Ken Ham is a Con Artist and Wants Other Christians To Be Con Artists Too

The phrase “con artist” developed from the phrase “confidence man” which later became shortened to “con man.” The original focus in the term “con” was not on the swindling of the victim per se, therefore, but on the means of doing so: gaining the victim’s confidence, often through the perpetrator speaking with confidence and in other ways acting to gain the person’s trust, even though trust placed in them would be misplaced.

This was the first thing that came to mind when I read Ken Ham’s blog post from June 12th, which bears the title “An Uncertain Sound.” Ham emphasizes that it looks bad when Christians do not agree or do not speak with confidence about a matter – even one that is in fact in the purview of science, not theology or Biblical studies, such as the age of the earth. When this is contrasted with the confidence of scientists, he says, Christians end up looking like they do not know what they are talking about.

Unfortunately, many Christians do indeed not know what they are talking about, or are deliberately saying things that are untrue about these topics. And Ken Ham is among the most infamous perpetrators. Even when he describes those who embrace the evidence from mainstream science as adopting “compromise positions” that “try to accommodate what the secularists believe about origins” he is misrepresenting things. Let me explain just a few of the very many reasons why.

Ken Ham’s own position can be viewed as a compromise position. He and his organization do not view the moon as a source of light, but accept that it reflects light from the sun. Jon Henry recently posted a (satirical) explanation of why the truly Biblical stance is that the moon is a source of light and not a mere reflector of light. The satire is intended to make a point – there are a great many subjects about which science has shown Biblical language to be imprecise or wrong when understood literally. On the vast majority of those subjects, people like Ken Ham who emphasize the need to not allow science to undermine the literal truth of the Bible have already abandoned the literal truth of the Bible.

So why accept other science but not evolution or geology? The only answer I can think of is because there are still people who understand evolution and the evidence supporting it sufficiently poorly as to be willing to give money to organizations like Ham’s in order to oppose it. But there are other Christians who would go further, and deny physics as well as evolution.

Ken Ham is a confidence man. He has gained the confidence of a great many Christians and has deceived them. Why have they given him their confidence? Because he says what they want to hear, claiming to be defending the Word of God from its evil attackers. Con artists who say such things to conservative Christians have often successfully duped and bilked them.

But as if that is not enough, he wants others to be like him. His post is about the importance not of being accurate, or of being precisely nuanced, but of sounding confident when agreeing with Ham’s position.

And, as the end of the post indicates, about giving Ham’s organization money for its products.

One of Ham’s associates tried such a confidence trick at Butler University, where I teach. Terry Mortensen made confident assertions about the meaning of a word in the Biblical text. It turned out that he could not do what even someone who had a semester of one of the languages a decade earlier was able to do when I told them the story: recognize which of the Biblical languages they were hearing. As a Biblical scholar, I will be the first to acknowledge that, not least because of different pronunciations, it can indeed be difficult to understand Biblical texts aurally that one would have no problem understanding if reading them.

But if you can’t even recognize the language, then you do not know the language.

Terry Mortensen is a confidence man, like Ken Ham. He was trying to get the students at my university to believe him, so that they would have confidence in what he says rather than what other people say who actually know something about the Biblical text or the relevant scientific data.

If you follow Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis, you’ve fallen for a confidence trick. I recommend finding Christians who actually know something about evolution and about the Bible, and listening to them instead. They may not speak with as much bravado – often the evidence is not clear cut, and often being accurate involves nuance rather than short, confident sound bites. But ultimately, it is crucial for more Christians than currently do to realize that they cannot afford to give their confidence away too easily, to people who speak to them with confidence and the sort of enthusiasm that might get you saying “amen” before you’ve really examined the matter.

Be on your guard. Don’t join Ken Ham and become a con artist yourself. Instead, learn how to evaluate claims people make to you confidently, and how to see through their deceptions.

 

  • Scotty

    Great Article!

    How can we guide people away from such confidence tricks and tricksters? I think there should be a mandatory “Get to know a scientist” program in highschool. IT would sure hinder the ol’ “evil secular humanist scientist” routine.

  • victor

    you might have some valid points, but it’s hard to get to them. isn’t there a better way to present your opinion than attacking someone, acting arrogant, and being a downright jerk? just wondering if that is in fact the enlightened christian approach of correcting people?

    • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

      I have tried every possible approach with this charlatan. He is unrepentant, even proud of his actions and attitudes. I would be a jerk if I did not warn people about him.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jim-Harrison/1558354000 Jim Harrison

    The trouble with the con man charge is that it has a very wide applicability. Was Joseph Smith a con man? He certainly had links with some pretty dicey characters back in the Burned-over district. How about alchemists? Renaissance magi? St. Paul? Guys who turn water into wine at parties? Shaman have their tricks and yet at least some of them claim to be sincere about their religious ideas even though they are willing to explain how they perform psychic surgery. For that matter, I expect Ken Ham could pass a lie detector test. Maybe the applicable category is “sincere impostor.”

    • rmwilliamsjr

      re:
      Was Joseph Smith a con man?

      yes, tried and convicted in a local court for looking into his hat and seeing buried treasures.

      here is a sympathetic to JS account of the trials and other writers about it. http://www.shields-research.org/General/LDS_Leaders/1stPres/Joseph_Smith/1826_Trial_Walters.htm

      • Var Enyo

        Not only a con man but a false prophet since nothing he said came into being.

    • David E Levin

      I expect that he would fail a lie detector test if asked the right questions regarding the evidence that he rejects.

      • Peter Bartholomew

        He would definitely pass a lie detector test as he doesn’t believe a word of what he makes up, he has found a great way of making money from the gullible and showing us just how dumb creationists are in believing whatever hilarious idea he can think of – laughing all the way to the bank!

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Tarron-Lee-Stewart/1654141750 Tarron Lee Stewart

      Wide applicability? All the people you just listed are very clearly con-men. With a possible exception to St. Paul, but hey, I’m Lutheran. XD

  • http://www.facebook.com/joshcarson74 Joshua Carson

    As a scholar, you should know that it is important to cite sources of information so that others can follow your thought process. You are claiming that Ken Ham is a con artist because he refuses to believe “science”. What science are you referring to? Do you mean the THEORY of evolution? If so, you have not provided any sources to substantiate your claims that evolution is correct and the Bible is not. Likewise, as a scholar, you should be able to understand that the simple fact that there are inconsistencies in the translation of biblical verse, does not make the entirety of the Bible untrue. Using that type of argument, than evolution as a whole would be untrue due to inconsistencies in theory from Darwinism to neo-Darwinism to punctuated equilibrium. As a biblical scholar, you should also note that the modern Bible was originally translated and compiled during a time when most scientists on the planet believed the world was flat and that the sun rotated around the Earth and that the moon was a source of light. Would it then make sense for the individuals that compiled the modern Bible to change the verse to fit what they believed was science at the time?

    “It turned out that he could not do what even someone who had a semester
    of one of the languages a decade earlier was able to do when I told them
    the story: recognize which of the Biblical languages they were hearing.” This is a poor argument. All you have described here is an individual that needs to study more. Just because he could not recognize a language, does not disprove his beliefs nor does it prove evolution.

    Without credible sources, you have no basis for your argument, and no basis for calling Ken Ham a con artist. I am not saying that I necessarily agree with Ken Ham about all of his claims, but at least he cites his sources so that others may follow his arguments. The few links you have provided are merely hearsay. Provide credible sources, then call yourself a scholar, and then try to discredit people. Otherwise, mere students, like myself, will see that you are only providing an alternative con.

    • rmwilliamsjr

      re:
      As a biblical scholar, you should also note that the modern Bible was originally translated and compiled during a time when most scientists on the planet believed the world was flat and that the sun rotated around the Earth and that the moon was a source of light. Would it then make sense for the individuals that compiled the modern Bible to change the verse to fit what they believed was science at the time?

      what is a “modern” Bible? What language(s) is it in? Where did the table of contents come from, ie what books are in it and who decided?

      “originally translated”, into which language?

      “most scientists”, when exactly is this? how do you define a scientist or science, when did modern science begin?

      but the really important question is:”compiled the modern Bible to change the verse” who are these people, when did they do this and what languages are they working in, ie from what languages into what languages?

      • Andreas Meyer

        Actually they didn’t believe the Earth was flat.

        • rmwilliamsjr

          what evidence do you have that the writers of Genesis were the only people in the world who believed that the world was spherical before 900 BCE?

