Featured Article

The Gods of Liberalism Revisited


The lie hasn't changed, and we still fall for it as easily as ever.  But how can we escape the snare?



Wednesday, December 03, 2008

Evolution Disciples Force Break in Cooperation Between Zoo, Creation Museum

Reprinted by permission of The Christian Post

By Eric Young
Christian Post Reporter
Wed, Dec. 03 2008 09:24 AM EST

A high volume of complaints have forced the Cincinnati Zoo to pull out of a special business partnership with the Creation Museum in nearby Petersburg, Ky., after running for less than three days.

The two institutions had come together to offer a special ticket package that gave visitors the opportunity to drop in on both at a discounted rate while promoting one another at the same time.

According to the Creation Museum’s founder, Ken Ham, however, the zoo received hundreds of complaints, many of which were opposed to the faith and ideas that the museum presents.

“It’s a pity that intolerant people have pushed for our expulsion simply because of our Christian faith,” Ham said, expressing disappointment in the zoo’s decision but also understanding of its perspective.

“Some of their comments on blogs reveal great intolerance for anything having to do with Christianity,” he added.

The Creation Museum, which cost $27 million to build, is a 60,000-square foot facility that opened last year in May and revived the creation/evolution debate among Young Earth creationists, Old Earth creationists, anti-creationism evolutionists, and theistic evolutionists.

Packed with high-tech exhibits that include animatronic dinosaurs and a huge wooden ark, the museum attempts to align the Bible’s literal account of creation with natural history. The museum’s founder, like many other Young Earth creationists, believes dinosaurs appeared on the same day God created other land animals.

Critics, however, both non-Christians and Christians who are against a literal interpretation of the Bible on life origins, have protested and spoke out against the anti-evolution display, worried that their children will be affected. The controversy garnered the new exhibit a large amount of media coverage.

“Frankly, we are used to this kind of criticism from our opponents,” Ham said regarding the latest controversy, “and so being ‘expelled’ like this is not a huge surprise.”

Despite the zoo’s decision, Ham said his museum would continue promoting the “excellent zoo” on its website and in printed material that is passed out inside of the museum.

“We are committed to promoting regional tourism,” he explained.

Furthermore, the museum will still provide $9 off of the ticket prices (the amount of the discount under the original agreement) from Dec. 2 to Dec. 11, with the exception of Saturday, Dec. 6. "Get the Museum/Zoo Discount Anyway," the museum website says.

Beginning on Dec. 12, the museum will have up its special Christmas display, which includes a live outdoor nativity scene and a special lighted “Road to Bethlehem” trail. Visitors to the museum grounds will also be met with hayrides, seasonal lights and decorations, holiday food, and events and activities for children. Inside the museum, there will be special Christmas exhibits including the Planetarium presentation “The Bethlehem Star.”

“We find the two – Creation and Christmas – go very well together,” says Creation Museum co-founder and spokesperson Mark Looy, “and we invite our guests to experience each in light of the other at our special ‘Bethlehem’s Blessings – A Christmas Celebration’ this December.”

Located near the Cincinnati Airport, the Creation Museum is a ministry of Answers in Genesis, a nonprofit Christian organization dedicated to confirming the validity of the Bible from the very first verse.

Since its opening in May 2007, the museum has seen over 600,000 visitors.

On the Web: http://www.creationmuseum.org/

Copyright 2008 The Christian Post. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


Anonymous said...


Here’s the real laugh. The creationist lobby has totally missed their own astonishing biblical heresy, that’s right heresy, in invoking the concept of “accidental evolution.” According to the Bible (Pv. 16:33) God controls all chance and there are no accidents. That’s a pretty big Ooops! You might enjoy this from the current Google News listings:

Intelligent Design Rules Out God's Sovereignty Over Chance


“What proponents of so-called intelligent design have cynically omitted in their polemic is that according to Biblical tradition, chance has always been considered God's choice as well.”

Dr. Theo said...

"Accidental evolution?" I have been a Biblical creationist, i.e., a Genesis literalist, for many years and have read much on the subject of ID, but I have never heard such a proposition. Many proponents of ID are not adherents to orthodox Judeo-Christian beliefs, so it is possible that one of them may have made a statement (of which I an unaware) that posits something they call "accidental evolution," but I'd bet he was not a biblical literalist. What, exactly, is meant by accidental evolution relative to creationism?

I, like Einstein and Bohr, do not believe in random events, only events so complex in their causes as to be inscrutable to the observer.

A roll of the dice or flip of a coin appears random because the multifactorial elements that produce the results are muich too complex for us to reduce. All such apparently random events occur according to physical laws that were written by the Creator, thus they are known to Him. When a dandelion seed drifts off into the wind its place of landing is determined by knowable physical laws, but there are far too many variables for us to predict with precision its point of landing. I doubt very much that God directs every dandelion seed to its ultimate destination but, as author of all these variables, He most certainly knows the outcome of each event.

