The Kentucky Creation Museum is built upon a foundation (literally) that disproves its contents–alternating layers of limestone and shale filled with fossils of ancient marine creatures. This video gives you a tutorial (and is a demonstration of what Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis don’t want people to learn).
Nathan Zamprogno has put together a nice list of the craziness that Kent Hovind purports to believe. (Via Pharyngula.) Historical Comments Nathan Zamprogno (2007-07-06): Thanks. Although I am sure that Hovind could be nailed on a lot of these kooky beliefs himself, I should point out that my analysis is confined largely to what Hovind's entourage believes. Hovind himself was a veritable fountain of nuttiness, as is extensively detailed at sites like http://www.kent-hovind.com/If I had to go into all the woo-woo Hovind spouted over the years, the article would be three times as long. ...
(Via Dispatches from the Culture Wars.)
The National Center for Science Education has posted a brief report on the Answers in Genesis schism, with links to the coverage by The Australian, the Lexington Herald-Leader, the Duae Quartunciae blog, and this blog. In their report, they mention that A piece by Lippard on the schism is to appear in a future issue of Reports of the NCSE; in it, Lippard concludes, “creationism continues to evolve in fascinating ways."I encourage you to join the NCSE. The NCSE has long been the major force combatting creationism in the United States, including playing a significant support role for the plaintiffs in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case decided last year, and it works on a budget that is tiny by comparison to those of Answers in Genesis, the Institute for Creation Research, and the Discovery Institute.
Answers in Genesis has announced that it has hired creationist geologist Andrew Snelling, formerly an employee of the Creation Science Foundation, Answers in Genesis-Australia, and Creation Ministries International (the same organization under three names) as well as a contractor for the Institute for Creation Research (they paid him $85,000-$96,000/year to do research for them), to fill their open position. This partially answers the question of how AiG-US will conduct future “scientific” work, a question which CMI had raised since the Australians were the main contributors to such AiG efforts in the past. A question that hasn’t been answered is why Snelling stopped working for Creation Ministries International and went to the ICR. The Briese report contains this tantalizing tidbit of information, which I haven’t seen anyone publicly comment on to date: I clearly remember him saying that Andrew Snelling [a former Australian staff member who was opposed to the notion that a Christian can ever remarry. He was later dismissed by the Australian Board, which at the time included Ken Ham, for matters unconnected to this issue.] had been right about it at the time and that he (Ken) and others had been wrong. But Ken didn’t give me any convincing reason as to why he now saw things so differently and why it was now necessary to make an issue of it.This description makes it sound like Snelling’s departure from CMI was not voluntary, and that he had issues with Carl Wieland (a Christian who divorced and remarried). Snelling is one of the very few young earth creationist geologists on the planet with a Ph.D. from a mainstream academic institution (Steve Austin of the Institute for Creation Research is another). Ronald Numbers’ book, The Creationists, describes how Henry Morris of the ICR wanted to see a young creationist successfully obtain a Ph.D. in geology from a mainstream institution, only to be faced with failures by Clifford Burdick (who was kicked out of the program at the University of Arizona) and Nicolaas Rupke (who succeeded in obtaining his Ph.D., but rejected young-earth creationism as a result of what he learned in the process). ...
