Visiting the Creation Museum - my thoughts

Some of you who are on facebook commented on my status update the other day when I said I'd just visited the Creation Museum. Where we are visiting family is close to the museum, and currently the issue that Isaac is in heavy discussion with his family on (there's one every year - he never fails to make his family uncomfortable about SOME issue!) is creationism.

So, off to the Creation Museum we went. It was just four of us, Isaac and I and Isaac's sister and soon to be brother-in-law. Isaac and I were, admittedly, a little skeptical going in, simply because of what we've heard about it going into it.

Here are the good things. It is an interesting museum, targeted to kids and families, and it does a good job of teaching a six-day creationism view of history and science. So, if your intent is to teach your children creationism, it does a good job. It is interactive, the exhibits are cool, there are fossils and models and videos and everything a good museum has.




However, here is what it does not do. It does not answer the skeptic. It does not explain how they came to their conclusions. It will not convince an evolutionist, in fact, I can almost guarantee that the skeptic or cynic will come away more skeptical or cynical, because the museum simply does not dialogue or investigate. It is meant to explain what creationism would look like scientifically and historically.... not WHY they believe in a six day creation.

So - to enjoy the museum, you have to agree with their presuppositions. Their presuppositions were very clear. This (below) was the very first plaque that we saw on entering the museum, and it made me chuckle because of the blatant addition of their presupposition to scripture. This is the premise the entire museum is built on, that the six literal 24-hour days is THE biblical presentation.



When you enter the main progression of exhibits, you see a variety of things, like exhibits bringing to life the creation story as it's told in Genesis 1, of course with the strategically placed hair and flowers. :)




It first squarely within the fundamentalist culture war mentality. Modern world vs. Christians. Modern world is unbiblical. Anyone who buys into the modern world will fall away from faith. Must hide away in biblical subculture (okay, that last one is my interpretation of what they're saying).





It doesn't stick with just illustrating creation, it also tells a particular version of history, in which people like Galileo are condemned for upholding science over scripture (which I think is very sad, Galileo was quite committed to scripture and his faith, and finding how science can inform our faith without rejecting one or the other). As you can see below, they see both modernism and the Middle Ages as being a departure from truth, and in this presentation alienate even Catholic believers who may otherwise agree with them.





Essentially they say - if we take the Genesis account literally, what would it have looked like? So they have exhibits about dinosaurs, the flood, the geological formation of continents, the Poles, etc. It's all interesting, though not too in-depth. It tends to stick with what I was taught in my 7th grade science class on creationism. I don't say that snarkily - it's meant to teach children, not be an academic treatise.





It's a big place, with two cafes, one of them a coffee shop. Outside is big and beautiful, and right now is covered with snow. We went to a live nativity in the evening, which meandered around their petting zoo. We watched a show in their planetarium about the Christmas star and what it might have been astronomically. We watched a presentation in their theater about creationism and how to defend it.

For some reason the place was chock full of Mennonites, and apparently usually is. Some of them were even speaking Pennsylvania Dutch to their many children. I have no idea why they come from far and wide - maybe Creationism is currently a hot button issue within the Mennonite community? In any case, Isaac fit in with his chin beard! All I needed was a head covering and we would have been one of them.

What do I think about the museum overall?

Phew. How to put this? Isaac and I found it very difficult to visit the museum from a place like Isaac's seminary, which is itself a conservative evangelical school known for its excellent academic scholarship and exegesis of scripture. We sat in a class together as a professor that we both highly respect exegeted Genesis 1-2 and talked about how it would have been read by the Israelites, etc. His conclusion, and the conclusion of many other faithful Christian leaders, is that Genesis 1-2 does not necessarily lead to the literal six-day creationist view. I could write more about that, but that's a discussion for another day.

Then we visit this museum, which repeatedly says that they are people of the book, and repeatedly posits that if you do not hold to this particular view of creation then your theology will fall apart. Really? Essentially, they leave NO room for believers to hold to long-day creation, theistic evolution, basic intelligent design, or just an "I can't be sure what that passage definitely means". The museum did absolutely no exegesis, they don't explain why they believe what they believe, they just assume that if you're a Christian you believe it too and thus will join them in the fight against the evil evolutionists.

