…and this is a 
He seems a bit peevish. He now has a blog post up complaining about me and my "inaccuracies". His complaints are amusingly petty.
I object to the lies at the very heart of his "museum", and he thinks he is rebutting me by whining over petty details.
For instance, he quotes me as regarding the idea of "Noah's ark being built to carry off members of every species on earth", and then he primly informs his readers that that isn't true: it only carried every kind of "land-dwelling, air-breathing animal". Oh, well, that fixes the logistical problems of the ark right up, doesn't it? Here we have a great big flood that turns the globe into Waterworld, and he doesn't have to worry about the effects of salinity changes on aquatic organisms, doesn't have to think about the plants, and the birds can just stay airborne for a year until the flood recedes. I don't care what fraction of life on earth the poop-shovelin', travelin' family of Noah squeezed onto their big imaginary boat — the whole story is ludicrous and unsupported by the evidence or by sense.
Then he complains that I mentioned his "dinosaurs with saddles". He's only got one, he says, and it's out for repairs, and it wasn't out in the exhibits anyway. But again, this is his whole schtick behind the museum: that like the Flintstones, humans and dinosaurs coexisted! He's got exhibits with kids playing with carnivorous dinosaurs, and he specifically claims that dinosaurs existed within the last 10,000 years. The point is that the founding premise of his scammy little "museum" is false.
He also complains that he doesn't make any direct accusations of "malice and dishonesty" against biologists in general, but again, that's the implication he makes by calling evolution a lie and the work of Satan. He says he doesn't blame Darwin for the world's problems — that's caused by sin, of course — but again, it's pretending that a major focus of his "museum" is on how godless Darwinism leads people away from the true faith and into depravity.
He thinks the numbers I cited are wrong. Well, take it up with the source I cited, which tracks charitable organizations to give potential donors information on what the institution is doing. Mr Ham can always provide them with up-to-date information, and I'm sure they'll make the numbers more current.
Finally, the most pathetic whimper of all: I called it "Ken Ham's 'museum'". It's not his museum, he says, it's the Lord's. Yeah, right.
Since Mr Ham is so concerned about my accuracy or lack thereof, and is obviously stressed at the poor publicity I'm giving his little monument to ignorance, I'll make him an offer. I'll give him a whole day of my time if he'll fly me in and give me a personal tour, during which he can point out all the things I've gotten wrong about Creation, and I will dutifully write them down and post a complete report of his various rebuttals. Thorough coverage for the price of a plane ticket. How can he possibly turn down such an offer?
If he was really confident of the legitimacy of his museum, I could probably even gather a small group of mouthy, obnoxious, and culturally prominent godless scientists who'd also take advantage of such an offer, and he could shepherd us all through at once, evangelizing as much as he wanted. It would be great! Come on, Mr Ham, put a little bit of your money where your mouth is.
Comments
Posted by: Luke | June 24, 2009 9:06 AM
Oh wow this has to happen.
Posted by: Rorschach | June 24, 2009 9:06 AM
Mr Ham would be well advised to read up on the endless thread and its predecessors.
But then again,he is a liar for his dog,so he probably wont.Shame.He could have learned something.About foreskins.Sorry,I mean,geology.
Posted by: Kel | June 24, 2009 9:09 AM
Mr Ham, I'd be in for this as well. I'm not an evolutionary biologist, but I have a blog that gets several hits a day for people searching for "Banana in vagina" on google. Fly me in and talk me through creation and I promise to put it up unedited.
Posted by: Cappy | June 24, 2009 9:10 AM
I would love to read the subsequent blog on that excursion.
Posted by: Sastra
|
June 24, 2009 9:14 AM
And imagine if he converted all of you! That would be apologetic gold!
Most pseudoscientists, whatever the subject, have a common complaint they peddle for all it's worth: "I have all the evidence and argument, but the so-called "experts" refuse to even look at it, because I don't have fancy credentials." The 'average person' is supposed to identify with that, and buy into the story of the Little Guy who was ignored, even though he's right. And of course, they aren't afraid to look and make up their own minds.
So it's unlikely Ham will take you up on your offer. He'd much rather continue to play the story that "they won't even look at the evidence," for that's a proven crowd-pleaser, and feeds into the paranoid conspiracy theory.
Posted by: Virgil | June 24, 2009 9:15 AM
Ahhh the classic "if you believe in it then open it up for public criticism" model. Love it! It truly amazes me how many people sitting atop crappy ideas (even some scientists) simply balk at the notion of actually having to defend their ideas in an open public forum.
FYI, AIG gets a crappy 55.2 rating on Charity Navigator...
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=5214
Therein is also revealed Mr Ham's $162k annual salary! Man! I knew academia was the wrong game to get into!
Posted by: JackC
|
June 24, 2009 9:16 AM
I'd go for bulk. I am not much good for anything else.
JC
Posted by: Jackie | June 24, 2009 9:17 AM
I think Mozblubov makes a similar/interesting point on the untenability of the religious right.
http://mozglubov.blogspot.com/2009/06/spurious-vapid-and-disconcerting-at.html
Posted by: Moggie
|
June 24, 2009 9:18 AM
But he didn't mention the piglets? Must be true, then.
Posted by: NIja | June 24, 2009 9:27 AM
"I could probably even gather a small group of mouthy, obnoxious, and culturally prominent godless scientists who'd also take advantage of such an offer" OOO!, OOOO!, Pick Me! Pick Me!
I'm not REALLY a scientist, just a BS in Physics, but still...
I think you should get to hold a contest or some sorts (or random raffle) and have a small group of your readers flown in to go on the tour with you.
Posted by: Bjoern Brembs | June 24, 2009 9:29 AM
I'd also be willing to go. But the airfare from Europe would be more expensive, of course :-)
Posted by: James Sweet | June 24, 2009 9:29 AM
Hmmm... what a tool.
I will say, though, that whenever discussing the Noah's Ark story, I am always careful to point out that "cutting edge" Biblical literalist thinking distinguishes between "species" and "kinds", in an attempt to reduce the number of animals Noah had to carry on the ark. Then I always link to the Conservapedia article on baraminology. (I had this linked in my previous attempt at posting, but my post got filtered for linking to Conservapedia. Harumph!)
It's one thing for an adult to literally believe in a ludicrously implausible children's story. It's a whole different level of absurdity when you invent an entire pseudoscientific field of study in a futile attempt to try and make the story plausible. (It also forces the YECs to propose more rapid speciation than any evolutionist would ever suggest, which is priceless...)
Posted by: Pen | June 24, 2009 9:30 AM
I would quite like Ken Ham to have a free weekly open night for atheists, for the purpose of converting us all of course (ahem). I expect any converts would gladly make a donation afterwards. That way I could get to see this amazing monument to American culture (sorry Americans) with my conscience intact. You'd think that if he's 'doing the Lord's work' he would jump at the suggestion, wouldn't you? Maybe PZ can pass it on when he gets his grand tour?
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 24, 2009 9:33 AM
Ham writes (hamhandedly?):
So, what he's saying is that, if PZ does not change his mind, he (PZ) is more powerful than Ham's god?
Sweet!
Lying about science and history is a spiritual issue? Oh, that's right - he's playing on people's tendency to give faith a free pass. So, lying is okay if it's for Jesus.
Wading through his tripe reminds me once again how glad I am he left Australia - though I do feel bad for all you USians. But if you do decide to deport him please don't send him back here...
Posted by: Matthew Pickard | June 24, 2009 9:34 AM
Ham knows he'll fail. How can he not? The science of evolution is the work of Satan after-all. How can he possibly out-do Satan when PZ is so apparently doing old scratch's work.
