Ken Ham's Creation Museum

Sure, the science community has credibility deficiencies at time, like the recent human cloning fiasco in South Korea. However, the science community has a built-in means of correcting those deficiencies...other scientists. Even the list on AIG's website of arguments creationists shouldn't use exists because mainstream science has debunked them so soundly that the creationists can't use them without looking silly even to their most ardent supporters. Ken Ham and company did nothing to validate the accuracy of thos arguements. What is the mechanism that creationists use to ferret out the liars from the merely deluded? In fact, what is the means by which they divide fact from wishful thinking? Ken Ham can believe what he wants and state what he wants. However, when he tries to tell my grandchildren that his version of the history of life on this earth is the truth, he better have more to back him up than speculation hinged on an old manuscript. The burden of proof must be higher when imparting knowledge to those who will accept it easily. From my point of view, to present yourself as an authority, and then provide to children unsupported conclusions as fact, is fraud. Worse still, it is a form of child abuse.

Right on target, Buzz. I wholeheartely agree with that sentiment. Parents and extended families in this country tend to abdicate their rights and responsibility to other authorities (gvmt, church, MTV...etc) too readily. Then they wonder why their children don't follow the values that the parents hold so dear. That is why it is so important to ensure the things our children are taught have been through the wringer of scientific inquiry. Things shouldn't be taught based on popularity of belief within the citizenry or political correctness. Factual correctness should prevail in all things imparted to the next generation. I doubt that young credulous school children were fed that deception in any detail beyond it being an example of a precurser to Homo-sapiens sapiens. I guess you could counter that assertion in another thread with examples from primary/secondary school textbooks of that era...if you so desire. As has been pointed out by others, all Biblical creationists have to do is provide a preponderance of evidence in support of your version of origins. Otherwise, allowing your version in, as a scientific explanation, at its level of evidentiary support requires letting all other creation stories in as scientific explanations for our origin. Then the rest of science education would have to change. Horoscopes, dowsing, spoon bending, and palm reading would have to be added just to name a few. Don't you think it would be easier on the students if we just left the science topics at the current level of evidentiary validation?