Ken Ham opened his colossal monument to ignorance this weekend, the Creation "Museum", and PZ Myers is hosting a carnival right now of scientific responses to this folly. The NCSE has also issued a statement.
Clearly the anti-science fools in fundamentalist Christian circles will not rest until an entire generation of American students grows up completely miseducated and deceived, and America itself collapses in global stature to the level of a scientific and intellectual third world country. Not only that, but our economy could falter the more science and reason are rejected in America (among the supporters of Republican presidential candidate Sam Brownback are people who deny get this that the earth revolves around the sun!), as America fails to advance scientifically and we become just as dependent on Europe and Asia for our medicines, our technology, and our research needs as we currently are on the Middle East for our oil. (I know that last bit sounds slippery-slope-ish, but come on, who ever thought we'd see people willingly pump $25 million into something like this?)
Finally, the stereotype of Christians as being just plain less intelligent than everyone else is powerfully reinforced. In the end, that may be the only bit of fact this "museum" promulgates.
Cletus and Clem Clodhopper enjoyed their trip to the Creation Museum this weekend, and reported they learned a lot. "Ah cain't read much 'sept comic books, so lookin at the big plastic dinersores was just like goina collidge, 'sept better, cuz I dint hafta read!" boasted Clem. Cletus particularly appreciated being able to spend a Saturday away from the family farm, which he shares with his mother/girlfriend and about 23 of his brothers/sons and sisters/aunts/daughters. "Mostly ah look forward to the weekend cuz after ah muck out the stables Pappy lets me blow the goat. Ah never thought ah'd get no schoolin but now ah done gone to the museum, I got alla mah schoolin in one day! Praise Jesus!"
Best title ever, Martin.ReplyDelete
"Ah cain't read much 'sept comic books, so lookin at the big plastic dinersores was just like goina collidge, 'sept better, cuz I dint hafta read!"ReplyDelete
Hey, that's offensive!
Don't lump us comic book readers in with the young earth creationists. Even at our worst, we're not THAT bad.
Finally, the stereotype of Christians as being just plain less intelligent than everyone else is powerfully reinforced.
Which begs a great question, why aren't the more educated and more libral Christians speaking out against this?
Don't they know that by keeping silent it makes tham look complacent with this junk? Considering how often Christians complain about Muslims not speaking out against the less pleasent aspects of their religion, you would think they would follow their own adivce.
But no, instead they keep silent and make it look like they all agree with this and then complain when we lump them together because of it.
Why do you moderate are you afraid what the truth is. LOL How can you be objective when you screen everyone's comments. Either you are scared or lost and want to stay lost. I have left many comments that never made it, what are you afraid of...Truth? GMABReplyDelete
Hey...Don't insult comic books like that.ReplyDelete
Why do you moderate are you afraid what the truth is.ReplyDelete
We moderate mindless trolls who have nothing of value to say and simply want to post childish remarks or preaching. If you've had comments rejected, it was because they were of no value. Like this "museum." Engage us in a worthwhile, intelligent manner, and we'll be happy to have a dialogue. Unless you're Dan, in which case, fuck off.
Akusai, Saurian: Hey, I used to work in the comics industry. So I have firsthand knowledge of just how much of the product is crap. Still, maybe I should have been more specific and said something like "Rob Liefeld comics."
Akusai, Saurian: Hey, I used to work in the comics industry. So I have firsthand knowledge of just how much of the product is crap.ReplyDelete
I wasn't responding to what you said about comic books themselves, I was responding to your comparison of comic book READERS to young earth creationists.
Still, maybe I should have been more specific and said something like "Rob Liefeld comics."
Akusai, Saurian: Hey, I used to work in the comics industry. So I have firsthand knowledge of just how much of the product is crap.ReplyDelete
No arguments here, but comics, like everything else in the universe, fall under the unalterable rule of "90% of everything is crap."
So. That blog is for real. It isn't a parody.ReplyDelete
Wow, with friends like that, Brownback certainly will be moving straight into the White House in 2009 - Go Sam! ;)
Well, it could be a parody. Thing is, these days, fundamentalists are divorcing themselves from the real world with such enthusiasm that it appears there's no false, anti-scientific belief so stupid they won't embrace it like a lovesick puppy.ReplyDelete
I'm waiting for someone to tell me that this creation museum is a big prank. 27 million dollars to sell this mythology. Say it ain't true.ReplyDelete
Surely we're de-evolving.
