I’ve hit the big-time, guys – Ken Ham, founder and head of the Creation Museum, is blogging about the talk I gave at Purdue last night. And of course, even though he wasn’t there, hasn’t seen any video, and has yet to put up the reports from his informant (the pastor who came), he’s already reacting to what I may or may not have said:
Of course it is no surprise this person mocks the Bible’s account of origins—she’s an atheist! And one of the mantras of these atheists is that they vehemently attack the Creation Museum because children visit and are challenged concerning what to believe about origins. Of course, what is no surprise is that the atheists want to indoctrinate children in atheistic evolution and that there is no God.
And it would be no surprise to you that they don’t complain about the thousands upon thousands of children who visit the secular evolutionist museums, including the specialist children’s museums across the country where they are presented with atheistic and evolutionary ideas as fact—with no suggestion there could even be a different way of looking at things. (At the Creation Museum, children and adults are told about different ways of looking at the same evidence, and, so, we present the evolution belief system, but we do take a strong stand on the biblical account nonetheless).
As you’ll see when I post the video tonight, I fully disclose at the beginning of my talk that I am a biologist and an atheist, so people in the audience know where I’m coming from. I also repeatedly mention that the Creation Museum does not represent all Christians.
Then he starts talking about the Indianapolis Children Museum:
In the very popular dinosaur exhibit, millions of years is presented numerous times as fact. But also look at the other sign—there are neither “good” nor “bad” values or beliefs—just different ones.
- Atheists today (like the one from Purdue University) claim Christianity is “bad,” that children should not be exposed to Christianity—but, of course, they can be exposed to everything else, and as far as everything else is concerned it is neither “good” nor “bad”—only Christianity is bad!
- This is indoctrinating children not only in atheistic evolution, but indoctrinating them to believe that morality is relative—that there really are no rules—one can do what one wants (except believe in Christian morality, of course).
I never claim Christianity is bad, or that you must be an atheist to believe in evolution – I explicitly say in my talk that many Christians believe in evolution. But tonight you’ll be able to see for yourself what I did and didn’t say. Unfortunately I’m stuck on campus until 8 or 9 PM, so it won’t be up until late tonight. Maybe I’ll send it along to Dr. Ham and see what he thinks after really hearing what I said.
I have a feeling he still won’t like it.
Oh, what is it with Creationists not linking to their opponents or mentioning them by name? He went out of his way to delete any instance of Jennifer McCreight (or even Jennifer), and didn’t link to the Society of Non-Theists’s website (wouldn’t expect him to know my blog). Sadness.
Like I said on Twitter, congrats on becoming one of the Big Girls. If one of the professional Creationists feels the need to single you out then you are obviously doing something right.
I would rebut some of his points, but it's Ken Ham. Everyone automatically assume that 90% of the crap that comes out of his mouth is a lie.
Like I said on Twitter, congrats on becoming one of the Big Girls. If one of the professional Creationists feels the need to single you out then you are obviously doing something right. I would rebut some of his points, but it’s Ken Ham. Everyone automatically assume that 90% of the crap that comes out of his mouth is a lie.
I think the reason Creationists don't link to their opponents or mention them by them is their feeling of insecurity. People who have trouble facing the reality and thinking logically tend to come out with a bunch of ideas that cannot withstand the test of reality. They don't want to be judged or critized, because of their subconsicous fear. To escape judgment, they evade, in this case, by avoiding contacts with their opponents or anybody that can make them look bad.
If you are interested in psychological profiling, you can read Dan Korem's book, "The Art of Profiling." Religious people, I know, tend to fall into the category of "the fearful."
I think the reason Creationists don’t link to their opponents or mention them by them is their feeling of insecurity. People who have trouble facing the reality and thinking logically tend to come out with a bunch of ideas that cannot withstand the test of reality. They don’t want to be judged or critized, because of their subconsicous fear. To escape judgment, they evade, in this case, by avoiding contacts with their opponents or anybody that can make them look bad.If you are interested in psychological profiling, you can read Dan Korem’s book, “The Art of Profiling.” Religious people, I know, tend to fall into the category of “the fearful.”
They avoid saying your name because if they say it three times in front of a mirror, they're afraid you'll burst out of it and bring them sense and intelligent thought. Silly evangelicals.
