If Answers in Genesis is taking facts “out of context,” it should be fairly easy to point out, and if the information that AiG is presenting is, in fact, inaccurate and involves logical fallacies, then what could be a better resource for teaching critical thinking? Students of the university should be taken to the museum in busloads to learn how to think critically. But alas, evolutionists are not concerned for people’s critical thinking skills, they are afraid of people exercising them. Evolution cannot stand up to criticism, and when both theories are presented side by side people can instinctively see which one better fits with the evidence.I posted the following comment, but apparently Casey hasn't seen fit to allow it through moderation, though he's let another comment through since I posted it this morning:
Answers in Genesis (U.S.) can’t even be trusted by its former Australian, New Zealand, and Canadian branches–the Australians have just filed a lawsuit against them. See AiG’s response and Creation Ministries International’s commentary.
I think it’s a bad idea to give money to frauds and liars, so even though the Creation Museum does serve as an example of numerous distortions and fallacies, I disagree with your recommendation that students be sent there. Their errors can be–and have been–refuted online, many times over. Pharyngula just had a Creation Museum Carnival that contains numerous commentaries, pointing out such deception as their completely inaccurate depiction of Archaeopteryx.
The final comment is a reference to a critique which may be found at Duas Quartuncias, titled "Jurassic Pigeon at the Creation Museum!"
Apparently Casey doesn't want his readers to see this information. Let's see if he'll allow a trackback...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to post something on-topic, please feel free to do so. (I.e. support for the quoted evolutionist or "proof" that creation is a myth.)
ReplyDeleteCasey: I quoted the full text that I posted as a comment on your blog in my post, above. I posted it under my own name and I did not claim that I supported any efforts of AiG--that would have been absurd, as my record as a critic of creationism is all over the Internet going back decades. You're demonstrating your own dishonesty by making that up.
ReplyDeleteA lawsuit against AiG has everything to do with that organization's honesty and reputation, especially if you read the content of that lawsuit and the supporting documentation.
Your comments here prove that you do, indeed, fear other ideas--to the point that you make up lies as excuses for suppressing them.
BTW, Casey, my comment specifically responded to your argument that examples of poor thinking would still be appropriate to teach critical thinking and provided pointers to a wealth of specific critiques of the Creation Museum's content. To claim that as "off-topic" is absurd.
ReplyDeleteJim,
ReplyDeleteFirst, please note that I started using Wordpress one month ago. I am still new to the blogging thing. Up until then I was using some fairly outdated software that had no comments features or "trackbacks" or any of that good stuff. If I'm not following "blog protocol" I hope you'll let it slide for now.
If you did not claim to support AiG's efforts (at the beginning of your comment) then I must have misread. If so, I apologize. It's hard to say anything now that I deleted the comment, so I'll take your word for it.
In the future, perhaps I will allow off-topic comments, but for now I would like to keep things on-topic. You're welcome to post something on-topic, and no, I do not consider the lawsuit on-topic. As the matter is still in progress, I am hopeful that a positive solution will be found.
Disagreements are commonplace, even in christendom, so I don't think it has anything to do with the honesty of either party. They both feel that they are right, and hopefully eventually they will settle the disagreement peacefully.
I removed my first comment since I am not sure now whether I read your comment correctly.
ReplyDeleteI just added a comment of my own. Casey took someone to task for attacking a straw man, so I point out that in that very response he does exactly the same thing:
ReplyDeletePot, meet Kettle.
Here’s a straw man of your own: “[Evolutionary biologists] believe [dogs] came from a rock.”
Show me any evolutionary biologist who makes such an absurd claim. You won’t find one.
We'll see if he allows it.