I believe in intellectualism and any attempt to throw salt into the achievements of science is a violation of the USA's key principal, the separation of church and state. And upon that statement, I condone it 100% if it is not a state sponsored museum, otherwise I condemn it.

I think its good to stand up for God's Word. I believe in Creation and that life came from Jesus Christ, not evolution or non-living matter. I hope that this is helpful. -In the service of the Master. Thank you and God bless you!

I find it amusing,from what I have seen on TV.Though I believe it is complete nonsense it is located in the bible belt where some think creationism is real.Everyone is entitled to their beliefs,though common sense should be used first.

It's a private museum, so why should anyone care? I'm a creationist. Evolutionary theory fails on simple common sense. It's the folly of man to claim righteous fact on revisions of revisions of revisions of a theory based on spontaneous generation, as if suddenly, science gets it all right. The countless mistakes in the past were the last. No, the multitude and complexity of design demands a creator. Call it aliens if you want, but this didn't happen by chance. If an educated man believes that, they are just as deluded & self righteous as the most extreme of their opposition.

1) I believe that there are many things which we cannot understand with the scientific approach, particularly if it lacks open mindedness. 2) I know that the evolution theories and other scientific explanations are the best ways to explain the processes taking place in the known universe. I have not the slightest interest for these fairy tales with the name creationism, and I do not think that any body with some judgment can seriously compare this stuff with the achievements and methods of science. 3) Darwin was just a precursor, now we know a lot more, have more elaborated theories and from our point of view, defending creationism is just like defending Father Christmas or defending the theory that if you are sailing from Spain right to the west, you would eventually reach India. Creationism is a belief, not a science. But this kind of beliefs cannot be considered seriously from a scientific mind. And please do not ask for an absolute proof, this is not the aim of science to give absolute proofs. 4) Further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_evolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis

In my opinion, it looks like Creationism makes more sense. I mean seriously, humans were made from WHAT?!?!?!?!? Creationism makes much more sense.

I believe that such a museum however interesting it might be is as misguided as other establishments that try to prove points that are a matter of faith rather than fact. The creation museum is guilty of that and so is every other museum that tries to disprove creation. The world came into existance in one way only and both scientists and people of faith ought to have an input with their theories into it's fascinating study. I personally believe in the God of the bible creating this world. Scientist please look honestly into the facts take off the spin and tell us your findings!

Creation of all things including evolution as a result of natural selection.

I think the museum and the people that came up with the idea should disappear. I accept evolution as the truth and creationism as a lousy joke.

Well, they're entitled to believe what they want, but it still seems a pretty stupid waste of money and time to me.

they are both theories...there is no way, at this time, to prove either conclusively. the Bible's is not to "prove" creation. for both of these reasons, the creation theory must be accepted by faith. as far as the theory of evolution goes, man has come up with many theories that were later discovered to be wrong. back to your questions...i don't care about the museum. i don't want to be told what i can and can't do, support or believe so i will not attempt to do that to others. i may give them information that may change the way the believe but i have no expectation that they have to change. i believe in the creation theory. i don't know what this museum has done to "demonize" Darwin or if it's just someone's perception.

Well, they can demonise his teachings all they want. People will believe what they want to believe. I can't imagine the visitor numbers will be very high (or am I giving Americans too much credit?) As for what I believe in - evolution. Because it makes sense and has evidence that proves it. It would be much harder (I imagine) to keep believing in creationism since it just sounds crazy and is at odds with all the evidence. Creationists must have a lot of tenacity!

let them have it ... after all they have to have a place to put all their fairy stories and half baked ideas

I haven't been there but I think the Answersingenesis.org bunch are behind it. And those guys are a pack of liars. They can't even argue against evolution honestly - they have to make up almost pure BS and claim it's evolution. Sadly, they are good enough to get many innocent, if gullible, people to believe and back them. Evolution isn't something to believe. One is either swayed by the strength of the evidence or not. Since creationism has no evidence to support it - that is the one a person't gotta have faith in. +5

It isn't built to demonize Darwin and his teaching on evolution. It is being built to show the side for creation. Whether you would like to believe it or not, answersingenesis.com actually has a lot of your science and credited scientists to back up what they say. You should check out the site and do some research before you go ranting that their liars. Also, there's an evolution museum and they attack creation throughout the museum while this one is being built to defend creation, not to demonize Darwin.

