The arrogance of Ken Ham

First, read what Ham, the founder of Answers in Genesis, wrote about Bill Nye, the Science Guy:

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2012/09/26/my-challenge-to-bill-nye/

First, the AP article quotes Nye as saying the following:

If we raise a generation of students who don’t believe in the process of science, who think everything that we’ve come to know about nature and the universe can be dismissed by a few sentences translated into English from some ancient text, you’re not going to continue to innovate.

So, here is my challenge (one that I gave to the reporter a few times). I want Bill Nye to name one invention—one piece of technology—that would not have been able to be invented without the inventor believing in evolution. Just name one!

But Nye said nothing specific about man-made technology or invention relating to evolution in his quote, did he? I looked up the word “innovate” in an online dictionary.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innovate

transitive verb
1
: to introduce as or as if new
2
archaic : to effect a change in <the dictates of my father were … not to be altered, innovated, or even discussed — Sir Walter Scott>
intransitive verb
: to make changes : do something in a new way

There are many ways to innovate, but the surest way to do so is to have a mind unfettered by dogma of any kind. Thus anything that limits free thinking limits innovation. It’s not just about Bible based religions. Communist states in the 20th Century also limited innovation and interfered directly with scientific advancement if it seemed to contradict Marxist dogmas.

Ken Ham continues:

Usually, when I have challenged an evolutionist to come up with one example of something invented for mankind that would not be possible without accepting evolution, I get the following response: “Understanding resistance in bacteria and thus being able to invent drugs.”

But as we have written on our website many times before, antibiotic resistance has nothing to do with molecules-to-man evolution. Whether one is an evolutionist or a creationist, a researcher can observe the resistance and even understand issues of mutations and other things that can cause the resistance. Such research is dealing with observational science.

The bastard just does not get it, does he? Bill Nye was not merely talking about defending evolution, opposing Creationism, or even rejecting religious dogmas of any kind. He was talking about the dogmatic, bigoted thinking at the very root of Creationist and fundamentalist views.

antibiotic resistance has nothing to do with molecules-to-man evolution.

Perhaps, but what about all those Bible verses that depict people as being demon possessed, when they could have merely suffered from mental diseases? Had we never looked harder at such people in the real world we all live in, we might not have found ways to treat brain disorders and we would still be in fear of demons. Indeed, we have found no evidence of demons, but we have clear evidence of mental disorders and have used science, with its INNOVATIVE thinking, to enable people with these disorders to enjoy productive lives. THAT is what Nye could have been talking about!

Screw you and your (bowel) movement, Ham! Your challenge is bogus!

One thought on “The arrogance of Ken Ham

  1. On a later blog entry, Ken Ham digs an even deeper hole:

    http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2012/09/28/what-is-a-secularist/

    We at Answers in Genesis want to point out the inconsistency and irrationality of any worldview that is not based on the authority of the Bible. It’s important to remember that the opposite of a Christian is not a secularist, an atheist, a naturalist, or a secular humanist. No, the opposite of a Christian is a non-Christian.

    Christ tells us that there is no neutral ground when it comes to our relationship with Him. “He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad” (Matthew 12:30). As I often point out in my talks to various groups, we’re either racing toward Christ, or we’re racing away into darkness. There is no in-between.

    How is it inconsistent and irrational to not grant present day authority to a 2000 year old BOOK?

    And how many times must it be pointed out that any quote attributed to Jesus from the Bible is not a direct one? Thus any authority we give it may not be legitimate.

    And the opposite of a Muslim is a non-Muslim. The opposite of a Communist is a non-Communist. The opposite of a Conservative is a non-Conservative. And so on. There is nothing about being or not being a Christian, or Muslim, or Communist, or Conservative that make you superior to the rest of humanity.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s