creationist science fair bans science

The Creation Museum is running a science fair. Yes, it's the same thing as a slaughterhouse having a confab about veganism.

motivated ignorance

Say, do you want to inspire a budding scientist who might go on to make the kind of paradigm shifting discoveries that unlock the deepest mysteries of our universe? If you said yes, you should consider avoiding the science fair at the Creation Museum. While Ken Ham, the Australian charlatan behind the very rich and very ignorant Answers in Genesis organization which runs the so-called museum, claims that this fair is a chance to learn about the scientific method, nothing could be further from the truth.

Before submitting a proposal for a project, all entrants have to agree to a statement of faith which demands that all ideas adhere to strict Young Earth Creationism, bypassing over 400 years of profound scientific progress and obeying the literal interpretation of a large tome of religious legends and theological punditry woven together at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD by a vote of influential priests and bishops. And obviously unaware of the irony of their own statements, Section 4 of the statement of faith proclaims that…

By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

So the Creation Museum wants to teach kids about the scientific method but rather than following the required process of collecting evidence and seeing where it leads you, they're demanding that any evidence that contradicts their conclusion be thrown out as invalid. And while they say that it's a fact that evidence is being interpreted by fallible people who don't possess all the information, somehow that doesn't apply to them, the people who are cherry picking reality to confirm their personal biases.

You don't think that the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible humans means that Ham and his staff of hacks and crackpots might be wrong, do you? Nah, can't be. Admitting that you might be completely wrong in the face of compelling evidence is something that one of those evil, secular, atheistic scientists might do…

[ story via PZ Myers ]

  archived from wowt
              
# science // creation museum / creationists / evolution / scientific method


  show comments
latest reads

the long shot scheme to rattle the world's biggest social platform

Knives are out for Meta in court, with politicians and lawyers eager to send a message. But how likely is it to work? And is it even a good idea?
the long shot scheme to rattle the world's biggest social platform

the forward centaur's guide to complex problems

Tech critics have a lot to say about how the generative bubble will burst. They're far more mum on what to do while we wait to see if it does.
the forward centaur's guide to complex problems

the me generations: rise of the digital boomers

What happens when a generation grows up being served exclusively by recommendation algorithms by Big Tech.
the me generations: rise of the digital boomers

how american hustle culture is killing literacy

We're worried about a post-literacy world because we're living in a post-boredom one.
how american hustle culture is killing literacy

how to endanger the future of space flight for status and profit

CEOs and space faring powers are treating low Earth orbit as their personal playgrounds, much to the horror of space agencies.
how to endanger the future of space flight for status and profit

why your boss is obsessed with a.i. past the point of sanity

Not only is the C-suite not immune to AI psychosis, they seem to be primed to suffer the worst of it as their employees duck and cover.
why your boss is obsessed with a.i. past the point of sanity