The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Creation Museum

I know of at least one Christian that believes the museum is an embarrassment to Christianity.

Tom

From the NYT article:
But given the museum’s unwavering insistence on belief in the literal truth of biblical accounts, it is strange that so much energy is put into demonstrating their scientific coherence with discussions of erosion or interstellar space. Are such justifications required to convince the skeptical or reassure the believer?

Tom said:
Have you read what this person has said about Hugh Ross?
He basically said that he doesn't hold to what Hugh Ross teaches, he holds to the Framework view instead.
I must admit that I don't understand the Framework view and don't know if it could be considered an orthodox view, even though I know that there are Reformed Christians that hold that view.

Tom

Kyle said:
We ought to unswervingly uphold the authority and absolute truth of Scripture without making modern scientific presuppositions the ground of truth.

“Synopomorphies are the basis for cladistics.

Cladistics is a particular method of [hypothesizing] relationships among organisms. Like other methods it has its own set of [assumptions], procedures and limitations. Cladistics is now accepted as the best method available for phylogenic analysis, for it provides an explicit and testable [hypothesis] of organismal relationships.” [Emphasis my own]

Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of an incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. [Romans 1:22,23 NASB]

The obvious impetus for the promotion of this view is that the ancient understanding of Genesis — that it is primarily a narrative account of creation — is out-of-step with the findings of modern science. That impetus is wrong. But on the other hand, so is much of the impetus behind the work at the Creation Museum, which is to answer pagan science on its own grounds, thus also making science the arbiter of whether or not the Bible is true. We ought to unswervingly uphold the authority and absolute truth of Scripture without making modern scientific presuppositions the ground of truth.

Tom said:

I lean towards the Vantil (sp?) way of apologetics, but I must say that I have found Answers in Genesis a great tool in helping me understand God's creation.

AIG takes the presuppositional approach to apologetics, believing that the Word of God is authoritive in all areas. If so called science, contradicts the Bible, then the Bible is true and the science is wrong.

Tom said:
You told me that Answers In Genesis takes the Classical approach of apologetics. I thought this quite odd being as how they state very clearly at their web site that they believe in the presuppositional approach of apologetics.

MarieP said:
Now if only we can get them to rest like God did on the Sabbath...

