Ken Ham’s biblical exegesis is just as sound as his science

Let me step back and explain where I’m coming from with today’s odd burst of posts. I’ve been butting heads with young-earth creationists for most of my life.

This goes back more than 30 years, to the middle-school “science” classes wherein I was first, unsuccessfully, indoctrinated in “scientific creationism.” We studied “the controversy” — but in our case that meant learning about the “gap theory” and the “day-age theory.” These were treated as the primary alternative views, as though everyone believed one of these three options — with those other two theories being a refuge for the semi-apostate scoundrels who lacked the true faith that demanded belief in a universe created in six 24-hour days some 6,000-10,000 years ago in precisely the order outlined in Genesis 1 and not the order in Genesis 2.

Our teacher’s clumsy, dismissive attempts to reconcile those two disparate back-to-back accounts was one of the first things I remember giving me pause. And it seemed the more questions I asked, the less satisfied I was with the answers. (The only teacher who took those questions seriously was my social studies teacher, Mrs. M., who was the Best Teacher I Ever Had. She didn’t know a great deal about social studies, but she knew everything about kids. “Just remember,” she told me subversively, and probably at some risk, “the Bible says God created the world. But if someone tells you they know how he did that, they didn’t get that from the Bible.”) I got A’s in that science class, providing the expected answers on the exam, but I didn’t believe them.

Since then I’ve learned a great deal more about science, theology and biblical exegesis, and everything I’ve learned in each of those areas has strengthened and deepened my opposition to the pernicious nonsense of young-earth creationism.

Over the many years I’ve been engaged in this argument, I have found many solid allies, invaluable mentors, and delightful friends among the ranks of the freethinkers and atheists who have been fighting the same foe. Most of those folks were scientists — people I came to rely on because I myself am not a scientist.

These scientist allies, friends and mentors had also spent many years butting heads with “scientific creationists” like Ken Ham. And they had learned from that experience. They had learned that Ken Ham is not trustworthy.

As scientists with scientific expertise, they were able to evaluate Ham’s scientific claims. That evaluation showed him to be someone who was woefully ignorant, brazenly dishonest, willing to deliberately distort facts and words, and full of grandiose claims about his own importance.

These scientists would sometimes ask me about Ham’s assertions involving biblical exegesis, Christian belief or church history.* I could tell they were doing so out of a kind of scientific curiosity. They were testing their working hypothesis regarding Ham.

That hypothesis involves a rather compelling logic: Ken Ham claims to be an expert on biology, but his statements about biology are ignorant, dishonest and ridiculous. Ken Ham claims to be an expert on geology, but his statements about geology are ignorant, dishonest and ridiculous. Ken Ham claims to be an expert on astronomy, but his statements about astronomy are ignorant, dishonest and ridiculous.

Ken Ham claims to be an expert on biblical exegesis. Given the above, what does our hypothesis predict will be the case for Ham’s statements about the Bible?

They tended to be delighted that I was able to confirm that their hypothesis held true in this case as well. But then they didn’t really need my input to know that. Those scientists may not have been experts in biblical interpretation, Christian teaching or church history, but they were experts on Ken Ham. They knew enough of his flim-flammery and distortions to suspect that his claims about the Bible could not possibly be any more trustworthy than his claims about the fossil record or about radiocarbon dating.

And yet, increasingly, I’ve begun to see a new and disturbing alliance between young-earth creationists like Ham and those who subscribe to a certain aggressive strain of Internet atheism. These two factions can often be found speaking with a single, united voice — banding together to staunchly defend an identical biblical hermeneutic.

And since that hermeneutic is the same illiterate, Ham-fisted literalism I’ve been railing against since the Reagan administration, I am disappointed by this development.

For decades I’ve been having this argument:

YOUNG-EARTH CREATIONIST: The Bible clearly says that God created the universe in six days, 6,000 years ago.

ME: No, actually, it doesn’t. [Insert everything I've ever written or said about the Bible for the past 25 years.]

YEC: Does too.

That argument was exhausting and depressing. But the new variation of it is even more so:

YEC: The Bible clearly says that God created the universe in six days, 6,000 years ago.

ME: No, actually, it doesn’t. [Insert everything I've ever written or said about the Bible for the past 25 years.]

INTERNET ATHEIST: Does too.

