Everyone is just ruining Ken Ham's special day

Kudos to the pilot.

[blockquote]Many of the media reps chuckled when I said that the people responsible for this banner did not believe in the Bible as the absolute authority and didn't believe in the God of the Bible and therefore had no basis for deciding right or wrong, and thus logically could not accuse us of a lie![/blockquote]

WTF?

From the Enquirer article linked from DefCon:

"When I travel around, and you see a facility like this, a lot of artwork went into this," Kentucky Commerce Secretary George Ward said before the ribbon-cutting. "Obviously, the history's there. On the tourism side, it's going to be a great complement to what we have at Big Bone Lick State Park.
"I envisioned when I was here (a year ago) that every Christian school - probably in the country - is going to have a field trip to the Creation Museum." Ward said, "And we're really happy to have those visitors."

Ahh, so that's what people mean when they talk about "threw up a little in my mouth."

Big Bone lick park?

Big Bone lick park?

Damn. . .I was hoping I'd be the first to go for the cheap joke there.

Actually, I've driven past signs for that park many times. Always gets a chuckle out of my inner 3rd-grader.

Ahh, so that's what people mean when they talk about "threw up a little in my mouth."

Yep. It's the same feeling I get when I realize that, if trends continue, by the time Iran has a bomb we'll be on their side anyway.

Big Bone Lick State Park

WTF?

Young-earth creationists occasionally mention the Niagara River and its gorge, eroded as the Niagara Falls work their way backward through the Niagara Escarpment. The recent age of the falls (about 10,000 years) is somehow supposed to prove that the earth isn't any older than that. They forget to mention that the river's large standing whirlpool marks where the current gorge cuts through a previous gorge/a>, now filled with rock debris from the most recent glaciation.

Big Bone Lick is a bit oddly named, yes. And I often make jokes about the park's name (and the nearby community of Beaver Lick)... But it is one of the oldest State Parks around, and is named for the "big bones" that were found there, including fossil remains of mammoths and ground sloths. "Lick" comes from the natural salt spring, and the tendancy of animals to lick the salt deposits.

Both Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin visited Big Bone Lick to see the fossils, so it is valuable both in the history of life and the history of the US.

I'd love to know how YECs even try to square their view of history with things like the known populations of various parts of the ancient world, the radioisotope ratio issues that led to the discovery of the Oklo reactors, and the matter of endogenous retroviruses. (I know I've seen YECs try to deal with Oklo, but I can't imagine their arguments were in any way coherent.)

Monado, wassamattahwithyou, don't you know that Niagara Falls is where Adam and Eve went on their honeymoon? ;-)

they hired a pilot to buzz the opening ceremonies with a banner that read "DefCon says thou shalt not lie".

ALL RIGHT!

Big Bone Lick State Park. Lots of immature fun for some of the family: they've even got an icon under "Other recreation" for it.

Bob

Monado, wassamattahwithyou, don't you know that Niagara Falls is where Adam and Eve went on their honeymoon?

Duhh. That's how they got exiled from Eden... God sent them down the falls in a barrel, and they hadn't put in the elevator or the stairs yet, so they couldn't get back up.

It's just as well. After they got sent down the falls in a barrel, the T-Rexes living at the top of the falls stopped eating coconuts and developed a taste for human flesh.

These creationists try to make their scenario look "scientific", arguing that the animals on the ark were "kinds", not species, so Noah didn't really need 5 million berths. They've got their little sandbox demonstrations that purport to prove you can create a Grand Canyon in 6,000 years. Etc.

Then they tell you that all the pointy-toothed animals had a sudden change of heart (and DNA, presumably) after Eve sinned.

Unfortunately, their prediction to the banner will be all-too familiar:

"We're praying for you!".

So we'll see the light, you know?

(To me, one of the worst ways to see the light is to make a sharp turn back to the Dark Ages... But what do I know? Now they'll just pray for me.)

Now that it's been mentioned, I'm reminded that, back in SE Wisconsin, there's a park called the Bong Recreation Area. A constant source of amusement on trips to Chicago and back along I-94. And apparently, the signs for it disappear surprisingly often.

Of course, I could just take all the fun out of it and point out after whom it's named. Major Dick Bong. That's all better now, isn't it?

Louis' quote in #2 is from Ken Ham himself posting on the AiG blog for May 26.

He started off with this:

This is not just a historic event in America, but a historic event in Christendom.

Infamy is often the best way to be generate the strongest memories.

"don't you know that Niagara Falls is where Adam and Eve went on their honeymoon?"

And the Falls was Eve's second greatest disappointment on her honeymoon.

Thanks to Oscar.

