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?


.

[micatala]

PS. As a gesture of good will, I'll delete my signature at least for the time being, even though I don't think anyone would find it insulting.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 10:

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.

With the utmost respect for one whose opinion I value, I consider my previous post relevant.

We see often where questioning folks in "our" language, is "rude" or such, but the very same folks calling others out for foul language have no problem with their sacred text using essentially the same language against those that disagree.

I do note the language employed by Professor Myers would be out of bounds on this site - but should be considered against the issues presented in my previous post.

As I've been questioned on the relevancy of my response, we gotta question whether a Bible full of vile, insulting language against its detractors has more legitimacy than the language of its detractors. When one's detractors are expected to "remain civil" while the other side ostensibly worships a book full of insulting language, then there is legitimate concern over which side, and which language, is more insulting. We have a guy promoting this vile book - Ken Hamm, being compared to a guy - Professor Myers - using vile language to counter it.

For me, it renders down to a matter of censorship. While Ken Hamm is agreeably allowed to promote a book that contains irrefutable insults against those that disagree, there's some legitimate use in employing strong language to counter it. But what do we get? In my documentable experience we get that calling Christians "idiots" is offensive, to the point of turning the ability to say so off, but calling atheists "fools" was perfectly fine (considering there was only a "request" to stop). All because a Christian declared it the word of their god (while not having to actually show the god spoke the words). Instead of banning the insult, there's essentially a ban on all speech. What better way to silence your critics than to stuff socks in everyone's mouths?

(At least some, really some, because there's several who've argued against such language) Christians want the ability (and have the right) to promote a book full of some really insulting language against its detractors, but they cry foul when the atheist uses his own words, and not the words of some unprovable god to respond. It's hypocrisy. It's wrong. And I'll fight against this and any wrong until I'm prevented from doing so.

This Bible, this book, is the "word of God". This book gives me down the road and I can't respond in the manner I see fit? What's right about that?

This Bible, this book, this God calls me demonic, Satan, a liar, a ne'er do well. It uses the language it deems fit, but my language is "rude"? Is hypocrisy a product of (someone's) Christian indoctrination, or is it ordained by the (someone's) Christian God?

What God deserves to speak when He gets upset at his own language?

[T-mash]

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.

I'd just clarify though that there is no 'debate'. Myers has for example been to a lot of lectures on ID and when he asks a question at the end the response is: "oh look, it's an atheist! blabla" and ignoring the question. There is no debate with these people. The only thing left is to ridicule them for what they are doing: miseducating young children that are not yet intelligent enough to decide the facts for themselves and might very well never be.

There is no support for Intelligent Design from the scientific community (and with that I mean those that actually know a thing or two about the subjects) but regardless of that they demand that their idea is taught in schools and educated to children. Even-though there is not a shred of evidence for ID and all they actually try to do is ridicule science, they still keep pushing for this.

I see it as an attempt to push back education to a point where anything goes: Who needs evidence? And the only effect it would have is that it gives children the false choice between religion and science. This is the only 'controversial' part about the debate.

As P. Z. Myers rightfully said, lying to children for money is not something to be proud of.

[micatala]

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.

I'd just clarify though that there is no 'debate'. Myers has for example been to a lot of lectures on ID and when he asks a question at the end the response is: "oh look, it's an atheist! blabla" and ignoring the question. There is no debate with these people. The only thing left is to ridicule them for what they are doing: miseducating young children that are not yet intelligent enough to decide the facts for themselves and might very well never be.

I would agree some that some creationists are not willing to change their views no matter what and this may mean debate will be unproductive. I can also understand the use of ridicule to make a point. My personal view is that too much ridicule is counter-productive to one's case. Ridicule plays well to those who already hold your view. How persuasive it would be to those on the fence is less clear. Ridicule can actually be counter-productive, pushing people away from the position held by the ridiculer.

There is no support for Intelligent Design from the scientific community (and with that I mean those that actually know a thing or two about the subjects) but regardless of that they demand that their idea is taught in schools and educated to children. Even-though there is not a shred of evidence for ID and all they actually try to do is ridicule science, they still keep pushing for this.

I entirely agree. ID is not science. The Discovery Institute is really just trying to bypass the ordinary processes of science through a PR campaign. ID should have no place in school other than perhaps as an alternative view that can be discussed as being un-scientific or unfounded.

I see it as an attempt to push back education to a point where anything goes: Who needs evidence? And the only effect it would have is that it gives children the false choice between religion and science. This is the only 'controversial' part about the debate.

As P. Z. Myers rightfully said, lying to children for money is not something to be proud of.

I would agree that some push-back is required. Scientists and informed lay people cannot really just ignore the creationists and ID propenents and hope they disappear or will remain ineffective. We know they can be effective and have a negative impact on education and public opinion.

The question is which tactics are most effective.

Now, I am not suggesting people never employ such tactics or that everyone has to follow some kind of anti-creationist playbook. I think it helps to have people of a variety of perspectives make their case in a variety of ways. Francis Collins and Kenneth Miller, for example, have both written books debunking ID and creationism from a theistic perspective. Dawkins of course has written a number of books arguing against creationism and for evolution from a non-believing perspective.

My view is simply that too much negative rhetoric is ultimately counter-productive and has the effect of taking the debate (or argument or conflict or whatever other word you think is more appropriate) to a more emotional and less productive plane.