Bedrock Science

Posted 17 July 2004 by Reed A. Cartwright

↗ The current version of this post is on the live site: https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/07/bedrock-science.html

It’s and oldie, but a goodie.

Mo Rocca interviews Carl Baugh for the Daily Show

Clip Description: “There is no conflict between true science and the Bible.”

I won’t say more, or I will spoil it for you.

(Thanks to Nightshade on IIDB for the link.)

13 Comments

Kenneth Fair · 17 July 2004

That just goes to prove the Daily Show is the best fake-news show around.

steve · 17 July 2004

Once again the best arguments against creationism, are creationists' arguments for it.

Russell · 17 July 2004

I have to wonder what "Dr." Baugh was thinking when he did that interview. Is it conceivable he could be so far gone he didn't recognize they were ridiculing him? Did they manage to conduct the interview with a straight face, then inject the ridicule during the editing process?

I always figured most if not all of the interviewees on the Daily Show are playing along. Maybe not.

Sylvain Archambault · 17 July 2004

At first, I tought this whole thing was just an hilarious comedy...then I found that this Baugh guy is for real. His "museum" as well as his so-called "fossils" are real. Even his "hyperbaric biosphere" in which he hopes to reproduce "Earth's original pre-Flood environment" is real.

http://www.roadsideamerica.com/attract/TXGLEcreation.html

Wow !!!
It makes it even funnier !!

German_Guy · 17 July 2004

Come on you bastards, how dare you reute GODS WILL. He has clearly stated that the Flintsone's are Scipture.

T. Russ · 18 July 2004

Quatsch. Es ist nicht so einfach. Lass dich nicht täuschen!

Bist do wirklich Deutsch? Wenn ja? Sehr angenehm.

Andrew · 19 July 2004

Carl Baugh actually has a televised show on TBN; it airs at some time when no human being would actually watch (thankfully!), but if you have Tivo you can search for it under the title "Dr. Carl Baugh."

It's delightfully insane.

Reed A. Cartwright · 19 July 2004

After Dembski's rant on human evolution, I am begining to wonder if he is any more stable than classic creationist "scientists" like Baugh.

Wesley R. Elsberry · 19 July 2004

http://www.truthandscience.com/speakers.html

Dembski and Baugh together...

Ed Darrell · 19 July 2004

At first, I tought this whole thing was just an hilarious comedy . . . then I found that this Baugh guy is for real. His "museum" as well as his so-called "fossils" are real. Even his "hyperbaric biosphere" in which he hopes to reproduce "Earth's original pre-Flood environment" is real.

Oh, that's not the half of it. About 18 months ago, with a friend I drove to Glen Rose, Texas, to a woodpecker and pony show featuring Dr. Duane Gish, under the aegis of Baugh's group. There was not a lick of solid science in the two hours, but that's not the point. They were kicking off a "nationwide" fund-raising campaign to finally fund a magnificent edifice for the "Creation Science Museum." I kid you not: The thing is to be in the shape of the U.S. Supreme Court building. When Bauh announced that, he beamed, as if such a scheme was particularly inspired. A small handful in the audience actually applauded (employees of Baugh, I presume) -- and Baugh said the design was "for a reason." He never let on what sort of reason there might be. Listening to Duane Gish explain about how "Mr. Woodpecker" could not possibly have evolved was quite a rip, too: Among reasons Gish listed was the 'special sticky substance' on the woodpecker's tongue to which bugs stick; the substance is saliva. I note from the link Wesley Elsberry provides that Dembski was participating in a series of presentations by Baugh's group. I wonder how Dembski would explain it? A museum in the shape of the Supreme Court?

RBH · 20 July 2004

Apropos of Wesley's URL, this from Dembski's bio there:

He has made fundamental contributions to the study of chance, chaos, probability, and randomness.

Anyone know what they are? RBH

RBH · 20 July 2004

Apropos of Wesley's URL, this from Dembski's bio there:

He has made fundamental contributions to the study of chance, chaos, probability, and randomness.

Anyone know what they are? Citeseer finds just one technical paper: Dembski, W. A. (1990). Uniform probability. J. Theoret. Probab. 3 611--626, cited just once in the technical literature. RBH

Andrew · 20 July 2004

Actually, I rather agree with the sentence "Dembski has made fundamental contributions to the study of randomness." Unintentional contributions as a subject, mind you, but it's still true.