Ham-Fisted Rhetoric Over at Answers in Genesis

Ken Ham, AiG's President and coauthor Mark Looy, lead off today's daily devotional on their web site claiming that "[e]volutionary scientists throughout America are running scared."

Kicking and Screaming, they are.

No, really, those rows and rows of sharp, pointy teeth are perfect for pulling the petals off of daisies. We secularist Nazis have been blinded by Santa.

Really? I can't find any evidence for any of them (Bush, McCain, Frist) changing their tune on ID. I've tried their websites, even emailed John McCain after Dover. Nothing.

Well, there's plenty of evidence for creationism. For example, checkout this photograph:
http://frylock3.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/.pond/jesusridingadinosaur.jpg.w300h258.jpg

If dinosaurs died-out millions of years ago, then why do we have this photograph of Jesus riding a dinosaur?!?!

Here's another one of dinosaurs at the crucifiction:
http://www.beckysdi.com/biblicaldinos/crucifixion.jpg

Here's a photograph of Adam riding a dinosaur like a cowboy! Yeee haaaw!
http://www.jesus21.com/writers/belinda/images/dinotitle.gif

Stoopid evolutionists! Always trying to suppress the evidence. Running scared, indeed!

I saw McCain on a Sunday morning news show a while back, well before Dover, and he was mildly encouraging to me. He used none of the ID buzzwords for making creationism easier for the public to swallow, but did say things like "teach science in science class."

My hope is that with enough input from real scientists and not hacks at the DI he'd do the right thing.

If you saw the PBS series Evolution, then you saw Ham standing in front of a bunch of children in a church, urging them to shout at their teachers, "Were you there?" any time the lesson includes any science that threatens Ken's theology.

The best response to "Were you there?" is "Yes, I was," especially if the kid asking the question is only following a script given to them by AiG. AiG doesn't prepare their zombies to respond to that answer.

Hi Skip. Are you the same Skip Evans of NCSE ?

As someone who is a member of a church that supports AIG teaching (Abbots Cross Presbyterian, here in Northern Ireland) I always check their website on most days just to see what lies they have posted regarding science. (We have had Dr. David Menton and Roger Oakland both speak at the church by the way ) It constantly amazes me that a lot of their rhetoric is reserved for other Christians. Somehow if you believe in "millions of years" then you are a compromiser and not really true christian at all. Far from strengthening my faith I find their claims nonsensical and ludicrous. In order to fit in with their way of thinking have I to give up everything I have learned in science ? In my opinion that is what they are expecting me to do.

Everything I seem to read on their site is a distortion of the truth. For instance the media spot a few days ago claims that a once popular Evangelist was destroyed by him accepting "millions of years". Well, I've read a few reviews of the book "farewell to God" (written by the ex-preacher in question) and from what I recall a lot of his doubts were fueled by young earth creationism, not "millions of years" as Ham puts it.

After the sermon in my church last Sunday I have come to the decision that I may leave due to the minister's views on creation. For example, he claimed that Cain and Abel were the fist natural human births. He went on to say that both grew up to be arable farmers since there was no meat eating before the flood (classic AIG material). I'll be interested to know what his views are when he gets to the flood but I think I know what to expect !

The Presbyterian church in Ireland though, takes the view that as long as a person believed that God created the heavens and the Earth how and when he did it was for them to decide. I would take from this statement that someones beliefs on origins can be anything from flat earthism through to theistic evolution! It will be interesting to see what view the preacher has when I tackle him on the subject and whether or not he toes the AIG line which is completely dogmatic.( have a look at their statement of faith and how one can view science !)

Reed, that's excellent!

And they should add, "I've been everywhere and seen everything. And anything I say is the absolute truth, and if you don't believe me I'll cast a wicked secular humanist spell on you and you'll lose at checkers and ice-cream will taste like spinach, for ever and ever."

Man, I should have been a school teacher. They have all the fun.

It will be interesting to see what view the preacher has when I tackle him on the subject

Hi Peter,

I was NCSE's Network Project Director from 2001 to 2004, and they are the finest, most honest group of people I've ever had the joy to work with. Genie Scott is truly the most honorable and generous person I've ever met.