"they hired a pilot to buzz the opening ceremonies with a banner that read "DefCon says thou shalt not lie". "

I think that stunt might just backfire on them. Kinda makes them look like jerks...not a great move for an atheist group, IMHO.

In fact, all the attention they're getting from the atheist/pro-Darwin crowd is probably getting them more attention and many more visitors. I hadn't thought much about the museum until I started realizing how much it drives you guys completely wacko. Now, I'm really wanting to take a road trip and check the place out. From what I've read, it sounds pretty cool.

strange contradictions for bible thumpers.
there was no death till the "fall"
Adam and Eve had no children till they were cast out

so how can those children be playing with Dinosaurs, when by this time they would be Dino's breakfast

Ham's got to show the children, much like Camel's got to show joe camel to get kids to smoke. same idea

Yeah, the paper mache is first rate, Ftk.

FTK said: I think that stunt might just backfire on them.

You keep saying "think" when you mean "hope".

I'm really wanting to take a road trip and check the place out. From what I've read, it sounds pretty cool.

Please do. You truly belong there.

I think that stunt might just backfire on them. Kinda makes them look like jerks...not a great move for an atheist group, IMHO.

and of course your opinion is SO highly valued, especially amongst atheists.

LOL.

you crack me up.

so much projection in such a little person.

which stunt is gonna backfire on who again?

Apparently you don't consciously think that Hammy's stunt is gonna backfire for xians, eh?

again...

LOL

Ah, come on, Kristine. Your curiosity has gotta be killin' ya. You know you'd like to tour the place.

You, Richard and I oughta meet up in Cincinnati and have a go through the place. I used to live in Cincinnati, so I'll give you a tour of the city!

I'll even supply all the alcohol for the trip to be sure you have a happy little buzz going while I'll drag you through the joint!! It'll be a blast!

I came across this Sneak Peek on the Web.

http://studentweb.eku.edu/zachary_lynn/museum/index.html

Pictures from the not-quite-finished Creation Museum. I liked the Robo-Eve.

Louis:

Many of the media reps chuckled when I said that the people responsible for this banner did not believe in the Bible as the absolute authority and didn't believe in the God of the Bible and therefore had no basis for deciding right or wrong, and thus logically could not accuse us of a lie!

WTF?

People who object to Ken Ham are not allowed to speak. It's the only way he can appear to not be a laughingstock.

We're willing to take a chance on a few spite visits from the trolls if we can shame anyone with a little more intellectual honesty from giving money to the Flintstone Museum.

Now, just a darn minute....offering fellow travelers in evolution education a few liquid libations is MY gig. I *think* I even patented it awhile back, after being roundly mocked by some of my skeptical colleagues.

At any rate, Ftk, I'd be happy to buy you a drink, just so I can point out how all the Biblical dioramas AIN'T science, and no amount of wishing's going to make it so. No one who cares about science education can regard Ken Ham's slick new sideshow as anything but a travesty.

And I plan on showing a few choice pictures from this 'museum' to my high school students, just so they can see for themselves what's really going on in Ham's old Kentucky home. After all, it's For The Kids....right?

An Original Scott Hatfield Pitch Involving Alcohol (accept no substitutes)

That's right, Scott. I forgot you're allowed by law to tell you students that ID ain't science and then proceed to show pictures of the museum and crack a few jokes. Have a ball, dude. Too bad the Darwin police won't allow critical thinking at the high school level. Hell, they won't even allow academic freedom at our universities.

Alas, poor kids will never get a true picture of ID or creation science for that matter. Hey, wait a sec., I take that back! They will if they have a bit of ambition and decide to research the subject on their own.

THANK GOD FOR THE INTERNET! hee hee

Ftk: You seem concerned that people like me might ridicule or trivialize your concerns. Well, there'll be no jokes, I promise.

Instead, here's a critical thinking question or two I might ask my students when I show them the AIG museum photos:

1) Why are there numerous dioramas in a science museum depicting scenes from the Bible?

2) What is the physical evidence that would support exhibits showing human beings and dinosaurs as contemporaneous, as shown in the main hall of the museum?

3) Could one accept the general premise of design in the universe, yet still reject young-earth creationism? Why or why not?

These strike me as critical thinking questions. How would you answer them? Speak up. I'm a real science teacher, with a real name, asking a real question about what I plan to do in reality. I'm hoping that you, an Internet pseudonym, with no credentials that I'm aware of and thus nothing to lose, will favor me with a substantive reply.

Expectantly....SH

Too bad the Darwin police won't allow critical thinking at the high school level.

too bad you never managed to get your critical thinking skills even TOO the high school level.

