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

We probably won’t change each other’s minds and I think we are all skirting around each other. I think we all agree that Ken is not an apostate, nor does he avoid Scripture. He may even use it a lot. My view, is and always has been, is to throw science out of the discussion entirely. Use it for what it is for (I am a chemist), but don’t use it or even try to argue for/against origins. The origins are a supernatural event that occurred out of the realms of science. Science changes at the whims of discovery and understanding (almost everything used at the Scopes trial, either for or against evolution is no longer accurate by either side). Our sole authority is Scripture (which I know that you state that Ken focuses on - which I would agree to some extent), it never changes, it is absolute in its statements and it has sole supreme authority. The more we try to loop ourselves into the evolution debate the more silly we appear to be from a scientific standpoint. The great thing is that we don’t have to worry about it. I have complete confidence that in 100 years all of the scientific arguments used by AiG will not even be accurate anymore, just like most of them from 30 years ago aren’t. Teach our children to understand creation from Scripture and they won’t turn away as science weaves and changes with time. That is my presupposition and why I have concerns about creation science theme parks in general, but even more so at $50 million.

Paul Scharf mentioned AiG’s association with Dr. John Whitcomb, and that jogged my memory that AiG has on their website a list of colleges and seminaries (places like MBBC, BBC-PA, FBBC, etc) whose presidents have specifically endorsed the statement of faith of AiG. Beyond this, they list also list schools who apparently have a more active partnership and are labeled as “Sponser Schools.” These include:

The Masters College and Seminary

Northland International University

Appalachain Bible College

Cedarville University

Liberty University

Bob Jones University…

….and about a half dozen others.

[Jim]

Interact with these Ken Ham statements about the Ark … not the museum

• “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”
• “Yes. It’s time! It’s the right time to rebuild Noah’s Ark. We believe that God has called AiG to construct an Ark according to the dimensions in the Bible, to remind people of the truth of God’s Word and call them to salvation”

So is the Ark a God-directed necessity like Ham claims?

Jim, I am not sure why you are trying to grind this axe into oblivion, but I will take a stab at this as well. Ham said “can” and you are saying “need” for what reason exactly?

He also said that he believes God has called them to build it. That does allow for the human error element. It isn’t the same as saying “God has said.”

Are there any major New Testament passages (like Mt 24) that warn of coming judgment directly associated with God’s wrath that also makes mention of Noah? (and parallel). So…

[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.

In your best judgment, do mainstream scientists tend toward or away from belief in God and the supernatural?

In your best judgment, is the upfront rejection of God and the supernatural potentially dangerous?

In your best judgment, is the fact that mainstream scientists receive grants from people with a bias against God and the supernatural a hindrance to their objectivity?

In your best judgment, could you actually come up with a better criticism that isn’t rooted in the myth of objective scientists?

[James K]

[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.

In your best judgment, do mainstream scientists tend toward or away from belief in God and the supernatural?

In your best judgment, is the upfront rejection of God and the supernatural potentially dangerous?

In your best judgment, is the fact that mainstream scientists receive grants from people with a bias against God and the supernatural a hindrance to their objectivity?

In your best judgment, could you actually come up with a better criticism that isn’t rooted in the myth of objective scientists?

Not directed to me, but I will throw my two cents into this :)

1. Science itself will tend away from a belief in God, but specifically the supernatural. Science is man’s (a flawed creature), observation (a limited view of only what our sense can experience), of the world around him and the characterization of the these observations. There is no room for supernatural in pure science.
2. Upfront rejection of God is dangerous period. Is it dangerous to the work of science? Not always. Otherwise progress would never be made. We can heal people, create computers, explain gravity all without believing in God.
3. Science’s bias is not based on grants per se. That is not the real issue. Science doesn’t need God, that is what Theology is for. I know this will shock people by saying this. But the world is filled with unsaved people that use science every day. I think the scientist are trying their best to explain the world around them. Origins is 1)outside the scope of core science and 2)the scientists have no affinity toward God. Yes, someday these two will live in harmony as God reveals Himself to his Creation and His Creatures.
4. Don’t quite understand your fourth question.

All too often we feel that Science needs to 100% agree with the Bible. As a Christian we believe that ultimately they are in harmony, but the Bible does not reveal all aspects of this harmony (it is a book primarily focused on Christ and not a science textbook), nor is a full understanding of God required to practice Science. The more we hold to the first sentence, the more we grasp the need to have a Christian explanation that can refute the world’s science, and it just isn’t always going to be there. If God had written a Science book for mankind that would be the case. Instead we take that on faith, and we stay thankful that God wrote a book that revealed Christ.

[dgszweda]

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.

[James K]

[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.

In your best judgment, do mainstream scientists tend toward or away from belief in God and the supernatural?

In your best judgment, is the upfront rejection of God and the supernatural potentially dangerous?

In your best judgment, is the fact that mainstream scientists receive grants from people with a bias against God and the supernatural a hindrance to their objectivity?

