So I wandered over to the Answers In Genesis website (I know, gross, but I was curious) to see what creepy ol' Ken Ham had to say about the impending (and by now completed without incident) visit of about 285 atheists/humanists to his abomination unto mighty Atheismo, the Creation Museum.
I wasn't shocked to find his quote mining of prominent atheist and university professor PZ Myer's blog as definitive proof that all atheists are mean and snarky. The fact is, the creation museum is as much a joke among atheists as I don't know...valued and accredited scientific research is among creationists so lets not claim innocence on that front. However, this quote from Ham was a bit much:
Most people (even most of the non-Christians) who come to the museum do so to learn, to be challenged, to search out information, to be equipped, and so on.I guarantee you, Mr. Ham, what you're doing at the creation museum has nothing to do with information unless you count misinformation as a kind of information. People may go there to learn the latest in christian apologetics, but as for learning history, science, or anything of value, the creation museum is not on the top of anyone's list. I will agree that there is a challenge here - the challenge to not burst out laughing hysterically at the ridiculousness of the 'museum' and it's content.
Yeah, I'm snarky when it comes to the application of pseudoscience when trying to give creationism scientific validity because creationism is an idea based on a myth. There are no observations in nature which support creationism unless you refuse to observe nature in its entirety. Once you start trying to lie to people by telling them that their mythological belief system has any amount of validity in the field of science, you are essentially throwing down the gauntlet for the discussion and the scientifically minded community isn't going to pull any punches in it's response. You can call us mean for it, but to relate to you on a level you'll understand - you started it.
Ham goes on to quote a post PZ made about the recent Iowa bus ad controversy where the DART pulled atheist bus ads after having initially approved them, published them, and collected the money for them. At first the DART claimed the bus ads were pulled because of a negative community reaction, but then changed their story to say that they were never approved in the first place. When confronted with proof that they were in fact approved, the DART has once again changed it's story to say that they were supposed to be approved AGAIN and weren't.
What confuses me is that Ham quotes PZ's entire post and then comes to this conclusion:
You see, regardless of the creation/evolution issue, these people oppose anyone who believes in God, regardless of whether they accept Genesis as literal history.What? A post about discrimination against atheists in reference to a bus ad is proof that we oppose anyone who believes in god? I suppose when you run an establishment that brazenly asserts that T-rex was a vegetarian regardless of the mountain of evidence to the contrary, you can come to any conclusion from any source without fear of being called out on your erroneous logic. Erroneous logic seems to be the name of the creationist game. Sometimes I just want to take creationists by the shoulders, give them a good shake and demand in my most authoritative voice that they make sense.
Posts