Isaac and I walked out of the museum discouraged because they didn't just present creationism, they were angry with everyone that isn't a literal six-day creationist. They condemn evolutionists for not examining their presuppositions against God, and yet the museum doesn't examine their own presuppositions. I'm sure that the scholars behind the museum have come to their conclusions someone, but it is totally unfair to come to such exclusive conclusions without explanation. It ends up looking like indoctrination without reason.

I do believe that it's true that our science and academia in the West at the moment tend to be ruled by a naturalist presupposition - the belief that everything must be natural therefore everything must have come to be naturally. I think there are a variety of ways to respond to this bias in the academy. There is an organization called the Discovery Institute, and Isaac and I have heard several members of this institute speak this past year. They were fantastic. Instead of just condemning academia or evolutionists, they start philosophical discussions about presuppositions, naturalism, etc. This starts a viable discussion, and it is not just people of faith that came take their side - anyone for academic honesty is willing to look beyond pure naturalism. That approach is in contrast to the Answers In Genesis/Creation Museum, which instead simply demonizes evolutionists and academics and leaves no room for discussion. I think it fuels the culture war fires and isn't helpful for anyone.

I hope what I just said make sense. It isn't that I disagree with creationism, I simply don't know because I don't think that scripture makes it clear how we are to interpret the creation story. I just don't like how exclusive the Museum is in their claims, against the exegesis and beliefs of many other Christians. I don't find their approach helpful.

The beginning of life, implantation, and politics

So, in my first post about the Manhattan Declaration, I said this:

In the sanctity of human life section, I fully agree that life is sacred. Here's the thing - they never deal with the crux of the issue in my mind, which is "when does life begin?" They condemn stem cell research, and yet if you believe (as many Christians do) that life begins at implantation, then stem cell research in no way messes with sacred life. Are we drawing conclusions before we have fully investigated our own presuppositions?

And you all asked:

"Do they condemn all stem cell research? Not just embryonic? I don't really know much about this, but I believe the Catholic stance is that adult stem cell research is fine - go for it."

and

"I've never heard anyone, much less "many Christians", suggest that life begins at implantation. Could you point me to sources for this, or were you basing it on personal experience?"

Well, the declaration decries a government that is pro-abortion and also decries embryo stem-cell research. So yes, adult stem cell research is fine. The focus here is on the beginning of life and embryonic stem-cell research.

Here is what we people of faith agree on. Life is sacred and we are pro-life.
What we do not all agree on is where life and personhood begin.

If life begins at conception, then hormonal birth control is a very, very questionable process at best. This, unfortunately, is not much talked about in the Protestant world, mostly because I think it's inconvenient. However, if we are willing to picket abortion clinics and work so hard against abortion, we must consider this issue if we are going to be consistent.

PresterJosh asked who believes life (or, more particularly, personhood) begins after implantation. I think most people haven't heard it actually defined as such, and (to Troy's comment) actually implantation is not what you described, because it is not at the beginning of the third trimester. Implantation is when a fertilized egg implants in the womb. This is about 7-10 days after fertilization. If a fertilized egg does not implant, it is naturally flushed out of the system and pregnancy doesn't happen. This natural failure happens with about 50% of naturally fertilized eggs (read about the process here).

Why do I think this is a commonly held idea? Well, it was taught as a viable option in a Developmental Psychology class that I took in college (a conservative Christian college at which I was not allowed to go to theaters or dance - so this was no liberal agenda!). The professor never revealed his opinion on what is true, but taught several different views about the beginning of life and the problems and natural conclusions you come to with each one. I came out of the class convinced that implantation made the most sense, which I'll detail in a minute. I came back to question this view when I was debating whether or not I could with good conscience vote for Obama in the elections - abortion was the primary moral question I had to deal with. Conception as the beginning of life is held so strongly by so many that I had to go back and reexamine my views. I have not come to any conclusion, nothing seems like it is clear and firm to me. I have talked to pastors, teachers, doctors, and professors.

I also know this view is held by others, not just my college professor. In fact, today as I was writing I came on a new post on the Jesus Creed blog addressing stem cell research that seems to take the view that personhood begins at implantation, for some of the same reasons it was presented to me. I'd encourage you to go there and take a look.