Scott, good luck getting an answer from ftk. Oh, she'll probably respond, but she'll try to weasel her way out of answering by using one of her standard responses (or a combination): "Oh, that never occurred to me/I've never considered that before/That's just silly/Why would that bother anyone?" She pretends she's young and hip and that nothing ever bothers her, but obviously we evil evolutionists piss her off quite a bit--that's why she's here. All she ever does is patronize anyone who tries to talk to her.

(smiles cryptically) Abeja: I kind of owe Ftk the benefit of the doubt, if only because I once misspoke with respect to mutual correspondence. So I certainly want to give Ftk the opportunity to really engage on the issues, as opposed to sniping.

Who knows? Ftk may well surprise some of us!

Oops, I forgot to add: if you want to communicate to ftk, you have to do it in her language, since she obviously doesn't have the brain cells to speak in evil evolutionist language. Here's how I would reply to her earlier post:

ftk said:

I forgot you're allowed by law to tell you students that ID ain't science and then proceed to show pictures of the museum and crack a few jokes. Have a ball, dude. Too bad the Darwin police won't allow critical thinking at the high school level. Hell, they won't even allow academic freedom at our universities.

Alas, poor kids will never get a true picture of ID or creation science for that matter. Hey, wait a sec., I take that back! They will if they have a bit of ambition and decide to research the subject on their own.

THANK GOD FOR THE INTERNET! hee hee

Yes, kids are being told that ID isn't science, but I can't figure out why that would bother anyone! It never even occurred to me that it would bother anyone! That's just silly! I would never get all worked up about something like that! well now I've got to get off the computer so I can spend loads of quality time with my oh-so-precious babies and be a mentor and role model to all the little children in the neighborhood, then I can go to bed next to my gorgeous husband who is a fantastic lover. Catch ya later dudes and dudettes! hee hee!

The above example constitutes a meaningful exchange in the mind of ftk.

Well, I shoulda used preview....The italics are supposed to go all the way down to the words "THANK GOD FOR THE INTERNET! hee hee"

Scott, I always enjoy reading your comments. I hope you're right that she surprises us. I think I've become too jaded to expect/hope for surprises anymore. (sigh) But I'll keep my hopes up!

No, FtK will not surprise us. She's predictable.

Notice one of those things that is particularly contemptible: she's an IDist, which professes to be a scientific view of the world, yet here she is gushing over a young-earth creationist "museum". That's fairly typical among the ID crowd -- there are some basic facts, like the age of the earth, that at this point are fairly unassailable in any significant way, yet they avoid criticizing non-science like that, and even willingly encourage it.

Have a ball, dude. Too bad the Darwin police won't allow critical thinking at the high school level. Hell, they won't even allow academic freedom at our universities.

You see, you're entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

Stop projecting. Most of us here, myself included, are not curious to see the "science" "museum". We are torn between, on the one hand, holding our heads that ache at the thought that so much ignorance and stupidity exist in the world, and, on the other hand, rolling on the floor laughing at said ignorance and stupidity.

If I were you, I'd be thankful that Scott Hatfield has managed to overcome both impulses and asks you reasonable questions. If I were you, I'd try to answer them.

Everyone is just ruining Ken Ham's special day

And that just made my day!!

From the Amused Muse link courtesy of Kristine: "It looks like Thomas Kincaid tried his hand at sculpture."

ROFL!

He's 'tried his hand' at everything else, why not the creation "museum"?

Well I'll channel a creo in their absence. They all read canned responses off the same deck of 3 X 5 cards anyway and anything that requires actual thought usually ends up unanwered.

1) Why are there numerous dioramas in a science museum depicting scenes from the Bible?

The bible is literally infallible so anything it says, implies, or hints at about science is true. If it conflicts with reality, tough.

2) What is the physical evidence that would support exhibits showing human beings and dinosaurs as contemporaneous, as shown in the main hall of the museum?

Hmmm, isn't there a cave painting somewhere showing someone playing fetch with a coconut and a T. rex? And, don't forget the flintstones TV docudramas.

3) Could one accept the general premise of design in the universe, yet still reject young-earth creationism? Why or why not?

Well you could but why bother? Just means you end up being a fine upstanding christian your whole life and go to hell in the end. Hardly worth the effort.

Ah, come on, Kristine. Your curiosity has gotta be killin' ya. You know you'd like to tour the place.

No. Thanks, I read the book.

You, Richard and I oughta meet up in Cincinnati and have a go through the place. I used to live in Cincinnati, so I'll give you a tour of the city!

I'll even supply all the alcohol for the trip to be sure you have a happy little buzz going while I'll drag you through the joint!! It'll be a blast!

