…and this is a 
The feeble Ken Ham show
Category: Creationism
Posted on: May 29, 2007 8:33 AM, by PZ Myers
I knew the internet would come through with just the right clip and the relevant extracted words, so I wouldn't have to sit through the wretched miasma of the whole O'Reilly Factor to see Krauss vs. Ham, and here it is.
Jason has a transcript, if you'd prefer to read text rather than watch some guys talk.
Krauss did OK: he was assertive, like you have to be on these shows, and he got in one or two strong sentences (ahh, for a television show that permitted people to express whole paragraphs of ideas…but I dream). I'm not a big fan of Krauss's strategy of conceding too much credibility to theism, though, so maybe it's just as well he didn't get to say overmuch on that them. I was just starting to get irritated at his claim that "science doesn't disprove the fact that there potentially is purpose to the universe" — a half truth; science also doesn't disprove the fact that there are potentially space-monkeys living on Uranus, either, and at the same time there is evidence that the universe is not demonstrating much in the way of purpose — but then Ken Ham was conveniently there to draw my ire.
Ken Ham definitely gives off a creepy vibe. He's a weird-looking guy, with dead eyes and a lipless gash of a mouth, and he only looks uncomfortable in these situations where he's not preaching off a script. If you browse around youtube, you'll find several recent clips of Ham giving interviews, and you can tell when he's on script—he says the same things every time! The bits where he starts talking about "PhD scientists, to show them that we can use the science of genetics, biology, geology, astronomy, anthropology, to confirm the Bible's history" the words are rote, repeated in just about every interview. They're also false. Science contradicts his claim that the earth is 6,000 years old.
One interesting revelation was that their opening day attendance was 4,000 people. That's pretty good, in a sense, but in others it's not very impressive. This was the opening day of a fake "museum" that has been getting extensive media attention, and most of the US news reports have been credulous and fawning. Four thousand is inconsequential. Their attendance is going to drop off rapidly from this point on, and after all the skeptics make their one-time-only visits, there isn't going to be much to draw in repeat visitors. Real museums have to sink a lot of money and effort into ongoing research and new exhibits; they aren't dead and dusty halls of unchanging eternal truths, but dynamic reflections of work that is progressing.
Ken Ham's folly is as dead as his eyes. He's going to be relying on church groups busing in captive coffles of visitors after this, which is admittedly a fairly large audience, but it's questionable whether that's going to be sufficient to maintain even a static institution of that size. And remember: we're working to erode away his audience by turning religion into a hazy memory, and without the lies and delusions promoted by the churches, Ham's cabinet of curiousities is going to be as barren as a tomb. Let's make marketing to the gullible religious as futile as pinning marketshare growth on appeal to the Shakers.
Comments
Hey, at least the Shakers left some useful artifacts behind. More than we'll be able to say about the Hamsters.
Posted by: another | May 29, 2007 8:51 AM
Hen Kam has by far the scariest beard I've ever seen. Beards like that should be prohibited by law.
On second thoughts, it could be the combination with said eyes. And mouth. Probably nose, too.
Posted by: forsen | May 29, 2007 8:52 AM
Surely they could have found someone better than this guy to defend our side against biblical lunacy.
I wonder if they consciously avoid bringing someone on who would slice Ham up into little pieces?
Posted by: Jake Blues | May 29, 2007 8:54 AM
I don't get the Fox News channel, but if this is any indication, I certainly am not missing anything worthwhile. The host basically let Ham and Krauss say a few words, then used that as a lauch pad for his own stream of uninformed opinion.
Is it always like that?
Posted by: Curt Cameron | May 29, 2007 9:04 AM
"We're out of time guys, I think reasonable guys like you can get together and agree there is a certain mystery in life, a certain mystery in life, no one has the answer."
I think it's safe to say "reasonable" is now officially broken beyond repair.
Posted by: Clayton | May 29, 2007 9:09 AM
Not at all, no. Sometimes the host interrupts the guests before they get through their few words.
