Ken Ham whines and gets thrashed for it. Who's right?

[Miles]

From Ken Ham's website (he's one creationism's horn blowers).

• "Guess what’s missing from Sunday’s Cincinnati Enquirer’s (our main Cincinnati newspaper) long articles about local Christmas/holiday activities?
  
  This long piece–plus other Christmas-related articles—appeared in the paper yesterday (Sunday). No mention of the Creation Museum and its Bethlehem’s Blessings Christmas programs—not even the free day on Thursday (the museum is open to the public for free for Christmas Eve), even though through our publicist, we sent two news releases to the paper about our Christmas activities.
  
  Interesting, considering over 920,000 people have visited the Creation Museum—tens of millions of dollars has been brought into the community each of the past two years—hundreds of jobs created locally—already 7,500 people have visited the Creation Museum’s Live Nativity (five more dates for this spectacular event) and phenomenal garden light display. (By the way, we have submitted a letter to the paper* to inquire about the omission of our major series of Christmas events that will attract over 15,000 people to a place that has won major tourism awards for advertising excellence—maybe there is some explanation for this oversight; while the paper’s reporters over the years have generally been fair towards us, we sometimes wonder why some of the editors seem to look at us differently—see a previous article of ours, for example.)
  source"

And here's a reply to it from P. Z. Myers (one of creationism's frequent critics).

• "There's a reason the world looks at you differently, Ken.
  
  It's because you're a gibbering nitwit. Your "museum" is a popular freakshow for ignorant yahoos, and it's existence is an international embarrassment. You bring about as much prestige to the Cincinnati area as a combination leper colony and lunatic asylum; sure, it's well-populated with the unfortunate afflicted, and it provides employment to local citizens, and the fact that you've turned it into a spectacle of stupidity for gawkers brings in tourist dollars, but it's not something to be proud of. And unlike the leper colony/asylum, your institution provides no useful or charitable function for the community or its residents. Instead, you lie to children for money.
  
  I suspect the omission was merely an oversight, because the American media tends to drool for money over principle, and one thing the phony "museum" has is buckets of money — for the same reason P.T. Barnum thrived — but one can always hope that the slight was intentional, and that someone at the Cincinnati Enquirer is aware that the presence of a Temple to Lunacy brings disrepute to the region."
  
  source

My question is, has Myers overstated the situation, or is his criticism pretty much right on?


.

[FinalEnigma]

personally, I think that is a bit over the top. That kind of speech probably does more to turn people away from you than convince them of anything.

though I do believe that the creation museum is completely invalid.

[T-mash]

personally, I think that is a bit over the top. That kind of speech probably does more to turn people away from you than convince them of anything.

though I do believe that the creation museum is completely invalid.

I don't think it's over the top. When you go to a museum you already assume what you see is real. At least I did as a kid. What I saw in a museum I wasn't really going to 'doubt' if it was real or not, because you expect a museum to represent what scientists have discovered and found out. You expect a Museum to show the Truth of history. The creationist museum not only appeals to this and misuses it to miseducate children that will not doubt what they see. It also completely smashes the point of a museum, because if everybody can just put anything up on display with any explanation they want too and call themselves a scientific museum.. then how can we really tell that the Mona Lisa was an actual painting and not some publicity stunt by the Louvre? etc etc.

In my eyes the creationists know fully well that adults with a thinking mind will not be persuaded by their silly ideas, so the only way to keep it up is by 'faking' to be a scientific institute and 'teach' their ideas to people who are not capable of logical reasoning (children and those with a religious bias*)


* for adults with a religious bias I mean not able to think logically with regards to their religion, not in general of course.

[FinalEnigma]

personally, I think that is a bit over the top. That kind of speech probably does more to turn people away from you than convince them of anything.

though I do believe that the creation museum is completely invalid.

I don't think it's over the top. When you go to a museum you already assume what you see is real. At least I did as a kid. What I saw in a museum I wasn't really going to 'doubt' if it was real or not, because you expect a museum to represent what scientists have discovered and found out. You expect a Museum to show the Truth of history. The creationist museum not only appeals to this and misuses it to miseducate children that will not doubt what they see. It also completely smashes the point of a museum, because if everybody can just put anything up on display with any explanation they want too and call themselves a scientific museum.. then how can we really tell that the Mona Lisa was an actual painting and not some publicity stunt by the Louvre? etc etc.

