The existence of Ken Ham proves that creationism changes, therefore proving that it is not absolute, inerrant truth as he claims, therefore Ken Ham disproves creationism. QED. We can all go home now.
By the way, that's not a bad diagram for illustrating the relationships of the various versions of creationism, except that the pedigree breaks down for Intelligent Design creationism, which is kind of a weird syncretic hodge-podge that accommodates both of the major branches of the creationist tree. It really ought to be shown as the warped, evil offspring of an unnatural act, an orgy of all of the critters in the bestiary. And then it also lies about its parentage (as would we all, if we sprang from such mindless chaos).
More like this
Yet another poll, or rather this time a nascent one being run by the boyos at TelicThoughts who mailed myself and more than a few other science bloggers to see what our answer to the question "On which points are intelligent design and creat
Over at his blog, Jim Lippard has just completed his series of ten posts examining the finances of a number of creationist organizations: Answers in Genes
I wish I coulda been there ... by all accounts it sounds like the Creozerg visit to the Creation Museum went well.
Yesterday, Rick Perry commented "in Texas we teach both creationism and evolution in our public schools, because I figured you're smart enough to figure out which one is right." It got a lot of play, including my ow