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

"Unanswerable Questions" for Evolution Part One

By
Creation Ministries International has launched a new initiative, which seems a lot like all the other creationists blitzkriegs before it. With the wonderfully creative tagline of "Question Evolution", CMI intends to challenge "evolutionists" and their "indoctrination" of high school students with the supposed dogma of evolution. They also aim to  cut the population of atheists by half , presumably by challenging the "faith" that every atheist (and only atheists, no "real Christians") is supposed to hold in Darwin's great idea. The main thrust of this is a tract with fifteen "unanswerable" questions for evolutionists. I'm done putting quotation marks around the word, evolutionists; from here on out I ask my readers to recognize that it is a creationist term that is about as silly as calling someone a general relativist (accepts general relativity) or germist (for accepting germ theory). Regardless, CMI seems just as i...
Post a Comment
Read more

What Creationists Don't Understand

By
There are quite a number of concepts that one could successfully argue that creationists fail to understand; whether this is out of a simple lack of knowledge or willful ignorance is hard to say and certainly can't be generalized to every creationist. Some, the everyday creationist, I would like to think simply haven't been exposed to the evidence. Others, the holders of Ph.D's in various fields, especially in the sciences, who happily reject evolutionary theory are willfully ignorant (John Whitmore comes to mind). But I think there is one idea that creationists of all stripes simply fail to understand; evolution is based on solid, visible evidence. Evolution is not some tenant of a "science religion" that descended down to Darwin from on high, it is an explanatory framework based on quite a lot of facts and mountains of evidence. It is evidence that leads to the conclusions of evolution, that life changes over time and, given the long history of the earth, all ...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Absurdity/Agony of War

By
Science writer Mary Roach is never one to shy away from parts of science that verge on the absurd, as anyone who has read any of her books surely knows. I'd read two of her previous books, and been enchanted enough by Roach's unique combination of endless curiosity and a wry sense of humor that I rushed to lay my hands on her newest book. Grunt: The Curious Science of Humans at War will not fail in living up to the expectations that fans of her work will bring. Those who have never read her before will be hard-pressed to put down a book that I finished in a few short days.  The real joy of reading something by Mary Roach is her talent for seeking out strange areas of science that a reader might never have known about. As an investigator, she answers questions you never knew you had. Her newest work   is no exception. We discover, for instance, how the military tests the ability of a fighter jet to survive a mid-air collision with a large bird--by firing a dead chicken...
Post a Comment
Read more