In your best judgment, could you actually come up with a better criticism that isn’t rooted in the myth of objective scientists?

1) Yes

2) Yes

3) Yes

4) Maybe rephrase that so it makes some sense? Or better yet, perhaps you should go read what I said again ;)

“All too often we feel that Science needs to 100% agree with the Bible. As a Christian we believe that ultimately they are in harmony, but the Bible does not reveal all aspects of this harmony (it is a book primarily focused on Christ and not a science textbook), nor is a full understanding of God required to practice Science. The more we hold to the first sentence, the more we grasp the need to have a Christian explanation that can refute the world’s science, and it just isn’t always going to be there. If God had written a Science book for mankind that would be the case. Instead we take that on faith, and we stay thankful that God wrote a book that revealed Christ.”

From all that I have heard from Ken Ham, he would endorse what is quoted here. The Scriptures are our sole authority, we don’t arrive at truth via scientific confirmations, and we don’t have all the specific answers to the questions that science raises, but we ultimately believe and trust God that He is right, and we embrace the truth that its all about Christ (as illustrated by The Last Adam presentation at the end of the creation museum tour.

[dcbii]

[dgszweda]

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.

I suspected I’d get the typical “OT” argument that the canon is now complete, and such things are unnecessary today. That’s why I picked that particular OT example, because it was intended to stand “forever” according to what the Lord told Joshua. And even though it was for Israel, not the church, Israel still has a future alongside the church, and memorials for OT Israel can still have meaning for us today. It is a teaching tool, specifically mentioned as being applicable to children, and a large Ark could indeed be used in just the same way. Further, in spite of the fact we have completed revelation and the church, Christ’s mention of the memorial of the woman who anointed him was NT, and was to be a memorial wherever the Gospel was preached. That certainly applies to our time, and to NT Christianity. I actually agree with you that we don’t “need” such a memorial as model of the Ark. That doesn’t necessarily make it a vain undertaking. As to creating an “amusement park,” we are mostly on the same page on that as well, which is why I am also ambivalent about this project.

Yes, but your example also doesn’t apply to the ark theme park. Memorials were setup in Scripture, some are to be held to today, but I am not sure we are expected to create memorials today that have the same authority as those in Scripture. Those were established by God, these are being established by man.

[Paul J. Scharf]

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.

Paul I agree that the discussion is basically revolving around presuppositional vs evidential apologetics. Since you are involved in John Whitcomb’s ministry let me just say that when I was attending Tyndale I took his class on presuppositional apologetics ( they were recorded lectures) and I loved it. Reading Van Til was not exactly a barrel of monkeys but the lectures were very helpful. To me it really is neat that a person who has done so much with creation science can still be a presuppositional apologist.

Interact with these Ken Ham statements about the Ark … not the museum

Ken Ham is hyped up; you would be too if you were completing a massive project. I have seen hype like this when a church building is completed. Even putting praise bands together elicits great enthusiasm.

• “the building of a full-size Ark can stand as a reminder to the world of salvation”

If believers use the Ark with lost friends and parallel it to salvation, then it could. As a matter of fact, I have no doubt that it sometimes will. Of itself - not often (except perhaps to unsaved but religious people who already accept the truth of the Flood). This might be an exaggerated statement, but it is conceivably true in the way I have mentioned. The Ark IS a great object lesson.

• “an Ark would also stand as a warning of coming judgment—to condemn those who reject God’s clear Word”

Once again, if believers explained it as such, the potential is there. Of itself it will not likely be perceived that way. But again, people dedicate church buildings and say similar things about people coming to salvation as a result of a new facility. What they mean is that Christians will USE the new facility to reach people.

• “Yes. It’s time! It’s the right time to rebuild Noah’s Ark. We believe that God has called AiG to construct an Ark according to the dimensions in the Bible, to remind people of the truth of God’s Word and call them to salvation”

There is nothing in the Scripture that says this cannot be. Unless you believe it is impossible for God to lead a person or organization. It is their belief that God has so led them. They may be wrong, but all I can say is that God has led me to do some things in my life and ministry that were not based only upon logic or direct statement in the Word. Maybe I mistook my imagination for God’s leading; but maybe he really did (as I believe he did). As long as I don’t try to tell you what God is leading YOU to do, or unless I am contradicting Scripture, you should give me space to do so. Same thing wtih AIG, a ministry which has impacted lives.

The only thing these statements might be guilty of is exaggeration from zeal and enthusiasm. If you held seminaries, mission boards, or evangelistic organizations to the same standard, I would venture to say you could find many similar statements by their founders.

I have said things a lot dumber than this when pumped up. Ham’s statements may need to be doctored, but they are not that far off.

