Ken Ham - AIG - Creation Museum Materiala

[Canuckster1127]

Just as an aside for those interested this is a link to a 12 minute video put together by an Australian Journalist presenting Ken Ham and the Creationist Museum.

http://www.sbs.com.au/dateline/story/wa ... Theme-Park

This is overall, I think, a friendly presentation which makes Ham and the Creation Museum seem fairly positive. Creationism is used to refer only to YEC and there's no mention of OEC at all. The tension in the article is created (no pun intended) by juxtaposing Ham against a militant atheist.

I'll use this thread from time to time to put up material both friendly, neutral and hostile toward Ham and YEC creationism.

Be interested in any thoughts of feedback; pro, con or indifferent welcome.

[RickD]

Be interested in any thoughts of feedback; pro, con or indifferent welcome.

My feedback is indifferent, because I don't have Adobe Flash on my iPod. Me no see um veedeeoh.
I'll post later when I can watch.

[RickD]

Interesting video. The atheist guy made me cringe, everytime he spoke. He came across as trying to act so knowledgeable and secure in his non-faith, but under it all, I see a lost and lonely man. I really felt bad for him.

On another note, was it just me, or did the producers of the video make the Christians look like a bunch of brainwashed, kool aid drinking zombies, who live in a trance, and blindly follow The reverend Jim Jones Ham. It seemed they were trying to make "Creationists" look like morons.

Is Ken Ham's goal in creating this museum, to bring the gospel, in love, to the many atheists who walk through the doors? If so, then more power to him. But I have a little feeling that there is another motivation behind this whole thing.

[Ivellious]

Very interesting video, but overall I thought it was fair and really just pointing out the obvious, "Hey look, there are Young Earth Creationists in America's south, and some of them made a big theme park about it, and some people don't believe in it as well."

I honestly don't like his "museum" mostly because regardless of the message it sends or the ideas it presents, it's really a big marketing tool to me and lacks much sincerity the way I see it. It also sends a rather harsh message against everyone who disagrees, basically spitting in the faces of Darwin and old-Earth creationists like they are total morons. Again, it's a theme park, not a place of worship or love.

The atheist here is PZ Meyers, who I've read up on and paid a bit of attention to over the years, partially because he teaches in the university system I am part of (I have lots of friends who know him and have taken his classes), and partially because he is an extremely polarizing figure. I'll say this, I totally disagree with many of the things he does to demonstrate his beliefs and I disagree with his overly negative views on religion. Still, I've heard him debate and speak and he is a brilliant guy. I respect his academic achievements even if his personal views bother me a bit.

As far as what he says about the museum in the video, I agree more or less. It's a propaganda machine that holds views as extreme as PZ Meyers himself, but Ken Ham goes about it in a more sneaky way.

[Canuckster1127]

My response on another site where the video was featured was a follows.

I thought Ham was treated with kid gloves in it and what is more, the "journalist" found the most extreme atheist he could to contrast against Ham to make him as sympathetic a figure as he could.

As is often the case, "Creationist" was used as a term as if Young Earth Creationists are all it refers to. There are myriads of other approaches to creation than YEC that aren't militant, new atheist and yet these were not mentioned. Ham himself, often plays this game modeling himself as the only voice in the wilderness who is preserving God's truth while Godless atheists oppose him. It's a wonderful tool that is very effective with the types of people interviewed at the museum who come to pat themselves on the back for giving Ham money so he can get Disney's animatronics to work for him.

There are multitudes of Christians who reject Ham's teachings in this area and his methods. We are Old Earth Creationists. We are Theistic Evolutionists. We are even Young Earth Creationists who reject the narrow and exclusive constructs that Ham uses that have served to alienate him and separate him from more and more people and isolate himself more and more as he and his more ardent followers appear to be descending into cult status.

Other than that, it's a wonderful piece of "journalism."

[RickD]

Canuckster1127 wrote:

. We are even Young Earth Creationists who reject the narrow and exclusive constructs that Ham uses that have served to alienate him and separate him from more and more people and isolate himself more and more as he and his more ardent followers appear to be descending into cult status.

I wrote:

On another note, was it just me, or did the producers of the video make the Christians look like a bunch of brainwashed, kool aid drinking zombies, who live in a trance, and blindly follow The reverend Jim Jones Ham

Very interesting. We picked up on the same thing. I thought it was the way they intentionally tried to portray Ham's followers, and you thought it was actually the followers themselves.

I believe you may be correct, Bart. The video producers may just have been picking up on the obvious.

