Remember Megan Fox, the homeschooling mother and writer for PJ Media who made that epically ridiculous video of herself wandering through the Field Museum pointing out all the “bias” and “propaganda”? She’s back. And this time she’s at Ken Ham’s Creation Museum. Spoiler alert: She loves it.
Despite her enthusiasm over visiting the Creation museum, Fox is not entirely sold on creationist theory of 6,000-year-old universe.
“It’s as valid as anything else. They don’t know either,” she explains. “Instead of the God of the Bible, they’re counting on the god of primordial soup. That’s all it is. It’s all fake. So if you believe in the god of primordial soup or the god of Abraham — whatever.”
Fox then provides a tour of the 70,000 square feet museum, stopping before a diorama of cavemen in a forest setting intermingling with deer, wolves, and penguins — yes, penguins — before ending up before plans for Ham’s proposed model for full-sized Noah’s Ask, which Fox notes “Looks huge.”
Fox concludes that creation theory is as valid as anything because, “Nobody was there to see it.”
This is not just an irrational position, it’s a positively anti-rational one. Imagine this scenario: A man is found dead in his house of gunshot wounds. No one was there to witness the murder. The police come and begin an investigation. They find a weapon with fingerprints on it. They can trace the gun’s owner because of the serial number. They have footprints through the man’s blood that can help them identify the shoes worn. All of this is evidence that can be used to positively identify the murderer.
Now a creationist comes along and has an alternative “theory.” A demon may have done it, they argue, an immaterial spirit that also magically has the ability to grasp a gun and fire it. That demon may even have framed the people the police will identify as the likely culprits because, ya know, demons do really bad things. And remember, no one was there, so their “theory” is just as valid as the explanation the police have come up with. Needless to say, no one would find that argument the least bit credible. But that is exactly the argument being made here and it’s equally absurd.
This is the result of three things, primarily: Confirmation bias, motivated reasoning and virulent ignorance. Megan Fox is filtering out all contrary information that might disconfirm what she already believes and is engaging in logical fallacies in order to keep those pre-determined beliefs safe from challenge. And not only is she utterly ignorant of the science involved, she has memorized a whole bunch of falsehoods and illogical positions that make her believe that she knows what she’s talking about.