I'd love to see this happen though, but like PZ receiving his iPod from Junior Hovnid, I rather doubt that Ham has his faith in check.
Posted by: Bjoern Brembs | June 24, 2009 9:34 AM
I'd also be willing to go. But the airfare from Europe would be more expensive, of course :-)
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 24, 2009 9:35 AM
Can I come as the official photographer?
I really wouldn't want to miss that.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 24, 2009 9:38 AM
I even promise to keep from mentioning the piglets.
Posted by: strangebrew | June 24, 2009 9:45 AM
Not a hope in Hades...Ham is a con man....he depends on crass arrogance and gross ignorance to promote his delusion....there is no way that he wants to put his golden goose of a scam under scrutiny of real scientific evaluation...he might be deranged...but he ain't stupid!
Less damage is likely if he ignores the request...he prefers the righteous waffle of print to the immediacy of personal confrontation...after all he can pretend he never heard the offer....
A e-mail barrage at AiG might perk a few ears up....and Ham will have to wriggle out from under cos there will be no way he can ignore the challenge...that might get uncomfortable for the prat...but if he goes with it... the caveat will be that he will demand several other 'scientists' of vague and illusory import to balance the scrutiny...guaranteed!
Posted by: Mentat | June 24, 2009 9:49 AM
It's amazing that there are some rare species that can actually do this. I don't remember which they are though, does anyone here know?
Posted by: Rorschach | June 24, 2009 9:49 AM
I saw the man for the first time in Maher's "Religulous",and was deeply impressed with his insincerity.Just an awful specimen of the human race,Ham is,no excuses,the guy is evil,a liar,out to lie to children and the gullible.
A truly despiccable person.
Posted by: Pete Moulton | June 24, 2009 9:51 AM
I think you should hit him up for two tickets, PZ, and then invite Richard Dawkins along. You know: see who gets expelled this time.
Posted by: raven | June 24, 2009 9:56 AM
My impression is that Ken Ham's Flintstone emporium has been moderately successful.
PZ wrote that they are "rolling in dough" and visitor counts were higher than most scientists could imagine.
As a monument to ignorance it is right up there with.....well, nothing. The Geocentrists and Flat Earthers don't have any museums that I'm aware of.
Ham's biggest weirdness is the millenia old True Xian division. According to him, True Xians have to believe that all sorts of mythology are real which makes the majority of Xians, Fake Xians.
In the end, his major enemies might well turn out to be other Xians. At least some fundies and Evangelicals have dropped YECism for more reality based attitudes towards science.
Posted by: JackC
|
June 24, 2009 10:01 AM
I just listened to Charles Pierce on my local Public station. He made an interesting comment: "Everyone should go see the Creation Museum. It is a Uniquely American invention. Just keep it out of out schools, for god's sake."
I am pretty sure that last phrase was just automatic.
Odd that these things happen when reading something about the Creation 'museum'.
JC
Posted by: JackC
|
June 24, 2009 10:05 AM
Me fayle Engrish
sigh. Take me apart. I am ready.
JC
Posted by: Carl | June 24, 2009 10:06 AM
The weirdest part is how he doesn't even refer to PZ by name. Why not? Is he afraid that his readers will search for this blog and be led astray?
Posted by: Nominal Egg | June 24, 2009 10:08 AM
PZ needs to bring along a videographer. That way, we can all be there.Posted by: Southern Comfort | June 24, 2009 10:09 AM
Ham showing you around his creation museum would be the perfect counter to Ray comfort's trip to the Smithsonian to debunk evolution.
Posted by: Tim H | June 24, 2009 10:11 AM
Someone really needs to buy the property next to Ham's and put up a "creation museum" based on Greek Polytheism. Name the group "Answers in Theogeny." Just think of the literally "Classical" exhibits you could have. Then I would buy a property across the street and put up a bar that sold discounted tickets to both places. (I couldn't stand stepping inside Ham's place unless I was drunk off my ass.)
Posted by: Roger
|
June 24, 2009 10:14 AM
To borrow from Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, "What does God need with a museum?"
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 24, 2009 10:15 AM
Mentat@20,
Swifts are the record holders. They sleep on the wing, alight only to nest, and cannot take off from the ground. As they do not usually nest the year after they hatch, many are airborne for around 21 months continuously. Now, if only they could work out how to nest on the wing!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 24, 2009 10:15 AM
Good call, but he needs both.
Posted by: Sastra
|
June 24, 2009 10:18 AM
In the article, Ken Ham wrote:
Ken fails to understand that PZ's "supporters" (theistic and nontheistic) are simply not going to accept his framework regarding "hatred of God" being at the root of atheism. Nor are we going to precondition our values with the assumption that "only eternal things matter." Those aren't universals of reason: they're narrow, sectarian beliefs of faith.
And faith is a creation of man. Ham worships man's creation. Oo-oo.
Posted by: Carlie | June 24, 2009 10:18 AM
From Ken: If any of his supporters have any conscience not seared by their hatred of God, perhaps they will realize how they are being led astray.
Mmmm, pan-seared conscience. Very good with a little garlic and rosemary.
So do you think Kenny boy just searches Pharyngula for references to him now and then, or is he secretly reading every post late at night, alone in his room, hoping no one will find him enjoying it?
Posted by: cicely (Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac)
|
June 24, 2009 10:20 AM
Carl @ 26:
No, he's supplying himself with an out. If Dr. Myers takes him up on it, instead of writhing in embarrassment, he can always claim that he meant some other 'certain professor'.
Posted by: RickK | June 24, 2009 10:24 AM
I am appalled by the apparent ease with which Ken Ham and the YEC crowd live their lives submerged in cognitive dissonance and intellectual dishonesty. While I can forgive some homeschooled teenager who has never been exposed to rational science, there is simply no excuse whatsoever for the blatant lying of people with Ham's resources.
Ken and AiG are fully and completely aware of the fact that they are lying, or "bearing false witness" to use language they understand. This is demonstrated by the fact that Ken's blog does not allow comments.
Lies thrive in the dark, and cannot stand the light of exposure. This is why Ken and AiG avoid open inquiry. Just as Judge Jones noted about the ID crowd in Dover, Ken and AiG are the antithesis of the virtues they claim through their faith.
Be ready, Dr. Myers, if you're invited to go. The liars will organize a horde of the uniformed into a truly astounding media circus. Unable to withstand the content of your words, they will gather a biblical flood of ignorance and attempt to drown you.
Posted by: ajbjasus | June 24, 2009 10:28 AM
Well done PZ - with the likes of Ham, I am torn between thinking wether we should just ignore him or launch a concerted attack and risk giving him any credibility at all. However, seeing the PR he generates himself even when left alone, and then the petty whining he generates in response to this type of article, I think the odd fusillade is well worth it.
His reaction is a bit like that of the school bully, who can happily dish it out, but runs to his mummy when he gets a little bit back.
I also love his concept of "research" - presumably he equates PZ working out which of his dinasaurs is wearing a saddle to the real research done in labs the world over every day.
Keep up the good work !
Posted by: Stanton
|
June 24, 2009 10:33 AM
If that abominable monument to nonsense and lies is actually the Lord's museum, then how come all of the profits go straight into Ken Ham's bank accounts?
Posted by: JD | June 24, 2009 10:33 AM
At least get the dinosaurs out of the Quaternary Period. Jeez, what a tard.
Sean B Carroll should write a book about the museum's board members: Endless Tards Most Disturbing.