[Canuckster1127]

Maybe. I might be more sensitive and over-reacting to the journalist's methods in the story. I claim no neutrality with regard to my opinion of Ham and AIG and I own that bias. It just saddens me to watch what I see as a continued descent as he and AIG continue to alienate and separate from others becoming more and more isolated and unchallenged in their thinking.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

I liked the video, and that's about it. I came away thinking that one of the reasons your nation has been so highly blessed is because there are so many ordinary Christians in the USA.

FL

[RickD]

Maybe. I might be more sensitive and over-reacting to the journalist's methods in the story. I claim no neutrality with regard to my opinion of Ham and AIG and I own that bias. It just saddens me to watch what I see as a continued descent as he and AIG continue to alienate and separate from others becoming more and more isolated and unchallenged in their thinking.

More and more isolated, I agree. Unchallenged? I think they are being challenged more and more, actually. At least from those outside their own little world, anyway.

I still wonder how many curious, open atheists are going to be completely tuned out to the gospel, when they equate Jesus Christ, with Young Earth Creationism.

[Ivellious]

Rick, I agree that lots of people are indeed put off of Christianity by people like Ken Ham or the extreme evangelists on tv and the radio. It's certainly disappointing to think that people wouldn't think it through more, but it does demonstrate the point that many atheists or agnostics use. That is, the point about religion being divisive and increasingly extremist and dangerous, even within the US (as much as many Christians tend to deny that).

I'm not saying it's fair to equate the whole religion with the sort of anti-peace and love behavior that Ken Ham or Rush Limbaugh demonstrate, but especially in parts of the US's south it is a very dominant voice and attitude, and it is getting stronger in typically more liberal parts of the US as well. It's interesting to me, because videos like this seem to show a strange trend in the modern world, at least the way I see it. There seems to be an increasing number of both extremely religious conservatives and a growing number of non-religious liberals or highly liberal religious people. The moderate group and the more open and cooperative and welcoming group are dwindling. Both the extreme ends are very hostile toward each other almost on reflex, and in my opinion that growing number of extremely divided views is contributing to much of the political instability and hostility toward people who disagree with each other. This video just seems to demonstrate a microcosm of that trend.

[Jac3510]

deleted

[Canuckster1127]

You come across as very bitter, Bart. It sounds to me like shear contempt lies beneath your words . . .

Thanks for the feedback Jac. I share the opinion of Augustine in this regard.

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although 'they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.'" (Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, vol. 1, ch.19.)

That Augustine was a bitter guy too .....

I own I have a strong opinion and bias toward Ham and what he does to the appearance of Christians and, in my opinion, how he drives some people away from Christ. It's kinderI think than the questioning of mine and other OEC's salvation that Ham returns.

It's an easy dodge to attempt to make attitude or "bitterness" the issue in this type of debate and it's often effective within Christian circles to play that card to silence critics. I learned a long time ago how that tool is used by alcoholics and sociopaths to manipulate those who have a sensitive conscience or are more forgiving by nature than those who aren't. I don't know if that's the case with Ham and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt there, but I've seen enough from him and his organization to minimize my concern over disagreeing with him in the same type of forum he puts forth his teachings on this issue.

The neat thing about painting a positional opponent with the brush of bitterness is that it's effectively indefensible and an emotional appeal made to attack the person and discredit them that for those already inclined against their position can hold to without addressing the substance of the observations or opinion that is threatening to them. In that regard it isn't too far away from the favored "So, are you still beating your wife?" type of assumed question that only takes on life the more someone denies it.

There's some things worth getting a little exercized over and for me, this is one of them. Again, I own my bias and am clear about my opinions in this area. That's actually an attempt on my part to be clear and allow others to weigh that in their examination of the issues involved.

If that makes me bitter, then so be it.

[RickD]

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although 'they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.'" (Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, vol. 1, ch.19.)

Bart, that is exactly why, and the only reason why, I have a problem with YEC.

[Jac3510]

deleted

[Canuckster1127]

Jac,

I don't accept your charge that I am bitter and I'm smiling as I write this, but there's no other way to take your comments here as anything but ad hominem.

I can't help but believe if your concern for me were directly for me and not seeking to weaken what I've said that you would seek to discuss it with me personally first, You and I have long disagreed about Ken Ham and his methods and some of his messages. I'm fine with that. If this is how you wish to defend him, then that's up to you.

I have the same expectation of courtesy and respect for myself that I attempt as a moderator to maintain for other people, including you. I'd appreciate it if you'd direct your comments in the future to issues and leave the personal assessments and characterizations of motives aside.

If any others believe I'm evidencing bitterness or not responding to AIG with proper respect or decorum, I'm fine with you letting me know that. Feel free to PM me and I'll take any and all feedback under advisement.

Thanks,

Bart