Similarly, genetic mutations and biochemical reactions are not random, but the mechanisms are completely knowable only to God.

The only events that appear to be of a random nature occur at the sub-atomic level in the velocities and positions of quantum particles. This troubled Einstein so much that he never fully embraced the theories of Heisenberg and Planck. In critiquing Quantum Theory he once remarked that "God does not play dice with the universe."

Anonymous said...

Dr. Theo, if you are a Genesis literalist as well as a scientist, can you explain how human beings were formed out of dust? Or, if you prefer the other Genesis account, how Adam was formed out of dust and Eve was formed out of his rib?

Dr. Theo said...

"...can you explain how human beings were formed out of dust?"

No, I can't Anon. Can you?

I believe that there is a Creator who is not bound by the physical laws that He created along with everything else. I think there is abundant evidence for this belief, both scriptural and scientific.

Denying that, one then has to explain in naturalistic terms how the universe came into being and most importantly how life began. The simplistic notions of a "Big Bang" and spontaneous eruption of life from base elements are complete fantasies with no bases in scientific fact. If you believe those things, you have a great deal of FAITH, my friend, but no substance to support it.

Anonymous said...

No, I can't explain it either. But it troubles me that a scientist like you is satisfied with an answer like "Well, it must have been something supernatural." If you took that approach to everything, wouldn't you be out of a job? What kind of science, what kind of academic pursuit is there in resigning yourself to an explanation like that?

And as for whatever scientific evidence you have in favor of "intelligent design," does your data rule out the possibility that aliens created us? Would you care if the theory were taught in public schools with that type of creator in mind instead of the Judeo-Christian God?

Dr. Theo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dr. Theo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dr. Theo said...

I'm sorry about the previous posts being deleted. I am having problems editing my comments so am going to try one more time. Thanks for your patience.

Real scientists, for hundreds, even thousands of years have pursued understanding of God's creation. The foundations of modern science were laid by men who devoutly believed in and worshiped the one true God.

Contrary to what you've implied, scientists should go where the evidence leads them and not set up a priori assumptions, i.e., naturalism, as absolutes. An examination of the anatomy, physiology and biochemistry of the human body reveals complexity and perfection that cannot be explained by any known naturalistic mechanisms. In fact, the more we learn, the more amazing it all becomes! There are no viable, scientific or testable theories to account for what we see. The evidence leads to an omnipotent Designer. That is the scientific conclusion that I come to. I have discussed this with eminent scientists including Richard Dawkins on one occasion. None of them would deny that nature looks like design. Dawkins has maintained for decades that the natural world only appears to be designed, but "knows" that there is no Creator, so design must be rejected.

Far from throwing up our hands and exclaiming "God did it" and letting things go at that, as Eugenie Scott and other evolutionists have claimed, Christians have an interest in understanding God's creation as best we can so as to glorify Him, develop a deeper appreciation of His power and love and in order to benefit all mankind with the knowledge achieved. Although I am a medical doctor and still have a medical practice, I began teaching years ago because it gives me the opportunity to continue learning about God's supreme creation and I never tire of it. (Please don't tell my Dean, but I'd do this even if they didn't pay me!)

As to your last question about teaching that aliens brought life to this planet, actually that is being taught as theory, panspermia, in most universities. On the one hand, at least it acknowledges the difficulty inherent in naturalistic evolution, but fails because we have absolutely no evidence for the proposition.

The Bible, however, provides accounts and prophesies that are completely consistent with what we see in nature. The evidence of a global flood catastrophe is undeniable. The entire earth is covered with fossil strata that can only be explained by global flood. Isaiah 53 gives detailed descriptions of Jesus' passion and crucifixion and it was written 600 years before the events. These are only two examples of which there are are thousands. A reading of the Bible with an open mind reveals every thing that we can know of God's nature (certainly not all), as well as a consistent, accurate and detailed history of earth, God's people and the man/God Jesus of Nazareth.

C.S. Lewis described his transformation from atheist to theist to Christian eloquently and convincingly. This is a YouTube video about that transformation. If you truly are curious about how intelligent men and women, learned in science and philosophy, come to believe in the Creator Yaweh and His son Jeshua you will watch the video with an open mind. You may not be convinced, but you'll see that those who are are not all ignorant simpletons.

Anonymous said...

It all comes down to this: you cannot prove that there is or ever was a designer, so you cannot prove that anything was designed.

Bob Ellis said...

Anonymous, 6:04, you can't prove there wasn't a designer.

And the simple reality is: there is far, far, far more evidence that there was a designer than there is evidence that there was not a designer.

