July 10, 2020

Riffs: The Creation Museum in Kentucky, reviewed in the New Yorker (June 2007)

Since we’ve been discussing Adam and Eve, I thought this article on the Creation Museum in Northern Kentucky would be a good follow-up. The picture is the Adam and Eve display in the museum, which is a multi-million dollar facility with state of the art exhibits. It is sponsored by the Answers in Genesis ministry of Australian educator Ken Ham.

The article is called “Dystopia in Kentucky.”

The museum is a very popular destination already. It’s one of the major tourist draws in the Cinci region. Obviously they get a lot of church groups, but they just get a lot of crowds: adults, senior adults, vacationers, school groups from all over and kids who want to see Dinosaurs.

Friends who have been there tell me it is less a presentation of science than a presentation of Genesis. The point is evangelism more than education.

The article makes plain one of the things I’ve noticed most often about this kind of presentation: you can’t trust anything a public school teacher or a public education source (like PBS) ever told you. History is different than you were told. Science is different. Astronomy is different. It’s all very conspiratorial and it’s meant to teach children especially to talk back to their teachers and to challenge them when they make any claims to historical or scientific knowledge that don’t back up AIG’s interpretations of the Bible.

One of the motivations for the museum is to counter the kinds of presentations done at zoos and museums around the country. In a way, it’s kind of a propaganda race to see who can claim the minds of young people.

AIG has a bit of an advantage in today’s environment. All education is highly politicized and presented with an agenda. Everyone is making a point beyond just a presentation of dinosaur bones or animal behavior. The Creation Museum is a way of hitting back at what these fundamentalists feel has been a one way conversation in most places every since the Scopes Trial.

The Museum has its own web site as well.

Comments

  1. Ky boy but not now says

    As I said. WW III broke out.

  2. Ok,though I normally stay away from these debates, let me add some perspectives:

    I’m a geologist. At one stage in my career, I ran an Ar-Ar geochronology laboratory. I have 10 years of experience as a geologist, mostly exploration.

    AIG makes for bad science. Really, really bad stuff. Gross inaccuracies. Simplistic approaches. I read all their stuff for a number of years. It is an embarrasement to Christianity.

    But I don’t believe in all the scientific, especially geological theories either. I might use some of them, because they work. But the issue is not truth or falsehood. It is predictability. Anybody who uses the word truth in an absolutest sense, in conjunction with the word science, where it concerns theories or explanations, has no idea whatsoever.

    I’m with Popper: We cannot prove any scientific theories true, we can only prove them wrong. An infinte process of elimination and refinement, and ocassionaly, abandonment.

  3. > “Secondly, those who are saved cannot fall away. If someone apostatizes over a minor issue like this, they were clearly never saved.”

    I don’t know what to do with statements like this. It comes across as meaning you’d rather have people like me who differ with you on this point go all the way and call ourselves atheists instead. Surely you can’t mean that?

    Also, if you think it’s a minor point, why can’t we agree to disagree about it?

  4. If someone apostatizes over a minor issue like this, they were clearly never saved.

    If it’s so minor, as you put it, then why do you seem to care so much about it?

  5. As I said, this is an issue we can agree to disagree about.

    That also means, you can’t say I am willfully ignorant because I believe in a young earth. As The Scylding says, you can’t prove a theory true (which would include the OE).

    Re. falling away, a Christian is not a Christian because he has a Christian family, or upbringing; or goes to church every Sunday or anything like that.

    A Christian is someone who has agreed with God that they are a sinner, unable to make themselves acceptable to God.

    They have turned from sin, and turned towards God. Trusting in the substitutionary death of Jesus.

    If you have forgiveness of sins, and the promise of eternal life, what does the age of the earth have to do with anything?

  6. nedbrek, “willful ignorance” is the refusal to know what a theory actually is and is for. You could stand to read some Karl Popper yourself, no doubt.

    “If you have forgiveness of sins, and the promise of eternal life, what does the age of the earth have to do with anything?”

    Didn’t you read the testimonies of any of these folks? There are at least 5 people who’ve already posted stories about how their CHURCH told them that they probably weren’t saved for not being able to make sense of Creationism. And for every five stories you read here, everybody posting here knows five people who’ve been through the same experience.

