So, I don't really get what all the hub-bub is about. The Creation Museum opened today in Kentucky. For those that don't know, it's a museum that has exhibits based on the theory of creation and contradicts what's been taught in many educational systems.
I read several articles today about it, and one thing that really disappointed me was how the "journalists" presented their arguments. Let me quickly dissect it for you. Believe it or not there are three sides to this:
1. You have the Creation side. This is commonly called the "religious" or "fanatic" side of the debate. The major point of creation is that God created all things, and the entire Universe is 6,000 yrs old. They believe that evolution doesn't exist and that man indeed could have co-existed with dinosaurs. In fact, the explanation given for the extinction of dinosaurs is that Noah didn't let them on the arc (I read that in an article).
2. You have the Evolution side. This is commonly called the "Darwinist" or "secularists" side of the debate. They believe in the theory of evolution and that all life started millions of years ago and slowly evolved to what it is now. It's the side of the argument usually taught in public schools.
3. You have the Intelligent Design side. This is the "moderate" or "pacifist" side of the debate. Basically, it's a blending of the two arguments. It's an acknowledgment by someone trying to make sense of the scientific side of the origins of life (evolution) while reconciling their religious beliefs (creation).
What's frustrating is that everything I read today wasn't so much as an argument for why what the particular "journalist" believed in as much as a ton of inflammatory and derogatory remarks about those that believe the other sides. Most of the "journalists" failed to even mention why the opening of the museum was such a hot button issue and instead used their allotted space to just degrade anyone that didn't believe their point of view.
A proper journalist (notice the lack of quotes) would have first discussed the opening of the museum and what issues it addressed or stirred up. Then, if this was an editorial or commentary piece, would have gone on to present how the facts in their argument hold up and why the opening of such a museum is wonderful/horrible. Key phrase is FACTS. They wouldn't have resorted to calling those that believe in creationism as "right wing dumb heads that believe any bible babble" or those that believe in evolution as "godless evil secularists that want to remove religion from all facets of society." They would have merely presented their arguments on merit and allowed the reader to make a decision.
Finally, I'll weigh in on the topic. What are the origins of life? Who knows . . . and more importantly who cares? The problem with all of the theories of life is that they are just that -- THEORIES. Theories are nothing more than using data, analyzing it, and creating an educated guess on how something moved from point A to point B. Then you test your theory. The problem with the theories surrounding the origins of life is that they can't be re-created. Life already happened however many years ago. You believe in what you believe based on a combination of observations and faith, and to that extent that's the best we can do.
You could "test" these theories but to no avail. We could take an empty container and ensure it is void of anything - light, oxygen, elements, you name it. Then just pray for God to create life in it. But, it's not going to happen. We could take the same container, and add oxygen, pure water, and light and watch it. But life will not spring forth from that either.
I say, instead of worrying about where we came from or how it happened, lets just look at where we're headed. All of the money and energy spent in proving how it all started isn't gonna mean a hill a beans if we don't head the right way now.
