The blog God of Evolution posted the above response to Ken Ham. Much more succinct than my own!
One of the most telling pieces of the Ham critique is the phrase “what Moses wrote in Genesis”. It speaks volumes about assumptions of a written document by an informed author. If one said “Genesis as recorded by Moses” is begins to open the door a bit. If one said, “the collection of oral traditions recorded and ascribed to Moses” it’s impossible to make the Luke argument. Besides, what if the prophets take a different view? And while I’m at it, was creation really the centerpiece of the lesson Dives (not Lazarus) was to hear from Abraham?
Ken Ham: “I can think of many passages of Scripture to respond to this …”
I think he meant: “I can lend legitimacy to my cause by associating McGrath with the bad guy in many scripture passages.”
Ken Ham is weaving “sacred” scripture into ad hominem attacks, as naturally as he weaves scripture into his YEC propaganda. That seems downright despicable.
On the other hand, reposting an emotionally charged ad hominem response doesn’t seem worth the risk of stooping to Ken Ham’s level …
Hey Hydroxonium, I think you make some good points. I wrote the “response” posted here, and you’re probably right that it wasn’t worth the time it took to put together. On the other hand, I don’t think it’s ad hominem to point out a few errors in someone else’s writing, and I tried to do it in a humorous way. I believe that sometimes humor can defuse, even transcend, these kinds of little spats. I don’t really expect this post to do that, but I do think it’s at least made a few people smile
Hey Tyler Francke , thanks for your reply. I just felt it was “ad hominem” in the sense that it was “directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining” (dictionary definition). As an empathetic observer, I understand the feelings that motivate such a response. Personally, I do enjoy a healthy dose of satire.
I’m confused as to whether Ken Ham is simply a woefully deluded soul deserving of pity, or if he is a malevolent charlatan deserving of contempt. In the latter case, I feel there are better ways to go about it 😛
I guess Ham is also apparently a 2PC: a “2 Passages Creationist”, denying that there are “3 passages” despite the clear evidence that there are more than 2 passages.
Ironically, the “Were you there?” gambit won’t work for him on this one.
Ken Ham saying that he will provide two biblical passages and then actually giving more than two isn’t a contradiction or a mistake. Since he gives three there are actually also two passages there. It would only be a mistake or a contradiction if he had said something like: “only 2 and not 3 passages” 😉
Well, to be fair, would Ken Ham expect the Spanish Inquisition?