Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Journalist wonders, why Creation Museum inspires rage, whole foods scams don’t (sky fell last night too, by the way)

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
Michael Schulson
Michael Schulson

It feels odd. There is now one other hack on the planet (at Daily Beast) who asks questions like this:

If you want to write about spiritually-motivated pseudoscience in America, you head to the Creation Museum in Kentucky. It’s like a Law of Journalism. The museum has inspired hundreds of book chapters and articles (some of them, admittedly, mine) since it opened up in 2007. The place is like media magnet. And our nation’s liberal, coastal journalists are so many piles of iron fillings.

But you don’t have to schlep all the way to Kentucky in order to visit America’s greatest shrine to pseudoscience. In fact, that shrine is a 15-minute trip away from most American urbanites.

(Update: My goodness, 441 comments as of 11:28 am EST. So far as I got, reading, Whole Foods is a conservative plot. … [Fetch the IRS?] )

I’m talking, of course, about Whole Foods Market. From the probiotics aisle to the vaguely ridiculous Organic Integrity outreach effort (more on that later), Whole Foods has all the ingredients necessary to give Richard Dawkins nightmares. And if you want a sense of how weird, and how fraught, the relationship between science, politics, and commerce is in our modern world, then there’s really no better place to go. Because anti-science isn’t just a religious, conservative phenomenon—and the way in which it crosses cultural lines can tell us a lot about why places like the Creation Museum inspire so much rage, while places like Whole Foods don’t.

Michael Shulson’s definitely worth a read, though he doesn’t seem to see that there is no True Centre of science. On the contrary, there are many questions that few ask because they are afraid of the financial, career, or philosophical consequences of trafficking in evidence that does not support the establishment view on a given question. And the “rage vs. stage” phenomenon Shulson notes is known elsewhere as corrupt journalism. But we all knew that.

The unasked questions are of course the interesting ones, and quite often the ones that advance science. This is certainly true in fields Uncommon Descent covers (see, for example, The Science Fictions series at your fingertips).

It is doubtless also true of questions around food. That is, there may be lots of French-for-fertilizer in the whole foods movement, but only the dominance of Big Pharma in medicine could create a situation where more attention is paid to a few doses of a single drug, when treating illness, than to the outcome of four decades of eating large quantities of specific substances several times a day. it would therefore be useful to know whether, on the whole, people who strive to follow a balanced diet (which sometimes results in getting scammed) have worse or better health than people who live on the best-selling fast food choices. I’ll pay attention to any well-conducted research in the area, otherwise the jury is out around here on whole foods. – O’Leary for News*

See also: Our moral and intellectual superiors ask, should creationists be (allowed to be) scientists (The creationist was the only guy who even wondered what exactly was in a given, nearly incomprehensible chart, advancing the current received opinion, and guess ruddy what?)

Follow UD News at Twitter!

* For the record: I try to follow the Canada Food Guide and do not make efforts to find whole foods.