Ftk, I intend to get blasted at the Creation Museum but you won't like how I do it.

Because there are some things you don't know about me - like how I can get into places free.

Did you ever see "Imitation of Life"? Well, I can also "pass" as the most innocent little Christian righter you've ever seen. ;-)

I ain't giving Hammie one red cent, though. 'Cause I won't have to.

I think I'm in love.

Reality check: Among many community actions, DefCon is also trying to get the Ten Commandments removed from public places. What do they have flown by an airplane in a public place in attempts to counter the Bible? One of the Ten Commandments.

Explain that logic.

So, is somebody gonna buy me a drink, then? ;-)

Explain that logic.

oh, i think even someone with as dim an outlook as yourself can figure that one out.

*shh* no hints from the audience, please.

Oops, I meant here.

NewiQue, that plane was privately commissioned. It's freedom of speech (and an ironic jab). Ten Commandments in a public place is favoring a specific religion. It's unconstitutional.

Reality check

Fer sure? Like, Darwinists are totally a bummmmm. They want us to think we're like hypocrites or something. Like, I knowwwwww.....

David Marjanovic (gasping, in a Peter Lorre voice): "Overcoming....my.....impulses...!"

PZ (more assertively): I'm not really *that* much of a Pollyanna. I just like to give them lots and lots and LOTS of rope, for those occasions when I meet them publicly. You have to imagine me pulling out a printout of correspondence linked to ScienceBlogs, and a sly request, 'Aren't you the so-and-so who said....?"

Kristine: First the Galapagosing, now the drinking, now the raves in the creationist museum. You are a dreamboat. Seriously, though, I have a much better plan. We will pose, you see, as an eminent pair of creationist scientists. Kind of like the Avengers, except we have to fight over who gets to wear the less traditional outfits.

Science Avenger: (returning to the Lorre voice): Back off man, I saw the Darwinian dreamgirl first....:)

"1) Why are there numerous dioramas in a science museum depicting scenes from the Bible?"

Why not? It's a creation science museum and everyone knows that Answers in Genesis has no qualms about who they believe the designer to be. I don't think it's sponsored by any government agencies, so all power to them. They believe that we can find information in historical documents that can lend support to the scientific evidence we observe in nature.

Evolutionists work from a premise, just as creation scientists work from a premise. Either Darwin said, I believe, and I'll make it fit to my belief, OR, in AiG's case, they believe the interpretation of the scientific evidence they observe in nature correlates with history documentation. Two interpretations, two lines of evidence. Opened minded people will consider both. It will be a dark day in history when people are no longer allowed the freedom to explore the world from various points of view.

Personally, as I'm sure you probably know, I am still open minded to both YE and OE arguments. I know that you wholeheartedly believe that YE arguments have been completely debunked, but to many of us, the evolutionists account of creation seems like as much of a fairytale as the creation account from Genesis.

"2) What is the physical evidence that would support exhibits showing human beings and dinosaurs as contemporaneous, as shown in the main hall of the museum?"

I've been this route a millions times before, and I'm not about to get into a heated argument over dinos with PZ's choir. I've been called enough names for one day. You've all heard the arguments before, but I will say quickly that one of the things that is very hard for me to get past is that we have so many ancient stories about dragons, sea serpents, etc. that fit perfectly with dino descriptions. I've heard various explanations for this, but the most reasonable explanation is that dinos & humans lived together for a time. The bible has some interestig dino descriptions as well. It's kind of hard to get past written historical documentation with these dino-like descriptions.

3) Could one accept the general premise of design in the universe, yet still reject young-earth creationism? Why or why not?

I certainly think so. I don't think it is at all necessary to accept a YE stance to realize that the cosmos are ultimately the result of design.

Why? Well, there are various interpretations of the scientific evidence in regard to how the world evolved or as to whether it was designed. If, through scientific discovery, we find that something definitely does not fit with an ancient historical document, we must reconsider our view as to how the world came to be. If the universe evolved, that doesn't eliminate the very real probability that there was a designer involved.
As I've said a millions times, it seems very unscientific to consider that the comos arose from nothing. That is why I think it is vitally important to diligently search for these answers through both science and religion.

I've heard various explanations for this, but the most reasonable explanation is that dinos & humans lived together for a time.

How can someone possibly think this way in the year 2007? It really is unbelievable. The USA is on its way to being a laughing stock. Someone should take that entire post #47 and save it somewhere as it is exactly what is wrong with this nation and this debate.

