A Creationist Just Criticized the Intelligent Design Movement for Not Being Christian Enough

Infighting is fun.

Especially when it involves Ken Ham, who’s disappointed that a WorldNetDaily article quoted Intelligent Design believer Casey Luskin.

Ham writes:

I did find it sad, however, that the intelligent design (ID) spokesperson who was quoted dismissed the importance of the question of the age of the earth. But it’s really not surprising, as the ID movement is not a Christian movement. And while many ID proponents are Christians, they are not interested in biblical authority — they are just against naturalism.

AiG, though, stands on biblical authority and proclaims the gospel. We are unashamedly evangelistic. The old earth is such a key issue today in fighting for the full accuracy and authority of the Bible. AiG does not only present the arguments against evolution. You see, it is just as important to offer arguments against an old age for the earth and universe. When it comes to biblical authority, the question of the age of the earth is just as vital as the question of whether evolution is true or not. The chronologies in the Bible and the length of the days of the Creation Week (they were 24 hours each) show that the earth is young. Why try to reinterpret the very clear teaching of Scripture to accommodate the fallible ideas of man that say the earth is old? Such reinterpretations undermine the authority of the Word of God.

And both have nothing to do with science.

They’re debating the color of a unicorn’s horn, these people…

(Image via Shutterstock)

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the chair of Foundation Beyond Belief and a high school math teacher in the suburbs of Chicago. He began writing the Friendly Atheist blog in 2006. His latest book is called The Young Atheist's Survival Guide.

  • Elizabeth

    That is rather silly. A unicorn’s horn is obviously the same color as the rest of it.

    • RowanVT

      Blasphemer. Unicorns are white, but their horns are either silver or gold!

      • Ralph

        you are both wrong. Its not a horn, it’s corn. Uni-corn.

        • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ TBJ

          Ah, the maize of deception people weave.

          • Castilliano

            Maize of deception?
            That’s corny.

            • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ TBJ

              there is a kernel of truth there though.

              • Christopher Borum

                You just have to open your ears.

        • allein

          So…that grilled ‘corn on the cob’ I had at the fair last night…was…???!
          *horror*

      • http://youruploadsite.com/ Nicholas
        • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

          Ah, but you have to read Harry Potter in the original J. K. Rowling. What you have here is the celluloid version. Rookie mistake, not going back to the original documents.

        • Bdole

          But the ancient sources…

          • Len

            I want to read about the first unicorn.

          • Minion Carlberg

            thank you! I saw that movie decades ago and only remembered the flaming bull. been trying to figure out how to word the question, but seeing as you have the answer, no need. thanks!

    • Ben

      Invisible pink?

      • randomfactor

        Infrapink. Like the lizard. (Obscure reference.)

        • Mogg

          But if a hooloovoo is being reflected off it, the shadow will appear purple.

    • Greg G.

      Octarine, The Colour of Magic.

    • Keulan
  • Cattleya1

    I can’t quite tell… are the emperors new breeches pink or green? Can submarines swim? Do helicopters eat their young? Does Ken Ham have a reality-testing disorder?

    • EvolutionKills

      1. Pink with green trim.
      2. Only during the night.
      3. Yes, unless they’re already full.
      4. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, most definitely yes.

  • Len

    Sounds like he’s trying to lay the foundation for a case that ID is not creationism because it’s not christian.

    • EvolutionKills

      That’s great, let those idiots cannibalize themselves…

  • arensb

    I’m making popcorn. Who’s bringing the drinks?

  • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

    I had a Christian recently try to convince my evolution was wrong by using material from both Ham and Strobel, who was quoting Behe and Craig.

    I pointed out how the latter two contradict the former and asked which they thought was correct. Promised they’d get back to me and then nothing.

    • Carpinions

      Had that happen on Facebook earlier this year. Someone in my family expressed skepticism over something like ID or the historicity of the Bible, and a friend of his I don’t know jumped in to sway him away to the theist side of the argument. I challenged him with links showing the contrary, got a reply saying he’d respond in a day or so, and it’s probably been 6 months since without a peep.

      • http://confessionsfromthepeanutgallery.blogspot.com/ YankeeCynic

        I tend to be a little sympathetic on that kind of situation. I find myself having to step back from a discussion with the full intent of responding, but then finding myself overtaken by events. By the time you remember the conversation is long stale.

        Of course, plenty of other people take advantage of that problem to use as a ninja smoke bomb to escape discussions. Which is why I despise that technique; it lumps folks legitimately called away with the dickheads.

  • jferris

    “When it comes to biblical authority, the question of the age of the earth is just as vital as the question of whether evolution is true or not.” Really? Did he just present a dilemma where if A is false, B is false, and vice versa? So, he has to come up with TWO lies to justify his facts? He’s not really very bright, is he?

