On July 7, there's going to be a grand opening of an interesting but controversial attraction in Northern Kentucky. An Australian named Ken Ham runs a ministry called Answers in Genesis and has already built one attraction called the Creation Museum in the same region. The new site is called the Ark Encounter.
Some people oppose these types of endeavors mainly because they don't believe in God. That's understandable. I mean, if you don't believe in God, there are many things in life you don't have to worry about. For example, if there's no God, there aren't any consequences for sin. In fact, if there's no God, there's nobody to say what sin is.
That's got to be a great way to live your life... do whatever you want and not have to worry about any repercussions. However, if someone comes across evidence that demonstrates the reality of God's existence, you'd have to completely change not just your worldview but your entire lifestyle. That'd be a bummer!
However, not everybody opposed to what Ken Ham is doing are atheists. Some people who believe in God say that the message this project seeks to spread is antithetical to science. They say that stuff like this makes all Christians look stupid.
But I have a question for those people; if the word "science" means knowledge, (and it does - I looked it up) shouldn't these projects be considered "science" museums? I know they might be presenting conclusions about the evidence that may not conform with what you believe but the evidence is still real.
Science is supposed to be about seeking knowledge, no matter what conclusions we find. If studying the evidence leads to a conclusion that contradicts our presuppositions, what's the most likely reason; a bad conclusion or a bad presupposition?
No comments:
Post a Comment