Here are some of the arguments against conception or for implantation, as they have been taught to me:

Twinning: If, at conception, you have a complete, individual human life, then what do you do when this life.... suddenly becomes two lives? Identical twinning happens after conception - which would seem to me to say that it is not yet an INDIVIDUAL. As RJS says on the Jesus Creed blog: "In the morula stage each cell contains the potential to become not only an individual, but more than one individual. I don't think that this potential constitutes a person."

Natural "Abortion":
If at conception you have a human life, then over 50% of people die within the first week of life. I can say that God is sovereign over this process, then it could be that He just wants it that way. It seems like a bit of a moral issue, though, if we consider that pregnancy is sacred and meant to lead to life... that the majority of the time it leads to death? With implantation, this is not a problem. For this point, let me quote this article from Reason Magazine:

John Opitz, a professor of pediatrics, human genetics, and obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Utah, testified before the President's Council on Bioethics that between 60 and 80 percent of all naturally conceived embryos are simply flushed out in women's normal menstrual flows unnoticed... In fact, according to Opitz, embryologists estimate that the rate of natural loss for embryos that have developed for seven days or more is 60 percent. The total rate of natural loss of human embryos increases to at least 80 percent if one counts from the moment of conception. About half of the embryos lost are abnormal, but half are not, and had they implanted they would probably have developed into healthy babies.

So millions of viable human embryos each year produced via normal conception fail to implant and never develop further. Does this mean America is suffering a veritable holocaust of innocent human life annihilated?...Does that mean that if we could detect such unimplanted embryos as they leave the womb, we would have a duty to rescue them and try to implant them anyway?

Genetic Code does not mean Life:

The primary biological argument behind conception being the beginning of life is that conception is when the complete genetic code (DNA) is formed through the joining of the sperm and egg. I question whether this is consistent. Genetic code is present long after death, yet we still consider the person and their life to be gone. The question is not when the genetic code is present but when a PERSON is present with the genetic code.

Differentiation:

Up until now I have mostly mentioned some problems with conception, but differentiation is one of the primary solid points for implantation. Differentiation refers to the process in which cells actually begin to becomes specialized. At first, in the pre-implantation stage, the fertilized egg begins to multiply and divide cells, but these cells make up a blastula - a goo of nonspecialized cells that can essentially become anything - hence the stem-cell debate because the cells are so flexible. At differentiation the blob starts to become SOMETHING in particular, a human person, rather than having the potential to be mostly anything. Now you have cells becoming the head, the brain, the skin...

At a very early stage of human development, all cells of the embryo are identical, but unlike adult cells are very flexible and carry within them the potential to become any tissue type, whether it be muscle, skin, liver or brain.

This cell differentiation process begins at about the time that the embryo settles into the uterus. In terms of the inner workings of the cell, this involves two main control mechanisms. On the one hand, the genes that keep the embryo in their fully potent state are turned off, and at the same time, tissue-specific genes are turned on. By activating a certain set of genes, the embryo can make muscle cells. By turning on a different set, these same immature cells can become liver. Other gene sets are responsible for additional tissues. - (from Science Daily)

The Necessity of Implantation:

Scientists and doctors can "create" a conception in a petrie dish by joining an egg and sperm. Implantation, though, they cannot recreate. No amount of medical and scientific expertise can re-create the atmosphere of a woman's womb and allow a baby to grow. In order for pregnancy to occur, the fertilized egg needs the perfectly formed atmosphere of the uterus.It is only after this point that pregnancy tests work. It's only at this point that the body revs up chemically to change the woman's body for pregnancy.

So - there are some of the arguments. They make sense to me. However, they aren't an "Oh yeah, that's clearly the truth, nothing else is possible" type of argument. It's just a ... "that makes the most sense to me". And... considering the sacredness of life, do I want to base my choices on what MIGHT be true, or do I want to play it safe and go with contraception/stem-cell research/abortion policies that are for SURE not going to end sacred human life? I know, for you Catholics this is rather clear cut and, in my opinion, your arguments are perhaps the most consistent. Why mess with the whole process at all?