Posted by: Owlmirror | June 24, 2009 10:33 AM
Oh, PZ, you obviously have not been keeping up with the latest in Fludology. Salinity changes are the least of their worries. Fluddistas also assert that Teh FooOOOUntaaAAains Oooo' Teh GrEAaaAAaat DeEEeeEEeeeep™ opened during the Flud, which fountains spewed "supercritical" water that dissolved megatonnes of minerals and provided enough energy to disperse these megatonnes of dissolved minerals over all of the continents (before the Flud waters "assuaged"). So it's not just differences in salinity that need to be considered, it's that the entire world-covering ocean was rendered into a seething, mineral-laden choking swirling maelstrom utterly inhospitable to oxygen-breathing life!
Posted by: Newfie | June 24, 2009 10:37 AM
This. I'd love to see his face and hear the answers he gives to actual questions from educated people.
Posted by: Krisko
|
June 24, 2009 10:40 AM
I'm quite certain we here on the TC campus could get CASH to help sponsor you in this endeavor. Of course, I'd have to come along to supervise.
Posted by: ctenotrish | June 24, 2009 10:43 AM
I have to say for me? Not even if Ham or the museum paid me! I will, however, be very much looking forward to PZ's review should this acually take place.
Posted by: Stanton
|
June 24, 2009 10:48 AM
Owlmirror, I would think that the transformation of the oceans into a seething, mineral-laden choking swirling maelstrom would be inimical to anaerobic life, as well, given as how very few non oxygen-breathing life forms would appreciate, or survive being put into a global Waring Blender full of sand and God's wrath for 40 days and 40 nights.
Posted by: ajbjasus | June 24, 2009 10:50 AM
PZ - you really have got to him - he's on it again today :
"Those who oppose the Creation Museum, having by and large given up on trying to argue logically and scientifically against the information presented in its exhibits, are resorting more and more to a mocking, scoffing, and a ridiculing approach."
Also - he doesn't seem to be able to distinguish between a museum and a theme park :
"Secondly, not as part of an exhibit, but as a fun thing for kids to do, we do have one sculptured dinosaur with a saddle (sculpted by Buddy Davis, and he also made the saddle) that is used for a fun activity for kids to climb on and have their photographs taken—no different to what you see in certain theme parks and other secular venues."
CAn't have it both ways Ken
Posted by: Dania
|
June 24, 2009 10:53 AM
PZ, you don't understand. Isn't it obvious to you that fresh, salt and brackish water would never mix during a catastrophic global flood? They would stay separate from each and would form three different layers of water. Errr... because RogerS said so. Who are we to doubt him?
Posted by: Justin Chase | June 24, 2009 10:54 AM
Make sure you make him include the price of admission as well. Would hate to get there only to have him make you pay, wouldn't want to contribute to his pocket book any more than necessary.
Posted by: karl | June 24, 2009 10:59 AM
I always love that "kinds" claim. So, creationists find it hard to believe in 4 billion years we can go from single cells to the current diversity of life, and yet they have no problem that in only 4000+ years they can go from a few hundred "kinds" to millions and millions of species?
Posted by: anonymouroboros | June 24, 2009 11:00 AM
At this point, shouldn't it be apparent to everyone that YEC is completely ridiculous? I mean, really, "the fountains of the great deep"? "Baraminology"? "Supercritical water" that can dissolve and disperse megatons of minerals across the earth? To substantiate ridiculous claims like the flood, they conjure things yet more ridiculous without any sort of evidence. At this point, shouldn't they be asking why their god didn't just wipe out the lot of the evil humans instead of using a flood for which they have to make some of the most idiotic conjectures just to maintain their world view, not even counting the fact that they have yet to provide any evidence for that in the first place.Posted by: weedpatch | June 24, 2009 11:01 AM
OK, Mr. Ham. The Ark caried all those land animals as you say. How did the kangaroos get to Australia? Of course they jumped. Island-hopped across Indonesia; total journey of about 15,000 km. Yeah. Tell another one.
Posted by: ursa major | June 24, 2009 11:03 AM
When i was young and gullible, i was raised on this anti-evolution/creationist blather. I can guarantee that if Ham (something is not kosher about that guy) ever responds to the PZ challenge his response will be illogical, unreal and even "un-Biblical".
Posted by: TimmyB | June 24, 2009 11:03 AM
Does anyone know how their creation museum reconciles the speed of light and distance of stars with their 6,000-year old universe theory? I'm really curious how they explain that. Or if they even bring it up.
Posted by: Bouncing Bosons
|
June 24, 2009 11:05 AM
My favorite part of the flood story is the claim (from the bible!) that it had never rained on the earth before the flood. Ever. But I guess the idea is that once you start accepting an omnipotent being screwing around with things, the being deciding on a whim to change the properties of water (which his creation needs to survive, mind you) isn't THAT much further down the rabbit hole. In for a penny, in for a pound, no?
Posted by: Evil Eye | June 24, 2009 11:10 AM
I wonder if as Mr. Ham says, that it's God's Museum.... Who pays the water bill? Who pays the electric bill?
If God's people don't provide the cash & checks for these... would the electric and water companies shut off "God's" electric and water?
That's a frightening thought if you're a believer working for those companies.
Posted by: Cathal
|
June 24, 2009 11:12 AM
Excuse my ignorance, but I'm not sure that I get the piglets reference. Is there anyone that can enlighten me?
Posted by: Evil Eye | June 24, 2009 11:13 AM
@TimmyB - They reconcile it with the term "Lazy Light".
Go figure.
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | June 24, 2009 11:14 AM
Ham actually has two things right. First, we've long lived alongside dinosaurs. We eat dinosaur meat, listen to dinosaurs singing outside our windows in the morning. One sign of Spring is dinosaurs building nests in trees to lay their eggs in and raise their young. For centuries we have used dinosaur plumage to decorate ourselves and our works.
Second, we have designed a saddle to be used when riding a particular species of dinosaur. A flightless dinosaur from Africa many people have tried riding to little real success. So yes, dinosaurs have worn saddles. Will likely wear saddles again.
BTW, dinosaurs such as the swift and the albatross have achieved some amazing feats of flight endurance, staying aloft for long periods of time and/or distance.
Posted by: Peter McKellar | June 24, 2009 11:20 AM
Timmyb @53
A theist astronomer (not YEC) explained the YEC theory 20 years ago - I don't know if their evasions still include this idea:
When their sky fairy magicked everything into existence (gonna have to learn that spell!), he did so with all the light rays extending from all the stars all the way to earth.
He also apparently buried a whole bundle of fossils etc to conceal his existence (the planted "evidence" is there to test the faithful).
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | June 24, 2009 11:22 AM
He takes the days receipts and throws them in the air. Whatever God catches, he can keep.
Posted by: Dagger | June 24, 2009 11:24 AM
"If he was really confident of the legitimacy of his museum, I could probably even gather a small group of mouthy, obnoxious, and culturally prominent godless scientists who'd also take advantage of such an offer, and he could shepherd us all through at once, evangelizing as much as he wanted. It would be great! Come on, Mr Ham, put a little bit of your money where your mouth is."
Hell, I'd pay money to see that.
Posted by: Lynna | June 24, 2009 11:24 AM
I'll go. I'm a writer (four published books) and I'm used to combining facts, not pseudo-facts, with entertainment. I'm not a scientist, but I do a lot of writerly work for scientists, so I'm not completely ignorant. Take us up on this, Ken Ham. How can you lose?
Posted by: quisquose | June 24, 2009 11:25 AM
This entertaining piece of comedy from Richard Herring sums up the ridiculousness of the Noah's Ark story very well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9aYMH2zHpQ
:)
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
June 24, 2009 11:26 AM
No, only godless scientists worry about those things.
Magic man can take care of it. The special diets and healthcare for the animals? Magic.
Do you godless people even know what magic can do? Everything. So shut up, or I'll use my wand to turn you into crowned racks of lamb (might as well make it something useful--and tasty).
