Posted on 07/29/2007 2:13:08 PM PDT by EveningStar
Professional paleontologists from around the world are concerned about the misrepresentation of science at the newly opened Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky. The Creation Museum has been marketed to the public as a “reasoned, logical defence” for young-earth creationism by Ken Ham, the President and CEO of Answers in Genesis, which runs the Creation Museum.
The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, a world-wide scientific and educational organization concerned with vertebrate paleontology, contends that the museum presents visitors with a view of earth history that has been scientifically disproven for over a century...
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencedaily.com ...
“BTW - a number of reputable Hebrew scholars hold to interpreting yom as 24 hour days. And that includes non-creationist scholars.” ~ LiteKeeper
FYI:
The Framework Hypothesis is a literary understanding of the 6 days of creation. I learned it from Meredith Kline while @GCTS and from the OT department there as well.It underscores the poetic nature of the writing and even defines it as a form of Hebraic poetry that highlights the nature and character of God in creation. In the framework there are days of creating and days of filling. Day one goes with day 4, day 2 with day 5, day 3 with day 6. And all is balanced out.
It shows that Good is not only creatively spontaneous but also does things with order. It asserts that the creation narrative is not a scientific explanation but a literary one that has more to do with the nature of God than with giving a historic account of creation. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=10570
More:
· ‘To rebut the literalist interpretation of the Genesis creation week propounded by the young-earth theorists is a central concern of this article. At the same time, the exegetical evidence adduced also refutes the harmonistic day-age view. The conclusion is that as far as the time frame is concerned, with respect to both the duration and sequence of events, the scientist is left free of biblical constraints in hypothesizing about cosmic origins.’[Kline, M.G., Space and Time in the Genesis Cosmogony, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 48:2, 1996] Meredith Kline is a leading advocate of the ‘framework hypothesis
In note 47, Kline says:
‘In this article I have advocated an interpretation of biblical cosmogony according to which Scripture is open to the current scientific view of a very old universe and, in that respect, does not discountenance the theory of the evolutionary origin of man.’ In an unedited draft of this paper, Kline wrote: ‘... Certainly, Genesis indicates that there were steps or stages. The debate is over the time duration of each step ... To be sure, the word “Yom” or “day” is almost always used to refer to a 24-hour period so the prima facie indication would be the same in Genesis ... My concern here is that the literary structure may indicate something else ...’
· Henri Blocher, another leading Framework proponent, wrote: ‘This hypothesis overcomes a number of problems that plagued the commentators [including] the confrontation with the scientific vision of the most distant past.’ [Blocher, H., In the Beginning, IVP, p. 50, 1984.]
· ‘We have to admit here that the exegetical basis of the creationists is strong. ... In spite of the careful biblical and scientific research that has accumulated in support of the creationists’ view, there are problems that make the theory wrong to most (including many evangelical) scientists. ... Data from various disciplines point to a very old earth and even older universe...’ [Boice, J. M., Genesis: An Expositional Commentary, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, 1:57-62, 1982.] James Montgomery Boice (1938-2000), a staunch defender of Biblical inerrancy.
· Bruce K. Waltke, leading Hebrew and Old Testament Scholar: ‘The days of creation may also pose difficulties for a strict historical account. Contemporary scientists almost unanimously discount the possibility of creation in one week, and we cannot summarily discount the evidence of the earth sciences.’ [Waltke, B.K. and Fredricks, C.J., Genesis: A Commentary, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, p. 77, 2001]
· ‘It is of course admitted that, taking this account [Genesis] by itself, it would be most natural to understand the word [day] in its ordinary sense; but if that sense brings the Mosaic account into conflict with facts [millions of years], and another sense avoids such conflict, then it is obligatory on us to adopt that other.’ ~ [Hodge, C., Systematic Theology, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI, USA, pp. 570-571, 1997. ] Charles Hodge (1797-1878) was a systematic theologian at Princeton seminary, who wrote many books and articles defending the truths of Christianity, including biblical inerrancy
· ‘..confessedly, it would not have been as readily deduced from the Genesis text had it not been for the evidences advanced by secular science.’ [Payne, J.B., The Theology of the Older Testament, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, p. 136, 1972.] J. Barton Payne (1922-1979), Presbyterian Old Testament scholar.
· ‘From a superficial reading, the impression received is that the entire creative process took place in six twenty-four hour days. If this was the true intent of the Hebrew author this seems to run counter to modern scientific research, which indicated that the planet earth was created several billion years ago ... the more recently expanded knowledge of nuclear physics has brought into play another type of evidence which seems to confirm the great antiquity of the Earth, that is, the decay of radioactive minerals.’ [Archer, G.L., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, Moody, Chicago, p. 187, 1985.] Gleason Archer, Hebrew scholar and staunch defender of biblical inerrancy
I think the Framework Hypothesis has been discredited rather thoroughly. Too late to make a defense right now...perhaps tomorrow.