In my eyes the creationists know fully well that adults with a thinking mind will not be persuaded by their silly ideas, so the only way to keep it up is by 'faking' to be a scientific institute and 'teach' their ideas to people who are not capable of logical reasoning (children and those with a religious bias*)


* for adults with a religious bias I mean not able to think logically with regards to their religion, not in general of course.

I understand that, but the way Myers goes about speaking about the issue is inevitably going to get him dubbed god hating evil atheist scum. That is not the way to win people to your side of an argument.

[T-mash]

personally, I think that is a bit over the top. That kind of speech probably does more to turn people away from you than convince them of anything.

though I do believe that the creation museum is completely invalid.

I don't think it's over the top. When you go to a museum you already assume what you see is real. At least I did as a kid. What I saw in a museum I wasn't really going to 'doubt' if it was real or not, because you expect a museum to represent what scientists have discovered and found out. You expect a Museum to show the Truth of history. The creationist museum not only appeals to this and misuses it to miseducate children that will not doubt what they see. It also completely smashes the point of a museum, because if everybody can just put anything up on display with any explanation they want too and call themselves a scientific museum.. then how can we really tell that the Mona Lisa was an actual painting and not some publicity stunt by the Louvre? etc etc.

In my eyes the creationists know fully well that adults with a thinking mind will not be persuaded by their silly ideas, so the only way to keep it up is by 'faking' to be a scientific institute and 'teach' their ideas to people who are not capable of logical reasoning (children and those with a religious bias*)


* for adults with a religious bias I mean not able to think logically with regards to their religion, not in general of course.

I understand that, but the way Myers goes about speaking about the issue is inevitably going to get him dubbed god hating evil atheist scum. That is not the way to win people to your side of an argument.

I doubt he'd care about what he gets dubbed at. Ken Ham's mission is to get creationism in science classrooms. Ham for example went to a meeting of the National Education Association to pass out creationist DVDs and books and:

He was quoted in a press release as hoping that teachers "see how the Bible is confirmed by observational science."

(http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/53237252.html)

These kind of people want education to go back to how it was in the good old dark ages, so I fully agree with P.Z.Myers: it's existence is an international embarrassment.

[Miles]

mispost

[cnorman18]

If Myers had posted that in this forum, it would be against the rules. It's hardly civil or respectful, it's inarguably flamebait, and would be just cause for a formal warning.

But it wasn't posted in this forum, so I see nothing wrong with it. I believe in freedom of speech, and besides, I agree with Myers. If Ham didn't want criticism, even criticism this intense, he shouldn't have opened that travesty. He probably revels in it as "unjust persecution" that confirms his beliefs anyway.

[bernee51]

personally, I think that is a bit over the top. That kind of speech probably does more to turn people away from you than convince them of anything.

though I do believe that the creation museum is completely invalid.

I don't think it's over the top. When you go to a museum you already assume what you see is real. At least I did as a kid. What I saw in a museum I wasn't really going to 'doubt' if it was real or not, because you expect a museum to represent what scientists have discovered and found out. You expect a Museum to show the Truth of history. The creationist museum not only appeals to this and misuses it to miseducate children that will not doubt what they see. It also completely smashes the point of a museum, because if everybody can just put anything up on display with any explanation they want too and call themselves a scientific museum.. then how can we really tell that the Mona Lisa was an actual painting and not some publicity stunt by the Louvre? etc etc.

In my eyes the creationists know fully well that adults with a thinking mind will not be persuaded by their silly ideas, so the only way to keep it up is by 'faking' to be a scientific institute and 'teach' their ideas to people who are not capable of logical reasoning (children and those with a religious bias*)


* for adults with a religious bias I mean not able to think logically with regards to their religion, not in general of course.

I understand that, but the way Myers goes about speaking about the issue is inevitably going to get him dubbed god hating evil atheist scum. That is not the way to win people to your side of an argument.

I doubt he'd care about what he gets dubbed at. Ken Ham's mission is to get creationism in science classrooms. Ham for example went to a meeting of the National Education Association to pass out creationist DVDs and books and:

He was quoted in a press release as hoping that teachers "see how the Bible is confirmed by observational science."

