DOCSLIB.ORG

The Waters Above— a Comparison of Three Models

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Waters Above— a Comparison of Three Models Creation Research Society Quarterly 2020 56:154–169. 154 Creation Research Society Quarterly The Waters Above— A Comparison of Three Models Mark McGuire* Abstract n Genesis 1:6–8 the Bible reveals to us that, on Day 2 of Creation, IGod made an expanse, called “Heaven” and separated the waters below the expanse from the waters above it. The nature and location of these “waters above” have been debated for some time. Further com- plicating the puzzle, the Bible speaks of three heavens. The first step is to define these “heavens.” Then we might know where the waters were located. Three models will be compared—the Vapor Canopy Model, the White Hole Theory model, and the Hartnett-Carmeli model. Each one locates the waters above differently—above the atmosphere, around the universe, and around the outer reaches of the solar system respectively. The strengths and weaknesses of each are compared in an attempt to come closer to the truth. Introduction creative and integrative. Consequently, extent, its processes no longer in opera- The study of origins, the past, the future, the origin of the universe must be de- tion. Several models combining science or the purpose and meaning of life all rived from other sources. Most cosmolo- with scripture have been developed to fall outside the domain of science: gies are religious. explain certain phenomena. But cre- Contrary to impressions made by the Christians should use all tools avail- ation presents many puzzles. One of news media, no one today can start able to discover truth. Our primary them is God’s work on Day 2. Genesis from observed data and build up a source of truth is revelation (Scripture), 1:6–8 states that He divided the waters cosmology by rigorous scientific de- but it also includes science—theoretical, of earth using an “expanse;” some duction. (Humphreys, 1994, p. 53) experimental, observational, historical, above, some below. The latter are the Science deals with present processes. forensic, etc., as a secondary source antediluvian oceans. What were the The two most basic laws of science, the (Reed and Klevberg, 2014a, 2014b). “waters above”? first and second laws of thermodynamics, The Bible describes the creation—its Different models have addressed this are conservative and deteriorative, not duration, date, order, and to a certain puzzle in different ways. This paper will compare three of them: 1. The vapor canopy model (VCM) (Whitcomb and Morris, 1961) 2. The white hole cosmology (WHT) (Humphreys, 1994 as modified in * Mark McGuire, [email protected] 1998) Accepted for publication January 27, 2020 Volume 56, Winter 2020 155 3. The Hartnett-Carmeli model agreeable to the earth, and fitted ment, and divided the waters which (HCM) (Hartnett, 2007) it for giving moisture and rain and were under the firmament from the They all attempt to integrate scien- for affording the advantage of dews. waters which were above the firma- tific knowledge with revelation. Each (Josephus, c. 93 AD, p. 24) ment: and it was so. And God called has strengths and weakness, but it is Both Luther (c. 1536) and Calvin the firmament Heaven. (Genesis almost impossible to prove (or disprove) (1559) correctly interpreted the Hebrew 1:6–8, KJV) any of the models simply because there word rāqî‘ (which is translated as “firma- In modern translations, rāqî‘ is most are so many unknowns, and no one was ment” in the KJV) as an expanse. Calvin often translated “expanse” which has the there to observe the events. (1559, p. 79) wondered: meaning of that which was spread out One of the best clues to this puzzle I know not why the Greeks have or stretched. It comes from the Hebrew is the Bible’s description of three distinct chosen to render the word [rāqî‘] word rq‘, which means to hammer out “heavens.” Understanding their identity stereōma which the Latins have (HALOT) and by analogy to spread out can help us determine the nature and imitated in the term firmamentum; like thin plate metal that is hammered. location of “the waters above.” for literally it means expanse. In this passage, God calls the expanse One possible explanation was that it “Heaven,” i.e., He equates heaven with was considered firm, not by material, but the expanse so that they can be consid- The Heavens: how many by the Word of God which makes some- ered interchangeable. and where are they? thing strong even though by nature it is Brown’s (2001) Hydroplate model To answer this question, it is first ben- soft (Luther, c.1536). However, neither (HPT) is not considered in this analysis, eficial to look at the ideas of the early could explain what the “waters above” because he interpreted the “expanse” as church and earlier. Apparently, the were, as it seemed opposed to common a layer of the Earth’s crust; the “waters number of heavens depended upon the sense (Calvin, 1554–1559). above” being the oceans and those below “science” or “philosophy” of the day. The Luther (c. 1536, p. 30) showed his a subterranean reservoir. But the word early church was heavily influenced by wisdom: firmament (rāqî‘) is used 17 times in Greek philosophy. We Christians must, therefore, be the Bible. In all other cases outside of The Greeks believed that the earth different from the philosophers in Genesis it refers to a heavenly expanse was the center of the universe and the way we think about the cause either connected with the heavens