Posted by: MartinM | May 29, 2007 9:09 AM
From Jason's transcript:
The church? Which church? As if there is a single Christian church rather than thousands of variants with wildly different beliefs!
You say that like it's a bad thing. What's wrong with feeling like you're an atheist? It works for me.
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | May 29, 2007 9:09 AM
I was quite dissapointed by the coverage by NPR - they are usually better than that. While some of the stuff they aired said by parents/visitors was scary to to people like us, they had only one sentence by anyone from our side (Krauss again) and they never assertively used the word "ridiculous" to describe something that is ridiculous. Well, at least we got some descriptions of exhibits and some sound effects. Bah!
I was also struck by the count of 4000. I thought it was pitiful. Hekc, there were 5000 people here, just locals, on a cold winter day when Edwards showed up to chat to people in front of his campaign HQ after he announced his run. For such a Big Event, 4000 was really tiny and gives me optimism that the museum will go bankrupt within a year.
Posted by: coturnix | May 29, 2007 9:14 AM
What is up with that creepy chinbeard? How did that beard with no moustache become so popular with the fringiest right wing religious nuts? You never see anyone else sporting that style. Is there some historical figure that started that?
Posted by: 12xuser | May 29, 2007 9:25 AM
Geez, the Fox news 'moderator' is terrible.
Hi my bias is religious, let me inject my invisible sky-avenger of choice into this discussion at all points!!!
Yeesh.
Posted by: Keith Sader | May 29, 2007 9:25 AM
@ 4
No , usually the Faux News Network has only apologists for the rightwing conservative agenda represented .
Posted by: TR Carroll | May 29, 2007 9:26 AM
What is up with that creepy chinbeard?... Is there some historical figure that started that?
Sneezey? Grumpy? Happy? Doc?
Not Dopey, of course.
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | May 29, 2007 9:40 AM
It's so low-brow, but I can't help but think it every single time I see Ken Ham: he looks exactly like the man-ape pictures he derides for "refuting" evolution.
Oh, and the creep factor. Definitely. Though, I also can't help but be a little creeped out by anyone who believes in biblical literalism.
Posted by: Callandor | May 29, 2007 9:40 AM
It is with great relief to myself that Ken Ham decided to immigrate to join his fundie nutjobs in the US rather than stay here.
Posted by: beepbeepitsme | May 29, 2007 9:41 AM
Or is that emigrate? Either way, it means the Creationist Delusion Museum exists in the US and not here.
Posted by: beepbeepitsme | May 29, 2007 9:42 AM
Cm n y ld frt PZ whn r y gng t blg bt th jy f nc ttty-fck? Jggs r jst ymmy ;)
Prhps Slm wld tmp y? knw 'd lv t ply wth hr dlghtfl fnbgs ()(0).....
http://www.th-dl.rg/wp-cntnt/plds/2006/11/slmttts.jpg
Smthng Kn Hm & PZ cld gr prhps?
Posted by: davescot | May 29, 2007 9:58 AM
Not so. I'm sure I can scientifically prove that there are NO space-monkeys living on MYanus.
Posted by: dorid | May 29, 2007 9:58 AM
Hey, you've still got Carl Wieland! And no, we don't want him.
Posted by: PZ Myers | May 29, 2007 10:00 AM
I'm less optimistic about the dismal finances of the place. Ham raised, what, $25 million from donations to get the place started, right? So, presumably no debt, no lease, no mortgage. I think we can safely assume the capital costs have been covered.
As for recurring costs, those are basically going to be utilities (electricity, water, sewage) and salaries of employees - am I missing anything else? I don't think Ham will have much trouble covering those costs. The whole program has always been about extracting money from the credulous - admission charges merely formalize that process.
Posted by: TheBrummell | May 29, 2007 10:02 AM
Slm s gttng ll mlky mlky....ymmy ;)
http://www.dlstd.cm/nd/7883
Posted by: davescot | May 29, 2007 10:02 AM
Ok, who of you guys let yer six year old kid loose in the thread? I'm afraid he's starting to bug me.
