But what do you expect from someone who sanctions this? I only have to look at this picture to know that there is something seriously wrong with the fundamentalist's world view! It's like a jig-saw where the wrong pieces have been pushed together with a blend of brute force and ignorance.
In a post entitled The World – out to get your kids*1 and dated
May 1st Ken Ham quotes from an article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
and then goes on to demonstrate his poor grasp of the logic of science:
“Science is firm on its truth. The National Academy of Sciences puts
evolution in the category of such scientific facts as the Earth orbiting the
sun, living things being made of cells and matter being composed of atoms.”
This is the typical false teaching that is confusing historical
science and observational (operational) science. It’s an attempt to intimidate
people so that they will believe evolution and millions of years as fact. We
can look up into space and observe the earth—and the sun. We can look down microscopes
and see cells and study them. But, we
can’t observe molecules turning into life, reptiles evolving into birds, etc.
There is no sign here that Ham
understands that cells, the Earth’s orbit, and the Sun are complex logical constructions
that we can only sample with data points; we do not directly observe them:
1.
The modern Solar System is a model
which successfully embeds observational samples of the heavens made over large of tracts of
time.
2. Colloquially one might say that
one can “see cells” when one looks down a microscope but the intricate cell mechanisms
are not “seen” as such but are abductive conclusions based on observational
samples drawn from many clever experiments.
3. Our modern “star” concept of the Sun as a gravitationally
contained nuclear furnace is certainly not “observable”. In fact some fundamentalists
are now challenging this “unobserved” concept just as they are challenging the heliocentric
solar system (See footnote *2).
Now, one may or may not accept evolution
as a valid theoretical construction but the epistemic method of juxtaposing observational
protocols (e.g. fossils, taxa etc.) with a theoretical model is qualitatively the
same here as that used in the study of the cell’s intricate workings. There is no
fundamental epistemic demarcation here as Ham falsely teaches.
Many stars are, of course, effectively
distant history - unless one uses Jason Lisle’s Anisotropic Synchrony Convention
(which has been published on AiG’s web site) which projects “now” (or t = 0) along the entire trajectory
of a signal from space once it has alighted on the Earth’s surface. The conventional
nature of this manoeuvre introduces an ambiguity into what can be claimed as the
observable “present” and the “unobservable” past!
For the main posts so far on this topic see:
http://quantumnonlinearity.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/mangling-science-part2-opening-up-kens.html
For the main posts so far on this topic see:
http://quantumnonlinearity.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/mangling-science-part2-opening-up-kens.html
Footnotes:
*1 Given this title I can't help but think of conspiracy theory. See:
http://quantumnonlinearity.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/conspiracy-theory-infamy-infamy-theyve.html
*1 Given this title I can't help but think of conspiracy theory. See:
http://quantumnonlinearity.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/conspiracy-theory-infamy-infamy-theyve.html
*2 For fundamentalist challenges on
the nature of the Sun and the Solar System see the following links:
http://www.geocities.com/rebornempowered/thesun.htm
This is where serious fundamentalism is leading!
The educational outcome of Ken Ham's concept of science is evidenced in the worksheet below. This worksheet is used in a fundamentalist school to test its pupils:
When this first surfaced on the web recently there were doubts as to whether or not it was a hoax. (Another vindication of "Poe's law" I suppose). What made it look fake, perhaps, was that it was difficult to believe that all the simplistic stock responses which so epitomise the fundamentalist take on creation could appear in such a conveniently concentrated form complete with the "right" responses from some hoop jumping pupil. However, proof that it was genuine came in a blog post from Ken Ham full of serious faced righteous indication and accompanied by an AiG lead article. Ham and his staff writer vigorously defended the worksheet and slammed into the atheist community, who, it seems were seized by fits of uncontrollable laughter (although tempered by the fact that a child's education was at stake). Admittedly it is difficult to keep a straight face because these Young Earther's have so successfully sent themselves up. But, needless to say, they're not going to see the joke: One must remember that the fundamentalist mind has so closely identified his or her opinions with the Divine mind that criticism of those opinions becomes criticism of God, which, of course then equates to an evil blaspheming attack. Therefore, in their view strong criticism automatically registers as a product of a deeply depraved mind suffused with malign ulterior motives. In the fundamentalist's black and white world they see you as either for them or against them; either they trust your motives or they don't. As a firm critic of fundamentalism, this is one reason why I try to keep personal contact with fundamentalists down to a minimum consistent with the tasks I need to undertake. In my case the polarisation is too far gone to even attempt to reverse it.