And... therein lies my current dilemma. I don't know, but I'd like to play it safe. Can I ask a country to play it safe with me when the whole thing seems convoluted? Truthfully, I'd rather wish the national government wouldn't rule anything on it, and that they'd stick to their main jobs - our economy and our defense. This should be a state government issue.

More thoughts on the Manhattan Declaration

Last week I wrote about my initial questions in response to the Manhattan Declaration. It got a lot of comments that I haven't responded to at all because last week I didn't have internet and this week has been busy and Isaac has hoarded our home laptop to write all of his final papers on.

So - I thought I'd start a new post about this and answer some of you questions and clarify some of my thoughts.

First off, I mentioned some things about the beginning of life, complaining that the presuppositions are NOT clear and are not discussed in the Declaration (at least not for Protestants). I know that because many of you are Catholic you hold clear and strong opinions on this, and most of the Protestants, not so much. Because I have so much to say (but no clear conclusions), I'm making that a separate post.

I also talked about Polygamy in the Old Testament, and as I wrote a response to Rae's comments it got so long that I decided that also would have to be an individual post!

So - on to the rest of it.

1. Culture Wars

I mentioned that I am hesitant about Christian political declarations, mostly because of our recent culture wars in the US. I feel like we as Christians have SO often decided that a certain political view was THE Christian view, when in reality perhaps it was not so much a biblical Christian view as much as it was the political opinion of many Christians. In this we distract from the truth of the gospel, Christianity becomes politicized, and we become angry people that are angry at other people instead of treating them with love.

As John Stackhouse pointed out in his post about the Manhattan Declaration, it seems a little strange to make such a strong declaration with no end point other than to announce something to the world:

Given the provenance of the document being the American Religious Right, therefore, it will surprise precisely no one that the document declares that such people are (still) prolife, (still) pro-traditional marriage, and (still) desirous that their way of seeing things is put into American law. It’s not evident to me that anyone needed a big declaration that such people still feel this way

I totally believe that the beliefs of the drafters and signers of the Manhattan Declaration are good, but I worry that the message may be too slanted back into culture wars to be helpful. For instance, when Chuck Colson (who helped draft the declaration) was asked for his reason for writing it, one thing he said was, "We argue that there is a hierarchy of issues. A lot of the younger evangelicals say they’re all alike. We’re hoping to educate them that these are the three most important issues." When Al Mohler gave his reasons for signing his language struck me. "There is every good reason to believe that freedom to conduct Christian ministry according to Christian conviction is being subverted and denied. ... very much in danger... the culture of Death looms over our civilization, threatening every human being..." See the language of war and aggression? I push back against fear-mongering.

See, although these things are not stated by the Declaration itself, I'm afraid that anger and aggression is what the readers will perceive (and indeed, media reports prove this to be true), and it appears to be the motivation of at least some of the writers. I resist this. I feel like this is again a slide into those culture wars, and only treating as important in the areas where we feel culturally embattled.

One commenter on the Manhattan discussion on Scot McKnight's blog talked about the "coded sacralization of the American middle-class family" in the Manhattan Declaration Indeed - I agree that many of the issues we talk about are moral issues on which the church should definitely have a stance, but sometimes I feel like we take the middle class family and act as though it is THE biblical view, when the biblical example looks quite different than our own. How much are we picking issues and elevating them in importance over other things that are just as important?

For instance, commender dopderbeck said:

Don't misunderstand me: I am not arguing that the law should recognize gay marriage as legitimate. What I'm concerned about is the question of priorities in the mission of the Church. As far as I can tell, the signers of this Declaration believe it is fundamental to the mission of the Church today to lobby against civil recognition of gay marriage in North America. In this regard, I think it's very fair to take note of who the main drafters of the document are. These are folks who have already spent so much of the spiritual and financial capital of the Church on the culture wars. Some of them have scorched the earth with their tactics and rhetoric. Now they demand that all Christians of good will join their crusade? I question whether this is a proper missional priority for a Church that exists in a post-Christian global culture. Indeed, I believe it's in many respects a misplaced priority.

