Skip to main content

Ken Ham at work...

If you thought Ken Ham was harmless, think again. He is videotaped here teaching children how to "resist" the teaching of evolution in classrooms. The response to millions of years of earth history: "Were you there?"


This is what passes for intelligent thought in the "Answers in Genesis" world. How about a few other things along that same line. Hey, kids, what do you do when your teacher talks about the Holocaust? "Were you there?"

What about the height of Imperial Rome? "Were you there?"

World War One? "Were you there?"

The vaccinations of Jonas Salk? "Were you there?"

Ok, children, thanks for your input.

At issue here is how we know what we know. A person doesn't have to have literally been there to know an event happened. We piece the past together through evidence and sound reasoning whether in history, paleontology or physics. No one now alive was witness to the Spanish-American War, the election of Lincoln, the fall of Rome, but we know that they happened. Similarly no one was around to see the dinosaurs, trilobites or other extinct creatures, but we still know they existed. Just as with these examples it is also true with evolution. We, naturally, weren't there to witness the rise of mammals or the transition from ape-like bipeds to modern man, but we know it happened based on the evidence of fossils and DNA.

Only a fool would think that it was necessary to actually have been "present at the creation" to know that evolution occurred.

Comments

  1. This is a discovery for me. Ken Ham: Part-Time Existentialist!

    ReplyDelete
  2. It is impossible for me to understand how any reasonably intelligent human being could be so intellectually dishonest. Though he would no doubt think of me this way, I find him utterly perverse.

    ReplyDelete
  3. There is an inverse relationship to the commitment to an ideology and a commitment to truthfulness among creationists.

    They'll be among the first to condemn bearing false witness and among the last to apply that standard to their own communication.

    It's all about "saving souls" not teaching facts.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Was I there?" No, I can't say that I was. What does that mean? I must therefore be constantly open to the fact that I may be wrong, however great the improbability. There is, however, a direct correlation between my openness to that potentiality and the evidence stacked against it.

    Was there a world-wide flood? Well, I wasn't there.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sir, were you there when Obama was sworn into office?

    No, but I have access to video recordings on Youtube.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

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 ...

What Creationists Don't Understand

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 ...