Re: [asa] Creation Museum report

On the other hand... look at the positive face of this. These
are YECs "coming around". Sure -- the bottom line warfare mode of
thought may still be the intact conclusion, BUT isn't it encouraging
that there is some acknowledgment of problems with standard YEC
assumptions of the recent past? The mere fact that they are working to
accommodate to difficulties is a good sign. Just as the recent Rate
conference affirmed the apparent age of what radioactive elements seem
to be telling us. Their forced conclusion aside on that one, it's at
least an improvement over previous YEC answers that all radiometric
dating was just plain wrong because of faulty assumptions. These latter
concessions do show them taking steps in the right direction -- thinking
things over rather than blindly applying narrow interpretations with a
"damn the torpedoes" attitude towards any problems. Since many are
still in the latter category, they can now be gently urged to ponder
what their YEC brothers and sisters have now conceded.

--Merv

Ted Davis wrote:
> I'm back online now, in the midst of a research/speaking trip to the
> midwest.
>
> I spent four hours at the Creation Museum two days ago, and another 75 mins
> talking to an AIG staff lecturer who's office is in the adjacent warehouse
> (which was actually completed first and functions as the mailroom, design
> room, and warehouse for AIG).
>
> It's a very impressive exhibit, IMO--if you overlook virtually all of the
> science. I learned some new things (for me) about changes in YEC beliefs,
> such as their endorsement of extraordinarily rapid evolution--excuse me,
> adaptation--driven by built in genetic potential for variation and (shh)
> natural selection. This happened both between fall and flood and esp since
> the flood. My sense is that this is mainly in order to explain what is
> otherwise inexplicable: how could there be so many different kinds of
> creatures, in so many different environments, after a flood that allowed
> only single digit numbers of individuals representing only (apparently) a
> few dozen overall "kinds" of organisms (the ark wouldn't really support much
> more than that, something that is apparently being conceded now) to survive.
> I also learned that AIG, at least, is now admitting the legitimacy of the
> vast distances in interstellar and intergalactic space--ie, they don't blink
> an eye about saying that a certain astronomical feature is much farther than
> 6,000 light years away. This would have shocked many in the earlier
> generation of creationists. How to account for this, which strongly implies
> that those objects are vastly older than a few thousand years? A lot of
> handwaving referenced in a few words during the technically impressive
> planetarium presentation. Clearly, AIG is now committed unequivocally to
> Russell Humphrey's "white hole" theory (if I can call it a theory). Hardly
> anyone in their target audience is going to realize this, of course; nor
> will they realize most of the other things I saw.
>
> A real howler: when you see the nice casts of various prehistoric (sorry,
> AIG) animals, such as TRex or Velociraptor (which is accompanied by a
> placard noting that the film "jurassic park" unjustifiably increased their
> size by a large factor), you also see the information that they came from
> specific geological periods and dates. This might not be an exact copy of
> such information, but the impression you draw from my effort to reproduce it
> will be exactly the right one:
>
> Upper Jurassic (ca. 2348 BC)
> Lower Jurassic (ca. 2348 BC)
> Cenozoic (ca. 2348 BC)
>
> Compared to those sloppy mainstream geologists, I'm impressed by how precise
> these guys are. What's with the "ca.", anyway? Why be so timid?
>
> Will these folks make it more likely that atheism will advance? For some
> people as individuals, I'm sure the answer is "yes." When junior figures
> out one day (as many will) that their godly, loving, well meaning parents
> took them to such a chamber of horrors, he or she might indeed chuck over
> the whole package, including God. This has happened to some mighty smart
> people, such as historian Ron Numbers, and I fear it will happen again. But
> it's hard to know whether or not the Museum itself will do much to add to
> the total number.
>
> If you already know what the truth is, and how to detect the "lies" in
> modern science, then the Museum is undoubtely going to enhance your
> confidence in the YEC position--and make no mistake about it, this is the
> YEC position with no holds barred, and any & all OEC views (let alone the
> dastardly TE view) are clearly stated or directly implied to be dangerous
> compromise positions. Neither Charles Hodge nor BB Warfield escapes this
> overzealous reductionism, and it is strongly implied (though not explicitly
> stated) that Billy Graham is a YEC--which of course he is not, and to the
> best of my knowledge never has been. When I pointed this out to the
> enthralled woman next to me who was studying the same display, she was
> aghast and clearly didn't believe me. Let's hope she doesn't do too much
> reading: her faith is best left alone.
>
> Ted
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Sep 8 21:30:59 2007