    Obviously, if a person finds an obviously suspect doctrine they can’t accept, and their church tells them they’re not saved, they’re probably going to doubt the sanity of the people advocating it. Since these people are their TEACHERS, they’re going to doubt the sanity of Christianity.

    Come on, man.

  7. Not to keep harping on this, but… Try to imagine yourself in my shoes for a moment, nedbreck.

    The people who taught you to be christian also taught you all this stuff about the beginning of the world (YEC). They also taught you that if you don’t believe that YEC, then you can’t believe the rest of the stuff that’s in the bible, since it stands or falls as a unit (they say).

    When you start to realize that you can’t believe in YEC anymore without turning off your brain, you have a real problem, since the YEC people have framed the question as “YEC is true or the bible is false.”

    This is what I have a problem with. It sets people’s faith up for failure.

  8. what daniel smith said.

  9. I was happy to see Karl Popper mentioned. Another scientific thinker who is helpful and similar to Popper is Michael Polanyi.

    Moving the conversation somewhat, where are we taught and given the tools for critical thinking? Certainly not in our schools. Learning to dissect arguments and discern propaganda from other kinds of information should be the central role of education in my opinion. Since we are not taught this in the schools, we in the church should at least be providing it as part of our religious education. Instead, we are given only another kind of propaganda, though of a less convincing sort than that passed on through the various outlets the world controls.

    Christians are called to be a light in more ways than one. We should be out front of the culture in all matters, not in challenging it to conform with ill conceived moralisms, but by challenging the foundations of its certainties through more excellent ones. We must think better than the world does if we are to honor God.

    This is no longer the case, but I believe it was once part of Catholic seminary training that students received no theology before they took three years of philosophy. After they had learned to think and reason well, they were deemed ready to study the deep things of God. This seems to give proper weight to what one must be prepared for before taking on the God of the universe.

    Another excellent book to look at in this vein is “Proper Confidence: Faith, Doubt, and Certainty in Christian Discipleship” by Lesslie Newbigin. It is also a thin book, so not too hard to get through. It’s not always necessary to use a lot of words to say something well; something I’m still working on.

    If any of you know of books that are similar in nature to this one, Popper, Polanyi, or anyone else who writes well concerning the development of critical thinking, please pass it on.

    Thanks.

  10. iMonk

    [Mod edited]

    The first person that comes to my mind from the Reformed tradition is B.B Warfield. The Reformed, Lutherans, and Presbyterians have all thought long and hard on these issues. The PCA and OPC leave room for theistic evolution with certain stipulations (historical Adam and Eve for example). Not a big deal, but I just take exception to that because there are such large numbers of Protestant churches who have dealt with these issues.

    To the old earthers:

    While I am more sympathetic to the theistic evolutionary model, I get frustrated with bad arguments against my literal six day brothers and sisters. From their perspective, God did not lie at all. The Earth appears old to us because it was created mature. It makes perfect sense and doesn’t mean God is a liar. It just means that God created supernaturally what would naturally take millions of years to create. I think OEC would gain credibility if they abandoned the argument. Just my two cents.

  11. Brandon, Gregor Mendel, the guy who basically discovered genes, was a Catholic priest. Also, going back to quotes from St. Augustine, the church has historically been pretty open to science in general so long as it isn’t being advocated to openly contradict with church theology.

  12. well, except for that whole galileo thing.

  13. Well, the whole Galileo thing was more political back-biting than repressing science. The Church had no inherent problem with heliocentrism, but Galileo managed to make personal enemies of powerful men. Copernicus published his theories decades before Galileo, and suffered no problems despite being a Catholic priest. This is tangential, however. More info: http://townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2007/11/26/debunking_the_galileo_myth

    Brandon is right that Mainline Protestants haven’t had a problem with Theistic Evolution whatsoever. Michael’s point was specific to Evangelical Protestants, however, who do not share a similarly nuanced tradition on this issue.

  14. The PCA and OPC are “mainline Protestants?”

    Has anyone told them? 🙂

  15. 🙂

    Point taken, I just figured they fit in the Pew Forum category of “Mainline” as opposed to “Evangelical” Protestant, though I’m not sure. Both are small enough that either way they go into the “other” category on the list.