Posted by: forsen | May 29, 2007 10:04 AM
Scotty or davescot or whoever you are: you are getting old and tiresome. While this may be a sex-positive blog, it is not a sex-objectification blog: women are not ambulatory support systems for adipose tissue. And leaping into comment threads to do nothing but babble about breasts is trolling.
This is your only warning. Knock it off, actually engage the subject being discussed, or go away.
Posted by: PZ Myers | May 29, 2007 10:08 AM
I was actually surprised by how telegenic Ham was, and how un-so Krauss was.
I also found it interesting how quickly the host hopped over the plausibility of young-earth creationism (as if to say it obviously wasn't) to questions more intelligent-design-oriented.
Posted by: notthedroids | May 29, 2007 10:11 AM
I give this monument to stupidity 6 months. They'll have to sell it off, and someone will turn it in to a science fiction museum.
I wouldn't mind a science fiction museum. :)
Posted by: MKR | May 29, 2007 10:15 AM
The other thing about costs: he can also rely on volunteers from the local churches, it's not as if he needs informed people with educations updating the material. And if he gets desperate, he can always pull a Hovind and pay people under the table to avoid taxes.
Speaking of which...does anyone know if Ham is claiming a religious exemption from taxation on his monstrosity?
Posted by: PZ Myers | May 29, 2007 10:19 AM
Wll PZ t l, w r nly nmls (whch s cl) s cn't w jst b hnst bt t.
ll nvrsl mrl prncpls r dl fncs, s dn't ffr yr pthtc lbrl snsblts bt 'wmn' nd thr 'bjctfctn' f hmns ddn't bjctfy nn f s wld b hr! ctlly mst wmn knw lv bng trtd lk sx bjct whn th md strks thm. nd f crs rp fntss r bqts.
Lst's pssn wll b srvd; t dmnds, t mltts, t tyrnnzs.
Sx s s mprtnt s tng r drnkng nd w ght t llw th n pptt t b stsfd wth s lttl rstrnt r fls mdsty s th thr.
Wmn's dstny s t b wntn, lk th btch, th sh-wlf; sh mst blng t ll wh clm hr. Thy ll lv bt f rgh fckng ;)
Lt's fc rlty chck; th th grt trnl trths tht bnd ll mn tgthr th whl wrld vr r tht w ll wsh t t, t sht, t fck, t kll, nd thn w d.
hmmmm.....http://www.tnbbs.rg/mg/pst/20060906/fth_hg_bbs_01.jpg
vn Kn Hm wld py t jzz ll vr ths ppps - bt h's s fckd p h wld b rckd wth glt (h h - rckd gt t?) nd thnk t ws sn. Srly PZ y tk th mr prgrssv vw?
[our breast-obsessed troll is now banned]
Posted by: davescot | May 29, 2007 10:30 AM
http://www.teenboobs.org/img/post/20060906/faith_huge_boobs_01.jpg
Posted by: ds | May 29, 2007 10:32 AM
For a science museum, he really starts out on the wrong foot:
No, actually I don't
Straw man alert. Whole generations are being taught there's no God? What schools are this Australian talking about?
Who knew the Bible was so heavily censored? The greatest selling book of all time, and no one can get their hands on a copy?
Whoop-dee-do. But do they have the foggiest idea of what they are talking about? That's the question of the day.
Posted by: Spanish Inquisitor | May 29, 2007 10:35 AM
What makes me sad is that it's really quite a beautiful piece of work. The exhibits are beautifully done--it's clear that a lot of time, effort, and money has gone into their design and it has paid off. I've been to plenty of real museums where the exhibits weren't half so nice, dynamic, and engaging. It's depressing to see such nice work put into something with so stupid and harmful a purpose.
Posted by: Susan B. | May 29, 2007 10:40 AM
"Not so. I'm sure I can scientifically prove that there are NO space-monkeys living on MYanus."
