Creationist Attacks Zack Kopplin for ‘Brainwashing’ Our Youth with Science

Answers in Genesis founder Ken Ham is on a mission to make sure children never get brainwashed. (I know, I know… stay with me here.)

Instead of shutting his organization down — something that would actually help his cause — he’s going after 19-year-old Zack Kopplin, the student who’s a thorn in the side of Louisiana Creationists:

Zack Kopplin, the subject of Ken Ham’s nightmares

Kopplin is simply pushing an atheistic agenda driven by a belief in evolution and an unwillingness to think critically about the claims that underlie it. Obviously, Kopplin has not been taught critical thinking skills in these areas. He is a product of the system and cannot see that.

We’re now seeing this sort of claim more and more from evolutionists. They, like Kopplin, believe that if a student is taught or believes in biblical creation, he will never be able to understand or achieve anything in the realm of science. And yet, here at Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum, we have a number of researchers on staff with earned PhDs in their respective fields of science.

In reality, evolutionary ideas are not necessary to understanding and performing operational science. A biblical creationist can design and build a bus just as well as an evolutionist. Actually, a creationist may do it better if the evolutionist, acting consistently with his worldview, applies the principles of chance processes to the engineering of the bus!

There’s a lot more where that comes from… We’re not the brainwashers, YOU ARE! After all of it, Ham challenges the 19-year-old to a debate… kind of:

Would Kopplin, obviously an intelligent young man, consider a debate with one of our scientists to look at the question of whether God’s Word, starting in Genesis, is true? However, we suspect he will use the same rhetoric used by most evolutionists when responding to such an invitation, and claim creationists should not be debated because they are not “real scientists.”

First of all, Kopplin is a science advocate, not a scientist himself. Just as Ham isn’t willing to do the debate himself, pawning it off on one of his staffers instead, it makes little sense to have a debate on scientific ideas between two people who aren’t professionals.

Second, that said, Kopplin would still kick AiG’s ass.

Third, if Ham wants his staff to do battle with their intellectual equals, he needs to look much, much lower. Don’t go after a college kid. Find a first grader who just melted an ice cube.

Fourth, Creationists are not real scientists. So at least Ham got that part right.

This example should be a warning to parents. Kopplin is a product of the secular education system — a system that is also indoctrinating generations of children from church homes. We urge parents to recognize that their kids need to be rescued from this evil age.

This sort of linguistic manipulation isn’t new coming from Creationists. It’s not surprising that the same people who say we need to be tolerant of their intolerance when it comes to gays and lesbians would call educating kids about science “indoctrination” and “brainwashing.” (Plus, you can’t spell “brainwashing” without “AiG,” amirite?!)

Speaking of which, this is the cover of the latest issue of AiG’s quarterly magazine:

Apparently, those scientists at AiG are still trying to figure out how many animals were on Noah’s Ark. (Finding evidence of the Ark’s existence? Not on their priority list.) Also, those “7 Cs of History” can be seen here. They include Creation, Christ, Cross, and Confusion. (So they got at least one of them right.)

When it comes to educating children about science, I’m going to stand firmly on the side of the people who use multiple sources of evidence, from any number of fields, all of which converge onto the same principles, including that of evolution… not the side that believes a book within a book written thousands of years ago holds all the answers we will ever need.

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the chair of Foundation Beyond Belief and a high school math teacher in the suburbs of Chicago. He began writing the Friendly Atheist blog in 2006. His latest book is called The Young Atheist's Survival Guide.

  • Marco Conti

    This obsessions with debates is a smoke screen. Science is not done by debates. Debates can help clarify positions, but “winning” a debate does not make one right.

    Creationists want debates because they know that they don;t mean anything scientifically speaking and it gives them equality in the eyes of the uninformed public.

    The standard response to a request for debate by these jokers should be a resounding “no!”.