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

      As a student, you really ought to be aware of the nature of the blog format. While some blogs feature research, others are aimed at a general audience, and often they are part of an ongoing discussion of a topic. Since you must be new here, I am providing a link to some of my earlier blogging on young-earth creationism. As you will see, I have not skimped on detail, I just have spread it over many posts over a long time.

      http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2008/09/blogging-creationism-the-highlights.html

      Although I could be charitable and assume that your CAPS LOCK key got stuck, I suspect that you put THEORY in ALL CAPS because you think that when scientists use that term, they mean a “hunch” or something rather uncertain, rather than a well-documented explanatory framework which is based on, and makes sense of, a wide array of diverse evidence.

      Ken Ham cites sources when it suits him. He happily appeals to the Human genome project when is suits him, yet demeans the theory that the project explored and provided still more confirmation for. He also insults Francis Collins and just about every scientist who is a Christian and actually knows something about these matters and does research in them. If you wish to choose to be a follower of people who lack expertise in both the Bible and biology, or who went and got degrees to make these deceptive organizations seem legit, rather than those brothers and sisters in Christ who work in Biblical scholarship or in the natural sciences, I cannot stop you. But do know that, in addition to joining in with those who mock their fellow Christians out of ignorance, you will also be dragging the reputation of Christianity through the gutter.

      I hope that you will actually take the time to read some of my many blog posts that address the evidence that Ken Ham and other charlatans like him are deceiving people. But it would be even better if you were to read actual books that explore these topics in detail. Ken Miller and Francisco Ayala are worth mentioning alongside Francis Collins as Christians who are world-class biologists, and Gordon Wenham and John Walton are two famous Evangelical Christian Old Testament scholars with particular expertise in Genesis. I encourage you to actually inform yourself not merely from a scholar’s blog, but from many scholars’ and scientists books and articles which provide just the sort of references to relevant sources that are appropriate to those formats.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Christine-Moore/590370150 Christine Moore

      Well I say until you learn what scientific theory means, you have no right to comment. Secondly (and this is pretty much directed towards everyone who does this) this “hearsay” argument gets brought up a lot, but creationists, when it comes to evolution. What I want to know is, how can the creationists not see that the entire story of Jesus is hearsay! Don’t you think as the son of god, he would have at least had ONE thing to say for himself?

    • Peter Bartholomew

      Sorry but you seem to be yet another person that does not realize that a scientific theory is. It is different to the common use of the word theory
      . A scientific theory is evidence based, with research and data that can be replicated to give consistent results by other independent lab’s, it is then subjected to peer review (there is no one more critical of new theories than other scientists) and once it has passed that stage it is then submitted for publication. It is only then that it is classed as a scientific theory.
      Evolution has been more rigorously scrutinised than almost any other scientific theory due to objections by religious groups and it is now backed by 99.9% of all the world’s scientists and the all main branches of Christianity, the study of genetics and DNA have confirmed it beyond any doubt – it is provable in a court of law, even the Vatican has admitted that evolution is now undeniable.
      Creationism has never been proposed as a scientific theory with good reason, there is no evidence at all to back it up, it is only one of hundreds of different creation myths from around the world, it is simply how some people in parts of the Middle East in the bronze age thought their world may have been created – just an old legend taken from the Sumerians by the Hebrew people thousands of years later and changed to feature just one God, not real – just a story!

  • frank

    “evidence that Ken Ham and other charlatans like him are deceiving people” Yes I agree, telling people to put the Word of The one true living God above man’s understanding and outright attempts to explain a world without a creator. That Ken is a evil man!

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

      No, there are plenty of people who believe in the Creator and study God’s creation and see evidence upon evidence that Ken Ham is telling lies about God’s own handiwork. Ham puts his own selective and distorting interpretation of the Bible, which is itself the words of human beings, above the creation which no human being could compose or fabricate. But at least yout conclusions was on target despite your bad beginning.

  • Debbie from Cuces

    I feel very sorry for you if you really feel this way about Ken Ham. He is very knowledgeable about what ever he speaks on, he has done a lot of indepth study. I would believe what he says before I would believe a secular scientist. I think you should read your bible before you start spouting off about people. Know what you are talking about before you put people down. The problem with this world is we have gotten so far away from God people are so easily decieved by idiots like you.

    • rmwilliamsjr

      KH &AiG are not knowledgeable, they are willfully ignorant, not only of science but of the depth of Scripture. If you believe his teaching then you too are wrong about both the world we live in and the Bible. you are being deceived and lead down a rosy path that deeply conflicts with the nature of reality. the world is not 6K years old it is 4.5B. period. there is lots of good evidence supporting this and NONE supporting KH et al. when people understand that they could be wrong, then knowledge can begin to grow. it’s a shame YECism as become an issue in the modern church, it will deeply fracture it. for despite their protestations KH&AiG make it the first most important element of their faith.

