Creation Science Rebuttals

     Ham tells about the president of the museum, John McCarter, and his comments that museums are now telling stories, or advocating a particular viewpoint.  This is true, however, this is the goal of museums...to educate the public on the scientific world and its discoveries.  Ham goes on to explain that the museum's new display on evolution is not promoting science, but scientific illiteracy.

     Ham explains that there is a difference between observational science and origins science.  Observational science is based on experiments that are tested and repeatable, and origins science, such as evolution, is not, as it cannot be observed or repeated.

     To a degree, Ham is correct.  There is an assumption that evolution is true, even though it cannot be proven.  However, individual portions of evolution can be observed.  However, events such as mutations, (some which are beneficial), and the adding of genetic material (such as bacteria which become resistant to antibiotics) are not recognized by young earth creationists, despite their apparent proof in the scientific community.

     A museum, such as the Field Museum, is attempting to educate the public on these processes of evolution.  While they do come across as factual and beyond doubt, visitors should be aware of the assumptions they are based on.  As with any scientific claims, trust, but verify.  Ken Ham is justified in his skepticism, as this should be the position of everybody until they examine the evidence for themselves.

     Ham contrasts this museum with the Answers in Genesis Creation Museum, which is due to open in 2007.  It will, like the Field Museum, be pitching a specific viewpoint.  While I agree with Ham that it will "try" to "teach the truth about the difference between “operational science” and “origins science”", I'm also certain that it will not give a fair treatment to evolution, and will leave out key aspects, which will make young earth creationism look like the better choice.  As with the Field Museum, visitors will need to verify the truth behind the displays, and not blindly accept the words of the Answers in Genesis staff. 

     One thing is certain already.  Based on the geological and astronomical errors of young earth creation science, these portions of the Creation Museum display should be ignored.  Stay tuned to Old Earth Ministries for reviews of their displays.

Conclusion

     With that said, it should be understood, from a theological perspective, that it does not matter what you believe about the creation, for we have indications that God does not care what you believe.  As long as you believe in Jesus, that is the important issue.

     When it comes to creation, the words of the famous evangelist Billy Graham say it best.

"I don't think that there's any conflict at all between science today and the Scriptures. I think that we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we've tried to make the Scriptures say things they weren't meant to say, I think that we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of Redemption, and of course I accept the Creation story. I believe that God did create the universe. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man. ... whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man's relationship to God."²

     He had it right...the focus should be on Jesus, and the salvation message, not on creation science.  If you want to believe in evolution, and in an inerrant, infallible Word, and a literal interpretation of Genesis, there are no problems in doing so.

For More Reading

The Field Museum website

¹  "Storytelling" at the Famous Field Museum, published at answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0501discover.asp