    • C Peterson

      The thing about a debate is that it tends to perpetuate the fallacy that if a question has two sides, they are of equal weight. For something like global warming, evolution, the Big Bang… for every scientist who challenges these things, there are hundreds or thousands who don’t. But in a debate, it suddenly appears as if it’s a 50/50 question… a “controversy” that doesn’t exist.

      There’s a reason we don’t have debates about whether the Earth is flat… but take a scientific issue with social or political baggage, and all that changes.

      • Theseus

        Correct, and the flat Earth creationists are a perfect example to bring up to them. Why not give them equal time?

        You’re point is also spot on that the reason that there is any “controversy” about it at all is because the political base of a certain political party is screaming about it.

      • Reginald Selkirk

        There are many problems with debates. Others:
        Superior debate skills may impress, while the content delivered is wrong.
        Audience may not have prerequisite knowledge to judge which side is better.
        Not enough time for speakers to cover relevant data, not enough time for audience to examine claims.
        And so on.

        • cipher

          Precisely. I’ve been saying it for years – debate is performance art. It has nothing to do with any sort of attempt to apprehend objective reality.

  • MargueriteF

    Ham wants a nineteen-year-old to go up against a scientist in a debate? That says a lot about the lack of respect he has for other Creationists. “I know a guy with a Ph.D who could totally whup this kid’s ass in a debate!” Uh-huh. Sounds like a fair debate to me. And like you, I suspect this young man would win, anyway.

  • Octoberfurst

    I find it incredibly ironic to hear people like Ham say that people who believe in evolution aren’t using their “critical thinking skills.” A critical thinking creationist is an oxymoron. In fact anyone who is dedicated to logic and reason CAN”T be a creationist.
    I love how creationist love to challenge people to debate them when all they bring to the table is misrepresentation, half-truths and outright lies. It’s hard to debate someone who makes stuff up as they go along. I’ve seen creationists argue utter bullshit as if it were fact—”Scientists agree that the dinosaur fossils HAD to have been created by a flood.”. Uhhh, no they don’t. >sigh<

  • GG

    Evidently Ken Hamm thinks a scientist’s highest calling is designing busses (wouldn’t that be a mechanical engineer??). You know, so they can bus in all those kids to their Funny Farm of Fundamentalists. Oh you Creationists, believing in a world where real scientists make busses and ignorant knobs pretend to be scientists! Sounds like someone with Little Phallic Faith wants a Cultural Revolution to put those smarty-pants in their place.

    • Gus Snarp

      Fairly typical of him to conflate fields that make use of some set of scientific knowledge to build something as “science”. That’s also why he calls it “operational science”. The failure to understand that science is not a collection of facts, but a method of finding out about the world, and a scientist is not an engineer, but a researcher actively seeking new knowledge, is how the religious right operates. It’s how conservative politicians can simultaneously call for intelligent design to be taught in science classes and for improving education in the STEM fields. You just have to remember that when they say “STEM” they really mean “TEM”, or maybe even just “TE”. Their idea of improving STEM education is opening another vo-tech school.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Evans/1017276335 John Evans

      Language note: Buses are vehicles. Busses are kisses. I would totally be down with the job of designing ways to kiss.

  • Sue Blue

    When referring to a paid pseudoscientific creationist shill, the term “scientist” should always be placed within large, mocking, bold-faced quotation marks. Actually, the more proper expression would be “paid pseudoscientific creationist shill”. Why allow a hard-earned legitimate title to be sullied by these con artists?

    Ken Ham is nothing but a con artist using fundamentalism and its victims to stuff his pockets. He should be deported back to Australia…but Australia would probably consider that an act of war.

  • Miss_Beara

    It is hilariously sad that evolution is still being “debated” 13 years into the 21st century. The Scopes trial was in 1925 and now almost 90 years later the same people, Christians, are still fighting against evolution.

    • Theseus

      Evangelical/dominionist Christians, yeah.

