I suppose the occasion for this post is not only the winding down of grad school for me, but also the intersection of two most interesting people. Ken Ham, former biology teacher out of Australia and know-nothing creationist head of "Answers in Genesis", has reissued his old saw "The Lie: Evolution" under a new subtitle, namely "The Lie: Evolution/Millions of Years," no doubt to creationist acclaim. I suspect, however, that the content will be just as stale as the first edition of this man's magnum opus, the same hackneyed arguments that patient scientists and educated non-scientists have deconstructed and debunked for just as long as Ham's been saying them. Not having read this new edition, how can I say this? Quite simply, the book's description on Ham's website contains the same arguments that I've been hearing and reading from the AiG emissaries for years, whether it was from the man himself or his legion of pseudo-scientific proxies (some of them have advanced degrees, no joke).
At the heart of Ken's work, at the heart of all of his arguments, is a simple, some might even venture to say simplistic, argument. Who is to be trusted when it comes to answering the question of the origins of humanity, life, and all the cosmos we see today? Will it be the work of "fallible man," or the words of "infallible God," by which Ham means a strictly literal reading of Genesis? It is a question which is summed up in an even more simplistic manner, when we watch Ken Ham tell children to ask their teachers "were you there?" when evolution or modern geology are taught in the classroom--as though the conclusions of science are invalidated because we did not witness them directly! The nature, method, and other subtleties of science are lost on Answers in Genesis, apparently, but no matter.
Our other player in today's farce is none other than the televangelist Pat Robertson of the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN), no friend to evolution, certainly, not after the famous 2005 Dover Intelligent Design Trial, a public relations disaster for the so-called intelligent design movement, itself yet another front for creationism. Robertson told the people of Dover, having just voted the pro-intelligent design members of its school board out, not to seek God's help after any disaster because "You just rejected him from your city." Robertson has been a known friendly when it comes to the evolution-deniers, giving a platform to Ben Stein when the latter was promoting his ridiculous movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed." Given his history, imagine then my surprise to see that he counseled a viewer against pushing the idea that the world is six thousand years old on her questioning children and husband. Radiocarbon dating, Robertson said, proves that the world is over six thousand years old, correctly pointing out that the idea of six thousand years is found in the writings of Bishop James Ussher, who used the genealogies in the Bible to calculate the age of the world; the notion that the earth is six thousand years old is not found anywhere in the Bible. He also said the most reasonable thing I've heard him say in a long time--that dinosaurs were not on Noah's Ark. No kidding! Robertson's final advice to the viewer is worth quoting in full: "If you fight science, you're going to lose your children, and I believe in telling it the way it was." What unexpected candor from a man who otherwise peddles nonsense as reality!
Ken Ham sees it quite differently; denying the literal truth of Genesis is the surest way to start your children down the road to questioning all aspects of Christianity. "When believers dismiss Genesis 1-11 as myth or as unreliable, on what foundation can biblical doctrines stand?" (quote taken directly from article linked in this paragraph). Evolution is, for Ham, the quick road to non-belief, and only those who entertain a literal reading of Genesis are true Christians in his book. The rest are just compromisers. In Ham's worldview, any deviation from a Young Earth Creationist point of view is abandoning God's word for the fallible "opinions" of man.
The problem is, of course, that reality puts up quite a roadblock in Ham's way, not that he would notice. Reality, an unemotional, objective survey of the evidence, prevents anyone with an open mind accepting that the entire world was created in six literal days, that the world is just six thousand years old, or that one family saved all the animals in the world by putting them on a boat. These things were dismissed by science over a century ago, and in spite of the endless rationalizing and subterfuge put on by the creationists there is no good reason to doubt that evolution is not just true but is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. What possible good can come of teaching children abject untruths about reality?
In this instance, the Rev. Robertson is much closer to the mark, though it wasn't hard to beat Ken Ham in this game. It is a weak faith that cannot stand up to the observable reality of the universe, and it seems to me far more likely that teaching children the lie of six thousand years is going to damage their faith in the long-term than teaching children that the earth is, as science understands it to be, around 4.5 billion years old. If the lie of a literal Genesis is taught to the young, and they later learn that this is not the case, how much more likely are they to question everything else they were taught, for if the so-called responsible adults like Ken Ham taught them something demonstrably false about the world, what else might they have lied about? I've met so many people over the years for whom this hypothetical situation is their life story, people who were brought up as young-earth creationists, those whose erosion of faith began after learning they'd been lied to about the origins of life on earth. Yes, some may be quick to point out that this isn't the case with all those indoctrinated into a young-earth creationist point of view--were that true, there wouldn't be any more creationists. Yet it is reality for many; the lies intended to guard their faith ended up destroying it.
How one reconciles the findings of science with their faith is a matter for them to decide, and many denominations have officially reconciled their doctrine with evolution, finding that there need be no conflict. Yet a significant portion of the faith community still refuses to accept the reality of evolution, fearing it as some creation of Satan. There is no need to live in the proverbial darkness of creationism, however. If anything, it makes the world a far grander, more interesting place in which to live, once you realize how it developed. Please, step out into the light of reality; the view is truly grand!
