Science Within The Church Setting (Part 2)
A Topics Of Spiritual Irrelevance Is Resulting In Unnecessary Hostility Against Science
If faith becomes
fact, then it's no longer faith because faith requires believing with
your heart without facts to back it up. As fact, presenting a idea based
on faith as fact is contradicting it. Presenting the Genesis story as a
literal, documented account based on facts instead of a general mission
statement of God's divine role in creation based on faith is a
contradiction As a result, the Ark Replica isn't about spiritual
outreach, it's political/social indoctrination to a particular belief
that's masquerading itself as faith.
Faith is
important. It's a essential component to the Christian experience. Often
though, many will use faith as a excuse to not exercise critical
thinking. Essentially, faith is used as a placeholder for people who are
ignorant, arrogant, or too lazy to do research, and quick to dismiss
validated facts just because it doesn't cater to their worldview. People
will present their views as "fact" when this happens. When this
happens, rhetoric, conspiracy theories, stereotypes, prejudices, slants,
and perceived biases often become fact for many.
People are free to believe whatever they want. For example, Ken Ham, a
Christian Fundamentalist who believes in the Young Earth Theory, created
a Ark replica in Kentucky. He's free to do this. However, something
disturbing is happening. He is presenting ideas based on his faith as
documented fact that many feel should be taught in school, despite no
educational or scientific backing for his claims. Knowledge and critical
thinking takes a back seat. Genesis is meant to be a
general "big-picture" declaration declaring God's divine role in the
universe, and not a specific, detailed geological account that was meant
to be taken literally. Science was left with that job. As a result, I
don't find any objection to ideas like evolution or the Big Bang (I
never understood why so many Christians felt threatened by the idea of
the Big Bang). These ideas could be a part of God's plan, and they don't
discredit the creation account, since that account was again meant to
be a general declaration, not a detailed summary. Under Theological
Evolution, these ideas confirm God's role in the universe.
I will be very brutally honest: Genesis didn't make sense when interpreted literally. Knowing what I know about the geological forces that played a role on this planet over the eons, Genesis (from a literal perspective)makes little sense, and their are many holes. : However, when looking at Genesis as a general declaration while reading "in between the lines" and not taking the material as a detailed literal account, then Genesis makes perfect sense. The mystery in faith is still their as well. Their is nothing wrong with mystery as it validates faith as again, faith is what you believe in your heart and is something that's not suppose to be documented fact. Genesis wasn't meant to be a detailed account, but a general declaration of God's divine role. Their is nothing wrong with this mindset.
I will be very brutally honest: Genesis didn't make sense when interpreted literally. Knowing what I know about the geological forces that played a role on this planet over the eons, Genesis (from a literal perspective)makes little sense, and their are many holes. : However, when looking at Genesis as a general declaration while reading "in between the lines" and not taking the material as a detailed literal account, then Genesis makes perfect sense. The mystery in faith is still their as well. Their is nothing wrong with mystery as it validates faith as again, faith is what you believe in your heart and is something that's not suppose to be documented fact. Genesis wasn't meant to be a detailed account, but a general declaration of God's divine role. Their is nothing wrong with this mindset.
There's nothing that can back up Ham's claim from a biblical (or scientific) basis. Genesis does reference giant animals. The
descriptions were very vague in nature. Evolution isn't noted in the
Bible because it's not important from a spiritual perspective. Where we
descended from biologically eons ago is irrelevant from a spiritual
perspective. The emphasis is placed on our current
spiritual walk. For the writers, small intrinsic details in creation
wasn't important to that person's spiritual walk. The main idea from
Genesis that is
important is that God created the universe. How he did it in detail isn't important to that person's spiritual walk.
I've taught Sunday School in the past, and when this topic was covered, I stated that the universe was created in 6 "God days". That phrase was used because the universe was created in 6 days according to God. This brings up a question: What Is A Day To God? Time itself is a creation of God, but the measurement of time was a creation of man. Also, the heavenly concept of time doesn't conform to our notion of time. As a result, one can still be correct to say that the Earth was created in 6 days and still be 4.6 billion years old as those 6 days were those that went by God's watch.
One could use the comparison between spirituality and religion.
Spirituality is a gift of God, while religion, which is the
formalization and standardization of spirituality, was a creation of
man.
Since Genesis was never intended on being a detailed geological
account of Earth's history, science has filled in the missing details.