    • icecreamassassin

      Personally, I don’t find it sad that evolution is still being debated – I’m kind of fine with that. I’ll be happy to entertain debates on a flat vs. spheroidal Earth, the heliocentric model, wave-particle duality, or theories of heredity. What I don’t like entertaining are the ‘debates’ where one side makes pretty much zero effort in understanding what they’re debating in the first place.

      Criticizing evolutionary theory is fine – asking “why are there still monkeys”, on the other hand, cannot *possibly* be asked in good faith, as that showcases a misunderstanding of some of the *most basic* ideas of evolutionary theory. Even a cursory understanding of it would not result in a person considering that question as valid.

  • pparf

    Okay, according to the grammatical logic of Ken Ham, a biblical creationist can design and build an evolutionist that is the same quality as a bus that a biblical creationist can design and build. That would certainly be interesting to see.

  • cag

    Genesis, isn’t that the fable that states unequivocally that the earth was created before the universe and the sun? The story that the sun, stars and planets are placed in a firmament? The myth that there was light on earth before the sun existed?

    Please ask the creationist how geostationary satellites work. That would probably shut them up for a second or two.

    • Librepensadora

      Yes, in the first chapter of Genesis, “God” creates light on the first day and the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day. Science shows that all light must have a source. Guess this Genesis answer is WRONG.

      • kanehau

        Well technically it is correct. The CMB is the earliest light in the universe from 370,000 years after the Big Bang. Prior to that pressure and temperature meant that photons could not persist to travel. At 370,000 pressure and temperature lowered enough to allow photons to travel freely, and this is the CMB we see today. The first stars, on the other hand, did not form until roughly 150 – 200 million years after the Big Bang. So yes, technically there was light prior to the first stars being born (keep in mind that there are many ways to produce photons – not just stars – the CMB was photons produced from plasma interactions),

        • Glasofruix

          THe point being that for “light” to exist there must be a light source or sources.

          • kanehau

            This is incorrect. Photons are not just produced by “light sources” such as stars, etc. Photons can be produced by having an electron knocked out of an atom and then an electron refilling that hole. The CMB was this type of light. The earliest photons did NOT need stars to exist (and in fact stars did not come around for another 150 million or so years). A common flashlight is an excellent example of this… it does not produce photons in the manner that a star would, and a star is not required to create the light produced by a flashlight (though the materials to create the flashlight could not exist without stars).

            • Glasofruix

              Photons can be produced by having an electron knocked out of an atom and then an electron refilling that hole.

              Thus making a light source, action-reaction.

              • kanehau

                Correct – but a star was not involved in the process.

  • Gus Snarp

    If Ham is so confident of his ideas, then he should give up his smoke detectors, and ask his followers to do the same.

  • Librepensadora

    Notice how the creationists always oppose believing in God with believing in evolution. This supports their claim that atheism is just another form of belief. I prefer to say that I accept the facts of evolution because they have been checked, double-checked, and peer-reviewed for more than 150 years and found to be true.

    • Theseus

      That and the fact that evolution is not one thing that could somehow be discredited but many things. It is related to and will be forever liked with several other scientific disciplines.

      To say evolution isn’t true, by extension one is saying Geology and Biology isn’t true either.

  • Theseus

    Not to beat a dead horse here; I know I’ve made this point before, but my advice is to always, always, always test the sincerity of their claims of ” exposing students to other theories regarding evolution”. This will expose their bullshit and the duplicitous nature of these hypocrites.

    Bring up the “Chariots of the Gods” folks and how a lot of very intelligent people believe that the course of mankind was greatly altered by advanced extraterrestrials by:

    Genetically tampering with the DNA of apelike hominids to bring about Homo Sapiens

    Building the pyramids in Egypt and Central America, as well as the stone monoliths at Stonehenge and Easter Island thereby advancing culture and civilization in tremendous ways.

