Skip to main content

Poor Ken Ham!

Ken just can't stand all the bad press he's been getting in the blogosphere over his "Ark Encounters" project, as well as for a lifetime spent trashing science and promoting a fable. He complained about it twice on his Facebook page in the past few days; he consoled himself with the statement of a friend that "Nothing reveals the heart of a man more than blog space!" Ham writes that it makes him think of a verse from the Bible, Jeremiah 17:9, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked. Who can know it?"

So, for everyone out here, a (mercifully) brief glimpse into the inner workings of Ken Ham's mind. Blogs=heart of man. Thus bad blog press=wicked sinful man. Or more succinctly, blogs critical of him signal the sinful nature of man. Because after all, lying to children, parents, the general public, the people and government of Kentucky, whether willfully or not, isn't wrong if it is done in the service of God, right? Only people who dare to question the divinely-inspired wisdom of Ken Ham, in which dinosaurs have saddles, apparently for people to ride (if you think I'm kidding, I'm not; there really are dinos mounted with saddles in the Creation Museum), and predators were vegetarians before the Fall, then you can't be arguing based on facts, but obviously your Satan-inspired, sinful nature makes you hate Ken Ham.

Or at least that's how Ken Ham would have it.

The failed biology teacher, who couldn't make it in the classroom but instead had to switch to selling a modern-day snake oil, absolutely bristles under criticism of himself, his organization, Answers in Genesis, or his upcoming Ark Encounters project, supported by the governor of Kentucky and the tax dollars of Kentucky's citizens. Sad that taxpayers are forced to subsidize yet another of Ham's monuments to willful ignorance, based on assertions made with faulty data rather than actual studies that would support AiG's claims that the Ark Encounters exhibit will attract numerous visitors. Visitors they will get, I have no doubt, but enough to justify tax dollars in support of a minority, sectarian religious belief, enough to boost the economy as they claim, I doubt. How dare we criticize Ham for manipulating and making up facts to support his position? After all, he's been doing it his entire career!

He is even more upset that someone would accuse him of "lying to children." He writes that, "Christians across America need to be awakened as to what the secularists are trying to do. They have had many victories with our children. God's people need to awaken and stand up for truth!"

A full link is here: http://www.facebook.com/notes/ken-ham/lying-and-child-abuse/171365896242218

In response to him, I would say that, given the dismal state of science education in the U.S. and the continued polls showing acceptance of evolution placing us behind almost all of the industrialized world (except Turkey, as it happens), it is Ham and others like him who have had far too many victories with the children of this country. If "God's people" would see the truth, then they would turn against this charlatan and repudiate him as unworthy of the respect he gets from some quarters. If you care about your own religion, Ken Ham is a stumbling block that makes you all look ridiculous. Stop coddling him.

What's more touching is some of the comments posted by followers of Ken, doubtless visitors to his Creation Museum and evolution-deniers. Karen Butcher writes that, upon Ken responding that many attacks DO come from other Christians, "That is sick, Ken. And frightening. Pastors and professors that profess to be Christians yet deny the truth of Scripture! Those are the ones we should fear." Yes, Karen, you who live in a non-reality based world view should be VERY afraid of other believers who have no problem with evolution but have a big problem with Ken Ham. It puts the lie to the AiG line that one cannot accept evolution and be a Christian.

Another person commenting had an answer to that dilemma. A man named Bradley Parkinson wrote that, "It will take an eternity of remedial punishment because of their belief in evolution." What utter rubbish! Did you get that? An acceptance of evolution based on the numerous evidences from the sciences gets you...a one-way ticket to Hell! This is the rot that passes for intelligent comments where Ken Ham is concerned. Disgusting. It would certainly be news to most Catholics, Anglicans, and the other mainline Protestant denominations, which have accepted evolution and moved on, more or less.

I wish I could say that holding Ken Ham and his claims up to scrutiny would be enough to topple them. Unfortunately, for them, this was never about evidence.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Today I Am Ashamed of My Alma Mater

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...

How I Left Creationism

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 ...

The Hovinds...Still Poking at Straw Men

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...