  16. Although (as I mentioned earlier) I accept theistic evolution, and don’t really care much about Genesis or creation/evolution arguments, I do see the reason why to some people it is so significant.
    For example, “In Adam all die, in Christ all are made alive.”
    Or, “The last Adam became a life-giving Spirit.”
    This seems to indicate that Adam, a real man, was the beginning of mankind, and was also the one who brought death into the human race. It also indicates that Christ was the last Adam, the last of the Adamic race. I accept evolution, but admit I don’t know how it can be reconciled with verses such as this.
    Also, the apostle Paul speaks of the serpent deceiving Eve. Was Paul wrong? And if there was an Eve, did she really come from Adam’s side? Because if evolution is true, there were a lot of females before Eve.
    (Unicorn guy, thanks for the book reference. I’ll try to find it.)

  17. > “While I am more sympathetic to the theistic evolutionary model, I get frustrated with bad arguments against my literal six day brothers and sisters. From their perspective, God did not lie at all. The Earth appears old to us because it was created mature. It makes perfect sense and doesn’t mean God is a liar. It just means that God created supernaturally what would naturally take millions of years to create. I think OEC would gain credibility if they abandoned the argument. Just my two cents.”

    Let’s say this is correct for a moment. God created the Earth and universe “mature,” where mature means ~4 and ~14 billion years old, respectively, to the best of our ability to measure it. Since God did this 6,000 or so years ago, that means that he must have fabricated the appearance of 13.999 billion years of age.

    Questions: How is this actually different from God creating the whole thing 14 billion years ago, and it proceeding via the laws he set in place up to the present day?

    How could we tell where the fabricated age stops and “real” age begins?

    How do you know that any age is real? I.e., how do you know God didn’t create you yesterday, but give you the memories of your life and appearance of whatever age you are?

    Apologies if this is getting off topic.

  18. As an old earther, one of the things that I really don’t get is how the other team knows so much about what I believe without talking to me. (And no, that’s not an invitation to cross examine me.)

  19. It’s because Ken Ham told them all about your views… (jn)

  20. I’d like to speak up here for the agnostics. We don’t trip over Genesis and then mislay our faith.

    Learning and accepting the Documentary Theory opened a new world for me. It was a complicated and rich process lasting several years.

    While nedbreck reminds me of what I turned against, the OE’ers aren’t making much of an impression. If I had accepted a literary interpretation of Genesis instead of a literal one it wouldn’t have made a bit of difference.

    Give our journey some respect, please.

  21. Daniel:

    I was once invited to breakfast by Ken Hamm. With that name, it was too ironic, so I declined.

  22. Nedbrek:

    I’ve read a lot of AIG/ICR stuff on geology, and it makes absolutely no sense. It is only a good explanation of the geological record to someone who doesn’t know much about geology. Whether the topic is radiometric dating, sedimentary geology, the nature of the fossil record, or plate tectonics, it is full of wild speculation, ad hoc arguments, sweeping generalizations, and bad interpretations. To teach it to our kids as apologetics could end up having the opposite effect of what is desired.

    AIG and ICR are the “good” creationists. There are others, such as Hovind, who are absolutely clueless. No one should listen to them. (AIG has an “arguments creationists should not use” page, that was designed with Hovind in mind).

    Keep the faith. Toss the junk.

  23. It is “Ham,” not “Hamm”

  24. Thank you all for your deep concern over my scientific well being. 😛

    I can assure you that I understand science very well (I worked for eight years in microprocessor research).

    I haven’t heard any argument as to how I can know that the earth is old, only that I “must keep the faith”.

    Atheists _need_ to have blind faith in an old earth. As Christians, we can take it or leave it. But don’t cede the argument to them, without investigation.

    As to the quality of AIG’s investigations. They are effectively hobbyists, with no personnel and no funding. There wasn’t even a creation text book until the 70’s! It is probably a lost cause, there are more important things, like evangelism…

  25. I do not like green eggs, Ken Hamm.

  26. Steve in Toronto says

    “There are more important things, like evangelism…” Well there goes redeeming the culture.

    We all have to do much better (both Christian Pastors, teachers, Scientists and Theologians)

    God Bless

    Steve in Toronto

  27. > “Atheists _need_ to have blind faith in an old earth.”

    I think I’d get a lot of funny looks if I went around and told this to the atheists/agnostics I know.

    And, if it’s possible without being insulting, I’d like to suggest that proficiency in one scientific field doesn’t really qualify one as an expert in others.

    I do agree that AIG are effectively hobbyists. I wish they would represent themselves that way, but they don’t. It still doesn’t excuse their shoddy work.