I now run my own little Internet software company in Butte, Montana, but of course I keep up with the debate.

Frankly, three years in the trenches was enough for me, so I figure I served my time and now am back among the blinking lights of network switches and the whirring of server disk drives.

Interesstinly, regarding your point about AiG and the age of the earth, I've heard one of their speakers recently remark that whether or think the earth is a few thousand or a few billion years old is "not really a salvational issue."

You can read about a roadtrip I took to the event in this part of the country at:
http://venomouspenguin.com/modules/Pages/2005-08-07/index.html

Some nice pics to go along with the story if I do say so myself.

I think Ed's point is very good. Everything we observe in the night sky is in the past, and some of it a very long time ago. AIG lie about this as well !

I also wonder what Ham would do if he was ever called for jury service. Was He there when the crime was committed ?

I saw McCain on a Sunday morning news show a while back, well before Dover, and he was mildly encouraging to me. He used none of the ID buzzwords for making creationism easier for the public to swallow, but did say things like "teach science in science class."

Didn't Santorum himself, the author of the "addendum" to the no child left behind act, do a flip-flop after Dover?

the details are sketchy in my mind, but I'm quite sure he dropped ID like a hot potato.

Mike,

I disagree. While McCain is certainly a politician, I believe when he spoke was actually careful not to use ID friendly language.

I'm not a McCain fan, but I don't necessarily dislike the guy either.

I do think he has the sense to make the right choices on the issue, if the scientific community presents its case to him.

I saw McCain on a Sunday morning news show a while back, well before Dover, and he was mildly encouraging to me. He used none of the ID buzzwords for making creationism easier for the public to swallow, but did say things like "teach science in science class." My hope is that with enough input from real scientists and not hacks at the DI he'd do the right thing.

Hi again Skip. I thought it was you. I always get the weekly updates from NCSE although I'm not a full member (I really will have to get around joining one of these days!) I've heard Genie Scott speak on a number of occasions and she does come across as a very genuine and nice person. I sometimes feel that some of the creationist speakers can be aggressive and sometimes quite nasty, unlike the secular humanists who are often the opposite !

I have heard Ham say this before, during an interview on BBC Radio Ulster, that a person can believe in evolution and still go to heaven but I wonder if he really believes it ? I have also read that he believes that trainee ministers, who don't accept a young earth should not be ordained and likewise, Christians who take this view, should not be admitted to full churh membership.

Hi again, back, Peter,

As long as we're on the subject of Genie Scott, I have to tell this story, and I hope she doesn't mind. (As an ex-staffer, I could fill a book with all the knee slapping times around that office, boy howdy!)

Back when I was a staffer, a member related this story to me: He had been to an event to hear a creationist speaker, who at one point in the presentation held up a picture of Genie.

It was not a photograph, but a black and white sketch drawing. I'm not sure where it appeared first, some science magazine I think, but it was making the rounds in various publications and I'll bet you could still find it on the web somewhere. In fact, NCSE used it on some flyers, I'm quite sure.

Anyway, it was one of those hand pencilled jobbies that do not betray the subject's age. For all a person looking at it could tell, the woman in the drawing could have been thirty, or could have been seventy.

The creationist holding up the picture called Genie just about every name in the book: dishonest, a liar, anti-God, anti-Bible, just about everything short of the devil himself (or herself I guess in this case.)

While I was relating all this to Genie in her office, she didn't bat an eye. She's heard it all before and it just goes right on by her. But I when I told her that the man finished his diatrible with, "but she is a pretty young thing, isn't she?" Genie's jaw dropped open and she shouted out in amazement, "Young?!?!?!?"

Yup, she's a pip our Genie.

The best response to "Were you there?" is an honest "no" but followed with "I have access to several different time machines......". That should get the kiddies attention. The ensuing discussion easily introduces telescopes exploding supernovae and the speed of light, the fossil record, etc. The nice PBS NOVA on amber is a good example of a time machine.

Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

The creationist wasn't Mr.Ham by any chance Skip ? (I'm only kidding by the way !).

She does seem to feature quite frequently in his articles !

No, the creationist holding up the picture of Genie was not Ham, although you'll notice the poor man seems incapable of typing her name not prefaced with words like athiest, or humanist, or she who must not be named, or she who probably tears up Bibles while praying to satan: general stuff like that.