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Posted by: Jay | June 24, 2009 11:26 AM
TimmyB -
They'll either say that the speed of light was faster at the time of creation, or they'll say that God created the light "on the way". If you ask them about the energy implications of faster-than-light light, or point out that the other option is just a variation of Last-Tuesdayism, you'll probably just get dumb looks.
Posted by: Jay | June 24, 2009 11:28 AM
TimmyB -
They'll either say that the speed of light was faster at the time of creation, or they'll say that God created the light "on the way". If you ask them about the energy implications of faster-than-light light, or point out that the other option is just a variation of Last-Tuesdayism, you'll probably just get dumb looks.
Posted by: Jay | June 24, 2009 11:29 AM
TimmyB -
They'll either say that the speed of light was faster at the time of creation, or they'll say that God created the light "on the way". If you ask them about the energy implications of faster-than-light light, or point out that the other option is just a variation of Last-Tuesdayism, you'll probably just get dumb looks.
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
June 24, 2009 11:29 AM
WADR, IMO, a superior feat of magic.
Posted by: ursa major | June 24, 2009 11:33 AM
"At this point, shouldn't it be apparent to everyone that YEC is completely ridiculous?"
Hell, it is even worse than you think.
The first Genesis creation account has in 1:6
"And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." "
The expanse or firmament is literally 'metal hammered thin'.
So, one day while channel surfing I stumble across some religion show that is such an obvious train wreck that I actually watch it for 15 or 20 minutes. LOL
Super Woo!
The metal dome of the sky was hydrogen metal which supplied the water for the flood; this dome also compressed the atmosphere which forced more oxygen into the brain so that instead of the massive pruning of neurons in infancy early humans were able to keep all of their brain cells and become super intelligent.
/woo
Posted by: phantomreader42 | June 24, 2009 11:34 AM
Cathal @ #55:
It's from a thread a while back.
Basically, Ham wrote a book in which he alleged that Charles Darwin used his magical time machine powered by the blood of freshly-baptised christian children to cause all racism in the world, even that done by creationist religious leaders centuries before he was born (yeah, I'm exaggerating, but not by too much, the whole premise of the book was that evolution was the cause of racism, ignore the millions murdered by religious fanatics because god told them to kill the brown people). So, since Ham's entire life's work is based on making shit up, why not make some shit up about him, for example "start a campaign to remember him as the person most responsible for popularizing piglet-raping"? It's as honest as any of the blatant lies Ham makes his living on. "Truth doesn't matter with Ham, so we can freely invent any crime we want and blame him for increasing its popularity."
It's odd, creationists can't bring themselves to see anything wrong with spewing lie after lie, but accuse them of raping a piglet ONCE and they get all indignant, almost as if they thought there was something WRONG with bearing false witness.
On top of the above, "ken" refers to knowledge, to "know" in the bible often means fucking, and "ham" is what piglets are made of. Therefore, to "ken ham" is to fuck a pig. :P
Posted by: Cosmic Teapot | June 24, 2009 11:37 AM
Paging Roger S, paging Roger S.
We need your input.
_____________<;,><_____________
And Ham bone does not know his scripture! Typical christian.
Genesis 4:4
For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | June 24, 2009 11:53 AM
Ken Ham,
You know, if you have a billboard of a child pointing a gun at the viewer with the words: "If God doesn't matter to him, do you?" you don't get to complain about being "vicious attacks".
Posted by: Bjørn Østman | June 24, 2009 12:03 PM
Hey, choose me! I'm in CA, and ready to fly when I receive a ticket.
@5:
And I'd be willing to to play this practical joke on them. We all go and after "oh's! and "I see's!" we'd go home and write how it now all makes sense to us.
Posted by: JiminKy | June 24, 2009 12:16 PM
PZ: "Come on, Mr Ham, put a little bit of your money where your mouth is."
You want to watch Ken Ham stuff money up his ass?
Posted by: tsg | June 24, 2009 12:18 PM
You see this in other bits of nonsense as well. One of my favorites is the faked moon landings conspiracy that, at this point, is so complicated that actually going to the moon would have been easier.
It is the cost of making shit up and insisting it's so.
Posted by: tsg | June 24, 2009 12:22 PM
Heretic! Everybody knows it was Thursday!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 24, 2009 12:25 PM
Please, with all this talking up of Mr. Ham and I know they've been mentioned, but let us not forget the poor innocent piglets.
Posted by: cameron | June 24, 2009 12:32 PM
It really amazes me how much Ken Ham conflates himself with God. An attack on Ken Ham = an attack on God. Ken Ham's museum = God's museum. The words that come out of Ken Ham's mouth = God's Holy Word. Nobody dislikes Ken Ham, they hate God. How long until he just designates himself God-Emperor of Earth and starts issuing commandments?
Posted by: Hugh Kramer | June 24, 2009 12:36 PM
I'm just wondering why the dinosaur with the saddle is out for repairs? Saddle sores?
Posted by: Steve | June 24, 2009 12:41 PM
The YEC gang alleges that fossils in the ground, light in transit from distant stars, and all that other stuff, were created to Test Our Faith. Their authority is, of course, a single book. Has anyone asked them, in one of their own fora, how they know that they don't have it backward? What if their Big Book of Repeatedly-Translated Fairy Tales is the test? As a Divinely-inspired stupidity detector, it makes sense. Biblical scholars (the real ones) know that a lot got lost and a lot got deliberately censored from the Holy Babble. What if the first thing to be deleted was a tagline: "It's been fun, but anyone who actually _believes_ these fables should be kept away from fire and sharp objects."
Posted by: sbh
|
June 24, 2009 12:47 PM
To call that tacky monument to lies and superstition "the Lord's" is a libel on Ken Ham's maker to Whom he will have to answer on judgment day.
I suppose he's thinking of that famous passage in the Gospel of Mammon when Jesus replied to the young Blatherskite who asked him how to enter the Kingdom of the Sky, "Verily, gather up contributions from all the suckers of the land, even unto the poorest of the poor, and take thereof and build a temple, and charge the suckers again to set foot within the holy of holies, for this is pleasing to your Daddy in the Sky." And, we are told, the young Blatherskite rejoiced, for he had an ax to grind.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | June 24, 2009 1:03 PM
:-D
Funny thing is, this is not actually in the Bible. You can interpret it into it if you try hard enough, but it's nowhere near explicit.
It's even on the List of Arguments Creationists Should Not Use.
Comment 68: I cannot even quote the Super Woo. I can't cyber-touch it with my cursor. Verily, it is the pinnacle of stupidity.
:-D :-D :-D
Day saved!
Good point.
Even better point.
Posted by: RM | June 24, 2009 1:06 PM
The ostriches, and kiwis must have had a hard time. Maybe they built their own arks.
Posted by: apthorp
|
June 24, 2009 1:12 PM
"It's not his museum, he says, it's the Lord's. Yeah, right."
There's the story about the clergy who after every service took the collection out to the parking lot and tossed it up into the air. God took what every he wanted and let the rest fall back for the clergy person.
The Right Horrible Ham seems to take this view.
Posted by: apthorp
|
June 24, 2009 1:12 PM
"It's not his museum, he says, it's the Lord's. Yeah, right."
There's the story about the clergy who after every service took the collection out to the parking lot and tossed it up into the air. God took what every he wanted and let the rest fall back for the clergy person.
The Right Horrible Ham seems to take this view.
Posted by: Jared Cormier
|
June 24, 2009 1:18 PM
@RM Don't forget the tuataras and tarsirs, and other monotypic taxa...
Posted by: James Sweet | June 24, 2009 1:18 PM
New policy at the Creationist Museum: "No fatties."
