Ken Ham and Rachel Held Evans Around the Blogosphere
Cross-post by Professor James F. McGrath of Exploring our Matrix:
Ken Ham has been getting a lot of critical attention from Christians recently – and that’s a good thing, since there is a lot he deserves to be criticized for from a Christian perspective. Internet Monk has linked to a scathing review of Ken Ham’s views from a Christian standpoint. The concluding note alone is worth the visit:
Some may excuse Mr. Ham on the ground that he has no theological or biblical training (he has a bachelor’s degree in applied science). I am not so inclined for one reason: by assuming the pulpit of churches and declaring he intends to interpret the Bible, he de facto sets himself up as a Bible teacher, and should be held accountable to know not only the relevant facts, but the proper way to exegete and teach a passage of scripture. If he does not want to give up seven years of his life and tens of thousands of dollars to get training in the Bible, theology, and the ancient languages (the standard degree program for clergy) then that is perfectly understandable. What is not so understandable is his desire to set himself up as a Bible teacher without getting Bible training.
Amen! That’s one reason why, as much as I applaud Rachel Held Evans’ eirenic approach on one level, on another I think that the best course of action is for those who are well-informed about the Bible to debunk, refute and if necessary ‘refudiate’ the statements of those who have no expertise in any field of scholarship related to the Bible, and yet believe that without any real knowledge of the original languages, historical context, and other relevant factors, their pontifications will do anything but harm the souls of believers and the Christian faith itself.
Nevertheless, she is absolutely right that Ham has exalted his own dubious young-earth creationist views above concern for other Christians, and is willing to harm the latter in his vain attempts at defending the former. And I certainly encourage everyone to read her response to Ken Ham on her blog. And I’m looking forward to reading her book!
One final point. I must point out that this time, P. Z. Myers has got it completely wrong. The musical adaptation of Ken Ham speaking that he shared is not rightly called an “Anti-Symphony of Science.” It needs to be called a “Symphony of Anti-Science” or perhaps better still an “Anti-Symphony of Anti-Science,” although I hesitate to put it that way in case the double negative somehow makes a positive.
Tags: Christianity, Science & Medical
August 3rd, 2010 at 11:23 am
I share your views about Ken Ham, he is far from harmless.
The concept of young earth cosmology baffles me. There really is no evidence for it, the facts are entirely with an old earth and the various science disciplines agree well. How does it become a ‘controversy’ in the US?
It’s obvious that there is much money in keeping folks proud of their ignorance and Ham has tapped the cash stream.
Look at the effects of this type of fundamentalism.Those most vociferously opposed to Obama’s health proposals were often the very people who would benefit most and the scattering of OT references in their interviews showed how they had been manipulated. Consider a recent ‘newkular’ POTUS who had to pretend to be deeply stupid just to get elected.
Watch a video of Ham efficiently lying to young children, who will remember his nonsense and carry it like a millstone round their necks for years of their education.
Ham is sinister and, far from trying to get on peaceably with him and his ilk, good people of faith and those without should show their opposition whenever appropriate.
August 3rd, 2010 at 1:40 pm
Ken Ham and his ilk, exhibit biblical, intellectual and scientific dishonesty.
I believe that their ‘creationist’ museum cost 27 million pounds to built. Yes, they do have the cheek to call it a museum, rather that the more apt ‘Flintstones Theme Park’!