Creationist Ham appearing at Cork + UCD

> who funds such Institutes and Foundations.

I understand from sources close to Dr Ham's institution(*), that he expects around 800 euro per day for engagements in Europe -- expressed as gifts, mind you, never fees, possibly 'coz fees might be taxable and a gift to god in the US isn't a taxable commodity, no doubt on account of the difficulty of prosecuting god in the event of non-payment.

Your local friendly skeptic understands also that events within the US mainland command a much higher fee which has yet to be confirmed, though we're working on determining this too (hi there ken, if you're watching!). Some indication of the outlay can be had from Ham's events page which quotes a rate of $4,000 - $6,000 for the kickoff costs of what it calls 'Mega Family Conferences' (printing not included) for what looks like eight to ten hours of high-voltage creationism.

Then multiply these costs by the number of events listed in the events listing page (an average of 4.5 events per day at the time of writing) and you might reach some understanding of how much financial clout this guy can bring to the tricky problem of how to damn people far wiser than him.

Seems too that god needs a truckload of cash to stay in business.

- robin.

(*) - these pesky skeptics get everywhere, don't we?

> I think belief in God is the only safe bet.

No doubt you do -- the simplistic verities and circular arguments which religion provides have indeed evolved to appeal to a wide section of humanity, otherwise they wouldn't have propagated. Take a look, for example, at the evolution of creationism itself over the last while, which in many of its more recent and less extreme and more successful manifestations has taken to aping (!) at a very superficial level, some of the forms and language of science, in the expectation that a faintly more scientifically literate populace will be conned by it, as indeed they are, in great number.

- robin.

> I am not an expert in handwriting

In your previous postings, you did declare that the consensus view upon the suicide notes was wrong, which implies that you believe that you are more knowledgable about the notes, than the people who had access to them. Within standard judicial practice, this makes you an 'expert' in front of a court, which, in a certain sense, is where we both find ourselves. Likewise with the moon-hoax thread, in which you declared that all the consensual views concerning man's visits to the moon were moonshine, setting yourself up as an expert again.

However, it's very rare that anybody outside the small-enough world of physicists bothers to learn enough to be able to express an opinion worth hearing and, as I said, I'd love to hear any that might be on offer here, though I think they're more relevant to a new thread.

> I meant 'begot.'.

I checked this one after posting and it turns out that we're both right -- the KJV exclusively uses 'begat' (what I'm familar with), while the more modern translations of the bible use 'begot', and I thought you were being intentionally archaic, but just misspelling it. 'pologies about this -- I was wrong to suggest that this might have been a misspelling.

- robin.

> Can't quite bring myself to donate €15 to the cause.

Am having difficulty justifying it myself, but as he may well be having to pay for the hall, probably a hotel, flights and the rest and therefore contributing to the world's economy in a positive way, I am fondly, if rather optimistically, hoping that the cash won't end up funding some odious venture such as his $25 million creation museum. BTW, you can buy some pretty kookie books there, for example, a leather-bound limited edition of our old friend Ussher's 'Annals of the World', the on-again/off-again 'Arguments Creationists Should NOT Use', and my own personal favorite, 'Alien Intrusion: UFOs and the Evolution Connection', a book which uncovers the "'intergalactic' battle over the history of life in the universe" and claims that the UFO community themselves are involved in a cover-up -- the conspiracy theorists themselves accused of conspiracies -- way cool, guys!)

BTW, Ham turned up this week on the BBC news website, pursuant to a school in Pennsylvania voting to teach biblically-mandated biology alongside modern biology. See the local school's announcement which concludes with the disgracefully disingenuous phrase '[...]religion is neither inhibited nor promoted.'.

> Though it probably would be an eye-opener

As I said earlier, if you've not been to one of these gatherings before, it's worth going along to see what we're up against, the better to know how to counter its slack-jawed, facile appeal.

> I would have said there was hardly a person in this
> country that subscribed to Creationism (among the
> Irish Catholic population anyway).

In my experience, it's confined exclusively to the charismatic/evangelical outlets in the country and hasn't yet begun to infect the catholic religious in any degree. However, I suspect that at least half of that, and probably far more, is the usual rejection by one religious group of the fiercely-held tenets of another; as fine a field-example of Freud's 'narcissism of minor difference' as any non-lethal one I can think of.

> It would be quite dispiriting to see a whole hall full of them.

They've rented a hall which apparently seats 600 and as they're having five talks and, no doubt, linked to the local evangelicals, I imagine they've done their homework and are expecting around this number. Anyhow, if a thoroughly wet spoilsport like Randi can gather 400-odd for an evening of fresh air in Ballsbridge, I can't imagine that a mutton-chopped, raving bible-thumper is going to have much trouble getting together 800 to breathe in his own sulphurous fumings.

Go along, even if only to value your skepticism.

- robin.

> My view is the doctrine that ascribes the origin of matter
> and life to acts of creation by God is not nearly as dispiriting
> as the alternative.

You've expressed what I belive is creationism's (and more generally, religion's) core motivation very well with this sentence, simply a belief that there's something out there that gives a human a reason to exist. It seems to me, however, that most people haven't even noticed, much less considered, the more basic question of whether to seek such a reason is a meaningful activity, or can give rise to a meaningful answer, if one feels that one is found. It's Pascal's wager again, morphed slightly.

- robin.

> i'll be going along to the UCD talks - might see some of you guys there?

You might, but then again, you might not -- I and whoever of my soon-to-be-(un?)lucky friends will be heading up there incognito, reason and common sense trussed up christmas turkeys. Yiz're more likely to see us undressed at the next skeptics talk on April 6th -- see http://www.irishskeptics.net

Praise the Holy Lord -- Ayyyyyy....MEN!

- robin (waving hands in air, eyes closed, simplicity etched on face)