Posted by: Louise Van Court | June 24, 2009 1:25 PM
From the article by Ken Ham:
I am a believer and I had never even heard of Ken Ham or Kent Hovind for that matter until a few years ago when I started reading various science blogs. I would rather go to the Natural History Museum in Denver personally than to the Creation Museum in Kentucky. I would never support AiG financially. I support ministries that give aid to the poor and hungry.
Posted by: Iron Soul | June 24, 2009 1:37 PM
tsg @75
Exactly, we must be wary of the lies of last tuesdayism
Posted by: Iron Soul | June 24, 2009 1:38 PM
tsg @75
Exactly, we must be wary of the lies of last tuesdayism
Posted by: Ben | June 24, 2009 1:39 PM
Ken Ham: Simple Name for a Simple Mind
Posted by: Benny the Icepick | June 24, 2009 1:42 PM
So, I can't verify it, but somehow I thought I heard that Ken Ham popularized the rape of piglets. No, I don't have any evidence to support it, but I know I heard it somewhere before.
Who does he think he is? All those baby piglets raped because of him, and now he's got a museum where children attend?
Posted by: Zach | June 24, 2009 1:46 PM
Way to go Dr. Myers! Ham has bothered me since I first heard about his ridiculous museum. As a student it's great to see that individuals in the scientific community are taking a stand against these people attempting to delude children and adults. Can't wait to see how this turns out, who else would you want to take along?
Posted by: Zach | June 24, 2009 1:48 PM
Way to go Dr. Myers! Ham has bothered me since I first heard about his ridiculous museum. As a student it's great to see that individuals in the scientific community are taking a stand against these people attempting to delude children and adults. Can't wait to see how this turns out, who else would you want to take along?
Posted by: JMk2 | June 24, 2009 1:51 PM
Owlmirror writes at #40:
and Anonymouroboros replies at #49:
There's more. One of my local creationists insists that the "fountains of the deep" all went back underground again when the flood was finished, so we're all sitting on top of a thin crust on a world-circling lake of water several miles tall, with only some fancy columns holding up the continents. Do they think it is where artesian water comes from, I wonder? They've perhaps not discovered news of Lake Vostok yet, or there'd be some crowin'. (It's a lake under the Antarctic ice, which is not quite the same thing.) Asking for evidence, by the way, gets you slapped with the bible.
Posted by: Zach | June 24, 2009 1:54 PM
Way to go Dr. Myers! It's good to know that someone is actually standing up to this guy who has made me uneasy since I first saw an interview with him last year. I have heard a lot of people claim that his museum is harmless, and I just don't buy it- since when is deluding children (and adults) about geological and biological history acceptable?
Posted by: Bart | June 24, 2009 2:01 PM
"Finally, the most pathetic whimper of all: I called it "Ken Ham's 'museum'". It's not his museum, he says, it's the Lord's."
I wonder if the museum burned down in some unfortunate accident - who would the check from the insurance proceeds be made out to?
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 24, 2009 2:04 PM
well, there were those floating vegetation mats....
Posted by: Bryn | June 24, 2009 2:18 PM
Please, won't someone think of the piglets?!?? For just 50 cents a day, far less than the admission to the Afrighter of Piglets' museum, you can pay for therapy for a piglet used, abused and callously cast aside by one of "Ken Ham's" followers. Some of you may even be unaware how hard it is to get lipstick off of a pig. Please help. The insanity simply must stop.
On a side note, I'd gladly pay to see PZ and (possible) company ramble through the Museum of Innanity. I wouldn't pay Ken, though, since I know what he'd do with the money. (oink) But I'd pay money to a decent charity or to the Richard Dawkins Foundation or JREF, for example.
Posted by: noodles | June 24, 2009 2:20 PM
I believe he is referring to Baraminology (Wiki entry). Noah simply had to transport a mating pair of each kind rather than of each species. Thus, the "little critter" kind is the great-granddaddy of all various little critters.
Posted by: noodles | June 24, 2009 2:22 PM
Try again (bad link):
Baraminology (Wiki entry)
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 24, 2009 2:26 PM
Barimology. Another in the long line of creationist bullshit made up to excuse their inability to support their assertions.
Posted by: strangebrew | June 24, 2009 2:26 PM
45* ajbjasus
"Those who oppose the Creation Museum, having by and large given up on trying to argue logically and scientifically against the information presented in its exhibits, are resorting more and more to a mocking, scoffing, and a ridiculing approach."
You can have a logical and scientifically based discussion...but only if the second participant argues in a similar vain using logic and science...
Ham does neither...in fact blatant twisting and lying about points is the only debating technique he is allowed...because he boxed himself into a ridiculous clown infested corner a long time ago.
A resort to a more and more mocking, scoffing, ridiculing approach is the only valid reply he can expect...because he mocks and scoffs and ridicules incessantly.
"Secondly, not as part of an exhibit, but as a fun thing for kids to do, we do have one sculptured dinosaur with a saddle (sculpted by Buddy Davis, and he also made the saddle) that is used for a fun activity for kids to climb on and have their photographs taken—no different to what you see in certain theme parks and other secular venues."
"Secondly, not as part of an exhibit, but as a fun thing for kids to do, we do have one sculptured dinosaur with a saddle"
Does that mean he has realized that the evidence is now so overwhelmingly in favour of the paleontological argument that he is now ducking behind the claim that is was not his contention that dino's and man were contemporary?
Perhaps not...Several books by Ham and AiG editorial policy tends to disagree with that lame and vapid excuse... indeed Ken thinks that dino's and man were an item in contemporaneity...this hogwash about a simple dino climbing frame is just that... hogwash...Kenny obviously needs time to think up a better lie methinks he is rattled.
Explaining it away like so without our Kenny baby's usual rhetoric of Dino with men as master simply means Ken is lying his scraggy arse off again...
Definitely rattled...
Posted by: CRS | June 24, 2009 2:55 PM
Noah would have had to bring much more than one mating pair of each "kind" on board, because he had to bring along enough to feed the carnivorous "kinds", right? Like the dinosaurs. Many of them lived on land and breathed air, and I don't know what kept them from chomping on all the other mating pairs unless Noah brought along some back-ups to keep them satisfied.
Come to think of it, if he didn't bring along any plants, what was he feeding the herbivores?
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | June 24, 2009 2:56 PM
Tbey should just quit the pretense and call that monstrosity a "Church" instead of a "museum." After all, that's the whole purpose.
By the way, aren't you afraid of offending Chris Mooney by making fun of a creationist?
Posted by: Lewis Thomason | June 24, 2009 2:58 PM
I think that if the people who respond to your calls to vote on dumb polls would each donate a dollar we could send you on a trip to Ken's place. I will start by offering 5 bucks. The only question is would he let you in.
Posted by: raven | June 24, 2009 3:09 PM
What is seldom mentioned. The Noah's Ark rescue effort was a near total failure.
We now know that 99%+ of all animal life is extinct. Which means that, despite heavy supernatural support, less than 1% of all animals survived the flood.
If you can believe the earth is 6,000 years old, you can believe anything and ignore everything.
Posted by: Angel Kaida | June 24, 2009 3:13 PM
It would be way better if PZ, Professor Dawkins, and their merry band were invited and funded by the Hamster himself, though. Because otherwise he might claim that they were, I don't know, gate-crashing, or ... I don't know, secretly trying to find out more about the Lawrd because their conversion was imminent, or something.
Oh man, I can't even write his name without thinking about poor sad little piglets! :(
Posted by: Dania
|
June 24, 2009 3:20 PM
It's not only that. There also would have been serious problems of inbreeding depression after the flood. It's unlikely that no species on the ark got extinct due to inbreeding depression, but if that was the case we should see genetic evidence of an extreme population bottleneck in all land animals about 4000 years ago. Needless to say, there's no such evidence.