I live in Colorado, where we have a wealth of readily accessible dinosaur fossil sites which, not surprisingly, are devoid of modern creatures. Plus, with the Pierre Shale, you can literally walk down a creek and pick Cretaceous era fossils out of the banks.

Still, people here would overwhelmingly support the idea that the Earth is young, and people roamed with the dinosaurs.

What's worse, these asshats are migrating out here in droves and burying all of it beneath their stupid particle board luxury-ish houses and then paving everything and driving over it with their Hummers. I'm not sure whether it's because they're just dipshits, or because they don't like having all of those fossilized dinosaurs and coral reefs staring them in the face when they look out their windows.

Maybe they should move to Kansas to keep FtK company instead.

PZ wrote:
"Notice one of those things that is particularly contemptible: she's an IDist, which professes to be a scientific view of the world, yet here she is gushing over a young-earth creationist "museum"."

PZ, I don't agree with your version of why we observe such a breathtaking "illusion" of design in nature, but I don't think that makes me "contemptible". I'm not your enemy. I come at life differently than you do, but that doesn't make me a liar or a bad person. I certainly don't think you're a liar or a bad person. I merely think that you have a completely different worldview than I do. I wish you would ease up and realize that people from my side of the fence strongly (and honestly) believe that the scientific evidence points to a designer just as much as you believe it does not. All this "militant atheist" behavior is just leading to more hatred between people of opposite worldviews.

It is interesting that you use the term "gushing". Let's see....I said, "I hadn't thought much about the museum until I started realizing how much it drives you guys completely wacko. Now, I'm really wanting to take a road trip and check the place out. From what I've read, it sounds pretty cool."

Let me try to be more clear. "I HADN'T THOUGHT MUCH ABOUT THE MUSEUM UNTIL I STARTED REALIZING HOW MUCH IT DRIVES YOU GUYS COMPLETELY WACKO." I ran across information and images of the museum layout at the evolutionists blogs. You guys are doing a great advertising for them. In other words, you've posted enough about the museum to peak my curiousity, and now I'm actually kind of interested in seeing the place for myself.

So, hey, I'm thinking about chartering a bus, and you're invited big guy!

"I ain't giving Hammie one red cent, though. 'Cause I won't have to."

Hmmm...I did that a few times during my youth, but I guess I've grown up. I know "right" and "wrong" are relative terms these days, but I go ahead and pay for the books I buy that are written by evolutionists and atheists. It really doesn't bother me for some reason. I even paid to see "The God who Wasn't There" when it showed here in Kansas City. Fleming was actually there for a panel discussion...interesting to say the least.

Anyway, heck, if you go with me, I'll pay your way so you don't have to sneak in! Climb aboard the Pirate Bus, and be sure to bring your broomstick & a batch of your best spells!

If dinosaurs were contemporaries of humans, why are they never found together archaeologically? And why are no dinosaurs found preserved at Rancho La Brea? The idea that dinosaurs lived at the same time as people is contradicted by so much evidence that you have to be a liar or a fool to accept it.

Ftk has been reading and posting on evolution blogs for years, and still she can write (of biologists) "Darwin said, I believe, and I'll make it fit to my belief". In all that time she clearly has not learned the first thing about how science and scientists operate.

She also writes "people from my side of the fence strongly (and honestly) believe that the scientific evidence points to a designer just as much as you believe it does not." Despite being asked a multitude of times in those years of writing, as far as I can tell she has never once produced the smallest scrap of this 'scientific evidence' but instead produces post after post of fluff, evasions, vague criticisms, protestations that she has already dealt with it and promises to deal with it later.

Either Darwin said, I believe, and I'll make it fit to my belief,

Come on. Darwin didn't start by assuming his conclusions. The other way around: he did science.

OR, in AiG's case, they believe the interpretation of the scientific evidence they observe in nature correlates with history documentation. Two interpretations, two lines of evidence. Opened minded people will consider both.

Yes.

And then, they test both against reality. After all, they contradict each other, so at least one of them has to be wrong.

AiG cannot explain radiometric dating, it can't explain the fossil record, and so on for 100 kilobytes. The theory of evolution is compatible with all that. AiG loses.

PZ wrote:
"Notice one of those things that is particularly contemptible: she's an IDist, which professes to be a scientific view of the world, yet here she is gushing over a young-earth creationist "museum"."

PZ, I don't agree with your version of why we observe such a breathtaking "illusion" of design in nature, but I don't think that makes me "contemptible".

You misunderstood him. He wrote that it is contemptible that an ID believer should heap such praise over a YEC "museum" -- because the most prominent ID believers (at least) keep saying ID has nothing to do with religion. PZ expects you to laugh, with him, at the YEC people who confuse religion and science and hold a position for which there is no evidence anywhere outside the Bible.