Just put her name into the AiG search engine.

But I'm not saying he singles her out. Heck, I'll bet if AiG ever refers to Abbott and Costello on their web site, it will be something like "those two, albeit funny, yet Bible-hating Vaudevillian comics."

"If students in public schools are being taught that the origin of the universe, life, human beings, etc., can all be explained on the basis of natural processes, these young people are being taught the religion of naturalism---of atheism!"

I was recently introduced to the objections to evolution by my insurance agent. He found the fact that I am an agnostic and a find science to be more accurate in answering the questions of human origin offensive. He gave me this appalling book "The Evolution of a Creationist", which was written by a dentist, Jobe Martin. He thought this would be significant to me since I am a dentist.

The author wasn't very persuasive considering he knows very little about evolution, or intentionally presents straw men arguments that misrepresent evolution and science in general. He repeatedly says ignorant things like Darwin believed that animals evolve things because they want to, or that Darwin didn't or scientists don't know how one species evolves into another. I think a quote on page 53 of this book sums the scientific cretinism point the best, "As God's creatures, we do not subject the Bible to science, we subject science to the Bible." I can not think of many statements less scientific than that. Basically, there is no need for science because the God of the Bible is all powerful and capable of anything. Why look for the answers when you can just invoke the all powerful, "It must have been God." as the answer to everything.

Unfortunately for my friend, I am well aware the myriad evidences for evolution from many branches of science. Any individual who studies ToE with an open mind has to admit that it's predictive power is astounding. ToE has stood up to the discovery of genetics, molecular biology, etc... Considering that Darwin was not using any advanced scientific equipment, and had limited knowledge of many aspects of science by today's standards, his insights were absolutely brilliant. I approached my friend with a rebuttal to his book and tried to give him, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." by Theodosius Dobzhansky. He, however, quickly changed the subject to what I was doing as far as retirement accounts.

I am willing to believe that secular science may eventually replace or modify ToE with a more predictive accurate theory, but ID and Cretin Science will never do that for me because it is biased from the onset and insists that scientific tests and observations are wrong if their conclusions don't match up with preconceived notions or biblical literalism. I still actually like my insurance agent and forgive him for his ignorance of actual science, and actively encourage his pursuit of answers in the bible. I understand that he is emotionally attached to his beliefs. I am quite sure that he believes I will be going straight to hell. Oh well.

I would never, never buy any kind of insurance from a creationist, for the obvious reasons.

or a "raptureist", at the very least ;)

Seems Mark's surname is missing an "n".

Sorry,

Tried to stay away. Been trying not to lurk, and not to post. Any help for this addiction?

Please follow my URL and you will see that I am an Insurance Agent (a pretty good one, if I may be so bold). You will see that I have education in microbiology and math and that I support science education as a board member of National Science Decathlon. [It just so happens almost everyone else on that board is a science-friendly theist of some sort.]http://www.sciencedecathlon.com/

Insurance Agents get a bad rap because the few who have the integrity of ID Fellows make it tough for the rest of us. Perhaps I am a little sensitive, because many people hold used car salespeople in higher regard, but I feel compelled to pipe-up when Insurance Agents are mentioned.

The insurance industry relies very heavily on people who really understand how to use statistics. Behe or Dembski (whichever one is the mathematician) would not last long at an insurance firm because their statistical shenanigans would bankrupt the company.

Adjusters have to understand engineering and related sciences enough to properly evaluate the cause of accidents and the extent of damage. They are like field biologists who have to make informed decisions about what they observe and how it fits in with the "natural world" of auto and home repair. For example, insurance companies settling claims along the Gulf Coast recently contracted the expertise of my friend the civil engineering Ph.D.

We certainly rely on current medical science when we rate candidates for life insurance.

Genetic testing is not allowed by the state insurance commissioners, yet, but I expect that the actuarial researchers are looking into its predictive capabilities.

The bad news for all insurance policy owners if ID prevails is that "Acts of God" are usually excluded from coverage. If the explanation of everything is goddidit, then no claims would ever have to be paid!

The bad news for all insurance policy owners if ID prevails is that "Acts of God" are usually excluded from coverage. If the explanation of everything is goddidit, then no claims would ever have to be paid!