Debate terms
If one agrees to a discussion without using the Bible as some people insist, then they have set the terms of the debate. In essence these terms are:
1. ‘Facts’ are neutral. However, there are no such things as ‘brute facts’; all facts are interpreted. Once the Bible is eliminated in the argument, then the Christians’ presuppositions are gone, leaving them unable to effectively give an alternate interpretation of the facts. Their opponents then have the upper hand as they still have their presuppositions — see Naturalism, logic and reality.
2. Truth can/should be determined independent of God. However, the Bible states: ‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom’ (Psalm 111:10); ‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge’ (Proverbs 1:7). ‘But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned’ (1 Corinthians 2:14).
A Christian cannot divorce the spiritual nature of the battle from the battle itself. A non-Christian is not neutral. The Bible makes this very clear: ‘The one who is not with Me is against Me, and the one who does not gather with Me scatters’ (Matthew 12:30); ‘And this is the condemnation, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the Light, because their deeds were evil’ (John 3:19).
Agreeing to such terms of debate also implicitly accepts their proposition that the Bible’s account of the universe’s history is irrelevant to understanding that history!
Ultimately, God’s Word convicts
1 Peter 3:15 and other passages make it clear we are to use every argument we can to convince people of the truth, and 2 Cor. 10:4–5 says we are to refute error (like Paul did in his ministry to the Gentiles). Nonetheless, we must never forget Hebrews 4:12: ‘For the word of God is living and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing apart of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.’
Also, Isaiah 55:11: ‘So shall My word be, which goes out of My mouth; it shall not return to Me void, but it shall accomplish what I please, and it shall certainly do what I sent it to do.’
Even though our human arguments may be powerful, ultimately it is God’s Word that convicts and opens people to the truth. In all of our arguments, we must not divorce what we are saying from the Word that convicts.
Practical application
When someone tells me they want ‘proof’ or ‘evidence’, not the Bible, my response is as follows:
‘You might not believe the Bible but I do. And I believe it gives me the right basis to understand this universe and correctly interpret the facts around me. I’m going to give you some examples of how building my thinking on the Bible explains the world and is not contradicted by science. For instance, the Bible states that God made distinct kinds of animals and plants. Let me show you what happens when I build my thinking on this presupposition. I will illustrate how processes such as natural selection, genetic drift, etc. can be explained and interpreted. You will see how the science of genetics makes sense based upon the Bible.’
One can of course do this with numerous scientific examples, showing how the issue of sin and judgment, for example, is relevant to geology and fossil evidence. And how the Fall of man, with the subsequent Curse on creation, makes sense of the evidence of harmful mutations, violence, and death.
Once I’ve explained some of this in detail, I then continue:
‘Now let me ask you to defend your position concerning these matters. Please show me how your way of thinking, based on your beliefs, makes sense of the same evidence. And I want you to point out where my science and logic are wrong.’
In arguing this way, a Christian is:
1. Using biblical presuppositions to build a way of thinking to interpret the evidence.
2. Showing that the Bible and science go hand in hand.1
3. Challenging the presuppositions of the other person (many are unaware they have these).
4. Forcing the debater to logically defend his position consistent with science and his own presuppositions (many will find that they cannot do this).
5. Honouring the Word of God that convicts the soul.
Remember, it’s no good convincing people to believe in creation, without also leading them to believe and trust in the Creator/Redeemer, Jesus Christ. God honours those who honour His Word. We need to use God-honouring ways of reaching people with the truth of what life is all about.

What Ham describes is more like Evidentialist apologetics, which focuses not only on God’s word, but archaeological, historical, and scientific evidence to support both the probable existence of God and the truth of the Bible, and refute the major objections to the same. Like John Frame, I don't believe that these arguments are good enough on the grounds that they start out by granting the assumption that human experience is intelligible without a complete acceptance of Scripture “alone”. Ham does this by stating, (1) Showing that the Bible and science go hand in hand, (2) Forcing the debater to logically defend his position consistent with science, (3) One can of course do this with numerous scientific examples, showing how the issue of sin and judgment, for example, is relevant to geology and fossil evidence, and (4) having a little thing called a scientific museum, which is kind of a dead give away to his apologetic method. This however does not mean the museum is useless, but merely that its apologetical method is somewhat flawed. At best, Ham attempts to mix the two apologetic methods (and like R.C. Sproul, some Classical, a defense that stresses rational arguments for the existence of God and uses evidence to substantiate biblical claims and miracles), which by definition does not make him a true Presuppositionalist. One of Frame’s required readings is the book, Five Views on Apologetics, by Cowan and Gundry. This will assist you in defining some of the apologetic methods further.

having a little thing called a scientific museum, which is kind of a dead give away to his apologetic method.

The important thing is to start with the Bible and know that anything that contradicts the Word of God is wrong, and that is what we have stated over and over in the Museum.

Answers in Genesis’ presupposition is that the God of the Bible exists and has given us His written, infallible Word, which can be relied upon in every instance no matter what so-called science or any scientist says. Where it touches on scientific subjects, it is completely accurate. An example is Noah’s Flood. The Bible states that it was worldwide. What would we expect to see after a worldwide flood? We see the evidence of a worldwide flood in the Earth’s rock layers and fossils on every continent, but that does not mean that we use these rock layers and fossils to prove the historicity of the Flood. We are merely observing and noting the consequences of it. We know that the Flood occurred and that it was worldwide because of Scripture.

J Edwards said:
In PA why do we need science, etc. ? After all we ALREADY presume the truthfulness of Scripture and the existence of God.