But there is pathos in seeing a child's hand innocently and eagerly following the ludicrous lead (to the letter!) of his/her teacher, in part motived by a strong desire to please, to be right with God and above all to have the approval of his/her religious community. It's intellectual burlesque without, of course, the fundamentalists being able to see the (black) humour in what they are doing. This pathos reminds me of the Egyptiana I mention here: http://noumenacognitaanddreams.blogspot.co.uk/2009/04/last-enemy.html
For the record some links relevant to the above story are:
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2013/04/30/atheists-lash-out-at-a-christian-school/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2013/04/30/atheists-attack-christian-school
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2315625/Controversy-4th-grade-science-quiz-set-creationist-school-rewards-kids-saying-false-dinosaurs-existed--instructs-say-disagrees.html
http://wafflesatnoon.com/2013/04/22/4th-grade-dinosaur-quiz/comment-page-1/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/26/4th-grade-science-test-creationism-questions-dinosaurs_n_3163922.html?utm_hp_ref=@education123
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/04/25/more-background-on-that-fourth-graders-creationist-science-quiz/
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread942326/pg1
___________________________________________________________________________
When this first surfaced on the web recently there were doubts as to whether or not it was a hoax. (Another vindication of "Poe's law" I suppose). What made it look fake, perhaps, was that it was difficult to believe that all the simplistic stock responses which so epitomise the fundamentalist take on creation could appear in such a conveniently concentrated form complete with the "right" responses from some hoop jumping pupil. However, proof that it was genuine came in a blog post from Ken Ham full of serious faced righteous indication and accompanied by an AiG lead article. Ham and his staff writer vigorously defended the worksheet and slammed into the atheist community, who, it seems were seized by fits of uncontrollable laughter (although tempered by the fact that a child's education was at stake). Admittedly it is difficult to keep a straight face because these Young Earther's have so successfully sent themselves up. But, needless to say, they're not going to see the joke: One must remember that the fundamentalist mind has so closely identified his or her opinions with the Divine mind that criticism of those opinions becomes criticism of God, which, of course then equates to an evil blaspheming attack. Therefore, in their view strong criticism automatically registers as a product of a deeply depraved mind suffused with malign ulterior motives. In the fundamentalist's black and white world they see you as either for them or against them; either they trust your motives or they don't. As a firm critic of fundamentalism, this is one reason why I try to keep personal contact with fundamentalists down to a minimum consistent with the tasks I need to undertake. In my case the polarisation is too far gone to even attempt to reverse it.
But there is pathos in seeing a child's hand innocently and eagerly following the ludicrous lead (to the letter!) of his/her teacher, in part motived by a strong desire to please, to be right with God and above all to have the approval of his/her religious community. It's intellectual burlesque without, of course, the fundamentalists being able to see the (black) humour in what they are doing. This pathos reminds me of the Egyptiana I mention here: http://noumenacognitaanddreams.blogspot.co.uk/2009/04/last-enemy.html
For the record some links relevant to the above story are:
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2013/04/30/atheists-lash-out-at-a-christian-school/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2013/04/30/atheists-attack-christian-school
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2315625/Controversy-4th-grade-science-quiz-set-creationist-school-rewards-kids-saying-false-dinosaurs-existed--instructs-say-disagrees.html
http://wafflesatnoon.com/2013/04/22/4th-grade-dinosaur-quiz/comment-page-1/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/26/4th-grade-science-test-creationism-questions-dinosaurs_n_3163922.html?utm_hp_ref=@education123
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/04/25/more-background-on-that-fourth-graders-creationist-science-quiz/
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread942326/pg1
No comments:
Post a Comment