Skip to main content

Hitchens Dies, Ken Ham Spouts Nonsense

If there is anything that I should have learned by now, Ken Ham will use any occasion to spew the nonsense of Answers in Genesis. And I mean ANY occasion. The death of Christopher Hitchens, noted public intellectual, journalist and atheist, is no exception at all. Of course, we should expect Ham and his kind to crow at the death of an atheist, one who thought young-earth creationism nonsense and didn't hesitate to say so either. Still, the very visible exhortations of glee from certain quarters is downright sickening to anyone with even a rudimentary sense of morality. I won't shed a tear when Ken Ham dies, but neither will I dance in the streets, as much as I find him an odious human being whose entire life has been dedicated to spreading lies.

Though Ham himself says nothing, he introduces "Two Perspectives on the Passing of an Atheist" which contain much happiness at the death of Hitchens, including a statement that "Hitchens is no longer shaking a fist at his Creator." Never ones to miss a moment to attack evolution, the authors of the two pieces (one by a member of AiG, the other by an "AiG friend" at Vision Forum, notable for their opposition to women in the military, among other issues), use Hitchen's death as an excuse to push their version of Genesis. It is a troubling read.

I should like to draw the reader's attention to just two of the most odious statements of these strutting roosters of creationism. The first comes from Mark Looy at AiG, stating that "Atheists may label actions as good or evil, but in their meaningless, purposeless, and evolution-formed universe, they do not have an ultimate foundation for defining what is good and evil. But God’s Word does." I'm sorry, I seem to have missed the part in the Bible where "lying for Jesus" is good. He also doesn't seem to realize that evolution (in the biological sense) didn't form the universe, but the physical laws did. Evolution led to the diversification of life on earth.

The second instance is from Doug Phillips of Vision Forum, using the oft-repeated Biblical verse "The fool says in his heart 'there is no God'" to attack Hitchens. "Only fools deny what is clear because it has been revealed in creation, in their hearts and in the testimony of Scripture. Fools can be brilliant. They can have numerous degrees and diplomas. But all who say in their heart — “there is no God” are fools. Which is why December 15, 2011 marks the death of one of the most outspoken and notorious “fools” of our lifetime." Hitchens was no fool, but creationists like Ham and Looy certainly are, for promoting such a backwards, anti-scientific and anti-human worldview in the 21st Century.

I'll let Hitchens himself have the last word on this one;

Comments

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 ...