Ham-handed attack on governor of Kentucky

"Merry Christmas, Mr. Ham. Here's your tax bill"? Speed the day...

Always persecuted by being treated like everyone else.

Ham not being head of the state religion is oppression.

Glen Davidson

Ooooh, the poor baby! They want him to pay those icky taxes!

Ham should go to the Islamic State--he'd fit right in.

Ham should go to the Islamic State–he’d fit right in.

The way I see it...any money received by Ark Encounter has to be counted as income and taxable.
Anyone who donates/ gives money to Ark Encounter would not be eligible for declaring
that money as a tax write off. Both would be breaking the existing laws to do otherwise.
I don't see anything complicated about that. Though there is a reluctance of governments to
go after religious organizations. It's considered bad politics. It's just too damn easy to
set up a nonprofit and churches.

I expect little or no investigation of Ham's businesses. Especially in today's political climate.

Sweet zombie Jesus! What a moron. My advice to Mr. Ham is give unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar. You can't fight city hall. You fight authority and authority always wins.

I am not aware of anything in any version of the Christian bible that describes Noah applying for government tax incentives to build his ark.

Wouldn’t Ham be more consistent if he built Ham's ark the way he thinks Noah built Noah's ark?

Maybe Ham has a different version of the Christian bible than everyone else does. After all, there are quite a number of sectarian versions out there carefully bent to be interpreted the way sectarians want them to be interpreted.

The "render unto Caesar" passage isn't in the Old Testament; so maybe Ham thinks it doesn't apply to "Answers in Genesis." Hovind thinks this way; so maybe Ham does also.

Will Ham ever be cured of his entitlement complex?

ksplawn said: Will Ham ever be cured of his entitlement complex?

So, he thinks he can be non-profit and non-prophet at the same time?

Isn't that an irreducibly complex combination?

No, seriously, this is Ham making a really stupid, major political blunder, and I think it's fatal. It's one thing to outrage rational thought, to deny evidence, to impugn science and scientists (who cares about them cells and atoms and what-all, anyway? Scientists, huh, they're just a bunch of pointy-headed artsy-fartsy intellecshuls, think themselves better than plain folks, and they's prolly libruls and commies as well). But it's quite another to take on one of the fraternity of good ole boys, especially one with political clout.

Ham has just outed himself. He can get away with anything up to and including downright fraud, so long as he identifies with a culture. The minute he separates himself from the herd - and that's what he's just done - the herd itself will turn and trample him.

You think Beshear will chuckle and forget this? Not a chance. It might take some time, but Ham has just cooked his own goose.

You think Beshear will chuckle and forget this? Not a chance. It might take some time, but Ham has just cooked his own goose.

Dave Luckett said: You think Beshear will chuckle and forget this? Not a chance. It might take some time, but Ham has just cooked his own goose.

Just Bob said:

Dave Luckett said: You think Beshear will chuckle and forget this? Not a chance. It might take some time, but Ham has just cooked his own goose.

From your lips to God's ear. But we're talking bible-belt USA, where it's quite as likely to see a politician crawling on his knees to a fundy preacher, if his 'people' explain that the rev. Jim Bob controls a sizable bloc of one-isue voters. http://www.salon.com/2000/02/03/bob_jones/

harold said: The only odd thing was Ham's willingness to play ball with even a conservative southern Democrat in the first place.

Just Bob said:

harold said: The only odd thing was Ham's willingness to play ball with even a conservative southern Democrat in the first place.

Who, uh, apparently was willing to play ball with him. At least until Ham was just too blatantly flouting the law and too many people cried foul.

Perhaps this is all according to Ken Ham's plans? IOW, deliberately playing the Persecution Card™ to justify the inevitable failure of the Ark Encounter project, and walking away with all of the untraceable — and therefore nonrefundable — donations?

So this may be Ham's way of bringing home the bacon?

Henry J said: So this may be Ham's way of bringing home the bacon?

gnome de net said: Perhaps this is all according to Ken Ham's plans? IOW, deliberately playing the Persecution Card™ to justify the inevitable failure of the Ark Encounter project, and walking away with all of the untraceable — and therefore nonrefundable — donations?

Matt, I disagree. the only reason Ken is not a Jihadist is because the law of the land works, most of the time.Give this yahoo and his fellow crackpots an inch of leeway and they will happily create Calvin's 'City on a Hill' of perfect Christian community in a second. Restricting, censoring, punishing and joyfully executing all miscreants; you included. No, I don't choose to look upon his ilk as some jolly old harmless nutjobs, I prefer to see him as a potential mass, and indiscriminate murderer, who, upon gaining power would use that power poorly, because he is so stupid.

Matt, I disagree. the only reason Ken is not a Jihadist is because the law of the land works, most of the time.Give this yahoo and his fellow crackpots an inch of leeway and they will happily create Calvin’s ‘City on a Hill’ of perfect Christian community in a second. Restricting, censoring, punishing and joyfully executing all miscreants; you included. No, I don’t choose to look upon his ilk as some jolly old harmless nutjobs, I prefer to see him as a potential mass, and indiscriminate murderer, who, upon gaining power would use that power poorly, because he is so stupid.

'Potential', mass murderer. He has all the requisite qualities. Narcissistic, ego-maniacal, authoritarian, incurious, massively overconfident, anti-historical, panderer, lick spittal. An all round candidate for the job of terrorist in chief.
Correct, Calvin was not a mass murderer and correct, the Puritan colonies would be closer to his ideal, however don't ever underestimate the mind of a zealot when they have power, they never fail to disgust and disapoint.

robert van bakel said: 'Potential', politician. He has all the requisite qualities. Narcissistic, ego-maniacal, authoritarian, incurious, massively overconfident, anti-historical, panderer, lick spittal. An all round candidate for the job of Congresscritter.

harold said:

Just Bob said:

Dave Luckett said: You think Beshear will chuckle and forget this? Not a chance. It might take some time, but Ham has just cooked his own goose.

From your lips to God's ear. But we're talking bible-belt USA, where it's quite as likely to see a politician crawling on his knees to a fundy preacher, if his 'people' explain that the rev. Jim Bob controls a sizable bloc of one-isue voters. http://www.salon.com/2000/02/03/bob_jones/

Beshear is a Democrat. I instantly assumed that as soon as I saw that Ham was attacking him, looked it up, and saw that I was right. So it's really very simple and predictable. Latter day politicized Christian fundamentalists overshelmingly side with the Republicans and attack the Democrats. I'm sorry if this simple analysis offends anyone. You can be like Ken Ham and deny the reality you don't like, or you can have the mental fortitude to deal with it, that's your choice. Ham will now either get what he wants - unlikely - or play a role in helping a Republican attack Beshear and get something that way. The only odd thing was Ham's willingness to play ball with even a conservative southern Democrat in the first place.

Doc Bill said: Reality sucks!

Ah, I believe we have here another instance of a Hobby Lobby case: a "for profit" corporation with religious beliefs that prevents said "for profit" company from following the mere "human" law in favor of "God's" law of arbitrary discrimination. I imagine that Scalia and Alito would be all in favor of ruling against the IRS on this one.

Something that I have wondered about the Hobby Lobby case.

How do you baptize a corporation, especially a for profit one.

jwramseyjr said: Something that I have wondered about the Hobby Lobby case. How do you baptize a corporation, especially a for profit one.

ksplawn,
Heh!

ksplawn,
"very few"?

Just Bob said:

harold said: The only odd thing was Ham's willingness to play ball with even a conservative southern Democrat in the first place.

Who, uh, apparently was willing to play ball with him. At least until Ham was just too blatantly flouting the law and too many people cried foul.

eric said:

Just Bob said:

harold said: The only odd thing was Ham's willingness to play ball with even a conservative southern Democrat in the first place.

Who, uh, apparently was willing to play ball with him. At least until Ham was just too blatantly flouting the law and too many people cried foul.

Personally I doubt the Governor had anything to do with the Arts and Heritage Cabinet decision. He may not even have known about it before it happened. Wikipedia tells me the 2010 GDP for the state was 163 billion; Ham's potential $43 million in tax incentives - which, remember, doesn't come out of the budget at all, but is simply a reduction in taxes paid on future earnings once (if) the park actually gets built - may not have even been on the Governor's radar. Having said that, I agree with posters above that say Ham mis-stepped by attacking the Governor. Whether we was on the governor's radar before, he probably is now...and not in a good way.

So what is the Hamboner gong to do now? Is he going to sign the letter promising not to lie again? If he does and he gets caught, he could face a lot more than having to pay taxes. Can you say tax fraud? If he signs the letter and keeps his promise, then he will undoubtedly have to hire those who don't share his religious views to work at the ark park. That should be good for a hoot, especially when he tries to fire them for not spouting the party line to every visitor. And of course there would then be the matter of infiltration by those wishing to do exactly that.