Comments
Sal, I'm going to have to agree/disagree with you. First, I agree that (unfortunately) many high-profile YEC'ers have not behaved very well. Like the stereotypical philandering evangelist, I chalk some of it up to the type-A personality types involved. Entrepreneurs like Ken Ham tend to be hard-charging, passionate, true-believers that accomplish great deeds, and sometimes commit great mis-deeds. I will say, anecdotally, that my experience has been quite different than yours - I've found YEC'ers to be quite collegial, and I've yet to personally meet a person with a strong positive opinion of evolutionary theory who I would like to spend much time with. (Many UD commenters are exceptions to this, of course). However, I don't think the journalistic obsession with Creationism in general and the Creation Museum in specific, has much (if anything) to do with the politics, personalities and power-plays of YEC. Articles about the Creation museum and creationist tend to be more along the lines of "can you believe how stoopid these people are", and less "can you believe how nasty these people are". In support of my belief, I will refer you to the other groups of people who journalists also tend to ridicule - global warming "deniers", pro-life demonstrators, IDists, Christians in general, etc. While you may feel that some of these groups bring it on themselves, I rather believe that everyone basically is drawing from the same gene-pool, and the mix of good and bad in any given group larger than a PTA meeting is going to be rather consistent across belief systems. Journalists will find reasons to attack what they do not like, regardless of the behavior of the people who hold that belief. Lastly - given your view of the need to be more "loving and tolerant and open minded and empathetic", your posts airing YEC dirty laundry hold a certain amount of irony, don't you think? ;-)drc466
February 24, 2014
February
02
Feb
24
24
2014
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT
To get a picture of the occasional circus in YEC activism, from the CMI website:
From: Creation Ministries International (Australia) – formerly Answers in Genesis (Australia), previously Creation Science Foundation. April 2006 [See footnote re modifications made late May 2010] Nearly 20 years ago, our ministry prepared a detailed information pack, one which for many years now we did not think we would have much use for again. The contents of that pack are now in the form of two readable (or downloadable) pdfs, about 2.7 megabytes each. 1.The full text of the booklet Salem Revisited by Margaret Buchanan 2.The remainder of the documentation The pack was originally prepared in response to the aftermath of a horrific attack (February, 1987) on our ministry (then called Creation Science Foundation) by Mr Mackay. The mechanism of attack involved a monstrous series of allegations without evidence—the basis was alleged ‘spiritual discernment’, involving ‘black cats’ and similar. These slanderous allegations concerned Margaret Buchanan, at the time a well-regarded Christian widow working for the ministry as Ken Ham’s personal secretary. John said she had been ‘specially sent by Satan’ to undermine him and the ministry, involved in covens, attending séances, etc.—never was there any eyewitness testimony or other evidence, merely ‘discernment’. When his attempt to sack her and take over the ministry failed, due to the Board’s refusal to violate biblical principle, Mr Mackay resigned. This was followed by a campaign of widespread innuendo and slander, involving actual fabrications which if accepted would tend to bolster his claim of ‘demonic infiltration’ of our ministry and thus would tend to undermine public confidence in our ministry. This included the bizarre and incredibly offensive claim thatMargaret had claimed to have had post-mortem intercourse with her late husband (!).1 Sadly, these horrific sins have never been repented of, nor forgiveness sought, nor restitution offered—despite a Baptist church excommunicating Mr Mackay and urging people to respect this decision in the Lord. [IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION NOTE, ADDED 2013, RE EXCOMMUNICATION: The excommunication letter featured in the compilation herein (No. 2 above, pp. 31–34) was issued by the then Redlands Baptist Church. Years later, this dissolved and some time after that a new church formed under the same name. Of course, this is a totally different body, and so does not have any record of John Mackay being excommunicated, hence enabling a cunning campaign of claiming that "CMI is spreading the devil's lies—check for yourself that Redlands Baptist Church has no record of excommunication of John Mackay!". To this date of July 2013 there has not been the slightest indication of any repentance, either towards the ministry or the church or any other victim. Offers of meeting have never been withdrawn by CMI.] When Ken Ham left ICR in about 1996, the rumour mill from this source again swung into action; the story this time was that Margaret was to blame for this ‘split’, somehow using demonic ‘powers’ to damage another creation ministry. Again, the real ‘target’ of the rumours was clearly public confidence in our ministry; if it could be undermined, it would be more likely to leave the Australian ‘creation public’ diverting the support in other directions. It might also be seen as a ‘vindication’ of the original offensive actions. Currently, the issue has surfaced again in the context of the recent tensions between the Australian ministry and AiG-USA, with John Mackay’s newsletter suddenly urging supporters to pray for the ‘attack’ the US ministry is