Evolution on the geological scale hasn't been proven, but there is a lot
of evidence to support that it has occurred. On the short time scale,
evolution has been proven in the form of selective breeding of various
animals, like horses, dogs, cats, and pigeons.
One of the massive problems is that many will flat-out reject who
ideas
based on those couple of small issues, even when they have very strong
evidence and are well-supported. If the idea is universally accepted,
but it as a couple of small flaw here and there, it's thrown out
entirely. The idea that takes its place will often though be completely
absurd and have zero merit, but yet, embraced as doctrine by those that
reject critical thinking for something that caters to their worldview.
The Ark Replica
As noted in the NBC article linked below, Ken Ham believes that the creation account
in Genesis is literal, meaning that it's documented historical fact.
This brings up that statement made earlier: If faith becomes fact, then
it's no longer faith because faith requires believing with your heart
without facts to back it up. As fact, presenting a idea based on faith
as fact is contradicting it. Presenting the Genesis story as a literal,
documented account based on facts instead of a general mission statement
of God's divine role in creation based on faith is a contradiction As a
result, the Ark Replica isn't about spiritual outreach, it's
political/social indoctrination to a particular belief that's
masquerading itself as faith.
When his Ark Replica in Kentucky opened, it was visited by the critically acclaimed scientist Bill Nye. Many people in the 90's, including me, watch Bill Nye, the Science Guy as part of our daytime routine. As I read the article, it stated that Ken Ham prayed with Bill Nye towards the end of the meeting. After the tour, Ham asked if he and Bill Nye be friends with him, with Nye respectfully responding that they could be acquaintances, but not friends.
Many, including me, see the Ark Replica not as a tool used for spiritual outreach, but to socially and politically indoctrinate people to a very narrow interpretation of the creation story in order to recruit new Christian Fundamentalist, or at the very least, get people to reject known science with new "facts". Essentially, Ken Ham passing off his faith as "fact".
Several (including me) see Ham's project, not as a project for spiritual outreach, but as a front for Conservative Christians to strive for even more political control and domination. The type that sees Christianity is as much a political movement (which it never was intended on being) as well as a spiritual one. The Christian that regularly mixes religion and politics together, seeing one institution as "God's Righteous Party" with the other being a den full of Satanist (failing to realize that both parties are equally prone to corruption and have moral and ethical shortcomings, and aren't any different in that regard).
Many of these Christians will scream about about perceived grievances committed against them (with the vast majority being petty complaints or differences of opinion), but have no objection of seeing the church as the though police and robbing civic freedoms from those that don't cater to their views. Those that see theocracies as a good thing (which our Founding Fathers warned against).
This mindset is reflected by those that visit the Ark. The type that instead of addressing the shortcomings of there church and congregation, choose instead to blame boogeymen like secularism, those "evil liberals", George Soros, and those pesky Democrats that are typing to destroy Christianity so they can take away people's guns to send them to concentration camps.
The type that will use comic books, rock music, movies, TV and video games as scapegoats when bad things happen, and believe whatever rubbish that Fox News, Brietbart, or The Blaze echos that week, along with the latest conspiracy theories from InfoWars or the Philadelphia Trumpet.
I've talked to people who had this mindset. Those that when they encounter alternate views, they don't see it as a difference of opinion, but embrace the " I'm right and unless you agree with me, then you're wrong" mentality. It's very safe to assume that Ken Ham embraces the modern vague definition of persecution, reducing this all important word to a meaningless sensationalist, click-bait term. A term for people like Ham to abuse when they pass off criticisms of the Ark replica as "persecution" and "Christian suffering". A word defined as someone who is physical or verbal assaulted for their beliefs is redefined as any act of adversity, grievance, difference of opinion, or critique.
In short, this exhibit was not made for universal/mainstream Christians. It was made only for Fundamentalist Christians to confirm their (and his) worldview. This is another reason why I can state that this ark doesn't exist for spiritual outreach.
If Ken Ham really was concerned about spiritual outreach, he would have built a church, homeless shelter/soup kitchen or a free clinic that actually would have been much more beneficial to society instead. The very fact that he ignored those things and instead chose to build a Ark replica instead confirms this. A person who I can assume is very pious and self-righteous, and sees his opinions as divine fact. Ken Ham has taken advantage of tax breaks, meaning that the tax-payers, regardless of beliefs or whether they embrace or reject the idea of the Young-Earth theory, are paying for this Ark Replica as well. Employees wanting to work there are required to state on the application if they are Christian or not, which could be used as a deciding factor if one gets a job there. This as hostile as someone should get the job based on the potential merit of the work, and not what their beliefs and views, as it's irrelevant to the work experience.