And if he doesn't sign the letter he will lose his tax incentives and it won't matter who he plans to hire, the park will never get built. That is probably his evil plan, to play the discrimination card. Poor boy, he is being persecuted by the law abiding segment of society. Now how does he plan to spin the fact that he has no intention of even promising to obey the law? Will it be the old "I'm above your puny human law" routine? That didn't work out too well for Hovind.

I just don't see any way he can build a for profit park and continue to discriminate on the basis of religion. I guess the law works after all. And of course he will probably be found to have pulled the same illegal crap with his other "museum" as well.

DS said: So what is the Hamboner gong to do now?

But Harold surely Tax is above partisanship? I mean allying yourself to these groups you mention, sets up a trail so easy to follow that the IRS would have to be stupider (they are not), blinder (they are not) or just plain disinterested (I hope they are not), to not follow it. No! I think Hambo has taken on an enemy greater than jesus; the IRS.

eric said:

DS said: So what is the Hamboner gong to do now?

Well the last time this came up it sounded to me like they were threatening to sue the state on grounds of religious discrimination. Specifically, something like 'you didn't require this pledge in writing from other for-profits before they got their tax breaks. So you're treating Ark Park differently because we're Christian, and that's discrimination.' If they do sue, I can't get too upset about it. I would guess that no judge would force the state to give tax breaks while the suit drags on, and at this point I give Ark Park about a 60/40 chance of going under in the 2-5 years such a suit might take to make its way through the court system.

Bashear is actually an old-school Democrat in some ways: economically populist, culturally conservative. He did get Kentucky to put together one of the best health insurance exchanges under the ACA, and he stumped for it pretty much tirelessly, recognizing what a boon it could be to his state (and to many others). His cultural conservatism, on the other hand, seems to be tempered by what has become standard procedure for culturally conservative Democrats these days: hold your beliefs personally, even acknowledge them publicly, but certainly don't use the tools of state to impose them on anyone else. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's my impression from the left coast, at least.

I suspect that to whatever extent he had any involvement at all with various Ark Encounter shenanigans, it was from the jobs side. And even that, as other posters have noted, was likely minimal. The agency responsible did its job, and then did its job again when it was pointed out what discriminatory bigots these people were.

Frankly, Ham's project is looking more and more like a flat-out money laundering scheme.

robert van bakel said: But Harold surely Tax is above partisanship? I mean allying yourself to these groups you mention, sets up a trail so easy to follow that the IRS would have to be stupider (they are not), blinder (they are not) or just plain disinterested (I hope they are not), to not follow it. No! I think Hambo has taken on an enemy greater than jesus; the IRS.

I hope no-one thinks that, because I have described the situation objectively, I have some kind of sympathy for Ham.

This is a common problem in communicating in America. Because politicians talk in code, everything is taken as code. If I say "the weather is cold today", it may be, but someone may think I'm a climate change denier. If I say "the weather is hot", it may be, and climate change may not be my topic in the slightest, but a climate change denier may pounce on me and start barking.

Explanation is not advocacy. I am not "in favor" of Ham. Exaggerations and misunderstandings serve no purpose.

robert van bakel said: ksplawn, "very few"?

eric said: Well the last time this came up it sounded to me like they were threatening to sue the state on grounds of religious discrimination. Specifically, something like 'you didn't require this pledge in writing from other for-profits before they got their tax breaks. So you're treating Ark Park differently because we're Christian, and that's discrimination.

Beshear is a Democrat. I instantly assumed that as soon as I saw that Ham was attacking him, looked it up, and saw that I was right.

— ”harold”

Ham has done nothing whatsoever, yet, that has anything to do with the IRS.

Donations to AiG, a nonprofit, are tax deductible, while donations directly to Ark Encounter, a for-profit company, would not be. But AiG fundraising materials include a space for donations to Ark Encounter, and note that donations are “tax deductible to the fullest extent allowed by law.” On the AiG website, donors have the option to designate contributions to Ark Encounter. A separate Ark Encounter website also states that sponsorship is tax deductible. Thus it appears that AiG is taking tax-deductible donations and directly giving them to Ark Encounter, LLC, noted FFRF Staff Attorney Patrick Elliott.

Matt Young said:

Ham has done nothing whatsoever, yet, that has anything to do with the IRS.

Not true; here is what FFRF has to say, at the URL above:

Donations to AiG, a nonprofit, are tax deductible, while donations directly to Ark Encounter, a for-profit company, would not be. But AiG fundraising materials include a space for donations to Ark Encounter, and note that donations are “tax deductible to the fullest extent allowed by law.” On the AiG website, donors have the option to designate contributions to Ark Encounter. A separate Ark Encounter website also states that sponsorship is tax deductible. Thus it appears that AiG is taking tax-deductible donations and directly giving them to Ark Encounter, LLC, noted FFRF Staff Attorney Patrick Elliott.

Matt Young said:

Ham has done nothing whatsoever, yet, that has anything to do with the IRS.

Not true; here is what FFRF has to say, at the URL above:

Donations to AiG, a nonprofit, are tax deductible, while donations directly to Ark Encounter, a for-profit company, would not be. But AiG fundraising materials include a space for donations to Ark Encounter, and note that donations are “tax deductible to the fullest extent allowed by law.” On the AiG website, donors have the option to designate contributions to Ark Encounter. A separate Ark Encounter website also states that sponsorship is tax deductible. Thus it appears that AiG is taking tax-deductible donations and directly giving them to Ark Encounter, LLC, noted FFRF Staff Attorney Patrick Elliott.

harold said: I guess my point here is to caution against false hope of a crushing defeat for Ham. Mild defeat, likely. Crushing defeat, maybe not.

Note to Ken Ham: God does not give us burdens that He knows we can't bear. So suck it up and bear your tax burden like a man. The Lord does not smile upon those who connive to weasel out of their assigned burdens.

I hope no-one thinks that, because I have described the situation objectively, I have some kind of sympathy for Ham.

— Harold

Frank J said:

I hope no-one thinks that, because I have described the situation objectively, I have some kind of sympathy for Ham.

— Harold

I certainly don't. But it reminds me how I have gotten into the habit of prefacing some of my criticisms of anti-evolution activists with "Not to defend them in the least, but..." Such as when I point out their concessions to evolution, either direct (e.g. Behe's consistent acceptance of ~4 billion years of common descent) or indirect, (e.g. refusing to refute people like Behe, even when they apparently have radical disagreements). I'm often misinterpreted as "giving them slack," but really it's just some (figurative) rope to hang themselves. Relatively speaking, though, I do "root" for people like Ham, who will never scam more than ~30% of Americans, and the more details they reveal about their young-earth nonsense, the more people they turn off. The DI, in contrast, with it's "don't ask, don't tell what happened when" policy, has the capacity to scam a great majority. And in a way, already has.

TomS said: Just as one must feel the need for excessive caution lest a creationist will misconstrue one's remarks - "even if I were to bend over backwards in taking such-and-such seriously" can be read as "you admit that creationism is right about such-and-such" - "I believe that evolution offers the only possible account" can be read as "you take it as a matter of faith" - Unfortunately, one feels that the the pro-science people can detect capitulation to the forces of obscurantism unless one takes more care than is reasonable to identify one's good intent even when pointing out that so-and-so is not a good argument.

I don't detect any substantial change in the fundamental issues with ID/creationism since its formal beginning in the 1970s. They always get the fundamental concepts and evidence in science wrong by bending and breaking scientific concepts to fit their sectarian dogma. ID/creationism is and always has been pseudoscience to its core.

In recent years, there may be a frantic attempt on the part of ID/creationists - like those over at UD - to rewrite their own socio/political history; but that history remains embedded in their misconceptions and misrepresentations of science that they inherited from Henry Morris and Duane Gish. They have painted themselves into a corner from which they can no longer escape.

ID/creationists can't handle metaphors; they tend to exaggerate them to the point of making everything in the cell and in living organisms seem designed. They pose their challenges to the scientific community in the language of their misconceptions and misrepresentations; and they expect debates to occur on their territory and with their pseudoscience.

All ID/creationist taunts and challenges begin with a lie about some fundamental notion in science; this has been true ever since Morris and Gish started doing it to get free rides on the backs of scientists in public debates on college campuses. One needs to understand and never buy into the hidden premises in their concocted stories.

My own approach to this problem, back when I was giving talks in the 1970s and 80s, was to detail these misconceptions and misrepresentations as well as to highlight their debating tactics and taunts. This seemed to be very effective; especially with church members.

I don't believe ID/creationists should be let off the hook or given any slack concerning their misconceptions and misrepresentations of science. They can teach those in their own churches as the pillars of their sectarian dogma if they wish; but they deserve no more respect in the public school classroom than do astrologers, palm readers, faith healers, and all other charlatans and pseudo scientists.

So I think we should keep hitting them with "ID/creationism is sectarian pseudoscience." If they can't get the basic fundamentals of science right - and especially if they refuse to even try getting science right - then they should have to live with that label no matter how much that truth offends them.

I don’t believe ID/creationists should be let off the hook or given any slack concerning their misconceptions and misrepresentations of science.