    Now these “Chariot of the Gods” folks believe that there is a large body of evidence to support their theories; based on this,Mr/Ms creationist and the fact that you want to “expose students to alternate theories of evolution and creation” This shouldn’t be a problem for you ,,,correct? Then sit back, enjoy the show, and watch the back peddling begin. Oh, and let’s not forget the flat earth creationists if you really want to stir things up.

  • ORAXX

    All the creationists need to do is prove their point and the whole “debate” goes away. As it is, they cling to the delusion that if Darwin can be discredited, they win by default.

    • s0l0m0n

      EVOLUTION IS A ((((hoax)))).

      • ORAXX

        There will be a Nobel Prize waiting for you when you prove what your saying.

        • RobMcCune

          Prove it? First he has to type it correctly.

        • s0l0m0n

          A simple proof evolution is a ((((HOAX)))).

          Provide fossil proofs of the gradual transition from ape to man which might have existed in abundance if evolution was true.

          • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

            Humans are apes.

          • ORAXX

            I’ll give you a million dollars if you can prove unicorns don’t exist. You’ll never collect the money, but that doesn’t exactly prove the existence of unicorns either. Not that you’re likely to be able to grasp this argument.

  • Reginald Selkirk

    Would Kopplin, obviously an intelligent young man, consider a
    debate with one of our scientists to look at the question of whether
    God’s Word, starting in Genesis, is true?

    Genesis? OK. Let’s skip straight to chapter thirty, where it says that you can breed animals with striped ans speckles by putting sticks near their watering trough.

  • raytheist

    Ham refers to his team of creationists as “researchers with Ph.D.s in their respective fields” — but those fields are not evolutionary biology, are they?

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Adam-Patrick/100000027906887 Adam Patrick

      Some are close to it. Others are things like engineering and I know one guy has PhD(a real one) in astrophysics.

      I’m not sure if any of them actually focused on evolutionary biology.

    • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

      Some of them are in molecular genetics. Which makes it all the more face-palm.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_CLIGJW6Ic

      The relevant bit comes at 11:00 “We know from scripture that the earth is, that the universe is, no more than six thousand years old. That’s clear in scripture, so any date that’s beyond that, there’s a problem that the starting assumption and how they’re looking at that”

      • JudyV

        Someone needs to alert Pat Robertson.

      • NickDB

        Have a friend whose ex girlfriend was getting her PhD in molecular genetics who was also a creationist. The hoops her logic jumped through was amazing. Highly Highly intelligent girl, but not too bright.

      • raytheist

        wow. I had not seen that video before. just… wow!

  • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

    I’m still waiting for Michelle Bachman to meet Zacks’ debate challenge.

  • http://friendlyatheist.com Richard Wade

    Obviously, Kopplin has not been taught critical thinking skills in these areas.

    A partial list of Creationist critical thinking skills:

    God said it, I believe it, that’s the end of it.

    Come up with the conclusion you like first, then look for any evidence that supports it, and ignore any evidence that contradicts it.

    Complaining about weaknesses in the other guy’s hypothesis is sufficient. Demonstrating the strength of your own hypothesis is not necessary.

    Faith is the duct tape to patch over all the holes in your argument. Always say “Well you just have to have faith” when somebody shoots your argument down in flames.

    If you don’t know everything there is to know, you can’t say something isn’t so. Therefore, “God did it” is the only possible explanation for anything.

    It is not necessary to accurately understand a theory you’re criticizing. Learning it thoroughly would be dangerous to your faith, so stay away from it, and just keep denouncing it in general terms.

    Science hasn’t answered all the questions, and it keeps changing its answers. Therefore it’s not to be trusted.
    (Except for that antibiotic that saved my life last month, but never
    mind that.)

    Goat herders who thought bronze was high tech can’t be wrong.

    (Add other Creationist critical thinking skills that you have observed.)

    • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

      To be fair, you’re conflating Creationism with Intelligent Design.

      Both start with the answer and work from there. But at least the Biblical Creationists have an explanation. It’s still not a theory since it’s not testable, and doesn’t offer testable predictions, but at least it’s an explanation of how things did happen as opposed to how things don’t happen.