    • perryb

      ken ham is knowledgeable about one thing…how to make money. he is not a scientist, nor does he have a background that would allow one to assume his is a reliable source of scientific information. He is a story teller…..that is all.

    • Peter Bartholomew

      Ken Ham’s knowledge of science is laughable, he gets even the most basic facts wrong and he is a figure of ridicule throughout he world for his absurd theories and the inept nature of his books, he has no credentials or credibility at all, he’s not even correct on his Biblical knowledge, no offense intended but if you really are so poorly educated as to be taken in by his junk pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo then you need to go back to school. Ken Ham insults all Christians by assuming they are too stupid to realize his books are garbage – shame on you.

  • http://www.facebook.com/todd.garner.794 Todd Garner

    This is such a nice website, so well designed. It makes people who blog here look like they have some kind of authority, even when they are chiseling away at the highest authority, by attempting to undermine those that listen to their Creator and believe what He said.
    James, I also hope that your fast for Yom Kippur is an easy one.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

      What a strange thing to say about a blog where I am trying to get people to stop elevating ancient human writings over the Creator’s own handiwork!

  • EZDBC

    Ken Ham is not a con artist. He founds his belief systerm on the Bible. The type of “science” your talking about is evolution. I have no idea where you are getting this information but it just looks like you don’t like Ken Ham because he doesn’t match up to your belief system . This article is one of the saddest ones I’ve seen.

    • rmwilliamsjr

      k.ham is a con artist, the first victim of his lies is himself.
      he founds his ideas on his interpretation of the Bible, as a member of a particular interpretive community that has a specific history that you can research. you will find lots of pointers to help you in that study on this blog, should you actually be interested in learning about these things rather than just repeating the nonsense YECist mantras that you have learned.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

      You seem to be someone who has fallen for Ham’s con and is now trying to justify his claims. Ham rejects Biblical scholarship as well as the scientific work done by biologists and geneticists, including Christians working in those fields. Your comments suggest that you have never fact-checked Ham’s claims. I encourage you to do so.

  • EZDBC

    This is a sad article don’t criticize people because they match uo to your belief system. Evolution isn’t science, it is a religion. The Bible has scientific proof to back it up. Evolution keeps changing their beliefs over and over again, but the Bible stays true all ways. Evolution is a belief system built on a sandy shore, that is knocked down by the winds and floods; and they keep building it in the same place. Jesus Christ is our strong rock that we build the beliefs of Christianity on. Start being a wise builder and build on the rock.

    • rmwilliamsjr

      re:

      Evolution keeps changing their beliefs over and over again, but the Bible stays true all ways.

      i find this argument interesting. Essentially it anchors in the unchangeability of a fixed canon. and contrasts this to a provisional “ever getting closer to truth but never reaching it” ideal of human science.

      1. the text of Scripture is not the issue AT ALL, it is the various ever evolving communities of interpretation that matter. what people think the Scriptures mean that matters. this interpretation not only changes over time but splits into countless subgroups because there is no court of final appeal, no resolution of conflicts by which competing interpretations can be judged. yet each claim a never changing truthfulness in the face of this division and discord. to attempt to anchor an argument in the fixity of the canon is simply nonsense, look at what the text means historical and between various communities and the fixity disappears. the Bible maybe unchanging but how people read it never has stopped changing and fragmenting into lots of competing people claiming to be-well, unchanging and forever the same…..nonsense.

      2. science otoh is well aware of it’s provisionalness and strives to get better approximations of both data and it’s interpretation. it does have a court of final appeal-reality. and as a result the biology taught is the same across the world. unlike religions science doesn’t fragment into competing groups. it’s unity is really one of the amazing accomplishments of human reason.

      anyhow, i find this argument, that sciences changes and the Bible doesn’t, unconvincing…..to say the least.