Any help for this addiction?

Any help for this addiction?

Thanks for the link spike.

I just want you to know that I have nothing against insurance agents. My agent also has a law degree and is a certified financial planner. My gripe with him is that he is not comfortable with people who see things differently than he does, i.e. people who don't take the Bible literally. That's really more of an individual failing than an indication that all insurance agents are YECs. The author of that horrid book was a dentist, (who had a bachelors in biology and graduated from a dental school which obviously has a lot of biological science at its core) and still he comes to the conclusion that YEC is essentially correct and that all science that disagrees is bad science or that it just hasn't caught up to the Bible but eventually will. I think Dr. Martin's presentation of science is much more grievous because he knows better. At least my friend doesn't know much about science, so in my opinion his ignorance is forgivable.

I've always thought a good answer to "Were you there?" would be one of the following:

"Were you there at the Crucifixion?"

"Were you there in the Garden of Eden?"

"Were you there at the Tower of Babel?"

"Were you there when the prophet Elisha sicced bears on the kids who'd laughed at his baldness?"

But maybe that's just me.

I remember that bear story. Years ago, when I read big chunks of the bible, I remember reading that story and being repulsed.

Whether it's slaughtering kids or stoning gays, the god of the bible does not live up to our modern ethical standards.

I've always thought a good answer to "Were you there?" would be one of the following:

— PCashwell

There are all kinds of ways to retort against that stupid 'were you there' business. So be clever. Do something like use it contrary to the creationist's racism.

You: "Do you think OJ Simpson is guilty?"
Creationist: "Of course!"
You: "Were you Theeeerrrrreeeee?!?!?!"

"How do I know that you aren't an alien? I wasn't there when you were born. Can you prove you're not? Why shouldn't we imprison you right now?"

Absurd, absurd argument about the "were you there" thing. Though, if you can take it at face value in a class, you can then fail every single student who makes that argument with extreme prejudice.

"This isn't your homework. I wasn't there when you did it, so I can't possibly believe this is yours."

Ahem. But yeah, that's easy to debunk, to say the least... it's a sad sign when that is the "best" sort of argument they are using now.

The thing that amuses me about hardcore creationists like Ham is that they actually insult God - instead of being a clever designer who creates and or chooses materials and properties to make the universe come out the way he wants, God is instead an incompetent, bumbling meddler.

After all, if each fossil is a specially created species that remained more or less unchanged after its creation, then there have been many creation events throughout the history of the planet. And most of his creations were ill-suited for their environments and went extinct.

Not an impressive track record.

If god was indeed an incompetent, bumbling meddler, then why didn't 100% of all species go extinct but only 90%. Read more about creation and microbes in my very short cartoon under:

http://www.naturalist.hingston.de/Comic/TDOL.pdf

Hope it will give a few laughs, anyhow it's really hard to top the ID people with silly ideas.

This "were you there" business can back fire.

How does Ham know if Jesus was resurected? Was he there? How does he know the bible is not a forgery? Was he there? The list goes on...

1. Crime and forensics. Respond that people can be convicted of crimes even if no one saw it happen based solely on DNA and other material evidence. Do they think it should be impossible to convict someone without at least one person witnessing the crime?

Like I said, I have this impulse to respond, "Gil Grissom, Las Vegas Crime Lab. I would disagree, sir....."

Sir Toejam said: "Didn't Santorum himself, the author of the "addendum" to the no child left behind act, do a flip-flop after Dover?
the details are sketchy in my mind, but I'm quite sure he dropped ID like a hot potato."

I have the unfortunate pleasure of having Sen. Santorum as my representative here in PA. I say "unfortunate" due to his toeing the Bush administration on so many policy issues, ID notwithstanding. What he did was a flip-flop (I notice it's OK when Repubs flip-flop, but not when a Dem like Kerry changes his mind based on actual evidence) regarding the teaching of ID in the schools. I guess with his lawyer's background he was able to understand precisely what kind of @ss-whooping Judge Jones gave the defendants in the Kitzmiller decision, and realized there was no rational way to support what was proven to be an illegal attempt to inject religion into public science teaching.
Santorum still believes in an Intelligent Designer and I'm positive he believes in a Genesis account of creation and life (which Genesis chronology, I cannot say), but he now agrees that it should not be taught in the public school science classroom. I am of the opinion that the senator is a man of integrity (perhaps not intellectual integrity, though - I don't think he's been educated about current evolutionary and abiogenesis theory) and has not changed his opinion for political gain, but because he honestly understood the reasoning behind the Judge's ruling.
Chris

You know, they are smarter than us. Perhaps we should listen to them a little bit closer.