      I’d like to ask them exactly what their lesson plan would look like, but I don’t think most of the politicians understand the difference between a theory and a bunch of false arguments against a theory.

      • Theseus

        All true Rich. However ID is just the ugly step sister of creationism and it’s true nature lies in it’s duplicitous origins; it was just another way of getting religion in the classroom using psuedo scientific jargon.

        This became all too apparent when you listened or read the speeches that guys like Michael Bey made in front of evangelical/religious right audiences; they were totally different than the arguments that he made in front of a more secular or moderate audience.

      • Brian Scott

        I’m of the opposite end. Creationism is so bat-shit insane that I have zero respect for anyone who holds it to be valid. ID is at least plausible, model wise. It presented a valid hypothesis (irreducible complexity) which was falsifiable. Its upholding would be evidence, weak evidence, but evidence of some sort of design (though not the one the IDers are probably going for: it doesn’t require a supernatural creator, just some other species or intelligence that arose through different processes). Of course, it was falsified, but the IDers don’t want to accept that.

        • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

          But irreducible complexity is not a hypothesis. It’s an argument against evolution, not an explanation for how anything does happen. That’s my only point in comparing to various creation myths. At least they explain something. ID doesn’t, it’s just an argument against. So even if you bought that ID was completely scientific, it’s still not anything teachable on its own. If it were in a biology class, it would be in the ‘(failed) arguments against evolution’ section of the evolution class. It can’t stand on its own.

      • Stev84

        ID is just Creationism with the overt references to god removed. It was made up after courts ruled that schools couldn’t teach Creationism. At first they even republished a creationist book rebranded for ID and just removed all mentions of “god”.

      • Artor

        There is no daylight to be seen between Creationism & ID, so it’s hard to conflate them, as they’re practically equivalent.

  • gmv

    Actually, there are plenty of “real” scientists who are creationists–with PhDs in molecular genetics, cell biology, astrophysics, geology, etc. At least stop perpetuating the silly mantra that creationists are not real scientists.

    • eg nj 32

      Yes there are and there are plenty of Christians who accept evolution and teach it (the Pope, Catholic schools- they ARE still Christians, aren’t they) ?

      But Ken and friends screaming “Hey, I’m an idiot” far out-decibels them and makes it appears as if it is “all”.

      We know it’s “some” – but so what ?

      • LesterBallard

        No, to fundie Protestants, Catholics are not true Christians. And they’re right, but only because no one is a true Christian, because Christianity isn’t true.

    • Theseus

      Geologists and biologists ? Nah! Not creationists- which is a literal belief in Genesis. What peer reviewed geologist thinks that the earth is only 6,000 years old?

      • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson
        • Theseus

          Wow. I guess there’s one everywhere. Scary.

          I’m still sticking to my guns on this Rich, at least in part. As you read Wise admits that there is no scientific evidence for Genesis and a young earth. He freely admits: ” Even if all the evidence in the universe flatly contradicted Scripture, and even if he had reached the point of admitting this to himself, he would still take his stand on Scripture and deny the evidence”. To say that I am completely gobsmacked is an understatement.

          So, based on all of this I would say this disqualifies Wise as a true scientist, and a geologist in name only ( he has a degree).

    • JudyV

      I agree, you can be a “real” scientist without ever studying evolution. You can also play tennis with one hand tied behind your back. But why would you want to do that?

    • Maleekwa

      Here’s what I don’t get. If someone holds to a worldview that puts so much importance on being honest, why would they want a PhD in a field they think is bologney? Unless they just want to tout some sort of legitimacy?
      It just seems incredibly disengenious to me.

    • RobMcCune

      Sure, some scientists believe in some form creation, but they usually have degrees that are tangential to the theory of evolution, as well as biblical literalist religious beliefs. Just because someone with a PhD believes something doesn’t automatically make it credible.