About Ham’s Ark only:

• How many on this thread have or would buy a peg, plank, etc to help build it?
• How many pastors would recommend their church take on this project as a missions item? Or recommend to individuals to do the same?

the building of a full-size Ark can stand as a reminder to the world of salvation

If I’m not mistaken we have a standing memorial to God’s mercy to sinners demonstrated at the flood. It’s called a rainbow (which God left with us instead of the actual ark). Maybe that’s substantial enough? It’s also free.

I can vouch for what Mr. Ham has said to me personally. He does not want to see people converted to being creationists, he wants to see people being converted to being CHRISTIANS. One can believe in a young earth and literal 6-day creation and still die and go to hell. He specifically stated he does not seek to prove creation, no more than he (or any of us) seeks to prove God, but he knows first and foremost creation is true because of the authority and inerrancy of Scripture. God’s Word says it, therefore it is true. God’s Word is, and seemingly always has been Mr. Ham’s starting point.

As for “world class” scientists, AiG collaborates with other sources, such as Institute for Creation Research, who now employs such scientists as Jason Lisle, Ph.D.. Why is someone like him “less” a scientist? His credentials seem to me to be up there with “world-class,” having received his Ph.D. in Astrophysics from a secular institution, I believe. But he is just one.

I went to a conference at AiG a few years back, and heard talks on the in-depth Hebrew narrative of Genesis 1-11; the talks were not to “prove” anything, but rather to technically and exegetically look at what was written, something I assumed pastors enjoyed doing (not being one yet myself). The OP even points to the simplicity with which God explained what He did, so such studies seem relevant, at least to someone like me who does not yet know Hebrew. A Liberty biology professor demonstrated skeletal issues with apes and man. Molecular biologists explained complex issues we see that defy evolutionary theory. None of the data presented “proved” anything, apart from simply being science (observable, recordable, repeatable), and those mainstream 95+% hold to so many of their own presuppositions related to evidence that was never observed and cannot be repeated. That is a key point to AiG’s ministry, pointing out the difference between a Biblical worldview and the secular.

Bottom line, good science supports Scripture, not the other way around. 95+% of scientists today cannot accept the supernatural, so they have a different starting point, and that key presupposition is what I have seen and heard AiG consistently point out. To oppose these mainstream 95+% is to be ridiculed as a scientist, and for the church to side with that mainstream 95% (“whatever science says it is, it is”, to quote one popular theologian) when it comes to evidence we can all see and filter through Scripture, God’s Word is relegated inferior, and our kids see the hypocrisy, such as is described in Already Gone. I, for one, appreciate AiG describing what we can do with such evidence, in the face of mainstream science.

Finally, to answer Jim, I have not bought a plank or peg to help build the Ark project. I also would not recommend our church take on the project as a mission effort, given that our focus of such faith-based missions giving is on men and their families who report back to the local sending and supporting churches, with a clear vision of indigenous church planting. Granted, that could be in the U.S., but AiG ministries are not in that scope.

ChrisS,

I don’t think anyone is bashing AiG or their approach to creationism. I don’t think it is the best spent energy, but I don’t think it is wrong. What we are concerned about is the $30+ million spent on the Museum, and what I have just found out is really a $50+ million ark. I am just surprised that people think that $80-$100 million theme park to explain the Bible is a good use of money. A lot of people are defending it because 1) it looks nice, 2) there is a gospel message. No doubt it looks nice. For $80 million, I would assume it would be very cool. But do we really need to spend this money on this type of a message. I feel that it has limited impact at the end of the day and maybe even negative impact. The numbers of people visiting are way down year after year, which has now required them to install zip lines and other “non-creation”, “non-biblical” activities to continue to stay interesting.

Jason Lisle is their star scientist, most of the other people I would not call “world-class”. What defines “world-class” is 1) place where they received their advanced degree, 2) amount of post doctorate work, 3) are they speaking in the field of their degree, 4) are they well published in peer review journals, and 5) do they have broad respect within the scientific community? These are the keys. Remember quality of science is all about peer review and peer acceptance. Something that doesn’t equate well in terms of a creationist view. But I know lots of great YEC scientists that are world-class, just not in the area of creationism.

And bottom line, good science does not necessarily support Scripture. This is a hugely false assumption that many creationists have. If you don’t agree, explain to me in scientific terms how the water was turned into wine? Or maybe specifically how Lazarus was raised from the dead? If I hold to the idea that many creationists do, that science supports Scripture and then I hit into the wall where it doesn’t, where does that leave me? Abandon scripture over science. And if you don’t believe me, I challenge you to go to our leading Christian schools and ask the young people who are getting science degrees from PCC, BJU and see how many of them believe in a YEC view. The results may shock you, and I can almost tell you without a doubt that it was a result of first believing that “good science supports Scripture”. Almost 100% of the time this has been my experience. Give these young people some more time out of college, and do you know what happens next (which I have seen), well the Flood was just regional, and Adam wasn’t real…… I know that many of you view Creation Science as being good, but I can tell you that I have seen more harm come of it from our young kids.