allegedly under. In fact, it appears that new alliances are being forged, and talk of ‘reconciliation’ is being used to rehabilitate Mr Mackay in creationist circles—again the aim appears to be to undermine the Australian ministry, only from a different angle. Reconciliation is a wonderful and most desirable thing, but can never occur except on a biblical basis; the original slander must be withdrawn, and there must be a repentance and forgiveness sought from the main victim, Margaret, for a start. No one likes to keep things alive that are best forgotten, but to cover up serious sin or attempt to sweep it under the carpet can never earn God’s approval. There is a cost to taking a strong stand in defence of truth and integrity, not the least being that it can easily be misrepresented. However, we will quietly but persistently maintain our stand, especially as the ugly stain of these rumours is encouraged to resurface to once again undermine the ministry—until and unless these seriously sinful actions are dealt with under the cross, not whitewashed for ‘political’ convenience or excused on the basis of any ‘personalities’ involved. Anything less would not only dishonour God, it would ultimately be running away from our responsibility of Christian love to the perpetrator himself.
The Creation Museum isn't part of a scholarly scientific enterprise, it's almost pure hype. I'd say the best part of the Museum are the scholars like Danny Faulkner who work there... The real advancement of YEC isn't by Ken Ham, but by people like Ariel Roth, Mark Armitage, Hugh Miller, John Sanford, etc.scordova
February 24, 2014
February
02
Feb
24
24
2014
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT
Part of it is YECs themselves, the leaderships harbors some of the nastiest people I've ever met in Christendom. I accept YEC surely not because they are the most loving and tolerant and open minded and empathetic lot in Christendom (they are not). PS Why do you think, though I'm a YEC I hang out in ID and even atheist circles? The atmosphere is much more collegial and respectful of diverse philosophical viewpoints and doubts and questions can be raised without fear of being labeled a heretic. Here is some dirty laundry http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/24/ken-ham-banned-from-conve_n_840084.html
Ken Ham banned from Home School Conference The Lexington Herald-Leader: Ken Ham, the man behind the Creation Museum and the future Ark Encounter amusement park, has been disinvited from a homeschool convention in Cincinnati next week because he made "ungodly, and mean-spirited" comments about another speaker, according to the convention's organizers.
It's true some one as mild mannered and nice as Michael Behe is hated, but YEC leadership make themselves sometime unnecessarily odious. In prior years, there was a lot of shoddy science and dogmatism. Thankfully that has changed, there has been slowly a cultural change to openness and welcoming of difficult questions and doubts and dissent. A good example was the YEC Baraminology Study group which welcomed evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg and philosopher of biology Stephen Meyer. Sternberg, who was not even at the time and ID proponent was allowed to be a reviewer and editor of YEC publications. That was huge that YECs were actively welcoming secular review! But, there is still stratification in the YEC community. You have the activists (like Ken Ham) and then you have the true scholars like John Sanford, John Hartnett, Danny Faulkner, Russ Humphreys, Marcus Ross, David Dewitt, Robert Carter, Paul Nelson etc. More Dirty laundry: Trouble in Paradise
As of 2004, the US market for creationism was at least $22 million — as measured by adding up donations to and purchases of products and services from ten of the largest creationist groups. Of that amount, Answers in Genesis accounted for 59%, making it clearly the dominant player in US creationism (Lippard 2007). But in October 2005, Answers in Genesis (AiG) suffered a schism. This became public at the end of February 2006, when the groups in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and South Africa that had operated under the AiG name rebranded as Creation Ministries International (CMI), while the US and UK groups continued as AiG. (As the naming gets complicated, I will refer to the different countries' groups as AiG–US, AiG–UK, and AiG–Australia to distinguish them from the overall AiG organization prior to the split.) .... the causes of the split have now become known — revealing Machiavellian maneuvering by Ken Ham and AiG–US as they fought measures to distribute power and add accountability (successfully), attempted to seize the assets of AiG–Australia (partly successfully), and tried to gain complete control of AiG–Australia (unsuccessfully). These documents also reveal surprising details of the Australian group's 1987 split with co-founder John Mackay, which include accusations of demonic possession and necrophilia. ....
and more http://lippard.blogspot.com/2006/11/more-from-behind-scenes-of.html