  • eg nj 32

    Take specific note of the title of the debate:
    “to look at the question of whether God’s Word, starting in Genesis, is true?”

    He wants to debate the veracity of the bible. That isn’t SCIENCE – it’s HISTORY. It’s been debated for 1500 years since Constantine invented it.

  • NogahdzNoughmasters

    I made it through about half of Ham’s article before the stupid burned so bad I had to quit. I think because it kept reminding me of a coworker that I used to argue with who got his “facts” from Ham and his debate style from O’Reilly [shudders]

  • JudyV

    I’d like to see Ken Ham debate Pat Robertson. Hehehe.

    • http://boldquestions.wordpress.com/ Ubi Dubium

      That could be dangerous. I think those two in the same room might create a critical mass of weapons-grade stupidity. The whole thing could detonate into a mushroom cloud of idiocy.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/James-Buchy/542338898 James Buchy

        Hmmmm..a weapon of mass stupidity.

  • Marella

    Do you think they chose a photo that made this no doubt nice ordinary kid look like he’s well on his way to a career as a serial killer, for a reason? Something along the lines of “evolution causes serial killers”?

  • Avery Dashwood

    So wait, how many animals were on Noah’s Ark? I’d love to hear that. How many beetles did Noah collect? How many ants?

    • s0l0m0n

      God did’nt specified the number of animals or insects in Noah’s arc.

  • Haha

    Debates only exist to discuss opposing points of view. Not to prove facts.

    We could debate whether blue walls are funkier than pebble-dashed walls and it wouldn’t prove a damn thing.

    That’s why we don’t debate creationists.

    • solomon

      Atheists are reluctant to debate coz they will be smacked in the face when failed to answer crucial topics.

      • Theseus

        No, it’s cuz we get stupid irrational answers from creationist/fundies. We’ve been down the debate road man, many times with you people.

        On youtube there is an argument between Richard Dawkins and a creationist (I forget her name). This video will speak for itself as to why we no longer “debate” creationists.

        • s0l0m0n

          Try debate me. You won’t be dissapointed. Coz’ I bring truth. Nothing but the truth.

          • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

            First please take all the arguments you’re going to cut&paste from AIG and look for the rebuttal on talkorigins.org. Thanks!

            • s0l0m0n

              I need not refer to the website you propose to refute all the atheists beliefs. No thanks.

      • RobMcCune

        Debating creationists is a bit like assuming something. It certainly makes an ass out of you because you’re ignorant, and it makes an ass out of me for trying to take ignorant fragments of nonsense seriously and rebut it logically.

        • s0l0m0n

          First try debating and let’s see who’s the real ignorant.

  • Brian Scott

    “Actually, a creationist may do it better if the evolutionist, acting consistently with his worldview, applies the principles of chance processes to the engineering of the bus!”

    Bwahahaha! The Thomist, the one who could never depend on the universe following a consistent set of rules because of miraculous intervention, the one who believes the universe as it is is impossible on its own, wants to pretend to follow its laws? What a riot.

    Oh, and he believes random variation doesn’t occur in a system on which we have incomplete information. I learned that in Engineering 101! Uwf preserve us if an engineer doesn’t take into account random variation and indeterminacy in a physical system. So, yeah, I would trust an “evolutionist” (read: someone who understands statistics) who would actually design something according to reality than a creationist who would discard the information because it “didn’t fit with the design”. What a fucking moron.

    • eskomo

      Also, after a creationist creates one bus, no changes after that. If something doesn’t work right, there will be no improvement.

    • Hypatia’s Daughter

      ” the one who believes the universe as it is is impossible on its own”
      Thanks for pointing this out. The “fine tuning” argument just floors me. So you think god, who could have created a universe that was one big tropical island, instead created one that sits on a knife edge of improbability and where most of it is deadly to his pinnacle creation, man. Absolutely absurd.

  • NickDB

    Should be easy to debate a creationist on evolution. Just set some ground
    rules first.

