And does it accept science within the boundaries of its walls? God, fine with me. One does not have to disbelieve in evolution in order to serve their God. I hope he/she/it can change with the times.
2007-06-13 14:43:45 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Rose, it's a theory based on facts. Perhaps I shouldn't have said "believe in" evolution. How 'bout... agree with the facts science has found?
2007-06-13 14:57:35 · update #1
There are several creation museums. Which one are you talking about?
Generally, creation scientists actually have more science and more accurate science behind their claims than the evolutionist does behind his.
By defining science as a search for "naturalistic" explanations for the world around us, the typical scientist leaves his objectivity at the door. He eliminates a priori the possibility that the supernatural is the best explanation of an effect he sees in nature.
On the other hand the creationist is willing to accept any and all processes, depending on what evidence is found and what it suggests. If it suggests a natural explanation, then that is the one that is accepted. If a supernatural explanation makes the most sense, then it can be accepted without violating any of his assumptions or principles.
It's not reasonable nor logical to assume a naturalistic explanation of origins. The argument is simple:
1. Science tells us all things in nature came into being at the Big Bang.
2. Science tells us that all effects must have a cause.
3. The Big Bang is an effect. It must have a cause.
4. Since the Big Bang is the beginning of all natural things, the cause of the Big Bang must be supernatural (i.e. outside of nature) because a thing can't be its own cause.
The supernatural cause of the Big Bang is what I call God. A creation scientist can accept the conclusion of this argument while the naturalistic scientist has to issue waivers and disclaimers.
Evolution itself is a theory with lots of evidence and lots of problems. Creation science as manifested of late in "Intelligent Design" is a theory with lots of evidence and problems. Intelligent people can discuss the ins and outs of both sides without taking up arms against the other side. The presence of a couple of creation museums among thousands of "evolution museums" is hardly a thing worth getting upset about.
2007-06-13 14:47:46 · answer #1 · answered by Craig R 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Change is a sign of being a creation. God changes things in the creation but He does not change.
Evolution is not a fact, scientifically it is a theory and it will stay a theory no matter who starts saying it is a fact because scientifically it is a theory only.
2007-06-13 21:48:19 · answer #2 · answered by rose_ovda_night 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ken Hamm is the CEO and President of Answers in Genesis....the brains behind the museum.
I believe in animals EVOLVING but do not believe in evolution, if that makes sense. I believe animals can adapt to their surroundings...such as the cave fish. Over time they lived in dark caves and did not need the use of their eyes. Therefore, over time, they evolved and no longer have eyes at all. However, that is one species altering its existing state...NOT turning into another species altogether.
I have been to the museum and am glad the Truth is being taught.
2007-06-16 22:24:00 · answer #3 · answered by jesus_is_my_prozac 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Creation Museum was the brain-child of Ken Ham.
Since the Bible supports good science (Scientific Methodology), then yes, you will find science there within its walls.
(Evolution is not provable through scientific method. )
2007-06-13 21:50:03 · answer #4 · answered by Bobby Jim 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Would you believe it was *cack* an Australian *cack* school teacher *passes out with embarassment*.
I can't believe a wonderful country like Australia could produce such morons. The only saving grace is that he chose to do it over there and not here.
2007-06-14 01:16:24 · answer #5 · answered by Sarcasma 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Dr Dino
2007-06-13 21:48:04 · answer #6 · answered by Augustine 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
apparenly, people who think dinosaurs lived on the ark with people. in other words, complete morons who have absolutely no knowledge of real science or research.
2007-06-13 21:46:48 · answer #7 · answered by nuPhyllis! 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Idiots.
No science to be found.
2007-06-13 21:46:29 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Fireball created it with her Hawtness.
2007-06-13 21:46:37 · answer #9 · answered by DEPRESSED™ 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
some Jerk created it and he has no sense of science........ He got the whole thing wrong...
2007-06-13 21:47:36 · answer #10 · answered by Love Exists? 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