More Ham Fisted Science Denial

An illustration in a book by "America's leading science denialist"

For the record I thought I would make note of the latest blog post by Ken Ham. In his post he engages in his usual science denying gambit whereby he attempts to yet again attempts to prise apart observational and historical science - see "Creationists Don't Deny Science" 9th Jan. Evidence that this travesty is well and truly endemic among "Answers in Genesis" staff can be seen from the link that Ham gives to an AiG article: Viz: 

answersingenesis.org/what-is-science/two-kinds-of-science/

I have dealt with this mockery of science in more than one post, and here is my latest post:

http://quantumnonlinearity.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/mangling-science-part-5-two-kinds-of.html

Let's face it; they are never going to learn. These fundamentalists have a great need to explain and justify to themselves their essentially anti-science, anti-academia ethos.

Interesting is Ham's quote of Karl Giberson who justifiably criticizes Ham:

....He [Giberson] states, “Science denialism is alive in the United States and 2014 was yet another blockbuster year for preposterous claims from America’s flakerrati. To celebrate the year, here are the top 10 anti-science salvos of 2014.” He then proceeds to list AiG as number one and even calls me “America’s leading science denialist.” But do creationists deny science? Of course not!

 "But do creationists deny science?" Of course they do! Also interesting is this further quote from Giberson:

[Ken Ham’s] greatest howler, however—and my top anti-science salvo of 2014—would have to be his wholesale dismissal of the entire scientific enterprise as an atheistic missionary effort.

....a sign of the fundamentalist marginalization that can sometimes lead them to embrace conspiracy theorism; they are at odds with such a large section of academia that this can encourage them to resort to conspiracy theories in order to  give account of their denialism.  But it's not just science they deny: they also have to deny history: For example, AiG's dating of the Genesis Flood conflicts with the dating of the pyramids and so AiG is in conflict with Egyptology as well.

History denial: No mention of this in the Bible, nor anywhere else for that matter!