2. Expecting Society to Follow Rules that Our Churches don't Enforce

This is another issue that causes me to question the Manhattan Declaration. Why are we declaring these things to our government when they aren't demanded within our churches? One commenter said:

I won’t sign it until the church itself holds its own members accountable for divorce and abortion. How extreme of us to hold our political leaders accountable for what we do not even hold our own members accountable for. Until the RC church bars from communion those who are prochoice, until the Evangelical church has higher standards on divorce and remarriage such statements as the Manhattan Declaration are nothing more than a resurrection of Moral Majority tactics that fall on deaf ears.

The Manhattan Declaration does directly condemn divorce, but this seems contradictory given that despite that condemnation, they don't ask the government to act on this issue, only on gay marriage? Are they not equally a violation of God's ideal of marriage? It feels like we're picking issues from the culture war rather than a truly Christian perspective. Why are we willing to essentially threaten our government over gay marriage and yet we aren't willing to clean our own house of divorce? It's not consistent.

3. Natural Civil Law vs. Truth Recognized by the People of God

This brings me to another point. We expect our government to rule against gay marriage, but even if we think divorce is wrong, we don't expect the government to put it into law. Where is the difference? The Manhattan Declaration declares these three issues to be natural law that should therefore be recognized by a secular government, and I am not sure that this is true.

John Stackhouse says:

The document) argues for religious liberty for Christians to dissent from views they don’t like (and this point, alas, needs increasing emphasis in America as well as here in Canada). But it also argues that these particular Christian views of abortion, euthanasia, marriage, and more should be enshrined in American law. It says nothing about the liberty of those who would dissent from those views except to assert that because these Christian views are right, they should be the law of the land. What, then, happened to religious liberty on these important matters? The document doesn’t say. I’m conservatively pro life and have traditional Christian views of marriage also. But just because I think those views are right doesn’t entail that I believe they should be law.

Deciding what ought to be law in a pluralistic, democratic society that welcomes immigrants from, and seeks to influence helpfully, countries all over the world, requires careful political theory. Indeed, it requires fundamental and detailed consideration of a variety of related subjects, including the nature and intentions of divine providence over nations, what God expects of human beings individually and corporately short of the return of Christ, what is politically feasible in a given situation, and more. There is none of that sort of thinking evident in this declaration, but rather a strong sense—common enough among conservative evangelicals, Catholics, and Orthodox around the world—that particular Christian convictions are simply right and therefore ought to be law. Furthermore, America is not an officially Christian nation, but rather a Christian-majority one. So if we apply the same logic elsewhere, then Muslim-majority countries should enshrine shari’ah as their laws, since Muslims are equally convinced that shari’ah is right, and should brook no exceptions for non-Muslims. The same would go for Hindu- or Buddhist-majority countries. Then what happens then to religious liberty? Or is liberty important only if your views are correct—namely, Christian?

Dopderbeck said something similar about the Declaration's condemnation of embryonic stem cell research:

I personally am against such research, but I recognize that the issue presents an issue at the intersection of the Bible, ethics and science that is not so easily resolved as many advocates on either side of it like to think. Some subtle and substantial argumentation is needed to make the case against embryonic stem cell research, such that simply making "declarations" about it seems less than helpful.

Here is the crux of it. Where is the divide between something being true and something being defined and judged as the law of the land? We believe Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, but with our governmental system we do not require that this be recognized by our citizens. So - where is the divide? Isaac says he agrees with all of the Manhattan Declaration's actual beliefs, but he may disagree at points with how they say they should be implemented into our government.

4. How can we expect a country without God to follow the moral transformation that only God brings about? :

This is related to the point above, but is still helpful. There are several issues that Christians are pushing politically right now that I don't understand HOW we can expect non-believers to follow. They have no reason to follow them until their hearts are transformed by Christ. This commenter wrote the following:

The reason I won't sign the Manhattan Declaration is because moral reform without Jesus is a soaring plane that just lost its engine.The reason I will not sign the declaration is because it misrepresents the gospel of Jesus Christ. It tries to transform society. But the gospel transforms individual people, one by one, and people are what make up society.Without Jesus Christ at the foundation of all we as Christians do, we not only waste precious hours fighting for face change with no heart change, but we tell the world that we are more concerned about defending our values and pushing our beliefs than we are loving them and sharing the life of Jesus with them. I would rather spend ten minutes in a pub buying a dude's drink, hearing his story, and telling him about the amazing holiness of Jesus than lobbying against a liberal politician, inadvertently telling the whole world that my religion is a plastic cover for a political agenda.