The "Were you there?" nonsense:

The response is YES, because THERE is HERE!

The Big Bang wasn't an event that once happened somewhere, it's something going on right now, right here. The Universe continues to expand, and actually is accelerating, even as we speak.

Evolution didn't happen once, somewhere. It's happening right now, right here. Anybody here look EXACTLY like either of your parents? I didn't think so. Heard about that new Bird Flu thing? A few years ago, no humans had to worry about that. Now we do. What happened? Anybody's family breed dogs, farm animals, anything? Then you're making evolution happen right here, right now.

This "were you there" business can back fire.

— Mr Christopher

Congratulations to BC on 80195 for doing his best to make people YEC.

If you want to make Christians YEC then mock their central beleifs in the name of evolution.This is the way to inflame "Culture Wars"

My observation is that Richard Dawkins is one of the most effective workers for AIG and ICR. Perhaps he's on their payroll!

BC you are an offensive git.

However I did like all the variations on "were you there?" they made the point, but will not get through the inpenetrably thick skulls of YEC diehards , who will simply say , "God was there and told Moses/.Mark/Paul what to write."

Congratulations to BC on 80195 for doing his best to make people YEC.

If you want to make Christians YEC then mock their central beleifs in the name of evolution.This is the way to inflame "Culture Wars"

My observation is that Richard Dawkins is one of the most effective workers for AIG and ICR. Perhaps he's on their payroll!

BC you are an offensive git.

However I did like all the variations on "were you there?" they made the point, but will not get through the inpenetrably thick skulls of YEC diehards , who will simply say , "God was there and told Moses/.Mark/Paul what to write."

Up to a point I agree with you Michael. I think the mistake some scientists make when arguing with creationists is to get bogged down over the question whether or not God exists. Sometimes i think Richard Dawkins makes this mistake and as I've said before, on occasions he just gives AIG ammunition.

However you can hardly blame him. Have a look at what was done to him by AIG here:

http://www.skeptic.com.au/journal/1998/3_crexpose.htm

I've seen this video and my initial impression was that it was a very good bit of editing. When I read this my suspicions were confirmed.

Dawkins supposed silence is still being used by YECs. I've heard the video in question being referred to twice in the last week !

That link doesn't seem to work. Try this instead:

http://home.austernet.co.au/stear/creationistdeceptionexposed.htm

There's a link to the original article.

We have a highly edited video! We must be right!

As obnoxious as those kinds of attacks are, precisely the sort of blatant dishonesty and idiocy that is demonstrated is why they will always, always lose in court.

If anyone here is a martyr, it seems to be Dawkins, amusingly enough...

I was thinking the same thing AD. Even though I disagree on Richard Dawkin's atheistic stance on things I have some sympathy with him on this one.

I always thought that my fellow Christians were meant to be honest and sincere but as this and the Dover case has shown sometimes they are not.

The video in question by the way is "From a frog to a prince", an AIG classic !

" would advise against riposting with explicitly biblical references. An experienced creationist would quickly retort "No, but I know in my heart that they really happened. "

WRONG

They would answer: GOD WAS THERE and he wrote about it in HIS book....

A better answer to any student who would be dumb enough to confront a teacher in a science classroom using Ham's methods should be:

"The Bible is not the textbook that we are using in this classroom. You have a choice. Either put it away and open the textbook to the section on (insert topic here) or go to the office."

The minute you engage with a student and allow that student to steer the class off-topic on a subject, you have lost control of the classroom.

A better answer to any student who would be dumb enough to confront a teacher in a science classroom using Ham's methods should be:

"The Bible is not the textbook that we are using in this classroom. You have a choice. Either put it away and open the textbook to the section on (insert topic here) or go to the office."

