Let's analyze the Creationst Ignorance Emporium

[Guest Melanie]

Since some people aren’t convinced that the Creationist Ignorance Emporium is an ignorance emporium, let’s dedicate a topic to discussing it. I’ll start with a fundamental claim of the Ignorance Emporium’s founder.

Let’s start in the “starting points” room. Ken Ham explains the difference between “creationists and evolutionists” as follows: “So, we have different interpretations because we have different starting points. The real battle is between the two starting points—God’s Word or autonomous human reasoning.” http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundth...aleontologists/ ; http://www.flickr.com/photos/astropop/2693...57606318201168/ . See also http://www.ooblick.com/gallery/v/travel/mo...c_2429.jpg.html ; http://www.flickr.com/photos/astropop/2694...57606318201168/ ; http://ooblick.com/text/creation-museum/ ;

http://www.aam-us.org/pubs/mn/scienceonfaith.cfm

What’s wrong with that statement? Let’s count the ways.

1. The statement is incomplete in a way that completely distorts the real differences between evolutionary theory, which is scientific, and creationism, which is not. The methods of analysis are different. That is too important a distinction to omit.

Evolutionary theory is based on a vast body of data, including fossil records, carbon dating and DNA analysis, all of which support evolutionary theory. Millions of pieces of data have been collected, any one of which could have punched a hole in evolutionary theory if it wasn’t true; instead, as the data have accumulated, they have only supported and advanced evolution as the correct explanation for the history and development of species.

Evolutionary theory makes accurate predictions and has generated advances in biology and the development of numerous medical treatments. Its critics have observed that there were gaps in the fossil and DNA records, only to be stymied repeatedly as those gaps have been filled in, one after another, exactly in the manner that evolutionary theory predicts. Because it makes accurate predictions and generates useful advances in medicine and related fields, evolutionary theory is an essential part of modern science. Ham conveniently omits all of that.

By contrast, creationism is not supported by the evidence but in fact is disproved by it. It does not make any accurate predictions and has not resulted in a single advance in science or any other field of objective inquiry. Ham neglects to mention that, too. These omissions are so vast that they render Ham’s argument dishonest.

2. Equally dishonest is Ham’s attempt to frame the issue as a conflict between “human reason” and “God’s word.” Both sides of his argument are distorted.

The “human reason” side is distorted because Ham omits the mountain of data supporting evolution, its proven predictive value and its many practical applications. No doubt, Ham would take advantage of the medical treatments that evolutionary theory has made possible. It is dishonest for him to dismiss the science as mere “human reason” when it is also supported by data and experience, and is so useful in its applications.

The “God’s word” side is distorted in two key ways. “God’s word” is a claim. It is dishonest to present it as a fact, especially when there is no objective basis for calling the Bible “God’s word.” Indeed, most people who believe in a god do not believe in the Bible.

Second, the claim of “God’s word” is itself based solely on human thought, if not quite human reason. Ham is completely inconsistent here, criticizing human reason as inadequate, while relying on a lesser variant of it. He fails to mention the fact that the very act of starting with the conclusion is diametrically opposed to how knowledge is actually obtained. To know, one must start with the evidence and draw the conclusions from it; the Creationist Ignorance Emporium does exactly the opposite, starting with the conclusion and justifying by any means necessary, no matter how illogical or how much it must ignore. He is quite correct to distinguish this from human reason, but the true distinction is not the one he suggests.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Since some people aren’t convinced that the Creationist Ignorance Emporium is an ignorance emporium, let’s dedicate a topic to discussing it. I’ll start with a fundamental claim of the Ignorance Emporium’s founder.

Let’s start in the “starting points” room. Ken Ham explains the difference between “creationists and evolutionists” as follows: “So, we have different interpretations because we have different starting points. The real battle is between the two starting points—God’s Word or autonomous human reasoning.” http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundth...aleontologists/ ; http://www.flickr.com/photos/astropop/2693...57606318201168/ . See also http://www.ooblick.com/gallery/v/travel/mo...c_2429.jpg.html ; http://www.flickr.com/photos/astropop/2694...57606318201168/ ; http://ooblick.com/text/creation-museum/ ;

http://www.aam-us.org/pubs/mn/scienceonfaith.cfm

What’s wrong with that statement? Let’s count the ways.

1. The statement is incomplete in a way that completely distorts the real differences between evolutionary theory, which is scientific, and creationism, which is not. The methods of analysis are different. That is too important a distinction to omit.

Evolutionary theory is based on a vast body of data, including fossil records, carbon dating and DNA analysis, all of which support evolutionary theory. Millions of pieces of data have been collected, any one of which could have punched a hole in evolutionary theory if it wasn’t true; instead, as the data have accumulated, they have only supported and advanced evolution as the correct explanation for the history and development of species.

