Is Genesis harmful to children?

In what passes for objectivity among major news outlets, the Ark Encounter, opened by Answers in Genesis, was surrounded by “controversy,” “weird,” and “harmful to children.” Oh my. Three of the first four stories I read quoted the head of the local “freethinkers” (atheist) club. All of them pointed out that a state tax incentive to the project was controversial. The freethinker spokesman said that children were being taught to distrust science, deny climate change and disagree with same-sex marriage.

I’ve seen the Creation Museum, on the adjoining property, near Petersburg, Ky., and it definitely has a Christian intent. The displays are preachy, affirming the truth of the Bible and the gospel. That is controversial, even weird, to our more sophisticated neighbors. Who is surprised by that? The lampooning of those who believe the Bible to be true is getting a bit tired. We get that some find it absurd to believe the biblical description of the creation and worldwide flood. We do understand that the phrase “Because Science” passes for dialogue in our day. We are not intimidated.

The Perot Museum, most zoos, the Smithsonian museums, National Public Radio, and nearly every school of biology and physics are just as religious in their intent. They, like Answers in Genesis, purport to know certainly things that happened thousands of years ago. They, like the two Christian museums, purport to know certainly the nature of man. But they also claim to know with certainty things beyond sight or revelation … because science! It is no wonder we broadly distrust scientific certainty about things we cannot know. Perhaps if the Huffington Post calls us names we’ll trust science more.

But the tax break is not controversial, except to ideologues. I had a conversation a few years back with a state official who helped determine which projects were granted tax incentives in Texas. He was talking about the proposal to build two big Cabela’s stores, near Fort Worth and Austin. These stores were projected to be top tourist attractions in the state. Tourism and associated economic activity were the determining factors. Nobody in Austin really wanted to entice Cabela’s to come to Texas because they like hunting and camping—laudable as those activities are. Do you think the state of Kentucky offered inducements to the Ark Encounter, to be located in a depressed part of the state, for religious reasons? As in Texas, tourism and economic activity are not really that controversial.

Ken Ham and the Answers in Genesis people are on to something important. No one who believes that God made a single man and a single woman in his image and that those two people sinned and thus affected the relationship of man and God—essential elements of the Christian gospel—has easily conformed these beliefs with Darwinism and the millions of years required to make that scheme imaginable. The simple way to make the two things compatible is to make mythology out of stories the Bible clearly presents as narrative. I have friends who believe the Bible to be true, the gospel to be true and the Earth to be ancient; but they raise more questions than they answer in my view. The “freethinkers” among us hate what my old-Earther friends believe as much as they hate the Ark Encounter. Answers in Genesis in not being picketed or ridiculed by old-Earther inerrantists but by those certain in their negative answer to the serpent’s question, “Has God indeed said?”  

We’ve entered the realm of philosophy and theology here. Many scientists deny it, but there are unprovable propositions built on foundational worldviews behind speculation about the source, meaning and nature of all created things. I say they come from Someone, for a reason; atheists say creation came from nowhere, for no purpose … because theology! If I deny the unprovable nature of my belief or if an atheist denies his, it is no less true that we cannot prove things beyond our perception.

I don’t know if there were dinosaurs or unicorns on the ark that I do believe a real guy named Noah built. But putting these mysterious creatures on the ark is an intriguing, not absurd, idea. Couldn’t mythology have a basis in fact? President Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis doesn’t know that they were there; Bill Nye (the somewhat-less-than science guy) doesn’t know they weren’t—though Nye is still certain.

I’ll approach the Ark Encounter the same way I approach the Perot or Smithsonian. Some of it is pretty cool and interesting; some of it is intriguing; some of it is pure speculation. There are things we can’t know unless a reliable witness tells us what happened beyond our ability to perceive. I believe God.