Sunday, June 22, 2008
Ham Handed
Ken Ham is not a "wackaloon"!"Wackaloon" is a word that should be reserved for something cuddly and basically harmless -- maybe a cartoon character named "Wackaloon Smurf." It has a sound appropriate for crazy Uncle Charley, the adult who made the other adults cluck disapprovingly but who treated all 10 year olds as if they were real people. That's not Ken Ham and PZ wasn't on his game the day he called Ham that.
I won't try to compete with Dana in creative -- and decidedly colorful -- invective. But the very worst epithet in my lexicon applies to Ken Ham. He is a diseducator. He leaves people stupider in his wake; less knowledgeable, less aware of the glories of nature; less familiar with the hard-won learning that is the greatest achievement of our species. He steals the most valuable coin people have and leaves their purse truly empty.
Instead, I'd like to look at what Ham's real complaint is. The occasion for PZ's comment was Ken Ham's appearance at a prayer breakfast at the Pentagon. Ham sees nothing wrong with that:
What's he so worked up about anyway? If he's right, God doesn't exist -- so prayer can't do anything and, therefore, can't harm anything.
Of course PZ isn't concerned about God answering those prayers. He is concerned that humans will answer them. He is concerned that there are people in high positions in our military who are willing to ignore basic, easily confirmed, objective facts about the world because those facts contradict one cramped interpretation of one bronze age mythos. That any people with regular practice in self-delusion are in custody of any part of our massive machinery of war is a matter of concern no less real than a two year-old being in custody of a loaded gun ... but of much greater moment.
Nor does Ham's diseducation end with science:
Nor does Ham's diseducation end with science:
But, then, who cares about harm in a world without moral absolutes? It's the survival of the fittest; so, evolution will inexorably eliminate these weak-minded "idiots" at the Pentagon. If they nuke some people along the way, so what? That's just the death of the weakest in this purposeless accidental existence of ours; sooner or later the more fit will triumph, and the world will be more evolved. So, what's Myers concerned about? This is all just time and chance and the laws of nature at work. What is, is. There are and can be no "oughts."
John Wilkins has, coincidentally (or perhaps not), just posted an excellent meditation on the claim that God is necessary for morality, "The evolution of morality." Dana, in the more direct language of the non-philosopher has made much the same points. The bottom line, as John put it, is:
[T]o answer the question why we are moral, it is because our ancestors, who were apes and shared the common ape heritage of being social animals of a certain kind, were rule followers, and had to cooperate to survive and gain mating opportunities. And then we evolved language.
That may not satisfy Ham -- and that dissatisfaction, and the expression of it, is his right. But spreading the lie that such explanations of morality do not exist is more damage he does to those who listen to him and who put their trust in him.
If a God exists, I cannot help but wonder what she will think about Ham going around breaking the brains of her greatest creation in this corner of the cosmos.
.
If a God exists, I cannot help but wonder what she will think about Ham going around breaking the brains of her greatest creation in this corner of the cosmos.
.
Comments:
<< Home
He is concerned that there are people in high positions in our military who are willing to ignore basic, easily confirmed, objective facts about the world because those facts contradict one cramped interpretation of one bronze age mythos. That any people with regular practice in self-delusion are in custody of any part of our massive machinery of war is a matter of concern no less real than a two year-old being in custody of a loaded gun ... but of much greater moment.
...which ties in nicely to this rather unsettling story relayed by Jim Lippard and Ed Brayton about a fundamentalist group presenting themselves as a branch of the US military. They wear uniforms that are near-perfect copies of those worn by the US Army, award themselves military ranks and, apparently, have been taken at face value by serving officers. All of which appears to be illegal although no action has been taken.
...which ties in nicely to this rather unsettling story relayed by Jim Lippard and Ed Brayton about a fundamentalist group presenting themselves as a branch of the US military. They wear uniforms that are near-perfect copies of those worn by the US Army, award themselves military ranks and, apparently, have been taken at face value by serving officers. All of which appears to be illegal although no action has been taken.
# posted by 
: 1:46 PM
: 1:46 PM
As is so often the case, an argument that the creationists think is about evolution, turns out to be really an argument against development. Not a very good argument, of course, it's an example of the "genetic fallacy".
After all, morality is not a matter of what "mankind" - an abstract collective - does, but is rather about individuals. It's about individual responsibility. So the origins of "kinds" has less to do with morality than the origins of individuals.
To put it another way, if my great-grandfather was a horse thief, that doesn't mean that I should be a horse thief, too. But it would matter - if possible - even less what my ancestors of many thousands of years ago were like.
What it is, is an argument for Scientific Storkism.
Tom S.
After all, morality is not a matter of what "mankind" - an abstract collective - does, but is rather about individuals. It's about individual responsibility. So the origins of "kinds" has less to do with morality than the origins of individuals.
To put it another way, if my great-grandfather was a horse thief, that doesn't mean that I should be a horse thief, too. But it would matter - if possible - even less what my ancestors of many thousands of years ago were like.
What it is, is an argument for Scientific Storkism.
Tom S.
# posted by : 1:55 PM
: 1:55 PM
"Diseducator." I like that. I like that very much. That's exactly what he is, and that makes him one of the most rancid, dangerous, despicable and depraved examples of dubious humanity available. Excepting Monkey Boy George, of course.
People like Ken Ham make me wish God existed, just so I could see the looks on their faces when Jesus returns in all his glory and bitch-slaps them for being such morons.
Doing the slapping myself, however, was very nearly as satisfying, and you've just provided me with the very best dessert!
Post a Comment
People like Ken Ham make me wish God existed, just so I could see the looks on their faces when Jesus returns in all his glory and bitch-slaps them for being such morons.
Doing the slapping myself, however, was very nearly as satisfying, and you've just provided me with the very best dessert!
<< Home