and everything revolved around it. There of these things. And if some are the sun (Psalm 19), stars (Daniel 12:3), were four basic elements—earth, water, beyond our comprehension (like or the glory of God (Ezekiel 1:22–26, air, and fire with a possible fifth element those before us concerning the 10:1), but never with the crust. Brown of ether (Luther, c. 1536). These were waters above the heavens), we must argued that Psalm 24:2, 33:7, 104:3, arranged in order by weight with earth believe them and admit our lack of 136:5–9, and II Peter 3:5 supported the heaviest and fire the lightest. There knowledge rather than either wick- his theory, but these passages better fit were also seven spheres or orbits of the edly deny them or presumptuously the third day when God separated the planets and some thought as many as interpret them in conformity with oceans and dry land. ten (Luther, c. 1536). These spheres or our understanding. If it can be shown biblically that “heavens” were apparently crystalline in With this in view, an attempt will be either the “heaven” or “expanse” has nature (Strahler, 1987). This philosophy made to define how many heavens and multiple parts, then the other does too. was maintained until the modern Co- where they are. A primary passage to the possible mean- pernican system replaced it. In the first chapter of Genesis, God ings is found in II Corinthians 12:1–4: This philosophy had a tremendous created the heaven and the earth. The I knew a man in Christ above four- influence on how commentators in- Hebrew word for heaven is shamayim teen years ago, (whether in the body, terpreted “the waters above.” Josephus which is apparently in the dual form, I cannot tell; or whether out of the remarked that: but in reality is a plural (Koehler and body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) after this, on the second day, he Baumgartner [HALOT], 1999). It can such an one caught up to the third placed the heaven over the whole be translated “heaven” or “heavens,” heaven…how that he was caught up world, and separated it from the depending on the context. into paradise… other parts; and he determined it And God said, Let there be a firma- Paul spoke of the third heaven, should stand by itself. He also placed ment in the midst of the waters, and which implies at least two others. Since a crystalline [firmament] round let it divide the waters from the Paul was writing under divine inspira- it, and put together in a manner waters. And God made the firma- tion, we can use this passage to under- 156 Creation Research Society Quarterly stand others. There are several passages Spirit that Paul was taken into the third heaven (HALOT, TLOT, NI- in scriptures that also indicate multiple heaven. DOTTE) heavens. If there are three, does the Bible b. This does not indicate height, but Behold, the heaven and the heaven define them? Thirteen English words a superlative (HALOT, TLOT) of heavens cannot contain thee; (e.g., sky, air, cloud, and firmament) how much less this house that I were used in the King James Version to These descriptions can be used to have builded?” (I Kings 8:27, II define and describe the heavens. identify the three heavens: (1) atmo- Chronicles 6:18, emphasis added) The Hebrew and Greek terms ap- spheric space, (2) interstellar space, and Wise Solomon understood that God pear over 800 times (Table 1). There (3) the place of God’s throne. We will could not be contained by His creation, are eleven different words translated as examine these now in reverse order. as did Moses: “heaven,” “heavens,” or “heavenly” in Behold, the heaven and the heaven both Old and New Testaments. In the The Third Heaven of heavens is the Lord’s thy God, Old Testament, out of 441 usages, the Paul was taken up into the third heaven the earth also, with all that therein Hebrew shamayim (398) and its Aramaic and called it “paradise.” The word is.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Reflections on a Young Earth Creationist' Approach to Scientific
    Reflections on a Young Earth Creationist’ Approach to Scientific Apologetics JUNE 15, 2015 BY JOEL DUFF A few weeks ago I was a scheduled to present several lectures as part of a course offered by Veritas Theological Seminary in Santa Ana, California. The course title was Scientific Apologetics: The Age of the Earth. The course was split 50/50 between speakers from Solid Rock Lectures including myself, and two prominent employees of Answers in Genesis. However, just hours before I was to present I was informed by the seminary president that I would not be allowed to speak. I had spent the previous two evenings listening to 11 hours of presentations by the AiG speakers and was prepared to respond to that material in addition to pulling together the strands of thought begun by my colleagues earlier in the week. Though I was thwarted from speaking – why this happened is a topic to explore in a future post – I spent time writing down some reflections on the course material presented by the Answers in Genesis speakers. I was able to have these reflections given to the students in addition to some of the other reading materials that I had already prepared. I have returned to my reflections originally written hastily in the very early hours of the morning. I have edited them for clarity and provided a few more examples. I am providing that edited version below as a small – 3000 word – glimpse into the world of creation apologetics. Does the evidence point to a young earth? A few observations.