ME: Wait … what are you doing here? And why on earth are you siding with him?

IA: I’ve apparently decided he’s the most knowledgeable, reliable and trustworthy interpreter of Christian orthodoxy and biblical scholarship.

ME: Him? He’s really not.

IA: I’ve read Answers in Genesis. I know all I need to know about what you Christians believe. And Ken Ham warned me against your seminary trickery …

That’s dismaying on several levels. And I fear it can only get worse. Once you decide that Ken Ham is trustworthy and respectable when it comes to biblical exegesis, you’re one step closer to deciding that maybe he’s also trustworthy and respectable when it comes to “debunking Darwinist propaganda.”

Once you decide that Answers in Genesis can be relied on for accurate, honest and reliable information about biblical interpretation then you’re well on your way toward suspecting the same might be true of its information about evolution. Once you let them convince you that you know more than biblical scholars do about what’s in the Bible, then they’ve already gotten you to swallow the premise of all their crackpottery. You’re all set to believe that you also know more than scientists do about science.

After so many years arguing with fundamentalist Christians who refuse to believe in radiocarbon dating, I don’t relish the prospect of a future in which I may get to argue with atheists who refuse to believe in radiocarbon dating.

- – - – - – - – - – - -

* They were atheists after all, and thus hadn’t needed to study any of that for themselves. Some Christians have an odd notion that no one can become an atheist — or a Hindu, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist or anything else — unless they first become an expert in Christianity. The idea, I suppose, is that atheists are rejecting Christianity, and thus are obligated to learn everything there is to know about that which they are rejecting.

By that logic, of course, then every Christian is obligated to spend years studying the intricacies of Hinduism. And of Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Jainism and every other possible belief system they are “rejecting” by becoming Christians.

That’s silly. For most of us, we believe whatever it is we believe because we choose that, not because we’ve systematically evaluated and rejected every other possible option. An atheist is someone who chooses to be an atheist, not someone who chooses to reject Christianity and thus somehow winds up an atheist by default. And a Christian is someone who chooses to be a Christian, not someone who chooses to reject atheism and thus somehow winds up a Christian by default.

If it didn’t work this way, then none of us could ever get married until we had dated every single person on the planet. Plus our marriage vows would be infinitely longer, because instead of just saying, “forsaking all others,” we’d have to list them all, by name, and explain in detail why we were choosing to forsake each one.

I am a Christian. I think it is good for me to learn as much as I can about other beliefs. Knowledge is better than ignorance, and such learning is also a way of respecting, and of loving, my neighbors. But I am not compelled to study all other religions in order to legitimize my choice to be a Christian.

However — and this is important — if I went around claiming that I had chosen to become a Christian because I had looked into all those other religions and found them all to be foolish, then I had better be able to back that up with an exhaustive and accurate knowledge of the intricacies of those other faiths. I’m a Christian, and thus I do not need to be an expert in Hinduism. But if I, as a Christian, tell you that I am a Christian because of the alleged inadequacies of Hinduism, then I had damned well better be intimately familiar with that faith on its own terms. Otherwise I’m not a critic, just a crackpot.

  • Madhabmatics

    If one was going to try to come up with a Nice Guy equivalent, one would have to consider the two major factors that makes Nice Guy work:

    1) It’s sarcastic. Nice Guys are called that because they aren’t really nice.
    2) It’s a term they use to describe themselves. “Man, we can’t get laid because we are just nice guys and women want bastards!”

    “Smart Guy” would be a good stepping stone to figuring out a Nice Guy equivalent part – I say a stepping stone because “guy” is not something they would use to describe themselves because it is frivolous, unlike the Very Serious Men who Know Things.

    edit: Actually if there were some way to come up with a term that was related to famous rape-victim-hounder and banana-ruiner Amazing Atheist, that would also be p. funny.

  • Hypocee

    Tonio
    So if the polls are to be believed, large numbers of Episcopalians
    and Methodists and Catholics and Lutherans are creationists, and that
    might surprise the adherents of those denominations who post here. 

    Anecdotally my fundie-Catholic homeschooling aunt and uncle claim to be creationist.

    My theory is that the religious right has succeeded in deceiving many
    of those non-fundamentalist Christians as to what creationism and
    evolution actually are. They probably believe in theistic evolution but
    call it creationism, and they probably believe that “evolution” is
    really an atheistic origin for both the universe and life, despite
    natural selection being silent on life’s origins.