What people need is not more conservative values, because conservative values are empty promises when standing by themselves. What people need is to know the reality, holiness, and mercy of Jesus Christ. Let them encounter Him. He can help them. You can't. I can't. The more we try in our power and by our signatures, joint ventures, and witty politics to transform our government and resurrect a Christian heritage, the more we will drive unbelievers away from the cross of Jesus Christ. What we want people to encounter is none but Jesus Christ. And if they are going to stumble over something, let it not be out self righteous efforts, but Jesus. He's the only One worth stumbling over

Conclusion:

It is not that I disagree with the Manhattan Declaration, I just question WHY they chose to make such an aggressive announcement to the government, and I also question exactly how they think their beliefs should be implemented into law. I'm also not making this an angry declaration from myself - I am questioning...

Initial unease in response to the Manhattan Declaration

Have ya'll heard about the Manhattan Declaration? My pastor mentioned it on Sunday, and as soon as I got home I googled it. it's sort of a political statement made by a group of Christians (evangelical, Catholic, Orthodox).

I was immediately ill at ease, because anytime a political statement comes from Christians I get nervous. I tend to disagree with the majority of Christian politics in the U.S. I mean, I voted for Obama, I would again, and I still like him. There you go, that puts me immediately at odds with most Christian politics in the country.

So. I am hesitant about the Manhattan Declaration. The main point seems to be to create a Christian response to some things going on in politics in our country at the moment that Christians are either at odds with or at least uneasy about. Here is the declaration at it's most basic, though the full version is pages and pages long.

We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are:

the sanctity of human life
the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
the rights of conscience and religious liberty.

Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Okay... so... a few observations from me.

- The declaration (which was signed by a TON of big shots), is based on Christian principles, but it claims they are for the common good, foundational to the well-being of society, and thus inviolable and non-negotiable for our government. So. you're not just saying, this is what we believe, you're saying, this is what we all MUST live by.

- Most of the document I can agree with, but it makes me uneasy because I question - why do we feel the need to do this? Anytime a bunch of Christians make a huge stink about something other than the centrality of the gospel as the hope of the world, I get uneasy. Are we making things primary that are not meant to be primary? Is this distracting us from the main point?

- To me, this sort of comes across as an angry kid planting their foot down and yelling, "This is what I believe, you can't change me, and I'll NEVER give in to you, so don't you dare try to cross me."

- In the sanctity of human life section, I fully agree that life is sacred. Here's the thing - they never deal with the crux of the issue in my mind, which is "when does life begin?" They condemn stem cell research, and yet if you believe (as many Christians do) that life begins at implantation, then stem cell research in no way messes with sacred life. Are we drawing conclusions before we have fully investigated our own presuppositions?

- I definitely struggle with the dignity of marriage section. Essentially is argues that life-long marriage between a man and a woman is the foundation of a healthy society, and in any way in which that model of marriage is not upheld, a host of societal ills grows. Okay, so I agree that stable marriages are good for society, but here is my question. If marriage between one man and one woman was SO important, why is it that Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, and a host of other Old Testament chosen men of God do not live by this model and are not condemned for it? If this is the foundation of society, why is it not given as the foundation of Israel? Israel is given rule after rule after rule to follow, but marriage between one man and one woman is not one of them. Sexual promiscuity is forbidden, but multiple marriages are not, and neither is taking concubines. So. It seems like we may be making a rule out of something that is an ideal in our religious culture today rather than a truly universal Biblical model.

- "religious liberty" is vague, but this section of the Declaration fights against discrimination and limitations on religious institutions (for instance, forcing them to do away with their own hiring limitations. I fully agree with this point.

Like I said, I do agree with most of what is said in this Declaration, but I still don't understand the real reason and purpose for it, and parts of it do make me quite uneasy. Many, many people signed it, many people that I respect. It's amazingly ecumenical within Christianity.

What do ya'll think?