Skip to main content

Evolution leads to Evil...in Ken Ham's world

Image
By
I'm a glutton for punishment. I was at the library a while ago and, looking at the cart of books being sold, I found the Revised & Expanded Answers Book, with one of the authors none other than Mr. Ham. Immediately excited at the prospect of several hundred pages of his comedy stylings (and those of the odious Safarti) I purchased it for about fifty cents, which means I got a lot of intellectual contortions for my money.

Quickly into the book, we hit on the real reason why creationists like Ham don't accept evolution; the alleged consequences of the theory. A nice illustration sums it up; with "Creation" at the foundation, we are shown a wholesome society with "God's Word", "Laws", "Marriage", "Standards" and "Meaning of Life" ascending from that. But when we have "Evolution" at the foundation (cue ominous music and lightning) we have listed "Man's Opinion", "Lawlessness", "Homosexual Behavior", "Pornography" and "Abortion" piled atop it. Oh my, how could anyone believe in the "evil evolution" then if so much bad comes from it?

Well because it doesn't. I mean, most biological (and other) scientists accept evolution, and you don't seem them running around engaging in rampant lawlessness, do you? "Man's Opinion" is irrelevant here; endless facts back evolution, and to dismiss it as mere opinion is as offensive to science as it is to tell a Christian that his beliefs about God are "mere opinion." I don't know if you noticed either, but homosexuality far precedes the theory of evolution as does pornography (anyone see the frescoes on the walls at Roman Pompeii?). Abortion doesn't follow from evolution either, in case you hadn't noticed that too. And before you go there, dear creationist friend, racism predates evolutionary theory also, so that canard won't work.

I guess Ken Ham didn't think about including "Lying" on his list, because it seems to follow directly from his "firm foundation" of Creation.
Labels:

Comments

  1. Herla cyningFebruary 18, 2011 at 7:18 AM

    Did he say that evolutionary theory was the cause of those illicit behaviors, or that those beliefs may lead to them because they do not require their prohibition -- ignoring other sources for morals, of course, and assuming that the morals which he holds are entirely correct?

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousDecember 4, 2011 at 7:57 PM

    With Creation at the foundation of Christianity, we believe we have a personal savior in Jesus Christ. If a person supports evolutionist claims, then that person undoubtedly neglects the entire contents of the bible. If you reject the belief that God created the Universe as written in Genesis, how can you accept the truth that is written about Jesus Christ our savior? By denying the truth of a portion of the Bible, are you not denying the truth of Jesus Christ? It is written, “But whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.” Matthew 10:33

    ReplyDelete
  3. Brady ClemensDecember 18, 2011 at 3:17 PM

    Tell that to all the Christians who accept both evolution and Christ, you perfidious nitwit. If Christianity is dying in the West, it isn't because of the atheist but because of the simple opinions of unlettered fundamentalist Christians like yourself.

    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