  • Mackinz

    To be honest, this kind of infighting over one’s imagination is something I’d expect from Joe Klein.

  • David Dotson

    How many angels can fit on the head of a pin?

    Answer: Who cares?

    • FaithIsGlorifiedDelusion

      The answer is 42.

      • Shadist

        The answer is always 42

        • guest

          I thought PJP II decreed that it was in fact 43 angels because that is a Prime number. No?

          • Shadist

            Only on an extra large pins.

            Standard pins are unchanged cannonaclly.

    • gander

      The proper question is, “How many pinheads can dance on dreams of angels?”

      • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ TBJ

        Skippy (the pinhead) might think this is abilist language

      • epeeist

        The proper question is, “How many pinheads can dance on dreams of angels?”

        No, the proper question is “Can chimeras bombinating in a vacuum devour second intentions?”

    • Yoav

      One.

      Over the years a huge number of theological manhours have been spent debating the famous question:
      How Many Angels Can Dance on the Head of a Pin?
      In order to arrive at an answer, the following facts must be taken into consideration:

      Firstly, angels simply don’t dance. It’s one of the distinguishing
      characteristics that mark an angel. They may listen appreciatively to
      the Music of the Spheres, but they don’t feel the urge to get down and
      boogie to it. So, none.
      At least, nearly none. Aziraphale
      had learned to gavotte in a discreet gentlemen’s club in Portland Place,
      in the late 1880s, and while he had initially taken to it like a duck
      to merchant banking, after a while he had become quite good at it, and
      was quite put out when, some decades later, the gavotte went out of
      style for good.
      So providing the dance was a gavotte, and providing
      that he had a suitable partner (also able, for the sake of argument,
      both to gavotte, and to dance it on the head of a pin), the answer is a
      straightforward one.

      (Good Omens)

      • TCC

        Such a good book.

  • Carpinions

    I get the feeling this disagreement is a ruse so that anti-evolutionists at some point in the next couple years can start claiming “See? A professed Christian doesn’t think ID is religious!”

  • ajginn

    Say what you want but at least Ken Ham is consistent. ID is only half-assed creationism.

    • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

      Agreed. At least the AiG crowd make a positive claim about how things happened. A laughably false one, but at least something. ID just whines about “not evolution”.

    • GCBill

      I’d argue that creationism is actually a subspecies of ID. One that actually fills the _____ with a turd instead of being both false & incomplete.

    • Yoav

      ID creationism was (not very intelligently) designed as stealth creationism and as such is just as consistent as Kenny the pork in preforming it’s role as infiltration technique. Once the wooden crocoduck of ID is inside the city walls of the science classroom the forces of biblical literalism would come out and set fire to any scientific advances made in the last 1000 years.

    • guest

      Half-assed creationism…lol. Thank you for that laugh.

  • Ben

    Well, the age of the Earth has a lot to do with science. All the proof that it’s old comes from science. Meanwhile, the proof that it’s young comes from Ken Ham’s arse. The age of the Earth is not even in the bible. What is in the Bible is lots of extortions to feed the poor, which Ken Ham is ignoring in favour of his own bloody stupid crusade to convice people we used to ride on dinosaurs.

    • Physeter

      Why have you been studying Ken Ham’s arse? I didn’t know that real estate was open for exploration.

      • LesterBallard

        Well, Ted Haggard’s was, so you never know.

      • Spuddie

        Ken Ham’s arse has been flashed in public more often than a baboon’s. You don’t have to study it too much. Its being shoved in our faces on a regular basis.

    • Christopher Borum

      “…lots of extortions to feed the poor…”

      I’m sure you meant “exhortations” but this is funny because that’s essentially all religion is, one big long-con extortion.

  • ORAXX

    I.D. is insidious nonsense, dreamed up by the creationist crowd to make themselves feel better about an argument they lost a long time ago.

    • Len

      Insidious Drivel.

  • Daniel Moran

    Claim 1: The “ID movement is not a Christian movement.”

    Claim 2: “AiG, though, stands on biblical authority and proclaims the gospel.”

    I’m confused.

    • Artor

      Not nearly as confused as Ken Ham.

    • Renshia

      Everyone’s confused.

  • Lex Lata

    Carpinions and Lens may be on to something. Ham takes care to state that the ID movement isn’t Christian, a gratuitous point that is largely irrelevant to his post. It is also a dubious proposition that just happens to be consistent with ID proponents’ own disingenuous claims (perhaps most famously rejected by the court in the Kitzmiller litigation). Conspicuously absent from Ham’s text, by comparison, is any mention of the other Old Earth Creationist interviewed by WND, Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe. How convenient that Ham appears to single the ID folks out with criticism that they, in turn, would love to see become the conventional wisdom.