    [Show full text]
  • The New Answers Book 3
    First printing: February 2010 Copyright © 2009 by Answers in Genesis. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations in articles and reviews. For information write: Master Books®, P.O. Box 726, Green Forest, AR 72638 ISBN-13: 978-0-89051-579-2 ISBN-10: 0-89051-579-4 Library of Congress Number: 2008903202 Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture is from the New King James Version of the Bible. Printed in the United States of America Please visit our website for other great titles: www.masterbooks.net For information regarding author interviews, please contact the publicity department at (870) 438-5288. ® ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND SPECIAL THANKS Acknowledgments and special thanks for reviewing or editing chapters: Steve Fazekas (theology, AiG), Frost Smith (biology, editor, AiG), Mike Matthews (editor, AiG), Gary Vaterlaus (science education, editor, AiG), Tim Chaffey (theology, Midwest Apologetics), Dr. John Whitcomb (theology, presi- dent of Whitcomb Ministries), Dr. Larry Vardiman (atmospheric science, chair- man of the department of astro-geophysics at the Institute for Creation Research), Ken Ham (biology, president and CEO of Answers in Genesis), Donna O’Daniel (biology, AiG), Dr. Tim Clarey (geology), Christine Fidler (CEO of Image in the UK), Mark Looy (editor, AiG), Dr. Terry Mortenson (history of geology, AiG), John Upchurch (editor, AiG), Dr. Jason Lisle (astrophysics, AiG), Dr. John Morris (geological engineering, president of the Institute for Creation Research), Dr. Andrew Snelling (geology, director of research at AiG), Dr. David Menton (retired, cell biology, former associate professor of anatomy at Washington Uni- versity School of Medicine, now AiG), Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution Exposed (Hebron, KY: Answers in Genesis, 2006), P
    footnotes from THE LIE We thank you for listening to the audiobook presentation of the 25th an- niversary special edition of The Lie by author Ken Ham. This download contains footnote details as well as other information related to the printed book, includ- ing more about the author and a timeline of his ministry work. For more infor- mation on other books available from Master Books, the world’s leading creation science publisher, visit our website at www.masterbooks.net. To learn more about author Ken Ham, and the Answers in Genesis Ministry, visit www.answersingen- esis.org. Chapter 1 Endnotes 1. Ken Ham and Britt Beemer, Already Gone: Why Your Kids Will Quit the Church and What You Can Do to Stop It, with Todd Hillard (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2009), p. 170. 2. “August 10, 2009, What I learned from the Creation Museum,” posted by a member of the Secular Student Alliance, http://pnrj.xanga.com/709441435/ what-i-learned-from-the-creation-museum/. 3. Vickie Aldous, “Nudity Issue Sparks More City Council Debate,” Ashland Daily Tidings, http://www.dailytidings.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091118/ NEWS02/911180316. 4. For more information on observational science and historical science, see Roger Patterson, Evolution Exposed (Hebron, KY: Answers in Genesis, 2006), p. 24–26, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/what-is-science. 5. For more information on Noah’s ark and the Flood, see Ken Ham and Tim Lovett, “Was There Really a Noah’s Ark and Flood?” inThe New Answers Book ,1 Ken Ham, editor (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2006).
    [Show full text]
  • RIGHTING AMERICA at the CREATION MUSEUM by Susan L. Trollinger and William Vance Trollinger, Jr. a Concise Overview • the Crea
    RIGHTING AMERICA AT THE CREATION MUSEUM by Susan L. Trollinger and William Vance Trollinger, Jr. A Concise Overview • The Creation Museum is the crown jewel of the Answers in Genesis apologetics enterprise, an impressive and sophisticated visual argument on behalf of young Earth creationism and a highly politicized fundamentalism. • More than anything else, the Answers in Genesis enterprise (including the Creation Museum and the Ark Encounter) is best understood as a Christian Right site that relentlessly and aggressively promotes a highly ideological and radically politicized young Earth creationism as true Christianity, and that aims its attacks on – in particular – academics, feminists, gays/lesbians, and political and religious liberals. • The Creation Museum and Answers in Genesis seek to shape, prepare, and arm millions of American Christians as uncompromising and fearless warriors for what it understands to be the ongoing culture war in America. • To understand how American politics got to be where it is in 2016 -- where Donald Trump is the Republican presidential nominee, and where "facts" seem to have little bearing on his popularity -- one very good place to start is the Creation Museum. • At the Creation Museum and (of course) Ark Encounter the Flood of Genesis 6-8 is very important: not only is it used to explain away mainstream geology, but it also describes an overwhelmingly violent past Judgment that prefigures the future Judgment that will result in slaughter and eternal damnation of billions of people not in the camp of True Christians. • As bizarre as it may seem – with its claim that the God of the Bible created the universe in six consecutive 24-hour days less than 10,000 years ago – the Creation Museum lies squarely within the mainstream of the American cultural, political, and religious right.
