I’ve been amazed at the hubbub surrounding the opening of the Creation Museum. The coverage has mostly been along the lines of “how could they?” I’m wondering how all the the other “natural” museums couldn’t.
Russell D. Moore writes of his visit:
“Frankly, even if I were a Darwinist, I would think I would have no more reason to be angered by this exhibit than by a New Age museum arguing for the Gaia hypothesis of earth as a living organism or by an Eastern religion’s museum arguing for a universe with no beginning and no end.
Speaking of Darwinism, it was everywhere, and fairly presented. In virtually every exhibit, on the “Lucy” fossil or on carbon-14 dating or on the fossil record or on the Big Bang, the information included both the Darwinist-materialist explanation for the scientific data along with how the same data are interpreted by the museum’s biblical creationist grid.”
It wasn’t that long ago that the Creation model of origins was assumed correct while the “outlandish” claims of evolution just begged for a fair hearing. Not so now is it? Why is that? Why is it not intriguing and entertaining to discuss and debate both sides of an issue?
There is another side, but when is the last time you’ve encountered a balanced presentation on global warming/whining, peak oil, creation/evolution, free market/redistribution, etc.? Individuals should seek to become informed enough to reason their own conclusions from the facts and arguments presented by both sides. Christians are often accused of wanting to impose our views on society, but the secular-humanist culture that seemingly advocates “open-mindedness” is demanding with ferocious, religious zeal that debate is over…on issue after issue.
Put another way by Tom Bethell in his article Don’t Fear the Designer:
“To believe that the feeble tautology of natural selection — laissez-faire political economy from the 1830s imported into biology — constitutes a sufficient explanation of the marvels of nature is to display a credulity that makes our fundamentalists seem sagacious by comparison.”
I submit that we do society no favors by declaring opinion as fact. That is not science, nor the least bit scientific. The process of education – debate – persuasion – reason – conclusion has been replaced with indoctrination. Replaced by whom? If education has been replaced by indoctrination, do we not look to our educational institutions as a likely source? It is not education to declare opinions as facts. To do so with the purpose of changing an institution or cause, or to do damage to an opposing cause, is propaganda, is it not? Can it be denied that academia and media are filled to the brim with participants primarily motivated by the will to “change things”? In the information age, is it not possible that these institutions (academia and media) are dooming themselves to irrelevance by not embracing their purpose to fairly inform?
The world is supposed to be full of other people with other opinions. If you must demand yours is not subject to debate, then I would conclude you either don’t have the supporting evidence to persuade others, or you condescendingly don’t think it’s worth your time. Neither is constructive.