    Shrug. That’s why both polls offer an explicit theistic evolution option.  The  Gallup poll twists itself into knots to avoid the E-word, and
    given sane assumptions the Gallup and Pew polls agree closely. To be clear, are you claiming that large numbers of non-fundies are choosing to pass over the option that describes their beliefs – and offers them a nice fuzzy conciliatory out – to stand up and be politically counted alongside their more spittle-flecked brethren?

    I, too, am sorry for excluding non-USians from the stats and discussion. It’s not through lack of consideration for you as it would be on most any other topic, it’s because to the best of my knowledge powerful Hamites are a problem unique to the US.

  • EllieMurasaki

    If the rules are that I have to find something where you cannot
    *pretend* faith was not the cause then I will concede defeat. But the
    facts remain. Faith was the cause.

    No, the rules are that you have to find something where faith is clearly the cause as evidenced by the fact that believers do it and atheists don’t. If believers and atheists both do it, then faith might be a contributing factor but cannot be the cause.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Patrick-McGraw/100001988854074 Patrick McGraw

     

    Why not do the same thing, and add (TM) to it?

    I really don’t know if Internet Atheist (TM) would work. It still doesn’t feel right to me, though I can’t articulate it better than that.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Patrick-McGraw/100001988854074 Patrick McGraw

     

    A No True Scotsman would be “Atheists don’t kill people.”

    I’ve several times encountered the “the Scotsman was really an Englishman” argument that the ideologies of the Soviet Union and the People Republic of China are really religions, so it just proves their point further.

    The people making that argument seem to me to be following the same mentality that calls any government program they don’t like “Socialism!”

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Patrick-McGraw/100001988854074 Patrick McGraw

     

    They probably believe in theistic evolution but call it creationism, and
    they probably believe that “evolution” is really an atheistic origin
    for both the universe and life, despite natural selection being silent
    on life’s origins. I’ve encountered the latter belief numerous times.

    Same here. I’ve seen a LOT of YECs pushing the claim that “evolution” refers to an entirely atheistic framework for understanding the origins of the universe, stars, planets, and life itself.

    Google “peanut butter disproves evolution” for an example of someone deliberately trying to conflate evolution with abiogenesis.

    Trying to discredit something by spreading lies about what it onvolves is an age-old tactic, but no one ever accused YECs of being original thinkers.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Patrick-McGraw/100001988854074 Patrick McGraw

     

    This actually helps me put a finger on exactly why I don’t like the
    term “Internet Atheist.”  Like the word “feminist,” “atheist” has a
    negative connotation, is in fact a slur to many people.  And I
    think until it is not a slur, there just has to be a different term for
    “jerk who happens to be atheist.”

    The example people keep using is “Nice Guy,” but that’s just not the
    same, in the sense that both the words “nice” and “guy” have positive connotations.

    Yes! Thank you. That is exactly why I feel that adding a (TM) to Internet Atheist doesn’t help any. I just couldn’t put my finger on it.

  • Tonio

    are you claiming that large numbers of non-fundies are choosing
    to pass over the option that describes their beliefs – and offers them a
    nice fuzzy conciliatory out – to stand up and be politically counted
    alongside their more spittle-flecked brethren?

    No. If anything, they could be simply ignoring the wording or be confused by it, because it doesn’t conform to the false dichotomy being pushed by the fundamentalists. Reminds me of some polls on health care reform that show support for individual pieces but lack of support for the whole, because the opposition has been pushing falsehoods like death panels. Maybe focus groups or interviews might be more useful tools for gauging the level of belief in creationism.

  • Tonio

     To clarify, I see the poll results as suspicious, not necessarily incorrect. They don’t jibe with the statistics on religious affiliations in the US, since most Christian denominations have no teachings against evolution. As other posters have said here, YEC instruction in public schools would very likely be law if they were as influential as the poll results suggest.

  • Hypocee

     YEC instruction in public schools is currently law in Missouri.

