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

"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...