    • rmwilliamsjr

      re:

      Evolution isn’t science, it is a religion. The Bible has scientific proof to back it up.

      define religion.
      now show how the science of biological evolution fits into that definition.

      what scientific proof is there for a young earth? or a worldwide flood? none.
      what evidence is there against it-entire sciences, geology for example.

      but what is more important is how naturally you assume that there is a conflict between the science of evolution and the Bible. if there is a conflict it is between how you interpret the Bible and what little you know about the details of evolutionary theory. the Bible as a library of ancient texts can not be in any conflict with modern biology, the only thing that can conflict is the ideas that a person has about each. the text of the Bible itself can’t do anything but sit on a shelf until someone opens and reads it. it is the ideas that people attempt to derive from it that can conflict, not the text. if you want to discuss those ideas then say “my interpretation of these words i read in the Bible” not “the Bible” as if it is some monolithic box that speaks for itself, it does not, you propose yourself in that position, as it’s interpreter to us.

      • Samuel

        I suggest you go read the beginning of Ken’s book “The new answers 3″. He completely destroys your arguments.Evolution is a faith, oh sure natural selection has its merits, but you can’t possible believe that non-living molecules formed a living cell. Last time I checked, the chances are like 1/2^100, just for the cell to form from an organic pool.

        • rmwilliamsjr

          re:
          but you can’t possible believe that non-living molecules formed a living cell.

          like most YECists you confuse biological evolutionary theory with abiogenesis. ET requires a replicator, it does not answer any questions about where that replicator came from. in fact they are part of different sciences, abiogenesis is chemistry, ET is biology.

          again, talk about the evidence, not some ethereal “ET is a faith”, nonsense. you simply do not understand the persuasiveness of the evidence because you’ve never looked at the details.

          address 3 pieces of evidence: chimps 2p+2q=human 2 chromosome, the GLO pseudogene, viral co-option in syncytin. then i’ll think you know something about the science behind the theory, until then you are just another YEC bearing his/her testimony of the lie AiG has cast it’s spell over you and much of the church.

          • rmwilliamsjr

            am i naive and overly optimistic to think any YECist will actually stay here long enough to look at the science they so easily dismiss?

  • Florida to Norway

    A few months ago, I was asked to teach a Bible Study at my church on the creation account in Genesis. They wanted “lots of science” and came to me because I was the closest thing they have to a “scientist”. (I have a B.S. in physical chemistry and a B.S. in chemical engineering.) I’m also a Bible-believing, born-again Christian and can tell you beyond a doubt that God exists and has changed my life. Having never studied Genesis, I went into the study believing in a literal interpretation of the creation account and, consequently, a young earth. I’ll never forget the moment that I started to go, “Hmm…” I was preparing a lesson on some of the different Hebrew words in Genesis 1. I got through “yom” and had myself convinced that the word was correctly translated as a 24-hour day. Then, I moved on to “raqia” and paused. It’s (basically), a thin dome that is stretched out over the earth on which are placed the sun, moon, and stars. The “waters above” are directly above the raqia. Is this not an exact description of the pre-scientific view of the world?

    Then I started to look at the science behind dating an old earth/universe in order to explain to my class why it was wrong. It didn’t take me long to realize that most of it is quite solid. It also didn’t take me long to run across AiG and names like Kent Hovind and Ken Ham. I read through AiG’s arguments that debunked old-earth dating methods and was completely speechless. I presented some of these fallacies to my class and heard, “Well, scientists are approaching the data from a world view while the scientists at AiG are approaching the same data from a Biblical view.” Try as I might, I couldn’t get them to understand that the science was WRONG! I just don’t get it! Some of this is straight-up science and not subject to interpretation.

    I was content to just keep teaching the class and let my students make their own decisions. After all, it’s not THAT important, right? Then, I overheard someone talking about donating all of her “evolution” books about dinosaurs and replacing them with Ken Ham’s books on dinosaurs so that her 5-year-old would be reading science through a Biblical world view.

    • Levent

      I don’t even know why you bother to be a Christian. The Bible states that

      thistles and thorns came AFTER Adam fell and the earth was subsequently cursed. Science says that there are fossil records showing thorns to be millions of years old. In that case, the earth was curses BEFORE Adam fell, (according to your interpretation) and that God called this “good”, but then blamed Adam for a fallen world that had earlier existed and been called “good”. So you may as well remove the idea of a saviour, the second Adam, as he isn’t needed in your

      “Christian” beliefs, as sin-death and suffering never entered through Adam according to your belief. You also need to imiss-nterpret the word “yom” as it’s interpreted throughout scripture, as a 24 hour period. you also have to explain away Genesis 2.2 with exodus 34.21 in which man is instructed to follow God’s
      example of 6 days work, one day rest = 7 days! which is incidentally what we have today the world over!