Unfortunately, a number of people have contacted us just now, saying they have received a brief email from AiG-USA's chairman [Ken Ham] (which we have seen) that casts serious slurs against our ministry. In effect, it engages in widespread public slander. The email alleges that we have engaged in 'unbiblical' and 'factious' behaviour (a word applied in the NT to those who introduce doctrines contrary to the Gospel, and translated as 'heretic' in the KJV). This is an immensely serious and damaging allegation against an evangelical ministry and one that has not been substantiated, and is totally without foundation; our ministry's doctrine has not changed one iota, either in word or in practice. The email also hints darkly at a 'spiritual problem' as a justification for their breaking off discussions with us. It also refers to a letter the AiG-Board sent us on November 1 to that effect, saying that that letter is available to enquirers upon request. That letter was essentially an expansion of their shorter email; it repeatedly affirmed their own righteousness, and that they were breaking off negotiations until we resolved our 'spiritual problems'. These 'problems' are not specified, which darkens the innuendo ('What? Who?'). Dismayed by this turn of events, we prepared a detailed response that was emailed to each of the Directors on AiG-USA's Board, on 15 November 2006. It outlined and clarified the issues in detail. In it we also pleaded for AiG to urgently withdraw from this action, giving them three days to respond-i.e. to contact us, to make some move to draw back from this abyss, to avoid us making our response public. We have received no response or acknowledgement from AiG, even to this date, some six days later. Worldwide libel distribution The same AiG email defaming our ministry has also been sent out by an Australian creationist running his own ministry, who had split with Ken Ham in 1986 (this man had been excommunicated by an Australian church, a still unresolved issue-see www.CreationOnTheWeb.com/mackay for Ken Ham's own words about the seriousness of these actions against our ministry and an individual at that time). So this defamation has been sent to a substantial worldwide email mailing list, which would include overlap with many of our own supporters. This AiG email was clearly sent to that 'distribution source' by AiG; the covering comments state that 'Ken Ham advises', and refer to AiG's permission for the recipient to spread it still further. (The aim appears to be to encourage as many people as possible to lose confidence in our ministry, and of course AiG will have a commercial 'bonus' in that the more that are encouraged to 'enquire', the more email addresses they will have, making it easier to further undermine CMI ministry in this country.) We deeply regret that AiG/Ken Ham have seen fit to engage in this most serious escalation. Even in the face of this defamation, our overwhelming preference would have been to have had AiG respond to our urgent letter, to continue talks in openness and light as the Scriptures enjoin us to do rather than for us to have to publically stand against the libel [by Ham]. In the absence of any evidence of remorse or willingness to undo this most recent and grave public attempt to damage us, we solemnly, before the Lord, believe we now have no choice but to protect the public reputation of the ministry organisation that has been entrusted to us, in as dignified and God-honoring a way as we can. So we have chosen in the first instance to provide, within this email, a website link (below) to the full text of our formal 15 November response to AiG, which should substantially clarify CMI's position. Of course, we do not know who all the many folk to whom AiG's defamatory comments have been emailed are, or how many times it has multiplied on the internet. So we are sending this email you are reading to the following: 1) To any who actually enquire of us. 2) To our corporation's members (an outer layer of protection which holds the directors accountable), our staff and our volunteer workers/speakers, local reps, etc. 3) To the management of our four national affiliates (CMI offices in Canada, NZ, US and South Africa, as well as affiliates in the UK) for providing to their staff, so that they will be able to answer these allegations as they inevitably spread. Sadly, some mud always sticks, especially when it comes from a 'big name'. 4) To those we know of who are involved in creation outreach of any sort, since we are aware that at least some of these have been targeted with this AiG email and previous ones. 5) To any (including those within AiG itself) that we have reason to believe have been contacted by AiG with similar intent and have likely received similarly misleading statements and views. The link Our letter of response to AiG is reproduced at this link on our site, www.CreationOnTheWeb.com/dispute If you did not receive the AiG email, we ask for your compassionate understanding of the dilemma we were facing; we know from those who have already contacted us that it went out widely to creationists, but do not know exactly who did and didn't receive it. This sorry development will bring shame on the Name of our Lord and Saviour, and give cause for the enemies of God to gloat. Would you please consider committing these matters, which also have the potential do damage to creation ministry in general (even more than has already occurred), to prayer. Yours very sincerely in Christ, The Board of Creation Ministries International Ltd. (Australia) Mr. Kerry Boettcher (Chairman) Mrs. Carolyn McPherson (Vice-Chairman) Dr. Carl Wieland, M.B., B.S. (Managing Director) Dr. Dave Christie, B.Com, M.Admin, Ph.D., FAICD, FIMC (Director) Mr. Fang, Chang Sha B.Sc (hons), M.Sc. (Director) Rev. Dr. Don Hardgrave, B.D, M.A., D.B.S., Dip. Theol, Dip. R.E. (Director)
Many of the documents involved have been removed from the web and the dirty laundry has been somewhat washed over time. My jaw sometimes drops at the shouting matches that were witnessed in the 2008 ICC conference. ICC 2013 was much more ID like in their cooperation with each other.scordova
February 24, 2014
February
02
Feb
24
24
2014
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply