Ken Ham, of Answers in Genesis fame, is concerned about the new GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin. I'm also concerned about Mrs. Palin, so could it possibly be the case that Ken Ham and I actually agree on something? That'd be the day.
Still, you have to admit that she has her fair share of worrisome blemishes. Heck, she belongs to a Christian Dominionist church with ties to Joel's Army, a group of super fundie Christians that spend most of their time hoping for the end of the world.* Plus she's also a longtime supporter of a bizarre Alaskan secessionist group call the Alaskan Independence Party that wants to break away from the United States and establish Alaska as its own sovereign nation. (To be fair, she never actually joined the AIP. Her husband was a member, they attended the group's conventions, and as governor of Alaska she filmed a video address for the AIP's 2008 convention, but she was never a member. You know, in much the same way Bill Clinton never inhaled.) She's also a creationist who wants religious explanations of life origins taught in science classes...oh, and she's completely opposed to any legal access to abortion for any reason...and she's trying to sell herself as an anti-pork reformer even though she sought $27 million in earmarks for a town less than half the size of the University of Louisville.
I could go on, but I think I've made the point. There are plenty of reasons for folks of my particular political bent to be concerned about Sarah Palin. On the other hand, she seems kind of like Ken Ham's cup of tea. What could he possibly be concerned about? Did her hypocrisy about pork-barrel politics get to him? Is he bothered by the fact that she's currently in the midst of an ethics investigation for the alleged revenge firing of a state official? Have his Christian values led him to have doubts about the human cost of the war in Iraq?
Nope.
Ham is concerned that she's not creationist enough. While he's glad that she's pretty creationist, he's concerned that she advocates the teaching of "scientific creationism, as opposed to biblical creationism" (Emphasis his. Also of note: there's no such thing as scientific creationism- it's all biblical.) and thus promises to "continue to seek out additional comments from Gov. Palin regarding her beliefs on creation/evolution" in order to warn his supporters if it becomes apparent that she's ever read a biology textbook.
Once again I'm reminded that True Believers™ live in a very different world from the rest of us.
*The recently disgraced, and always disgraceful, faith-healed Todd Bentley is also closely associated with this group.
Showing posts with label ken ham. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ken ham. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Some Unkind Words About "Kinds"...
I was looking at Ken Ham's blog this afternoon because, well, I'd just cleaned up two piles of puke at work* and figured that reading a few of the Hamster's offerings wouldn't be that bad by comparison. As usual, the power of the Young Earth Creationists to be stupid is something that I shouldn't have underestimated. Apparently the Creation Museum here in Kentucky has a petting zoo (almost everything in Kentucky has a petting zoo) and the petting zoo recently succeeded in breeding a zonkey. Readers may remember our friend the zonkey, which is a sterile hybrid of a zebra and a donkey, from this post about artificial insemination pioneer Ilya Ivanov. While zonkeys sometimes occur in the wild, Ivanov could make the things on demand. (You know, in case we need thousands of them for...something.)
In any event, Ham holds up the zonkey as a triumph of the idea of "kinds". That is to say, the Young Earthers, forced to retreat from absolute anti-evolution rhetoric by the forces of obvious and observable reality, have now come up with an idea of limited evolution wherein basic body plans denote what can and cannot interbreed. Donkeys, horses, and zonkeys belong to the "horse kind"; tigers, lions, and Big Fluffy Puss-Puss belong to the "cat kind"; humans are their own "kind" apart from other primates (of course); and vampires, werewolves, and mummies are all part of the "monster kind". The creationists have even made up a field of "study", baraminology (which is so new that my spell check won't accept it), that is devoted to talking about "kinds" without, to my knowledge, actually publishing any peer reviewed research on the subject. Curiously, one of the things they've never really gotten around to is actually defining what a "kind" is. By ignoring secular taxonomy in favor of Biblical "baramins", Young Earthers have the luxury of adjusting the definition of "kind" to narrow it down to the species level (as with humans) or to broaden it out to include entire orders and beyond as it suits them.