    I’m not trying to convince you of an old earth; I don’t think it would be worth it, as you say you’ve already done the research–and there’s plenty of resources online for that, anyway.

  28. Headless Unicorn Guy says

    It is probably a lost cause, there are more important things, like evangelism… — NedBrek

    I believe IMonk has an essay on just that subject (Soul Winning Uber Alles).

  29. Daniel, I think that’s a lot of the problem I have with OE.

    It says that I have to have some expert interpret the Bible for me. If a smart guy who has read a lot can’t figure it out, how successful is God at revealing Himself?

    Steve, I think there’s a smiley in there somewhere, but we redeem people and people make the culture. That’s a lot of the reason I agree with iMonk on many things (weird, I know!)

    Unicorn, Michael and I probably disagree there (I only skimmed it). That’s a whole other thread!

  30. > “It says that I have to have some expert interpret the Bible for me. If a smart guy who has read a lot can’t figure it out, how successful is God at revealing Himself?”

    You’re not the only one with that logic, nedbrek, and I have a few answers to that one.

    My primary answer is that Genesis is not a science textbook, and it is not telling us _how_ god did things. Genesis answers _who_ created and _why_ he did so. Its answers to those questions are not too hard to grasp, and, importantly, are very different from those of the other religions of the time.

    My second answer is sorry, but God is under no obligation to make things simple enough for everyone who reads it to understand, especially on a tertiary point (with respect to the gospel, anyway) like this one. I’ve found that most people, even those who agree with it, do not understand evolution/age of universe very well.

    “It is the glory of God to conceal things,
    but the glory of kings is to search things out.” –Proverbs 25:2

  31. Steve in Toronto says

    This article might add a bit to the discussion. It’s by Dr. Peter Enns (former professor of Old Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia) http://peterennsonline.com/2008/10/21/review-of-the-bible-rocks-and-time/ it a review of a book by a couple of Calvin Collage geology professors.

    God Bless

    Steve in Toronto

  32. Steve in Toronto just pointed out the new book “The Bible, Rocks, and Time” by Young and Stearley. I’ll second his endorsement. This book is a strong, but respectful, rebuttal of young-Earth creationism, and one that I highly recommend to anyone who believes that the Bible requires us to believe that Earth is only 6000 years old or that Noah’s flood is responsible for most of the geological record. The authors, both geologists, are committed to the core beliefs of Christianity.

    Some endorsements of the book can be found here: http://geochristian.wordpress.com/2008/09/11/the-earth-rocks-endorsements/

  33. Ky boy but not now says

    Steve in Toronto
    “This article might add a bit to the discussion. It’s by Dr. Peter Enns (former professor of Old Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia)”

    Given the last few years of Peter Enns life I think he deserves an honorary place in the “Alone, and Not Alone” discussion.

  34. Steve in Toronto says

    Peter is a true man of God and we should do a pray for him at this dificult time for him.

    God bless

    Steve in Toronto

  35. Daniel Smith said:
    “how do you know God didn’t create you yesterday, but give you the memories of your life and appearance of whatever age you are?”

    Deckard said:
    Memories. You’re talking about memories.

  36. Bob Sacamento says

    Just wanted to say, regardless of which side of this question we come down on, we’ve got to see this thread as a testimony to the great job Michael does of attracting a readership from all segments of the evangelical/post-evangelical/post-whatsitwhosit world. Way to go, iMonk.

  37. Christopher Lake says

    I think that many of you are misreading Nedbrek’s comments. He is decidedly *not* making belief in Young Earth Creationism a test of Christian orthodoxy. He has specifically stated as much. Any commenters who are simply not reading Nedbrek’s posts in light of *their* past bad experiences with YEC, or YEC adherents, should be able to see that fact. I wish that people would be more careful to respond to what others are actually saying…

    For myself, I am not settled on the issues of Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, or Theistic Evolution. I do have major problems with TE, when it comes to Biblical exegesis. I can see the points of OEC but also find holes in it, in terms of exegesis. To me, it seems that when Genesis is read not just literally, but logically, it seems to “point” more toward YEC. I could be wrong in my understanding though.

    I just wish that more Christians who subscribe to OEC or TE would accept that not *all* YEC’ers (perhaps not even most) are firebrands who would declare all non-YEC Christians as heretics. Not even AIG goes that far (and thank God for it)!