And in addition to what Paul said, the people who fail to mention or link to you, or really give any Googleable search terms, do so because they don't want to present any viewpoint such as yourself. Ham doesn't want to give your viewpoint – an accurate depiction of evolution and biology, as opposed to the sad travesty he has put forth in his "museum" – a leg to stand on. He's spinning propaganda, and all good propagandists know that the last thing you do is give the people reading or viewing another source of information other than ones you control.
Hammy wants to use you as an example, but he doesn't want to give you a voice.
They avoid saying your name because if they say it three times in front of a mirror, they’re afraid you’ll burst out of it and bring them sense and intelligent thought. Silly evangelicals.And in addition to what Paul said, the people who fail to mention or link to you, or really give any Googleable search terms, do so because they don’t want to present any viewpoint such as yourself. Ham doesn’t want to give your viewpoint – an accurate depiction of evolution and biology, as opposed to the sad travesty he has put forth in his “museum” – a leg to stand on. He’s spinning propaganda, and all good propagandists know that the last thing you do is give the people reading or viewing another source of information other than ones you control.Hammy wants to use you as an example, but he doesn’t want to give you a voice.
I just find it amusing that he deletes your name from the description of the talk and doesn't link to you at all, and then goes on to talk about how Christians are so much better than atheists because they're just presenting both sides, while the atheists only present one side.
I just find it amusing that he deletes your name from the description of the talk and doesn’t link to you at all, and then goes on to talk about how Christians are so much better than atheists because they’re just presenting both sides, while the atheists only present one side.
I think if he linked to your site, one of his followers might go to your site and find out that Ken Ham is a lying douchebag. That is my take on it. Congrats for being singled out by the lying douchebag.
Remember meteors come from Mars.
I think if he linked to your site, one of his followers might go to your site and find out that Ken Ham is a lying douchebag. That is my take on it. Congrats for being singled out by the lying douchebag.Remember meteors come from Mars.
Beamstalk, you didn't call the lying douchbag a lying douchebag enough. Do it again.
Beamstalk, you didn’t call the lying douchbag a lying douchebag enough. Do it again.
Am I the only one noticing that you (I assume) accidentally called Ken Ham "Dr. Ham" in your post Jen? Yikes! That moron couldn't have a real degree…. could he?
Joe Agnost
Am I the only one noticing that you (I assume) accidentally called Ken Ham “Dr. Ham” in your post Jen? Yikes! That moron couldn’t have a real degree…. could he?Joe Agnost
Sorry, can I add that Ken the lying douchebag Ham is a lying douchebag?
Sorry, can I add that Ken the lying douchebag Ham is a lying douchebag?
Is that the best you can do Beamstalk?? I bet you've got more "lying douchebag"s in ya! ;)
joe agnost
Is that the best you can do Beamstalk?? I bet you’ve got more “lying douchebag”s in ya! ;)joe agnost
Wait – that's not how it was supposed to sound… I didn't mean to imply that you had ANY actual douchebags ~in~ you…. you know what I mean…… *head_desk* *palm_forehead*
joe agnost
Wait – that’s not how it was supposed to sound… I didn’t mean to imply that you had ANY actual douchebags ~in~ you…. you know what I mean…… *head_desk* *palm_forehead*joe agnost
Tome Estes and Ken Ham go after you?
You've officially reached hero status.
Tome Estes and Ken Ham go after you?You’ve officially reached hero status.
She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named will know where you are if you speak her name. Everyone knows this.
She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named will know where you are if you speak her name. Everyone knows this.
The real idiocy with Ken Canadianbacon is his refusal to allow comments. Oh, sure, you can give Mr. Tenderloin direct feedback, but he sure as imaginary-bad-place won't let the heathens out there flood his blog comment strings with rational thought and logic. This, along with his "no links or relevant info" strategy paints Ken Shortribs as an insecure hypocrite whose claims of presenting both sides fairly ring hollow.
The real idiocy with Ken Canadianbacon is his refusal to allow comments. Oh, sure, you can give Mr. Tenderloin direct feedback, but he sure as imaginary-bad-place won’t let the heathens out there flood his blog comment strings with rational thought and logic. This, along with his “no links or relevant info” strategy paints Ken Shortribs as an insecure hypocrite whose claims of presenting both sides fairly ring hollow.
