National Trust: “However, not everyone agrees with the scientific view…”

The BBC report that the National Trust have amended the controversial exhibition at the new Giants’ Causeway interpretive centre following their announced review of the materials in the display.  But have they fully addressed the problem?  Not quite.

Here’s how the revised controversial section of the transcript now reads

Today there is a clear understanding among scientists that the heat of the earth was the driving force behind the formation of the Giant’s Causeway – and that the earth is far older than had previously been thought. James Hutton suggested this back in 1785; modern geologists agree with him.

All the scientific evidence points to a volcanic origin for the columns of the Giant’s Causeway, around 60 million years ago.

However, not everyone agrees with the scientific view.  There are some people who believe – often for religious reasons – that the earth was formed more recently: thousands of years ago rather than billions. [added emphasis]

The National Trust supports the scientific view of the formation of the Giant’s Causeway.  We are proud to be the guardians of such a special place – one that has played an important role in our understanding of the world around us.

Often for “religious reasons”?  Nobody doubted that the National Trust supported the scientific view.  But here’s the founder and President of Answers in Genesis – who not coincidentally are also purveyors of resources for teaching Creationism as ‘science’ – and director of the Creation Museum, Ken Ham

I want to make it VERY clear that we don’t want to be known primarily as ‘young-Earth creationists.’ AiG’s main thrust is NOT ‘young Earth’ as such; our emphasis is on Biblical authority. Believing in a relatively ‘young Earth’ (i.e., only a few thousands of years old, which we accept) is a consequence of accepting the authority of the Word of God as an infallible revelation from our omniscient Creator.

[But the National Trust “commissioned interpretive specialists”?! – Ed]  Indeed…

, , , , , , , , , ,