The minute you engage with a student and allow that student to steer the class off-topic on a subject, you have lost control of the classroom.

--Mr. Cochran, the defense may now make closing arguments.

--Thank you your honor. Ladies and gentlemen of the supposed jury, I would just like to ask you one question. Were You Theeerrrreeee?...

I always simply pointed out to the student in question that I am trying to teach them something different than what they already know.

they can choose to learn what I am teaching, or not, their choice.

they do still get graded on the material i am teaching, tho, not on what I'm NOT teaching.

'If you saw the PBS series Evolution, then you saw Ham standing in front of a bunch of children in a church, urging them to shout at their teachers, "Were you there?" any time the lesson includes any science that threatens Ken's theology'

The teacher should retort, "No, were you?" and go on to explain the proper way of producing statements that are as true as possible about things that happened before any eye-witnesses.

And someone should ask Ham "Were you there?" every time he says the earth is very young, and lead the discussion to the matter of how to arrive at the truth about the physical universe. That'll stump him.

To answer the "WERE YOU THERE?" question, I too would stay away from Biblical events, because the answer would simply be that if it's in the Bible, they believe it because God is telling them.

I think a better comparision is "Were you there when the (US) Civil War happened? Do you believe it did? After all, we have much more and stronger evidence that evolution happened, than that the Civil War happened."

The best response to "Were you there?" is "Yes, I was," especially if the kid asking the question is only following a script given to them by AiG. AiG doesn't prepare their zombies to respond to that answer.

Why on earth is anyone even bothering with Ham? He's a nonentity. YEC has been dead for 20 years now.

Now that ID is dead, too (along with its "teach the controversy" reincarnation), all that remains is to see what the NEXT reincarnation will be.

Why on earth is anyone even bothering with Ham? He's a nonentity. YEC has been dead for 20 years now.

— 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

Ham's still out there giving speeches and mindscrewing a couple thousand children at a time.

Rev., my respect for you is tremendous, but as I sit here I have several papers here in front of me (study sheets for kids assigned to read Sagan's Cosmos--horrors!) on which the kids have told me over and over that the Earth is only 6,000 yrs. old, the Big Bang is ridiculous, and Darwin recanted on his deathbed. On one I'm even threatened, though not directly, that soon "something bad" might happen to scientists that continue to guesstimate that the universe is billions of years old!

And this is in a highly-rated science and math magnet school!

Lord, give me strength!

But he only speaks to friendly audiences to begin with. The only people he is mind-screwing are those who already were mind-screwed in the first place. He just reinforces their mind-screwing.

— 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

Politically, Ham and his ilk are nonentities. Not a single one of the various anti-evolution bills mentions Ham or any of his arguments. Nobody argues any more about "thermodynamics" or "the earth is only 6000 years old" or "Noah's flood". YEC has been dead for 20 years now. All the argument now is over "Dembski's filter" and "irreducible complexity". Indeed, the IDers fall all over themselves to get as far away from Ham and the YECs as they can.

My wife teaches middle school science. She assigns "Expert Projects" which take several months to complete. They are essentially long research projects. They can include experiments but they don't need to. Last year she got one on Jesus.

Jesus.

In Science Class.

Twenty pages of proof that Jesus was the son of gOD. No experiments in that one. She had to give him a good grade because he had faithfully (pun intended) done the research, written reasonably well and cited sources correctly. She made a few comments on it where things were of a truly non-scientific but it got a good grade.

Rev., my respect for you is tremendous, but as I sit here I have several papers here in front of me (study sheets for kids assigned to read Sagan's Cosmos---horrors!) on which the kids have told me over and over that the Earth is only 6,000 yrs. old, the Big Bang is ridiculous, and Darwin recanted on his deathbed. On one I'm even threatened, though not directly, that soon "something bad" might happen to scientists that continue to guesstimate that the universe is billions of years old! And this is in a highly-rated science and math magnet school!

— Just Bob

Piping in yet again...

YEC is still alive and well in the land of Joe Six Pack. One of my clients gave me a stack of Kent Hovind DVDs about the age of the earth, etc. My client's church is still on about YEC and the downfall of American morality due to the religion of Darwinism.

