, quaint. Several of the guest families had all the women dress in the same pattern dress, pale colors, and demure. These women all wore white head coverings, and sensable shoes. The men in these groups were similiarly unexceptional. Appearing to be the 'family that prays, together'.


For me, part of the issue was when they attempted to shoe-horn scientific information into the religious frame-work. To claim that dinosaurs and other mammels lived at the same time just doesn't match the evidence. Wouldn't it be easier to say, there never were any dinosaurs, but god created the fossils to allow the faithful to prove themselves. Or, yes, the universe is unfathomably large, but god created it that way, and created that way. Although the stars themselves are far, far away, when god created the universe, he created the lightwaves in motion, already between there and here.



As I have thought about my time at this 'museum' - actually, I think it truly is more a modern day revival tent - I think they skip some of the more beautiful parts of the bible. Stories that might attract those on the outside, to consider coming in; some of the struggles we learn of in Psalms, the miracles of Jesus, calming the seas, feeding the multitudes.

Of course, raised in Christianity, I know many of these stories. But, in the last day, I have wondered about similiar stories from other faiths. I am pretty familiar with the mechanics of some of the other worlds' faiths, but not the 'fuzzy' stuff, that makes a faith beautiful to its followers.

That, I think might be a wonderful museum. To be able to visit all of the faiths in the world. And to see the things that the believers find most magical / fantastic in their faith. Rather than a way to proselytize, it would truly be a museum, a light on a hill.

Nice thought, I think.

 

[CuongNhuka]

The Funny part of the "Creation vs Darwin/Big Bang" argument is they are probably both wrong. I can rationally prove there is a God. I can also disprove the omnipotience and omniscience of God. I can also make a reasonable (not prooveable, but reasonable) argument for a mixture of both arguments (exploring other Faiths/Philosophys/Theological points of view are a good thing).
Who knows. Ultimately, we will never find out until we are dead and gone. Simple as that.

 

[Empty Hands]

I can rationally prove there is a God. I can also disprove the omnipotience and omniscience of God.

Really? Wow! Since philosophers and theologians have been trying to answer these questions for thousands of years without much success, I think you should publish these proofs immediately. Think how the world would be changed! Who would have guessed I would be reading the thoughts of the world's next Aquinas or Kant!

 

[CuongNhuka]

Really? Wow! Since philosophers and theologians have been trying to answer these questions for thousands of years without much success, I think you should publish these proofs immediately. Think how the world would be changed! Who would have guessed I would be reading the thoughts of the world's next Aquinas or Kant!

Prove of God - Saint Thomas Aquinas.
Disprove of the Omnisceince of God - Mark Twain.
Disprove of the Omnipotentce of God - Not sure. (those dumb little jokes "if God is so powerful, can he create a stone so big even he cann't lift it?")

Keep in mind I said I can, I never said I came up with it. By, the by, I don't much like Kant. It's too dry of reading for me.

 

[Kacey]

Prove of God - Saint Thomas Aquinas.
Disprove of the Omnisceince of God - Mark Twain.
Disprove of the Omnipotentce of God - Not sure. (those dumb little jokes "if God is so powerful, can he create a stone so big even he cann't lift it?")

Keep in mind I said I can, I never said I came up with it. By, the by, I don't much like Kant. It's too dry of reading for me.

These people may have proven the above to your satisfaction - but that doesn't prove any of it to my satisfaction, nor that of many others.

To return more directly to the topic at hand: I am always open to hearing others' opinions, but I prefer to make up my mind for myself. In the case of the Creation Museum, I find that michaeledward's experience - being herded through exhibits at a set pace, unable to spend the desired amount of time at any one place - to be indicative of people who prefer to impose their opinions on others rather than let them decide based on the proofs presented. I find that problematic, regardless of the issue involved. In an issue that is as emotionally laden as this one - creation vs. evolution - I find the attitude that michaeledward was presented with to be stereotypical of people who believe based on faith, which is, by definition, unprovable; once you have determined, by faith, the "truth", there is no reason to provide time to think or opportunity to debate, because you have "the answer". If that's what you want to believe, you are welcome to do so - but like others and off this thread, while I enjoy discussions, I tend to be unconvinced by people whose opinions are based on "because I have faith, and am therefore correct" - because that's not a discussion, it's a sermon, and that appears to be what this museum is, one big sermon on the "truth", with no argument allowed.