  • Tonio

    Huh? I read that attempts failed in the legislature this year, although there’s a valid concern that the right to pray law could undermine teaching of evolution. And no question that YECs have been pushing for laws in many other states. My point is still valid – if creationists were really as numerous as the polls suggest, evolution lessons would be banned outright nationwide.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=553145445 Gordon Duffy

     It is pretty good, especially since I lost my faith

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=553145445 Gordon Duffy
  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=553145445 Gordon Duffy

     All anti- theist means is that the person has noticed that theism is not just incorrect but it is harmful.

    It is a view as twisted and negative as anti-racist or anti-slavery.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=553145445 Gordon Duffy

     You think atheists fly planes into towers? Or kill children as witches? Please!

  • EllieMurasaki

    So the USSR didn’t execute more than twelve hundred Russian Orthodox priests in the first five years of the USSR’s existence? Because that’s the same thing, Gordon. The exact same thing.

  • Tonio

    I’m using it “anti-theist” to mean that the person opposes all theism, and that stance paints with far too broad a brush. What’s harmful is not theism but absolutism and authoritarianism and intolerance, which describes some theism but is not limited to it. Before the Civil War, both advocates and opponents of slavery used their scripture to justify their positions, which alone suggests that the problem with the former was something other than belief in gods. 

  • Hypocee

    Whoops, got my states conflated. Missouri’s doing the right-to-pray posturing, Louisiana is funding fundie factories (and getting – y’know – out of the schools) by going full-voucher and abolishing the concept of a curriculum.

    …if creationists were really as numerous as the polls suggest, evolution lessons would be banned outright nationwide.

    …Really? If YECs were really a large and resentful minority they’d dictate federal law and constitutional amendments? I guess I don’t understand democracy.

    I do not believe that the lack of success in passing – or rather, in keeping – massively unconstitutional laws contradicts the existence of a large minority who fervently want them, and I view the new state-level successes every few years as confirmation of their existence (and local majority). But at that level of disagreement I guess there’s not much further to say.

  • Tonio

    I do not believe that the lack of success in passing – or rather, in keeping - massively unconstitutional laws contradicts the existence of a large minority who fervently want them

    To clarify,  I was suggesting that evolution would be considered an outlier belief that laws restricting it would be commonplace despite the First Amendment, and that the cultural influence of YEC would be far more pervasive. YEC has become much more of an outlier belief in the past century, and you’re exactly right that we must keep struggling so that it remains so. 

    My point is that YEC is virtually synonymous with fundamentalism and the religious right. In my experience, it’s rare to encounter a YEC who doesn’t also support some degree of theocracy, such as mandatory school prayer, and who doesn’t also Akin-like views on gender relations. But such people remain a vocal minority. The deceptive wording of right-to-pray legislation is not only an attempt to get around the First Amendment, but also to prey upon the fears of non-fundamentalists without seeming too extreme. Otherwise, what we’ve seen in Louisiana might be commonplace across the nation. The poll results that have been quoted here would almost require an America where non-fundamentalist Christians have been so culturally marginalized as to be invisible – an America where Akin’s comments would be cheered instead of jeered.

  • Hypocee

    I’m sorry to keep on this – I know we’re the only two left here and I look like I’m aggressive towards you – but I’m still literally unable to understand the objection you’re raising to the poll numbers. Is this an accurate expansion?

    I was suggesting that [if YECs comprised 44-48% of the US' population, 60% of American Christians and majorities in some states,] evolution would be considered [such] an outlier belief
    that laws restricting it would be commonplace despite the First
    Amendment, and that the cultural influence of YEC would be far more
    pervasive.

    I agree with

    My point is thatYEC is virtually synonymous with fundamentalism and the
    religious right. In my experience, it’s rare to encounter a YEC who
    doesn’t also support some degree of theocracy, such as mandatory school
    prayer, and who doesn’t also Akin-like views on gender relations.

    word for word, but I rather thought it was my point :P I wince at the next bit, “But such people remain a vocal minority.” The phrase “vocal minority” usually carries an unspoken “small but” with it; is that your intent? YEC is indeed the most useful proxy I’ve seen for the fundamentalist complex. I’m saying that the religious right is actually about that big, a large and vocal minority, forty-some percent of the electorate and a solid majority of American Christians. To loop baaaack around to my reason for bringing the data up against Fred’s rhetorical choices, that means that Ham is as a matter of fact representative of a solid majority of American Christians, and that fact should be acknowledged both to form a factual basis for tactical choices and to avoid slandering those who engage YECs.