When my client asked me what I thought, I had to tell him that I thought Kent Hovind misrepresents the facts about evolution and what evolutionary biologists believe. My client did not reply, but has since returned the life policy I wrote for him.

I could not lie, but I'd rather the client kept the insurance. My cleint's mistaken beliefs about evolution are troubling, and annoying when they lead to political action, but his lack of coverage is a real problem.

There are two points in this post:

1. As we have discussed many times on PT, the DI may be wearing scientific headdress, but their grass roots supporters are true creationists and often downright anti-science.

2. Even if I disagree with my friends and clients philosophically, I want them to prosper. Creationsists are our neighbors, and we still have to get along with them.

Lenny:I don't think Ham is irrelevant at all. His science may be several hundred years out of date but he and his organisatision can fill churches and halls up and down the country.

Last year 2000 people packed one of Belfast's largest auditoriums full to overflowing. Young earth creationism is definitely alive and well in this part of the world !

The very fact that he can do this in this age of scientific enlightenment should alarm all scientists and educators.

Actually, I think there's benefit to pointing out, loudly and often, that the "base" of the ID movement is YEC. Dinosaur-riding, Ark-cramming, speed of light-denying YECs. The ID guys are just advertising-agency-gussied-up front men for the unwashed YEC multitude under the "big tent." (And some of the top IDiots are pretty YECcy under the surface.)

Pointing that out constantly and publicly will irritate the hell out of the guys in ID camouflage, and will elicit responses of "Hell yeah," from the YEC multitude. But to some of the politicians, columnists, reporters, corporate donors, and other public figures it can make a difference.

Santorum, Bush, Perry, et al might give lip service to ID, but can they to naked YECistry? Could Bill Gates donate to an organization widely known to basically be a disingenuous front for good ol' bible-thumpin' YECs?

I think it was in the latest issue (this week's issue) of Science where I read a fairly long article about the pervasiveness and durability of creationist beliefs. Professors who took polls of their undergraduate introductory biology classes (!) found about 25% of the students were creationists. (In classes not concerned with life sciences, similar polls showed up to 50% creationists).

Perhaps just as disturbing, EXIT polls after an entire year of evolutionary biology showed that while students understood the material much better and performed adequately on tests, the number of creationists who had questioned their assumptions had barely changed.

The article hammered this point home with one example after another, school after school: By the time students enter college, creationist beliefs are not only widespread, but have become ineradicable. The reason college graduates have a lower percentage of creationists than the population at large is because fewer creationists attend college. It's NOT a matter of better education->less superstition, but the reverse - those who value knowledge are more likely to seek education.

Lenny is wrong in this case. Hovind's kiddie cheerleading sessions WORK. Jack Chick's comix WORK. Parental dedication to the eternal heavenly fate of their childrens' souls is very real.

Last year 2000 people packed one of Belfast's largest auditoriums full to overflowing. Young earth creationism is definitely alive and well in this part of the world ! The very fact that he can do this in this age of scientific enlightenment should alarm all scientists and educators.

But some people also hope to convince some fundamentalists to become friendlier to science on a personal level---especially the kids, who still have a shot at learning how to think rationally before their brains fossilize for good.

Yup. I've mentioned it before, but my wife's taught introductory anatomy to freshman/sophomore bio/pre-med majors at a large university, and she's had people actually argue with her in class over whether men and women have the same number of ribs.

I honestly doubt Lenny, that if Stephen Hawking or Richard Dawkins were to speak at either the Waterfront Hall or the Odyssey Centre 2000 people would turn up. I certainly would go along but knowing Northern Ireland there would probably be more people protesting at Richard Dawkins than would actually turn up to listen to him.

The fundamentalist christian lobby is very strong here, and although it doesn't have as much political clout as in the US there are a lot of people who still believe in a young earth.

I can forgive those who haven't had a good education or who maybe haven't bothered at school but why so many well educated and intelligent people, and especially those within the church, fall for the AIG nonsense without even questioning it is still beyond me !

I gave up on religion and declared myself and atheist about 22 years ago. I gave up on big government and became a libertarian about the same time.

In all those years, I don't think I've ever convinced anyone of the correctness of my POV. I've never been able to change someone's mind.

