"This doctrine of six day creation was ... the consensus of the theologians, ministers and elders at the Westminster Assembly"

[Quote] Science that “proves” creation today will be tossed tomorrow in favor of a better model. I don’t think that process does much at all to justify the Words that were once spoken.[/Quote]

And herein lies the crux of the problem. I have been in the creation science circles since the 70’s. And while AiG is definitely better than many in how it handles science, it is still faced with a problem. Science is not truth. So while the Scriptures are clear about Creation and they will never change, the science models are changing every day. What was once a great argument for or against evolution becomes irrelevant after a period of time. So we build website, set up museums, tour the country debating the evolutionists, and in a matter of years we need to change our tactics, adjust our arguments, change our models just to keep up with our arguments. This is not what Scriptural Truth is about. The message, the tactics, the arguments all need to stay focused on the truth and the arguments should not be changing with the times. This is why our young people are abandoning a literal 6-day creation account. What they were taught 10-15 years ago, may not even be good science.

While many of the scientists are nice within the creation circles, they are hardly world class scientists. We are not going to win the argument for creation, using the basis for science, anymore than we will win the argument for the miracles using science or the proof of Jesus using historical documents. The article posted at the top of this thread is great because it lays out the truth from a Scriptural viewpoint. That article was just as relevant 2,000 years ago, as it will be 2,000 years from now. We cannot say that about creation science.

I would not be half as critical if we were not talking about crazy sums of money here. In order to maintain costs and attract visitors they are opening up zip lines and other attractions. None of it is wrong per se. But to maintain a $50 million museum complex for such a niche discussion point, is going to require them to be innovative and treat this more and more as an amusement park. There is only so much people can do for a full day around creationism.

There is only so much people can do for a full day around creationism. On site, in addition to the Museum proper, which takes a full day, there are botanical gardens, petting zoo, and walking trails. As it turns out, there is so much to do, that last year, AiG expanded the ticket to cover two days for the price of admission because guests couldn’t fit it all into one day.

“it seems to me that the point was to commend the rigorous and exclusive use of scripture over against what may be seen as reverse engineered attempts to prove the scriptures.”

And happily, I found after I visited the creation museum, that they put on display the use of the Scriptures as the authority, and made the Scriptures the platform for the entire presentation. That is what Paul Scharf and I have been trying to communicate here, that the very thing that some here are arguing for is what AiG is doing, even though they keep trying to paint Ham as what they are arguing against.

[Jim]

• “the building of a full-size Ark can stand as a reminder to the world of salvation”
• “an Ark would also stand as a warning of coming judgment—to condemn those who reject God’s clear Word”

Jim, I’m not sure what I think of the ark project itself, or the other attractions. However, in answer to your above two points, I not only agree with Chip about the word “can” (instead of “needs to”), I would point out this:

[KJV]

Joshua 4:5-7

5 And Joshua said unto them, Pass over before the ark of the Lord your God into the midst of Jordan, and take you up every man of you a stone upon his shoulder, according unto the number of the tribes of the children of Israel:

6 That this may be a sign among you, that when your children ask their fathers in time to come, saying, What mean ye by these stones?

7 Then ye shall answer them, That the waters of Jordan were cut off before the ark of the covenant of the Lord; when it passed over Jordan, the waters of Jordan were cut off: and these stones shall be for a memorial unto the children of Israel for ever.

Couldn’t the word of the Children of Israel to their children have been enough? Or the words written in the book of Joshua? God thought it proper to make a memorial to remind people of what had happened.

Interestingly, in the N.T., Christ himself said of the woman that had poured ointment on him, that wherever in the world the Gospel was preached, her story should be told for a memorial of her (Matt. 26:13). Pretty important for a seemingly minor actor in Christ’s history.

Memorials are clearly not in the same league with planting a church. However, I fail to see how they would be anti-scriptural. And as I said before, as regards the “amusement park” nature of some of the other things planned, I’m not sure how I see that.

I, too, am puzzled by those who make a distinction between AiG arguments and scriptural arguments. If you think AiG arguments are solely based on science, you haven’t visited their web site or museum, read their materials, or listened to any of their speakers.

And BTW, some of you are lauding the approach of this article, that is based on Scripture, as over against the supposed approach of AiG, being based on creation science. Well, in the article, the author’s fourth point mentions the work of….creation scientists:

[4] My fourth reason for affirming six-day creation is the fine work of its present-day defenders. And here I will mention one who recently caught my attention. Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D., was born in Victoria, Australia, but moved with his family to New Zealand as a child. He received university education in New Zealand, graduating from Victoria University in Wellington with Honors in chemistry, earning a Ph.D. While in University Jonathan became a believer in Jesus through the witness of Christian students there, and as a consequence was driven to investigate his Jewish heritage. As a Messianic Jew, he became a passionate seeker of knowledge about church history and theological issues. He also became interested in the debate over creation and founded the Wellington Christian Apologetics Society in New Zealand. (He also became national chess champion and even achieved a draw against former world champion Boris Spassky in 1988.) His writings on the subject of evolution and creation are some of the finest I have seen.

