Creationist Wisdom #703: Mandatory Ark Visits?

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Lexington Herald-Leader of Lexington, Kentucky, the second-largest city in the state, and they have a comments section. Their headline is Ark visit can be learning experience. That refers, of course, to Ken Ham’s Ark Encounter.

Unless the letter-writer is a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name — but this is an exceptional situation. The letter-writer’s name is Stephen Pruitt, which is also the name of Kentucky’s Commissioner of Education, who is described at the Commission’s website. But below his signature, the letter-writer adds that he is “not the state education chief.” The education official must be glad to have that cleared up.

We learned about this letter in a tip from one of our clandestine operatives, “Blue Grass.” Brace yourself for some excerpts from Pruitt’s letter, enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

If public school students go to the Ark Encounter they will be presented with a theory of origins and the geologic column (creation and the flood). In school they have already been presented with another theory of those things (evolution).

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Two theories — creationism and evolution. Then he says:

Since science is defined as knowledge gained through observation and experiment, neither of these qualifies as science.

[*Groan*] We understand that professional creationists say things like that because they make a sweet living doing so. But it’s always a puzzlement to encounter one of their followers who literally believes such nonsense. This man has no idea what science is, how it is done, or what a scientific theory is. Let’s read on:

Both models rely on the exact same body of evidence but the adherents of each interpret the evidence differently. Where that evidence ends, both require a leap of faith. We call that leap of faith religion.

Uh huh, the same evidence. The scientist explores a stratum of fossil-bearing rock that tests out to be 60 million years old, according to the solid science of Radiometric dating. Pruitt calls that a “leap of faith.” The creationist rejects the data, relies on the bible, and declares that the rock stratum is 6,000 years old, as are the fossils within it. That’s a genuine leap of faith. Pruitt thinks they’re equally valid. He continues:

If it is not permissible to teach religious concepts in the public schools then it would seem that neither creation nor evolution should be taught.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Evolution is just another whacked-out religion. Here’s the end of Pruitt’s brief letter:

However, if the purpose of education is to present the evidence accurately and objectively and allow the students to follow that evidence to its most plausible conclusion then a field trip to the Ark Encounter should not only be permitted but required.

Required? Aaaargh!! What a letter!

Copyright © 2016. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

14 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #703: Mandatory Ark Visits?

  1. Full blown fairy tale vs experimental science!! Sounds like two theories to me….NOT!!

  2. If there is a need for the exposition of an alternative to evolutionary biology, then a visit to the Ark does not fill that need.
    Young Earth Creationism does not make an attempt to explain the sorts of things that are the subject matter of evolutionary biology. And the Ark does not even attempt to present a floating structure or a refuge for large numbers of animals as a part of Young Earth Creationism.
    Besides that, if YEC&Arkeology are alternatives, then are not Intelligent Design (which its advocates tell us is not YEC) and Old Earth Creationism also worthy of presentation?
    I assume that advocates of ID will point out this mistake. They would not want ID to be identified with YEC. They would not want kids to miss out in hearing about their “alternative”.

  3. David Williams

    https://ncse.com/library-resource/ten-major-court-cases-evolution-creationism
    From above: 6. In 1994, in Peloza v. Capistrano School District, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court finding that a teacher’s First Amendment right to free exercise of religion is not violated by a school district’s requirement that evolution be taught in biology classes. Rejecting plaintiff Peloza’s definition of a “religion” of “evolutionism”, the Court found that the district had simply and appropriately required a science teacher to teach a scientific theory in biology class. (John E. Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District, (1994) 37 F. 3rd 517)
    David Williams: Real science can be taught in public school science classes, but not religious indoctrination. Evolution is not a religion.

  4. “Since science is defined as knowledge gained through observation and experiment, neither of these qualifies as science.”
    Tsssk – if paleontologists don’t observe fossils, then what do they do? Do they eat from their noses perhaps?
    Of course the only thing creacrappers observe are quotes they can mine.

  5. Charles Deetz ;)

    Side observation I haven’t’ heard anyone say about the AE: Its basic problem is that it is as phoney as ‘christian rock’. Forced message, well packaged, is still NOT entertainment and has a very small interest level. And, for other reasons, it isn’t science. And it does zip-squat-nothing to contribute to society except clarify most people’s understanding that YEC is a fringe belief they can’t get behind. Insisting that public school students should go there is only proof of how contrived it is.

  6. Both models rely on the exact same body of evidence but the adherents of each interpret the evidence differently.

    But they don’t use the same evidence. Creationists (including ID proponents) treat the text of the Bible as a legitimate source of scientific evidence regarding the origin of life, the universe and everything, while Darwinists don’t.

    If it is not permissible to teach religious concepts in the public schools then it would seem that neither creation nor evolution should be taught.

    Yes, that’s right; take them both out, then see how many days it is before creationists start pushing for their ideas, but only theirs, to be reintroduced. I bet it’d be fewer than six.

    These people have never given up pushing for a return to the good old days when it was possible to pass laws flat-out forbidding the teaching of evolution in public schools. And I suppose they never will, at least during the lifetime of anyone reading this.

  7. @mnbo
    The evidence for evolution is not restricted to fossils, and the science of evolution is not exclusively paleontology.

  8. Guess what, TomS? I didn’t claim that.

  9. The AIG in Kentucky has assets that are too big to sail.

  10. I commented on this letter at here. Have you read the comments? It makes you realize not everyone in Kentucky buys into kennie’s kool-aid. What I am most curious about is any attendance numbers for the ark park? I keep seeing different figures but nothing substantive.

  11. Dave Godfrey

    “Both models rely on the exact same body of evidence but the adherents of each interpret the evidence differently. Where that evidence ends, both require a leap of faith. We call that leap of faith religion.”

    Evolution does not rely on either the theory about origins or the geologic column, although the latter is one useful source of evidence for evolution. It is not a leap of faith to use the various scientific evidences to support the fact that evolution is the best theory we have for the world of living things we observe in the world today. It is, however, a leap of faith to accept that myths and fairy stories told by relatively ignorant people are better evidence than what we observe in the real world.

    “However, if the purpose of education is to present the evidence accurately and objectively and allow the students to follow that evidence to its most plausible conclusion then a field trip to the Ark Encounter should not only be permitted but required.”

    If the purpose of education is to present evidence accurately and objectively, a field trip to the Ark Encounter is neither required nor recommended. It is a museum dedicated to a defending the view that a fairy story was a historical event by misusing scientific knowledge and inventing more fairy stories. Most of what Mr Lie presents in his boat-shaped building isn’t even in the Bible.

  12. @Dave Godfrey
    I don’t mean this as criticism, but evolution is not the best theory that we have for the world of living things. It is the only one. No one has even attempted to account for major features of the world of life without mentioning evolution.
    “Anything is possible, so why not this?”, aka creationism or intelligent design, does not attempt to account for anything.

  13. Wait, required for all schools to have a field trip to the Ark. Cincinnati airport is going to need a large large upgrade. Can you imagine just the high schools in California, Oregon and Washington attending. All those kids flying into Cincinnati (no other close major airport). Ignorance knows no bounds. Does not know evolution, geology or the limitations of logistics.