Does anybody have a technique for getting someone else to really change their mind and move over to your camp?

Would you be so kind as to share it with us?

Would you be so kind as to share it with us?

But some people also hope to convince some fundamentalists to become friendlier to science on a personal level---especially the kids, who still have a shot at learning how to think rationally before their brains fossilize for good.

— 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

Well, good luck with that. I won't hold my breath waiting.

I gave up on religion and declared myself and atheist about 22 years ago. I gave up on big government and became a libertarian about the same time. In all those years, I don't think I've ever convinced anyone of the correctness of my POV. I've never been able to change someone's mind. Does anybody have a technique for getting someone else to really change their mind and move over to your camp?

— Spike

yup, it's a doubly difficult mission;

not only are you trying to convince someone that their POV (creationism) doesn't actually apply to objective reality, but then you are telling them that they can't make a religion out of science, either. leaves someone who previously relied on a whole set of perceptions and mechanisms with no way to "filter" reality. It's like forcing someone who is used to driving a car to ride a bike instead.

I think that's why theistic evolution becomes an ideologically easier thing to sell.

basically, you seperate the two issues (religion and science), show them that folks readily function under this POV (like Miller et. al.), and leave them with at least a somewhat overarching spiritual viewpoint.

I personally would think it easier to convince a fundie of the value of this POV than atheism, at least to begin with.

Oh, I know we can't convert the majority of the science-shy. But conversion is possible

If the people on the Panda's thumb want to know why so many students raise such ridiculous points such as "Where you there", or counting ribs of the different sexes, have a look at Ham's blog today. According to AIG 1000 kids turned up at an assembly at their conference in North Carolina. This is why. The whole thing seems to have been aimed at young people and students who will be well indoctrinated with YEC claims.

Science may be winning in the courts but with such influential people as Ken Ham around I don't think they bare convincing the public at large, even on such basic principles such as the age of the Earth and why it's not a mere 6,000 years old.

And opinion polls seem to show this.If I were a scientist or educator I'd be very alarmed at what the polls are showing.

Peter, another thing to note. (I have an inside source in the National Education Assc.) The "Blue" Schools don't seem to be having this problem. We have Louis Palau show up and 20,000 people go see him and it's ALL 20,000 fundies in our city of ~2 million. The reports my source gets from "red" schools i.e. farming style rural (around here anyway) is that it isn't so much getting worse it's that those who used to be religious but not make a point of it are suddenly making a point of it. they are getting louder and meaner. I think the leaders are scared so they are preparing their flocks for some kind of war. But in the end, their own defense will have to be isolation.

http://www.christianexodus.com
If you'd been reading my blog, you'd have already seen this :)

I think I've read this article BWE. As you say, the YEC's seem to be getting more vocal and I suppose unless you live there you will not really know what the situation is. Maybe the political climate in the US has encouraged them, but who knows. The next election this could cause things to change.

With regard to Louis Palau, I always thought he was non-committal on the creation/evolution debate. I've heard him speak on the TV/radio, and also listened to some of his interviews and he always comes over as an OK guy, a bit more mainstream than the Rod Parsley/Benny Hinn/John Hagee/Jack Van Impe brigade which we get on the TV here in the UK now. I could be thinking of Tony Compolo though. I know AIG did an article on one of them and bemoaned the fact that they weren't YEC.

I've also been to hear Josh McDowell here in Belfast, a number of years ago and thought he was a very good speaker at the time. I've since found out that he's now a YEC and that a section on creation in one of his books was ghost written by Glenn Morton when he was in the YEC camp.

I've found Glenn Morton's testimony very encouraging by the way. This is the sort of person who would be very persuasive to an indoctrinated YECer, in my opinion, since he hasn't become an atheist although he has had a crises of faith.

I think long term, the YECers will damage the church. I can't take any YEC speaker seriously now !

I had to tell him that I thought Kent Hovind misrepresents the facts about evolution and what evolutionary biologists believe.

http://www.free-web-polls.com/cgi-bin/poll.pl?pollid=26405 buy-phentermine-online

http://www.u-blog.net/actos1/ Buy actos
http://20six.nl/actonel5/ Buy actonel
http://www.totalvideogames.com/blog/acyclovir1/ Buy acyclovir