What is more interesting about Ark Encounter is what it tells us about the paradoxes of American evangelicalism, a non-worldly belief system with a restlessly entrepreneurial and commercial spirit. The term “fundamentalism” generally denotes a comprehensively anti-modern movement. But this is only partly true. Far from being a counter to modernity, American fundamentalism often embraces it with far greater enthusiasm and finesse than its mainline competition.
Look at the effectiveness with which conservative evangelicalism has made use of television, radio and the Internet. Or consider the eagerness of “creationism” to claim the mantle of science, which is quite a different matter from rejecting modernity altogether. In commercial enterprises like the Christian music industry, or Ark Encounter, the packaging of products is the same as it is in the most successful secular businesses; only the content is different. Evangelicals assume that all such modern techniques can be redeemed through certain proper uses. The medium, in this view, is not the message.
Perhaps so. But it is also possible that there is no way for Ark Encounter to bring the Bible to life without demeaning or cheapening the very things it is intending to exalt. In that sense, the theme park may challenge not the proper separation of church and state as much as the proper separation of faith and commerce. Still, America’s robust commitment to religious liberty means allowing the widest possible latitude to such undertakings””and allowing criticism of them to flourish as well. Let the deluge begin.
Wow, I get to wear my geologist hat twice in the same week!
“Young Earth” creationism — six, strict 24-hr days about 6,000 years ago — gives evangelicals and fundamentalists a bad name. It is miserable science and even worse theology.
If God is Truth, which I believe, and science is the search for truth … then good science and good theology will [I]RE-INFORCE[/i] each other, not contradict each other.
I have done far too much radioactive age dating of rocks ever to accept the “young earth” nonsense, for by its own admission it [i]depends[/i] upon a “re-setting” of radioactive decay rates by the Noachian Flood.
Did. Not. Happen.
Creationists err badly in concentrating primarily on Palaeozoic development of life forms, for in so doing they miss much of the strongest geological evidence for some sort of Creation. In particular they remain utterly unaware of the very sudden appearance of membrane-bound, self-replicating, colonial organisms at the end of the Hadean (as in Hades) Period some 4,000 million years ago.
Those organisms, stromatolites, exist, essentially unchanged, to this day. Or what of the sudden appearance about 600 million years ago of every single animal group still alive today? Darwin himself declared that his theories applied only to the eras following that “Cambrian Explosion” of life.
Depicting early humans and dinosaurs walking side-by-side is not only stupid, but also disconnected from reality. Then again, if someone can make money at it, great.
There are a lot of deluded people out there: “young Earth” creationists on the one hand, and on the other all those leftists who think that socialism’s multiple and repeated disasters are only because “it hasn’t really been tried.”
In that respect Ark Encounter is no different than the New York Times.
Well said #1. I am amazed how many people reject Christ because they believe that to be a Christian they have to believe the earth is 5000 years old. I had a good discussion with a buddy on facebook who was an agnostic because he believed that to be a Christian one had to believe the earth was 5000 or so years old. I told him most Christians now and then do not and did not believe such a thing, which surprised him. How is it that with all the Catholic, Orthodox, etc, out there, Americans can really believe that young earth creationism is somehow mainstream Christianity?
I will fight strict materialism all day, and do so online and in the classroom. However, as you say, truth is truth, and Christians from Augustine to Aquinas have been framing Christian truths in the science of the day for ages. I would love to see a modern day Aquinas come and look at Christian truth in light of quantum mechanics (I think it could be a good tool to understand the Eucharistic presence), but sadly many Christians view science as the enemy (and it is justified to a degree given that materialist science is indifferent or hostile to spiritual matters)
“sadly many Christians view science as the enemy.”
Can you point me to a single Christian (Amish or otherwise) who views science as the enemy? I have never met one who has told me so. However, I know only of many, many non christians who have repeated the bromide so often everyone believes it must be true.
Christians differ on what constitutes real and bogus science. But that is no different from doctors, engineers, or other scientists.
I wish the bogus belief that God’s is limited to spirituality only would die a thousand deaths. For Jews and early Christians there was no separation of commerce and religion, or anything else and religion. Early believers believed in an all encompassing worldview where God’s domain extended into every aspect of life, including science, economics, and art. The sacred and profane were constantly mingling. God commanded that the first fruits of commerce be brought into the Temple. For those who think that Jesus kicked the money changers out of the temple because they were mixing God’s world with business, I encourage reading NT Wright’s commentary on that Mark.
(My apologies for the bad grammar.)
Here’s a similar thread titled “The Disney-ization of Faith” from a blog that generates a wee bit more discussion than this one (333 comments):
http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-disney-ization-of-faith#more-14479
As far as the 5000 year old Earth goes, the answer lies withi Scripture itself. In Psalm 90 and at least two other places we are reminded that God is way beyond time and space. Remember that to the Lord a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day. In ancient languages such as Arabic, thousand is thw biggest number for which there is a word. It was the biggest number they could think of. It could just as well be a million or a billion. So the true Scriptural age of the Earth is actually indeterminent.
Blessings,
NW Bob
More to the point exegetically, the Hebrew word for “day” = “yom” — ×™×•× — has multiple meanings, even in the Bible. Quite commonly it is correctly translated as “time,” meaning era or epoch. Our closest equivalent in English would be to speak of “… in my grandfather’s day.” ×™×•× is translated as “time” in, for example, Gen 4:3 where it means a season; 1 Kings 11:42 where it means a kingly reign of forty years; or Isaiah 30:8 where it essentially means forever.
Only a childish mind would attempt to restrict ×™×•× to a mere 24 hours, especially since the “Seventh Day” has obviously continued for at least 6,000 years.
Good science and good exegesis will mutually reinforce each other, not conflict.
The real problem is that of small minds who define God in terms of what we do [i]not[/i] know. As science expands the frontiers of knowledge, such people are terrified that God will somehow be diminished.
Those of us who understand that science enlarges our understanding of God … have a different response.
Should we someday document intelligent extra-terrestrial life, we should not forget that Jesus himself said “I have other sheep, who are not of this fold.” The Christ is truly universal.
You know, Bart, recently you have been writing very well indeed. I must say I am impressed. The above, e.g., is in the bullseye. larry
Bart Hall and others above express my beliefs on this very well.
justinmartyr, I am acquainted with some fundamentalist Baptist or independent Protestants who are anti-science because of their young creationist beliefs.
I’m uncomfortable with the idea of this being funded with tax incentives, but it is being sold as a tourist attraction, a business like Disney World or any other “attraction.” Tough call. How would the state react, having helped fund this project, to a request for a Jihad World or some such thing?
And the paradox is that the University of Kentucky is alleged to have refused to hire a highly qualified director for its new observatory on the grounds that his Christianity might get in the way of his duties — and the man in question says he is not a young-earth creationist.