    The evolutionists will not mention anything out of Darwin’s Origin of the Species.
    The Creationists won’t mention anything out of the bible.

    If a side is right there should be more proof than just one book.

  • bernardaB

    I think they made a mistake with the last “C”. They probably meant “consumption”.

  • Patterrssonn

    He’s blinding them with science!

  • Theseus

    Oh, I know this is a late comment, but I almost forgot.

    Remember how their big thing used to be “lack of transitional fossils”. Barring the fact that we’ve actually had several good transitional fossils for over a century now; this argument has been completely been blown to shit in recent years by the discovery of beautiful whale fossils in several stages of transition ( with ever diminishing hind limbs in each stage) and of course the gorgeous exquisite dino-bird fossils found in Liaoning China with all their fine detail and remarkable preservation. There are so many of these dino-birds being found in different stages of “transition” it’s getting to be old hat.

    I haven’t kept up on what the standard creationist answer is for all these fossils; of course it would be something absurd. Any one care to enlighten me?

    • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

      I came across one online who had an array of arguments against particular examples. Equine fossils are from all over the world so we don’t know if they are indeed the same species line. I can’t remember what it was about tiktaalik, but I think it had to do with not having a ‘complete’ skeleton’. I’ve heard the same about Lucy, they’re missing parts so that invalidates everything.

      Or, back to Wise, it’s just “scripture trumps evidence” http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/01/honest-creation.html

      Wise’s God sure has one hell of a sense of humor.

      • Theseus

        Yeah. I’ve seen Tiktaalik and it’s pretty damn impressive.

        Of course when a fossil is missing parts it has more to do with how much and which parts are missing; in other words if a left limb is missing but we have the right one, then of course the missing left limb is irrelevant, and so on.

        There is more than enough left of Lucy’s hip structure to fill in the blanks to prove that she was an upright walking Hominid; there is no way that any skilled expert could rebuild it into something more chimp or gorilla like (without looking like a fool) because there is too much of it left. The same thing applies to her ape like brain case.

        Also as I stated above this doesn’t take into account for all the complete detailed fossils at Liaoning.

        (Sigh) It’s as you say, it always gets back to “scripture trumps evidence”.

  • http://www.facebook.com/Christie.John.D John Christie

    This idiot has my pictures posted on his facebook and blog, so Im not surprised by this at all.

  • Carpinions

    Ham is angry about a 19 year-old calling creationism out and promoting science, so as a counterpoint he wants to debate on whether the Bible is true? Gee that’s not a self-seving non sequitur.

  • John of Indiana

    “…we have a number of researchers on staff with earned PhDs in their respective fields of science.”
    Around here we refer to a PhD as “Piled Higher and Deeper”. There’s one working 2 floors above me who is racist, misogynistic, lives in fear of The Ghey, and who occasionally writes hard to follow LTTE espousing all those attributes wrapped in admonitions that Murrika has rejected gawd. I doubt he could drive a bus, much less design one.
    Oh, and his table manners are atrocious!
    Goes to show that 3 letters a wise man does not make.

  • Rhys

    I’m not a fan of Ham, but this article is stupid and lacks integrity on every level.

    Maybe while AiG is getting closed down, you can do the general educated public a favour and stop writing.

  • Cozman57

    In my home state of Missouri our enlightened Republican majority is trying to ram through a bill known as The Missouri Science Standards Act that would force schools to teach creationism as an equal theory to evolution. I don’t think it will get through the senate, let alone past our Democratic Governor, but I am pushing friends and family to write (or at least the ones who aren’t fundamentalist evangelicals).

  • Jim Mauch

    Listening to Ken Ham you get the impression that what he is saying is that if we are ever to gain true understanding we must cast off the false demon called science and embrace religion. With that kind of hostility why would he and his ilk even want to force their way into science classrooms? It would make as much sense as our demanding that kids in Sunday school have the chance to critically analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the Book of Genesis.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X