    Sorry for the copious abbreviations! 🙂

  38. “Science” is not monolithic — there are the more “empirical sorts”, where anyone can read your article, go back to their lab and redo the experiment to see what results they get. I don’t see any big arguments erupting in this kind of science – which is why even YECs can use an i-Phone without cognitive dissonance.

    And then there are the more “historical sorts”, where you collect evidence, and then tell a story to explain it. THIS is where the arguments arise – as anyone who has subscribed to Biblical Archaeology Review knows. Lots of fun, if you keep in mind that there is no way to demonstrate that one story is correct and another false.

    It’s true that evidence matters, and when we are working in the field we call “science”, we ought to stick with the most logical explanation available for the evidence currently in hand. Otherwise, there will be constant battles, with whoever is mot powerful sticking the “heretic” label on those with whom they disagree, and booting them out of the fraternity.

    I’ve got to say that a young earth is simply not the most obvious, not the most logical, explanation for the data available from radioactive minerals. So, when working in geology, one had better learn the standard explanations and terminology and not waste time trying to convince people it’s all an illusion of some kind.

    However, the same is true for the spontaneous generation of life, and its subsequent diversification of forms by some random means. This is simply illogical, and the only reason that Darwinists teach it is because it’s compatible with their world-view.

    It seems to me that a strict Darwinism, and the more literal understanding of the Genesis Creation accounts, are rival belief systems, and neither fit very well into a robust scientific enterprise. The truly “scientific” view is the “intelligent design” perspective – now being vilified by the Darwinists (and sadly, by some Christians who reject the literal reading of Genesis) as “Creation dressed up in a cheap suit”.

    Creationists who want to work as scientists can’t be constantly haranguing their colleagues and students about their understanding of the Genesis story. But strict Darwinists are equally wrong to be saying that the only scientific way to look at Origins is through the lens of materialism. The universe (and this earth)
    look very old…..life and its diversity look designed,
    as even Richard Dawkins freely admits. Thus, scientists ought to accept the most logical story concenring age and origins…..and keep their private beliefs to themselves *when working as scientists*.

    Naturally, what scientists choose to actually believe is their own business, so long as they do their work competently (this is why Steve Gould [RIP] was willing to sign Kurt Wise’s doctoral thesis, bless him). I’m a young earth creationist because I don’t know how to tell the Story of Redemption in a coherent and convincing manner with a “developmental Creation”, and that story is what I’ve built my life around. It’s far more important to me than any ability to explain the current scientific evidence in a way that pleases
    *anyone* on this earth.

    Having said that, I freely admit that God may have done His creating in some way that I’m unable to divine, and for reasons of His own, not Himself very clearly. I’ll be asking plenty of questions when I see Him, believe me. I’m happy to accept Theistic Evolutionists of all sorts as my brothers in Christ, but I won’t be spending much time around them if they insist on calling me names, making it plain they think they’re somehow intellectually superior because I read Genesis more literally than they choose to.

  39. Ky boy but not now says

    Christopher Lake
    “I think that many of you are misreading Nedbrek’s comments. He is decidedly *not* making belief in Young Earth Creationism a test of Christian orthodoxy. He has specifically stated as much. Any commenters who are simply not reading Nedbrek’s posts in light of *their* past bad experiences with YEC, or YEC adherents, should be able to see that fact. I wish that people would be more careful to respond to what others are actually saying…”

    As one who directed a lot of posts at Nedbrek I in no way shape or form felt he felt this way. I just felt his comments on science were mostly not even close to right. But the topics converge as I was just pointing out that YEC and many of it’s follower’s do make agreeing with them a tenant of salvation. And if you listen to them on videos of speeches and such that others and YEC puts out this becomes clear. Even if some position papers on their web sites try and confuse this issue. If Nedbrek feels YEC is right on their science but not their theology well that’s what I understood him to say.

    But I still disagree with him. 🙂

    “I just wish that more Christians who subscribe to OEC or TE would accept that not *all* YEC’ers (perhaps not even most) are firebrands who would declare all non-YEC Christians as heretics. Not even AIG goes that far (and thank God for it)!”

    But the firebrands are the ones walking around whacking folks with their biblical baseball bats. Many of them pastors and seminary professors and students. In the small group / WW III incident I mentioned there was ONE family who would discuss things and disagree. The rest, many of them drop ins during the sessions, would basically say “sorry, you arer a heretic” in evasively polite ways and not even remotely subtle ways.