Posted by: BeamStalk | June 24, 2009 3:23 PM
I am not a scientist, but offering a free trip is the only way Ham would get me into his make believe land also.
Posted by: Eidolon
|
June 24, 2009 3:23 PM
With Bart @96 I also wondered about it being the "Lord's Museum". So who gets to pay the utility bills? Why doesn't the Big Sky Daddy just sort of - you know - create all that stuff for "his" museum? Who's name is on the deed and/or lease?
All good questions for Ham.
Posted by: a different phil | June 24, 2009 3:42 PM
If this happens, let me know. I'm up near Dayton, so it's only about an hour for me. I'll volunteer as photographer.
Posted by: Barry | June 24, 2009 3:50 PM
Mentat # 20
Some swifts and swallows. They eat flying insects.
Posted by: Benny the Icepick | June 24, 2009 3:52 PM
phil@111
//If this happens, let me know. I'm up near Dayton, so it's only about an hour for me. I'll volunteer as photographer.//
See if you can snoop around and find the feeding troughs. He's got to keep those piglets onsite somewhere. I'm sure if you set them free, PETA would love you.
Posted by: OrbitalMike
|
June 24, 2009 4:12 PM
There was a Paleontology Conference at the University of Cincinnati this week. ( http://www.napc2009.org ) One of the activities was a field trip to Ken Ham's looney bin in Kentucky : http://www.napc2009.org/creationmuseum
I would love to get a report out from that trip.
Oh yeah, Eugenie Scott and Ken Miller will be giving public talks at the conference tomorrow (June 25, 2009)
Posted by: bastion of sass | June 24, 2009 4:46 PM
PZ wrote:
Ham must include birds within his definition of "land-dwelling, air-breathing animal" since a photo of the interior of the ark taken in the Creation Museum by Bridget McKinney, who provided a link to the photos she took during a visit, clearly shows birds.
And, wow, the ark was much more spacious and better decorated than I'd expected.
Posted by: Dale Husband | June 24, 2009 5:01 PM
If you want to see how low Ken Ham and his gang will go to misrepresent the facts, just read this:
http://circleh.wordpress.com/2009/06/24/the-planets-won%e2%80%99t-cooperate-with-creationism/
Posted by: Dale Husband | June 24, 2009 5:03 PM
If you want to see how low Ken Ham and his gang will go to misrepresent the facts, just read this:
http://circleh.wordpress.com/2009/06/24/the-planets-won%e2%80%99t-cooperate-with-creationism/
Posted by: bastion of sass | June 24, 2009 5:06 PM
Ken Ham wrote:
Now why in the world would I "hate" a mythological character?
I no more hate Ham's God than I hate Zeus, Thor, Ba'al, Mars, Ah Puch, or Ra. Or any other made-up character like The Tooth Fairy, leprechauns, or Sauron.
Posted by: BobbyEarle
|
June 24, 2009 5:40 PM
How cool would this be?
PZ, Dawkins, Eugenie, and the merry band of infidels arriving in full KISS regalia! I'm not sure which one would be spitting blood, probably not Dennett, as the logistics of cleaning his beard would be a bitch.
Back at the hotel room, PZ finds a red M&M in the bowl of green M&Ms (green being stipulated in the contract as the only color allowed), and then PZ begins tossing the furniture out of the window.
Ham bursts a blood vessel when he sees Hitch's bar tab...
Good times!
Posted by: Seeker | June 24, 2009 6:30 PM
@ Bart (96)
Posted by: Angel Kaida | June 24, 2009 6:36 PM
No comments section on that blog of his. Has the email campaign to notify Mr. Ham of this generous PR offer by PZ begun?
Posted by: Kel | June 24, 2009 6:38 PM
Pfft, hating God. You'd first have to believe in God in order to hate God. But alas, I'm an atheist. And you can't be an atheist if you hate God. So no dice Ken.Posted by: Mr Scoville | June 24, 2009 6:44 PM
Re: 'baraminology' and 'kinds' on the 'ark'. Maybe old Noah only had to load the 'land-dwelling kind' on board, thus solving all the volume/feeding/watering and cleaning problems that the scoffers and unbelievers bring up... Just a thought.
Posted by: Watchman | June 24, 2009 6:59 PM
I believe you have missed the point, Mr. Scoville. Limiting the passengers to land-dwellers solves none of those problems. And then there are the shipbuilding problems. And the geology problems. And the flood-water volume problem.
There was no global flood.
Posted by: Mr Scoville | June 24, 2009 7:15 PM
I appreciate the utter non-existence of a global flood, Watchman. What I was trying to say (badly), was that there might have been only a single type of creature - the land-dwelling kind - that Noah had to pile onto his improbably constructed ship. Then, plenty of space on board as per #115. I see this animal as a generic sheepy, goaty, horsey thing, possibly with carnivourous tendencies, and chock full of the capability to diversify at a terrific rate once back on dry land.
Posted by: John Morales | June 24, 2009 7:34 PM
Mr Scoville, perhaps a
more realistic hypothesisless ridiculous guess is that the Ark was like the TARDIS.Posted by: Screechy Monkey | June 24, 2009 7:35 PM
"What I was trying to say (badly), was that there might have been only a single type of creature - the land-dwelling kind - that Noah had to pile onto his improbably constructed ship. Then, plenty of space on board as per #115. I see this animal as a generic sheepy, goaty, horsey thing, possibly with carnivourous tendencies, and chock full of the capability to diversify at a terrific rate once back on dry land."
Perhaps it was a Shmoo?
Posted by: Yellow Dog | June 24, 2009 7:39 PM
I live less than two hours from the miserable thing (no, I have never seen it.)
If you get a group together, PZ, I'll rent a van, come pick you all up and bring you back here for a cookout - hot dogs and beer.
And BACON!
Posted by: Yellow Dog | June 24, 2009 7:42 PM
I live less than two hours from the miserable thing (no, I have never seen it.)
If you get a group together, PZ, I'll rent a van, come pick you all up and bring you back here for a cookout - hot dogs and beer.
And BACON!
Posted by: Mr Scoville | June 24, 2009 7:43 PM
Heh. The TARDIS and Schmoo hypotheses are about as valid as the one in the bible IMO. Probably more so, as I've seen the TARDIS... After all, DR Who has to be real - there are several quite exciting documentaries about him. And pushing the hypothesis a little further, just where was the good Doctor 4000-odd years ago?
Posted by: Primewonk | June 24, 2009 7:48 PM
Here's a link to a story about the paleontologists field trip to the creation museum.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090624/ap_on_re_us/us_paleontologists_creation_museum_1
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | June 24, 2009 8:04 PM
While I would like nothing better than for Ham's Flintstone Sin and Salvation Show to be completely leveled by an "Act of God" such as lightning, (I have this thing for lightning & kites) hurricane, tornado, flood, concrete eating locusts, etc, we should really put this in the proper perspective.
The Hambone is overjoyed that attendance at his misnamed museum monstrosity was 750,000. With the US population at 304,059,724 - Jul 2008 (Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division) the attendance represents a mere 1/4 of 1% of the population.
Now that doesn't even include repeat offenders, of which there is a sizable percentage.
One thing that is more telling though, and should be shouted from the rooftops, is that the 9 individuals who are key employees at
Ham'sGod's playground earned over $920,000 according to their 2006 Form 990, as filed with the IRS. Pathetic hypocrites, they.Posted by: Insightful Ape | June 24, 2009 8:28 PM
I think it is just a bit ironical on the part of our beloved Kenny to complain about the other people's "inaccuracies".
