Rock of Ages
By Mahons On July 5th, 2012Regular ATW visitor Seimi has noted that the National Trust approved and offers a Creationist Theory Tour in regard to The Giants Causeway. According to the creationists, the 40,000 basalt volcanic columns that comprise this world heritage site by the sea near the town of Bushmills in NI is 6000 years old. Scientists say 60 million years old, which the National trust accepts but apparently wishes to offer other “theories”.
Legend of course has it that it was created by Finn MacCool, a mythic Irish giant. At least that is noted as legend. However, should some group proclaim it fact does it then become a legitimate theory?
Should creationists, who are entitled to their opinion, be granted such status? Does formal recognition of their theory create at least the impression of validity? I think the stamp of official acceptance allows for an unacceptable impression that it is a legitimate theory. An impression that should not be encouraged.
Mahons
I think it would be widely recognized that the Giant’s causeway was created by a giant of Irish descent, then the possibility that it was created by a giant cloud dwelling jew of questionable origin
// it was created by Finn MacCool, a mythic Irish giant. At least that is noted as legend.//
I remember in the now legendary “Hitch-Hiker’s Guide to Europe” the writer said that the Finn McCool myth is the most plausible explanation of the creation of the causeway.
//Should creationists, who are entitled to their opinion, be granted such status? //
The question is both relevant and entirely absurd. It’s said that in the US around half of all adults believe in creationism.
I’d say what’s needed in more open debate and more public interest in the topic. Creationists can easily be shown to be wrong/fools, and then hopefully the number of their supporters will dwindle.
But …er.. what if it doesn’t?…..
As for Northern Ireland, the campaign to have the creationist myth included in the causeway museum was headed by “The Celeban”, a group founded by a DUPer and Orangeman and with large input and support from that party.
So this gesture to them can be seen as just another facet of the “parity-of-esteem” principle, and if it keeps them off the streets causing trouble it’s probably worth it.
I’ve seen somewhere the comment that the leftist slogan ‘race is a social construct’ being described as the left’s answer to creationism. I hope that those who consider evolution to be a reasonable theory backed by plentiful examples to agree that evolution also applies to man, hence the existence of the races.
Regular ATW visitor Seimi has noted that the National Trust approved and offers a Creationist Theory Tour in regard to The Giants Causeway.
Is there a link to prove this allegation? The NT website link makes no mention of Adam and Eve.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/05/national-trust-creationism-giants-causeway?newsfeed=true
The interactive exhibition in question includes an audio package re-enacting debates between historic figures, who argued over the origins of the Causeway, as well as their contrasting biblical and scientific beliefs on the origins of the planet.
The exchanges end with a further clip stating: “This debate continues today for some people, who have an understanding of the formation of the earth which is different from that of current mainstream science.
“Young earth creationists believe that the earth was created some 6,000 years ago. This is based on a specific interpretation of the Bible and in particular the account of creation in the book of Genesis.
“Some people around the world, and specifically here in Northern Ireland, share this perspective.
“Young earth creationists continue to debate questions about the age of the earth. As we have seen from the past, and understand today, perhaps the Giant’s Causeway will continue to prompt awe and wonder, and arouse debate and challenging questions for as long as visitors come to see it.”
Thanks Fews.
No reasonable person would regard this as any sort of endorsement of creationism, in my humble opinion.
Peter – It isn’t an endorsement, but it presents creationist theory as a legitimate side of a debate. Allow me to expand – say there was a program that references The Flat Earth Society who understand that the Causeway is one of the greatest Wonders of the Flat Earth, which is different from mainstream science which does not hold that the Earth is flat.
Throughout history there have been Official Truths which were subsequently discredited. Heaven forfend that scientists, who frequently modify or abandon their theories, ( which is as it should be ), or are exposed as outright liars with a political agenda, should dictate to the population at large what the truth is. They may say “We think that this is true, based on present understanding”, but they should not criminalize dissent, which is effectively what the politically-correct lobby would like to do here.
I would be very interested to know whether any of those assuming a 60 million year age for the Causeway have any personal understanding of how the figure has been arrived at, and why they imagine that the evidence adduced is foolproof. We are not looking at carbon 14 dating techniques, but are presumably examining the ratios of the isotopes of atoms found in rocks. I challenge anyone to state categorically that their understanding of how these ratios change over time is inarguable.
I would also suggest that whosoever rejects the Biblical account of a recent creation, should visit a website called “The Other Bible Code”. Having done so, and absorbed its profound implications for atheism, we can continue to discuss the issue of Who has absolute authority in these matters.
“Let God be true, but every man a liar”.
The national trust are taking a bit of a hammering over the whole thing on the Facebook page.
http://www.facebook.com/nationaltrust/posts/181610451968970
It could be worse. The National Trust could be using part of my taxes to finance this woo. Not so; they’re a charity and rely on donations.
That said, I’m uneasy about impressionable children visiting the Causeway and being exposed to such insanity.
I don’t know when the earth was formed -or the universe.
Hands up please, anyone who witnessed either event?
_”There can be NO ultimate disagreement between true faith and true science.”
So for myself I try to follow the arguments: not as well as some here can, but as best I can.
I believe in God because He best explains the meaning of man and his abilities, his behaviour, his emotions and his search for meaning. I believe in Christ as the Son of God because His redemptive work on the Cross offers hope and renewal to all who recognise their sinfulness and need of forgiveness.
I believe in the Holy Spirit as the Agent who comes to us and changes us from within.
Those who believe everything is the result of some cosmic fluke or fortuitous happening; and that we and everything around us is ultimately meaningless, have to explain why we so desperately search for love and meaning, and why the possibility that God exists so upsets them!
I’m a collapsed Catholic Agi, I don’t know if a God exists or not but, like most people I’d imagine, I hope that something does exist after death. The fact that God may or may not exist doesn’t upset me in the slightest but what does annoy me is when those that believe in a doctrine adopt a morally superior attitude and try and push their views down my throat.
Paul,
Well I’m a collapsed Protestant who used to be very committed to my faith. Something happened in my personal life and I wandered away for 20 years or so.
Now like the Prodigal Son I am trying to find my way back again, because (I think!) I was a better person for believing than not.
So far I think my head is further advanced on the journey back than my heart is!
Regarding people acting better or superior, it is my experience that the closer a person is to God, the more aware they are of their own failings and the love and forgiveness that comes from God.
You might be surprised at this, but I believe that Christians may be found in all the major churches and denominations. It shines out of them!
Just to recap the accepted science:
The universe is 13.6 billion years old (big bang).
The solar system and all its planets, including earth, is 4.6 billion years old.
The basalt at the Giant’s Causeway is around 65 million years old, about the same time that the dinosaurs disappeared.
The earliest homo species appeared about 2 million years ago.
And modern man appeared less than 100,000 years ago.
So a “young earth” (less than 6,000 years old) is struggling for credibility, in the sense of having a shred of scientific evidence to support it.