Ken Ham, get over your persecution complex
Seriously. Every time that someone (except me, apparently) slams the Creation Museum in the media, Ken Ham writes a blurb on his blog saying that the commentator is incompetent.
Every.
Frickin'.
Time.
Ken has single-handedly tripled the number of incompetent reporters in this country. It is as if Ken thinks he is immune from criticism, which is ludicrous. Take today, for instance, today's ineffectual fumble, "Prominent Democratic Strategist Slams Creationists on CNN—Mentioning Creation Museum". Ken's bitching about James Carville, who correctly identifies the Museum as a national disgrace and a global symbol of American gullibility, zealotry and smug, self-satisfied ignorance. Which it is. Ask anyone looking in at the US from the outside. Seriously.
But Ken's ineffectual rage against reason and science standards bounces off some weird logical walls. Take this for instance after quoting Carville:
Not only is the Democratic strategist slamming people who believe in creation, but he is obviously mentioning the Creation Museum with a negative connotation. Carville is insinuating that if one is intelligent, one would not believe in creation and would not send their children to the Creation Museum.
Yes. You have clearly been able to understand Carville's assertion. Are you going to dispute it? No. You are going to go simultaneously commit a red herring, a straw man and an ad hominem. A 3-fer!
It is ok for such secularists to tell children that children can be killed in the womb (abortion) if it’s a woman’s choice to do so.
Straw man: Advocates for choice simply recognize that one cannot be said to have a child until, you know, one's had a child.
Ad hominem: You are attempting to discredit the speaker, not that which was spoken.
Red herring: Who the fuck is talking about abortion, anyway?
It is ok to tell children they are just animals resulting from re-arranged pond scum and therefore there is no purpose or meaning to life—but then also inconsistently condemn school violence/drugs etc.
No evolutionist ever says that there is no meaning to life. It's just that the meaning is not imposed upon us from above; rather it stems from the relationships that we form as we wiggle along this soggy clod.
And find me a single secularist who ever, ever said that we needed more school violence or child junkies, you ridiculous Faulknerian man-child.
And if you want to see something really awful, you can't do worse than Ken's mocking commentary of Buddhists during a recent trip. Why are you supposed to be immune from criticism. I don't think I have ever seen you say, "Whoops! My bad!" Who do you think you are? The Pope?
HJ
Seed Newsvine
6 comments:
Shorter Ken: "I'm right, you'r wrong. Penis. Ape. Licorice. Tantrum. Bauxite. Neener."
FWIW, I finally got around to listening to your last two podcasts; the Howse/Protocols episode was well done but pretty creepy (though I guess that comes with the territory.) And I can only imagine the weirdness of Daubenmire and his homunculus/sock puppet/Mini Me Caleb.
All are like a rocket launch gone bad, spiraling directionless at full thrust or getting 50' up and tilting over in some completely wrong direction, careering off until they explode in a deflagration of dumb. And woe to those whose brains haven't taken shelter from their catastrophic insanity. Incoming!
Bing, I love you, man, and you did a good job of dissecting Ham's fallacies; but the first two of your last three paragraphs don't exactly make a compelling argument for your position…
I don't think calling someone out on fallacies and then using those exact same fallacies plus a No True Scottsman is really best practices.
vertigo...
I went back to look at those paragraphs, and then I went back to what Ham was saying, I can see how what he said could be taken two ways.
It is ok to tell children they are just animals resulting from re-arranged pond scum and therefore there is no purpose or meaning to life—but then also inconsistently condemn school violence/drugs etc.
I thought that "inconsistently condemn" meant that sometimes secularists endorse unhealthy practices. I now see that he is a shitty writer as well as a crackpot (seriously) and that, for some reason, he believes that not believing one specific Bronze Age fairy tale leads to school shootings. Please point out the other fallacies.
Thanks,
HJ
Bing - I have said this before, but they remind me of the school bully who dishes it out, then whinges like hell if anyone retaliates in the slightest way.
But, by jingo, they're tenacious, and it becomes quite wearing to constantly sift through their propaganda to spot how they mislead people.
Good example, there's a "News Now" item about the pale fur colour in deer mice, which (predictably) does the whole "no new information" routine. However, as I understand it, this is down to a brand new gene.
Liars in Genesis yet again.
What an interesting perspective! So, the Creation Museum is an ignorant, shameful mockery because creationism is an ignorant, shameful mockery. Hmmm. Red herring? Maybe. And all creationists should set aside their 'ignorant' beliefs because 'everyone else is laughing at us'. Can you say ad populum?
The arguments FOR creationism are more profound and compelling than those for the THEORY (oh, yeah.. that IS a theory, right?) of creation by evolution. In fact, creation by evolution has LITTLE or no support (interspecies) and really answers no questions about the origins of life or the universe. However, lest I should cast my pearls before the proverbial swine, I whole-heartedly support your right to post and spread your opinions in our fair nation. If only YOUR side saw freedom of speech the same way....
Wow - you've got a live one there Bing! Christopher thinks creationists 'freedom of speech' is revoked because we don't allow them to teach Adam riding around Eden on a vegitarian T-rex!! Too funny!!
Joe Agnost
Post a Comment