All I can say is, congratulations. You're clearly doing something right.
All I can say is, congratulations. You’re clearly doing something right.
Yeah. Congratulations! You've hit the jackpot!
You should send him a video. It'd be awesome.
Yeah. Congratulations! You’ve hit the jackpot!You should send him a video. It’d be awesome.
HEY! Anonymous, that is NOT funny. Canadian bacon is far more delicious than Ken Ham's idiocy.
HEY! Anonymous, that is NOT funny. Canadian bacon is far more delicious than Ken Ham’s idiocy.
Veritas is right. Canadian bacon is awesome.
Veritas is right. Canadian bacon is awesome.
Just to find one random bit to nit-pick: I've yet to hear an atheist say children shouldn't be exposed to Christianity. It's indoctrination that's the problem, not exposure. Not that Ken Ham would be able to recognize the difference.
Just to find one random bit to nit-pick: I’ve yet to hear an atheist say children shouldn’t be exposed to Christianity. It’s indoctrination that’s the problem, not exposure. Not that Ken Ham would be able to recognize the difference.
Yes, anon, that was too far. Do not blaspheme against any form of bacon.
As for Ham… Yes, real museums refer to millions of years because ITS TRUE! I would ask what kind of idiot he is, but I already know the answer.
RobsterFCD / Robert B
Yes, anon, that was too far. Do not blaspheme against any form of bacon.As for Ham… Yes, real museums refer to millions of years because ITS TRUE! I would ask what kind of idiot he is, but I already know the answer.RobsterFCD / Robert B
The Creationists wont link to name their opponents for legal reasons. Since you're not a public figure (you will be soon, give it time) you have an expectation of privacy and any negative postings they make could be the basis of a libel suit. By not naming you, they're just covering themselves.
Also, linking to you would allow his readers to see convincing arguments against him. It's also a free ad for you.
The Creationists wont link to name their opponents for legal reasons. Since you’re not a public figure (you will be soon, give it time) you have an expectation of privacy and any negative postings they make could be the basis of a libel suit. By not naming you, they’re just covering themselves.Also, linking to you would allow his readers to see convincing arguments against him. It’s also a free ad for you.
Greatest thing about Ken Ham's blog entry is that there was a link to a video about praying for AIG.
Greatest thing about Ken Ham’s blog entry is that there was a link to a video about praying for AIG.
Good stuff! I think the comments about creationist and insecurity is so true – sad when any belief system hangs by such a slender thread!
Good stuff! I think the comments about creationist and insecurity is so true – sad when any belief system hangs by such a slender thread!
You are all right. I am terribly sorry for comparing something as divine as pork products to someone as water-product as Ham. Forgive me.
You are all right. I am terribly sorry for comparing something as divine as pork products to someone as water-product as Ham. Forgive me.
I think they are giving your God-like status when they won't mention your name.
I think they are giving your God-like status when they won’t mention your name.
Yes, that's so true. Insecurity and lack of rational thought always show up in an argument. One side presents a possible idea and the other side fights back with insults and jokes without ever voicing a real argument. So, if anyone can point out to me just one area in that whole video where Jen actually makes a scientific point, that would be really helpful. I would love to hear a real argument against what the Creation Museum says instead of just jokes and insults. Go to the Answers in Genesis website and look in the video section under Evolution to Creation where some real discussion takes place. Unless your afraid your intellect might be challenged.
Yes, that’s so true. Insecurity and lack of rational thought always show up in an argument. One side presents a possible idea and the other side fights back with insults and jokes without ever voicing a real argument. So, if anyone can point out to me just one area in that whole video where Jen actually makes a scientific point, that would be really helpful. I would love to hear a real argument against what the Creation Museum says instead of just jokes and insults. Go to the Answers in Genesis website and look in the video section under Evolution to Creation where some real discussion takes place. Unless your afraid your intellect might be challenged.
Sometimes jokes and insults are the best way to get a point across. It's not her fault if you're too thick to understand what she's saying.
The things said by the Creation Museum don't need a "real argument" made against them: they're frankly self-refuting. Consider all of the internal contradictions; Jen's talk made those perfectly obvious, as far as I can tell.
Recommending Answers in Genesis for "real discussions to challenge one's intellect" would be hilarious if it weren't so pathetic.