More content has disappeared from the Answers in Genesis website as a result of its dispute with Creation Ministries International. Now that former magistrate Clarrie Briese has authored a report condemning Answers in Genesis, the existence of numerous web pages on the AiG website praising him for his honesty, integrity, and independence have become embarrassing, and have been replaced with blank pages. Google’s cache still has the originals, however. The web pages describe some previous work Briese had done in evaluating Australian geologist Ian Plimer’s book, Telling Lies for God, a book which also contains a nice four-page hatchet job on yours truly, along with some unattributed borrowed content from articles in the Creation/Evolution journal (see my review). Here are some of the favorable remarks about Briese that were still on the AiG website a week ago: The Chairman was Clarrie Briese, former Chief Magistrate of the State of New South Wales, where he is still a household word for his dogged fight against public corruption which ended the career of a State Chief Magistrate, and an Australian High Court judge and former government minister.(Internet Archive here) These attacks had previously, to ISCAST’s own knowledge, been shown (by an independent committee of enquiry with impeccable Christian credentials led by Clarrie Briese) to be false.(Google Cache here; this one was written by now-CMI staffer Jonathan Sarfati, but was endorsed by AiG-US at the time of its publication) And the kicker: Please remember: All six men listed who formed the committee have significant public reputations and/or positions, quite independently of CSF. We trust it is obvious that such a group would in no way endanger their own integrity and reputations by saying that they had carefully investigated CSF and found the charges against our ethics were false unless this were utterly true.(Internet Archive here) Apparently Ken Ham’s opinion of Clarrie Briese has completely changed now that he’s the target of criticism, to the extent that he wishes to repudiate these remarks by deleting them from the AiG website. The contrast between the behavior of CMI and AiG-US continues to make it obvious who’s being honest in this dispute. CMI is laying out all their cards on the table, including information that is to its own detriment, while AiG-US has circled the wagons and is editing its own history to hide damaging evidence. UPDATE (July 2, 2008): Google cache has expired, I’ve replaced the links with links to the Internet Archive where available. ...
The Lexington Herald-Leader has published a story in the Father’s Day edition about the Creation Ministries International lawsuit against Answers in Genesis; I was interviewed and quoted in the article as an external, non-creationist viewpoint. I was quoted accurately, though the “unseemly” quote was followed by a statement that actually, the more salacious charges were relevant to the fact that Ham is now working cooperatively with John Mackay, the man who made those accusations, despite Mackay’s failure to apologize and repent for them. The article used my position as a balance to AiG and CMI, but I don’t think it conveyed the fact that I think CMI clearly has the moral high ground in the dispute. For Herald-Leader readers who are visiting my blog for the first time, I’ve got a category of posts that specifically addresses the Creation Ministries International/Answers in Genesis split as well as other categories for Answers in Genesis in general and creationism. But if you’d like a well-summarized overview of the whole matter, I must point you to another blog, Duae Quartunciae, that has done a much better job than I have of putting everything into a nicely wrapped package–it links to my individual articles that go into more detail as appropriate, as well as to other information sources including both CMI and AiG. Another good recent summary of the CMI/AiG dispute is the article “Lord of the Ring” which appeared in The Australian newspaper on June 5.
Tim Sandefur at the Panda’s Thumb explains how Casey Luskin, attorney at the Discovery Institute, misrepresents the 1982 U.S. Supreme Court case of Board of Education v. Pico. Luskin’s misrepresentations of biology can be blamed on incompetency, but as a lawyer, shouldn’t he at least know the law? I don’t see how his continued misrepresentations–and failure to correct them–can be blamed on anything but dishonesty.
One of the subjects which I had intended to make part of my Ph.D. dissertation on social epistemology (pertaining to how most of what we know is known on the basis of testimony) was an examination of how some social groups manage to maintain beliefs that are completely at odds with the facts. This would allow me to incorporate data accumulated from some of my hobbies, like criticizing creationism and Scientology. Unfortunately, I never got past the first chapter of my dissertation, but I still think about such topics, especially as I encounter new examples. I recently encountered another example of the strategy of finding an excuse for dismissing claims without examining them, on the blog of a woman who homeschools her children and teaches them young-earth creationism. I posted a comment on her blog contradicting some of her specific claims, and pointing to Christian sources (both old-earth creationist and theistic evolutionist sources) contradicting them. Here’s her dismissive response: ...
The Montana Law Review has published an article by three Discovery Institute Fellows, a reply by Peter Irons, and a response by the DI Fellows (DeWolf, West, and Luskin). Ed Brayton at Dispatches from the Culture Wars has now published a reply by Irons to the short response from the DI Fellows; you can find all four contributions at his blog. I recommend starting with the first Irons reply, followed by the short DI Fellows response, followed by the Irons reply that Ed has published.