*** g87 1/22 pp. 4-9 How Did Life on Earth Begin? *** How Did Life on Earth Begin? One man’s search for the answer EARLY in life I knew the answer. God created it. My parents taught me that from the Bible. As I grew older I observed life around me. It fascinated me. My heart was filled with the wonder of it all. The flowers of summer died in the fall but left behind seeds that brought back their colorful displays in the spring. The sap in the trees went underground but months later returned to clothe the bare limbs in spring green. The woodchucks in the fields curled up in their holes and slept through the winter but were out again with the return of the warm sunny days. The pair of bluebirds that nested in the hollow iron post in our backyard flew south in the fall but returned to the same post in the spring to raise another family. I gazed up in awe at the V formations of geese flying south and listened fascinated to their continuous gabblings—and wondered what all this chatter was about. The more I learned about life, the more design I saw. And the more design I saw, the more I saw the need for the Master Designer my parents had told me about. No Designer Needed? Then in high school I was told that no designer was needed: ‘It all just happened. Chemicals in earth’s primitive atmosphere were shattered by lightning and ultraviolet rays, their atoms recombined to form ever-more-complex molecules, finally a living cell appeared. As it multiplied, random changes occurred, and thousands of millions of years later life in its myriads of forms covered the earth. Man is its latest production.’ They made evolution sound so simple. Maybe too simple. I clung to my belief in creation, but I didn’t want to be gullible. I wanted to be logical, to keep my mind open, to know the truth. I began to read science. I learned many things. My eyes were opened wider than ever to the wonders of nature. The more I learned the more I marveled. But the more design I saw, the more my mind balked at believing that random change and blind chance could create what brilliant men in their laboratories could not duplicate—not even the tiniest bacterium, much less the flowers, the bluebirds, the V’s of geese. During my years of study at both high school and university, I exposed myself to all the science I could get—chemistry, physics, biology, mathematics. Thereafter I continued to read books and magazine articles by evolutionists. It was still unconvincing. The evolutionary statements flowed so glibly, too glibly in view of the assertions that accompanied them. That was years ago. This is the 1980’s. Maybe now there is more proof and less assertion. Maybe it’s time for another look. I focused on one aspect—how life got started on the earth. After all, if evolution cannot make a case for the first living cell, how can it sustain its claim to produce living creatures with trillions of cells—and you and me with our one hundred trillion each? For my investigation I selected recent books by scientists with impeccable credentials—all evolutionists. I would adopt Jesus’ way of dealing with the false religionists: “By your words you will be declared righteous, and by your words you will be condemned.” (Matthew 12:37) My research limited itself to evolution’s major steps en route to life: (1) a primitive atmosphere, (2) an organic soup, (3) proteins, (4) nucleotides, (5) nucleic acids called DNA, and (6) a membrane. Assumptions About Early Atmosphere First needed, an atmosphere on early earth that, when bombarded with lightning or ultraviolet rays or other energy sources, would produce simple molecules necessary for life. In 1953 Stanley Miller reported on just such an experiment. He selected a hydrogen-rich atmosphere for early earth, passed an electric spark through it, and produced 2 simpler amino acids of the 20 required to make proteins.1 No one knows, however, what the early earth atmosphere was like.2 Why did Miller choose this one? He admitted prejudice in favor of it because it was the only one wherein “the synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place.”3 I discovered that experiments are often rigged to give the desired results. Many scientists acknowledge that the experimenter can ‘manipulate the outcome profoundly,’ and ‘his intelligence can be involved so as to prejudice the experiment.’4 Miller’s atmosphere was used in most of the experiments that followed his, not because it was logical or even probable, but because “it was conducive to evolutionary experiments,” and “the success of the laboratory experiments recommends it.”5 Nevertheless, evolutionists hailed Miller’s feat as a great breakthrough. Many experiments followed, using various energy sources and different raw materials. Through much manipulation and doctoring, and ignoring the conditions existing in a natural environment, scientists in their rigidly controlled laboratory experiments obtained additional organic chemicals relevant to life. They made a Mount Everest out of Miller’s molehill. It opened the way for an organic soup of life’s building blocks to accumulate in the ocean. Or did it? The Organic Soup Is a Myth Miller’s molehill was flawed, and with its demise their Mount Everest collapsed. Miller used a spark to break up the simple chemicals in his atmosphere to allow amino acids to form. But this spark would even more quickly have shattered the amino acids! So again Miller rigged his experiment: He built a trap in his apparatus to store the acids as soon as they formed, to save them from the spark. Scientists claim, however, that in the early earth the amino acids would have escaped the lightning or ultraviolet rays by plunging into the ocean. Thus evolutionists seek to save the soup. But for several reasons, to no avail. Amino acids are not stable in water and in the ancient ocean would exist in only negligible quantities. If the organic soup had ever existed, some of its compounds would have been trapped in sedimentary rocks, but in spite of 20 years of searching, “the earliest rocks have failed to yield any evidence of a prebiotic soup.” Yet “the existence of a prebiotic soup is crucial.” So “it comes as . . . a shock to realize that there is absolutely no positive evidence for its existence.”6 The Chances of a Protein Forming Allow the soup that nature disallows. Millions of amino acids in the soup, hundreds of different kinds, roughly half of them in a left-handed form and half right-handed. Would the amino acids now connect up in long chains to make proteins? Would only the 20 kinds needed be selected by chance out of the hundreds of kinds in the soup? And from these 20 kinds, would chance select only the left-handed forms found in living organisms? And then line them up in the right order for each distinctive protein and in the exact shape required for each one?7 Only by a miracle. A typical protein has about one hundred amino acids and contains many thousands of atoms. In its life processes a living cell uses some 200,000 proteins. Two thousand of them are enzymes, special proteins without which the cell cannot survive. What are the chances of these enzymes forming at random in the soup—if you had the soup? One chance in 1040,000. This is 1 followed by 40,000 zeros. Written out in full, it would fill 14 pages of this magazine. Or, stated differently, the chance is the same as rolling dice and getting 50,000 sixes in a row. And that is for only 