Ok no knowing what a mindless trolls was I had to look for a definition and different ones but I came accross I fount this on Wiki:ReplyDelete
TROLL, noun, often used as an acerbic, puerile, exclamatory insult -- a knee-jerk _ad hominem_ often employed in a feeble effort to discredit another poster because one has been flummoxed, proven to be wrong, ignorant
or just congenitally stupid or incompetent.
The knee-jerk _ad hominem_ acerbic, puerile, exclamatory insult TROLL rarely has any practical effect and can be considered a form of farblondzhet,
flustered, frustrated spleen-venting by the person who employs it.
It sounds like you are afraid of the truth, am I wrong? So I say God exists..is that preaching and trollish? I don't get the rules you are making up...oops setting. lol
Yes, we've seen this cut-and-paste before. You'll have to do better than that.ReplyDelete
It sounds like you are afraid of the truth, am I wrong?
So I say God exists..is that preaching and trollish?
It is if all you do is say it and not present your proof. If you have some, present it.
I don't get the rules you are making up...oops setting. lol
Not surprising. You appear to be another run-of-the-mill believer of mediocre intelligence. In actuality I suspect you're Dan, trying to sneak back in the door despite having been banned over your own childishness and dishonesty. But I could be wrong. If you're not Dan, trying replying with your proof of God's existence, and sign your real name to it. Perhaps we might think you're to be taken seriously then. After all, if you're so confident in your Christian faith, why hide your name in fear when confronting us?
Haven't posted before but:ReplyDelete
So I have firsthand knowledge of just how much of the product is crap. Still, maybe I should have been more specific and said something like "Rob Liefeld comics."
LOL... so true, so true....
Rob Liefeld is to comic art what Ken Ham is to biology.ReplyDelete
>Ok no knowing what a mindless trolls was I had to look for a definition...ReplyDelete
I don't know the full criteria of what Martin uses to screen posts, but as this is his blog, he can choose to screen them--like it or not.
I am appreciative if his screening includes evaluating a particular level of informed poster, however:
It's one thing for someone uninformed to post asking questions to better inform himself or herself (such as "Is there a place on the Internet where atheists discuss their beliefs in more detail--or where I can find information about Evolution?"); but if an uninformed individual posts opinions and ideas (not asking, but telling us X) that illustrate a clear lack of having sought any background information whatsoever (such as posting Pascal's Wager here, for example), that could get tedious to the main group at this forum, as many less-informed apologists will waste much of the group's time and energy by asking for responses to _the same_ apologetics that already have clear, adequate, and easily found responses plastered all over the Internet.
Posting a fallacy at this forum without directing any energy toward seeking counter arguments that are already available is a waste of everyone's time. And no one likes to have their time wasted.
In order to not waste everyone's time, I would recommend something along these lines (using Pascal as our example):
"I was thinking of posting Pascal's Wager here; however, I went online and looked it up to see what sorts of criticisms that apologetic has merited previously. I came upon many critiques that indicated X, Y, Z as potential problems with the wager. I still think the Wager is valid, though, because nothing I came across that indicated X, Y, or Z, seems to have adequately addressed the following issue that I find compelling about the Wager..."
In that way, an apologetic poster clearly shows they respect other people's time, and that they have an honest interest in an intelligent and thoughtful dialogue, by showing they have (1) taken _their time_ and initiative to seek opposing viewpoints and information that counters their concept (which saves the regular group the task of repetition with each new apologist who thinks we've never heard Pascal's Wager), (2) made an attempt to understand the new information and its application to the argument presented, and (3) thought it through enough to explain why they still think the apologetic may still be valid.
I think I safely speak for more than myself here when I say that it really is no fun to re-explain why Pascal's Wager doesn't work for the 1,000th time to someone who simply didn't feel it was worth the five minutes to find that information online before they came here to ask us to repeat criticisms that are sufficiently and readily available online.
By taking just those few minutes up front, you can literally save us _days_ of explanation; and that sort of consideration is greatly appreciated here. Whereas, taking no time to research counterarguments shows a complete disregard for our time/energy, and I can understand why Martin would consider that to be the equivalent of "trolling"--basically wasting everyone else's time here due to personal laziness with regard to doing adequate research before presenting an argument/idea. It's blatant disrespect of others, as everyone values their time.
At the very least, show you have researched the validity of your claims and made real efforts to seek the counter arguments already available before asking for replies from this forum.