    Your approach is either a very silent majority or a very silent minority.

    From what I’ve seen.

  40. Christopher Lake says

    Ky boy,

    The more high-profile YEC subscribers whom I’m aware of do not make it a test of Christian orthodoxy. I’m referring to Albert Mohler, John MacArthur, R.C. Sproul (who more recently adopted the position), Kurt Wise (professor of theology and science at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary), and even Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research.

    Now, *some* of the aforementioned people might say that it is theologically *inconsistent* for Bible-believing Christians to not hold to YEC. However, that is very different from actually declaring those Christians to be heretics. Many Christians have inconsistencies in different things that they believe (probably including me!). That fact does not, in and of itself, make them heretics.

    Yes, some YEC subscribers are loudmouth firebrands who are eager to make this issue a test of orthodoxy. The more thoughtful YEC’ers do not think and behave in this way though.

    Don’t forget– there are also many Theistic Evolutionists who treat Young Earth Creationists in a *very* unloving way, while not actually declaring them heretics.

  41. Ky boy but not now says

    Christopher Lake
    “The more high-profile YEC subscribers whom I’m aware of do not make it a test of Christian orthodoxy. I’m referring to Albert Mohler, John MacArthur, R.C. Sproul (who more recently adopted the position), Kurt Wise (professor of theology and science at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary), and even Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research.”

    A problem is the high profile guys aren’t sitting next to me in the pews. (Well we have chairs.). And as much as anything else this has stopped many of us from inviting our friends to church. They’d break out into giggles at best and maybe hysterical laughter when they run into the AIG fans and wall postings and class curriculum.

    And if you don’t think the AIG is a bit over the top, you should get the 3 or 4 DVD “debate” they put out on the issue. K Ham, H. Ross, and two others.

    David

  42. Bob Sacamento says

    Christopher Lake,

    Now, *some* of the aforementioned people might say that it is theologically *inconsistent* for Bible-believing Christians to not hold to YEC. However, that is very different from actually declaring those Christians to be heretics.

    I’m with Ky boy. I have heard Ken Ham speak, met him briefly, and was on the AIG mailing list for a while. (One of the mailings they sent was about the “dangers” of Hugh Ross. I’m not Ross’s disciple either, by the way.) AIG may not actually come out and use the H-word. But they have absolutely no patience for anyone with a differing opinion on this issue.

    Don’t forget– there are also many Theistic Evolutionists who treat Young Earth Creationists in a *very* unloving way, while not actually declaring them heretics.

    Sad but true, but as someone who tends to be just confused on the whole topic, I find the YECers are generally far less patient with me.

  43. > “I think that many of you are misreading Nedbrek’s comments. He is decidedly *not* making belief in Young Earth Creationism a test of Christian orthodoxy.”

    Perhaps I wasn’t clear (I think I was, but who knows), but in no way did I intend to accuse nedbrek of that.

    > “Now, *some* of the aforementioned people might say that it is theologically *inconsistent* for Bible-believing Christians to not hold to YEC. However, that is very different from actually declaring those Christians to be heretics.”

    I am sure that that is the official position of AIG. But in practice, what it communicated to me was something along the lines of “only morons try to be evolutionists and christians at the same time.” So, while I’ll grant that there’s a technical difference, I can’t say it feels any better to be on the receiving end of it. In fact, I almost wish they would call me a heretic; it would be easier to deal with than being thought of (seemingly) as a second-class christian.

    I don’t say YEC people are “confused” or “inconsistent,” I say they disagree with me. For them to call my view on creation “inconsistent” shows that a) they don’t understand my view, and b) how large the scale of the problem in reconciling a YEC viewpoint with an OE viewpoint is. IOW, all the ways they can imagine reconciling the two views probably are inconsistent–but I don’t believe any of those things. If that makes any sense.

  44. Regarding the assertions that there is no evidence for dark matter and that science has never observed it:

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/08/080827-dark-cluster.html

    and…

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060822-dark-matter.html

    Hubble photographs always leave me in complete awe of the complexity and beauty of God’s creation.

  45. Cheers!
    I made with photoshop animated myspace pics.
    have a look at them:
    http://tinyurl.com/5aqbgn
    Thanks a lot 4 your website 😉 xxoxo