— Mike Elzinga

I have reservations about pseudoscience, perhaps because I taking the etymology too seriously. But to take astrology as a paradigm of pseudoscience, I see major differences with evolution-denial.

As far as I know, the astrologers don't spend any time on attacking astronomy. They can be perfectly comfortable with the heliocentric Solar System, billions of years of life on Earth, and the Big Bang. They just have this thing about how the heavens present patterns which affect your life. I don't think that those of us who think that astrology is balderdash are bad people. I've never heard of campaigns to have astrology get fair treatment in K-12 science classes.

Creationism, in all of its flavors is based on negativism, and there is next to nothing to offer about "really" happens, when and where. It isn't just that people are mistaken about evolution, it has evil consequences.

To me, creationism is most like a negative advertising campaign. Meaningless slogans, etc. Not so much like pseudoscience.

Can we take a look at the hiring practices for the Creation Museum? Did they do the same thing there? Did they hire for AIG and have applicants answer the discriminatory questions and then transfer to the for profit museum? If not, they must have some nonbelievers working for them. If so, they are busted, again. This time, retroactively. Not a very good ministry.

Has the IRS agreed to investigate? Should we be trying to preserve the paper trail for them in case they ever get around to it?

TomS said: I have reservations about pseudoscience, perhaps because I taking the etymology too seriously. But to take astrology as a paradigm of pseudoscience, I see major differences with evolution-denial. As far as I know, the astrologers don't spend any time on attacking astronomy. They can be perfectly comfortable with the heliocentric Solar System, billions of years of life on Earth, and the Big Bang. They just have this thing about how the heavens present patterns which affect your life. I don't think that those of us who think that astrology is balderdash are bad people. I've never heard of campaigns to have astrology get fair treatment in K-12 science classes. Creationism, in all of its flavors is based on negativism, and there is next to nothing to offer about "really" happens, when and where. It isn't just that people are mistaken about evolution, it has evil consequences. To me, creationism is most like a negative advertising campaign. Meaningless slogans, etc. Not so much like pseudoscience.

I was just trying to think of the influence of pseduosciences in art.

For example, there is Holst's The Planets and the musical Hair (but I don't think there was much astrology in it), Shakespeare has some scattered references, as "star-crossed lovers", "not in the stars ... but in ourselves". Glass's Akhenaton was influenced by Velekovsky, I think. There are many novels and plays on alchemy, and paintings - I'd say that alchemy is the favorite pseudoscience, by far, in the arts. And, of course, "Inherit the Wind".

TomS said: I have reservations about pseudoscience, perhaps because I taking the etymology too seriously. But to take astrology as a paradigm of pseudoscience, I see major differences with evolution-denial.

TomS said: I have reservations about pseudoscience, perhaps because I taking the etymology too seriously. But to take astrology as a paradigm of pseudoscience, I see major differences with evolution-denial. As far as I know, the astrologers don't spend any time on attacking astronomy. They can be perfectly comfortable with the heliocentric Solar System, billions of years of life on Earth, and the Big Bang. They just have this thing about how the heavens present patterns which affect your life. I don't think that those of us who think that astrology is balderdash are bad people. I've never heard of campaigns to have astrology get fair treatment in K-12 science classes. Creationism, in all of its flavors is based on negativism, and there is next to nothing to offer about "really" happens, when and where. It isn't just that people are mistaken about evolution, it has evil consequences. To me, creationism is most like a negative advertising campaign. Meaningless slogans, etc. Not so much like pseudoscience.

Harold, in your reply to Matt you mention 'tax lawyer', 'tax behavior', and 'tax incentives', in fact you use the word 'tax' five times; do you really believe the IRS will take no interest in a multi-million dollar tourist attraction?
Mercury is in retrograde, the Ark/Park has sunk its first foundations, Ken Hamm is attacking an erstwhile friend, the governor, and Kentucky is mildly more sane than 'One Flew Over...'; Yes I strongly believe tax should not be the partisan football that it is.I also know this flies in the face of millions of years of primate, self-interested evolution.

ISTM that pseudoscience is a kind of grab-bag. Astrology, alchemy, those old timers, which at one time had their respectable side to them. Phrenology, mesmerism, as far as I know were never worth anything. Parapsychology tried to be scientific. Do we count all of those, or some of those, Methods of divination as pseudoscience? If there really are any flat Earthers (not just some jokers); geocentrists, they are serious.

I don't know. And I don't know whether it is informative to put anything in such a category.

To me, creationism, in all of its forms today, is best characterized as a social-political movement with appeals to a religious constituency, with next-to-nothing substantive to offer - its YEC wing coming closest with its stuff which is only an embarrassment to the others, and to be an embarrassment to IDers, that takes some doing - just anti-science slogans. None of them makes any effort to account for some natural feature of the world. (Yes, I know that ID says that there is such an explanation, but never quite gets around to talking about it.)

TomS said: (Yes, I know that ID says that there is such an explanation, but never quite gets around to talking about it.)

robert van bakel said: Harold, in your reply to Matt you mention 'tax lawyer', 'tax behavior', and 'tax incentives', in fact you use the word 'tax' five times; do you really believe the IRS will take no interest in a multi-million dollar tourist attraction? Mercury is in retrograde, the Ark/Park has sunk its first foundations, Ken Hamm is attacking an erstwhile friend, the governor, and Kentucky is mildly more sane than 'One Flew Over...'; Yes I strongly believe tax should not be the partisan football that it is.I also know this flies in the face of millions of years of primate, self-interested evolution.

Just Bob said:

TomS said: (Yes, I know that ID says that there is such an explanation, but never quite gets around to talking about it.)

The explanation, whether they state it or leave it implied, is that (their) god did it. And that's an utterly useless explanation: literally, what can we USE it for? How do we proceed from there? What new lines of research does it open? Will it help in any way to cure more cancers than 'materialist' science?

Take for example Mr. Torley’s recent taunt about the “impossibility” of replicating the cell, and his follow-up reply to his critics thread over at UD.

Ham is a charlatan, "THE STATE OF KENTUCKY IS PERSECUTING OUR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM!!!," that just makes me laugh. Although I would say that it's not the state that is committing discrimination based off of religion, but AiG itself. Of course, Ham is overseeing the activities conducted by AiG and his own "Ark Encounter", so Ham's behavior can be described in one word:

hypocrite.

Palaeonictis said: Ham is a charlatan, "THE STATE OF KENTUCKY IS PERSECUTING OUR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM!!!," that just makes me laugh. Although I would say that it's not the state that is committing discrimination based off of religion, but AiG itself. Of course, Ham is overseeing the activities conducted by AiG and his own "Ark Encounter", so Ham's behavior can be described in one word: hypocrite.

TomS said: ISTM that pseudoscience is a kind of grab-bag. Astrology, alchemy, those old timers, which at one time had their respectable side to them. Phrenology, mesmerism, as far as I know were never worth anything. Parapsychology tried to be scientific. Do we count all of those, or some of those, Methods of divination as pseudoscience? If there really are any flat Earthers (not just some jokers); geocentrists, they are serious.

I don't know. And I don't know whether it is informative to put anything in such a category.

To me, creationism, in all of its forms today, is best characterized as a social-political movement with appeals to a religious constituency, with next-to-nothing substantive to offer - its YEC wing coming closest with its stuff which is only an embarrassment to the others, and to be an embarrassment to IDers, that takes some doing - just anti-science slogans. None of them makes any effort to account for some natural feature of the world. (Yes, I know that ID says that there is such an explanation, but never quite gets around to talking about it.)

Even if it comes from religion and is apologetics, should one really be able to legitimately infer a designer from the evidence, there is no apparent reason why that should not be part of school curricula

DS said:

Palaeonictis said: Ham is a charlatan, "THE STATE OF KENTUCKY IS PERSECUTING OUR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM!!!," that just makes me laugh. Although I would say that it's not the state that is committing discrimination based off of religion, but AiG itself. Of course, Ham is overseeing the activities conducted by AiG and his own "Ark Encounter", so Ham's behavior can be described in one word: hypocrite.

Well if some other religion tried to pull this crap, Ham would probably be the first to call foul. Just imagine him complaining about somebody else doing this. He would say that was persecuting his religious freedom and probably never realize the irony.

TomS said: ISTM that pseudoscience is a kind of grab-bag. Astrology, alchemy, those old timers, which at one time had their respectable side to them. Phrenology, mesmerism, as far as I know were never worth anything. Parapsychology tried to be scientific. Do we count all of those, or some of those, Methods of divination as pseudoscience? If there really are any flat Earthers (not just some jokers); geocentrists, they are serious.

Palaeonictis said: True, although from what I've seen (this is my personal judgement), I hold to my position that Ham is both a charlatan and a hypocrite. Although, if he is truly sincere about his "beliefs", then I wouldn't classify him as a charlatan but still a hypocrite. To be honest, the plain fact that AiG (and thus Ham) value "donations" way more than the traditional "Christian" doctrine of prayer shows to me that Ham truly is a charlatan.

You make a good case.