Not if they are supernatural and invisible like god! You could have a whole planetfull of them playing around there. Ever think of that when take a crap?
Posted by: sailor | May 29, 2007 10:41 AM
"... and of course rape fantasies are ubiquitous."
Whoa. That was one of the more disgusting outpourings of misogyny I've seen online. Do you have any notion of how much suffering is caused to women worldwide because of sexually related violence? If you're a creationist troll trying to convey the sterotype of atheists as morally corrupted, just cut it. We won't buy into that.
Posted by: forsen | May 29, 2007 10:42 AM
The thing is that to say a lie it only takes 10 seconds, to refute it takes so much more time. I would think that to actually have a grasp of how powerful evolution is you can't just explain it, you probably need to read at least one good science book about it. My guess is that from all the people I know, very few would say that ID is just stupid, if presented "both sides" carefully. Needless to say, many of them, agnostic or theistic, are suckers for Chopra and his ilk, and even for that The Secret bullshit.
Posted by: Oh, fishy, fishy, fishy, fish! | May 29, 2007 10:44 AM
... not to mention harassing women online. Get lost.
Posted by: forsen | May 29, 2007 10:45 AM
forsen: uh-oh, you're feeding the troll. Please don't feed the troll! Even with PZ's busy schedule, I have confidence that he will soon take action and we will see the troll disemvoweled if not outright banned.
Posted by: abeja | May 29, 2007 10:47 AM
beepbeepitsme:
It's all a matter of perspective. To you in Australia, it's 'emigrate'. To us in the USA, it's 'immigrate' .
It's something I learned growing up in Salt Lake City, near Emigration Canyon, through which the Mormons intend (I imagine) to leave the Salt Lake Valley.
Posted by: llewelly | May 29, 2007 10:53 AM
If I want to read the rantings of a creepy misogynistic fuckwit, I think I'll stick to Leviticus.
Posted by: Iain Walker | May 29, 2007 10:54 AM
abeja, you're probably right. It's just that know many young men at men my age, religious and irreligious alike, who secretly harbour quite disgusting attitudes towards women. Therefore, I just have a very hard time to sit out and leave things like that unsaid. But sure, no more goodies for the goblin.
Posted by: forsen | May 29, 2007 10:55 AM
ah, typo.
Posted by: forsen | May 29, 2007 10:57 AM
@ #9 & #12:
Possibly, Ham wants to look like a scientist, so:
This must be the 'historical figure' he is imitating: The famous homo universalis Professor Bar(n)abas from the Belgian Suske en Wiske (Spike and Suzy) cartoon. Prof. Barabas, however, was a good guy and I am sure he accepted Evolution.
Posted by: amph | May 29, 2007 10:57 AM
Oh good. The # of posts are declining. That means we lost a troll.
Posted by: Spanish Inquisitor | May 29, 2007 11:03 AM
Well, seems like the righteous judgement just struck down from Above.
Posted by: forsen | May 29, 2007 11:04 AM
Fox News guy:
I Do read the Bible."
Phew! His producers were sweating it until he got that line out.
Posted by: CalGeorge | May 29, 2007 11:08 AM
Would it bother Ken Ham to know how much he resembled a monkey? Could it be we have finally found our missing link?
Posted by: YSUBassoon | May 29, 2007 11:15 AM
Unless Mr. Ham decides to make it into an amusement park for believers.
Posted by: John Danley | May 29, 2007 11:22 AM
More than we'll be able to say about the Hamsters.
The Hamsters! Bwahaha, brilliant! Let's all use it all the time.
In the back of the book segment tonight
The very back of the book.
Some people think it does more harm than good
Such intrepid reporting! And THE REST OF US think it's for flunkies.
It is with great relief to myself that Ken Ham decided to immigrate...or is that emigrate?
It's migrate, BeepBeep. We haven't gotten our innoculation plan working yet.
I give this monument to stupidity 6 months. They'll have to sell it off, and someone will turn it in to a science fiction museum. I wouldn't mind a science fiction museum.