You've all heard the arguments before, but I will say quickly that one of the things that is very hard for me to get past is that we have so many ancient stories about dragons, sea serpents, etc. that fit perfectly with dino descriptions. I've heard various explanations for this, but the most reasonable explanation is that dinos & humans lived together for a time. The bible has some interestig dino descriptions as well. It's kind of hard to get past written historical documentation with these dino-like descriptions.

You know, many of PZ's posts are followed by comments describing how someone snorted coffee. I don't laugh so easily at the Internet. Your assertion that any mythical beings "fit perfectly with dino descriptions" did make me laugh, though.

I study dinosaurs, you know. Dinosaurs were not even remotely like any mythical being I've ever read about. Dragons tend to have mammalian ears, snake-like scales, and breathe fire for crying out loud! That's simply ridiculous if taken as a description of a real animal. I will gladly answer questions about dinosaurs, but first you need to realize that you have any.

I have to conclude that the myths are, without exception, based on the fear of crocodiles (where available), monitor lizards (where available -- see "Komodo dragon"), and venomous snakes, exaggerated (as common in myths about anything). OK, other animals may be mixed in sometimes, e. g. the biblical Leviathan has been considered a hippo by some, but you get my point.

And no, for the 20,000th time, there are no dinosaurs (other than birds!) closer than 57 million years to the nearest human (in the widest sense = everything that could be closer to us than to the chimps). Even primates in the widest sense as a whole don't occur together with dinosaurs other than birds, with the possible exception of one tooth said to come from the very end of the Cretaceous and belonging to a species known to occur right after the Cretaceous (and no farther).

I recommend http://www.palaeos.com for a presentation of which animals and plants occurred on which continents in which times.

Oh yeah, one last thing...

As I've said a millions times, it seems very unscientific to consider that the comos arose from nothing.

Firstly, this has nothing to do with evolution. Darwin himself believed in an apparently deistic Creator of the Universe because the universe as a whole looked designed to him -- even though he showed that design is a bad explanation for the diversity of life.

Secondly, "from nothing" is a bad way to explain the Big Bang hypothesis. There's plenty of evidence that the Big Bang happened -- and that's it. We cannot look outside of the universe, neither in space nor in time. We don't know why the Big Bang happened, or whether there is "nothing" outside the universe. Period. It hasn't stopped people speculating, but only testable speculations are science.

That is why I think it is vitally important to diligently search for these answers through both science and religion.

Fine, but science has one important advantage in this respect: scientific hypothesis are testable. If you can answer the question "if I were wrong, how would I know?", you are doing science. Religious explanations tend to be untestable. You can take anything and its exact opposite and simply say in both cases "it was God's ineffable will" -- this approach explains everything and nothing. If you make any such assumptions that happen to be wrong, you aren't going to find out in this life (...unless a miracle happens, and you can't count on that). If you make a scientific hypothesis that happens to be wrong, you can find out that it is wrong, even if it takes a multi-gigabuck collider rather than a kick to the shin to provide the test.

Have you understood what I'm trying to say?

One last last thing... :-]

There's plenty of evidence that the Big Bang happened -- and that's it.

Importantly, we know what evidence against the Big Bang would look like. We just haven't found any yet.

I merely think that you have a completely different worldview than I do. I wish you would ease up and realize that people from my side of the fence strongly (and honestly) believe that the scientific evidence points to a designer just as much as you believe it does not.

Oh, we realize that quite well. But the fact that you believe that does not make it true, and those claims have been debunked time and again.

Since your handle comes from "For the kids", I think you'll understand at least three of my primary objections to this abomination, in order from most abstract to least:

1) By hindering science, creationists obstruct areas of research that could possibly prove fruitful in helping children with various poorly-understood diseases and syndromes. PZ wrote about such a possibility here, where he explains how the evidence from paleontology, developmental and evolutionary biology, and molecular genetics can shed some insight on a number of developmental abnormalities in children. Given the opportunity, ID and old-earth creationism would cut off such research efforts, yet they have no alternative hypotheses to pursue in order to connect the conditions and determine whether there are commonalities among them that can lead to treatment or prevention.

2) The children who are being taken to this "museum" and taught that this is "science" just have that much more baggage to unlearn if they ever want to become real scientists, so this is hindering their future opportunities as well. If I were one of those kids, when I grew up and realized how my options had been deliberately limited by the adults who were supposed to be looking out for me, I'd really resent whoever put that extra obstacle in my path.

3) At the most fundamental level, $27 million would feed, clothe, and shelter a lot of needy kids. But the choice to use that money to attack science instead shows that side's true priorities.

