At the risk of getting myself in trouble…

Today is the grand opening of the Creation Museum in northern Kentucky. For the record, I think this is a bad idea. I could write a rather long critique of the philosophy and “science” behind this museum, but I’ll save that for some other time. Here’s my short version:

The museum has been built by Answers in Genesis, a young-earth creationist organization headed by Australian science teacher Ken Ham. To their credit, they are gracious with opponents, and avoid some of the really, really bad arguments used by some creationists, such as Kent Hovind (“Dr. Dino”). I often point my young-earth creationist friends to the AiG page Arguments we think creationists should NOT use. Additionally, all the reviews of the museum I have seen say that it is well-done, which is a nice contrast to a lot of what is produced by Evangelical Christians (think of most of the “Christian” movies you have seen).

Image from the Creation Museum

As I have stated before, I am an old-earth creationist. By this, I mean that I have no difficulty in accepting the authority and truthfulness of the opening chapters of Genesis, as well as accepting an old age for the earth and the universe as a whole. Some time I’d like to share my reasons for holding to this position. I think I can defend an old earth (~4.5 billion years) both Biblically and scientifically. I hold to the position that all truth is God’s truth, whether it is truth as revealed in the Bible, or truth that is revealed in nature. When the two seem to conflict—and I believe that conflict is much less common than many think—then either our understanding of nature is wrong, or our understanding of the Bible is wrong. In the end, there will be no conflict between the two.

I send my young-earth friends to the “Arguments we think creationists should NOT use” page as a starting point, to help them avoid the most serious errors. But I would go much further myself, and say that the entire model presented by Answers in Genesis (or the Institute for Creation Research) doesn’t work. This includes their arguments for a young earth, and their arguments for most of the geological record being formed by Noah’s flood. If this is so, then what is being presented at the Creation Museum is bad apologetics (apologetics being the defense of Christianity and the Bible). People may come to faith in Christ through this museum, and for this I rejoice (Phil 1:18). But many others, including scientists I know, can see that the AiG/ICR arguments are not sound, and they will reject Christianity because of the poor arguments offered.

The message of the cross is foolishness to those who don’t believe. I can accept that. But let it be the foolishness of Christ that people reject, not the foolishness of bad apologetics.

I know that many of my readers are young-earth creationists. I could be wrong in my assessment of the Creation Museum, but I don’t think I am. Thanks for your patience in reading what I have written here. I love you as my brothers and sisters in Christ.

Grace and Peace