I think that's really a good idea! They've got dinosaurs; just add some UFOs and a dash or two of time travel scenarios, a few space pirates, and a lizard breaking out of the egg in the manger. Man, what I could do with the place. Such great party ideas I have!
Posted by: Kristine | May 29, 2007 11:23 AM
I have already agreed not to feed the trolls, even if they go sockpuppeting.
Posted by: forsen | May 29, 2007 11:31 AM
Well Krauss won this one hands down. Ham only got this 20-30 seconds to speak, and it was what everyone expected, sympathizer or otherwise.
I mark this 4.5 minute video in the Odd Win column for Faux.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | May 29, 2007 11:37 AM
A few comments:
As long as there are substantial number of Christian congregations committed to YEC, there will be a built-in audience for Ham's museum.
His museum is fully-capitalized, beyond a doubt, but he will continue to solicit financial support to modernize, improve and promote access to the museum ("scholarships" and the like), and he will no doubt receive that financial support.
So don't expect him to go belly-up any time soon. I do agree with PZ in a sense: you have to go after his base of support.
Posted by: Scott Hatfield | May 29, 2007 11:50 AM
After spending half the night going through the Creation Science Museum entries linked from here on Pharyngula (BTW - great job PZ!) I woke up with the following Onion-style news headline stuck in my head and wanted to share:
Animatronic T-Rex Malfunctions, Devours Creation Science Museum Founder!
Sorry, I know it's cruel to wish ill on others...
Still, I can't help thinking that the Insurance claim would call it, "an act of God."
Posted by: Calladus | May 29, 2007 11:55 AM
I'm going to stand up for Ken Ham here.
Ham is right! Taking the Bible at face value shows that evolution is indeed incompatible with scripture. There is not the slightest mention of evolution in any of the book of the Bible.
Any Christian who accepts evolution is a hypocrite on some level. Krauss doesn't seem to understand this quite simple point.
Posted by: Christian Burnham | May 29, 2007 12:09 PM
Kristine @ 45,
Raptor Jesus went extinct for our sins.
Posted by: Robster, FCD | May 29, 2007 12:12 PM
Wait a second, stone age attitude, comes from an island in south east asia,.... I just knew I'd seen that beard before.
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2004/10/28/main-realhobbit.jpg
Posted by: MartinC | May 29, 2007 12:33 PM
4K visitors on day one?
4,000 x 19.95 (+ $5 for planetarium) = $99,800.
Only 270 days to go to recoup the 27 million.
Posted by: CalGeorge | May 29, 2007 12:33 PM
It is only a straw man because humans default to intentionalist and association based thinking.
There are many widespread efforts to teach people empiricism. So far, they do not reach anywhere near enough folk to justify any claim on the scale of 'whole generations'. To many in the reality-based or skeptic movement, universal education in empiricism is a important goal. Teaching empiricism has the side effect of teaching that there is no god. Barring a miracle, universal education in empiricism would indeed result in whole generations of atheists.
Posted by: llewelly | May 29, 2007 12:34 PM
Christian @ 50 - I agree that the Bible and evolution are incompatible, but in regard to your last paragraph, it all depends on how liberal of a Christian it is. Even though most Christians claim the Bible is divinely inspired, there's no logical reason it would have to be. There's the possibility that God exists, Jesus existed, and people have witnessed miracles. And then humans have been entirely responsible for writing down everything they think they know about God in scriptures, some of which got compiled into the Bible, and has been corrupted by other humans. Yes, it's very implausible, and I don't believe it anymore (I did for about half a year before I finally rejected Christianity altogether), but not all Christians who believe in evolution are necessarily hypocrites.
Posted by: Fatboy | May 29, 2007 12:42 PM
http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=3f0f7bed-167c-43a6-b5a2-957f78f1a061
Oldest evidence of Earth life found
Publication: CAH - Calgary Herald (new)
Byline: Randy Boswell
A Canadian-led team of scientists has discovered what they
say is the oldest indisputable evidence of life on Earth -- the
fossilized trackways of slithering microbes in a
3.35-billion-year-old rock from Australia.