 

[Empty Hands]

Prove of God - Saint Thomas Aquinas.

If every effect has a cause, then what is the cause of the First Cause? Odd how Aquinas lets the train end there for no particularly good reason.

Disprove of the Omnisceince of God - Mark Twain.

How so?

By, the by, I don't much like Kant. It's too dry of reading for me.

Well, I can't disagree with you there. That's why I like Nietzsche - prose dripping with sarcasm, condescension, and glee!

 

[CuongNhuka]

If every effect has a cause, then what is the cause of the First Cause? Odd how Aquinas lets the train end there for no particularly good reason.

How so?

Well, I can't disagree with you there. That's why I like Nietzsche - prose dripping with sarcasm, condescension, and glee!

Aquanis came up with 5 differnit proves. the one you are thinking of is a differnit one, which Saint Aquanis actually disputed. he said it left too much open to intrepitation.

In Letters to the Earth. what he basicly came up with is that:
A, God is omnipotent. Basic teaching of Catholics and most splinter groups.
B, Therefore, god knows the future. Calvinist addition, as well as his splinter groups.
C, Therefore, before God created Adam and Eve, he knew they were going to eat the forbin fruit. And thus, he woul have had to have kicked them out. He would also have know that he would have to flood the world, destroy Sadum and Gamora, and that Chirst would be killed.

Which mean that either God really likes abuse, he/she/it/they are not omnipotent, or that those segments of the Bible are wrong.

I like Nietzsche too.

 

[Grenadier]

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please, return to the original topic.

-Ronald Shin
-MT Moderator-

 

[heretic888]

For me, part of the issue was when they attempted to shoe-horn scientific information into the religious frame-work. To claim that dinosaurs and other mammels lived at the same time just doesn't match the evidence. Wouldn't it be easier to say, there never were any dinosaurs, but god created the fossils to allow the faithful to prove themselves.

Actually, Michael, this particular argument has been advanced in one form or another at different points in Christianity's past. Depending on how one frames the argument (and who one attributes the "fossils" to), it can have either a positive or negative spin to it.

The positive: God created the "fossils" as a test of our faith.

The negative: Satan created the "fossils" to trick us.

In earlier centuries, a similar argument arose when it became obvious that the actual details and imagery associated with the Biblical narrative of Jesus Christ had existed in other religions for millenia (such as virgin births, dying and rising godmen, becoming one with the god by ritualistically consuming his flesh and blood, etc.). At that time, the argument has put forward in a similar framework as the creationist argument, with both a positive and negative slant.

The positive: God created these religions to "prepare" humanity for the coming of Jesus, who would fulfill all the religious iconography literally and historically (this is known as "divine prefigurement").

The negative: Satan knew Jesus was coming so in anticipation he replicated the details of Jesus' life-to-be and put them in these false religions so as to trick mankind into being unfaithful (this is known as "diabolical mimicry").

The interesting thing about both the positive and negative slants of both of these arguments is that they are equally plausible within the ideological framework, neither having either Biblical antecedent or empirical evidence to support them. It is more a matter of having a previously held belief and then rationalizing ways to account for all contradictory evidence.

The heart of the matter, of course, is that individuals that seriously hold to such arguments simply cannot be swayed one way or the other. There is no evidence, no logic, no reasoning that can convince them otherwise because, by their own argument, such things are either tests of faith or Satanic deceptions. These arguments are, in essence, a pre-emptive measure to effectively close off all discussion or debate.