Sometimes jokes and insults are the best way to get a point across. It’s not her fault if you’re too thick to understand what she’s saying.The things said by the Creation Museum don’t need a “real argument” made against them: they’re frankly self-refuting. Consider all of the internal contradictions; Jen’s talk made those perfectly obvious, as far as I can tell.Recommending Answers in Genesis for “real discussions to challenge one’s intellect” would be hilarious if it weren’t so pathetic.
Thank-you for proving my point. You answer with what? An insult. How intelligent of you. Your post has no valid points, just opinion. As was the entire lecture of Jen's. There were no points, just opinions, jokes and laughter. If it is so easy to refute, then perhaps one intelligent argument may have been nice.
I love your last statement too. You gave your opinion without even listening to the other side. Very scientific. Actually the lecture that I was speaking about in the last post was given by a believer in evolution. The video Evolution to Creation. You should try listening or are you scared to have your beliefs challenged?
Thank-you for proving my point. You answer with what? An insult. How intelligent of you. Your post has no valid points, just opinion. As was the entire lecture of Jen’s. There were no points, just opinions, jokes and laughter. If it is so easy to refute, then perhaps one intelligent argument may have been nice. I love your last statement too. You gave your opinion without even listening to the other side. Very scientific. Actually the lecture that I was speaking about in the last post was given by a believer in evolution. The video Evolution to Creation. You should try listening or are you scared to have your beliefs challenged?
"Listening to the other side" is not necessarily a requisite step in the scientific method, especially when the "other side" are composed of crackpots who can't even get their hypotheses straight. Logical consistency is rather important.
I know what Answers in Genesis has to say and, frankly, I am not interested. For the record, though, I will reiterate: I do know what they have to say; I know what they've had to say in the past and they show no evidence of changing, so I see no reason to continue to waste my time with them.
I don't have "beliefs", certainly not regarding the scientific theory of evolution, so I don't see what there is to challenge. Beliefs are what one has in the absence of evidence.
“Listening to the other side” is not necessarily a requisite step in the scientific method, especially when the “other side” are composed of crackpots who can’t even get their hypotheses straight. Logical consistency is rather important.I know what Answers in Genesis has to say and, frankly, I am not interested. For the record, though, I will reiterate: I do know what they have to say; I know what they’ve had to say in the past and they show no evidence of changing, so I see no reason to continue to waste my time with them.I don’t have “beliefs”, certainly not regarding the scientific theory of evolution, so I don’t see what there is to challenge. Beliefs are what one has in the absence of evidence.
Ah, let the insults continue. Atleast your consistant. Listening to other ideas IS part of scientific discovery. Hearing others and either refuting their claims or adopting them is part of scientific discovery.
Why do science textbooks change every year? Because we learn new things all the time. To be true scientists we must constantly question everything we understand otherwise we would never progress. Every theory in sceince needs to be retested in light of current knowledge.
You say you don't have beliefs but that's funny. Look at your exact words… "certainly not in regarding the scientific theory of evolution". The what? Did you say theory? Not the Scientific fact of evolution. Because there is only one fact, that evolution is a theory. You actually do believe in the theory of evolution. But what would happen one day when new evidence shows something different? Would you be willing to change or are you one of those crackpots that would never change no matter what evidence is presented. And please don't say that you know that new evidence would never be found because for you to know that, you would have to know everything. And for you to make a statement like that, even you cannot refute the complete ignorance of anyone to make such a statemtent because it sounds like something only a religious crackpot would say.
Ah, let the insults continue. Atleast your consistant. Listening to other ideas IS part of scientific discovery. Hearing others and either refuting their claims or adopting them is part of scientific discovery. Why do science textbooks change every year? Because we learn new things all the time. To be true scientists we must constantly question everything we understand otherwise we would never progress. Every theory in sceince needs to be retested in light of current knowledge.You say you don’t have beliefs but that’s funny. Look at your exact words… “certainly not in regarding the scientific theory of evolution”. The what? Did you say theory? Not the Scientific fact of evolution. Because there is only one fact, that evolution is a theory. You actually do believe in the theory of evolution. But what would happen one day when new evidence shows something different? Would you be willing to change or are you one of those crackpots that would never change no matter what evidence is presented. And please don’t say that you know that new evidence would never be found because for you to know that, you would have to know everything. And for you to make a statement like that, even you cannot refute the complete ignorance of anyone to make such a statemtent because it sounds like something only a religious crackpot would say.
