Ken Ham makes an eloquent appearance on NPR
Peter here, with a response to the scientific community's characteriazation of Ken Ham as a fringe lunatic evangelist who promotes bad science. In an NPR interview aired on May 28, Rev. Ham presents his case in a delightfully sober, well-thought out way.
On the question of the validity of scripture versus emperical science, he replied that all scientists begin with one or more presuppositions when they embark on scientific investigation, notably the supposition that God does not exist or was not involved in the phenomenon being observed. He added that scientists were not around to see dinosaurs walk the Earth anymore than creationists can claim to have been present to observe Adam and Eve.
A fair argument.
Speaking of fair, it's worth mentioning that Creation Museum visitors are exposed to both sides of the evolution-creationism issue. An exerpt of the interview on the NPR web site:"We actually do give both sides as people walk in," Ham says, explaining that a fossil exhibit has "a creation paleontologist" and "an evolutionary paleontologist" offering different interpretations of the same fossil.
Listen for yourself to this interview and hear it from the horse's mouth. It's helpful, when making assessments, to go to the source of a story, rather than read secular reporters' versions of them.
The Voice of Science: Shelley Greene, Ph.D., comments:
Here is a double-headed Trojan Horse. We know it's common for politicians and salesmen to adapt their parlance for the purpose of resonating with different groups and their different interests. It's ingenious, really, but unfortunately it's disingenuous as well. Perhaps pragmatically, it is the moral price society must pay for winning the race or making the sale.
So, can we really blame Dembski, who is merely putting to practice one of the oldest sales tricks on the books? Yes and no. No because, come on, he's selling a product that has been patently rejected by the whole scientific community! This is a hard sell. He deserves a trick or two.
Yes, we should blame Dembski, because in his effort to sell his Intelligent Design theory to the people, he is a) misrepresenting science, and b) concealing the fact that ID theory is simply creationism dressed up. What Intelligent Design advocates want to sell us is not a cool, alternative 'origins of life' theory, but an entire theocratic agenda which would seek to change fundamental aspects of American society itself. Dembski et al, should indeed be blamed, not only for their fraudulent misrepresentation of science, but ultimately for attempting to perpetrate a fundamentalist-based covert operation on the American public.