Previous studies -- including one led by Banerjee in 2004 that fixed a 3.5-billion-year-old age to fossilized microbe trails found in South Africa -- have been criticized for relying on techniques that dated surrounding rock rather than the "ichnofossil" tracks themselves.
Banerjee told CanWest News Service Monday the dating of the Australian fossils is "quite unique" because the researchers used a state-of-the-art, laser-plasma mass spectrometer at the University of Alberta to precisely target tiny minerals and organic residues captured inside the microbes' primordial burrows.
"One of the criticisms of our earlier work was based on the analogy that just because the London underground was dug into million-year-old rock, that doesn't make the underground a million years old," said Banerjee. "This time, we dated the fossil itself. To our knowledge, this is the first time anyone has directly dated an archean microfossil."
Posted by: Jefe | May 29, 2007 12:45 PM
This is my first comment on this site, but I've been a reader for some time. (I love the content and devour it religiously...oh, ooops, I mean, so to speak...)
I am from the Cincy area and attended yesterday's "Rally for Reason", the organized protest that was located right in front of the "museum" entrance (it's actually just an amusement park, folks...really and truly just that). I was there in the morning for about three hours, standing on the side of the road in damp grass defending crucial aspects of the Enlightenment. I think most of you would be delighted to know that there were probably 100-200 people there at any given time, holding up signs promoting real science education over myth and superstitious nonsense. There were also some great speakers at the event, including Dr. Krauss (who gave the keynote speech and then spent a great deal of time interviewing with various media crews), local evolutionary biologist Dr. Gene Kritsky, Hemant Mehta (he's got blog posts on the event), and Edwin Kagan, the legal director for the group American Atheists. The Smalkowski family was also there, speaking and providing music for the event.
It was a great day for speaking out against Ken Ham and his awful lies - but I saw BUSLOADS of kids coming into the place. This is the main reason this slick but vacuous testament to testament needs to be seriously countered (someone said Ken Ham "uses the bible to prove the bible", which summarizes it quite succinctly). I don't know for sure when the next protest would be (maybe around July 4?) but please, if you are in the area, try to make it to the next event if you care about science education. The website, again, is rallyforreason.com
Sorry for the long first post, but I thought I might find some sympathizers here in Captain Myers' Cabin...
Posted by: Dr. Bossnotes | May 29, 2007 12:57 PM
What scares me is that the bible is not very dynamic either but it seems to stick around. I suppose the financial overhead might deter future success. Unless AIG "creates" their own defense military.
Posted by: John Danley | May 29, 2007 1:00 PM
What's a "coffle"? It this a Midwesternism of some kind?
I love the coconut-eating T Rex and I demand a T-shirt of one forthwith. You listening, Ham?
Posted by: CS Lewis Jr. | May 29, 2007 1:02 PM
to #58 (John Danley): Actually, AIG does have its own defense military -- I saw a few scary-looking K-9 vans (yup, they gots attack dogs) and a huge and very expensive black iron fence around the perimeter.
Posted by: Dr. Bossnotes | May 29, 2007 1:13 PM
Chris Hedges is up to the same tricks. What is funny is that Ham and Hedges need meaning in their life. If I want meaning, I'm sure as hell not gonna look on the shelf at Lifeway Christian Bookstores.
Posted by: John Danley | May 29, 2007 1:32 PM
When "debating" with the likes of Ken Ham, there are several points that we sould make over and over;
Science does not address the existence of God(s), but can examine the truth of statements regarding the physical universe made by religions, cults or superstitions.
Young Earth Creationism violates Christian scripture. This is not a scientific problem, it is a theological problem.
Using lies to support a YEC interpretation of the first few pages of Genesis is more likely to undermine Christianity than is science.
I expand on these observations at Stones and Bones. (Yes I broke down and started a blog).
