Bill Maher makes fun of creationist museum
But AiG's Mark Looy says "Ken is not upset."Christian publisher Ken Ham said Maher showed up unannounced this week to videotape an interview with him at Ham's Creation Museum, which is just south of Cincinnati. The $25 million facility, due to open in the spring, tells visitors that the earth is just a few thousand years old and that Adam and Eve lived among the dinosaurs.
Ham said a camera crew arranged a Monday visit to the museum, but he was not told that it was connected with Maher, host of HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher."
"They sneaked Bill Maher into the building while I was waiting for an interview," Ham wrote in a blog he maintains on the Web site of his publishing company, Answers in Genesis.
Maher visited the museum for a documentary he's been filming on religion, his publicist, Sarah Fuller, said Friday. She said he's traveled throughout the U.S. and Europe for the project.
"He's been all over the place," she said. Fuller said she wasn't familiar with how the interview with Ham was conducted.
Ham called Maher's visit an "elaborate deception." He said the film crew asked for a one-on-one interview with Ham after a tour of the museum. After the tour, crew members asked for permission to bring some camera equipment in through the back of the building. Ham wrote that the crew drove to the rear, then distracted an employee as Maher ducked into the building.
Ham said he was shocked, but agreed to the interview.
"Bill Maher did interview me; though respectful in one sense, most of his questions were just mocking attacks on God's word," Ham wrote in the blog on Wednesday.
Ham declined on Friday to comment further on Maher's visit.
Posts
10 comments:
That's a lot of name-calling, D.J. Do you have any actual evidence or argument to back it up?
Do you actually think that Ken Ham is an honest or reliable person? Have you actually read anything he's written (like his book _The Lie: Evolution_)?
Sorry, the churches deserve what it gets from Bill Maher and then some! Somewhere in our history some people began believe the bizarre is more reasonable than considering language as man has done with stories over the centuries.
Thank God for genuine scholars like Dr. Barbara Thieirng who always handles her critics easily with logic. Her web site is www.pesherofchrist.infinitesoulutions.com
Note: Pseudoscience does not progress.
“. . .within a given topic, no progress is made. Little or no new information or uncovered. New theories are seldom proposed, and old concepts are rarely modified or discarded in light of new "discoveries," since pseudoscience rarely makes new "discoveries." The older the idea, the more respect it receives. . . (Reference:www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html)
While religion typically doesn’t purvey itself to be a form of ‘science’ , at least by those who are reasonable, the way in which it perpetuates itself is none-the-less following Pseudoscientific principles. I ask the reader to ask him/herself a question. What topic or subject matter exists in which Man’s knowledge does not alter or change and/or grow in some way over time?
The essential thrust of Dr Barbara Thiering’s research has been to show that the gospels themselves are supplying natural explanations of the “miracles”. The apparent miracles were deliberately composed for the “babes in Christ”. But each miracle story is actually recording a significant event in the career of Jesus, who was no more than a human figure, a great political leader in his time. Each "miracle" will contain a short form of the real history.
Also, one may be invited to join the discussion forum:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/
DJ is absolutley correct. Bill Maher is nothing more than a quick-witted comedian, who will mock The Creator-God as well ridicule the lone source of morality in this world, just to entertain those unfortunate people who actually find Maher amusing.
His actions are often dispicable.
I do believe that Ken Ham has come to many scientific conclusions, supported by physical evidence, that make a logical argument for a widely unpopular scientific belief.
But lets not be confused or tricked into thinking that the theory of evolution is undisputable, or that it isn't a belief system who's underlying principles require an enormous leap of faith.
I urge all bloggers to pick up the book Total Truth, by Nancy Pearcy. It will open your eyes.
Greg:
You say that "Bill Maher is nothing more than a quick-witted comedian"--does this mean that you know him personally, that you can make such a judgment?
"who will mock The Creator-God as well ridicule the lone source of morality in this world"
If the Christian God were really "the lone source of morality in this world," I'd expect to see some moral difference between the behavior of Christians and non-Christians, but the only significant differences that I've seen reported have gone the opposite way (e.g., atheists have a lower divorce rate than Baptists).
"His actions are often dispicable [sic]." Again, this would seem to be a conclusion based on personal knowledge--what are you referring to?
"I do believe that Ken Ham has come to many scientific conclusions, supported by physical evidence, that make a logical argument for a widely unpopular scientific belief." Well, if you believe this, then I think you're completely out of touch with reality. Ham is one of the worst of the young-earth creationists--he has done no scientific work, and constantly misrepresents science in order to argue for his views.
"But lets not be confused or tricked into thinking that the theory of evolution is undisputable, or that it isn't a belief system who's underlying principles require an enormous leap of faith." Can you briefly state for us what the theory of evolution is, and spell out some of these underlying principles that require an enormous leap of faith? In my experience, most people who make this claim don't understand evolution at all--their concept is a coloring book version that they've learned from the creationists who also don't understand evolution.
Greg said...
"DJ is absolutley correct. Bill Maher is nothing more than a quick-witted comedian, who will mock The Creator-God..."
You can't mock that which does not exist.
A scientific theory is the best explanation we have for a natural process. Scientific theories, no matter how overwhelming the evidence, will never become laws. But evolution, observable in the lab and even used in developing many medications to fight mutating viruses, is not only a theory (as is gravity), it is FACT! A god hypothesis to answer questions is an ancient and ignorant practice that doesn't belong in our modern world.
"If the Christian God were really "the lone source of morality in this world," I'd expect to see some moral difference between the behavior of Christians and non-Christians, but the only significant differences that I've seen reported have gone the opposite way (e.g., atheists have a lower divorce rate than Baptists)."
Of course you see that. Your'e talking about atheists who have grown up in a thoroughly Christianity soaked culture. This is the same logical falacy the God Out group makes. The reasoning is "Look how nice these atheists are; see, atheism doesn't make people bad." Sure it doesn't; yet. Once the liberals have driven Christianity out of the culture, and have erased God's moral law from the minds of young people through the public education system, then we will see the atheistic inhuman monsters that atheism covets. Then will see the iron-fisted dictators who decree that to kill people is no different than mowing grass. Right now we have a government and judicial system that is based upon God's moral law. One day that will change. Then atheists won't be coerced into playing the "nice guy" game. Then we will see atheism as it is.
I've seen it already. It isn't pretty.
JUGList Team: Your hypothesis appears to be falsified by the fact that the U.S. has higher rates of abortion, incarceration, homicide, poverty, teen pregnancy, etc. than far more secular countries in Europe.
Your hypothesis also doesn't explain the data point I offered, that the Barna Group's data shows that U.S. atheists have a lower divorce rate than U.S. Baptists, nor that there are fewer atheists than Christians in U.S. prisons (per-capita).
BTW, JUGList team--if you're thinking of the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, etc. as your examples of atheist governments, you're making the mistake of confusing atheism with Marxism and communism.
If the museum is open to the public, why should any media commentator, comedian or otherwise, have to "sneak" in? Why can't a commentator show up unannounced (aside from the obvious convenience of scheduling). Is the museum only open to people who agree with it? The whole thing smells like a rat to me, but then it's non-science to begin with. I don't understand the born-again desire to use psuedo-science to "prove" anything about God. Faith is faith. Believers will believe and bogus science doesn't convince those who don't.
Post a Comment