I know, they're getting a little old. It's just that we have this glaringly obvious monument to ignorance in our midst, one that is hard to just ignore, so everyone has to take a crack at it. This one does make a few interesting points, at least. For instance…
Of course, the Bible in no place says that it is to be interpreted literally. What is the "literalism" manifesto, then, if not interpretive? Here's an example of how the literalism plays out, from the Museum literature. Ham's children's book, Dinosaurs of Eden, raises the specter of the "day-age theory"--the theory that each biblical "day" in Genesis actually represents an "age." The advantage of this view for some believers is that it might fit rather well with evolutionary theory--better, at least, than the seven-day alternative. This is not the Museum's view, although it has a long history within U.S. Christian fundamentalism (including a defense by fundamentalist William Jennings Bryan at the infamous Scopes Monkey Trial). Here's what Ham's book says about the theory: "God worked for six days and then rested for one. This is where our seven-day week comes from! If God created everything in six long periods (or millions of years), our week would be millions of years long! That wouldn't make any sense whatsoever."
"That wouldn't make any sense whatsoever." Isn't that just the perfect phrase for most of Ken Ham's turns of twisted logic?
Unfortunately, the article also ends with a tiresome cliche, considering how much like religion science is. At least the author says he thinks science is more than just another faith, but he still waffles over the idea of science as a kind of authoritarian tradition. Sorry, guy…if you don't see science as a process that empowers questioning and change, you aren't doing it right.