Of course, the problem is that these arguments only "work" on the faithful and the converted. If you don't buy into them, there comes the need to produce real "evidence" in support of one's position. Thus the need for "museums" such as this and "science" such as creation science and intelligent design. On critical examination, the "evidence" almost always falls apart, naturally, which explains the rush-rush-rush treatment Michael described.

 

[CuongNhuka]

The heart of the matter, of course, is that individuals that seriously hold to such arguments simply cannot be swayed one way or the other. There is no evidence, no logic, no reasoning that can convince them otherwise because, by their own argument, such things are either tests of faith or Satanic deceptions. These arguments are, in essence, a pre-emptive measure to effectively close off all discussion or debate.

Of course, the problem is that these arguments only "work" on the faithful and the converted. If you don't buy into them, there comes the need to produce real "evidence" in support of one's position. Thus the need for "museums" such as this and "science" such as creation science and intelligent design. On critical examination, the "evidence" almost always falls apart, naturally, which explains the rush-rush-rush treatment Michael described.

My only additions to Heretics comments are as follows
For the first paragraph I left, isn't that called scholastism?
For the second, my favorite line used by the missionarys that come to my house all the time is "God works in mysteryious ways". Why don't you come out and admit it? A 17 year old just picked more holes into your entire argument then swiss cheese, and you have no idea what to say? Is it that hard?

 

[thardey]

The interesting thing about both the positive and negative slants of both of these arguments is that they are equally plausible within the ideological framework, neither having either Biblical antecedent or empirical evidence to support them. It is more a matter of having a previously held belief and then rationalizing ways to account for all contradictory evidence.

Well, that's true no matter which world view you start with. And that's the biggest problem to finding agreement among people. People hold their world views for various reasons, and then spend the rest of their life (hopefully) sifting facts according to their presuppositions.

I've seen, and been a part of, too many arguments where people essentially say "If you knew what I knew, you would agree with me!" When in reality, both sides are spending their time proving the same "facts" to each other, and assuming that people are interpreting those facts in the same way.

An example that Heretic touched on is the Epic of Gilgamesh, and the Flood story. The basic fact is that there is a simple version of a flood story that historically pre-dates the writings of Moses, where a man and his family are saved from a large flood by building a boat.

Some would say that that Moses copied the idea from the Babylonians, and fleshed it out as "fact" in order to develop his own religion.

Others say that this is proof from a different culture that a flood did actually happen, and this is the Babylonian interpretation of it.

"Facts" do very little to sway belief. It's the interpretation of those facts that causes disagreement.

Or in another case - as far as I've been able to find almost all religions in the world that study the New Testament use the (basically) same basic Greek text, either Nestle's edition's, or Westcott and Hort's compilation. (The difference between the two is less than 1%, and usually centers around which verses are original, and which were added as commentaries, with then were copied into the text.) But both use essentially the same Greek text. But how many different ways has that text been interpreted?

As for the Creation/Evolution argument what I usually see is not new "facts" being presented, but the fine line has been crossed in their insistence that their interpretation is the only correct way.

It's one thing to say "My beliefs lean strongly in a certain direction, does this new fact disprove them? Or can it fit within them?" It's a whole other to say "This fact can't be right, because it contradicts what I already believe!"

That's why I believe that modern science should be mindful that it is limited to searching for "facts" only. (I've seen both evolutionists and creationists disregard this equally.) It is not designed to answer the interpretation of those facts. That was the model of the old science that was rejected. (Remember the whole Galileo problem?) The scientific community at that time (the church) rejected some scientific facts because they didn't like how those fact "could" be interpreted.

I mean -- think of how different the tour at the Creation Museum would have been if it had been presented as "Both Creation scientists and Evolutionary scientists have found [some fact] to be true, but while they interpret it this way, we interpret it this way, based on [insert Biblical argument here]."

The same argument could be given, but it might encourage people to actually think!"