  • Smiles

    I actually support him here…(weird)

    If he hopes to eliminate the grey area…I don’t think it will go quite how he thinks. When xtians are forced to follow a literal interpretation, they often turn it down…you know, because it doesn’t make sense. If you can’t ignore the crazy parts, then how can you take it seriously?!

    • Spuddie

      Literalism and serious thought never go hand in hand.

      “That square peg of ridiculousness will fit in that round hole of sense goddammit and I will find a way to force it in”

  • Cat’s Staff

    They’re debating the color of a unicorn’s horn

    I like to think of it as debating whether leprechauns wear boxers of briefs…before establishing the existence of leprechauns.

    • Greg G.

      Leprechauns go commando. No, wait. I was thinking of Smurfs.

    • guest

      Leprechauns actually have magical underwear, like the Mormons. But unlike the Mormons’ version, the Leprechauns’ magical underwear are actually magical. Silly Mormons.

    • Spuddie

      I would be kind of afraid as to how that kind of research is done.

      Either it involves accosting leprechauns (and running the risk of curses and bad jokes by someone looking like Warwick Davis) or running the risk of accidentally coming on to them.

  • EvolutionKills

    Next up, a debate on how many feathers are on an angel’s wing…

    • Whirlwitch

      42.

      • EvolutionKills

        FUCK! I just lost the game…

  • WingedBeast

    Here’s where I ask the either/or question.
    Either Ken Ham gets that Intelligent Design is a generalized veil to put over Creationism in order to get it into public schools and is trying to play in. “You’re not religious enough.” followed by a wink and a nod.
    Or, Ken Ham honestly doesn’t get the joke his own allies are trying to pull.
    So, I’m left with Evil or Stupid. Which one applies here?

    • EvolutionKills

      False dichotomy, Ham is clearly both a delusional idiot and a liar for Jesus.

      • WingedBeast

        Oh, I get that. The question is which one is at play in this particular instance, the evil or the stupid.

        • EvolutionKills

          Trebeck, I’ll take ‘Evil’ for $500 please.

    • Spuddie

      Why just one? Evil and stupid works here.

  • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ TBJ

    Christian infighting is like using the same teabag over and over, it just makes them weaker.

  • Rain

    AiG, though, stands on biblical authority and proclaims the gospel.

    Yeah so what? You want a cupcake or something? Who cares.

  • guest

    “They’re debating the color of a unicorn’s horn, these people”
    Bwaaaahahahaha!
    BTW, everyone knows a unicorn’s horn is ivory. Why do you think they’re extinct?

  • StacyM

    Re: The picture: And when our Holy Father of the frizzy goatee and White-boy afro set to work on the north of Afric’ he said unto the world “I’m tired of happy little trees, lets try some happy little sand dunes and merry rock fields for a change. First we’ll need a little burnt umber…” Ch1 V54 Revelations of Ross.

  • GubbaBumpkin

    Fun stuff. I am currently reading The Creationists by Ronald L. Numbers, and this is very similar to the division between the Deluge Geological Society and the American Scientific Affiliate in the mid-20th century.

  • Spuddie

    I can see the ID proponents telling the Creationists, “Dammit, you are going to ruin it for all of us. We almost had people convinced that creationism was a serious thing”

    • Hrafn

      ID is Creationism (hence “cdesign proponentsists”). It’s just that only some Young Earth Creationists are willing to compromise sufficiently to include themselves in the same ID ‘big tent’ as the Old Earth infidels. Ken Ham is probably the most prominent member of the don’t-wanna-have-anything-to-do-with-the-goddarn-tent faction of the YECs.

  • Alexis

    If Ken Ham truly believed in Genesis as a scientific authority, he would be warning NASA about that firmament that separates the heavens from the earth, and that is close enough that the Babylonians could have reached it using only brick or stone construction techniques.

    • http://aebrain.blogspot.com Zoe_Brain

      ” And the Lord appeared to
      them and confused their speech, when they had built the tower to the
      height of four hundred and sixty-three cubits.” – Baruch 3:7. 463 cubits is about half the height of the Empire State Building.

  • http://www.processdiary.com Paul Caggegi

    Best. Comment-thread. EVAH!

  • Matthew Baker

    So much for a unified front! But I guess when you realize your magic and their magic are different flavors its hard to come to the common ground that you are not sharing the same reality as the rest of us.

  • Tobias2772

    Ken Ham knows one book and he knows it well (delusionally) and by god he is not going to have any of this bullshit from any other book. One book per lifetime is enough for anyone.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X