    [Show full text]
  • Recent Scholarly Perspectives on Genesis
    Recent Scholarly Perspectives on Genesis Dr. Steven Ball Professor of Physics Photo by Shai Halevi, courtesy of Israel Antiquities Authority Sabbatical – Time to Play Sabbatical – Time to Sightsee Sabbatical – Time to Work Sabbatical – Time to Teach Sabbatical – Time to Learn Overview of Genesis • Genesis is the first book of the Pentateuch, a five-part collection on the birth of the nation of Israel – from Creation to Israel entering Canaan • Authorship is traditionally attributed to Moses, following the exodus of Israel from Egypt, around 1400 BCE. • Most modern scholars accept that Genesis is a redacted literary work, reaching its final version as late as post-exilic Israel around 400 BCE. Overview of Genesis • Genesis 1-11 is a brief outline of history beginning with creation, the fall and the spread of sin, to the origin of people groups and languages, all in need of redemption. • Genesis 12-50 are the patriarchal stories: God partners with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob & Joseph, in establishing Israel and a plan of redemption. • Understanding the purpose and meaning of Genesis has been a challenge for Bible scholars long before the advent of modern science. Genesis 1 – Creation • “In the beginning God created the heavens and earth. And the earth was formless and void…” • The “formless void” is transformed by God over 6 days into an earth that is ordered and filled. • 7 times “God saw that it was good” • Each “day” is described as “and there was evening and there was morning” • Man is created “in the image of God” • God “rests” on the seventh day, blessing it Pattern of each day § 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Science Or Pseudo-Science: Yes, It Matters!
    Science or Pseudo-Science: Yes, It Matters! I live in southwest Ohio, a beau- months, over 265,000 museum visi- when, according to Nelkin, William tiful area with streams and hills full tors have contributedto the economic Willoughby,the religion editor of the of fossils embedded in its limestone; well-beingof the area,spending an esti- WashingtonEvening Star, filed suit so I can see evidence of the fossil mated $10 million on gas, food, and against the Director of the National recorddaily. Yet, on May,28 2007-just lodging (Kelly, 2007). By the end of Science Foundationand the Boardof across the Ohio River in Petersburg, the summer,the Museumannounced Regentsof the Universityof Colorado. Kentucky-a new museum opened; that it had run out of parkingspaces The NSF had provided the funds for EDITORIAL the CreationMuseum, built for $27 and needed to build a new lot! the development of the BSCS texts, million Answersin a non- and BSCSwas locatedat the by Genesis, I think as I read these University international based in "Dej vu," of Colorado-Boulder. profit, ministry, accountsin local and national Willoughby to one Web newspa- wantedthe NSFto funds Petersburg.According site, as a provideequal pers.Twenty-five years ago, NABT, "forthe of the creation- TheAnswers in GenesisCreation and as a promulgation witness, Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/abt/article-pdf/70/2/70/54478/30163204.pdf by guest on 28 September 2021 plaintiff, BSCS, joined ist of the of man[sic]" Museumis a one-of-a-hind,high- other science to defeat the theory origin groups (Nelkin, 1977).
    [Show full text]
  • Young-Earth Creationism, Creation Science, and the Evangelical Denial of Climate Change
    religions Article Revisiting the Scopes Trial: Young-Earth Creationism, Creation Science, and the Evangelical Denial of Climate Change K. L. Marshall New College, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH1 2LX, UK; [email protected] Abstract: In the century since the Scopes Trial, one of the most influential dogmas to shape American evangelicalism has been that of young-earth creationism. This article explains why, with its arm of “creation science,” young-earth creationism is a significant factor in evangelicals’ widespread denial of anthropogenic climate change. Young-earth creationism has become closely intertwined with doctrines such as the Bible’s divine authority and the Imago Dei, as well as with social issues such as abortion and euthanasia. Addressing this aspect of the environmental crisis among evangelicals will require a re-orientation of biblical authority so as to approach social issues through a hermeneutic that is able to acknowledge the reality and imminent threat of climate change. Citation: Marshall, K. L. 2021. Revisiting the Scopes Trial: Keywords: evangelicalism; creation science; young-earth creationism; climate change; Answers in Young-Earth Creationism, Creation Genesis; biblical literalism; biblical authority; Noahic flood; dispensational theology; fundamentalism Science, and the Evangelical Denial of Climate Change. Religions 12: 133. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12020133 1. Introduction Academic Editors: Randall Balmer The 1925 Scopes “Monkey” Trial is often referenced as a metonymy for American and Edward Blum Protestantism’s fundamentalist-modernist controversy that erupted in the years following World War I. William Jennings Bryan, the lawyer and politician who argued in favor of Received: 25 January 2021 biblical creationism1—in keeping with his literal understanding of the narratives in Genesis Accepted: 12 February 2021 Published: 20 February 2021 1 and Genesis 2—was vindicated when the judge ruled that high school biology teacher John Scopes had indeed broken the law by teaching Darwinian evolution in a public school.
    [Show full text]
  • Answers to Common Misconceptions About Biological Evolution Leah M
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Papers in Evolution Papers in the Biological Sciences 5-2017 Answers to common misconceptions about biological evolution Leah M. Abebe University of Nebraska-Lincoln Blake Bartels University of Nebraska-Lincoln Kaitlyn M. Caron University of Nebraska-Lincoln Adam M. Gleeson University of Nebraska-Lincoln Samuel N. Johnson University of Nebraska-Lincoln See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/bioscievolution Part of the Evolution Commons Abebe, Leah M.; Bartels, Blake; Caron, Kaitlyn M.; Gleeson, Adam M.; Johnson, Samuel N.; Kluza, Tyler J.; Knopik, Nicholas W.; Kramer, Kristen N.; Maza, Masiel S.; Stava, Kaitlyn A.; Sullivan, Kaitlyn; Trimble, Jordan T.; and Zink, Robert M. , editor, "Answers to common misconceptions about biological evolution" (2017). Papers in Evolution. 4. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/bioscievolution/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Papers in the Biological Sciences at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Papers in Evolution by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Authors Leah M. Abebe; Blake Bartels; Kaitlyn M. Caron; Adam M. Gleeson; Samuel N. Johnson; Tyler J. Kluza; Nicholas W. Knopik; Kristen N. Kramer; Masiel S. Maza; Kaitlyn A. Stava; Kaitlyn Sullivan; Jordan T. Trimble; and Robert M. Zink , editor This article is available at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/bioscievolution/4 Answers to common misconceptions about biological evolution Class of BIOS 472, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Spring 2017 Students: Leah M. Abebe, Blake Bartels, Kaitlyn M.
    [Show full text]
  • THE HOPE of HEAVEN the Gospel Fulfilled!
    THE HOPE OF HEAVEN The gospel fulfilled! “And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also. I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” John 14:3–6 (NKJV) It has been 2,000 years since the resurrection of Jesus, and a myriad of believers worldwide expectantly await his return.1 At the same time, powerful super telescopes continually scan distant star systems in a futile search for evolved, extraterrestrial life. But we were created—we did not spark into life from a primordial soup or stardust. And though the ultimate destination of Christ’s followers is heaven, that incredible and mysterious place remains sealed in a spiritual realm. Even the most impressive of telescopes cannot peer beyond the physical limits of mortality.2 Living in the confines of our terribly broken world affects what we expect of eternity. If heaven sounds boring, as it does at first to many people, we will not look forward to the incredible endlessness that begins when the effects of Adam’s fall cease. 3 Thankfully, the Bible reveals numerous facts about this otherwise mysterious place. HEAVEN FACTS When asked what is their biggest question about heaven and hell, most people basically reply, “How do I avoid hell and get to heaven?” On that issue, the Bible is quite clear; all who repent and receive Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior4 will live forever5 in heaven with our Redeemer and the redeemed people we love.6 God sent his only begotten son, Jesus Christ, to take on human form and do everything necessary to ensure that we could have everlasting life—with him in heaven.
