The Bad Astronomer Puts the Smackdown on Answers in Genesis

Monday, February 18, 2008
I love the Bad Astronomer. As an amateur skeptic, I enjoy his use of logic, the scientific method, and pure sarcasm to put the smackdown on the screedy YECers.

Today he puts the website Answers in Genesis in his cross hairs, with pretty decisive results.

Go, Phil.

10 comments:

David Klecha said...

Reminds me of a forward that was going around when I was in college--which I feel like I've mentioned already, so forgive me for repeating if so--that purported scientists had worked out every rotation of the Earth going back to its formation, but could not account for some day-and-a-quarter worth of rotations. That missing day and a quarter (or whatever) corresponded to some stoppages of the sun in the Bible.

Not that I'm personally against the Bible--big fan, actually--but I always found uniquely offensive the effort to apply a scientific veneer to matters of faith. It really seems like the fundamentalists have this wholly problematic relationship with science, where they either ignore it entirely or try to bend it to conform.

Personally I think there's a harmony to be found between them, but that's just me.

Silly creationists.

Janiece Murphy said...

David, I think you've put your finger in the sore for me, as well.

Science is science. Faith is faith. I think some people are successful in reconciling the two positions in their own lives, but the "rules" for one don't apply to the other, and vice versa.

Fanatics on both sides of the aisle appear to think that's not the case.

Silly, indeed.

Anne C. said...

That was the thing I found unsettling about the comments of that post. It essentially devolved into fanatical cat-fight.
The original post, on the other hand was very to the point (disproved one thing) and well written.

For once I'm glad to be in the middle of the bell curve.

Michelle K said...

That was far less rude than I would have been, all things considered.

YECs make me want to get a bat and start beating things. Any thing, really.

Janiece Murphy said...

Anne, being a moderate has its advantages, yes? Although I understand Michelle's desire to start swinging her YEC bat, too...

MWT said...

He's right, but what he wrote and how he wrote it will fall on deaf ears as something that all scientists say that therefore should be glazed over. It preaches nicely to the choir, but doesn't make a dent otherwise.

(I was a creationist back in high school.)

Janiece Murphy said...

MWT, if you believe your science on faith, then you're not open to new evidence, correct?

John the Scientist said...

Well, as Rand Simberg said (and the BA kind of got right) we have two articles of faith that we call unprovable axioms in science -

1. An objective reality exits

2. That reality obeys physical laws

We can't prove those to be true, so in that respect science is faith, but it's not faith in the sense that creationists use the word.

Scientists generally respond to dip s#@t philosophy majors who diddle with ideas such as the universe is just a figment of someone's imagination by picking up a rock and asking if the philosopher wants to imagine a sharp rap upside the head. ;-)

John the Scientist said...

I love today's Heinlein quote.

Janiece Murphy said...

Apropos, yes? For posterity, it's "A touchstone to determine the actual worth of an "intellectual" - find out how he feels about astrology."