TomS said: You make a good case.

harold said: However, at some point, stupid is stupid. Either this Torley is an utter fiend deliberately deceiving the stupid, or, as I suspect, he is, despite having some kind of vague education that allows him to write with adequate grammar and sentence structure, just plain stupid himself.

'whether "God (or some other intelligent force) was involved in any way with the origin of humans." '

“direct involvement by miraculously creating humans,” “direct involvement but through the ordinary laws of nature,” or “indirect involvement by creating the laws of nature which led to the emergence of humans”

stevaroni said: Well, on the "this is interesting" side of things, our buddies over at BioLogos have commissioned a study to... um... study.. American opinions about creationism, with an eye to getting a finer-grained look than the typical "Pick one, God or evolution" survey. Here's a nice readable summary from Slate, complete with a colorful chart. It's interesting because it attempted several layers of "sorting", for instance, first asking people...

'whether "God (or some other intelligent force) was involved in any way with the origin of humans." '

those who said yes were then asked to pick among several options....

“direct involvement by miraculously creating humans,” “direct involvement but through the ordinary laws of nature,” or “indirect involvement by creating the laws of nature which led to the emergence of humans”

...and so forth. As we've often speculated, when people are prodded to pick a point on the scale instead of just a side of the fence, the results are encouragingly nuanced and skeptical. God as a general underlying concept gets his traditional high marks, but literal Biblical creation is a much harder sell. While the idea that God in some form had some involvement with the creation of humans got broad support of 68% of respondents, only 30% felt that God's involvement was through direct miracle, not some mechanism on nature, only one in five take the bible as the inerrant, literal word of God, and a mere 16% believe absolutely in a 10,000 year old earth. Since that's probably fewer people than believe absolutely in Bigfoot, I'm actually sort of encouraged.

There are some other rich societies, notably South Korea, where this seems to be true as well.

What strikes me as making creationism in all its various forms, which ID marking the extreme case, is the lack of even the semblance of an alternative to evolution. There is no interest in presenting a scenario of how things turn out as they are. Appealing to agency apt to do anything cannot possibly distinguish between possibilities.

For all of their faults, so many of the - let's call them the "peer group" - flat-Earth, Velikovsky, anti-stratford, The Lost Cause - all over the map - actually have something to say. You don't just get "That man from Stratford didn't write Hamlet", you get a candidate authorship, even if it is some Klingon.

This makes our job easier, because we don't have to dig through obscure paper trails, understanding far-spread sciences, reading dull tomes. All we have to do is to ask, "And what you say happens so that the world of life has this complex predictable pattern of taxonomy?"

I actually really like philosopher of science and mathematics Philip Kitcher's way of framing the issue in Living with Darwin: Creationism isn't pseudoscience, it's dead science.

Kitcher argues that by most attempts to characterize the difference between science and non-science, creationism's claims about nature are squarely scientific. Its theological claims, about the existence of God or the interpretation of scripture, are not. Criteria like old-fashioned falsifiability (Popper) render those theological claims non-scientific (in the modern sense of empirical natural science). But creationism's natural claims, such as the occurrence of a global flood within the last few thousand years or the impossibility of mutation producing new information, are squarely within the bounds of science.

This does not, however, provide any salvation for creationism's merits. If we take the Popper criterion of falsifiability, creationism's claims are indeed scientific because falsifiable -- but they're not only falsifiable: they've already been falsified.

Historically, claims about a global flood and a young earth were once taken seriously by quality scientists. They were taken so seriously that many scientists actually set out to study them in scientific terms. And as a result, evidence against them (and evidence for other alternatives) accumulated throughout the 18th and 19th centuries. By the early 19th century, young earth views were no longer scientifically tenable, and even devout geologists considered them erroneous. So it's not that, in its claims about nature, young earth creationism is pseudoscience: it's dead science. It's claims are falsifiable, and they've been shown to be false.

Ditto for claims about special creation. These too were once taken seriously by good scientists, and they lasted even later than creationist geology. But again, serious people submitted notions of biological origins and diversity to sustained scrutiny. And special creation comes up wanting, both in its own terms and, especially after Darwin, compared to the alternatives. Whence by the end of the 19th century, biologists did not regard special creation as a viable research program. Old earth creationism too is not pseudo science: it's dead science.

Of course, there were still concerns about natural selection as a viable evolutionary mechanism into the 20th century. And that's where the "intelligent design" movement of today comes in. One of the other things I like about Kitcher's take is that he correctly notes: every ID proponent is a creationist, whether young earth or old earth; the common thread in ID as an idea is a critique of natural selection. So he thinks of ID not as creationism, per se, but as "anti-selectionism" in the apologetic service of creationism. Anyway, once again, ID is not pseudoscience. It makes testable claims about nature, and it fails those tests utterly. It's dead science, and the alternative has been accepted among biologists since the synthesis of evolution with genetics, both Mendelian and molecular.

Again, the theological claims of creationism are not science, and presenting them as scientific would be pseudoscientific. They can't be tested. There are arguments against them, and Kitcher makes some in the final chapters of Living with Darwin, considering why people believe dead science still to be a live option, what the stakes are psychologically in terms of personal identity, and why it would be better not to believe such things. (He also just released a book this fall, Life after Faith, that makes, as its subtitle indicates, "the case for secular humanism." I haven't read it, but I certainly will.) So don't be misled: in claiming that theology is not even making scientific statements in the first place, Kitcher is definitely not trying to protect it.

But on the scientific merits of creationism, when it's trying to explain natural phenomena, we should not pull any punches. Creationism is science -- but more specifically, it's dead science. And it has been for centuries.

Paley's creationism is dead science.*

Dembski's ID is pseudoscience, because it takes the corpse of Paleyism and props it up with unfalsifiable claims (it changes, but in essence it remains practically unfalsifiable) to get around the fact that relatively honest creationism has been falsified.

Glen Davidson

*I might call it more of a proto-scientific long argument, as it didn't really follow the methods of science and was much more of an apologetic, but it made numerous falsifiable claims that ultimately failed in some manner or other.

I would point out that creationism was dead before "On the Origin of Species".

Herbert Spencer wrote a brief essay in 1852, The Development Hypothesis, in which he pointed out that there was no remaining content to any challenge to "development".

gdavidson418 said: Paley's creationism is dead science.* Dembski's ID is pseudoscience, because it takes the corpse of Paleyism and props it up with unfalsifiable claims (it changes, but in essence it remains practically unfalsifiable) to get around the fact that relatively honest creationism has been falsified.

mattdance18 said: Anyway, once again, ID is not pseudoscience. It makes testable claims about nature, and it fails those tests utterly.

TomS said: What strikes me as making creationism in all its various forms, which ID marking the extreme case, is the lack of even the semblance of an alternative to evolution. There is no interest in presenting a scenario of how things turn out as they are. Appealing to agency apt to do anything cannot possibly distinguish between possibilities. For all of their faults, so many of the - let's call them the "peer group" - flat-Earth, Velikovsky, anti-stratford, The Lost Cause - all over the map - actually have something to say. You don't just get "That man from Stratford didn't write Hamlet", you get a candidate authorship, even if it is some Klingon. This makes our job easier, because we don't have to dig through obscure paper trails, understanding far-spread sciences, reading dull tomes. All we have to do is to ask, "And what you say happens so that the world of life has this complex predictable pattern of taxonomy?"

they think everything is coming all apart and running down.

harold said: They tricked you. Their alternative to evolution is very clear. Yahweh created all species magically, in their present form in the Garden of Eden, some few thousand years ago.

TomS said:

harold said: They tricked you. Their alternative to evolution is very clear. Yahweh created all species magically, in their present form in the Garden of Eden, some few thousand years ago.

Of course, there are alternatives to evolution. 1. There is the Aristotelian explanation, that the universe is eternal, and that things have always been pretty much as they are now. There are various refinements of this, like Fred Hoyle's Continuous Creation. 2. There is the Eternal Return. The most famous modern proponent may be Nietzsche. 3. There is what is famous as Gosse's Omphalism. As far as I can see, the history of creationism of the last 150 years is running away from Omphalism. Young Earth Creationism just happens to be the least clever way of hiding that.

Mike Elzinga said:

mattdance18 said: Anyway, once again, ID is not pseudoscience. It makes testable claims about nature, and it fails those tests utterly.

Yet the current crop of ID advocates has inherited their misconceptions and misrepresentations from the "scientific" creationists; they have acquired all of Henry Morris's distortions. They don't make testable claims; they mischaracterize science and substitute a bunch of hokum in its place. I think it is a mistake to try to compare the tactics of this socio/political movement with the legitimate scientific confusions of the past. ... These are not honest scientific arguments.

harold said: Yes, basically overt YEC has exactly one tolerable feature. Its claims are highly testable. Unfortunately, they've been tested and proven wrong, but YEC advocates keep lying about the evidence. As always, I don't mean consciously being deceptive. By "lying" here I merely mean people who have inherent difficulty grasping the difference between "truth" and "self-serving fantasy" and who are very, very good at maintaining their own biases, repeating things that a more objective observer can note to be wrong, over and over again, in a somewhat deceptive way. ID is simply YEC modified to eliminate that one tolerable feature. The reason for this elimination is the goal of having science denial taught in public schools. ID is designed to disguise motivation, deliver dog whistle code to the "base", and dissemble.