      • rmwilliamsjr

        re:

        You also need to imiss-nterpret the word “yom” as it’s interpreted throughout scripture, as a 24 hour period.

        look at gen 1:5

        5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

        the word “yom” is being defined with the term “he called” as the period of daylight versus nighttime, roughly 12 hours not 24. then it’s part of a marker “1st day”, so the word yom is being used in at least 3 different ways, in the same verse! the period of daylight, the 24 hour day and the 1st day of creation week.

      • rmwilliamsjr

        re:

        explain away Genesis 2.2 with exodus 34.21 in which man is instructed to follow God’s

        example of 6 days work, one day rest = 7 days! which is incidentally what we have today the world over!

        it is far more likely that the writer of Genesis took the current 7 day week the hebrews had inherited from the ancient sumerians and wrote retrospectively justifying it in terms of projecting it back into the distant past.

        the evidence is that the 7 day week evolved in the upper Mesopotamian valley and expanded out from there. there really isn’t a astronomical unit between a solar day and a lunar month, the most logical are either 5 or 10 days “weeks” which are found in many ancient cultures. afaik, although i’d love more research material, the sumerians are the only 7 day week ever discovered. there is no evidence that a 7 day week was an ancient world wide phenomena, in fact even the OT doesn’t discuss either a 7 day week or the sabbath from gen 1 to exodus and the giving of the Law to moses.

        this is one more piece of evidence showing that adam was not a recent ancestor of all humanity, nor was noah, nor were all humanity at t he tower of babel. the radiation of humanity from africa occurred 10′s of 1000′s of years before those events.

      • Florida to Norway

        Thanks for your reply, Levent. I’m a Christian because God sent Christ to die in my place and save me from my sins. I’m a Christian because God has filled me with the Holy Spirit and has called me His Child.

        I’ve tried my darndest to explain away the science behind an old earth/universe but the science is unshakeable and comes from multiple fields that don’t necessarily influence each other – like geology and astronomy. I see God’s hand in everything I look at and if God’s creation tells me that the stars are billions of years old, then I’m going to believe it.

        Scripturally, there is no verse in the Bible that says that God began creating the universe in 4000 BC. As I’m sure you know, a 6000-year-old earth is assumed based on the genealogies in the Old Testament and there is not complete agreement between the genealogies found in different places in the Scripture. Further, the Hebrew word for “son” is the same as the Hebrew word for “grandson”, “great-grandson”, etc.

        As for the fossil record showing that animals lived and died and went extinct before man came on the scene, I’m still trying to correlate that piece of the puzzle. I’ve read Don Stoner’s “A New Look at an Old Earth” and his arguments make a lot of sense.

  • Reuel Teoh

    Ken ham is telling the truth. I have two science degrees and topped my classes. Evolution is not science but a lie.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

      All charlatans have people who will say such things on their behalf. Will you at least add substance to your claim by indicating where we can find an online resume indicating what you studied and where?

    • rmwilliamsjr

      perhaps you’ll stay around long enough to actually look at some of the scientific evidence.

      since you have 2 sci degrees perhaps you can explain how the human chromosome 2 looks exactly like a fusion event of 2 chimps chromosomes.

      http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

      are why humans get scurvy because we have a broken GLO gene.

      http://biologos.org/blog/a-tale-of-three-creationists-part-3

      or why mammals use a retroviral protein to create the placenta-syncytin.

      http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2012/02/14/mammals-made-by-viruses/#.UMzv2W_m7Fk

      this is evidence. something KHam does not use at all. it is not a lie, it is how God really created us. by evolutionary development.

      btw, where are your 2 degrees from.since you are using them as evidence of your correctness it is only right to provide that evidence.

      i simply have a BA in biology and chemistry from UCSD. which is only evidence that i can read most of the papers in these fields.

      i’ve nothing to hide.

      but like almost all YEC who land on these pages, i don’t expect you to defend your drive by postings. very few do, none so far with any evidence however. which is not surprising as there simply is no scientific evidence for a young earth creationist position. but i will listen and study whatever is offered.

  • Samuel

    Oh, I have a question for whoever wrote this, do you believe in the theory of evolution, and are trying to fit it into the Bible? Or are you just here to ruffle feathers with Ken’s supporters (a.k.a trolling)?

