Skip to main content

Ken Ham feels victimized...by Glenn Beck?

Image
By
That's right. Ken Ham posted on his Answers in Genesis website how disappointed and upset he was when he saw Glenn Beck and a Jewish rabbi discussing the Tower of Babel, not in a literal sense but as a figurative tale. Unsurprisingly, Glenn Beck saw it as a parable about socialism, how man all became the same, but then God brought down the tower and everyone became happy individuals again. It's an interpretation that could nicely be called "novel", but of course Beck has many such "novel" interpretations of things. Ken Ham's just mad that Beck doesn't (apparently) believe in a literal Babel.

Here's the link: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2011/01/24/help-us-defend

Ken wants us all to know that his supporters should pray, or give money, to help defend the truth of AiG from an unbelieving world."We need to be doing all we can to help people understand that the history in the Bible is true." Yes, because we all know that every language in the world was created by God confusing humanity.

Apparently there will also be a Tower of Babel at the "Ark Encounters" project. As if the people who go there need to be further "confused"!

I would love for this to blow up into a major argument, Ham vs. Beck, but I'm not holding my breath.
Labels:

Comments

  1. ZenJanuary 26, 2011 at 5:35 AM

    I wonder where in the Bible they found a description of the Tower of Babel? Accuracy is a must when dealing with "history". ;)

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Today I Am Ashamed of My Alma Mater

By
Over a week ago, my alma mater, Clarion University of Pennsylvania, released what it touted as a "bold" and "ambitious" workforce plan for the next several years. The backlash was both strong and immediate, forcing the University Administration, currently headed by President Karen Whitney, to release a " Frequently Asked Questions " for its plan. The outrage on social media, as well as a MoveOn.org petition with several thousand signatures, doubtless have already channeled the displeasure of the community, alumni, and students with the plan. The University is accepting public feedback, but this seems to be only a political window-dressing for a plan that Whitney herself was  quoted  as saying "...is 95-98% a done deal." For over a week I debated over what form a blog on the topic would take, and while I realize that what I have to say here is little different from what I and others have already stated elsewhere, I feel the need to address thi...
18 comments
Read more

How I Left Creationism

By
There is a discussion going on right now in the science community about whether or not we should debate creationists: it is a debate within a debate, if you will. There are good arguments on both sides, but I have to think that we should debate creationists, and we should do it as often as we can stand it. Why do I think this? Last week, I saw that Michael Shermer posted a link to a story of a woman who argued this very point. As a former creationist, it was going to debates between Shermer and Kent Hovind that began to convince her of the legitimacy of evolution and of science. I too was once a creationist. Without ever having read anything about it, without it ever having been mentioned in class (I never heard a word about evolution in high school), I was ready to pounce at the merest mention of the topic as false and godless, two of the favorite creationist talking-points. I look back at this self in amazement, at how ignorant and proud of that ignorance I was, how I failed to ...
23 comments
Read more

The Hovinds...Still Poking at Straw Men

By
Kent Hovind, the false "Dr. Dino", and his ilk are at it again. In a new article on his website, Hovind (or whoever authored the piece, perhaps his son) claims that while creationists have no problems using miracles to explain events (a habit that perpetually makes them unfit to do real science), evolutionists criticize them for it, even though, in Hovind's mind, they rely on miracles just as much to explain their "religion" of descent through natural selection. This is, at its core, demonstrably nonsense. He claims that a "miracle" is needed to make stars and planets form out of gas, a supposed violation of Boyle's Law because there was no "outside force" acting on the gas and dust. How about gravity, Dr. Dino? That would certainly explain it, no miracles needed here. This attack is a non-sequitur. The objection has everything to do with astronomy and cosmology and nothing to do with evolution, which is the development of new species o...
11 comments
Read more