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

"Unanswerable Questions" for Evolution Part One

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...

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 ...

The Absurdity/Agony of War

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...