2,000 of the 200,000 needed for a living cell.8 So to get them all, roll 5,000,000 more sixes in a row! By now I felt that I was beating a dead horse. But I continued. Assuming that the soup did give us proteins, what about nucleotides? Leslie Orgel of Salk Institute in California has indicated nucleotides to be “one of the major problems in prebiotic synthesis.”9 They are needed to make the nucleic acids (DNA, RNA), also called an overwhelming difficulty. Incidentally, proteins cannot be assembled without the nucleic acids, nor can nucleic acids form without proteins.10 It’s the old riddle in chemical garb: Which came first, the chicken or the egg? But let’s set that mountain aside and have evolutionist Robert Shapiro, professor of chemistry at New York University and a specialist in DNA research, dispose of the chance formation of nucleotides and nucleic acids in early earth’s environment: “Whenever two amino acids unite, a water molecule is released. Two molecules of water must be set free in assembling a nucleotide from its components, and additional water is released in combining nucleotides to form nucleic acids. Unfortunately, the formation of water in an environment that is full of it is the chemical equivalent of bringing sand to the Sahara. It is unfavorable, and requires the expenditure of energy. Such processes do not readily take place on their own. In fact, the reverse reactions are the ones that occur spontaneously. Water happily attacks large biological molecules. It pries nucleotides apart from each other, breaks sugar-to-phosphate bonds, and severs bases from sugars.”11 The final step of the six listed at the outset: a membrane. Without it the cell could not exist. It must be protected from water, and it is the water-repellent fats of the membrane that do this.12 But to form the membrane a “protein synthetic apparatus” is needed, and this “protein synthetic apparatus” can function only if it is held together by a membrane.13 That chicken-and-egg problem all over again! Molecular Biology Sounds Its Death Knell The evolutionists’ dream was discovery of a supersimple first living cell. Molecular biology has turned their dream into a nightmare. Michael Denton, specialist in molecular biology, sounded its death knell: “Molecular biology has shown that even the simplest of all living systems on earth today, bacterial cells, are exceedingly complex objects. Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10−12gms, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the nonliving world. “Molecular biology has also shown that the basic design of the cell system is essentially the same in all living systems on earth from bacteria to mammals. In all organisms the roles of DNA, mRNA and protein are identical. The meaning of the genetic code is also virtually identical in all cells. The size, structure and component design of the protein synthetic machinery is practically the same in all cells. In terms of their basic biochemical design, therefore no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth.”14 Not surprising, then, that Harold Morowitz, a Yale University physicist, has calculated that the chances of getting the simplest living bacterium by random changes is 1 in 1 followed by 100,000,000,000 zeros. “This number is so large,” Shapiro said, “that to write it in conventional form we would require several hundred thousand blank books.” He charges that scientists committed to the chemical evolution of life ignore the increasing evidence and “have chosen to hold it as a truth beyond question, thereby enshrining it as mythology.”15 One scientist specializing in cell biology says that millions of years ago “just a single cell could make weapons, catch food, digest it, get rid of wastes, move around, build houses, engage in sexual activity straightforward or bizarre. These creatures are still around. The protists—organisms complete and entire, yet made up of just a single cell with many talents, but with no tissues, no organs, no hearts and no minds—really have everything we’ve got.” She speaks of a single cell percolating with “those hundreds of thousands of simultaneous chemical reactions that are life.”16 What an unbelievable maze of chemical traffic within the confines of a microscopic cell, yet without a traffic jam! Obviously, this demands a Master Designer of supreme intelligence. The information content coded into a speck of DNA weighing “less than a few thousand millionths of a gram” is enough “to specify an organism as complex as man.”17 Even the information content of a single cell, “if written out, would fill a thousand 600-page books.”18 How awesome! Intelligence far beyond our powers of comprehension is an absolute must to start life on earth. My conclusion after all of this: Without the right atmosphere, no organic soup. Without the organic soup, no amino acids. Without amino acids, no proteins. Without proteins, no nucleotides. Without nucleotides, no DNA. Without DNA, no cell that reproduces itself. Without a covering membrane, no living cell. And without intelligent design and direction, no life on earth. But scientists have rendered a great service to believers in creation. Their discoveries about life are a powerful reinforcement of my faith in creation, and I now read with deepened appreciation Romans 1:20, 21, 28: “Ever since God created the world his everlasting power and deity—however invisible—have been there for the mind to see in the things he has made. That is why such people are without excuse . . . They made nonsense out of logic and their empty minds were darkened . . . In other words, since they refused to see it was rational to acknowledge God, God has left them to their own irrational ideas and to their monstrous behaviour.”—The Jerusalem Bible. My search convinced me that what my parents taught me is true: Jehovah God alone is “the source of life.” (Psalm 36:9)—By an Awake! staff writer. References 1. Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, by Robert Shapiro, 1986, p. 105; Life Itself, by Francis Crick, 1981, p. 77. 2. Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide, pp. 96-7. 3. The Origins of Life on the Earth, by Stanley L. Miller and Leslie E. Orgel, 1974, p. 33. 4. Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide, p. 103. 5. Technology Review, April 1981, R. C. Cowen, p. 8; Science 210, R. A. Kerr, 1980, p. 42. (Both quotes taken from The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, 1984, p. 76.) 6. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, by Michael Denton, 1985, pp. 260-1, 263; Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide, pp. 112-13. 7. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, pp. 234-8. 8. The Intelligent Universe, by Fred Hoyle, 1983, pp. 12-17. 9. Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide, p. 188. 10. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, p. 238; Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide, pp. 134, 138. 11. Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide, pp. 173-4. 12. Ibid., p. 65. 13. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, pp. 268-9. 14. Ibid., p. 250. 15. Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide, pp. 32, 49, 128. 16. The Center of Life, by L. L. Larison Cudmore, 1977, pp. 5, 13-14. 17. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, p. 334. 18. National Geographic, September 1976, p. 357.

