Tag: ken ham

Ken Ham’s Doctrine of Accelerated Evolution or Supranatural Selection

Posted in ANE, Answers in Genesis, Bible, Christianity and Science, Church Fathers, Education, Evolution, Genesis, hermeneutics, Ken Ham, Philosophy, ScienceTagged , , , , , , , , , , 6 Comments

One of the strangest elements of the teaching of Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis (and that’s saying something when you are talking about people who insist human beings and dinosaurs co-existed) is that with all the fuss they make over the theory of evolution, their position entails the acceptance of an accelerated evolutionary model.

Ham and the folks at AiG insist that the earth (and, indeed, the cosmos) is less than 7,000 years old. The cosmos originated in 4004 BC or 0 anno mundi (See their time-lines.) In keeping with their literalist interpretation of Genesis 1-11 and based on the well-known Noah story, they also insist that there was a global flood in 2348 BC. During this flood, Noah rescued 7,000 “kinds” of animals. Kinds should not be confused with the modern scientifc term species. Nevertheless, from these 7,000 kinds (which included some dinosaurs) all the land animals, aviary animals, and most of the amphibious animals are descended. Continue reading “Ken Ham’s Doctrine of Accelerated Evolution or Supranatural Selection” →

Ken Ham on Homo Naledi: See No Evidence, Hear No Evidence, Speak No Truth

Posted in Answers in Genesis, Bible, Christianity and Science, Education, Evolution, PhilosophyTagged , , , , , , , , , , 9 Comments

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. Continue reading “Ken Ham on Homo Naledi: See No Evidence, Hear No Evidence, Speak No Truth” →

Ham-Handed Hermeneutics 2: Reading the Church Fathers II: Theophilus of Antioch (Bishop of Antioch ca. 169-181 AD)

Posted in ANE, Answers in Genesis, Bible, Christianity and Science, Church Fathers, Education, Ken Ham, Philosophy, Science, TeachingTagged , , , , , , , , 2 Comments

Answers in Genesis (AiG) are consistent in a few things. For instance, they are consistent in their assertions that every geological and archaeological discovery that seems to suggest an old earth can be explained by a global flood. Second, they are consistent in their general inconsistency. (In a future post, I will write about the inconsistency of Ken Ham and AiG with respect to adopting a “biblical scientific worldview”.)

Related Posts & Pages: Ham-Handed Hermeneutics 1: Origen, Heresy of Ham, How to Teach Genesis 1, Why Seven Days?, Cosby’s “Interpreting Biblical Literature”, How To Read the Bible for All Its Worth

ken-ham-dinosaur-getty-creation-museumOn the one hand, they decry those who appeal to “the traditions of men” whenever those traditions seem to contradict their raison d’etre. Yet, on the other hand, they are quite prepared to appeal to those same traditions when it suits their purposes. Continue reading “Ham-Handed Hermeneutics 2: Reading the Church Fathers II: Theophilus of Antioch (Bishop of Antioch ca. 169-181 AD)” →

Why [my friend] is Not Teaching This Year…and the Heresy of Ken Ham

Posted in ANE, Answers in Genesis, Biblical Theology, Christianity and Science, Education, hermeneutics, Ken Ham, TeachingTagged , , , , , , , , 7 Comments

This post will be my last post on Ken Ham for at least a week. I promise. I may still tweet one-liners, though. @panth_ian

Many of the posts on #POPChrist and on my friend Joel’s blog ‘resurrecting orthodoxy’ have been about Ken Ham and the teachings of AiG. Below, there is a link to Joel’s initial post on this topic called “Why I am Not Teaching This Year” and will give you (my wonderful readers) a better understanding of why Ham is on our minds at the moment. Continue reading “Why [my friend] is Not Teaching This Year…and the Heresy of Ken Ham” →

Why Ham is Really Bacon, Or Irony and the Evolution of AiG’s Enlightenment Worldview

Posted in Christianity and Science, Education, hermeneuticsTagged , , , , , , , Leave a comment

Life is filled with irony. The regular tweets and articles posted by Ken Ham and AiG are like daily receiving a box of chocolates. You have already tasted one. Should you open the box and have just one more?