When his Ark Replica in Kentucky opened, it was visited by the critically acclaimed scientist Bill Nye. Many people in the 90's, including me, watch Bill Nye, the Science Guy as part of our daytime routine. As I read the article, it stated that Ken Ham prayed with Bill Nye towards the end of the meeting. After the tour, Ham asked if he and Bill Nye be friends with him, with Nye respectfully responding that they could be acquaintances, but not friends.
Many, including me, see the Ark Replica not as a tool used for spiritual outreach, but to socially and politically indoctrinate people to a very narrow interpretation of the creation story in order to recruit new Christian Fundamentalist, or at the very least, get people to reject known science with new "facts". Essentially, Ken Ham passing off his faith as "fact".
Several (including me) see Ham's project, not as a project for spiritual outreach, but as a front for Conservative Christians to strive for even more political control and domination. The type that sees Christianity is as much a political movement (which it never was intended on being) as well as a spiritual one. The Christian that regularly mixes religion and politics together, seeing one institution as "God's Righteous Party" with the other being a den full of Satanist (failing to realize that both parties are equally prone to corruption and have moral and ethical shortcomings, and aren't any different in that regard).
Many of these Christians will scream about about perceived grievances committed against them (with the vast majority being petty complaints or differences of opinion), but have no objection of seeing the church as the though police and robbing civic freedoms from those that don't cater to their views. Those that see theocracies as a good thing (which our Founding Fathers warned against).
This mindset is reflected by those that visit the Ark. The type that instead of addressing the shortcomings of there church and congregation, choose instead to blame boogeymen like secularism, those "evil liberals", George Soros, and those pesky Democrats that are typing to destroy Christianity so they can take away people's guns to send them to concentration camps.
The type that will use comic books, rock music, movies, TV and video games as scapegoats when bad things happen, and believe whatever rubbish that Fox News, Brietbart, or The Blaze echos that week, along with the latest conspiracy theories from InfoWars or the Philadelphia Trumpet.
I've talked to people who had this mindset. Those that when they encounter alternate views, they don't see it as a difference of opinion, but embrace the " I'm right and unless you agree with me, then you're wrong" mentality. It's very safe to assume that Ken Ham embraces the modern vague definition of persecution, reducing this all important word to a meaningless sensationalist, click-bait term. A term for people like Ham to abuse when they pass off criticisms of the Ark replica as "persecution" and "Christian suffering". A word defined as someone who is physical or verbal assaulted for their beliefs is redefined as any act of adversity, grievance, difference of opinion, or critique.
In short, this exhibit was not made for universal/mainstream Christians. It was made only for Fundamentalist Christians to confirm their (and his) worldview. This is another reason why I can state that this ark doesn't exist for spiritual outreach.
If Ken Ham really was concerned about spiritual outreach, he would have built a church, homeless shelter/soup kitchen or a free clinic that actually would have been much more beneficial to society instead. The very fact that he ignored those things and instead chose to build a Ark replica instead confirms this. A person who I can assume is very pious and self-righteous, and sees his opinions as divine fact. Ken Ham has taken advantage of tax breaks, meaning that the tax-payers, regardless of beliefs or whether they embrace or reject the idea of the Young-Earth theory, are paying for this Ark Replica as well. Employees wanting to work there are required to state on the application if they are Christian or not, which could be used as a deciding factor if one gets a job there. This as hostile as someone should get the job based on the potential merit of the work, and not what their beliefs and views, as it's irrelevant to the work experience.
'Absolutely Wrong': Bill Nye the Science Guy Takes on Noah's Ark Exhibit
NBC News
WWW.NBCNEWS.COM
Were There Dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark?
The Atlantic
WWW.THEATLANTIC.COM
Creationists Say a Nobel Prize Winner Didn’t Really Use Evolution in Experiment
PATHEOS
WWW.PATHEOS.COM
Young Earth Creationists Shouldn’t Cite Pro-Evolution Articles to Make a Point
PATHEOS
WWW.PATHEOS.COM
Comments
Post a Comment