Mike Elzinga said:

Palaeonictis said: True, although from what I've seen (this is my personal judgement), I hold to my position that Ham is both a charlatan and a hypocrite. Although, if he is truly sincere about his "beliefs", then I wouldn't classify him as a charlatan but still a hypocrite. To be honest, the plain fact that AiG (and thus Ham) value "donations" way more than the traditional "Christian" doctrine of prayer shows to me that Ham truly is a charlatan.

Ken Ham studied at the Institute for Creation "Research" when he came to the US, and he is a protégé of Henry Morris; so Ken Ham knows what the game is all about.

As I said, Ham is a charlatan, he's in it to cash in on the profits. It seems that religion has become a whole industry now.

All of these characters are like worms trying to crawl on top of each other to get out of the can. They all work within the same paradigm of trying to push their sectarian agenda into the public school curriculum by using pseudoscience. Ham goes after young children; especially the home-schooled.

I personally believe that Ham is an atheist, I mean, seriously he can't believe the bullshit he's spreading, right? The most profitable way of exploiting people's gullibility is to exploit the young people, as you said it, "especially the home-schooled".

Palaeonictis said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Palaeonictis said: True, although from what I've seen (this is my personal judgement), I hold to my position that Ham is both a charlatan and a hypocrite. Although, if he is truly sincere about his "beliefs", then I wouldn't classify him as a charlatan but still a hypocrite. To be honest, the plain fact that AiG (and thus Ham) value "donations" way more than the traditional "Christian" doctrine of prayer shows to me that Ham truly is a charlatan.

Ken Ham studied at the Institute for Creation "Research" when he came to the US, and he is a protégé of Henry Morris; so Ken Ham knows what the game is all about.

As I said, Ham is a charlatan, he's in it to cash in on the profits. It seems that religion has become a whole industry now.

All of these characters are like worms trying to crawl on top of each other to get out of the can. They all work within the same paradigm of trying to push their sectarian agenda into the public school curriculum by using pseudoscience. Ham goes after young children; especially the home-schooled.

I personally believe that Ham is an atheist, I mean, seriously he can't believe the bullshit he's spreading, right? The most profitable way of exploiting people's gullibility is to exploit the young people, as you said it, "especially the home-schooled".

Palaeonictis said:

Palaeonictis said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Palaeonictis said: True, although from what I've seen (this is my personal judgement), I hold to my position that Ham is both a charlatan and a hypocrite. Although, if he is truly sincere about his "beliefs", then I wouldn't classify him as a charlatan but still a hypocrite. To be honest, the plain fact that AiG (and thus Ham) value "donations" way more than the traditional "Christian" doctrine of prayer shows to me that Ham truly is a charlatan.

Ken Ham studied at the Institute for Creation "Research" when he came to the US, and he is a protégé of Henry Morris; so Ken Ham knows what the game is all about.

As I said, Ham is a charlatan, he's in it to cash in on the profits. It seems that religion has become a whole industry now.

All of these characters are like worms trying to crawl on top of each other to get out of the can. They all work within the same paradigm of trying to push their sectarian agenda into the public school curriculum by using pseudoscience. Ham goes after young children; especially the home-schooled.

I personally believe that Ham is an atheist, I mean, seriously he can't believe the bullshit he's spreading, right? The most profitable way of exploiting people's gullibility is to exploit the young people, as you said it, "especially the home-schooled". Oh my Cthulhu, my comments keep messing up.

Oh my Cthulhu, my comments keep messing up.

GET A NEW BLOG SOFTWARE, PLEASE!

mattdance18 said: Frankly, I think treating creationism as dead science rather than pseudoscience makes things even worse for them. Because then it becomes obvious that they really are trying to resuscitate ideas that have been dead for centuries, rather than doing anything innovative, and that they are deceptively trying to obscure their backwardness by repeating arguments that were likewise refuted centuries ago. Their backward-looking dishonesty couldn't be more plain.

but I’ve always thought that they found some of the excesses of YEC to be embarrassing.

Mike Elzinga said: Perhaps; but I would suggest that it is the 50 year history of ID/creationism that tells us whether ID/creationists are trying to resuscitate old, discarded ideas or trying to smuggle sectarian dogma into the classroom and into our society as a whole.

...these ID/creationist shenanigans are nothing like the very confused and strange ideas from which science eventually emerged.

Digging up old ideas is merely a tactic.

mattdance18 said: Indeed -- but I would say that it tells us that "ID/creationists are trying to resuscitate old, discarded ideas" in order to "smuggle sectarian dogma into our society as a whole."

Mike Elzinga said:

mattdance18 said: Indeed -- but I would say that it tells us that "ID/creationists are trying to resuscitate old, discarded ideas" in order to "smuggle sectarian dogma into our society as a whole."

I think this could indeed be correct. They do a lot of pseudo history as well in trying to make it appear that the writers of the Constitution intended the US to be a Christian nation - as they understand "Christian." But their "second law of thermodynamics" - and all their "theory" based on it - is a pure load of crap. Morris made it up by quote mining, fake etymology, and taking metaphors from popularizations literally. Duane Gish deliberately misrepresented scientific concepts in debates in order to make his opponents angry. They don't hesitate to lie.

Yeah, some of their claims are untestable (perhaps subdivided between "for now" and "indefinitely"), and some are tested and wrong. Also probably some that simply aren't relevant.

And about "materialism" - as far as I can tell, "materialism" just means limiting research and innovation to things for which there is (or might be in near future) evidence. Not to mention that some of the things science studies are decidedly not material in any colloquial sense of that word (energy, gravity, subatomic particles when taken individually***, dark energy, possibly dark matter**).

(*affects directly or indirectly.)

(**unless dark matter turns out to be matter that's in a form that's very good at going undetected, as some recently proposed hypotheses have implied.)

(***if the word "individually" can legitimately be applied to subatomic particles. And if this keyboard can learn to spell.)

Henry

Henry J said: Yeah, some of their claims are untestable (perhaps subdivided between "for now" and "indefinitely"), and some are tested and wrong. Also probably some that simply aren't relevant. And about "materialism" - as far as I can tell, "materialism" just means limiting research and innovation to things for which there is (or might be in near future) evidence. Not to mention that some of the things science studies are decidedly not material in any colloquial sense of that word (energy, gravity, subatomic particles when taken individually***, dark energy, possibly dark matter**). (*affects directly or indirectly.) (**unless dark matter turns out to be matter that's in a form that's very good at going undetected, as some recently proposed hypotheses have implied.) (***if the word "individually" can legitimately be applied to subatomic particles. And if this keyboard can learn to spell.) Henry

harold said:

stevaroni said: Well, on the "this is interesting" side of things, our buddies over at BioLogos have commissioned a study to... um... study.. American opinions about creationism, with an eye to getting a finer-grained look than the typical "Pick one, God or evolution" survey. Here's a nice readable summary from Slate, complete with a colorful chart.

Your link is broken, but based on your summary, I will say, I rest my case about biased poll questions.

stevaroni said: Ah... my bad... here's the link. When I pasted it in, I dropped a character because it sprawled over two lines. And here's the link https://www.dropbox.com/s/k8pm1s48uaqvvm3/NSRHO%20Report.pdf

stevaroni said:

stevaroni said: Ah... my bad... here's the link. When I pasted it in, I dropped a character because it sprawled over two lines. And here's the link https://www.dropbox.com/s/k8pm1s48uaqvvm3/NSRHO%20Report.pdf

Ah... my bad again.. I was sloppy. What I meant to say is here's the link to the original write up on Slate on Wednesday. Meanwhile... Here's the link to the BioLogos study in question. They've posted it on Dropbox, and that can be finicky, so if you need to fiddle and cut and paste in your browser, the URL is "https: //www.dropbox.com/s/k8pm1s48uaqvvm3/NSRHO%20Report.pdf". All that said, it's worth reading. Like Harold points out, once you drill down past the loaded questions, a nation of "60% creation supporters" starts to look a lot more like 20% creationists and 40% "go to church for Christmas, weddings, and funerals" types.

stevaroni said:

stevaroni said: Ah... my bad... here's the link. When I pasted it in, I dropped a character because it sprawled over two lines. And here's the link https://www.dropbox.com/s/k8pm1s48uaqvvm3/NSRHO%20Report.pdf

Ah... my bad again.. I was sloppy. What I meant to say is here's the link to the original write up on Slate on Wednesday. Meanwhile... Here's the link to the BioLogos study in question. They've posted it on Dropbox, and that can be finicky, so if you need to fiddle and cut and paste in your browser, the URL is "https: //www.dropbox.com/s/k8pm1s48uaqvvm3/NSRHO%20Report.pdf". All that said, it's worth reading. Like Harold points out, once you drill down past the loaded questions, a nation of "60% creation supporters" starts to look a lot more like 20% creationists and 40% "go to church for Christmas, weddings, and funerals" types.

harold said: And ID/creationism is nothing but inaccurate science denial.