Posted by: Gary Hurd | May 29, 2007 1:45 PM
"coffle" - what you use to transport slaves that might have a tendency to run away.... Very appropriate, IMO
Posted by: J-Dog | May 29, 2007 1:50 PM
have skimmed the comments.. was not very satisfying, as I expected it wouldn't be.. but I tried to get some discussion in my 30 seconds about the nature and importance of science..question was whether it was worth it to try and reach a broader audience.. biggest problem was it was supposed to be 7-10 min, which is why I had agreed to do it... thought in 3.5 min I might say something.. then it got cut by a factor of 2 as we did it, and the host basically departed from the issues we had discussed in advance to talk about his religious beliefs.. anyway, one never knows if these things are worth it.. but I think one has to keep trying (and to one of the comments.. I disagree, I thought I was more telegenic.. :) )..
Posted by: Lawrence M. Krauss | May 29, 2007 2:15 PM
In regards to Christian Burnham's comment in #50, can someone explain to me why would Christians who refuse to acknowledge an interpretation of the Book of Genesis that requires one to lie, demonize differing viewpoints and deny reality be regarded as hypocrites?
In that case, would those Christians who refuse to round up non-Christians, rowdy children and eaters of shellfish to be stoned to death be also regarded as hypocrites as well?
Posted by: Stanton | May 29, 2007 2:16 PM
to #64 (L. Krauss) - Thanks anyway for doing the show but also for being at the Creation Museum protest rally earlier on the same day; wished you could have given THAT speech on O'Reilly. I found your presence/presentation at the rally inspiring.
Posted by: Dr. Bossnotes | May 29, 2007 2:21 PM
Stanton: Yes, I agree. I'd also like to see true Christians lobby for the right to stone their unruly children to death.
What I don't get are the Christians who profess to be religious and yet pick and choose bits from the Bible. Krauss is completely wrong to think that true Christians should accept evolution.
Posted by: Christian Burnham | May 29, 2007 2:22 PM
My favorite Ken Ham quote from the interview:
"If there's a God who OWNS you, he sets the rules..."
Why would you ever want to hope or have faith that there is a permanent celstial overseer who owns not only your life here on Earth, but also your soul for all of eternity? The idea that we were created for the sole purpose of bowing down and worshiping our creator is a sick and disgusting meme. I wish more theists would think a little more about how truly awful a concept that is. I suppose the fear of eternal torture for not believing the meme makes it the lesser of 2 evils, though, so they are willing to accept being owned in exchange for not being thrown into a lake of fire.
Posted by: Marcus | May 29, 2007 2:26 PM
Susan (#29) wrote:
Some might say that this is one of many other good examples. Sigh.
Posted by: Kseniya | May 29, 2007 2:29 PM
So, then, Mr Burnham, if you have an enemy, do you a) kill him, his entire family, his neighbors, his animals, and burn all of his property and worldly possessions into ash because his existence is an abomination before God, or b) make peace with him because both of you are God's children?
The Bible says to do both things, and according to your logic, doing one and not the other will make a Christian a hypocrite either way, if only because I find it impossible to make peace with a person by annihilating him from existence.
Posted by: Stanton | May 29, 2007 2:31 PM
Good point, Marcus. That one word - "owns" - made my antenna twitch. The implied view evokes the notion that we are nothing more than the playthings of a petulant, childish super-being.
Posted by: Kseniya | May 29, 2007 2:36 PM
No, we need more of that. So long as theistic scientists like Owen Gingerich, Stephen Unwin, Francis Collins, and Ken Miller keep claiming that science supports their claims of existence for their various gods, we need other scientists to point out that they are completely wrong.
Posted by: Patrick Quigley | May 29, 2007 2:37 PM
Certainly not. But then, I'm not religious, and I'm certainly not a Christian.
Posted by: Christian Burnham | May 29, 2007 2:39 PM
So, then, I take it you don't care crap about those Christians who might be offended at your implication that they're hypocrites for not reading the Bible literally in order to interpret science, especially when the ancient Hebrew authors who originally wrote it never intended the Bible to used as a science textbook to begin with?
