creationist science fair bans science
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 ]