Basically, this YEC concept is used to explain away observable evolution, visible changes within populations, and genetic similarities between certain animals. It creates certain difficulties, however, for those of us who are prone to thinking too hard about such things. For one thing, while it's touted as an anti-evolution concept, it requires (in the 6,000 year-old Earth context in which it is couched) super-fast hyperevolution to work. For example, AiG says that there were originally only 50 "kinds" of dinosaurs, and yet science has documented approximately 700 species of dinosaurs. Let's examine what those two numbers mean: AiG maintains that the story of Noah's Ark actually happened, and that it happened around 2300 BC. They further maintain that every "kind" of dinosaur was represented on the ark. These "kinds" of dinosaurs must therefore have undergone a ludicrously rapid speciation in order to get from 50 "kinds" to 700 species and then die off without a trace before, say, the birth of Christ. That's around 650 new species of megafauna appearing in less than 2500 years - hardly an anti-evolution position, but rather a pseudo-evolutionary one!
The point isn't really to try and make any sense or advance any understanding of the natural world. The point behind all this wrangling about "kinds" is to figure out some way to keep humans separate from all other animals. Using it as a sensible opposition to evolution (which it isn't) is a distantly secondary concern to the true goal: trying to set humans apart from all other lifeforms. As far as I can tell, humans are the only organisms with a "kind" all their own. Even the giraffe, which is often held up by creationists as being so bizarre as to be incapable of having evolved naturally, is acknowledged by AiG to share a common ancestor with the okapi. Talking about kinds lets the Young Earthers admit the reality of evolution without having to say it out loud - it's like a kid standing in his parents' living room with a baseball bat and admitting that he "might" have been responsible for the broken lamp.
Easily observable and repeatedly verified phenomenon like the appearance of drug resistant tuberculosis can only be explained in evolutionary terms, and deep down the Young Earthers know that. They have to own up to at least some evolution, so they try to invent new concepts like "microevolution" and "kinds" to downplay the significance of observed evolution. When they can't lie outright about the findings they're uncomfortable with (See this picture from AiG in which the shaded area is purported to represent the only bones found of ambulocetus, a transitional whale, then look at this picture of the actual skeleton.), they retreat to their weak "evolution-but-not-evolution" positions and try to stall out the discussion.
Even so, I don't think the point of "kinds" is to legitimately oppose evolution, not in the end. It just doesn't do a good job of it, and it admits far too much when you read between the lines. No, the main point of all so-called "bariminology" is undeniably the human "kind" sitting high atop its lonely throne. Separating us from our primate cousins is the ultimate purpose. Reality forces the Young Earthers to admit common ancestry in the animal kingdom, but as long as they can sequester humans in their own kind, they remain special, the God-created focal point of the universe. After all, once you've established yourself as the ultimate purpose of the existence of the entire cosmos, everything else is small potatoes.
*Good ol' direct care social services, man.
In any event, Ham holds up the zonkey as a triumph of the idea of "kinds". That is to say, the Young Earthers, forced to retreat from absolute anti-evolution rhetoric by the forces of obvious and observable reality, have now come up with an idea of limited evolution wherein basic body plans denote what can and cannot interbreed. Donkeys, horses, and zonkeys belong to the "horse kind"; tigers, lions, and Big Fluffy Puss-Puss belong to the "cat kind"; humans are their own "kind" apart from other primates (of course); and vampires, werewolves, and mummies are all part of the "monster kind". The creationists have even made up a field of "study", baraminology (which is so new that my spell check won't accept it), that is devoted to talking about "kinds" without, to my knowledge, actually publishing any peer reviewed research on the subject. Curiously, one of the things they've never really gotten around to is actually defining what a "kind" is. By ignoring secular taxonomy in favor of Biblical "baramins", Young Earthers have the luxury of adjusting the definition of "kind" to narrow it down to the species level (as with humans) or to broaden it out to include entire orders and beyond as it suits them.
Basically, this YEC concept is used to explain away observable evolution, visible changes within populations, and genetic similarities between certain animals. It creates certain difficulties, however, for those of us who are prone to thinking too hard about such things. For one thing, while it's touted as an anti-evolution concept, it requires (in the 6,000 year-old Earth context in which it is couched) super-fast hyperevolution to work. For example, AiG says that there were originally only 50 "kinds" of dinosaurs, and yet science has documented approximately 700 species of dinosaurs. Let's examine what those two numbers mean: AiG maintains that the story of Noah's Ark actually happened, and that it happened around 2300 BC. They further maintain that every "kind" of dinosaur was represented on the ark. These "kinds" of dinosaurs must therefore have undergone a ludicrously rapid speciation in order to get from 50 "kinds" to 700 species and then die off without a trace before, say, the birth of Christ. That's around 650 new species of megafauna appearing in less than 2500 years - hardly an anti-evolution position, but rather a pseudo-evolutionary one!