In his book Arrival of the Fittest, Andreas Wagner refers to today's YECs as "half literate and wholly ignorant."

That is about as concise and accurate as it gets.

Excellent book, by the way. I just finished it a couple of weeks ago.

Actually they don’t deny inaccurate science; they promulgate it.

harold said:

TomS said: What strikes me as making creationism in all its various forms, which ID marking the extreme case, is the lack of even the semblance of an alternative to evolution. There is no interest in presenting a scenario of how things turn out as they are. Appealing to agency apt to do anything cannot possibly distinguish between possibilities. For all of their faults, so many of the - let's call them the "peer group" - flat-Earth, Velikovsky, anti-stratford, The Lost Cause - all over the map - actually have something to say. You don't just get "That man from Stratford didn't write Hamlet", you get a candidate authorship, even if it is some Klingon. This makes our job easier, because we don't have to dig through obscure paper trails, understanding far-spread sciences, reading dull tomes. All we have to do is to ask, "And what you say happens so that the world of life has this complex predictable pattern of taxonomy?"

They tricked you. Their alternative to evolution is very clear. Yahweh created all species magically, in their present form in the Garden of Eden, some few thousand years ago. For Noah's ark reasons it is considered borderline acceptable to suggest that he created "kinds" rather than species per se and that some weird superfast speciation event took place after the flood. However, you can also say that Yahweh created them all in their present form 6000 years ago and Noah put all animal species on the ark 4000 years ago. Please note that "in their present form" is a common "statement of faith" buzz phrase, implying that even the "kinds" thing is only barely tolerated. ID does not exist to contradict "in their present form", it exists to disguise "in their present form". ID cannot openly say "6000 years ago in their present form" because it was created not to openly say that, in the hopes of getting evolution denial into schools while evading court challenge. But it also can't overtly deny "in their present form", either, because the vast majority of people who want to trick the courts into allowing sectarian science denial in taxpayer funded public schools secretly or not so secretly really want "6000 years ago in their present form". You have got to understand the obsessive dishonesty and authoritarian impulses. They are willing to disguise (but not outright deny) their true motivations and beliefs, in order to sneak some bullshit into schools. Do not be tricked by vague, dissembling language. If someone says "the Earth could be flat or round, the jury is still out", that represents clear pandering to flat Earthism. If someone says that in the service of slipping sectarian round Earth denial into public schools, that is science denial with the goal of pandering to Flat Earth types. It's the same with creationism. Naively taking "could be" statements by ID/creationists as concessions to science is incorrect. If someone says the Earth "could be" billions of years old, that is pandering to the idea that it is 6000 years old. There is no "could be" about it. The Earth is very well established to be billions of years old.

Frank J said:

harold said:

TomS said: What strikes me as making creationism in all its various forms, which ID marking the extreme case, is the lack of even the semblance of an alternative to evolution. There is no interest in presenting a scenario of how things turn out as they are. Appealing to agency apt to do anything cannot possibly distinguish between possibilities. For all of their faults, so many of the - let's call them the "peer group" - flat-Earth, Velikovsky, anti-stratford, The Lost Cause - all over the map - actually have something to say. You don't just get "That man from Stratford didn't write Hamlet", you get a candidate authorship, even if it is some Klingon. This makes our job easier, because we don't have to dig through obscure paper trails, understanding far-spread sciences, reading dull tomes. All we have to do is to ask, "And what you say happens so that the world of life has this complex predictable pattern of taxonomy?"

They tricked you. Their alternative to evolution is very clear. Yahweh created all species magically, in their present form in the Garden of Eden, some few thousand years ago. For Noah's ark reasons it is considered borderline acceptable to suggest that he created "kinds" rather than species per se and that some weird superfast speciation event took place after the flood. However, you can also say that Yahweh created them all in their present form 6000 years ago and Noah put all animal species on the ark 4000 years ago. Please note that "in their present form" is a common "statement of faith" buzz phrase, implying that even the "kinds" thing is only barely tolerated. ID does not exist to contradict "in their present form", it exists to disguise "in their present form". ID cannot openly say "6000 years ago in their present form" because it was created not to openly say that, in the hopes of getting evolution denial into schools while evading court challenge. But it also can't overtly deny "in their present form", either, because the vast majority of people who want to trick the courts into allowing sectarian science denial in taxpayer funded public schools secretly or not so secretly really want "6000 years ago in their present form". You have got to understand the obsessive dishonesty and authoritarian impulses. They are willing to disguise (but not outright deny) their true motivations and beliefs, in order to sneak some bullshit into schools. Do not be tricked by vague, dissembling language. If someone says "the Earth could be flat or round, the jury is still out", that represents clear pandering to flat Earthism. If someone says that in the service of slipping sectarian round Earth denial into public schools, that is science denial with the goal of pandering to Flat Earth types. It's the same with creationism. Naively taking "could be" statements by ID/creationists as concessions to science is incorrect. If someone says the Earth "could be" billions of years old, that is pandering to the idea that it is 6000 years old. There is no "could be" about it. The Earth is very well established to be billions of years old.

Actually TomS is one of the few that they haven't tricked. Tom, you and I have all been saying essentially the same thing about ID over the years, just in different ways. Certainly they indirectly promote belief of "heliocentric YEC," though only because it is "already out there," and much more importantly IMO, kept on "life support" by the sensationalist media. Other than that, there is nothing special about heliocentric YEC among all the mutually-contradictory literal interpretations of Genesis. Invariably at this point someone objects to remind me that the early founders of ID were former YEC peddlers. Which only makes me suspect that, like the rest of the IDers they realized that YEC is nonsense, but needed a way to feed it to the "masses" anyway. I often call ID the "central pseudoscience," because it accommodates any explanation including, as Dembski admitted in 2001, "all the results of 'Darwinism'." But I also agree that, beyond any status as pseudoscience, it is a radical paranoid authoritarian movement, and really doesn't try that hard to pretend that it is anything but that.

I often call ID the “central pseudoscience,” because it accommodates any explanation including, as Dembski admitted in 2001, “all the results of ‘Darwinism’.” But I also agree that, beyond any status as pseudoscience, it is a radical paranoid authoritarian movement, and really doesn’t try that hard to pretend that it is anything but that.

I certainly hope no-one thought I intended any insult to TomS by noting that he was fooled by a bunch of chicanery that is deliberately designed to fool people, of course.

First of all, I have say that I take harold's language as the kind to be expected between friends. Even among the pro-science crowd I find harold's opinions some of the most compatible with mind.

I remember meeting Johnson on the newsgroup talk.origins about the time that Darwin on Trial came out, which was some 4 years after Edwards vs. Aguillard.

What I remember of the book and of the discussion in talk.origins was that there was nothing about the law. He did like to talk philosophy with the biologists, which seemed a good decision on his part. But I don't recall that he shied away from talking about God. He didn't seem to leave the impression that he was presenting a non-sectarian case. He did not want to talk about the age of the Earth, which seems to have been a good idea.

Anyway, we're talking about what impression was left on me from about some 20 years ago.

It is true that the testimony in the Kitzmiller case about "Pandas and People" is striking about the sudden change of tactics - and this happened before "Darwin on Trial".

Some time I have to take the time to go back to "Darwin on Trial" - sometime when I don't have more pressing business like changing the air in my tires - and see just how my attention was diverted from his real objective.

TomS said: Some time I have to take the time to go back to "Darwin on Trial" - sometime when I don't have more pressing business like changing the air in my tires - and see just how my attention was diverted from his real objective.

harold said:

I often call ID the “central pseudoscience,” because it accommodates any explanation including, as Dembski admitted in 2001, “all the results of ‘Darwinism’.” But I also agree that, beyond any status as pseudoscience, it is a radical paranoid authoritarian movement, and really doesn’t try that hard to pretend that it is anything but that.

We completely agree here. I'm not even 100% sure that we are in even mild disagreement. Let me phrase it this way - Origins of ID - Hypothesis 1 - I hypothesize that ID was created as an ad hoc reaction to Edwards v Aguillard and is, to all extents, creation science disguised with vaguer language. This hypothesis explains the timing of the emergence of ID, the fact that YEC creationists defend ID, and the fact that the DI has present and former YEC types as fellows. (Thus ID cannot truly be "embarrassed by" YEC.) Hypothesis 2 - ID arose independently and spontaneously, due to serious, independent, not-motivated-by-ideology scientific figures coming with things like "complex specified information" completely on their own, not at all influenced by creation science. I ask defenders of this hypothesis, if there are any, the following questions - A) How do you explain the timing of the emergence of the terms "ID" and "ID advocates"? Why did they suddenly emerge immediately after Edwards v. Aguillard? Is it a coincidence? Was there a third factor at play? B) Why do almost all religious right evolution deniers always defend ID, even though they presumably would not if it was truly at odds with their "Biblical literalist" stance? C) Why are old school YEC creationists so strongly affiliated with the DI, if ID represents an independent line of thought not influenced by YEC? D) Why do ID advocates recycle wrong arguments originally used by overt YEC types like Henry Morris, if ID is an independent conjecture, unrelated to, and "embarrassed by" YEC?