Evolutionary theory makes accurate predictions and has generated advances in biology and the development of numerous medical treatments. Its critics have observed that there were gaps in the fossil and DNA records, only to be stymied repeatedly as those gaps have been filled in, one after another, exactly in the manner that evolutionary theory predicts. Because it makes accurate predictions and generates useful advances in medicine and related fields, evolutionary theory is an essential part of modern science. Ham conveniently omits all of that.

By contrast, creationism is not supported by the evidence but in fact is disproved by it. It does not make any accurate predictions and has not resulted in a single advance in science or any other field of objective inquiry. Ham neglects to mention that, too. These omissions are so vast that they render Ham’s argument dishonest.

2. Equally dishonest is Ham’s attempt to frame the issue as a conflict between “human reason” and “God’s word.” Both sides of his argument are distorted.

The “human reason” side is distorted because Ham omits the mountain of data supporting evolution, its proven predictive value and its many practical applications. No doubt, Ham would take advantage of the medical treatments that evolutionary theory has made possible. It is dishonest for him to dismiss the science as mere “human reason” when it is also supported by data and experience, and is so useful in its applications.

The “God’s word” side is distorted in two key ways. “God’s word” is a claim. It is dishonest to present it as a fact, especially when there is no objective basis for calling the Bible “God’s word.” Indeed, most people who believe in a god do not believe in the Bible.

Second, the claim of “God’s word” is itself based solely on human thought, if not quite human reason. Ham is completely inconsistent here, criticizing human reason as inadequate, while relying on a lesser variant of it. He fails to mention the fact that the very act of starting with the conclusion is diametrically opposed to how knowledge is actually obtained. To know, one must start with the evidence and draw the conclusions from it; the Creationist Ignorance Emporium does exactly the opposite, starting with the conclusion and justifying by any means necessary, no matter how illogical or how much it must ignore. He is quite correct to distinguish this from human reason, but the true distinction is not the one he suggests.

Melanie is Kris's sister, she also lives in CA like Kris. But unlike Kris who is a nurse, Melanie is an attorney like Paul.

[Guest Keith]

Melanie is Kris's sister, she also lives in CA like Kris. But unlike Kris who is a nurse, Melanie is an attorney like Paul.

........and your a dick! An ignorant dick.

[Guest The Million Year Old Man]

Melanie is Kris's sister, she also lives in CA like Kris. But unlike Kris who is a nurse, Melanie is an attorney like Paul.

...and all of them are becoming a real boar.

Paul -even though you are a resident-

it is time to give up the BS. You signed the agreement with the BOE. It's long over now.

Give the board back to the locals. I really can't stomach the fact that this is still the most important topic in this world in which we live. You and all the usurpers from "everywhere" really need to give it a rest.

[Guest Guest]

...and all of them are becoming a real boar.

Paul -even though you are a resident-

it is time to give up the BS. You signed the agreement with the BOE. It's long over now.

Give the board back to the locals. I really can't stomach the fact that this is still the most important topic in this world in which we live. You and all the usurpers from "everywhere" really need to give it a rest.

So your definition of "over" is go back to the same behavior that made Kearny an international joke in the first place. Sign the agreement, learn nothing and go right back to what you were doing.

[Guest Guest]

...and all of them are becoming a real boar.

Paul -even though you are a resident-

it is time to give up the BS. You signed the agreement with the BOE. It's long over now.

Give the board back to the locals. I really can't stomach the fact that this is still the most important topic in this world in which we live. You and all the usurpers from "everywhere" really need to give it a rest.

The locals never say anything. Most of the posts whine and complain without offering anything useful. At least the posts about science are interesting.

[Guest Melanie]

The Creationist Ignorance Emporium is a series of excuses looking desperately for a justification. Take this display on poisonous frogs. http://www.ooblick.com/gallery/v/travel/mo...c_2400.jpg.html

According to the Bible, via this display, poison wasn’t poison until Adam and Eve sinned. Then it became poison. You have to be thoroughly gullible to believe that.

What was God thinking?

Why would God put “harmless poison” into frogs?

Did he have the poison at the ready, just in case these two screwed things up?

Did he already know they were going to screw things up, and he was just waiting to activate the poison?

Even if you accept the immoral idea that the entire human race should be punished for the “sin” of two people, why should the innocent animals suffer?

Why didn’t God make them immune to human folly to show us what we were missing?

Well, says the creationist, God works in mysterious ways that we can’t understand. OK, then stop pretending you know how these things happened.

Is it conceivable that it could have happened that way? Well, people can tell the story, so obviously it is conceivable. Whether it is possible is another question.

