A Liar Twice Over: Ken Ham Rushes In Where Rick Warren Feared To Tread

Remember not so long ago, when Rick Warren seemed to be linking the Aurora shooting to evolution, but later offered an explanation that that was not what he meant?

Ken Ham and his organization Answers in Genesis apparently have no such qualms.

Here’s what’s been added to their “Graffiti Alley,” as Hemant Mehta pointed out today:

I am not sure which is more offensive, the fact that the museum does this sort of thing, or Ken Ham’s comment on his blog, where he said this:

One of the most recent additions is a headline regarding the recent tragic shooting in Aurora, Colorado. Of course, we don’t say evolution causes social problems, but it can certainly fuel them, which we show in a new exhibit downstairs on the connection between racism and Darwinian thinking.

So he is saying “Of course, we don’t say evolution causes social problems” but then goes right ahead and adds a headline about a recent tragedy in a museum part of the mission of which is to undermine mainstream science by spreading misinformation about evolution.

So on top of the lie that is the inclusion of the headline, there is the lie about what “we don’t say.”

Is there anyone to whom it is not clear that Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis are liars twice over?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Pieret/100000023960330 John Pieret

    It’s a dog whistle. He can deny what he really means to the larger world but his intended audience can hear it anyway. “We [very much] say evolution causes social problems!”

  • Gary

    New billboard, ~1000BC.
    Headline, “All 1st born sons killed in Egypt”. Cause, God made Pharaoh’s heart hard.

    Headline, “Midianite massacre. Moses goes mad. Kills every male among the little ones, kills every woman, except saves the young virgins for his men’s sex trade business of forced marriage. Moses to plead insanity. Progessives want war crimes and/or sex crimes charged against Moses. Cause, Intermarriage, and not allowing Israelites to cross Midianite land (people in Arizona understand this commandment).”

    Headline, “Crazy grandson of Aaron murders man and woman with spear during church service. Phinehas accused of hate crime against daughters of Moab for their support of inter-racial marriage. Phinehas to plead guilty by reason of insanity, believing that his act of murder will prevent a plague. Nevertheless, 24,000 died in plague. Moses sits quietly observing the crime, not calling 911. Later he admitted to having a Medianite wife.”

    Headline “Plague killing 24,000 believed to have been an act of biological warfare, and hate crime, committed by a jealous God.

    Headline, “God to be tried for war crimes. Police find the smoking-gun evidence in writings about the crimes in an old book. God pleads innocent, blames crimes on unknown writers of the book. God’s lawyer sites JEDP, but God’s most self-righteous followers blame Darwin and evolution.” Trial expected to last 3000 years.

    Too many other headlines to list.

  • Dr. David Tee

    Evolution comes without a superior and independent standard of morality. Teaching people that we come from animals and that survival of the fittest is the only way to ‘make it’ tends to remove from people’s minds the seriousness of having and following morals.
    In an indirect way teaching evolution does contribute to the destructive nature many humans display towards others.
    The unchurched world wouldn’t accept such thinking simply because they consider themselves more moral than God. They aren’t.

    • rmwilliamsjr

      re:
      that survival of the fittest is the only way to ‘make it’ tends

      i believe this is one of the problems both with strict evolutionists and their religious critics. in this “nothing butism”, both seem to claim that evolution is nothing but- fill in with your personal favorite- “that survival of the fittest is the only way to ‘make it’ tends”, meaning that ethics takes a description of the world and magically makes it into a moral prescription.

      there seems to be this extraordinary human need to take the pieces of our world, create a morality and then demand that everyone conform to it. the survival of the fittest began as a philosophic idea imposed on science. the scientific idea is more like “the general reproductive success of both the more fit and lucky”, survival is only important if it leads to a greater reproductive success, and it is not the fittest as some higher category but that the generally more fit will be better represented in the next generation the lesser fit. but like “red in tooth and claw” “survival of the fittest” has a better slogan success in the meme competition.

      but in any case the neglect of the fact that ethics and morality emerge out of human consciousness and human society, not from observing what animals do and prescribing that behavior as “good”(except for a few cynics), but from observing human behavior and it’s historical outcome, means that teaching evolutionary theory is not the same thing as prescribing someone’s ethical models they claim derive from that science.

  • Dr. David Tee

    P.S. having read Ken ham’s words I am convinced that the author of this website distorted what Ham said for his own personal gain.

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

      That you don’t understand evolution is disappointing but not surprising. But that you prefer to throw Biblical morality to the wind in order to defend Ken Ham, the renowned charlatan, is truly astonishing. Do you really have so little regard for the teachings found in the Bible, that you would spread more lies in order to defend a liar?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X