The point isn't really to try and make any sense or advance any understanding of the natural world. The point behind all this wrangling about "kinds" is to figure out some way to keep humans separate from all other animals. Using it as a sensible opposition to evolution (which it isn't) is a distantly secondary concern to the true goal: trying to set humans apart from all other lifeforms. As far as I can tell, humans are the only organisms with a "kind" all their own. Even the giraffe, which is often held up by creationists as being so bizarre as to be incapable of having evolved naturally, is acknowledged by AiG to share a common ancestor with the okapi. Talking about kinds lets the Young Earthers admit the reality of evolution without having to say it out loud - it's like a kid standing in his parents' living room with a baseball bat and admitting that he "might" have been responsible for the broken lamp.
Easily observable and repeatedly verified phenomenon like the appearance of drug resistant tuberculosis can only be explained in evolutionary terms, and deep down the Young Earthers know that. They have to own up to at least some evolution, so they try to invent new concepts like "microevolution" and "kinds" to downplay the significance of observed evolution. When they can't lie outright about the findings they're uncomfortable with (See this picture from AiG in which the shaded area is purported to represent the only bones found of ambulocetus, a transitional whale, then look at this picture of the actual skeleton.), they retreat to their weak "evolution-but-not-evolution" positions and try to stall out the discussion.
Even so, I don't think the point of "kinds" is to legitimately oppose evolution, not in the end. It just doesn't do a good job of it, and it admits far too much when you read between the lines. No, the main point of all so-called "bariminology" is undeniably the human "kind" sitting high atop its lonely throne. Separating us from our primate cousins is the ultimate purpose. Reality forces the Young Earthers to admit common ancestry in the animal kingdom, but as long as they can sequester humans in their own kind, they remain special, the God-created focal point of the universe. After all, once you've established yourself as the ultimate purpose of the existence of the entire cosmos, everything else is small potatoes.
*Good ol' direct care social services, man.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
It Was Childish Enough Before...
According to Answers in Genesis, Ken Ham's laughable but well-funded Young Earth Creationist organization, the Creation Museum that blights my home state of Kentucky will soon receive a small makeover in the form of numerous kiosks and additions to make it more kid-friendly. Considering the fact that the Museum peddles a bizarre history in which the universe was created 2,000 years after the invention of the battle axe* and Noah took dinosaurs on the ark,** I don't know exactly how the Creation Museum could get any more childish. Honestly, this is an organization that exists for the purpose of arguing for the historical accuracy of The Flintstones. Other than, I dunno, hiring on Barney the Dinosaur as a greeter, what could they possibly do to kiddify it even more? I guess it's important to drum this crazy message into children before they've had the chance to develop any critical thinking skills whatsoever.
On another note, I'm looking at the museum's rates I see that it costs a whopping $19.95 plus tax for an adult to get in. Meanwhile, the Louisville Zoo, where you might actually learn something that's true, costs a mere $11.95 for an adult admission, and the Louisville Science Center only charges $15 for admission to the center itself and an IMAX show. Hell, even a yearly family membership to the Zoo only costs $75 compared to the Creation Museum's whopping $125, and the Louisville Zoo boasts a world-beating gorilla enclosure whereas the Creation Museum has nothing but fiberglass dinosaurs and lies. Apparently the Young Earthers are as money-hungry as they are asinine.
* Archaeological evidence shows that the first axes with a handle (haft) were manufactured around 6,000 BC. The Creation Museum's brand of YEC is premised on a universe that began around 4,000 BC.
** Recall the Testing Poe's Law post in which a similar argument was found to be indistinguishable from parody.
On another note, I'm looking at the museum's rates I see that it costs a whopping $19.95 plus tax for an adult to get in. Meanwhile, the Louisville Zoo, where you might actually learn something that's true, costs a mere $11.95 for an adult admission, and the Louisville Science Center only charges $15 for admission to the center itself and an IMAX show. Hell, even a yearly family membership to the Zoo only costs $75 compared to the Creation Museum's whopping $125, and the Louisville Zoo boasts a world-beating gorilla enclosure whereas the Creation Museum has nothing but fiberglass dinosaurs and lies. Apparently the Young Earthers are as money-hungry as they are asinine.
* Archaeological evidence shows that the first axes with a handle (haft) were manufactured around 6,000 BC. The Creation Museum's brand of YEC is premised on a universe that began around 4,000 BC.
** Recall the Testing Poe's Law post in which a similar argument was found to be indistinguishable from parody.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
