May 26

I have put a gnat in the giant’s ear, and he doesn’t like it

Category: Uncategorized

Some time ago I visited the creation museum.  I summarized my experiences there in a blog post meant to be seen by friends and family.  Intentionally, I did not make the post into a rigorous refutation of the museum, but rather shared my emotional reactions in order to communicate with friends. I really didn’t want to spend months writing a learned treatise on the museum.  It was not meant to be a formal or professional debate; certainly I can provide one, should it become necessary.

The worm has turned, and has plowed up something unexpected.  It seems that the museum’s founder, Ken Ham, has found my post, and has responded to it on his own blog, quoting extensively from my original post.  He essentially categorizes me as a mud-slinger without a logical leg to stand on.  It’s getting hotter in here guys… do I sense a flame war about to begin?

But no, that will not be the way of things.  I now have a decision.  Should I engage, or will that only wind up with me being used to help their agenda (as it may already have done).

In the meantime, I urge you to read the two posts, and enjoy.


4 Comments so far

  1. Niffer May 26th, 2009 10:19 AM

    Wow. I can’t believe he used your blog as an example of an “article” that lacks scientific explanation. That’s hilarious. I wanted to comment on his post to say so, but he doesn’t allow comments.

    I think it’s funny that you purposefully did not go into detailed arguments against the museum, because why open that can of worms (when reading your blog, even I noticed how well you held back what you could have said), yet he uses it as though what you had said was everything you could say regarding your experience. He didn’t take into account that your post was just the most polite and respectful you could possibly be.

    I am not sure what I would do if I were you. Like you, I would feel the need to retort back, but you bring up a good point. In doing so, you are probably just helping their agenda because they would twist your words or say you lack proof just because you happened to not include the proof (as they already did – for just writing a BLOG post).

    It should be interesting to see what you decide either way.

  2. Enid Pussospleen May 26th, 2009 11:25 AM

    I am always reluctant to engage someone when I can tell their point of view is unmovable. Then it becomes not a dialogue with growth as the outcome but a defensive exercise in posturing, which becomes tiresome. But sometimes it’s necessary anyway. Although this is your BLOG and not an article or academic treatise. :)

    The comment on your original post complains that nonbelievers do not “confront” the Creation Museum when visiting. But it’s obvious you went there respectfully, as a “foray into a strange land.” People do this all the time when they try different foods, visit other countries, meet people of diverse backgrounds, watch Anthony Bourdain swallow a cobra heart on tv, etc. These are all things that broaden our horizons.

    Speaking of which, it is interesting to me that the less educated someone is, the more likely they are to believe in creationism.

    “A 1991 Gallup survey found that college graduates were less than half as likely to believe in creationism as those lacking a high school diploma. […] How does the U.S. compare with other countries in terms of belief in evolution? Not so hot. A study of attitudes in 34 countries published in Science in 2006 shows that the United States ranks last in popular acceptance of evolution except for Turkey. Almost 40 percent of Americans in this study flatly rejected evolution, whereas the comparable numbers in European countries and Japan ranged from 7 to 15 percent. That may partly reflect U.S. high school kids’ dismal math and science scores relative to other developed countries, which to my mind underscores a home truth: the more you know, the less you take on faith.”
    ( )

    If you do choose to reply, this sentence from the Skeptic’s Dictionary ( does not bode well for an outcome where both parties walk away having learned something: (YE = Young Earth)

    “Clearly, YEers are not rational, though their anti-scientific behavior is a logical consequence of their belief that they are defending the inerrant word of AG. Any attempt to reason with them, however, is fruitless. One can point out their errors from now until doomsday, but to no avail. They don’t admit of error, since they believe they are defending the inerrant word of AG. (Apparently, they don’t even admit that they might be wrong about the Bible being the inerrant word of AG because this is revealed to them in the Bible itself.)”

    But good luck though, I will be staying tuned no matter what you decide!

  3. Joe May 31st, 2009 11:27 PM

    So this is a little late but I figured I’d comment anyway. :)

    A couple of things. He[, Ken Ham, and other posters] are expecting too much. You can’t rebut the museum without taking each concept and rebutting each of them, this could take
    pages and massive amounts of time even if you already know how to reply (and I am sure you do). Ken and some of the other commenters seems to miss the point that this is an overall impression not a formal critique of something specific.

    On your side, you should have expected the feedback, the Internet is a public forum you know. ;) I think it’s really cool that you’ve awaken the beast. And it might be fun to engage them if they are interested. Pick something in the
    museum that you have pictures of or clearly remember how it was presented. The age of the Earth, when the dinosaurs lived? And write a post critiquing their ideas on it. Did you buy a book there? That could be a starting point. If so, I am going to get some popcorn and watch. :P

  4. Seamus June 5th, 2009 8:05 AM

    we love you and spleen-me, you “mud-slinger without a logical leg to stand on.” !!!

    it is like in fencing not responding to the riposte that isn’t connecting….

Leave a comment