Skip to main content

Enemies of Reason: Ken Ham

This one is almost too easy. Ken Ham, the co-founder of the Creation Museum (2007) and Answers in Genesis (1994), is a Biblical literalist who formerly taught biology in Australia before moving to the United States in 1987. Author of The Lie: Evolution, Ham is in the vanguard of creationism as one of its most vocal proponents. He regularly posts blogs and articles on the Answers in Genesis website, claiming over 1.25 million visitors to the Museum and ten million hits on the AiG website.
Ham promotes the notion that dinosaurs were on the Ark, that they can exist comfortably within the framework of the Bible and that any Christians who find that evolution is compatible with their faith are nothing but a bunch of compromisers who ignore that a literal Genesis is fundamental to a Christian worldview. He is also fond of repeating that the creation-evolution "debate" is a choice between God's inerrant Word and "man's fallible opinion", along with the standard well-worn creationist retorts that frame evolution as an atheistic fable to free them up to do whatever they want.To accept millions of years, for Ham, is to go against the Word of God's clear message and clouding it with man's fallible interpretations.
These are anti-science and irrational positions to hold, especially in regard to a literal six-day Creation event and a literal Noah's Flood, and the fact that he tries to fit dinosaurs (always the iconic dinosaurs; what about trilobites, giant ground sloths or equally interesting non-dinosaurs of the Permian and Triassic like Dimetrodon or Postosuchus, respectively? Were they on the Ark too?) into a Young-Earth time frame. While a few Ph.D. scientists assist Answers in Genesis with more "scientific" articles, Ham seems to focus his own time on the young, with home schooling material and talks to kids teaching them how to "rebut" the idea of millions of years. In fact, in spite of what AiG would have you believe, the deep time of geology and evolution have never been more well-supported than they are now.
For actively heading a creationist organization dedicated to attacking the good and proven science of evolution while promoting the strange and outdated ideas of creationism, Ken Ham is an Enemy of Reason. On a scale of one to ten, Ham is a six as one of the more recognizable faces in the creationist landscape. Further, I recently read on Ham's blog that he gets email alerts whenever "Answers in Genesis" appears on the web. So, hello to Mr. Ham, who I assume will be getting an email alert about this post.

Comments

  1. Haha. I love that last bit. If you are reading this, Mr. Ham, you are a tool who is helping to f**k up the minds of many of my friends. Shave your face.

    ReplyDelete
  2. On the 1 to 10 ranking system, which is worse, 1 or 10?

    In all honesty, I don't view any of these people as a threat except for the ones that deal with child indoctrination. Get them young lol.

    ReplyDelete
  3. On the ranking scale, ten is the worst. I admit, I haven't set down a rigorous scale of ranking, it's more a sense I have of the level of threat based on education, intent and the number of people who listen to them. Thus they rank higher than Conserv&pedia because I believe they reach more people.

    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 ...

The Hovinds...Still Poking at Straw Men

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...