Posted by: Stanton | May 29, 2007 2:43 PM
I thought I was more telegenic.. :)
You were, Larry. Ham looked angry. He looked like the scary old hermit grump down the street on whose lawn you'd better not lose a ball.
Posted by: Kristine | May 29, 2007 2:44 PM
"If there's a God who owns you, then he sets the rules..."
People who think that God defines morality depress me. They don't seem to realize that this rules out believing in a morally good God a priori. Thinking of God as our rule-defining slavemaster is a new low.
Posted by: Ian | May 29, 2007 2:45 PM
Marcus #68:
Nice to see them come out and state it so baldly. That's why all that talk about "meaning" and "purpose" falls flat with me.
Posted by: Rey Fox | May 29, 2007 3:10 PM
Yup. It really isn't my concern whether Christians take offense at anything I write.
I'm willing to listen to any reasoned argument, but I don't care for treading gently around their hair-trigger religious sensibilities.
After all, I didn't make it up- it's their Bible that talks about stoning errant kids. Don't blame me for their scriptures!
Posted by: Christian Burnham | May 29, 2007 3:40 PM
To the commentators puzzled by Ham's beard: I don't think you see the subtle deviousness of what he's doing.
YE Creationists hold that all the hominid fossils found can be divided into either humans or apes, with no transitional forms. By making himself look like he stepped out of a diorama in the Hall of Human Evolution, Ham is trying to make people subconsciously conflate proto-humans with modern humans.
(I wouldn't be surprised if we learned AiG was secretly funding the advertising agency that does those Geico ads with the sensitive cavemen.)
Posted by: jpf | May 29, 2007 3:50 PM
They may not have been intending to write a science book, but I bet they were intending to write what they thought was an accurate historical account. What's the point of the geneologies going back to Adam if he was just an allegorical character?
Posted by: Fatboy | May 29, 2007 3:51 PM
I meant "genealogies," not "geneologies."
Posted by: Fatboy | May 29, 2007 3:53 PM
::HEADDESK::
Posted by: edhel | May 29, 2007 4:12 PM
Out of the 4,000, how many came to laugh?
Posted by: Davis | May 29, 2007 4:15 PM
Eh? Lawrence Krauss uses smileys!
Posted by: Oh, fishy, fishy, fishy, fishy! | May 29, 2007 4:22 PM
I hate CNN.
CNN gave almost an entire second to the protesters outside the Flinstone's museum in their report today. Ham got about 30 seconds to speak and the token skeptic managed to get out a whole sentence.
Did I mention I hate CNN?
Posted by: Christian Burnham | May 29, 2007 4:23 PM
"Why is it not acceptable that evolution and creationism can be compatible?"
/boggle
Because the earth can't be both 6,000 and 4 and a half billion years old. Some things just will never be compatible.
Posted by: ordinarygirl | May 29, 2007 4:55 PM
...Occam's Razor, perhaps?
Posted by: Azkyroth | May 29, 2007 5:08 PM
Calling it "junk science" is a misnomer. It's not science at all.
The facility in question isn't a museum, it's a shrine in a slightly-different format.
-jcr
Posted by: John C. Randolph | May 29, 2007 7:44 PM
Their attendance is going to drop off rapidly from this point on, and after all the skeptics make their one-time-only visits, there isn't going to be much to draw in repeat visitors. Real museums have to sink a lot of money and effort into ongoing research and new exhibits; they aren't dead and dusty halls of unchanging eternal truths, but dynamic reflections of work that is progressing.
Yeah, Calgeorge beat me to the punch on this, but they need a full year of opening-day receipts to get the investment back. That's a tall order.
On the other hand, they don't have the limitations that real science museums have of showing only, you know, real stuff. Their business model is going to be more like Disneyworld: just make up a new exhibit every few months, the more creative and colorful, the better. In the near future I'd expect a virtual reality game there where the kids are chased by laugh