If you did this, and Martin screened you, then I'm at a loss as to why your posts were blocked. But I would find it very surprising if Martin blocked anything close to what I just described.
If, for example, you want to address an issue of Evolution vs. Creation, I would recommend making sure it hasn't already been addressed at talkorigins.org. Or if you have an argument about the existence of god or a criticism of an atheist viewpoint, you might check Austin Cline's articles at about.com in the agnostic/atheist section of the Religion area--just to make sure your ducks are in an adequate row and you truly understand the atheist perspective (and not some Christian conservative charicature of the atheist viewpoint).
There is a high liklihood that what you find there will only be repeated here--since logic is logic wherever you go. You may come across new ideas now and again; but you'll avoid getting repeats of the old ones by explaining you've already read them--and illustrating you understand their implications clearly, before asking people here for anything further.
You'll gain a lot of respect from everyone here by just showing that you are willing to put some of your own energy toward informing yourself, prior to asking us to spoon-feed you answers/counters. Saving your own time by not researching your ideas, and then asking a forum to waste their time providing you with existing/available info, is extremely disrespectful. It's a way of saying your time is meaningful, and ours is not.
I don't know if you're guilty of this (or anyone else who has been blocked for that matter), but if you are, these ideas may help get you posted here.
FYI, Tracie, "anonymous" is, in fact, Dan Marvin, just trying to sockpuppet his way back in, as I suspected all along. His most recent comment, which I have in fact rejected, made a couple of statements that made his identity obvious. "...someone I know warned me..." Yeah, right.ReplyDelete
Grow up and get lost, Dan. You disqualified yourself from being allowed to participate here long ago, and you know it.
I've had a number of worthwhile exchanges with well-spoken theists here, and I quite enjoy those. You just aren't one of them.
If that is Dan, I'm disappointed at the decline of his posts.ReplyDelete
Although he was previously guilty of not researching his information adequately before posting, I would say these latest posts are pretty much juvenile. In fact, I was thinking that you might be jumping to conclusions by indictaing this could be Dan. But I have no idea, really.
Just to say, again, if this latest material truly is Dan, it would be, honestly, disappointing.
I don't know if this is the right place to post this but I'm having some trouble with the latest episode. In iTunes it says it is an hour and a half, but once downloaded I end up with an eight bit file over eight and a half hours long which seems to repeat portions of the show for a few hours before giving way to silence.ReplyDelete
Has anyone else had this problem? It was very surreal, especially considering the subject matter of mental disorders. Great episode though. I'd love to hear how it ends.
To be fair, comics have a long history of tending toward progressive values and good science education. I think these buffoons are more likely to have read Left Behind.ReplyDelete
I love the projection of "you're afraid of the truth!" If the Bible is the truth, then no evidence uncovered in the natural world should be able to disprove it. Something that is true will be supported by the evidence.
So why do Creationists feel the need to demonize science, to intellectually segregate themselves and make their own schools and their own museums where they can shelter children from scientific discovery? If their Bible really is true, then they should have nothing to fear from the process of scientific inquiry. If their Bible is true, shouldn't all the evidence eventually point to that?
It's not that we're afraid of the truth; after all, we're the ones who come at things without the attitude that the truth is already decided. No, we'd like to know the truth, which is why we're actively engaging in a reliable process to approximate that objective truth. It's the Christian Cretinists who are afraid of the truth (or at least, the approximation of "truth" obtained through science) because it might invalidate their pre-determined "Truth" of the Bible. The problem is the Christians' own insecurity, that their beliefs might be shown to be absurd, that the evidence doesn't support the Bible. Naturally, for all their pomposity, they don't have enough faith to support these beliefs, they need to lean on evidence. But when the evidence doesn't support their beliefs, they're left with a teetering structure on a shifting foundation of weak faith, so they have to shore it up with isolationism and denial.
It's certainly not the atheists who are afraid of truth. It's the Christians who are afraid that their "Truth" isn't.
Someone did post a note to the Web masters about this on the ACA list. I believe they're looking into it. One person did ask how it loads, so I will post your note there as well. Thanks for the info.
Hey, thanks for letting a Christian woman comment on your site. I am no coward. I am here only to say that anyone who needs to put down another group to prove themselves right must be afraid of being wrong. Creationism and science are the same thing, an attempt to explain something we all know very little about. The problem is that on both sides there is misinformation-remove the misinformation-which is created by fear and anger, and you just may find some nuggets of truth exist on both sides. Thank you.ReplyDelete