Answers In Genesis have spent years building a creation museum in the United States, and it has finally opened. The museum is a spectacular visual representation of the young-earth creationism viewpoint; that is, that the early chapters of Genesis are to be interpreted literally and that the world is 6,000 years old.
While I can sympathise with AiG’s aims in this, what they are presenting seems at odds not only with science, but with a correct understanding of the Bible itself. Genesis 1, in particular, seems impossible to interpret literally. It is not a blow-by-blow account of creation, but a stylised account of it. It should no more be taken literally than the Book of Revelation.
Rather than engage in contortions trying to fit Genesis 1 into an evolutionary world view, or to explain how day and night can operate for three days without the sun (to take one example), it is best to instead focus on the main messages of Genesis 1; namely, that the creation of the world was God’s plan and not some naturally occurring unplanned event, and that humans have been created in God’s image and given the task of looking after the created world.
The Second Day 
I’m so glad to see that there are others who have a rational, yet, faithful view of the origin of the world. I would love to visit the museum and see what they have to say, but, would have a difficult time stomaching the whole concept from a literalist perspective.
I would also be interested in seeing the museum. No doubt it would be an interesting counterpoint to a regular museum; I mean, who wouldn’t love a dinosaurs-on-a-boat exhibit?
AiG Australia have a base within our church up here in Queensland, so we’ve been getitng blow by blow accounts of how the museum is progressing. It’s been interesting.
The guy in charge (David Ham) has had to employ a bodyguard as he’s been receiving daily death threats for the past months since this started popping up in the media. Everyone has a whacko with their name on it, huh?
I also would like to see it – dinosaurs are always cool… especially when there are boats involved…
Actually, I think you misunderstand Genesis. The whole book of Genesis has a specific purpose—to record history. Genesis 1, just as much as later passages, follows a historical narrative style of grammar. It’s intended meaning is a chronology of historical events. It’s written to be read the same way as 1 and 2 Chronicles.
If the intention of the passage was just to show that God has a plan, then the passage would say that. Consider how Proverbs states its purpose at the beginning, and several of the apostles explained why they were writing. But Genesis needs no introduction other than, “In the beginning, God.”
Actually, the literal, straightfoward reading of Genesis 1, and several cross-references throughout the rest of the Bible, only further confirm six literal days of creation. While it’s true that the Hebrew word for “day” (yom) can mean something other than an ordinary day, there are contextual rules that clarify which meaning is implied. Surprising to some people is that Genesis 1 uses almost every contextual tool to clarify the meaning of the word “day” as an ordinary day.
I was at Creation Museum’s ribbon-cutting Saturday, and I’ll be there again for the grand opening on Monday. I can confirm that science is used throughout the museum. The “problem” is that many people don’t want to believe that evidence can be interpreted differently depending on one’s pre-accepted beliefs.
It’d be great if you could see the museum sometime. Not only is it challenging, but also quite enjoyable and awesome to behold.
I’m not a big fan of Answers in Genesis, but what you say here is probably the least-appealing of the arguments against their interpretation of the first 2 chapters of Genesis.
Tell me: in what way is Genesis 1 and 2 any more or less stylized than, for example, the establishment of the covenant with Abraham in circumcision in Gen 17? Not from a scientific standpoint, mind you, but from a literary standpoint: your claim here is about style and genre, not about scientific facts. How is the genre of Gen 1 and 2 different from the genre of Gen 17?
themolk: Death threats eh? That’s ridiculous. Is David Ham any relation to Ken?
I typed out a rather large comment to respond to the rest of you, but better to put it into a new post methinks.
I would like to visit the museum out of curiosity, but it is 15,000km away from here and I’m not *that* curious.
I take the literal view of Genesis because God can. I don’t have a problem with mystery; science doesn’t explain everything – it attempts to explain everything. But every few years, a new “discovery” changes some scientific “truth”, so it’s too fluid to use as an anchor for reality. I’m happy when Christians say “My belief on origins (whether creationist, 6-days-of-evolution, inteligent design, whatever) is based on faith” and when evolutionists are honest enough to admit the same.
Similarly, the Bible doesn’t always explain everything, it alludes to many things. Imagine taking a literalist interpretation of Revelation – there’s at least 2 forms of literature in that book. But the thing’s still inspired, “holy”, cool and groovy and I’m really over the whole creatoin-evolution thing.
I’m also over spelling words correctly as you can see in the previuss coment…
Indeed. When you are God, you can do stuff, including finding a better word for it than “stuff”.
Sorry Markk, I’m confusing my Ham brothers. David and Steve attend SDBC where I go. Ken is responsible for the Creation Museum – HE’S the one with the whackos…
“HE’S the one with the whackos…”
Tell us what you really think 🙂
You know what I meant… referring to my earlier… oh, you do get it…