The Questioning Librarian

If there is anything that I should have learned by now, Ken Ham will use any occasion to spew the nonsense of Answers in Genesis. And I mean ANY occasion. The death of Christopher Hitchens, noted public intellectual, journalist and atheist, is no exception at all. Of course, we should expect Ham and his kind to crow at the death of an atheist, one who thought young-earth creationism nonsense and didn't hesitate to say so either. Still, the very visible exhortations of glee from certain quarters is downright sickening to anyone with even a rudimentary sense of morality. I won't shed a tear when Ken Ham dies, but neither will I dance in the streets, as much as I find him an odious human being whose entire life has been dedicated to spreading lies. Though Ham himself says nothing, he introduces " Two Perspectives on the Passing of an Atheist " which contain much happiness at the death of Hitchens, including a statement that "Hitchens is no longer shaking a fist a...

Often I find that I'm overwhelmed by the sheer amount of output that the young-earth creationist organizations are capable of producing. I'm only one man, and even when I blogged more frequently I couldn't keep up with it. At most, I can deal with and dispense with a few articles from some of the major creationist organizations. This week I thought that I would take a different tack. Rather than focusing on a single article, I'm going to give a brief overview of some of the most recent articles coming out of Answers in Genesis, Creation Ministries and Creation Moments. Here we go... Creation Ministries International: (home of the supposed "Unanswerable Questions" for Evolutionists and of the Hovind clan) --Creation Ministries condemns the "framework hypothesis" as untenable in an article about history and pseudo-history. The framework hypothesis is one way of stating that Genesis 1-11 is literary rather than literal, and CMI won't stand for ...

A student wrote to Answers in Genesis for advice. What he got was the sophistry, bad-arguments and muddle-headed thinking that so characterizes that organization. The exchange is fine amusement, if one is in the mood to simply laugh at nonsense rather than feel the anger that often accompanies the attempts of the anti-science crowd to lie, distort and malign evolution. The student in question is afraid of majoring in science because of the "stigma" a young-earth creationist would get from the "Darwinist camp." Already, I'm saddened to see a student so interested in science have his enthusiasm tempered in the name of fundamentalist dogma. The authors of the article, two of the lesser lights of Answers in Genesis apparently, whom I've never heard of before, responded with a lengthy article, part advice and part delusion. They first recommend that this student consider attending one of the AiG-approved colleges where young-earth creationism is taught as scie...

One of the arguments that those defending evolution and good science continually have to fend off is the absurdity that is "irreducible complexity," the old argument of Paley that was dusted off and reinvigorated by Michael Behe. This argument has many manifestations, but at heart they are similar forms of the same basic idea. The young earth creationist points to something in nature, such as the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting system in humans or the human brain to give a few examples, and argue that it is too complex to be the product of evolution by natural selection. Therefore it must be, in the mind of the creationist, a fine example of design by a Creator of the young earth/ literal Genesis type. Within the last week or so two more of these so-called examples were brought to my attention by creationists eager to demonstrate that my acceptance of evolution is wrong, wrong, wrong. A few days ago, I was sent another one of those horrible Creation Moments daily pi...

After an inexcusably long absence, I've returned today to my occasional series highlighting those people and organizations whose stances are not only in contradiction to reality but are so counter-factual as to be absurd. However, becoming an "Enemy of Reason", joining the ranks of such notables as Ken Ham, Conservapedia and Creation Moments, requires more than just the average brand of crazy. Being listed as an "Enemy of Reason" requires holding and promoting positions that are hopelessly irrational. Congresswoman Bachmann meets both of these qualifications. Sometimes an Enemy of Reason is a one-issue person, someone who may otherwise be reasonable except on that one topic that, as soon as they open their mouth and talk about it, makes them seem crazy. Others are crazy on a number of different positions, and it is into this category that Bachmann falls. The first position Michele Bachmann holds is support for the unscientific notion of Intelligent Design, ...

Creationists of the Young-Earth variety often protest that they cannot take Genesis figuratively for some very good theological reasons. If Adam never literally at the apple, then why did Jesus die on the cross to remove the sin that Adam never incurred? If Christians shouldn't take Genesis literally (and many already don't), then what other parts of the Bible should be taken figuratively rather than literally? Creation Moments asserts that when God said to rest on the seventh day it is because of the six-day Creation event; when Moses was given the Ten Commandments, the command to rest on the sabbath day was made explicitly because of Genesis 1. The anonymous author asks, if Genesis is not to be taken literally, does that mean we don't take the Ten Commandments literally ? My own answer is that I don't much care what you decide to do about the Ten Commandments. What you decide about your personal faith is up to you, but when it comes to long-settled science, the on...

Yesterday I took the creationists to task for misrepresenting the science and statements of a number of prominent figures, from Karl Popper to Stephen Jay Gould, and I wanted to continue about the piece in question today. In the past, I and others (most notably authors like Donald Prothero and Ken Miller) have exposed as false the creationist assertion that, when it comes evolution one must choose between Christ or fallible Man and his opinions. This is the classic false dilemma; millions of people both accept Christianity and accept that evolution occurred. This fact can only be doubted by the fools at Creation Ministries International and Answers in Genesis where their interpretation is the only correct one, and everyone else is compromising. There is another aspect to this creationist assertion that I think is worth highlighting, for it exposes the Young-Earth Creationists as the hypocrites that they are. The same science that declares evolution to be true is the very same sci...