What is personally think about his madness is that it is more corrupting than pornography-in other words, entrance should be strictly banned for those under 18. If adults want to waste their time and money on this lunacy, it is their choice.
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | June 24, 2009 8:29 PM
Does the HamBoner explain how germs (as in human diseases & parasites) survived the Flud with only 8 humans to infect?
Not that I can figure out where they came from in the first place. God must have created them before the 7th day, so who did they infect in the Garden of Eden, ya'know, before anything died? Why create them if there was no death or disease before the Fall?
Things that make you go: Hmmmmmmm......
Posted by: Don Rowe | June 24, 2009 8:34 PM
If you could get that trip filmed and turn it into a documentary, I'd buy it on Blu-Ray. DVD just wouldn't do it justice. :P
Oh, I'm just imagining it in my head. In fact, I'd buy it on Blu-Ray after paying to watch it at the cinema.
Posted by: Kel | June 24, 2009 8:36 PM
Super-evolution!Posted by: Sky
|
June 24, 2009 8:39 PM
Stop annoying this man. He takes out his frustrations on the young and the porcine.
Won't somebody PLEASE think of the piglets.
Posted by: Kagato
|
June 24, 2009 9:24 PM
That's the thing that really gets me about this whole 'micro' versus 'macro' evolution thing.
They have no problems with wolves 'evolving' into pugs and chihuahuas (a radical morphological shift in anyone's book); but the very idea that Australopithecus could evolve into Homo sapiens is impossible to contemplate.
Posted by: MadScientist | June 24, 2009 11:02 PM
Don't forget to invite Christopher Hitchens! He might even write a story for publication in a dead-tree newspaper.
Posted by: Jeff S | June 25, 2009 1:12 AM
What I really don't understand is how grown adults with sufficient intelligence don't connect that the information they are saying is true is stuff they made up.
Posted by: Scrabcake | June 25, 2009 1:25 AM
As a former sortof Queenslander, I would like to apologize for Queensland's failure to raise a person who can take a proper paying-out.
I would like to say that he ended up in the southern US because once it became apparent that one of our own had such an egregious character flaw and one so antithetical to the state pastime of Queensland (namely, paying people out for being tools), we ran him out of town with torches and pitchforks.
Posted by: Eric | June 25, 2009 2:19 AM
IF KEN HAM OFFERS YOU FREE ADMISSION (I'M NOT DONATING MONEY THAT WOULD GO INTO THE MUSEUM'S COFFERS) AND A PERSONAL TOUR, I'LL GLADLY OFFER TO DONATE MONEY TOWARDS YOUR PLANE TICKET. IF I'M DOING THE SEARCH CORRECTLY, A FLIGHT WOULD COST AROUND $400 AND THEN YOU'D HAVE TO ADD IN A RENTAL CAR AND HOTEL STAY. UNDER $1,000 (AM I WAY OFF) WOULD MEAN 100 READERS CONTRIBUTING $10 A PIECE...
TEN BUCKS TO SEE YOU WRITE A SCATHING REVIEW OF THE 'MUSEUM' WOULD BE BETTER THAN SPENDING IT ON A MOVIE TICKET TO WHATEVER LAME SUMMER 'BLOCKBUSTER' IS CURRENTLY PLAYING AT THE THEATER.
Posted by: John Morales | June 25, 2009 2:42 AM
Mr. Scoville,
Hmm... nevermind that, what about 2000-odd years ago?
We know the Doctor is anti-violence, and that he's not above a little misdirection to the natives, and that when he "dies" he regenerates...
Hm.
Posted by: Brigalow Bill | June 25, 2009 6:02 AM
I found a few months ago that I graduated from the Queensland Institute of Technology the same year as Mr. Ham. I went into the mining industry, he obtained a teacher's qualifications, which I expect is where he obtained his manner with his child audiences. I must have seen him in the corridors. I do recall however two other students whom Mr. Ham almost certainly would have known.
In 1975 they were dressed and barbered for 1950 and were said to be the sons of Mrs. Rona Joyner, a name for old Queensland hands to conjure with. I was never the glass of fashion and the mould of form but these two were backdated, even to me. Naturally, prominent members of the campus Christian club.
Mr. Ham's involvement with the Creation Science Foundation in Toowong is known. He set off for the USA some months after accusations of necrophilia and witchcraft nearly blew the joint apart. However it seems clear enough that he had little to do with that. More details can be found in Ian Plimer's "Telling Lies for God".
His subsequent activities in the USA have led to some disappointment on the part of founding member of that foundation, Dr. Carl Wieland. What patron Dr. Rendle-Short thought of it all I do not know.
I see now what my career choice should have been. Mining obviously does not pay as well as religion.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | June 25, 2009 6:22 AM
Eric,
Posted by: Steve | June 25, 2009 9:04 AM
Scientist on a tour of the AiG "museum."
http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090624/NEWS01/306240055/1055/NEWS/Scientists+tour+Museum
Posted by: EvilGod | June 25, 2009 9:07 AM
I don't know why people continue to cling to the idea he actually believes what he says. It is far easier to believe that he just provides entertainment and justification to the large population of people with a lot more money than brains. Selling souvenirs to the stupid for ludicrous profits. As long as telling ridiculous lies to gullible fools will earn you millions there will always be someone willing to give up their credibility for cold hard cash.
Posted by: EvilGod | June 25, 2009 9:45 AM
I don't know why people continue to cling to the idea he actually believes what he says. It is far easier to believe that he just provides entertainment and justification to the large population of people with a lot more money than brains. Selling souvenirs to the stupid for ludicrous profits. As long as telling ridiculous lies to gullible fools will earn you millions there will always be someone willing to give up their credibility for cold hard cash.
Posted by: ChrisKG | June 25, 2009 12:29 PM
PZ,
If you start a fundraising thread and a Paypal account I'll start by send $20 for the trip. I think we can get enough people (especially here) to send $20 to cover your costs. The press coverage (here and elsewhere) would be worth it!
Chris
Posted by: Aquaria | June 25, 2009 12:47 PM
Here's what gets me with the Kinds thing: These are the same people who think "scientific" a book saying that bats are birds and insects have four legs. If they're so ignorant that they think "Flying thing with feathery/furry wings = bird," don't you know that the Middle Eastern goatherders would have thought whale = fish? Would worms = snakes (my guess is...YES)? A platypus would have made their head explode.
This is the problem with "kinds" to attempt explaining the lunacy of a global flood story. It makes no sense. Then again, the scribblers of the Hebrew Fairy Tale were phenomenally stupid, perhaps the stupidest people ever to devise a "holy book." They were nowhere near as smart as the Greeks or the Babylonians. They couldn't even get basic animal info right.
Probably explains why Abrahamaic religions inspire so much pride in being colossally stupid, all these thousands of years later. It draws the stupidest people to it (and the most cravenly Machiavellian--somebody has to prey off the morons), gives them a security blanket, and makes them feel like they're smart, too.
Only they're not. They're still fucking morons, but religion makes them deluded fucking morons.
Posted by: ERIC | June 25, 2009 2:27 PM
Sorry about them there CAPS LOCKS.
I didn't even know what this other key was for on my keyboard?!
"CAPS LOCK" ??!
No sir, my hat is already securely positioned on my bulbous head.
Posted by: lee | June 25, 2009 3:42 PM
You should challenge him to build an ark of the same dimensions as the biblical boat, fill it with animals (2 of every kind of course), and sail it around the world (or at least across the atlantic).
Of course, the crew would have to consist of only 8 people, and it would have to be made entirely from wood.
This way they could prove decisively that Noah's story is completely possible once and for all.