All this "militant atheist" behavior is just leading to more hatred between people of opposite worldviews.

Really? I don't remember starting any so-called "culture wars", but after being repeatedly blamed for 9/11, and called "treasonous" and "traitor" among other epithets, I'm just now getting warmed up to fight back to defend myself and my profession (science). And I'm not even the farthest-leftist you'll ever encounter; more of a social democrat in the European mode, but the take-no-prisoners rhetoric on the right doesn't distinguish between us.

Perhaps the right-wing Christianists should have thought of that before declaring their jihad, but their genie's out of the bottle now--it's a little late for the "can't we all get along" rhetoric, after all we've been called, and more importantly, all the policies we've been subjected to, over the years. If your side's going to spend $27 million in a way which actively harms kids in multiple ways, you're going to have to expect to be called on that fact.

"I HADN'T THOUGHT MUCH ABOUT THE MUSEUM UNTIL I STARTED REALIZING HOW MUCH IT DRIVES YOU GUYS COMPLETELY WACKO."

you are so full of it.

you should be jumping at your own reflection.

As I've said a millions times, it seems very unscientific to consider that the comos arose from nothing.

I'm sure flatearthers say the same thing about the earth being round.

it's a very sad thing you are so driven to defend your preconceptions based on nothing more than raw intuition.

you do realize that in another time and place, you would, in fact, have been one of those screaming for Galileo's head, right?

I can just imagine it:

"How dare he suggest the earth isn't the center of the universe! Off with his head!"

you need to see a therapist to work through your cognitive dissonance issues.

Just a note: It's not too late to cast your Molly vote for RavenT on the strength of post #57. :-)

Well, Ftk, I thank you for answering the questions. Your responses raise other questions, of course, but I just wanted to demonstrate that this teacher is doing critical thinking with this topic, rather than mockery.

I have to say that I think your answer to the first question misses the point. Of COURSE the AIG folks labor under certain assumptions, a certain worldview. The question is whether those assumptions, that worldview, can actually constitute any sort of meaningful 'data' that can be objectively tested. If it isn't, it isn't science, Ftk.

I happen to share certain assumptions with AIG and, I suspect, with folks like you. These assumptions have no standing in science, however. In accepting that evolution by natural selection is the best scientific explanation for life's diversity I am not, in any way, promulgating any particular metaphysical view. I'm simply doing science. I can say that, but Ken Ham can't, and I don't think you can, either. Until you can, you're imposing a mode of thought on the rest of us that doesn't lead to a productive exchange of views. If I'm willing to give you the benefit of doubt as to your intent, don't you think you should give the scientific community a pass on any metaphysical agenda? I do.

Ftk | May 28, 2007 11:29 AM

So...does Ftk mean "F**k the kids"?

By hindering science, creationists obstruct areas of research that could possibly prove fruitful in helping children with various poorly-understood diseases and syndromes. PZ wrote about such a possibility here, where he explains how the evidence from paleontology, developmental and evolutionary biology, and molecular genetics can shed some insight on a number of developmental abnormalities in children. Given the opportunity, ID and old-earth creationism would cut off such research efforts, yet they have no alternative hypotheses to pursue in order to connect the conditions and determine whether there are commonalities among them that can lead to treatment or prevention.

Very good point, thanks for the link. A good example of how creationism explains everything and nothing -- if all you can say "Goddidit", you'll never understand anything.

So...does Ftk mean "F**k the kids"?

yes, yes it does.

"That is why I think it is vitally important to diligently search for these answers through both science and religion."

Okay. I'll diligently head out to the desert now with some peyote and get back to you on what I find.

Have a ball, dude. Too bad the Darwin police won't allow critical thinking at the high school level. Hell, they won't even allow academic freedom at our universities.

You see, you're entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

Stop projecting. Most of us here, myself included, are not curious to see the "science" "museum". We are torn between, on the one hand, holding our heads that ache at the thought that so much ignorance and stupidity exist in the world, and, on the other hand, rolling on the floor laughing at said ignorance and stupidity.

If I were you, I'd be thankful that Scott Hatfield has managed to overcome both impulses and asks you reasonable questions. If I were you, I'd try to answer them.

Either Darwin said, I believe, and I'll make it fit to my belief,

Come on. Darwin didn't start by assuming his conclusions. The other way around: he did science.

OR, in AiG's case, they believe the interpretation of the scientific evidence they observe in nature correlates with history documentation. Two interpretations, two lines of evidence. Opened minded people will consider both.

Yes.

And then, they test both against reality. After all, they contradict each other, so at least one of them has to be wrong.