The more important question is whether there is any good reason to believe the story, or a good reason not to. There are several good reasons not to.

When people believe explanations like the one in the Ignorance Emporium, they make it less likely that they will seek the real answer. They comfort themselves into thinking that they don’t need science, because they can just make up or accept a story to understand the world. People who believe this story are unlikely even to entertain the possibility that it might not be true; and because it can never be proved or disproved, they will continue to shove scientific explanations into the background, or ignore them altogether, thinking we don’t need them.

[Guest 2smart4u]

The Creationist Ignorance Emporium is a series of excuses looking desperately for a justification. Take this display on poisonous frogs. http://www.ooblick.com/gallery/v/travel/mo...c_2400.jpg.html

According to the Bible, via this display, poison wasn’t poison until Adam and Eve sinned. Then it became poison. You have to be thoroughly gullible to believe that.

What was God thinking?

Why would God put “harmless poison” into frogs?

Did he have the poison at the ready, just in case these two screwed things up?

Did he already know they were going to screw things up, and he was just waiting to activate the poison?

Even if you accept the immoral idea that the entire human race should be punished for the “sin” of two people, why should the innocent animals suffer?

Why didn’t God make them immune to human folly to show us what we were missing?

Well, says the creationist, God works in mysterious ways that we can’t understand. OK, then stop pretending you know how these things happened.

Is it conceivable that it could have happened that way? Well, people can tell the story, so obviously it is conceivable. Whether it is possible is another question.

The more important question is whether there is any good reason to believe the story, or a good reason not to. There are several good reasons not to.

When people believe explanations like the one in the Ignorance Emporium, they make it less likely that they will seek the real answer. They comfort themselves into thinking that they don’t need science, because they can just make up or accept a story to understand the world. People who believe this story are unlikely even to entertain the possibility that it might not be true; and because it can never be proved or disproved, they will continue to shove scientific explanations into the background, or ignore them altogether, thinking we don’t need them.

Melanie/Kris/Paul, so good to hear from you again, how's the weather in CA? I'm really curious about something, I'm hoping you (or Kris or Paul) can answer it for me. How did you and your sister Kris, both living in Ca, find out about KOTW and hook up with Paul? And what's really weird is all 3 of you share the same loony leftist atheist views to a T. Go figure.

[Bryan]

The Creationist Ignorance Emporium is a series of excuses looking desperately for a justification. Take this display on poisonous frogs. http://www.ooblick.com/gallery/v/travel/mo...c_2400.jpg.html

According to the Bible, via this display, poison wasn’t poison until Adam and Eve sinned. Then it became poison. You have to be thoroughly gullible to believe that.

Straw man. If you really believe that's what the display meant, then your powers of analysis are close to nil. If you knew better and made the argument anyway then you're dishonest.

[WilliamK]

Straw man. If you really believe that's what the display meant, then your powers of analysis are close to nil. If you knew better and made the argument anyway then you're dishonest.

Here, I'll edit Melanie's statement to make it more accurately represent what the display said:

"According to the Bible, via this display, poison dart frogs wasn't weren't poisonous until Adam and Eve sinned. Then it they became poisonous. You have to be thoroughly gullible to believe that."

<sarcasm>

Wow, Bryan, that sure lays waste to Melanie's claim. It is so completely different from Melanie's interpretation that it is entirely credible, and it wouldn't require any gullibility to believe it. And there's just no way anyone could have committed such a drastically erroneous reading or retelling without being either dishonest or profoundly stupid. Really, there's just no other way that could happen. Obviously this was a misrepresentation built for the purpose of knocking down, since the criticism doesn't apply at all to the original. Boy, that Melanie sure is an awful person to do that. We are all so very fortunate to have the always honest and honorable Bryan to put her in her place. And, wow! That Creation Museum sure is pushing some great science!

</sarcasm>

This is the point where you tell yourself that my snarky criticism is the result of my not being smart enough to keep up with your superior intellect, and/or not honest enough to acknowledge the lack of any disingenuousness in your post. Or maybe that my motivation is dishonorable, that I'm just being a jerk. No way it could be a fair criticism of any failing of your own. Seriously, Bryan, go right ahead and believe that. You have my full blessing.

[WilliamK]

Well, says the creationist, God works in mysterious ways that we can’t understand. OK, then stop pretending you know how these things happened.

It's simple, Melanie. These things are beyond human reasoning. But, for the unreasoning, it all makes perfect sense, and can be known with complete certainty. If we could all just turn off our ability to reason, we'd be MUCH smarter. Maybe even too smart.

If your neighborhood is like most in the U.S., there's a building within a few blocks of you with a cross displayed on or near it. The nice folks within will be happy to help you learn to overcome that nasty ol' reasoning.