(http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/53237252.html)

These kind of people want education to go back to how it was in the good old dark ages, so I fully agree with P.Z.Myers: it's existence is an international embarrassment.

He is also a national embarrassment...he is from Queensland, Australia.



Obviously his little project would not have had the legs or the funding to get up in his hometown (Brisbane) so he went where the money is.

IMO PZ went easy on him.

[JoeyKnothead]

I understand that, but the way Myers goes about speaking about the issue is inevitably going to get him dubbed god hating evil atheist scum. That is not the way to win people to your side of an argument.

Actually, there was a recent (and recurring) debate about folks using insulting language in signatures. While it seemed quite appropriate to call atheists "fools", there was debate about what constitutes insulting language when it comes from non-Christians. It was said we might not want to censor the Bible, but censoring others seemed to be acceptable, even defensible, here's what happened...

When I started calling Christians "idiots", my insult lasted less than a week, while there was a "request" that the initial insult be stopped. It was decided only folks who pay to support the site, or are moderators, are allowed to post signatures. It can be reasonably and logically deduced that paying to support the site (a noble endeavour) will allow someone to include insulting language in their sigs (fools and such), because no official ruling beyond the banning of sigs (instigated by calling Christians "idiots") was issued.

I say go PZ, serve it back. Serve it back in spades.

Don't let those who use their sacred texts to insult you have the upper hand and declare moral superiority in the name of a "loving" god. Serve it back. And Loud. And with NO censorship for delicate, position-sensitive ears. Let those with vile tongues but fragile ears hear their own claims, their own vitriol. Let 'em cringe when they hear the words their sacred texts espouse.

Many Christians will quote their sacred texts to declare others all sorts of vile, abusive, and insulting things. We are demons, Satan, we can do no good, we are liars, we are anything but human beings, we are destined for a hell that can't be shown to exist.

Bring the goose to the gander, and see how he feels. Bring the goose to the gander - and cook him before those he hates.

[micatala]

I understand that, but the way Myers goes about speaking about the issue is inevitably going to get him dubbed god hating evil atheist scum. That is not the way to win people to your side of an argument.

Actually, there was a recent (and recurring) debate about folks using insulting language in signatures. While it seemed quite appropriate to call atheists "fools", there was debate about what constitutes insulting language when it comes from non-Christians. It was said we might not want to censor the Bible, but censoring others seemed to be acceptable, even defensible, here's what happened...

When I started calling Christians "idiots", my insult lasted less than a week, while there was a "request" that the initial insult be stopped. It was decided only folks who pay to support the site, or are moderators, are allowed to post signatures. It can be reasonably and logically deduced that paying to support the site (a noble endeavour) will allow someone to include insulting language in their sigs (fools and such), because no official ruling beyond the banning of sigs (instigated by calling Christians "idiots") was issued.

I say go PZ, serve it back. Serve it back in spades.

Don't let those who use their sacred texts to insult you have the upper hand and declare moral superiority in the name of a "loving" god. Serve it back. And Loud. And with NO censorship for delicate, position-sensitive ears. Let those with vile tongues but fragile ears hear their own claims, their own vitriol. Let 'em cringe when they hear the words their sacred texts espouse.

Many Christians will quote their sacred texts to declare others all sorts of vile, abusive, and insulting things. We are demons, Satan, we can do no good, we are liars, we are anything but human beings, we are destined for a hell that can't be shown to exist.

Bring the goose to the gander, and see how he feels. Bring the goose to the gander - and cook him before those he hates.

First off, on Ken Ham, I agree his museum is an embarrassment not worthy of the word museum.

With respect to Myers, my observation is that controversial debates often draw and end up getting driven by those on the extremes and/or with the tartest tongues. I don't think this is necessarily a good thing.

The effect of a debate between those like Myers and those like Ham is likely to be polarization. I would suggest marginalizing the extremes by trying to move the debate to a less vitriolic place is more constructive.

Now, before I get piled on for equating Myers and Ham, I will say, with respect to the facts, that Myers is right, at least with respect to the scientific issues. He allows he does not know what is true regarding the enquirer and with respect to his speculations, I will only say he is welcome to them.


I'll suggest the signature issue is off topic, but I'd suggest joey bring it up in another appropriate forum or PM the mods.