This morning I turned on the TV to catch the morning news, looking for some weather updates primarily… and what did I see??
“Controversial Museum Opens in Kentucky”
I knew right away what that museum was… do you? It’s the Creation Science Museum. Here is what the museum has to say about itself. I have been around the Answers In Genesis website for about a year now. I have read all kinds of interesting information. I believe pretty much everything I have read there. It lines up with a literal reading of the infallible Word of God, which settles things pretty easily in my mind.
So here is the thing… when AiG opened their new museum, guess what happened? People protested it! They picketed. They came in droves to hold up signs and protest the very concept that God created everything and that evolution (in the sense that things get BETTER from mutations). This just amazes me. I have never heard of Christians gathering around a “science” museum, and picketing their existance and science.
Wow, Creationism can really set some people off. Guess they prefer the concept that we were once monkeys, to the idea that an Almighty God chose to create us as we are. Personally, evolution is just too “out there” for me. I mean, how does something come from nothing unless God created it? How is it that this nothing, then exploded and started to expand and organize itself? How did something that was random, create a world with such order? Have you ever seen oranges or coconuts fall off the tree into a pattern? Maybe once! But not millions of times over, in the SAME pattern. It’s just too crazy for me to even consider.
Well. Go check out Answers in Genesis and see for yourselves.
They are protesting because the stakes are high.
To have a successful museum devoted to creation brings the teaching of God back into American life. That’s something the wicked want no part of. So long as Christianity is kept “in the closet”, the world doesn’t much care. When it asserts itself, the powers and principalities, the rulers of the darkness of this world (Ephesians 6:12) mobilize their people to push it back.
There is a whole lot of “accepted” wickedness in the U.S., but at the same time, there is still a strong Christian heritage that, Lord willing, could bring about a spiritual awakening. Let us pray to that end.
Take it from a biochemist (me): God created the world that is in SIX literal days. The theory of evolution is nothing but the vain imaginations of carnal men.
“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.” (2 Timothy 4:3-4)
Rand
I’m sorry that you don’t understand evolution, Meg, but the fact that you don’t understand it doesn’t mean it doesn’t make sense.
You should know that the positions you attribute to evolution (i.e., we all came from monkeys, the universe came from nothing, “nothing” expanded and organized itself) are not positions held by actual scientists. They are straw arguments created by frauds like Ken Ham and Kent Hovind to deceive people like you into dismissing the science. You have been lied to.
No Jake, you are the one who has been lied to.
Surprised to see you are still reading, thought you got bored long ago.
MML
HURRAY! Comments are up and running again! :O)
I can’t wait to visit the museum, my girls and I have sooo many questions and are ripe for a Creation perspective on the science we love! Dh is even hoping we can get away and go next year, to show our support. I hope Christians everywhere do what they can to promote such a good thing.
Thanks for this post!
Mary
hey mary,
So glad to see that people are still stopping by. I hope to get to the museum sometime soon too!
MML
The museum is certainly enjoying a lot of press and seeing its share of criticism on the web.
I find it interesting that Jake will say what scientist don’t believe, but does not say what they do on these topics. How about the ape to human link? If they don’t believe that, what do they believe?
Well, M, scientists qua scientists don’t *believe* things in the same way that religious people believe things. When we say a scientist believes X what we mean is that the scientist is convinced by the available evidence that X is mostly probably true.
So, with that disclaimer up there, let’s indeed discuss what scientists “believe”.
The evidence is strongly in favour of the hypothesis that humans and other primates are indeed descended from a common ancestor. What I said was that scientists don’t believe that humans were descended from monkeys. Now this may seem like a small and nit-picking point, but the difference is actually crucial. Saying, inaccurately, that humans are descended from monkeys gives rise to all sorts of idiotic fallacies, largely of the “if we’re evolved from monkeys then why are there still monkeys?” variety. It demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the theory of evolution on the part of the speaker. The fact is that humans are not descended from any extant organism, but rather, all primates are descended from a common ancestor, i.e. an organism that existed a few million years ago and is now extinct. For more information on the evolution of Homo sapiens (that’s us) check out the wikipedia page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution
So, what do scientists “believe” about evolution? Well, the evidence suggested and supports the following conclusion:
All living organisms on earth are descended from a single common ancestor. All life has developed from the generation, some 4 billion years ago, of an imperfectly-self-replicating molecule. The diversity and variety of life that exists today is the direct (indeed, inevitable) consequence of the obvious fact that, copies of the molecule that are better suited to their environment will replicate themselves more than those which are not as well suited. For a more lengthy bit of rhetoric on why it’s so inevitable you can see my old blog post here:
http://jakobknits.blogspot.com/2005/09/evolution-at-home.html
and for a much more detailed and technical description of how life arose, I recommend the Talk Origins page on the subject:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html
Talk Origins is an excellent resource for information about evolution in general, and I recommend it highly to anyone who wants to learn about it.
You said it was interesting, M, that I made no mention of what scientists do believe, and I read into that an implication that you think I either can’t or don’t want to say. This couldn’t be further from the truth. I have nothing to hide; I just didn’t want to bore you all with a long lecture on how evolution *actually* works, as opposed to the old creationist-invented strawmen that Meg was parroting. If you are interested, please let me know. It’s a fascinating and exciting subject, a hypothesis whose simplicity and predictive power are fantastic.
If you’re interested, I strongly recommend you start out by going to your local university and buying or checking out of the library whatever text they use for their first-year biology course, and reading the chapters on evolution and ecology. You don’t need to know much at all about cell biology, anatomy, or biochemistry to understand it, so it would be a good place to start.
Jake, while I said evolution is a crock because men didn’t come from monkeys, I actually DO know that the theory states there is some ancient common ancestor, currently extinct. I still don’t believe that and don’t see how that could actually be true, and instead find it ludicrous that anyone could believe it, as I mentioned in the post. It does not make any logical sense to me, how we could all have evolved from some common self replicating molecule. I cannot fathom how one self replicating molecule could create the vast diversity we find in our world today. Not to mention so serious flaws with discovering HOW evolution happened to create such things as the EYE, or how a whale is able to sustain its bulk on the tiniest of organisms. Things far too complicated to be created by happenstance, chance or evolution.
Mrs. Meg Logan
“Well, M, scientists qua scientists don’t *believe* things in the same way that religious people believe things. When we say a scientist believes X what we mean is that the scientist is convinced by the available evidence that X is mostly probably true.”
What a joke!!!
And it should be noted that the above statement was written by someone who is NOT in the scientific field.
You have NO IDEA just how much “faith” goes into these evolutionary ideas that scientists invent. You have NO IDEA how much conjecture and down right unfounded claims pass as proven fact in the scientific community.
While there is abundant reason for Jake to believe the words of these fallen, sinful men (she detests the Living God), I would suggest that all who read these comments actually not be so quick to simply accept the great religion of the science. A thorough analysis of the works of modern day, unbelieving scientists will bring into light their bias, and all too often, their most “unscientific” works.
(Written by a Technical Officer at the Institute of Biological Sciences)
Jake, I am deleting your comment. If you feel the need to bash other comment-ers then go to their sites to do it.
Mrs. Meg Logan