Wednesday, May 24, 2006

 

The Haze Over Ham

.
Vatican astronomer Guy Consolmagno has apparently struck a nerve* with Ken Ham, not necessarily an easy thing to do with someone sporting a creationist's neural system.
.
Anyway, Ham, who is president of the young-Earth creationist "ministry," Answers in Genesis took umbrage at Consolmagno's recent comparison of creationism to a form of paganism, harking back to the days of "nature gods" who were responsible for natural events.

The article about Ham's reaction, "Creationist Defends Stance Against Vatican Astronomer" has Ham repeatedly claiming (without explaining) that there is a difference between "observational science" and "historical science." Since Ham can't be bothered, why should I? Suffice it to say that it is a totally bogus ad hoc distinction intended to permit the creationist to, as Ham admits, "use God to explain anything with regard to the universe." Does it need to be pointed out that using God to "explain" any part of the universe is the same as saying "I don't have to explain it, God can do anything he wants"?

Anyway, you can almost hear Ham stamping his feet when he says:

But paganism is the opposite of Christianity, Ham points out, noting that in Acts 17 the Apostle Paul preached against the paganism of the Greeks. Clearly, the Answers in Genesis spokesman notes, Consolmagno is confused when he makes comments comparing Christian creationists with pagans. "He doesn't understand that those of us who believe in six-day creation are taking the revelation that God has given us in His Word," Ham says, "and we're saying that explains what happened in the past so we can understand the present."

Well, I suppose if you can insist the Scriptures are valid scientific evidence, you can insist that the fact that Paul used the word "pagan" to describe something he was against proves that Ham isn't a pagan . . . somehow.

Be that as it may, here are some more interesting "arguments"/admissions from Ham:

[S]cientific "facts" do not speak for themselves, but must be interpreted. That is, the competing theories of evolution and creation are not based on separate sets of evidence but are derived from the same evidence -- i.e., observable phenomena, the fossil record, animal biology, et cetera -- but the different conclusions about origins result from the different ways people interpret what they study.

My, my . . . the same evidence you say? What might that be?

Ham describes the Bible as the "history book of the universe," and he contends that scripture provides a reliable, eyewitness account of the beginning of all things, which can be trusted to reveal the truth in all areas it touches on. Therefore, he asserts, scientists are able to use the Bible to help them make sense of the world, the origins of the universe and life, and the natural history and age of the Earth.

Dang! You mean that them evolutionists are using the Bible too? Or maybe Ham misspoke when he said that creation is derived from the same evidence as evolution. Or maybe even Ham can't see what he is saying for the smoke and mirrors.

Oh, well. If there wasn't drivel in the world, how would we know how good the good stuff really is?
__________
.
* Via Red State Rabble.
.
Comments:
From Ham's article

"[S]cientific "facts" do not speak for themselves, but must be interpreted. That is, the competing theories of evolution and creation are not based on separate sets of evidence but are derived from the same evidence -- i.e., observable phenomena, the fossil record, animal biology, et cetera -- but the different conclusions about origins result from the different ways people interpret what they study."

I heard Ham's newest employee, Georgia Purdom, a Ph.D. molecular geneticist, make that same argument. She argued that our presuppositions determine how we interpret evidence, so the evidence fits YEC creationism just as well as "evolutionism". Her assertion is that "We know the Biblical truth, and the evidence must be interpreted in the light of that knowledge".

RBH
 
Exactly backwards from how science is intended to be done, where the evidence is supposed to decide whether or not the theory is to be deemed (provisionally) true.

Ham and his ilk are free to muck up their theology with scientific trappings if they please, though I think they wind up with poor theology and no science. What they are not allowed to do is to poison young minds at public expense. Those children growing up educationally deprived in a world increasingly unforgiving with the scientifically illiterate should have the culprits clearly identified in their minds.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

. . . . .

Organizations

Links
How to Support Science Education
archives