Still waiting

I'm still waiting to hear back from Answers in Genesis. I thought that I would hear before this, after they told me about training starting next week. But I haven't heard anything since my interview on Wednesday. :(

~Matt

BBC on Creation

I'm actually quite impressed with a recent BBC article about the Creation Museum (being built just a few miles from me). The start the article has the usual caveat from secular sources, but they're not even that bad:

A new hi-tech temple to fundamentalist Christianity is due to open in the heart of Middle America next May, aiming to provide the grandest riposte yet to Darwinian evolutionary theory.

Staff and supporters of the Answers in Genesis organisation call it the Creation Museum.

But secular scientists would take issue with the use of either word to describe the almost completed building...

And here is how it ends:

Despite adopting the structure and technology of the most extravagant science museum, it remains that none of it is remotely plausible without first accepting Genesis.

Without taking that leap and rejecting centuries of scientific reasoning, it all resembles just another Disney-style magic kingdom.

Really it is an interesting read. Yes, there is that last sentence that seems to say that religion is anti-science--but the author recognizes that many of AIG's employees are highly qualified scientists--they aren't just "religious nuts."

It is refreshing to see someone actually take someone at face value. Instead of reinterpreting someone or something within your world view, sometimes you should examine them in light of their view. I look at someone differently if looking from a Christian perspective ("The fool says in his heart there is no God.") where I know others to be wrong or say from a political/American perspective where someone has the right to their own view.

Ah, that was confusing. All I'm trying to say is that you shouldn't try to fit people into the mold of your own world view. Lincoln was quite progressive for his time, but today would perhaps be a racist. The two worlds are so different though, that you shouldn't call the 16th president a racist. In the same way it would be nice if secularists showed respect for Creationists. No, they won't believe us, but they could at least not mock us--much like the attitude here:

[Ken Ham's] attitude towards committed atheist scientists is surprisingly respectful:

"Everyone starts from presuppositions. For example, Richard Dawkins says there is no God: that's his starting point.

"He'll admit that he has an a priori assumption of materialism, and we're saying we have an a priori assumption of the Bible."

I'm quite looking forward to the opening of the museum. It will be refreshing to go through a museum of Natural History and see the truth, not having to think "that's garbage" every few steps as Evolution is shoved down your throat as fact.

~Matt

Smithsonian

I recently subscribed to Smithsonian magazine when I recieved an offer that I couldn't refuse. I also recieve National Geographic Magazine, and have for several years. I know that both are steeped in Evolutionary thinking and I accept that. I am a Creationist. I believe that everything in the Bible is true, period. If God said it happened, it happened. The Earth and everything in it was created in six literal days (no day ages or billions of years). I either ignore or privately laugh at the Evolution based articles. But one I couldn't help but be disturbed by.

The article is in the May 2006 issue of Smithsonian and is entitled "Dinosaur Shocker!" It relates how Paleontologist Mary Schweitzer discovered soft tissue inside the fossilized leg bone of a supposedly 65 million year old T. Rex. I'll quote two paragraphs from the article before continuing:

Meanwhile, Schweitzer's research has been hijacked by "young earth" creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn't possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of coruse, it's not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer's data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as "a complete and total Christian." On a shelf in her office is a plaque bearing an Old Testament verse: "For I know the plans I have for you," declares the Lord, "plans to propser you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future."

Okay, well first of all it is a literal reading of Genesis, NOT an interpretation. Reading in day ages or billions of years is an interpretation. I am a man. To believe that that statement is me claiming to be a male human is NOT an interpretation, it is literal reading. Secondly it is implied that creationists aren't paleontologists, and by extension not scientists. I take great exception to this. Besides the several Doctors (earned degrees at accredited Christian and secular universities!) that I knew in college there are many Creationist scientists with the best credentials. But this spin is not surprising--they have to discredit Creationism however they can because they refuse to grant it a fair hearing.

Thirdly I take issue with Schweitzer's claim. I'll state upfront that one cannot surely know the state of another's immortal soul--but this gives me doubts. First of all she denies the validity of Scripture--yet she seems to affirm it if she thinks the verse worth putting up. How can a God who lied from the very beginning (Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.) be trusted to know the future and bring it about? Or what if he lied in Genesis so that the simple people of Old Testament times wouldn't be confused by the truth of Evolution. Then wouldn't it follow that we cannot know what else he might have lied about? Answers in Genesis (whatever you think of Creation) has it right when they say that once you reject Genesis 1:1 you have undermined the entirety of Scripture. You have started down an extremely slippery slope. Without a literal reading of Genesis you have no reason for Christ to die and be resurrected. If men weren't created and evolved then Adam and Eve weren't real and they didn't sin. Thus there is no need for a redeemer.

According to Scripture Adam and Eve were definately human, not the first primordial organisms to evolve who somehow without brain, souls, or anything else remotely sentient chose to disobey God and sin--thereby condemning all of their evolutionary descendents to an eternity in Hell unless they waited billions (or is it only millions for life?) of years for Jesus to be born and die.