I happen to know a fair bit about the founder, Ken Ham. We both graduated from the same college in Brisbane, Australia in 1976 but I didn't know him then, though I must have seen him round the place. I recall some of the political and religious background in that city. I am pretty sure I knew two of his pals then by sight and I know some of the activities of their mother, Mrs. Rona Joyner. You can Google these names if you like. I know about the Creation Science Foundation he co-founded about 1980 and some of the finanacial shenanigans that were said to have gone on in it. I know the foundation was duped at least once with a fibrous mineral presented to them as "pre-flood" paper even though they had a genuine geologist, Andrew Snelling, on the staff and I know something of Dr. Snelling's later activities in association with the Discovery Institute. I know the "patron" of the organisation was paediatrician Dr. Rendle-Short of a Plymouth Brethren family and I know that his daughter or niece Dr. Francesca Rendle-Short rejects virtually everything that Dr. Rendle-Short stood for. Recently, she was supposedly writing booksabout Brisbane in the 1970s which could be interesting since I was there. I know Ken Ham left Australia for the USA in '88 several months after supposed allegations of necrophilia and witchcraft nearly blew the foundation apart. He was not involved in them as far as I know. I know that the foundation, now operating under another name (Creation Ministries International)under the leadership of Carl Wieland MD took legal action against Ken Ham in 2007 over money that they claimed was theirs but was used for the Kentucky museum. There were also allegations Ham told 40,000 American subscribers to a magazine produced in Australia that it was to cease production and was to be replaced by one of his. According to the Australian group, this was not true and it has cost them the best part of a quarter million Australian dollars a year, at current rates of exchange that is around US$225,000. The allegations were investigated by a former chief magistrate of New South Wales in Australia, Mr. Clarrie Briese, well known for giving evidence against a former high court judge in an different matter back in the 1980s. Mr. Briese is an evangelical and a creationist himself and seems to have supported Dr. Carl Wieland who joined Ham's original foundation around 1980. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/lord-of-the-ring/story-e6frg6z6-1111113678452 From reports reaching Australia about the museum it appears to be a kind of creationist wonderland with about as much grip on reality as Alice found down the rabbit hole. Now it may not be true that biologists have all the answers, but from what I have seen the creationists have none.

It would be foolish to think that humanity is the greatest, most advanced life form in the universe. As far as evolution, explain the platypus, please.

This kind of debate breads the fundamental'crazies' on either side of the table. Richard Dawkins for example,just because you have more evidence, doesn't give you a right to be an arrogant twat. But anyways, I think a creation museum is a pretty primitive idea. Hopefully the human race will eventually be swayed by logical conclusions rather than fairytales.

I see no reason why religious belief and evolutionary science cannot coexist quite happily. Creationism is simply a misinterpretation of a badly translated, and frequently corrupted ancient text, written by people to whom the idea evolution had not even occurred. I have no more regard for this so called 'museum' than I do for Disneyland, museums proper deal in fact, not wishful thinking.