Well, apparently one member of the mob out gathering wood to place at the foot of the stake being prepared for scientific heretic creationist Ken Ham noticed my CJ article, and was not pleased. Maybe they'll try to burn me now too.
You just gotta love these champions of open inquiry.
In a letter to the CJ editor today, James M. Prichard condemns my recent article pointing out the hypocrisy of the scientific establishment that cannot brook any kind of dissent when it comes to Darwinism. "Martin's Cothran's [sic] attempt," he says, "to portray Lawrence Krauss, a vocal critic of the new Creation Museum, as an alarmist seeking to 'stamp out divergent opinions on scientific issues' is comparable to condemning a surgeon general for warning against snake-oil peddlers."
Well, no, really it isn't. We can take the salesman's snake oil into the lab and test it to see if it is poisonous, and know for sure whether it is. But there's no way to take a theory of what happened tens of millions of years ago into the lab to see if it is inaccurate, and know definitely whether it is.
Can't be done.
And this is part of my point on this whole debate: you simply cannot know with any real clarity what happened that long ago, and anyone who says they do is simply blowing smoke. If you accept divine revelation (and that is another issue entirely), and you interpret it correctly (which is where, in my opinion, Ken Ham goes astray), you can at least claim some kind of certitude. The scientist with his fragmentary collection of fossils, however, is going to have to settle for hypotheses that can never be truly verified. How do you verify something that happened, say, 65 million years ago?
Science's theories of the past are always tentative. That's why, on the issue of origins, they should stop acting like their findings were handed down from Sinai.
"Make no mistake," says Prichard, "The Creation Museum sends a clear message to children that modern science is anti-religious." Is Prichard really concerned about people who portray modern science as anti-religious? If he is, then, once he's done protesting in front of the Creation Museum, he needs to take his picket signs over to the offices of people like Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Steven Pinker. That's the whole message of the New Atheists: that science and religion are inherently incompatible.
I won't be holding my breath.