Really? Other than Michael Behe, and cranks like Ham, Hovind, and few others, no one seriously believes that. But hey, don’t take my word for it. There are countless research reports, papers, presentations, professional journal articles, etc. you can look at that support and build on evolutionary theory at the molecular and cellular level. The Wash U biology library would be a good start.

http://library.wustl.edu/units/biology/

And thanks for the compliment. I haven’t been called cute in quite a while.

What I find amazing are the parallels, much more than the discrepancies.

A few examples:

If you read Genesis (or any of the other historical/religious creation stories), and build yourself a chart of the sequence of events…you’ll come to a surprise: Scientific research says the same things happened in the same sequence.

In Genesis 1:11, and again in 1:24, the text actually reads in this way: “Let the EARTH bring forth…..” Let’s take that literally, and consider the statement of the paleontologists on what has come to be called the Cambrian Explosion. Basically, in a twinkling of a cosmic eye, the Earth was suddenly full of life. No life, then much life, and all kinds of life. Something happened back there in the primordial soup that suddenly, life appeared. “let the EARTH bring forth life” indeed.

The math is beyond me, but a wonderful book I read titled, “The Science of God”, did the math and pointed out that there is a good correlation between the words of Genesis about the 6 days, and the implications of Relativity. Basically, a person’s measure of time depends on the relative motion of the events measured. If you propose that the “six days” refer to God’s perspective (outside the universe, unbounded by time), and the 15 billion years since the Big Bang as our perspective (inside the universe, bounded by time) and take into account that measurements of time depend on the velocity of the event. This is getting confusing already, but suffice it to say that it can be shown by direct use of Relativistic mathematics that the two statements ARE equivalent. To GOD, 6 days passed, because GOD is not inside the expanding, cooling, slowing universe. To US, being INSIDE the universe, much more time than this has passed. Kind of the ultimate proof of Relativity.

Don’t ever forget, either, that the “Big Bang” was first proposed by religious thinkers who were rejecting the “steady state universe” and said that there HAD to be a moment of creation.

Oh, I’d like to comment on one fairly common idea that is out there, that totally flies into the face of 2000 years of Christian Theology. In order for the ‘young earthers’ to be right, they have to rationalize and say that God made the fossils and prehistory “look old” to confuse us. This concept completely rejects the idea that God does not change, and that God is ALWAYS consistent.

This museum must have a kick arse gift shop. Imagine the bumper stickers!
Forget the scientific debate for a moment, does anyone have any real historical evidence that Jesus actually existed? Gospels don’t count. They are hearsay.

hs: relativity does not enter into it, since it applies to the relative motion of two objects within a spacetime continuum. God, existing outside of the spacetime continuum, would not experience any such effects. Nice try, though.

mikew: Cell biology has nothing to do with abiogenesis since the earliest replicators did not have any cells, and for that matter, were not strictly alive in the full sense of the word. In any case, it is irrelevant to the actual fact of evolution, and that fact is a clear guarantee that the Creation Museum will always remain a stupid joke.

Combining “creation”, which requires a vision of the future, and “museum”, which displays artifacts from the past, in the name “Creation Museum” is an oxymoron.

That is about all I am getting from this post but, I guess, I should be glad someone is getting excited about creation. However, it seems to me, if you want a personal relationship with God, it is far better to start with Jesus than genesis.

Yes, nothing in the bible has been disproven. That is why heliocentrism can only be taught as a theory, not fact. See Matthew 4:8. You can’t see all the kingdoms of the earth from any mountain, no matter how high - unless, of course, the earth is bowl-shaped, not ball-shaped.

Simian

Myself, I like the south pacific creation story the best, where the world is carried on the back of a giant sea turtles. Sea turtles are cool. Fire spitting avenging constantly warring invisible people in the sky aren’t cool. Sorry, it’s a matter of taste. Sue me.

Sigh, “Only a Theory”.

That one makes me angry. It says a whole lot about the IGNORANCE of the person making the statement. IGNORANCE about what the word means.

In science, THEORY is a very specific term. It is a statement that says, “To the best of our understanding, THIS is how it works”. Theories are always changing as new evidence is uncovered. There is a huge difference between a good theory, however, and an “idea”. For a good theory to exist, there must be corroborating evidence. The more evidence there is, the better it becomes. A good theory also always suggests avenues for new study and new research, and makes predictions about what that new research will find.

To Simian’s comment: No, no one has ever placed themselves in a physical perspective to SEE the plane of the ecliptic. We lack the technology to do so. However, the evidence of several hundred years of telescopic observations suggests that Ptolemy’s (and the Church’s) Geocentric Universe is impossible. To make it work, too many things have to do things like reverse direction suddenly, or change how fast they are moving depending on where the calendar is falling. By the way, the Old Testament is definitely written from a Geocentric perspective. (the sun ROSE). It appears that the sun rises, and even today we have to convince ourselves that it does not. A challenge: go somewhere (a lake works well) where you can face west at sunset and watch the sun move below the horizon. As you do it, start telling yourself that the sun is not moving. Suddenly, you’ll feel yourself falling backwards as your mind works through the implication that the earth is rotating under your feet.

A good theory, ultimately, follows the precept of Occam’s Razor: That the best explanation of an event or an observation is (a) the simplest one and (b) the one that does NOT require divine intervention to take place.

Call science ungodly if you like, but never confuse the actions of God with Dogma. There are many scientists out there (me included) who see a grand harmony, who don’t require God to fill in the gaps of our understanding, but who see a Universe and a Planet full of the works of God, and who are dedicating their lives to answering the “How” and “When” and “What” questions. To answer the “Why” and “Who” questions is the province of religion.

Jorg, Might I suggest you look for the book I mentioned. It explains it WAY better than I can.

The point is that if you apply the math and understand that velocity and temperature are equivalent, that if you posit that the writer of Genesis was making observations from “outside” the universe then the six days fit perfectly with our observations from “inside” that give us some 15 billion years.

My perspective remains: the Creation Museum is a celebration of ignorance. It’s not a laughing matter to teach one’s children a lie in the name of faith. We spend a great deal of energy around here shaking our heads at the medievalist outlook of the Taliban, while we celebrate our own version of it.