You should take the time to check it out sometime.

Anonymous said...

And you can't prove that we weren't created by invisible pink unicorns. Does that mean that we were?

Give me a break, Bob. The inability to prove that there wasn't a designer does not mean that there WAS one. Disproving one theory does not prove another. If you want people to respect "intelligent design" theory, maybe you should do away with the "you can't prove me wrong, therefore I'm right" garbage. It has a certain schoolyard bully quality to it that's very unflattering.

Let's make a deal. I'll check out this alleged evidence for "intelligent design" if you read The Blind Watchmaker.

While you're reading, think to yourself which is more likely:

A) That an all-powerful deity suddenly decided to create an entire universe ex nihilo, and out of all the galaxies and all the stars and all the planets he created, only one of those planets is special. And out of all the millions of species that have lived and died on this planet, only one species really matters - homo sapiens. And that this species has been carefully designed by a perfect creator who never makes mistakes, and gave us certain traits like an appendix and upside-down, backwards-oriented eyes just to keep us guessing.


B) That we just perceive all of this and attribute it to a mythical creator, and that these myths were thought up by primitive, ignorant people who were just trying to explain things the best way they could given the knowledge they had at the time. And maybe the real answer is that complex organisms didn't just magically appear out of nothing, but that they gradually developed across a step-by-step process from inconceivably simple to impossibly complex, as scientific evidence demonstrates, over a timeframe that our minds cannot appreciate.

Personally, I think B is the more logical - as well as the more interesting and awe-inspiring - explanation.

Bob Ellis said...

I know very well that disproving one theory does not prove another. If you want people to respect evolution theory, maybe you should do away with the "you can't prove there was a designer, therefore I'm right" garbage. It has a certain closed-minded quality to it that's very unflattering.

I'm already familiar with the Blind Watchmaker and a lot of Dawkins drivel.

What you may not realize is that I used to believe in evolution theory and many of the theories associated with it...until I realized how shallow and unworkable most of these theories are.

And I also opened my mind to the possibility that some of the creation theories could be workable...and wow, they were! In fact, they made much more sense and were far more workable than materialist/naturalist theories.

So I did what any intellectually honest person in pursuit of the truth will do in a situation like that: I admitted I was wrong.

Incidentally, if such a fairie tale as B really was the case, A would be unfathomably more interesting and awe-inspiring.

(BTW, some of those "mistakes" you mentioned from a perfect God already have logical explanations--you should look into them sometime. It might just change your world...or your worldview)

Dr. Theo said...

“…and gave us certain traits like an appendix and upside-down, backwards-oriented eyes just to keep us guessing.”

You make a very good point, Anonymous, but not the one that you think. Introductory biology texts continue to teach that the appendix vermiformis is a “vestigial” organ that once served some long past function but is of no importance in modern vertebrates. Anatomists and physiologists have known for at least 30 years that this in not true. The appendix is a lymph tissue that plays an important role in the development of the immune system, just as the tonsils do at the other end of the tubular GI tract. That function becomes less important as we develop and mature, so that by the time that we reach early childhood (about 4 y.o.) the appendix and tonsils can be removed without serious physiologic consequences.

The fact that this falsity is still being taught to unsuspecting and unsophisticated students says much about the agenda of the evolutionists and their willingness to deceive in order to proselytize their religious beliefs (secular humanism).
The “backwards-oriented eye” is another case in point. This refers to the arrangement of the cells in the vertebrate retina in which the path of light energy must pass through the ganglion cells and the bipolar cells before striking the photoreceptor rods and cones. Even Dawkins admits that there does not seem to be significant distortion of the light in passing though non-receptor cells, but more than that, we now know that the arrangement in physiologically necessary. The bodies of the rod and cone cells sit adjacent to the underlying choroid layer, which is the vascular tunic of the eye. That is, it is very rich in blood vessels and this rich blood supply is needed by the photoreceptors to provide the high metabolic needs of the rods and cones. These cells are the most metabolically active cells of the body and require tremendous amounts of oxygen and nutrients. Furthermore, wastes products from these very active cells must be removed quickly and thoroughly because these cells are very sensitive to toxins. Additionally, the rich blood supply of the choroid acts as a heat sink to carry away large amounts of heat produced by these cells.

It has been shown that the arrangement of the layers of retinal cells is exactly what is necessary to carry out the functions of the vertebrate eye. Cepholapods like squid and other invertebrates have different arrangements but their needs, environment and longevity are much different.

I teach my students that there are no vestigial organs only structures whose functions are not yet thoroughly understood. The pineal gland is a good example. It is incredible arrogance for us to believe we can declare an organ or system useless when we can’t even explain what animates living organisms.

Clicky Web Analytics