I was going to post this in the General Forum, but figured it would make more sense here. Just curious if I was the only member who went to the opening day of the Creation Museum off of exit 11 on 275 past the airport. Passed the protesters on the way in and they were screaming "science", which amused me. I thought the museum was wonderful, and I was glad to support it and glad my kids got to see the exhibits and the planetarium which was wonderful.

I am happy to read your post. I plan to go soon myself... :thumb:

Reminds me of the protesters always screaming "Life, Life, Life" when you drive past the abortion clinic in downtown Louisville.

Just curious, what are the protesting? That a museum was setup to present the argument of creationism set forth in the Bible?

Yes.

Yes they were funny, and of course when we passed them, I got pretty close to them and told them to "enjoy the whole gnashing of teeth thing". My kids thought that was funny anyway!

I have no plans to protest the museum and as far as I am concerned, they are welcome to the place. If my kids were still in school and a permission slip came home for a field trip, the answer would be an emphatic NO.

I have no plans to protest the museum and as far as I am concerned, they are welcome to the place. If my kids were still in school and a permission slip came home for a field trip, the answer would be an emphatic NO.

Honest question, why?

Honest question, why?

Yep, I'm curious to hear as well.

Just curious, what are the protesting? That a museum was setup to present the argument of creationism set forth in the Bible?

 

I was surprised at the protest. Here is the the story from Kentucky.com

 

http://www.kentucky.com/454/story/82455.html

If my kids were still in school and a permission slip came home for a field trip, the answer would be an emphatic NO.

I thought it was those nasty conservatives and fundamentalists that were supposed to be narrow minded. :confused: :confused: :confused:

I find it funny that the argument for evolution still remains for some when no notable scientist agrees with Darwin's theories to date.

Honest question, why?

Based on the news reports, the museum purports to present evidence that the earth was created 6,000 years ago in a period of six days. My religious and scientific beliefs find that to be a complete misreading of both the Bible and science. I wouldn't take my kids to an exhibit that presents as fact, in an entertaining way, things that are against both my religious and scientific beliefs. I don't find that narrow minded at all. I spent a lot of years in religious schools and a lot of years in the stdy of science. I have never found the slightest conflict between religion and science.

Honest question, why?

 

This is the Catholic positon on Faith & Science:

 

 

The Catholic Position

 

 

What is the Catholic position concerning belief or unbelief in evolution? The question may never be finally settled, but there are definite parameters to what is acceptable Catholic belief.

 

Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing. Vatican I solemnly defined that everyone must "confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing" (Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5).

 

The Church does not have an official position on whether the stars, nebulae, and planets we see today were created at that time or whether they developed over time (for example, in the aftermath of the Big Bang that modern cosmologists discuss). However, the Church would maintain that, if the stars and planets did develop over time, this still ultimately must be attributed to God and his plan, for Scripture records: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host [stars, nebulae, planets] by the breath of his mouth" (Ps. 33:6).

 

Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

 

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.

 

The bolded part is the part where I believe Fundamentalist faiths and the Catholic faith have the most significant divergence in theory. I believe very strongly that science and faith are intertwined, and the above is the basis of my belief.

 

More here

 

In my faith, I believe that it is irresponsible to ignore the scientific development of humans as well as the earth.

Here's the excerpt from the article that illustrates the problem as clearly as anything...

 

The (supposed Christian News) reporter told University of Kentucky biology professor Robin Cooper that Adolf Hitler believed in evolution and challenged others to explain why Darwinism doesn't justify homicide.

 

"He is trying to twist ideas of evolution and how people have misused it ... " Cooper said. "You can take many things and put it out of context, just like people do with the Bible, too. But I think what's nice about science is that it's always changing and it is based on the facts."

 

If science is truly based upon “facts” how could it be “always changing”?

 

Facts do not change. Our perception of the facts is what changes.

 

Aside from this self-contradicting statement, the fact that a university science professor freely admits that our perception of the facts of science is always changing is what completely destroys my ability to place my full faith and confidence in a set of facts we simply do not completely understand, are likely to change and cannot empirically validate.

 

In this regard, it is impossible to “scientifically prove” one worldview over the other. I know what I believe based upon my understanding of the facts, but my conclusions cannot be described as anything other than faith, nor can the “beliefs” of any scientist or professor be described apart from faith in their particular worldview.