AiG cannot explain radiometric dating, it can't explain the fossil record, and so on for 100 kilobytes. The theory of evolution is compatible with all that. AiG loses.

PZ wrote:
"Notice one of those things that is particularly contemptible: she's an IDist, which professes to be a scientific view of the world, yet here she is gushing over a young-earth creationist "museum"."

PZ, I don't agree with your version of why we observe such a breathtaking "illusion" of design in nature, but I don't think that makes me "contemptible".

You misunderstood him. He wrote that it is contemptible that an ID believer should heap such praise over a YEC "museum" -- because the most prominent ID believers (at least) keep saying ID has nothing to do with religion. PZ expects you to laugh, with him, at the YEC people who confuse religion and science and hold a position for which there is no evidence anywhere outside the Bible.

You've all heard the arguments before, but I will say quickly that one of the things that is very hard for me to get past is that we have so many ancient stories about dragons, sea serpents, etc. that fit perfectly with dino descriptions. I've heard various explanations for this, but the most reasonable explanation is that dinos & humans lived together for a time. The bible has some interestig dino descriptions as well. It's kind of hard to get past written historical documentation with these dino-like descriptions.

You know, many of PZ's posts are followed by comments describing how someone snorted coffee. I don't laugh so easily at the Internet. Your assertion that any mythical beings "fit perfectly with dino descriptions" did make me laugh, though.

I study dinosaurs, you know. Dinosaurs were not even remotely like any mythical being I've ever read about. Dragons tend to have mammalian ears, snake-like scales, and breathe fire for crying out loud! That's simply ridiculous if taken as a description of a real animal. I will gladly answer questions about dinosaurs, but first you need to realize that you have any.

I have to conclude that the myths are, without exception, based on the fear of crocodiles (where available), monitor lizards (where available -- see "Komodo dragon"), and venomous snakes, exaggerated (as common in myths about anything). OK, other animals may be mixed in sometimes, e. g. the biblical Leviathan has been considered a hippo by some, but you get my point.

And no, for the 20,000th time, there are no dinosaurs (other than birds!) closer than 57 million years to the nearest human (in the widest sense = everything that could be closer to us than to the chimps). Even primates in the widest sense as a whole don't occur together with dinosaurs other than birds, with the possible exception of one tooth said to come from the very end of the Cretaceous and belonging to a species known to occur right after the Cretaceous (and no farther).

I recommend http://www.palaeos.com for a presentation of which animals and plants occurred on which continents in which times.

Oh yeah, one last thing...

As I've said a millions times, it seems very unscientific to consider that the comos arose from nothing.

Firstly, this has nothing to do with evolution. Darwin himself believed in an apparently deistic Creator of the Universe because the universe as a whole looked designed to him -- even though he showed that design is a bad explanation for the diversity of life.

Secondly, "from nothing" is a bad way to explain the Big Bang hypothesis. There's plenty of evidence that the Big Bang happened -- and that's it. We cannot look outside of the universe, neither in space nor in time. We don't know why the Big Bang happened, or whether there is "nothing" outside the universe. Period. It hasn't stopped people speculating, but only testable speculations are science.

That is why I think it is vitally important to diligently search for these answers through both science and religion.

Fine, but science has one important advantage in this respect: scientific hypothesis are testable. If you can answer the question "if I were wrong, how would I know?", you are doing science. Religious explanations tend to be untestable. You can take anything and its exact opposite and simply say in both cases "it was God's ineffable will" -- this approach explains everything and nothing. If you make any such assumptions that happen to be wrong, you aren't going to find out in this life (...unless a miracle happens, and you can't count on that). If you make a scientific hypothesis that happens to be wrong, you can find out that it is wrong, even if it takes a multi-gigabuck collider rather than a kick to the shin to provide the test.

Have you understood what I'm trying to say?

One last last thing... :-]

There's plenty of evidence that the Big Bang happened -- and that's it.

Importantly, we know what evidence against the Big Bang would look like. We just haven't found any yet.

By hindering science, creationists obstruct areas of research that could possibly prove fruitful in helping children with various poorly-understood diseases and syndromes. PZ wrote about such a possibility here, where he explains how the evidence from paleontology, developmental and evolutionary biology, and molecular genetics can shed some insight on a number of developmental abnormalities in children. Given the opportunity, ID and old-earth creationism would cut off such research efforts, yet they have no alternative hypotheses to pursue in order to connect the conditions and determine whether there are commonalities among them that can lead to treatment or prevention.

Very good point, thanks for the link. A good example of how creationism explains everything and nothing -- if all you can say "Goddidit", you'll never understand anything.