Of course the theory of evolution changes when new evidence comes in. It happens all the time. You've clearly shown that you have no idea what "scientific theory" means, though. Would you make this same argument regarding the scientific theories of gravitation, quantum mechanics, relativity, etc?
"Theory" does not imply "only a theory".
My point regarding "belief" seems to be lost on you as well. All I'm trying to say is that "belief" is the wrong word. Do you "believe in" gravity? We go where the evidence goes, and all of the evidence currently supports evolution. If you don't see the distinction, there's not much I can do here.
Read The Greatest Show on Earth, or any of a number of other well-written books on the subject (Why Evolution is True, Your Inner Fish, and so on).
You miss my other point, so I'll let Douglas Adams make it for me.
"I don't accept the currently fashionable assertion that any view is automatically as worthy of respect as any equal and opposite view. My view is that the moon is made of rock. If someone says to me, 'Well, you haven't been there, have you? You haven't seen it for yourself, therefore my view that it is made of Norwegian beaver cheese is equally valid" – then I can't even be bothered to argue. There is such a thing as the burden of proof."
Of course the theory of evolution changes when new evidence comes in. It happens all the time. You’ve clearly shown that you have no idea what “scientific theory” means, though. Would you make this same argument regarding the scientific theories of gravitation, quantum mechanics, relativity, etc?”Theory” does not imply “only a theory”.My point regarding “belief” seems to be lost on you as well. All I’m trying to say is that “belief” is the wrong word. Do you “believe in” gravity? We go where the evidence goes, and all of the evidence currently supports evolution. If you don’t see the distinction, there’s not much I can do here.Read The Greatest Show on Earth, or any of a number of other well-written books on the subject (Why Evolution is True, Your Inner Fish, and so on).You miss my other point, so I’ll let Douglas Adams make it for me.”I don’t accept the currently fashionable assertion that any view is automatically as worthy of respect as any equal and opposite view. My view is that the moon is made of rock. If someone says to me, ‘Well, you haven’t been there, have you? You haven’t seen it for yourself, therefore my view that it is made of Norwegian beaver cheese is equally valid” – then I can’t even be bothered to argue. There is such a thing as the burden of proof.”
Again, insult after insult. Are you able to make one rational point without insulting my intelligence? You don't even know who I am yet you assume so much about me. All I am saying is that a Theory is not fact. Quite simple statement.Personally I think for anyone to believe that order can come from Chaos would have much more faith then any God believing person in this world. That's like believing a million monkeys typing for a million years could produce the entire works of Shakespeare!!
Again, insult after insult. Are you able to make one rational point without insulting my intelligence? You don’t even know who I am yet you assume so much about me. All I am saying is that a Theory is not fact. Quite simple statement.Personally I think for anyone to believe that order can come from Chaos would have much more faith then any God believing person in this world. That’s like believing a million monkeys typing for a million years could produce the entire works of Shakespeare!!
You're missing every point I make and you're complaining because I'm not being nice enough? Get over it.
I already responded to your "theory does not equal fact" canard. Despite my tone, which seems to be all you're paying any attention to, I am saying things other than "neener neener neener, you're an idiot, ha ha ha ha".
I'd try to reply to the inanity in your last comment, but it's just not worth it. You'll keep complaining that I'm insulting you and not making any real arguments, so why should I bother?
You’re missing every point I make and you’re complaining because I’m not being nice enough? Get over it.I already responded to your “theory does not equal fact” canard. Despite my tone, which seems to be all you’re paying any attention to, I am saying things other than “neener neener neener, you’re an idiot, ha ha ha ha”.I’d try to reply to the inanity in your last comment, but it’s just not worth it. You’ll keep complaining that I’m insulting you and not making any real arguments, so why should I bother?
Ken Ham blogs about my Creation Museum lecture! | Blag Hag I was suggested this web site by my cousin. I am not sure whether this post is written by him as nobody else know such detailed about my problem. You’re amazing! Thanks! your article about Ken Ham blogs about my Creation Museum lecture! | Blag HagBest Regards Justin