    [Show full text]
  • A Challenge to Evolutionary Naturalism by Brian Mariani and Sam Byers
    The Grand Canyon – A Challenge to Evolutionary Naturalism by Brian Mariani and Sam Byers (This is one chapter out of a book project that I have been working on. The purpose of this book is to really try to investigate these topics from both the Naturalistic/Evolutionary Worldview and from the Biblical Creation Worldview. Evidence has to be interpreted so the desire of this project is to better look at the whole picture. In studying both sides, we want to be able to analyze which answers the topics addressed better. I have compiled around 75 different topics that I believe are challenges to the Theory of Evolution and therefore we can see that the Creation Worldview has better answers to each of those topics. Take this also as good practice in thinking critically about both sides and asking good questions! Try thinking like a geologist, and like a creationist, and like an evolutionist.) Introduction: The Grand Canyon is a tremendous example of the rock layers that cover the continents of the Earth. The Grand Canyon is 277 miles long, 18 miles across at the most, and more than 1 mile deep and has been carved out due to the power of running water.i How were the rock layers formed initially? How long did it take to form the rock layers? How long did it take to carve the Grand Canyon? What can we learn about the history of the Earth from the Grand Canyon? Naturalistic/Evolutionary Answer: The Grand Canyon is an amazing display and one of the best places to study and learn about Earth’s geologic history and to gain more clues about the age of the earth.
    [Show full text]
  • Faith Displayed As Science: the Role of the "Creation Museum"
    FAITH DISPLAYED AS SCIENCE: THE ROLE OF THE “CREATION MUSEUM” IN THE MODERN AMERICAN CREATIONIST MOVEMENT A thesis presented by Julie Anne Duncan to The Department of the History of Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for an honors degree in History and Science Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts March, 2009 ABSTRACT NAME: Julie Anne Duncan TITLE: Faith Displayed as Science: The Role of the “Creation Museum” in the Modern American Creationist Movement ABSTRACT: Since the 1960s, the U.S. has seen a remarkable resurgence of the belief in the literal truth of the Bible, especially in a “young” (less than 10,000 years old) Earth. Somewhat paradoxically, this new biblical literalism has been accompanied by an increased emphasis on scientific legitimacy among creationists. The most recent tool in young-Earth creationists’ quest for scientific legitimacy is the “creation museum.” This thesis analyzes and compares the purposes and methods of four creation museums; discusses their repercussions for science as a discipline; and explains their significance for the larger creationist movement. KEYWORDS: creationism, young Earth, evolution, museums, Creation Evidence Museum, Dinosaur Adventure Land, Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Writing this thesis would not have been the wonderful and rewarding experience it was without the generous support of the following people. It is difficult to overstate my gratitude to my thesis adviser, Professor Janet Browne. It was she who first suggested, back when I was just a sophomore in her Darwinian Revolution seminar, that my longtime interest in creationism might very well make for an interesting thesis. She helped me apply for the research grant that allowed me to visit four creation museums last summer and then graciously agreed to advise my thesis.
    [Show full text]
  • Shades of the Enlightenment!
    Shades of the Enlightenment! How the Neo–Deist ‘Intelligent Design Movement’ Recycles the Enlightenment’s Methodology of ‘Reason’ as a Humanistic Substitute for Biblical Creationism’s Revelation–verified Epistemology by James J. S. Johnson Th.D., D.C.Ed. Master Faculty, LeTourneau University; Adjunct Faculty, Dallas Christian College [email protected] for presentation to the EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY Southwest Regional Meeting, March 24th, A.D. 2007, 9 a.m., at the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas ABSTRACT: This paper focuses on the epistemological similarities (and dissimilarities) of today’s "Intelligent Design Movement" and the Deism–oriented Enlightenment of the late 1700s. The controversy of origins, which largely focuses on Creation doctrine, is theologically foundational to Biblical Christianity, because the God of the Bible, from the Bible’s very first verse, has primarily defined Himself as the Creator. But the study of origins involves more than Biblical theology, because it also involves natural revelation, as Paul indicates in Romans chapter one. Accordingly, how Christians treat the doctrine of Creation is affected by their interrelated understandings of Who God is, of how He communicates, of how to interpret His Bible, of how to interpret His natural revelation, etc. During most of the latter half of the 20th century, the Christian community faced three major options regarding what to believe about cosmic and human origins: (1) the secular version of evolution; (2) several varieties of "theistic evolution" - 1 - (theories postulating that God "used evolution" to make His creation); and (3) a religious (and typically Bible-argued) version of young-earth creationism ("YEC"), which frontally rejected all evolutionary concepts, elements, and compromises.
    [Show full text]