Today’s Reading: Psalm 115 & Jeremiah 7:4
Having read the post on Naturalis Historia about the release of information on H. naledi, I knew it would not be long before Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis (AiG) voiced their collective judgment on the finding. Moreover, I knew what that judgment would be in advance. I am prescient that way. For Ham and AiG, This discovery would change nothing.
So, I was not surprised when Ken Ham released a tweet and a link to an “article” responding to this release of information about H. Naledi.
@aigkenham The discovery of the supposed human ancestor changes nothing about our understanding of human history: ow.ly/S3CpV September 10 4:00pm
Now, I am no evolutionary biologist or anthropologist and so I rely on the experts to inform me of the significance of a find like this one. Moreover, I realize that once a finding is released whether a fossil discovery, an experiment, or long term data collection that is only the beginning of the discussion. It is like the opening statement in a debate. At present, the scholarly argument seems to be over the age of the fossils and the big mystery is why there are so many hominid remains in this remote cave. Was it a ritual burial site? (See the National Geographic article.)
So, how is it that Ken Ham and AiG can already speak definitively and decisively on new data the day it is released? It is because they are a closed system. As much as Ham insists that they are engaged in legitimate scientific research and appeals to the many PhDs associated with his organization. AiG is not doing science at all.
Of course, Ken Ham declares that their own team of “Bible-believing scientists are even now reviewing the two studies published in eLife journal.” Yet, he has already declared that it will have no influence on their beliefs. For Ken Ham and AiG, either the fossil is human or it is some kind of “ape-like” creature. It cannot be any transitional form. So, what are the AiG scientists doing? Like politicians, they are reviewing the data in order to give it the best Young Earth Creationist spin. They are not weighing the new evidence against their hypothesis.
In their own publications, these scientists clearly state that they will hold to their interpretation of Scripture (which is neither the only interpretation of Scripture nor a reasonable interpretation of Scripture) even if the evidence “seems” to contradict their belief that the cosmos is less than 7,000 years old.
No one states it more clearly than Geologist Kurt P. Wise as he concludes his contribution to the Answers in Genesis publication In Six Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation,
Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. . . Here I must stand.
This approach to the world and evidence is neither good science nor good theology. It is the equivalent of the establishment rejecting Jeremiah’s words of warning and political signs because YHWH would never destroy his Temple. As Israel had made an idol of the Temple, so Ken Ham and AiG have made an idol of the Bible.
“The Temple of the LORD. The Temple of the LORD.”
has become
“The Word of God. The Word of God.”
Is it any wonder that Ham’s next project is to build the Tower of Babel to prove the Bible is true? Have Ham and his followers read how that story turned out?
Related Posts: How to Teach Genesis One, Ham-Handed Hermeneutics I: Reading the Church Fathers I, Ham-Handed Hermeneutics 2: Reading the Church Fathers II, Ken Ham’s Humean Skepticism, The Heresy of Ham, Why [my friend] is Not Teaching This Year and the Heresy of Ham, What Evolution Is
Suggested Pages: Christianity and Science, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, My Favorite Commentaries
#POPChrist 
So true.
LikeLiked by 1 person
More here: http://forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=3703&p=50542#p50542
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for linking my post to http://www.bcseweb.org.uk . From what I was able to see you are having some good discussions across the pond. Do check out my other posts as I am challenging Ham from a biblical studies and theological perspective.
You should also check out my friends blog http://www.joeledmundanderson.com . He is also a Christian scholar and is currently writing a book with the working title The Heresy of Ham.
If you are on twitter, @aigkenham provides me with a rich resource for one-liners and ironic statements. @panth_ian
LikeLike
Hello is all right. Ashley Haworth-Roberts has been on a crusade of hatred and blames others for his actions. He seeks self-importance and acceptance. I have yet to read anything of consequence that he has written.
LikeLike
Mr. Gordon,
I am a little confused by your response to Ashley Haworth-Roberts. As you can see by my own posts, I have serious concerns about the teachings of Ken Ham and AiG myself.
I would be happy to post a comment from you but I ask that you keep a more respectful tone when speaking about and to my readers. I do use humor and sarcasm in my blog posts and that is allowed. However, on my blog, Ashley has not said anything other than “too true” and provided me a link to a discussion elsewhere.
If you have a comment to make about my posts, I would be happy to respond to you. I hope you took the time to read my post.
Thank you for stopping by,
IWP
LikeLike
Ian
Mr Gordons is an aggresive troll who is best ignored since he never offers anything of substance merely abuse. His previous antics around the web have been documented here:
http://forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3477&start=30
I have submitted my email address in order to follow this blog and that of Joel Anderson. I’ll post there the text of an email I recently sent regarding Ken Ham attacking a Bill Nye book on science and climate change that he has not even read (a pro-science Christian replied – happy to forward if I knew where to forward it to).
Ashley
LikeLike
Thank you for drawing my attention to Mr. Gordons’s internet activity. Of course, he is welcome to comment but only if he is engaging in a respectful discussion and not in personal attacks. As this blog is my blog, I get to determine what is or is not considered respectful. 😉
Mr Gordons is also welcome to begin his own blog where he may set the tone and parameters.
IWP
LikeLike
Are our pastors telling us the truth?
Are Christian pastors honest with their congregations regarding the evidence for a Six Day Creation? A world wide Flood? The age of the universe? How about the Resurrection? Is there really a “mountain of evidence” for the Resurrection as our pastors claim or is the belief in the Resurrection based on nothing more than assumptions, second century hearsay, superstitions, and giant leaps of faith?
You MUST read this Christian pastor’s defense of the Resurrection and a review by one of his former parishioners, a man who lost his faith and is now a nonbeliever primarily due to the lack of good evidence for the Resurrection:
—A Review of LCMS Pastor John Bombaro’s Defense of the Resurrection—
(copy and paste this article title into your browser to find and read this fascinating review of the evidence for the Resurrection)
LikeLike
Thank you for taking the time to comment. I will look at the page you requested. I am traveling at the moment but will reply more fully to your comment when I reach my destination. In the meantime, read my post on
I think you are right to link these two questions. I would ask what kind of evidence should we expect to find with respect to the resurrection of Jesus. N.T. Wright’s The Resurrection of the Son of God is an excellent look at this book but you can start with the simpler work Surprised by Hope.
Again, I’ll respond more fully in the near future after I’ve looked at the link you recommended.
Blessings,
IWP
LikeLike