Outwardly you can be a "Christian" if you reject the Bible, but you cannot be a "complete and total Christian" if you reject the very tenets of faith. It would be as if a Muslim rejected everything Mohommed taught, and then said, "but I still follow Islam." It would be a lie, he would be following his own religion that might have some similarity to Islam--but it wouldn't be Islam.

Young-Earth Creationists also see Schweitzer's work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer's work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red bloood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer's research was "powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible's account of a recent creation."

This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell creek Formation, wehere B. rex [the skeleton containing the bone in question] was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She's horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. "They treat you really bad," she says. "They twist your words and they manipulate your data." For her, science and religon represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence. "If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don't need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that we'd never be able to prove is existence. And I think that's really cool."

Where to start here? Good question. There is another subtle dig by referring to Earth as a popular science magazine, but not even mentioning that Creation has scientifically based articles. But that isn't a big deal--they are so entrenched in the idea that to be a scientists YOU MUST accept Evolution that they can't get past that. I don't expect anything better. But again I have a problem with what Schweitzer says. Let us go back to an oft mentioned quote from C.S. Lewis which I'll paraphrase: "Jesus wasn't just a good moral teacher. He was either a lunatic or truly the Son of God, there is no middle ground."

All verses are from the NASB.

John 14:6-9
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him."
Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us."
Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and {yet} you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how {can} you say, 'Show us the Father'?

Clearly Jesus is saying that if you have seen Him you have seen God the Father. A sane man could never truthfully make this claim.

Matthew 9:2-3
And they brought to Him a paralytic lying on a bed. Seeing their faith, Jesus said to the paralytic, "Take courage, son; your sins are forgiven."
And some of the scribes said to themselves, "This {fellow} blasphemes."

Luke 22:70
And they all said, "Are You the Son of God, then?" And He said to them, "Yes, I am."

Luke 5:21
The scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, "Who is this {man} who speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?"

Forgiveness of sins belongs only to God. Sins are an affront to Him, and only He can forgive their commision. Were Jesus a man he would definately have been blaspheming at that moment.

John 8:52-59
The Jews said to Him, "Now we know that You have a demon. Abraham died, and the prophets {also;} and You say, 'If anyone keeps My word, he will never taste of death.' Surely You are not greater than our father Abraham, who died? The prophets died too; whom do You make Yourself out {to be?}"
Jesus answered, "If I glorify Myself, My glory is nothing; it is My Father who glorifies Me, of whom you say, 'He is our God'; and you have not come to know Him, but I know Him; and if I say that I do not know Him, I will be a liar like you, but I do know Him and keep His word. Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw {it} and was glad."
So the Jews said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?"
Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am."
Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple.
(emphasis mine)

Confused? Let us go back to Exodus where God was talking to Moses out of the burning bush:

Exodus 3:13-14
Then Moses said to God, "Behold, I am going to the sons of Israel, and I will say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you.' Now they may say to me, 'What is His name?' What shall I say to them?"
God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'"

Leviticus 24:16
'Moreover, the one who blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall certainly stone him. The alien as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death.

I AM describes God, it is his name. He isn't a "was" or a "will be." Always God is I AM. At creation, I AM. At the flood, I AM. At the birth of Christ, I AM. At the end of time, I AM. Everything physical is God's creation. He is above it, beyond it, He is NOT a part of it. He is I AM. For Jesus to say "I am" was a very, very clear statement that he was claiming divinity. He could not be a "good moral teacher."

Now perhaps someone can have saving faith in Christ and yet reject Genesis. I doubt that these two could go together, but I don't reject the idea. I know that Genesis is true, so the person in question is still wrong, but they may be saved. Thus I do not come out and say that Schweitzer cannot possibly be a Christian, I simply doubt that she can truly be a spokeswoman for Christians. She serves much better as a method of placing up strawmen arguments such as "science versus religion." You can find many accredited scientists who disagree with Schweitzer and are not "hijacking" her reasearch. You could say they're hijacking God's creation to prove their ludicrious theory if you wanted to have fun. :-)

None of this was surprising to me or unexpected. It was merely an interesting note within a fascinating (once you get past the millions of years old crap) article.

~Matt

I'm too lazy

to find a picture for this post, ;-).

Today was a great day. As I posted earlier I took my nephew through the Museum Center, specifically the History and Natural History museums, and the Nicholas and Alexandra exhibit (as well as Monkey King). Later when I take two of his siblings back through the Children's Museum I'll take him with me to help keep an eye on them, and so he can see Children's. I was very impressed with the History Museum. The upper level included a multi-era model of the city, showing many historic buildings and features (including the museum center back when it was a train station only). Then a larger WWII section included a gentleman who told us many stories about Cincinnati during the Second World War--I think we spent a half-hour in a trolly car listening to him talk, it was awesome!! Then the lower levels had an interactive walkthrough timeline of Cincinnati history that included several re-enactor types (we saw a working print shop) and detailed life-size examples of architecture from various periods.

Besides the usual "millions of years ago" nonsense (I can't wait for the Creation Museum by AiG to be finished) the Natural History museum was also fascinating, including a large recreation of a cave. Well I'd better sign off now as I want to get some reading done, I have work tomorrow, and most importantly Chris wants the computer back, ;-).

~Matt