Wednesday, December 30, 2009

How Long Does It Take to Recognize an IDiot?

Ken Ham is the man behind Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum. He's upset with Lawrence Krauss because Krauss has been critical of anti-science creationists in general and the Creation Museum in particular. Ken Ham is particularly upset because Krauss was critical of th Creation Museum before he had actually visited it.
Krauss himself got criticism from some in the secular press because he had not even visited the museum to see it for himself. Presumably because of this criticism, he did come some time later and walked through the Creation Museum exhibits with AiG’s CCO, Mark Looy. Mark actually timed Krauss’s visit. He took a whole 22 minutes to walk through the museum, most of the time asking Mark Looy questions and only occasionally glancing at some of the exhibits. Considering it would take a person nearly one and a half hours to watch the programs in the various theatres, including the Planetarium and SFX theatre, plus take 2 hours to watch all the 50-plus videos in the various exhibits, and a further two hours to read all the signage—it was obvious Krauss wasn’t the least bit interested in researching the content of the museum (as one would expect from a real scientist and well-known anti-creationist commentator), but only visited presumably to tell people he has seen the Creation Museum and thus could comment on it—what a farce!
Now, let's be fair to Lawrence Krauss. He's a very smart guy and I'm certain that it didn't take him 22 minutes to recognize that the museum was a farce. I'm sure he stayed an extra 21 minutes just to be polite to his host.


  1. To be fair, Ham has a point. As everyone knows, Ham saves the intelligent arguments for creationism for the last of the 50+ videos because he doesn't want to scare away the creationists.

  2. Hahahaha! Sometimes brevity is a wonderful tool. Thanks for the succinct laugh, Orac!

  3. I was in that place with PZ back in August. Even if you're not familiar with the details of the creation/evolution debate, you can pretty much dismiss the joint as a monument to crackpottism based solely on the displays in the entrance hall.

  4. Imagine I have a pile of dirt. I don't know exactly what in is. So can I sell it as a gold and claim that anyone, who have not shoveled through every single clump of it can not say it is a pile of dirt?

    Problem is that if you are a expert, you have propably seen and hear a lot, the consept is well known. Then it is totally different situation.

    You can just look and see "is it the usual stuff". And "Is there any sign that show that there is actually any good science behind this flashy video". If not, then it is most propably only a huge pile of dirt.

    Ken Ham have written a lot of shit during decades. I haven't read every pages in AiG. But I have read them amazing amounts. And all them have been shit.

    And Creationism's entrance hall is actuallu pretty. Nice terms and sciencey -themes and stuff. Actually it is builded just like the museum : For PR purposes. The appearances are beautiful. But what deeper you look, that more obvious is that it is just a pile of dirt.

    If Creationist want to change that, there is easy solution. Go through every peace of the museum. And if something is dirt, throw it away. They certainly haven't done that. If they claim there is gold somewhere, help us to see it. So start shoveling.

    They have been years time, so if the job is not yet done, it must not be very fruitful science, right?

  5. The first thing you see when you walk into the main entrance is a few children playing with some Velociraptors. That is pretty much all you need to see to get the gist of the museum. I spent another few hours there and even had an hour+ chat with one of their "biologists." Believe me, Krauss didn't need to spend anymore time there to understand what it was about.

  6. Only a real dullard would require 6 hours of AiG material in order to conclude it is bullshit. Apparently Ham does not realize the fetid odor of Creationism has spread before him; Krauss has had a strong whiff and does not need to step into the dung pile to recognize it for what it is.

  7. Who cares? Let idiots and retards be idiots and retards. Accomplished scientists like our blogger can spend more energies on more useful pursuits than to crack down on idiots whose words any worthy, sensible person would recognize as utter nonsense anyways.

  8. How many spoonsful of rancid stew do you have to keep eating and puking before you decide it's no good?

  9. Anonymous:

    Who cares what you think, either? This is funny, for Ham to think that he has some hidden substance that Krauss would have to pay attention to find. If you don't like a post, skip it or start your own blog and only write about what scientists should write about, dumbass. Moran owns the blog, you don't.

    Also, Ham really needs to find a tailor. He isn't fooling anyone with those shoulder pads. We can tell by his neck that he doesn't have broad shoulders and he looks like the cartoonish character that David Byrne used in Talking Heads concerts.

  10. "Frank Cornish"... grow a pair instead of being a fanboi lapdog.

    Your overzealous attack symbolizes everything that is wrong with many intellectuals today.