    The poll results that have been quoted here would almost require an
    America where non-fundamentalist Christians have been so culturally
    marginalized as to be invisible

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/08/02/progressive-religious-voices-not-irrelevant-just-ignored/

    – an America where Akin’s comments would
    be cheered instead of jeered.

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/08/21/rep-todd-akins-views-typical-in-anti-abortion-religious-right/
    ;(

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=553145445 Gordon Duffy

     Ok, but I do oppose all theism and I am not ashamed of that. I accept that there is a sliding scale, but my opinion is that the scale of theistic belief starts at “Oh dear, what a pity” and goes downhill from there.

    There’s a scale to racism too, but it is still ok to say you are against racism. The “less bad” racists might complain about being lumped in with the worse ones.

    That’s how this thread seems to me – people are saying “Why are you/how dare you lump me in with Ken Ham/Westboro Baptists/Faith Healers?” and my answer is “You think faith is a good thing, they think faith is a good thing, I think it is a poison”

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=553145445 Gordon Duffy

    Did I say faith was the only bad thing in the world? I don’t remember saying that. But faith is a bad thing.

  • Tonio

     

    I’m saying that the religious right is actually about that big, a large and vocal minority, forty-some percent of the electorate and a solid majority of American Christians.

    And that’s what I’m questioning. That sounds almost exactly like the Islam-bashers who insist that the religion is dominated by murderous fanatics, or who wrongly claim that the moderates are being silent about terrorism. No question that the religious right represents a danger to freedom of religion and to democracy in general. I’m suggesting that their numbers are smaller than you claim and that the group simply looks larger because of the noise that it generates. Over and over Fred has been told that he’s somehow not really Christian or that he’s an outlier because of his progressive views, and he’s frequently lambasted by anti-theists who wrongly treat him as an enabler for the Fred Phelpses. Although I don’t belong to any religion and hold no position on whether gods exist, even I know that the religious right doesn’t dominate Christianity in the US. At least, not so far.

  • Tonio

    Also “non-fundamentalist” includes progressive Christians but includes many more moderate and somewhat conservative ones. And there are even more conservative Christians who oppose the religious right even while sharing some its theology. Dan Cathy and Bill Marriott both oppose same-sex marriage but the latter doesn’t use his millions to push his beliefs on others, even offering domestic partner benefits to his employees.

    Of course Fred is right that Akin’s views are typical of the religious right. My point is that if fundamentalists were really that dominant, we would hear almost no public figures criticizing him, and late-night hosts wouldn’t joke about him and (0ther) creationists for fear of losing their advertisers. No matter how dangerous the religious right can be, it’s wrong to treat non-fundamentalists as though they’re fellow travelers.

  • EllieMurasaki

    You keep telling me that faith is a bad thing, and then providing examples of faith being a bad thing in which the incidents you name were all caused by faith-and-something, and every single one has a parallel incident where atheists did the same damn thing, motivated by the and-something. Is it really so hard to understand that the cause of all</em the incidents is the and-something, that faith is only the excuse or the veneer?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=553145445 Gordon Duffy

     No I just disagree with your assessment(s) – I disagree that you’ve shown the cause is always faith+something and I definitely disagree that you’ve even started to show that *every* one has a parallel incident where atheists did the same thing.

    Atheist faith healers? Atheists flying planes into skyscrapers? Atheists killing child witches? Are you insane?

    I get that you want to excuse faith and paint it as a good thing by pretending everything bad about it is actually caused by something else. I just don’t buy it.

  • AnonymousSam

    Actually, it’s more like “a thing” than a good thing. We’ve had plenty of athest biggots, homophobes, racists, murderers, serial killers, arsonists and rapists in this country alone, indicating to me that one doesn’t need an invisible man whispering in their ear to hear voices telling them to kill people. Sometimes the only voice they need is their own.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Are you saying faith healing isn’t a form of alternative medicine, or are you saying there have never been any atheists ever who bought into alternative medicine? Are you saying 9/11 wasn’t meant to scare the American population by killing our economic leaders, or are you saying the USSR either didn’t kill Russian religious leaders or didn’t mean those deaths to scare the Russian population?

    I’m not trying to say faith is a good thing. I’m trying to say faith is not a bad thing. I’m trying to say faith is neutral, and while faith can and does make somebody’s other motivations, whether benevolent or malevolent, stronger, faith does not in itself motivate anyone to anything.

