Wednesday, May 24, 2006
The Haze Over Ham
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."
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.
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.
Oh, well. If there wasn't drivel in the world, how would we know how good the good stuff really is?
__________
"[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
: 4:07 PM 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.
<< Home