Frank J -

I still prefer Hypothesis 1.

As you note, though, Hypothesis 3 is not completely mutually exclusive.

However, I do note some evidence against Hypothesis 3. Hugh Ross is the predominant if not only well known "OEC". If OEC has some direct influence on ID, why is that influence invisible? Hugh Ross is not even a DI fellow. Why is the president and dean of OEC not a DI fellow, while numerous YEC types are?

It's incredibly important not to confuse "could have" dissembling by YEC types for any type of concession to science. If a physician says that infectious disease "could be" caused by microbes, that is clearly pandering to germ theory denial. There is no "could be" about it. Infectious disease IS caused by microbes. And the fact that the Earth is billions of years old is about as well established as the fact that infectious disease is caused by microbes.

Hugh Ross is an unpleasant crackpot, but Hugh Ross doesn't say that the universe "could be" old, he says that it is billions of years old.

Now, everyone, please read this carefully. Please, please grasp this. A major point of ID/creationism is political. Let's take gay marriage, for example. The ideology associated with ID/creationism not only opposes gay marriage but when useful, makes such opposition the centerpiece of campaigns. Now, what is wrong with a couple of adults who love each other having a monogamous union recognized for legal purposes like health care decision making? Nothing. Unless we claim that we interpret certain parts of the Bible "literally". If we do that, then we can say that some ill-translated one-liner in Leviticus, ambivalent even in the original Hebrew, condemns gay people, and that we're "morally" obliged to treat them badly as a result. That's the point of "Biblical literalism" of this sort. To justify things that otherwise don't seem ethical at all. "Creation science" comes from that instinct and ID comes from creation science. Hugh Ross is, I believe, an authoritarian nutjob of sorts himself, but he's out of the loop.

My opinion of Hugh Ross is that he'd like to be YEC, but isn't quite Jason Lisle enough to deny his own field (although he is famously incompetent at some aspects of it), so he made up some eccentric OEC thing, so that he could at least deny other branches of science.

TomS said: First of all, I have say that I take harold's language as the kind to be expected between friends. Even among the pro-science crowd I find harold's opinions some of the most compatible with mind. I remember meeting Johnson on the newsgroup talk.origins about the time that Darwin on Trial came out, which was some 4 years after Edwards vs. Aguillard. What I remember of the book and of the discussion in talk.origins was that there was nothing about the law. He did like to talk philosophy with the biologists, which seemed a good decision on his part. But I don't recall that he shied away from talking about God. He didn't seem to leave the impression that he was presenting a non-sectarian case. He did not want to talk about the age of the Earth, which seems to have been a good idea. Anyway, we're talking about what impression was left on me from about some 20 years ago. It is true that the testimony in the Kitzmiller case about "Pandas and People" is striking about the sudden change of tactics - and this happened before "Darwin on Trial". Some time I have to take the time to go back to "Darwin on Trial" - sometime when I don't have more pressing business like changing the air in my tires - and see just how my attention was diverted from his real objective.

TomS -

I recommend checking the air pressure in your tires, checking to oil level in your car, and in fact, rebuilding your entire engine, rather than re-reading "Darwin on Trial". Once in a lifetime is more than enough.

In some ways Hugh Ross is the opposite of ID.

Hugh Ross openly states that the universe is billions of years old. "ID advocates" don't, and for reasons I gave above, "could be" statements don't count.

Hugh Ross openly states that he attributes the characteristics of the biosphere to the actions of the Christian God. ID is designed to disguise such open sentiments, for purely legal reasons.

It isn't just the timing - the arrival of ID shortly after a series of court defeats culminating in Edwards vs. Aguillard - that identifies ID as having emerged from "scientific" creationism; it is also its intellectual heritage and its socio/political tactics. Every aspect of ID "theory" has its roots in the misconceptions and misrepresentations of the laws of thermodynamics by Henry Morris.

You have to have been already convinced that complex organisms can't have been produced by natural selection. You have to have heard all the "What-good-is-a-half-a-wing" type arguments and caricatures of evolution by the ICR. You have to have been part of the sectarian loathing of secular science and the science curriculum reforms prompted by Sputnik.

Morris and Gish already had brought up the notion that complex molecular assemblies are impossible according to their second law. You can't use the probability arguments of ID - ASCII character assemblies, junkyard and battleship parts, coin flips, dice tosses, etc. - and believe that these represent atoms and molecules unless you already believe that atoms and molecules obey the "scientific" creationists' second law of thermodynamics. David L. Abel's "spontaneous molecular chaos" and "Cybernetic Cut" are the standard creationist "entropy barriers" to increasing complexity.

You have to have already bought into Gish's monstrosities, such as his menagerie of creatures that included things like the "crododuck. " You have to be as illiterate as the "scientific" creationists not to be able to check your work and your understanding against even high school level science. Your arguments will be directed at the scientifically illiterate in public debates and not at experts in scientific meetings.

We also know from the writings of Philip Johnson and William Dembski that they are sectarian war cries and were influenced by the "scientific" creationists, including A.E. Wilder-Smith.

The current generation of younger ID followers doesn't know its own intellectual and socio/political history, and these kids are keen to cultivate the appearance of a legitimate intellectual and philosophical challenge to current science with a history that goes back centuries. However, their own shibboleths reveal that they go back only to the formal beginnings of "scientific" creationism with the founding of the Institute for Creation "Research" by Henry Morris and Duane Gish in 1970. The very few who know their history want to rewrite it.

There were already rumblings of their beginnings in the 1960s, but nobody in the scientific community took it seriously as the socio/political threat it turned out to be; creationism's "science" was just too silly and bogus.

One of my good friends was a biology teacher in Kalamazoo, Michigan when Gish was showing up unannounced in biology classrooms harassing biology teachers. She was particularly singled out because she was good at teaching evolution. Gish was a real SOB, and he enjoyed it. These sectarians were deliberately starting a war they were sure they would win.

1. It is well established in federal and state law that religious organizations are permitted to give employment preference to adherents of their own religion. Since the Ark Encounter meets the criteria, and is owned and operated by a Christian organization, it is allowed to avail itself of these provisions of law just as every other religious corporation and entity in Kentucky does. This approach, of course, just makes sense. Without this important exemption in the law on hiring, no church or religious organization would be able to maintain its identity or any consistency of message. 2. Federal law is supportive of Ark Encounter. That includes Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. While the Act prohibits discrimination in hiring practices, it specifically carves out an exception for churches and religious organizations, which are permitted to give employment preference to adherents of their own religion. Again, this just makes sense. It would be ridiculous to argue that a church should have to hire an atheist pastor or a youth pastor who disagreed with the church’s statement of faith. It would likewise be illogical to force the secularist groups who are against Ark Encounter to hire Bible-believing Christians. In order for any religious organization to maintain its unity and purpose, it must be staffed by people who agree with the statement of faith. This makes sense and is provided for in state laws. 3. State law is also supportive. Kentucky Revised Statute Section 344.090 specifically provides: “[I]t is not unlawful practice for . . . a religious corporation, association, or society to employ an individual on the basis of his religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, or society of its religious activity.” Answers in Genesis and its Ark Encounter are just like every other religious group. There is nothing unique or special in regard to employment of staff. Those who hold to a different view cannot cite a specific, applicable state or federal law or statute that would support their position.

harold said:

TomS said: First of all, I have say that I take harold's language as the kind to be expected between friends. Even among the pro-science crowd I find harold's opinions some of the most compatible with mind. I remember meeting Johnson on the newsgroup talk.origins about the time that Darwin on Trial came out, which was some 4 years after Edwards vs. Aguillard. What I remember of the book and of the discussion in talk.origins was that there was nothing about the law. He did like to talk philosophy with the biologists, which seemed a good decision on his part. But I don't recall that he shied away from talking about God. He didn't seem to leave the impression that he was presenting a non-sectarian case. He did not want to talk about the age of the Earth, which seems to have been a good idea. Anyway, we're talking about what impression was left on me from about some 20 years ago. It is true that the testimony in the Kitzmiller case about "Pandas and People" is striking about the sudden change of tactics - and this happened before "Darwin on Trial". Some time I have to take the time to go back to "Darwin on Trial" - sometime when I don't have more pressing business like changing the air in my tires - and see just how my attention was diverted from his real objective.

To emphasize again, being fooled by these guys is a sign of being honest and giving other people the benefit of the doubt. It does not reflect poorly on you, or anyone else. It never occurred to me that anyone would think that it did, but lest any confusion existed - any criticism I am directing, I am directing at creationists. Now, I think that I can say, if your idea that ID is embarrassed by YEC came from interactions with Phillip Johnson, you were fooled. Because Phillip Johnson is most certainly not embarrassed by YEC. Eager to transiently disguise YEC motivations in the interest of dastardly schemes, yes, but embarrassed by it, no.

