Ken Ham complains about speculation. He whines heartily that "secularists" can speculate about the universe, get it written up and published in a reputable science journal while as soon as creationists turn to Genesis 1 they are the focus of mocking and ridicule. How sad for him that not only does he seem to learn nothing over time, but he seems completely unaware as to how science proceeds. The idea of the multiverse, which he dismisses as "speculation", is not even close to being on the same level as the creationist world view. Or is he claiming that the literal interpretation of the Genesis account is just speculation? No, I thought not. He's just mad that "speculation" gets the press while "creation science" gets the mockery.
What he doesn't seem to understand, or deliberately ignores, is that the notion of the multiverse seems to arise naturally out of modern physics. Just read Stephen Hawking's book The Grand Design. While the idea of many universes may seem far-fetched, it seems to be supported by both string theory and the math involved in questions of higher physics. Hardly an idle speculation then. Contrast that with creationism which has absolutely zero evidence to support it. Ask a creationist for evidence, and you are just as likely to get a bunch of Bible verses, misguided attacks on evolution, and pleas for "equal time" as you are to get anything resembling evidence. Whatever else they are, these do not constitute evidence. Can you follow me here, Ken, am I making sense? Multiverse has evidence, creationism does not. Seems pretty clear to me.
Ham is also worked up that the same article he uses makes a perceived slap at Biblical origins, in noting that much of the 19th Century was discovering that the earth history was to be discussed in terms of millions, rather than thousands, of years. Well, Ken, that's just bad luck, isn't it? Still consigned to defending a paradigm that went out of date two hundred years ago. Nothing in science points to a young earth, no matter what Answers in Genesis may think. To say otherwise is to bear false witness, which if I recall correctly means that the creationists daily break the Ten Commandments. Ironic, isn't it?
He ends with a Bible verse, no doubt aimed at evolutionists, which talks about "professing to be wise, they became fools" (Romans 1:18-23, if you're interested). The only fools here are, as usual, the creationists.
What he doesn't seem to understand, or deliberately ignores, is that the notion of the multiverse seems to arise naturally out of modern physics. Just read Stephen Hawking's book The Grand Design. While the idea of many universes may seem far-fetched, it seems to be supported by both string theory and the math involved in questions of higher physics. Hardly an idle speculation then. Contrast that with creationism which has absolutely zero evidence to support it. Ask a creationist for evidence, and you are just as likely to get a bunch of Bible verses, misguided attacks on evolution, and pleas for "equal time" as you are to get anything resembling evidence. Whatever else they are, these do not constitute evidence. Can you follow me here, Ken, am I making sense? Multiverse has evidence, creationism does not. Seems pretty clear to me.
Ham is also worked up that the same article he uses makes a perceived slap at Biblical origins, in noting that much of the 19th Century was discovering that the earth history was to be discussed in terms of millions, rather than thousands, of years. Well, Ken, that's just bad luck, isn't it? Still consigned to defending a paradigm that went out of date two hundred years ago. Nothing in science points to a young earth, no matter what Answers in Genesis may think. To say otherwise is to bear false witness, which if I recall correctly means that the creationists daily break the Ten Commandments. Ironic, isn't it?
He ends with a Bible verse, no doubt aimed at evolutionists, which talks about "professing to be wise, they became fools" (Romans 1:18-23, if you're interested). The only fools here are, as usual, the creationists.
Comments
Post a Comment