Remember what Ken Ham said?
Now, we’re not saying no to a debate with the Houston Atheists Association. In fact we want one of our PhD scientists on staff to debate a PhD scientist chosen by the Houston Atheists Association. This would encourage a more fruitful exchange on the merits of creation vs. evolution, the age of the universe, etc.
You know, it’s not as if we’re calling him out of the blue — we weren’t making the assumption that Ken Ham even wanted to debate. He said he did! He laid out the terms right there! And we met them. As Aron Ra says, it’s a suspicious silence — he’s just chicken.
I think what really happened is that he and his ilk were terrified of meeting Aron and getting mopped up by a guy without a Ph.D. who looks like a scary biker dude. Oh, the ignominy. You’d think they’d be used to being made to look stupid by now, though.
They most certainly are, so they see it as a redundancy to do it yet again. And they may be no good at predicting the future, but this is one case where the outcome is all too clear.
Perhaps Ham should have a debate with William Lane Craig. It would appear that they both have open schedules now.
Why would a PhD waste their time? They are busy trying to cure cancer and shit!He’ll, ill do it, I’ve a BS in mol bio, that has to be worth a PhD in creationism
That Ken Ham is a bit of a scallywag isn’t he?
grumpyoldfart:
Not sure I would use the word ‘scallywag.’ That word, to me, carries the connotation of creative and exuberant misbehaviour. An intelligent child who keeps getting into creative trouble questioning the received wisdom of the parents and priest, for example. I think, and this is just me, that asshole, liar, and Christian are much more apropos.
Just me, of course. Your results may vary. No longer contained by a nut in a manufactured facility.
Ogvorbis: It’s not just you.
I’m sensing a little desperation in his awkward emphasis on “Ph.D.” They do love the trappings of actual scholarship, if not the thing itself.
@grumpyoldfart:
I don’t think so …
scallywag [ˈskælɪˌwæg]
…
2. (Historical Terms) (after the US Civil War) a White Southerner who supported the Republican Party and its policy of Black emancipation. Scallywags were viewed as traitors by their fellow Southerners.
I don’t know…maybe Ham is having trouble finding a PhD for his side of the debate. Perhaps all of “his PhDs” looked at him and said, “You’ve *got* to be kidding! They’ll slaughter us in a fair debate.”
It’s actually a cunning plan. Once my scientific society invited a anti-GMO activist to speak at our meeting. She was a nice person, and we are nice people, but we could not arrive at a common language. It’s a rare PhD who is bilingual. That’s why I like it when PZ talks about science on this blog- he’s a very good communicator.
Scallywag is one of those words which is different in British and USAlien English:
● British: A person, typically a child, who behaves badly but in an amusingly mischievous rather than harmful way; a rascal.
● USAlien: A white Southerner who collaborated with northern Republicans during the post-Civil War reconstruction period.
The British meaning is used in the USA (personal experience). However, I cannot make either definition fit with grumpyoldfart@4’s usage; in particular, Ken “Piglet Rapist” Ham is harmful. And not just to piglets.
On behalf of pullets everywhere, I object to this slur.
*twirls away*
Patriciaaaaaa!!!!
All together now…