I think you've reasoned yourself into a paradox here.
If God can not express time, before that which represents it, is created...then how can you attribute to God, the establishment of the rules of motion, for those things.
G-d recons time very well, since he created it. It is when why try to understand things in our perspective that we have trouble grasping His reality. The paradox is in our inability to see from more than just our own perspective.
Pretty much the same idea as the “Global Warming” presentation which wound up in the Supreme Court.
Say what you want but no Young Earth Creationist ever tried to outlaw my automobile.
Someone finally woke up the biologists.
“Why isn’t faith enough?”
Because the Bible states in many places God created the earth and even tells us how He did it. If our faith is based on the Bible and the Bible is wrong about creation, our faith is flawed. I’ve listened to a few sermons by Ken Ham and he lays out why creation is important to the fundamental doctrine of sin and redemption.
If you’re really asking the question, “Why isn’t faith enough?” You should check out Ken Ham’s sermons. You can get them here: sermonaudio.com Search by speaker and you’ll find his stuff. Sorry I can’t post a direct link.
I can’t find the part about ‘how’ He created, all I can find is *that He created.
For me it is not important *how He created.....I look to science for those facts.
Faith requires us to not need scientific proof, while science requires that we do not just believe. Believing is for religion, fact is for science. Religion gets messed up when facts are needed for faith and science gets messed up when belief is held too closely in contradiction with facts.
I do not believe that God gave us our ability to learn about the physical universe to confound us, but rather He gave us the ability to learn so we could serve Him better. Knowledge of the physical universe in no way removes us from God, it brings us closer because we learn how great He is.
The very meaning of faith rejects the need for hard physical facts. It means to trust without proof.
“I look to science for those facts.”
Science isn’t a dissemination of facts. It’s a process for arriving at facts. The scientific process can’t prove origins because origins are unobservable.
“Knowledge of the physical universe in no way removes us from God, it brings us closer because we learn how great He is.”
If knowledge of the physical universe shows God to be a liar. I don’t want to have anything to do with that God. God says, in His Book, for by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin... Old earth theory, belief, faith shows us that death occurred before men were created so death isn’t the result of sin. It’s just natural. God is a liar for this reason and others if your science, belief, faith is true.
It’s pretty extreme to say science makes God a liar. That makes science evil.
If that is true then science would be the work of Satan, not a gift from God.
Maybe that is really what young Earth creationists believe. That science is the work of the devil.
If so, I am really messed up because I have always found great beauty in science especially when I combine it with awe of the One who gave us the ability to understand how things work. Was the One Satan?
I guess it still boils down to whether or not you believe every single word in the Bible means precisely one thing. I don’t believe that but if you do, good for you.
Just don’t try to convince others by rejecting science which is exactly what Ken Ham does. He lies about science and gets people to believe his lies.
Evolution is not science but science falsely so called. It’s a religion. Just like Islam, it’s not a religion of peace. Just like you, I was indoctrinated into the established state religion of Evolution. I rejected it based on faith and my faith has been vindicated by men like Ken Ham.
Well, I sure can’t argue with that sort of reasoning ;-)
“Well, I sure can’t argue with that sort of reasoning ;-)”
Good, because I need to get back to work. These balcony details aren’t going to draw themselves.
Exactly. Why be frightened of the one goofy little museum on the planet that espouses a different view?
Do you ever feel like you’re caught in some sort of Scopes Trial infinite-loop on these threads?
Yup! Makes me want to go beat my head against a post.
But didja ever notice how many of those people who reject science still want lots, if not most, of the wonderful things we have because of science? Like electricity and penicillin and computers to say nothing of genetic engineering which we can do because of our understanding of DNA which comes to us in large part because smart people study evolution?
Kinda cafeteria scientists.
Oh to hell with it!
If evolution is a religion then I suppose the churches are university campuses. Or maybe just the chemistry and biological sciences buildings on campuses? Oh wait, we gotta include museums of natural history. And then there are the anthropology buildings and paleo.....oh hell....whata mess.
Now what do I do with the courses I used to teach, comparative anatomy, and histology and embryology? I guess was giving sermons instead of lectures.
Yep, boy were you wrong.
Little did you know that flood geology and bronze age creation myths were where the truth lies.
I wonder if creationist chemistry can show me how to turn water into wine.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.