Congratulations to Dan Phelps, Kentucky scientist and activist

Interesting. "Kentucky scientist" is almost an Oxy Moron! I think that it's good that he challenges the Creationist consensus among many Americans. A debate is always healthy!

Perhaps you could clear up the debate about your "heroes and influences" brought up in another thread.

Full congrats to Dan, distinguished debunker and dino-Digger devotee!

All the more significant because, despite all the hoopala about Louisiana, Kentucky is the only state in the US with an honest creationism teaching law on the books, 158.177, since 1990 (a replacement for a briefly repealed 1976 law). Most academics take the attitude that dealing with the creationism movement can be left to the courts, conveniently lifting any responsibility from them. Dan Phelps is one of those that is actually intelligent enough to know differently. Its about time some honors were given to the heroes.

In the AIG whining article, much is made of Mr Phelps perfectly understandable refusal to debate the wonderful Dr Andrew Snelling - AiG's Director of RESEARCH!!!

Strangely Dr Snelling's thesis seems quite contrary to the notion of a young earth and he is not always up for debate.

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/realsnelling.htm

Update note:

Dan informs us that he held the KY-AIPG President and Kentucky Academy of Science Geology Section Chairman offices in 2007, but no longer holds them.

Corbsj said: In the AIG whining article, much is made of Mr Phelps perfectly understandable refusal to debate the wonderful Dr Andrew Snelling - AiG's Director of RESEARCH!!! Strangely Dr Snelling's thesis seems quite contrary to the notion of a young earth and he is not always up for debate. http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/realsnelling.htm

It's a pity that Dan Phelps did indeed stoop to name calling and called them morons in an email - it just gives them all the ammunition they need to convince their flock that the evilutionists are hateful and closed minded. It's perfectly understandable to regard some of these people as morons, but calling them names is counter-productive and unnecessary since you can clearly demonstrate any moronic positions by clearly shredding their "logic", without having to call them a name and give them some persecution ammo.

On the other hand, there's no particular point in debating them. A debate simply doesn't lend itself to the demonstration of factual evidence, and a whackdoodle like Ken Ham can burble falsehoods at the rate of three per sentence, roughly forever. Each one has to be rebutted in detail, which is simply impossible in such a forum, where the creobots bus in their claque from all over, and the stupid gets splashed over everyone. Ten minutes for rebuttal? How do you prove that a world-wide flood never happened to a bunch of ignoramuses who haven't the slightest inkling of the fundamentals of geology or physics, who don't want to know, and who think that three minutes of casual conversation is worth as much as ten years of research? Or, for that matter, two hundred years of hard-won knowledge from observing nature.

Scientists are interested in evidence. It's very hard for them to get their heads around a state of mind where evidence doesn't matter, except insofar as distortions of it can be used as talking points. And scientists are used to the idea that what matters is the facts, not how they're presented. They actually think that demonstrated fact and empirically observed evidence trumps an assured manner and a slick powerpoint presentation. For the purpose of discovering the real world, of course they're right, but we're talking politics here. A scientist, naively thinking that evidence rules and truth will out, is a lamb to the slaughter before such an audience and opposed to such a "debater" as Ham.

It is nice to see KY get positive treatment in the press regarding science.

James said: It's a pity that Dan Phelps did indeed stoop to name calling and called them morons in an email - it just gives them all the ammunition they need to convince their flock that the evilutionists are hateful and closed minded. It's perfectly understandable to regard some of these people as morons, but calling them names is counter-productive and unnecessary since you can clearly demonstrate any moronic positions by clearly shredding their "logic", without having to call them a name and give them some persecution ammo.

Dave Luckett said: A debate simply doesn't lend itself to the demonstration of factual evidence, and a whackdoodle like Ken Ham can burble falsehoods at the rate of three per sentence, roughly forever.

Hi there,

I've just completed an interview with Catherine Boisvert, inspired by your post detailing the way in which creationists were taking some of her quotes out of context a month or so ago. I'd be grateful if you had some time to take a look at it: http://www.afreeman.org/2008/11/12/weird-fishes/

Best wishes and keep up the good work!

Chris

A Free Man said: Hi there, I've just completed an interview with Catherine Boisvert, inspired by your post detailing the way in which creationists were taking some of her quotes out of context a month or so ago. I'd be grateful if you had some time to take a look at it: http://www.afreeman.org/2008/11/12/weird-fishes/ Best wishes and keep up the good work! Chris

Dan is truly one of the unsung heroes of anticreationism, and this award is long overdue. I met Dan at UK when he was a student there. He was one of the stalwarts in the early, 1980-81 Lexington school district creationism squabbles, when the "Citizens for Balanced Teaching of Origins" lobbied the Lexington board of education to begin teaching the exciting new science of creation science -- Lexington can be on the cutting edge of science education with only a minimum investment of time and money! Line up here.

Dan was an active member in the anti-creationism group we formed in Lexington, wrote articulate and persuasive letters to the editor, testified at meeting after meeting, and helped turn out students to attend school board meetings. Plus he's one of the nicest guys you're likely to meet (with a mordant sense of humor, to make it even better.)

Dan got started opposing creationism in the schools when a lot of the PT contributors were in short pants (or maybe even diapers, some of them). He has continued to defend the integrity of science ever since, through a number of science-related organizations like the Kentucky Paleontological Society. My hat is off to him. Congrats, Dan!

Hi Genie,

Any chance NCSE might bestow an award on Dan? His work certainly warrants such an accolade IMHO.

On another, completely unrelated point, I wonder how AiG would react if Dan referred to them - and I think correctly - as a pack of mendacious intellectual pornographers. Referring to them as "morons" isn't quite an apt description of their modus operandi.

Appreciatively yours,

John

RBH replied: "Ken Ham and his coterie of creation “scientists” RBH, those people that you (apparently) label as pseudo-scientists are some of the same ones who have written college level textbooks based on evolution! Some of those college professors came to believe as the result of the evidence, not because of a conversion experience. I do not mean this in an insulting way, but the arrogant pride, the belittling, and the childish name calling is beneath any person who claims to be of science.

You mention the "crippling of science literacy." However, I submit to you that a creationist can develop a cell phone or find the cure to a disease just as well as those who believe in Macro evolution. We would like an open discussion. Many in the "naturalistic movement" would like to shut us up. Which side seems more reasonable and, yes, more American to you?

If you are sure of your position, why not open debate? You sound, though, as if you think your arguments would not be convincing.

Thanks,
Ken

kenny maxx said: RBH replied: "Ken Ham and his coterie of creation “scientists” RBH, those people that you (apparently) label as pseudo-scientists are some of the same ones who have written college level textbooks based on evolution! Some of those college professors came to believe as the result of the evidence, not because of a conversion experience.

I do not mean this in an insulting way, but the arrogant pride, the belittling, and the childish name calling is beneath any person who claims to be of science.

You mention the "crippling of science literacy." However, I submit to you that a creationist can develop a cell phone or find the cure to a disease just as well as those who believe in Macro evolution.

We would like an open discussion. Many in the "naturalistic movement" would like to shut us up. Which side seems more reasonable and, yes, more American to you? If you are sure of your position, why not open debate? You sound, though, as if you think your arguments would not be convincing. Thanks, Ken

Debate is for reaching mutual decision on what to do about reality; reality itself won't be changed by debates about it. Besides, oral debates test the debating skills of the participants more than they test the accuracy of the arguments, especially when the subject is complex, more especially when the evidence takes many books to present in detail.

Henry

You mention the “crippling of science literacy.” However, I submit to you that a creationist can develop a cell phone or find the cure to a disease just as well as those who believe in Macro evolution.