I also find the writings of Dr. John Byl — whose articles have often been seen in Christian Renewal — very encouraging in their defense of six-day creation. Dr. Byl is a retired University Science Professor, and has served as an elder in a Canadian Reformed Church. Both of these men have shown that six day creation is capable of a vigorous and cogent defense. I have thought for some time that it is a pity that our Reformed Seminaries are failing to extricate us from the effects of the mistaken concession made by some truly great men in recent history, but I’m also heartened to see a clear stand being taken for six-day creation at Mid America Reformed Seminary — and even more since the Greenville Presbyterian Seminary has been willing to openly state its rejection of the concession of faith which has produced such bitter fruit.

Greg L, I have no doubt that Ham has the gospel in his museum but surely we can all agree that a huge part of what he does is trying to prove creationism with science? He says that mainstream science is wrong and his scientists are right.

[dcbii]

Memorials are clearly not in the same league with planting a church. However, I fail to see how they would be anti-scriptural. And as I said before, as regards the “amusement park” nature of some of the other things planned, I’m not sure how I see that.

That was a memorial that the Israelites setup for the Israelites benefit. We don’t have enough time to go into that, but Ken is creating an amusement park around the ark to remind the world of God. We don’t need that, because unlike the Israelites, we 1) have the completed Special Revelation of God that stands as a testament, 2) we have the Holy Spirit that indwells believers and 3) we have the church. All three stand as a testament and a witness to God and they are ordained by God.

Does that mean that Ken is sinning, or that he is not sharing Christ? No! We are not saying what he is doing is wrong, we just question the wisdom, effort, costs and the real long term benefits of what he is doing.

[GregH]

Greg L, I have no doubt that Ham has the gospel in his museum but surely we can all agree that a huge part of what he does is trying to prove creationism with science? He says that mainstream science is wrong and his scientists are right.

[Chip Van Emmerik]

[GregH]

Greg L, I have no doubt that Ham has the gospel in his museum but surely we can all agree that a huge part of what he does is trying to prove creationism with science? He says that mainstream science is wrong and his scientists are right.

No Greg H, I don’t agree with this assessment. Ham starts everything with scripture and constantly returns to scripture. He simply brings science alongside scripture to show that is doesn’t contradict but actually supports the scripture. One of his fundamental emphasis is that everyone has the same facts, but our presuppositions influence our understanding and interpretation of those facts, therefore, it is imperative to begin with scripture to properly understand science.

And yet ABC News at the opening of the museum stated that the two purposes of the Creation Museum (as expressed by the museum) are:

1. Christians who need scientific evidence to bolster and defend their faith
2. And non-Christians who need to be saved

And while we see lots of verses and Scripture in the museum and the AiG website, point #1 (as stated by the Museum) is what is really the undercurrent here. So essentially we need man’s interpretation of General Revelation to bolster and defend our faith around Special Revelation.

I know this might seem like straining here, and on the surface we don’t see this, but this is the undercurrent that is problematic in my view. Now if this was all conceptual that would be one thing, but I have had long discussions with many, many of our young Christian son’s and daughters who have abandoned YEC specifically because of #1 above. They were taught for 30 years that science could be used to prove creation, that the evolutionist were just looking at it wrong. But once they started examining the science they began to question #1 and in some cases began to question their faith. This is the harm that you may not be seeing, but which I am seeing. And these are not young people at secular colleges. You might be surprised at how many science majors at a place like BJU don’t really believe in YEC and most of the reason is because #1 has failed.

Chip, we are simply saying the same thing two different ways. “Simply brings science alongside scripture” means he is using science to attempt to prove or at least support creationism. Regardless of whether we use your wording or my wording, I don’t care for what he is doing and consider it potentially dangerous. I think he is a sincere Christian and I wish him well, but I am not getting on that boat with him.

dgszweda, if you actually toured the creation museum and saw it for yourself, you might be able to see what we are saying. The tour began with the authority of Scripture, and it built on that authority, and ended with a video presentation of Christ on the cross as the last Adam. I found it theologically sound, and very movingly done. Make no mistake, I would have been very very disappointed with the creation museum had I found them using science as their their basis of argument and resorting to calling evolutionists names, and so on.

