I think of people like Ken Ham with AiG who wants to reach out to the whole world and Carl Wieland's group Creation Ministries International, which has a strong evangelical (missionary?) component. When you read creationist tracts from other countries, they have been plainly influenced by these individuals and groups. I am sure there are some home-grown groups wherever you go, but they have the backing an support of these organizations.As if to support the point, this morning, Marc Kaufman of the WaPo has an article on the growing creationism movement in Turkey. He writes:
Sema Ergezen teaches biology to Turkish students interested in teaching science themselves, and she has long struggled with her students' ignorance of, and sometimes hostility to, the notion of evolution.I also wrote, in that conversation:But she was taken aback when several of her Marmara University students recently accused her of being an atheist, or worse, for teaching anything but the doctrine that God created the Earth and everything on it.
"They said I was a liar if I called myself a Muslim because I also accepted evolution," she said.
What especially disturbed -- and amused -- the veteran professor was that the arguments for creationism presented by some of the students came directly from the country where she was educated in the biological sciences years before -- the United States. Translated and adapted for a Muslim society, the purported proofs that Darwinism and evolution were wrong came directly from American proponents of Christian creationism and its less overtly religious offshoot, intelligent design.
Isn't it sad that where ever the Gospel takes root and thrives, not long after, the "stinkweed of creationism" (as Richard Young puts it) appears?It certainly doesn't help that they have Harun Yahya, one of the loudest advocates of creationism in Turkey.
----------------
Now playing: Brad Mehldau & Pat Metheny - Make Peace
via FoxyTunes
Our life is focused on the future and about the coming of His Kingdom. Our concern should be with the gospel so I think Ken Ham's ministry is legitimate even if I don't agree with every point since his method preserves the gospel.
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that you begin a website to promote evolution and take everyone to task who believes in a literal reading of Genesis 1. Genesis 1 is demonstrating a miracle of God by teaching 6 days of Creation.
Do you take the gospels literally or are you ready to sacrifice the resurrection of Jesus Christ too in the name of science. I mean we have no evidence that people rise from the dead and science confirms that everyone dies and does not rise from the dead.
Darwinian evolution has no evidence to support it. It still needs to be demonstrated.
Darwinians believes silly things like bears becoming whales and dinosaurs turning into birds.
It is really hard to take them seriously when their own theories are full of holes of crazy conclusions.
ZDenny, the reason that I find Ken Ham's ministry disturbing is that he is promoting what I and many other people believe to be a radical interpretation of the scriptures at the expense of the Gospel. There is little to no focus on Jesus' ministry, teachings and divinity. There is only the focus on the evils of evolution. That is, at best, myopic. Your question about whether I take the Gospels literally is peculiar since there is good evidence that the Gospel writers mucked around with the order and timing of events and their importance. It simply wasn't important to them. The divinity of Jesus was and that is what they focused on. There is good evidence for Jesus being who he said he was but, yes, it does boil down to faith in things unseen because that is what he asks of us.
ReplyDeleteYou keep saying that Darwinian evolution has no evidence to support it. I have seen that over at Steve Martin's site and you have said it at my site several times. You have been presented with links to where the evidence is, yet you continue to say this, almost as if a tape recorder is playing. If you don't think that there is evidence for a branch of theropod dinosaurs evolving into birds, then present counter-evidence. By the way, there is no evidence that bears ever became whales. No evolutionary biologist has ever said that.
I have a question: In John 2, Jesus is asked about miraculous signs. The passage reads:
"18Then the Jews demanded of him, "What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?"
19Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days."
20The Jews replied, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?" 21But the temple he had spoken of was his body. 22After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken. "
What would you have thought Jesus meant when he said that? The disciples, who had been spending their waking hours with him clearly thought he meant the physical temple. It was not until later than that they realized he was speaking figuratively, not literally. The Gospels are peppered with symbolic language like that because that is how Jesus spoke: not literally. Why is it not at least reasonable to interpret the creation account in the same way, especially given that the weight of evidence is not for a literal six day creation?