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

      I wrote this because, having previously adhered to young-earth creationism, I eventually gave its claims the closer inspection they deserved and shifted to a view more in line with historic Christianity. I am now seeking to make amends for the harm I may have done in promoting young-earth creationism’s lies and hoping I can prevent others from being led astray in the same way that as I was.

  • Mannie

    You are derived from a monkey!

  • Andreas Meyer

    Lot’s of statements, no point of Ken Ham even discussed remotely.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

      This is a single post on a blog where young-earth creationism is discussed regularly. I never understand why some people leave comments about the fact that a blog post doesn’t repeat things that were said in earlier posts. Of course it doesn’t! Why would you not simoly click on the “Ken Ham” or “young-earth creationism” or other relevant subject tags and see what else has appeared here on these topics over the past several years?

  • Wombat

    Hello all!

    Ok for one thing I would like to apologise on behalf of all Australians that we are NOT like Ken Ham. I attended catholic private school all my life and I got absolutely nowhere to the beliefs of this madman. I was raised Catholic and the more I learnt about religion, the more I also learnt about evolution. I was taught religion in a separate class and I am fine. I would like to bring up the question as to why the Born agains put their faith in the King James Bible when in fact the original was the Genevan bible? William Shakespeare wrote about it, he was around before King James so I would like to know how God wrote the bible before the creation of the Church of England? I also would like to understand that the original version of the bible was in fact written in Greek and translated into Hebrew. Why have I not found any of this information on these creationists websites? Also if you look back into the history books King James was a crazy insane king with stupid rules. So I would like anyone who can enlighten me to please do so.

  • Nigel Browne

    Answers in Genesis equals science and faith, evo’s ( evolutionists) equals faith……..no science.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

      That is what Answers in Genesis claims. What is unclear is why you believe them, when professional scientists who are Christians have spent so much time exposing their lies and offering genuine expertise from a Christian perspective.

      • Nigel Browne

        Me, and millions of other Christians around the world believe what AIG teach before AIG came into being. AIG exist to reeducate the church about the basics that Gods word teaches. The theory of evolution has penetrated the church, however its slowly, very slowly, being thrown out as a credible means of existence not only by the church, but by the non christian scientific world too. As your probably aware, many non Christian scientists have thrown out evolution on scientific grounds.

        • arcseconds

          I’m not aware of any non-Christian scientists having thrown out evolution of scientific grounds, although I don’t doubt there might be some.

          Could you name a few? The best examples would be ones that aren’t religious, are actual scientists (i.e. employed as scientific researchers or are published in scientific jouransl), and who once believed in evolution but have changed their minds.

          It would be also good if you could summarize their reasons for changing their minds, or at least the points on which they deviate from the standard scientific understanding of evolution.

  • Henry

    Two hundred and thirty eight years ago Americans were the most enlightened people on the face of the earth. Today however, despite their technological advances, Americans are the most spiritually bankrupt people in the entire universe, consistent with the word of God the Bible that they so vehemently deny, which states in 2 Corinthians 4:3-4, “And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. The god of this age (Satan) has blinded the minds of
    unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of
    Christ, who is the image of God.”

    And in 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12, “The coming of the lawless one (antichrist) will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

  • Peter Bartholomew

    I find it offensive that Ken Ham assumes that all Christians are so poorly educated as to believe some of the nonsense he perpetuates.
    His ridiculously poor understanding of science and willful misrepresentation of basic facts is shocking in that he thinks people will not realize that his absurd arguments have no basis in reality at all.
    What is deeply worrying is just how many people in America are so ignorant of basic knowledge to think his points are valid, what has gone wrong with the education system?
    Young people are leaving the church in droves because of the stigma and embarrassment of being associated with the ignorance of the people who believe these books – they make Christians appear as uneducated idiots.

  • Peter Bartholomew

    No other country in the developed world has any debate about creationism vs evolution, the vast majority of Christians revere the Bible for the teachings of Jesus Christ and view the Old Testament as a mixture of myths, legends and fables explaining how the people of those times viewed their past.
    It’s very worrying how education standards in the USA haven’t just slipped but have fallen off the edge of a cliff!
    Ignoring or failing to understand all the discoveries and progress made in the last 2,000 years by the best brains on the planet, poor Ken writes hilariously inept books of non science junk basing his “knowledge” on what some people in part of the Middle East believed in the bronze age – truly absurd.
    Western Europe now views America as the dumb kid sitting at the back of the class playing with his assault rifles whilst his grandfather who helped to put a man on the Moon weeps in despair.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X