Skip to main content

Isn't childhood indoctrination wonderful?

I happened upon the website for Answers in Genesis this morning and found, under Ken Ham's blog, a lovely post where he has put up the account of a young girl who visited the Creation Museum.

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2011/01/18/a-day-at-the-creation-museum/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+KenHam+(Around+the+World+with+Ken+Ham)

Isn't it great to know that, right now, even as I write this, children are being encouraged to believe that which never was, that which science has continually shown to be untrue? Instead of giving the future of America a first-rate education in the sciences, and the reality of what science is telling us, we get a definite subculture in promoting a delusion, that of a literal, six-day creation.

This child writes of seeing representations of Adam and Eve, of Methuselah, and Noah building the Ark (just how exactly did he fit all of those animals on board...and if the waters covered all the world, does that include Mt. Everest, which means they would all have needed oxygen masks?), of watching videos about the days of creation (and, perhaps, being told that the Grand Canyon is the product of Noah's flood rather than millions of years of natural processes). Her father wrote an addition to the note, saying how wonderful it was that she remembered all of these details months later.

Wonderful, another child potentially "vaccinated" against the reality of evolution. Thank you, Ken Ham. If a person wishes to believe in a six-day creation and Noah's flood (and there are many Christians who believe in neither, literally), then by all means go ahead and accept it as a matter of "faith." But don't pretend that such a belief has any grounding in reality or is supported by any facts. It isn't.

The funny thing about all this is that this nine-year old child was a more coherent writer than Ken Ham!

Comments

  1. Perhaps this child will be one of the fortunate ones who do finally come to their senses and see the mythology for what it is...a total fabrication.

    ReplyDelete
  2. What's really disturbing about this is the long term effects.

    If some one is willfully ignorant, and intelligent (the two can exist together), then all of their intelligence goes to waste. How many great scientists never existed because of places like this? How many advances were lost?

    ReplyDelete
  3. What's frightening is that there is a whole slew of organizations like Ham's that are spreading this junk on a tax free basis with loads of people in the wings working night and day towards the end of destroying science.

    Those trying to teach actual science have their work cut out for them.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Today I Am Ashamed of My Alma Mater

Over a week ago, my alma mater, Clarion University of Pennsylvania, released what it touted as a "bold" and "ambitious" workforce plan for the next several years. The backlash was both strong and immediate, forcing the University Administration, currently headed by President Karen Whitney, to release a " Frequently Asked Questions " for its plan. The outrage on social media, as well as a MoveOn.org petition with several thousand signatures, doubtless have already channeled the displeasure of the community, alumni, and students with the plan. The University is accepting public feedback, but this seems to be only a political window-dressing for a plan that Whitney herself was  quoted  as saying "...is 95-98% a done deal." For over a week I debated over what form a blog on the topic would take, and while I realize that what I have to say here is little different from what I and others have already stated elsewhere, I feel the need to address thi...

How I Left Creationism

There is a discussion going on right now in the science community about whether or not we should debate creationists: it is a debate within a debate, if you will. There are good arguments on both sides, but I have to think that we should debate creationists, and we should do it as often as we can stand it. Why do I think this? Last week, I saw that Michael Shermer posted a link to a story of a woman who argued this very point. As a former creationist, it was going to debates between Shermer and Kent Hovind that began to convince her of the legitimacy of evolution and of science. I too was once a creationist. Without ever having read anything about it, without it ever having been mentioned in class (I never heard a word about evolution in high school), I was ready to pounce at the merest mention of the topic as false and godless, two of the favorite creationist talking-points. I look back at this self in amazement, at how ignorant and proud of that ignorance I was, how I failed to ...

The Hovinds...Still Poking at Straw Men

Kent Hovind, the false "Dr. Dino", and his ilk are at it again. In a new article on his website, Hovind (or whoever authored the piece, perhaps his son) claims that while creationists have no problems using miracles to explain events (a habit that perpetually makes them unfit to do real science), evolutionists criticize them for it, even though, in Hovind's mind, they rely on miracles just as much to explain their "religion" of descent through natural selection. This is, at its core, demonstrably nonsense. He claims that a "miracle" is needed to make stars and planets form out of gas, a supposed violation of Boyle's Law because there was no "outside force" acting on the gas and dust. How about gravity, Dr. Dino? That would certainly explain it, no miracles needed here. This attack is a non-sequitur. The objection has everything to do with astronomy and cosmology and nothing to do with evolution, which is the development of new species o...