At the heart of Ken's work, at the heart of all of his arguments, is a simple, some might even venture to say simplistic, argument. Who is to be trusted when it comes to answering the question of the origins of humanity, life, and all the cosmos we see today? Will it be the work of "fallible man," or the words of "infallible God," by which Ham means a strictly literal reading of Genesis? It is a question which is summed up in an even more simplistic manner, when we watch Ken Ham tell children to ask their teachers "were you there?" when evolution or modern geology are taught in the classroom--as though the conclusions of science are invalidated because we did not witness them directly! The nature, method, and other subtleties of science are lost on Answers in Genesis, apparently, but no matter.
Our other player in today's farce is none other than the televangelist Pat Robertson of the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN), no friend to evolution, certainly, not after the famous 2005 Dover Intelligent Design Trial, a public relations disaster for the so-called intelligent design movement, itself yet another front for creationism. Robertson told the people of Dover, having just voted the pro-intelligent design members of its school board out, not to seek God's help after any disaster because "You just rejected him from your city." Robertson has been a known friendly when it comes to the evolution-deniers, giving a platform to Ben Stein when the latter was promoting his ridiculous movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed." Given his history, imagine then my surprise to see that he counseled a viewer against pushing the idea that the world is six thousand years old on her questioning children and husband. Radiocarbon dating, Robertson said, proves that the world is over six thousand years old, correctly pointing out that the idea of six thousand years is found in the writings of Bishop James Ussher, who used the genealogies in the Bible to calculate the age of the world; the notion that the earth is six thousand years old is not found anywhere in the Bible. He also said the most reasonable thing I've heard him say in a long time--that dinosaurs were not on Noah's Ark. No kidding! Robertson's final advice to the viewer is worth quoting in full: "If you fight science, you're going to lose your children, and I believe in telling it the way it was." What unexpected candor from a man who otherwise peddles nonsense as reality!
Ken Ham sees it quite differently; denying the literal truth of Genesis is the surest way to start your children down the road to questioning all aspects of Christianity. "When believers dismiss Genesis 1-11 as myth or as unreliable, on what foundation can biblical doctrines stand?" (quote taken directly from article linked in this paragraph). Evolution is, for Ham, the quick road to non-belief, and only those who entertain a literal reading of Genesis are true Christians in his book. The rest are just compromisers. In Ham's worldview, any deviation from a Young Earth Creationist point of view is abandoning God's word for the fallible "opinions" of man.
The problem is, of course, that reality puts up quite a roadblock in Ham's way, not that he would notice. Reality, an unemotional, objective survey of the evidence, prevents anyone with an open mind accepting that the entire world was created in six literal days, that the world is just six thousand years old, or that one family saved all the animals in the world by putting them on a boat. These things were dismissed by science over a century ago, and in spite of the endless rationalizing and subterfuge put on by the creationists there is no good reason to doubt that evolution is not just true but is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. What possible good can come of teaching children abject untruths about reality?
In this instance, the Rev. Robertson is much closer to the mark, though it wasn't hard to beat Ken Ham in this game. It is a weak faith that cannot stand up to the observable reality of the universe, and it seems to me far more likely that teaching children the lie of six thousand years is going to damage their faith in the long-term than teaching children that the earth is, as science understands it to be, around 4.5 billion years old. If the lie of a literal Genesis is taught to the young, and they later learn that this is not the case, how much more likely are they to question everything else they were taught, for if the so-called responsible adults like Ken Ham taught them something demonstrably false about the world, what else might they have lied about? I've met so many people over the years for whom this hypothetical situation is their life story, people who were brought up as young-earth creationists, those whose erosion of faith began after learning they'd been lied to about the origins of life on earth. Yes, some may be quick to point out that this isn't the case with all those indoctrinated into a young-earth creationist point of view--were that true, there wouldn't be any more creationists. Yet it is reality for many; the lies intended to guard their faith ended up destroying it.
How one reconciles the findings of science with their faith is a matter for them to decide, and many denominations have officially reconciled their doctrine with evolution, finding that there need be no conflict. Yet a significant portion of the faith community still refuses to accept the reality of evolution, fearing it as some creation of Satan. There is no need to live in the proverbial darkness of creationism, however. If anything, it makes the world a far grander, more interesting place in which to live, once you realize how it developed. Please, step out into the light of reality; the view is truly grand!
As usual, Brady, you've made your point well. I truly think that the last sentence should be the beginning of an entire train of thought...contemplation of how unbelievably wondrous the "real" universe, from the tiniest subatomic particle to the totality of all that we can see of the universe, really is. Evolution, which can be taken in a broader context than just that of living things, is, as Darwin said, a grand view of life. Sagan also challenged conventional wisdom to ask why they did not feel that the revelations of science made the universe even grander than their original, anthropocentric view suggested? Science daily discovers things at every scale that should keep us gasping at the interconnectedness of all of nature, most especially of all life. That there are DNA segments in our cells that have been conserved since the very first cells is a fact, but it should also be the beginning of a genuine sense of connectedness to all life. Yes, Brady. Ham is living in a terribly limited world, confined to a single, internally self-contradictory text, and to his limited imagination.
ReplyDelete