Matt Young said: His position depends on the assumption that the for-profit Ark Encounter can be considered a religious organization. I have no idea whether that is legally defensible. Finally, construction has begun, and you may see a picture to prove it.

Matt Young said: Ham: “Thank God You Can’t Sink This Ship”

Matt Young said: Finally, construction has begun, and you may see a picture to prove it.

stevaroni said:

Matt Young said: Finally, construction has begun, and you may see a picture to prove it.

Using the 14-step ladder as a measuring stick, it would seem like they're already 0.0047% of the way there.* * _{Which once again only points out the absurdity of the whole thing. How long would it have taken Noah and his 3 boys, working in the evenings after they had spent their whole day doing the subsistence-farmer-in-the-desert thing, to dig this 2400 cubic foot hole in the rock with bronze age tools? Tools that they had to find the time to make themselves? Now multiply that kind of effort by 2100 or so to get the whole volume of the Ark. Not to mention the time it would have taken them to forge all that rebar....}

My memory is certainly fallible for 20 years ago, but I think that Johnson was quite open about faith in God was an important part of his rejection of evolution. As well as philosophical reasons. This is not the behavior of someone who is trying to make it seem as if anti-evolution was a secular position.

Mike Elzinga said:

Matt Young said: His position depends on the assumption that the for-profit Ark Encounter can be considered a religious organization. I have no idea whether that is legally defensible. Finally, construction has begun, and you may see a picture to prove it.

It appears that Ham is prepared to take this to court. I hope he looses; but, given the Hobby Lobby case and the current make up of the US Supreme Court, who knows what will happen, especially in Kentucky?

stevaroni said:

Matt Young said: Ham: “Thank God You Can’t Sink This Ship”

It's looking increasingly likely that nobody needs to sink it. This barge* is two years behind schedule, $20+ million behind in capitalization, probably losing its tax-exempt status, embroiled in a public controversy that makes additional fundraising and tax breaks much, much, more difficult and even if it were totally healthy, operating under a financial model that almost certainly overestimates its market by at least 100%. With a little luck it might just founder of its own accord.

Mike Elzinga said: It appears that Ham is prepared to take this to court. I hope he looses; but, given the Hobby Lobby case and the current make up of the US Supreme Court, who knows what will happen, especially in Kentucky?

eric said:

Mike Elzinga said: It appears that Ham is prepared to take this to court. I hope he looses; but, given the Hobby Lobby case and the current make up of the US Supreme Court, who knows what will happen, especially in Kentucky?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but since it's a KY state board making the adjudication applying a KY state tax law, wouldn't it just go to the State Supreme court?

Just Bob said:

eric said:

Mike Elzinga said: It appears that Ham is prepared to take this to court. I hope he looses; but, given the Hobby Lobby case and the current make up of the US Supreme Court, who knows what will happen, especially in Kentucky?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but since it's a KY state board making the adjudication applying a KY state tax law, wouldn't it just go to the State Supreme court?

But being within state law does not allow you to ignore US law. Otherwise we would still have legal segregation.

Just Bob said:

eric said: Correct me if I'm wrong, but since it's a KY state board making the adjudication applying a KY state tax law, wouldn't it just go to the State Supreme court?

But being within state law does not allow you to ignore US law. Otherwise we would still have legal segregation.

eric said:

Just Bob said:

eric said: Correct me if I'm wrong, but since it's a KY state board making the adjudication applying a KY state tax law, wouldn't it just go to the State Supreme court?

But being within state law does not allow you to ignore US law. Otherwise we would still have legal segregation.

That wasn't my point. My point is that if it goes to court, its unlikely that SCOTUS' make up will matter because the KY supreme court will decide the matter.

eric said:

Mike Elzinga said: It appears that Ham is prepared to take this to court. I hope he looses; but, given the Hobby Lobby case and the current make up of the US Supreme Court, who knows what will happen, especially in Kentucky?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but since it's a KY state board making the adjudication applying a KY state tax law, wouldn't it just go to the State Supreme court?

AFAIK, every case starts in a lower court and will ascend to the U.S. Supreme Court on appeal only if a Constitutional issue is raised in the original complaint.

As far as I know, no court has ever remotely suggested that Hobby Lobby is allowed to discriminate in hiring.

Caveat - The current SCOTUS has four right wing partisan ideologues who will say or do anything to support historic right wing causes. If Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Roberts had one more reliable ally, instead of the conservative but inconsistent Kennedy sometimes holding them back, it's a fair bet that anti-discrimination legislation might be overturned.

Having said that, the recent Hobby Lobby decision merely allowed Hobby Lobby to evade providing health insurance that covers birth control.

It most certainly did not suggest that Hobby Lobby is allowed to discriminate in hiring.

Matt Young said: Ham: “Thank God You Can’t Sink This Ship”

DS said:

Matt Young said: Ham: “Thank God You Can’t Sink This Ship”

First Ham claims that he is entitled to tax breaks just like any other tourist attraction. Then He claims he is entitled to discriminate in hiring based on religion, just like any other religious organization. Is he so stupid that he can't see the contradiction, or does he think that everyone else is stupid enough to fall for it? Thank god he can't float that ship.

DS said:

Matt Young said: Ham: “Thank God You Can’t Sink This Ship”

First Ham claims that he is entitled to tax breaks just like any other tourist attraction. Then He claims he is entitled to discriminate in hiring based on religion, just like any other religious organization. Is he so stupid that he can't see the contradiction, or does he think that everyone else is stupid enough to fall for it? Thank god he can't float that ship.

I am sure that people have pointed out that the Ark ought to have been round, but a recent article* in the Jerusalem Report argues that the vessel described in precursors of the Noah myth was clearly round. It appears that the JRep article is available only on paper, but a little Googling found related articles in Biblical Archaeology and another in International Science Times. Back to the drawing board, Ark Park!

_____

* Ralph Amelan, "Defining the Jews," Jerusalem Report, December 15, 2014, pp. 43-45. Review of Irving Finkel, The Ark before Noah: Decoding the Story of the Flood (Talese, 2014).

The issue in the case of Hobby Lobby is whether or not exemptions to federal laws are permissible for any and all "religious" reasons. Such exceptions would effectively nullify federal laws designed to eliminate extensive problems - e.g., racial and other types of discrimination - in society.

The attempts to gain exemptions on the basis of "freedom of religion" contain the self-contradictory implication that one demonize and persecute others and their religions based on the First Amendment "rights" to freedom of speech and religious beliefs.

The problem isn't the First Amendment; the problem is the idiots that actually think this way, take umbrage for "religious reasons," and then tie up everyone else in court. Such idiots don’t see themselves as having any responsibility for helping maintain a just and fair society that feeds and protects everyone; they just want all the benefits and none of the responsibilities.

With similar idiots - like Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Roberts - on the US Supreme Court backing such exemptions, society separates into takers and caretakers in continuous, zero-sum war games with each other; and that often seems to be where we are headed.

Kentucky’s Tourism Arts & Heritage Cabinet Secretary Bob Stewart informed representatives of the proposed Ark Encounter tourist attraction today that their project will not be eligible for up to $18 million in tax incentives from the state, due to their refusal to pledge not to discriminate in hiring based on religion.

Stewart cited AiG CEO Ken Ham’s Nov. 19 fundraising letter that accused the Beshear administration of religious persecution and reaffirmed their desire to discriminate in hiring based on religion. He also cited other statements throughout the year from AiG officials claiming the purpose of the park is to evangelize and indoctrinate its visitors.

“Certainly, Ark Encounter has every right to change the nature of the project from a tourism attraction to a ministry,” wrote Stewart. “However, state tourism tax incentives cannot be used to fund religious indoctrination or otherwise be used to advance religion. The use of state incentives in this way violates the Separation of Church and State provisions of the Constitution and is therefore impermissible.”

http://www.lex18.com/news/state-of-ky-withdraws-tax-breaks-from-noah-s-ark-park-401687/

Here is an interesting study of corruption in Kentucky by Harvard University's Center for Ethics.

I wonder how Kentucky corruption played into the tax breaks that Ham already on the land for his ark project.

Perhaps having a national spotlight on the Kentucky Tourism Board's negotiations with Ham and his "lawyers" gave the governor and the head of that board some second thoughts.

By the way, has anyone read Ham's lawyer's, James E. Parsons, response to the Tourism, Arts and Heritage Cabinet?. Scroll down to Page 4 where he brings up Hobby Lobby.

I think we can see where Ham would like to take this.

"He detailed how Ark Encounter representatives had previously promised not to discriminate in hiring several times, but recently they have stated they have every right to do so, saying, 'The Commonwealth’s position hasn’t changed. The applicant’s position has changed.'"

That must be one of those... umm, what's the word I want.. oh yeah: LIES.