If young people question their faith, or leave the faith, it is because the truth of God did not reside in their hearts, not because of what someone else argues or does not argue. Of course we should argue well, and appeal to the authority of the Scriptures, as Ham does. The embarrassment or fear of being laughed at over belief in YEC might have simply been what exposed the young person’s lack of trust in God that was there all along. Jesus said He came to set parent against child, and so forth.

Yes, there have been abuses in the name of Creation Science, but the Biblically sound message presented at the AiG Creation Museum is not one of those abuses. When I was there, I was impressed by the overall message to trust God, and they repeatedly presented from the Scriptures how theology unravels once the Genesis creation account is rejected. I cannot speak for Ham, but I would guess based on what I saw there at the creation museum that he would put a hearty AMEN to what was written by the Presbyterian/reformed writer in the link above.

“ ‘Simply brings science alongside scripture’ means he is using science to attempt to prove or at least support creationism.”

It would be more accurate to portray the Creation museum this way: Here is the evidence, the data. Those whose starting point is the authority of Scripture see the data and come to conclusions about that data. Those whose starting assumption is evolution, understandably arrive at different conclusions. The displays there that discussed scientific discoveries and so forth, simply showed the understandable conclusion reached by those whose starting point is the authority of Scripture, as well as the understandable conclusion reached by those whose starting point is evolution. So Ham is not using science to “prove” creationism, but rather is showing here is a logical interpretation of the data if your starting point is the authority of Scripture versus here is a logical interpretation of the data if your starting point is evolution.

I think I may finally understand what GregH and dg… are getting at (I actually wish that full names were required on SI so that we all knew who was speaking, but that is a separate issue).

It seems to me, whether they know it or not, they are getting at the distinction between Classical (Semi-Rational) Apologetics and Presuppositional Apologetics. Everyone involved in the matter is going to “use science” one way or the other, so that is not a legitimate criticism. What would be the alternative? To just pretend we are living in a bubble and quote Bible verses to one another - as if the Bible were supra-historical and its connection to history/science was utterly meaningless?? No - that is the very approach that AiG DOES argue against, and rightly so!!

No, everyone is going to “use science.” The real question is which of the two - Scripture or science - is taken to be authoritative over the other.

As has been stated by Darrell and others, I think that AiG actually has a very healthy emphasis on placing science in submission to the Word of God, using science to illustrate and amplify Scripture, not to “prove” it.

Of course, it is the job of the theologians to make sure that the work of the scientists is put in its proper perspective. We would, of course, expect the scientists to behave like scientists and the theologians to behave like theologians.

Again, for what it’s worth, AiG has given great honor to theologian Dr. John Whitcomb through the years, and he is a well-known Presuppositional Apologist. So I think that speaks volumes about Ken Ham’s philosophy on the whole matter.

I hope that helps - it is my best (and probably final) attempt at doing so.

[dgszweda]

[Chip Van Emmerik]

[GregH]

Greg L, I have no doubt that Ham has the gospel in his museum but surely we can all agree that a huge part of what he does is trying to prove creationism with science? He says that mainstream science is wrong and his scientists are right.

No Greg H, I don’t agree with this assessment. Ham starts everything with scripture and constantly returns to scripture. He simply brings science alongside scripture to show that is doesn’t contradict but actually supports the scripture. One of his fundamental emphasis is that everyone has the same facts, but our presuppositions influence our understanding and interpretation of those facts, therefore, it is imperative to begin with scripture to properly understand science.

And yet ABC News at the opening of the museum stated that the two purposes of the Creation Museum (as expressed by the museum) are:

1. Christians who need scientific evidence to bolster and defend their faith
2. And non-Christians who need to be saved

And while we see lots of verses and Scripture in the museum and the AiG website, point #1 (as stated by the Museum) is what is really the undercurrent here. So essentially we need man’s interpretation of General Revelation to bolster and defend our faith around Special Revelation.

I know this might seem like straining here, and on the surface we don’t see this, but this is the undercurrent that is problematic in my view. Now if this was all conceptual that would be one thing, but I have had long discussions with many, many of our young Christian son’s and daughters who have abandoned YEC specifically because of #1 above. They were taught for 30 years that science could be used to prove creation, that the evolutionist were just looking at it wrong. But once they started examining the science they began to question #1 and in some cases began to question their faith. This is the harm that you may not be seeing, but which I am seeing. And these are not young people at secular colleges. You might be surprised at how many science majors at a place like BJU don’t really believe in YEC and most of the reason is because #1 has failed.

[GregH]

Chip, we are simply saying the same thing two different ways. “Simply brings science alongside scripture” means he is using science to attempt to prove or at least support creationism. Regardless of whether we use your wording or my wording, I don’t care for what he is doing and consider it potentially dangerous. I think he is a sincere Christian and I wish him well, but I am not getting on that boat with him.