In recent tweets, he has delighted me with the following tasty tidbits:

@aigkenham When a well-known Bible teacher visited the Creation Museum, he told me that the museum “exceeded his expectations.”

@panth_ian Yes, Ken, if I ever visit, I expect it will exceend mine as well. #howlowcanyougo Continue reading “Why Ham is Really Bacon, Or Irony and the Evolution of AiG’s Enlightenment Worldview” →

Mad Science, Bad Science and the Cure for Everything (Originally published August 4, 2009)

Posted in Christianity and ScienceTagged , , , , , , , , , , , , 2 Comments

The polemic against religion seems to depend on an assumption concerning the makeup of the world. A popular assumption seems to be that there are three basic realms the political, the religious and the scientific. Depending on one’s personal preference, one establishes an “if only.” For instance, those of us with a religious affiliation might say, “If only Constantine had never got involved with the Church, then Christianity would not be tarred with all this political corruption.” For any one of the supposed realms, one of the others can be used as a scapegoat for the evils of the world. Continue reading “Mad Science, Bad Science and the Cure for Everything (Originally published August 4, 2009)” →

The Heresy of Ham

Posted in Christianity and Science, Education, hermeneutics, TeachingTagged , , , , , , , , , , , 5 Comments

The title of this post is the working title of my friend’s book on the teachings and influence of Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis (AIG). At present, the two of us are joining into the ongoing discussion about the relation of Christianity to Science. Neither of us accept the parameters of the debate as it is often defined by Young Earth Creationists (YEC) and their defacto debate partners, the so-called New Atheists (i.e. Richard Dawkins, Bill Maher, etc.). The debate as defined by the usual and very vocal participants and, therefore, as seen presented by the media and understood by the majority of the public usually presents a very stark either/or. Either the Bible (as interpreted by Ken Ham and AIG, etc.) offers a valid, historical, and scientific account of the proximate origins of the universe and therefore Christianity is true or modern scientific theories about the proximate origins of the universe (aka Big Bang and billions of years) and the origin of species (aka Evolution) is accurate and therefore theism is false. Continue reading “The Heresy of Ham” →

Ham-Handed Hermeneutics 1: Reading the Church Fathers I – Origen of Alexandria (ca. 184 – ca.254)

Posted in Christianity and ScienceTagged , , , , , , , , , , 9 Comments

Currently, on Ken Ham’s website Answers in Genesis, there is a presentation of the Church Fathers’ reading of Genesis 1 by James R. Mook. The claim of Mook and the people at AIG is that up until the Enlightenment the standard interpretation of Genesis 1 is in keeping with and supports the claims of Young Earth Creationism. That is, the universe is less than 7,000 years old and that the reference to a day in Genesis 1 is to be taken as a concrete or literal 24 hour period. Continue reading “Ham-Handed Hermeneutics 1: Reading the Church Fathers I – Origen of Alexandria (ca. 184 – ca.254)” →

Ken Ham’s Humean Skepticism or “Hey, Ham Your Enlightened Roots Are Showing”

Posted in Christianity and ScienceTagged , , , , , , , 4 Comments

In a recent post, Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell does what Ken Ham and AIG do in the majority of their posts. She responds to a recent scientific publication in which researchers write about something related to the theory of evolution or the age of the universe. Then she and the team at AIG attempt to offer an alternative explanation of the same evidence. Their explanation is supposed to undermine the conclusions and assumptions of the scientific researchers and validate (or conform) to the texts of Genesis 1-11 which they interpret scientifically.

As title of Mitchell’s article suggests, Mitchell and AIG see the problem as stemming from differing world-views or presuppositions. From their perspective, the presupposition of the so-called “secular” scientists is that the universe is billions of years old, the presupposition of AIG (which they base on their peculiar interpretation of the Bible) is that the earth is less than 7,000 years old and that the catastrophic flood described in Genesis 6-9 was a global flood and occured around 4,300 years ago. Like AIG, I do think there is a clash of world-views and presuppositions going on in this “debate” (it cannot be called a dialogue) but it is not the clash identified by Ken Ham and AIG. The clash is between the implicit skepticism of AIG and the historical Christian tradition. Continue reading “Ken Ham’s Humean Skepticism or “Hey, Ham Your Enlightened Roots Are Showing”” →