A Touch of Class

[kingyak]

"A girl is on the phone wanting to line up an abortion, and the guys are looking at a computer to find pornography, and they are also using drugs. It is all very tastefully done." - Ken Ham

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2012/06/11/should-we-really-expect-anything-else/

[Kai]

"A girl is on the phone wanting to line up an abortion, and the guys are looking at a computer to find pornography, and they are also using drugs. It is all very tastefully done." - Ken Ham

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2012/06/11/should-we-really-expect-anything-else/

There is nothing classy about Ken Ham. He is a horrible excuse for a human being, and his "museum" a mockery of science and natural history collections everywhere.

[kingyak]

But it's a tasteful mockery of science and national history collections everywhere.

[Kai]

But it's a tasteful mockery of science and national history collections everywhere.

You did this just to raise my blood pressure, didn't you? DIDN'T YOU?

[kingyak]

I try to laugh at Ken Ham whenever possible. It helps me forget how much of my tax money is going to fund his big boat with dineysores.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I try to laugh at Ken Ham whenever possible. It helps me forget how much of my tax money is going to fund his big boat with dineysores.

See, it's assholes like him that give the GOP the excuses they need to attack the NEA.

[Kai]

I try to laugh at Ken Ham whenever possible. It helps me forget how much of my tax money is going to fund his big boat with dineysores.

I can't laugh at it, because it distracts and deceives people from real issues, especially those related to my science.

This statement in particular:

Nowhere at the Creation Museum do we say that we can "prove" the Genesis account by science. We certainly illustrate how observational science confirms the Bible's account of history. And we also help people understand the difference between observational science (which we rely on to build our technology, for example, and which we all agree on), and historical science (beliefs concerning the past). One cannot "prove" historical science, because it has to do with the past when we were not there.

Observational/historical sciences aka ideographic science is my direct work. It is my toil and passion and I think quite often about what makes it different from experimental (aka nomothetic or "law-making" science). I have been working several years now on a way to adapt strong inference, that excellent method of experimental science and frankly the only scientific method any experimental scientist should be using, to observational science.

Ken Ham's statement is an utter twisting and disgusting degeneration of good natural history. It cuts me down to hear someone use the the same language I do in such a defiled way.