Posted by: Qwerty | June 25, 2009 4:51 PM
Rev. BDC - I just checked the creation museum's website and they serve brats at Noah's grill.
Posted by: SalomonG | June 25, 2009 9:18 PM
Why does everyone find the need to attack each other's beliefs so fervently? It doesn't accomplish anything - most people are already pretty confident in their beliefs no matter WHAT you throw at them, and the more you attack, the more you will antagonize them. You will never be able to convince other people that you are right by viciously attacking their beliefs, calling them stupid, and trying to 'show them the light' - no logic in the world supports the idea that that tactic could possibly work.
Let them come to the decision on their own, if they should. And if not, so what? This museum is not blowing up buildings or sending mass crusades against populations in Darfur. If we're so intent on fixing the world's ills, maybe we should look to fix the more important ills first.
Posted by: Kel | June 25, 2009 9:29 PM
Yeah, I guess the undermining of the scientific method is a really low priority in this society... it's not like these children will grow up to be doctors or anything.Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 25, 2009 9:44 PM
Exactly. I mean, if people want to believe it's okay to molest children then we should be fine with that; likewise, if they believe that people who have a different skin colour or ethnicity than they do should be considered less human than them we shouldn't attempt to correct them.
Ditto women not voting and not earning equal pay because they aren't as smart or hardworking as men; that the Holocaust didn't happen; that prayers work just as well - if not better than - actual medicine so they shouldn't have to take their kids to hospital.
Yep, we shouldn't ever tell people what they can and can't believe...
Posted by: Sastra
|
June 25, 2009 9:49 PM
SalomonG #154 wrote:
Never? "No logic in the world?" At all?
That's a pretty strong claim. We're dealing with human psychology, a lot of diversity, and extraordinary beliefs. It's probably not a good idea to be that certain that in no case do these tactics work.
Believe it or not, some of the former-creationist commenters here have said that it took some hearty ridicule and scorn to finally get them angry enough to want to fight back with facts, so they could return the attack and win. The facts weren't there, and it all began to crumble. Might be true, might not. But I can certainly imagine it as plausible.
"The pedant and the priest have always been the most expert of logicians--and the most diligent disseminators of nonsense and worse. The liberation of the human mind has never been furthered by such learned dunderheads; it has been furthered by gay fellows who heaved dead cats into sanctuaries and then went roistering down the highways of the world, proving to all men that doubt, after all, was safe--that the god in the sanctuary was finite in his power, and hence a fraud. One horse-laugh is worth ten thousand syllogisms. It is not only more effective; it is also vastly more intelligent." -- HL Mencken
You may, of course, disagree, and might even be more correct than Mencken. But you don't have a slam-dunk case, and you're unlikely to be right in every case.
Posted by: SalomonG | June 26, 2009 2:16 AM
@Sastra - In general - unless you force feed education to everyone at an early age, you are always going to have the ignorance of the masses. Unless you condone a massive 'brainsweep' across our populations, there will always be a group of people who will not agree with what you are saying.
So perhaps I was wrong. Perhaps it is NOT impossible to convince individuals. But as a whole? I have a very strong feeling that we are never going to see a complete eradication of the religious sector.
Especially considering that knowledge and 'enlightenment' are byproducts of a very tenuous hold on our current civilization - a civilization which seems, in certain parts of the world, poised to destroy itself, or at least severely cripple itself - problems which, even as an agnostic, I do not feel comfortable attributing solely to religion.
The point of my previous statement was NOT to say that it was impossible to convince everyone that religion was flawed.
The point was to say that in reality, there are much more important things that intelligent people could and should be working on at this very moment - I apologize for using sweeping generalizations.
@ Wowbagger - Wow, the use of sarcasm is impeccable. However, religion at its purest should be used as a personal, individual tool, and should not be used to harm the outside world - unlike stances which support slavery and nix women suffrage. True, religion is not often used in this manner - however, the basic FOUNDATION of all religions is a personal journey, and therefore, telling people that they shouldn't go on said personal journey because it is 'incorrect,' is similar to fascism, wouldn't you say? I could be wrong - but that's what I think. Again, even as a non-religious person.
And finally, @ Kel - Am I to understand that you think doctors who hold on to their religious precepts are incompetent? Because I'm sure there is a good number of doctors and engineers, etc., who do believe in an All-Loving God, etc., etc. I would like to, one last time, point out that I am not among them, but as long as they keep their religion within their peer group and don't harm anyone, who are we to barge in and tell them otherwise?
I was under the impression that running into 'enemy camps' and preaching the 'truth' was the job of the zealous missionaries, not ours.
Posted by: Kel | June 26, 2009 2:49 AM
No, not in the slightest. When I go to a doctor, I have no idea what their religion is and that's the way it should be. Doctors are decided by their skills, having to get through a lot of formal qualifications so if they get to that state, it can be reasonably assured that most the quackery has been put on the backburner...But seriously, if we undercut the teaching of biology medicine will suffer. Viruses evolve and AIDS is not God's revenge on faggots. If I was to be treated by someone who felt that prayer would work on me, I'd be worried for my health... hence my position. Undermining the teaching of secular knowledge is dangerous. Remember that many of these people are trying to undermine what is taught in schools, they are trying to get accredited status for their universities.
I don't know about you, but protecting knowledge and the appreciation of it is a big requirement for me. For all those biologists who will work on food to feed the starving, to work on medicine to innoculate and cure the sick. The last thing I want to see is a world where problems are solved through ignorance as opposed to knowledge. That the main priority we have is to protect the only institution that can see us out of these problems.
The dark ages came about when the civilisation holding society together collapsed. Knowledge was destroyed by fundamentalists and society plunged into 1000 years of stagnation. Protecting science and the legacy thereof is working to fix societies ills, and giving our species a shot at a long term future that won't invoke a significant portion of our population starving to death...
Posted by: SalomonG | June 26, 2009 3:01 AM
I'd love to agree with you, honestly, I would, if it weren't for the fact that continuing to foster scientific knowledge does not stop the bombs and does not stop the genocide.
(On a side note, I agree that being treated by a doctor who thinks that AIDS is a revenge on homosexuality would be unnerving and undesirable, though probably completely possible in this world)
Knowledge and eduction could stop those things, in the coming generations, I concede that it most definitely could, and I would love it to more than anything in the world, because part of me envisions a future worth living in, and knows that we, as a collective, possess the means to achieve it.
Perhaps I'm just a bit jaded with the idea that the preservation of knowledge and learning is the only (and furthermore, most important) thing we can do to try to make the world a better place.
However, that is my viewpoint, and I've no right to try and convince people otherwise (if I am to hold strong by my own statements), so perhaps, instead of staying up late at night posting on websites, I should make an effort to get out there and actually start doing the things I think need to be done (rather than write about them).
I'll let you know how it goes.
Posted by: yr | June 29, 2009 4:23 AM
Catching up on blog posts, so a bit late to the discussion.
I went to the Creation Museum a couple years back, being a) a resident of Cincinnati and b) an anthropology major attending it along with a museum studies student and another happy atheist friend. I'd really like to know where that donation money is going, since I'm not used to paying $20+ admission to a museum (our fine Natural History & Science museum charges less than half that, and teaches evolution too!)...woops, scrolled up and saw post #6. That explains a lot.
Posted by: 10000li | July 17, 2009 4:48 PM
Ken Ham coming to Bothell (near Seattle)
It may be old news, but AIG boss Ken Ham is going to be browbeating Xtian homeschoolers at the WATCH Home Educators (sic) Conference in the otherwise beautiful town of Bothell, Washington on August 7 and 8.
Might be a chance to picket outside the confab and get some free press for free thought.