    And you still haven’t answered why you think the world would be better off without faith when there are actual people who actually know (cannot prove, but actually know) that they have encountered the divine. Or since they actually know it, even though they cannot prove it, do they not count as having faith? Though as long as such people exist and are willing to talk about their experiences, other people will believe them when they say god(s) exist(s) and take this form and ask that of those who believe in them…

  • Tonio

    That touches upon the reason that I hold no position on the existence of things like gods. 

    Those people may know that they’ve encountered the divine, but I don’t know that they know. All I know is that they say that they’ve encountered the divine.  While I doubt that they are lying, personal testimony alone is insufficient for me to say that the divine exists in the objective sense. By “objective” I mean something like “would it exist if no humans existed.” All that is pretty much irrelevant unless the person insists that I accept the existence of the divine as objective knowledge, or tries to force hir belief on me, or uses the belief as a basis for hurting me or hurting others. Absent any of that, it’s not really my place to tell the person that the belief is wrong or misguided even if I felt that way.

  • EllieMurasaki

    All that is pretty much irrelevant unless the person insists that I accept the existence of the divine as objective knowledge, or tries to force hir belief on me, or uses the belief as a basis for hurting me or hurting others. Absent any of that, it’s not really my place to tell the person that the belief is wrong or misguided even if I felt that way.
     
    You’ve said. It’s “who’re you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes” guy I’m yelling at.

    And, y’know, if these people come to the conclusion that he’s right about there being no gods, that their eyes lied about seeing their god(s) and their ears lied about hearing their god(s), what else might they conclude that their eyes and ears have been lying about? And for no small number of these people, the answer is ‘everything’, which is not a recipe for maintaining these people’s sanity.
     
    This is why people should not attempt to convert people who have not expressed an interest in being converted.

  • Mark Chronos

    I find this example of the “internet atheist” who believes in Ken Ham’s version of reality (in whichever context one chooses) to be completely at odds with my experiences with internet atheists.

    I am an atheist and I have been around many atheists, online and offline. I have assisted in running 3 different atheists forums over the years, not to mention atheist blogs, so my exposure to atheists of any type is rather high. I have yet to encounter an atheist, online or offline, who believes anything that Ken Ham says, writes or otherwise excretes. In atheist circles, Ken Ham is routinely derided as the premier village idiot (though he has some competition). He is not taken seriously and even referring to Ken Ham is to do so for entertainment value rather than serious discussion. Making reference to Ken Ham is not to refer to what mainline Christians believe, but rather a more fundamentalist subset of Christians who have all sorts of bizarre thoughts on things, particularly scientific things. Anyone who claims to be an internet atheist and also claims to believe that Ken Ham emits anything factual is a poseur, a troll.

    As atheists, not only do we marvel at discovery and adhere to scientific methodology, we also appreciate logical arguments and factual references. One of the other commenters referred to us negatively, especially when one day we shall “come out”, so to speak, and we will make nuisances of ourselves. All of the atheists I know are polite, decent people who simply have no faith in mysterious, magical and unproven thoughts, concepts or deities. We don’t care if somebody is Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Ralien, Mormon, Hindu, etc. We only care if those same people try to make us to believe as they do, either through force, social pressure or law, the latter of which is of particular interest to us. It just so happens that much of the Christian cultural subset which follows Ken Ham is an easy cross-reference to people who have a strong desire to remove science from the classroom, remove science from casual cultural contexts and who wish to impose their stoic viewpoints as the law of the land.
    As Ken Ham is not representative of all or even most Christians, the internet atheist mentioned in the article is not representative of all of even a few atheists. He (and it is very likely a he) is a troll.

  • PJ Evans

     I think that got decided several pages back. (You’re late to the discussion.)
    Also, we were talking about Internet Atheists ™, not atheists generally, or even atheists on the internet. Not the same thing. (You’re very late to the discussion.)

  • The_L1985

     Beast:  Just got back from vacation.  If you still want to hear about my beliefs, send me a private message.  I think Disqus can do that.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=807845190 Cheryl Hopper

    Where can I find information on what’s wrong with Ken Hamm’s teachings?

    I consider myself a conservative Christian, in that I believe the Bible is the inerrent Word of God, but, more and more, I find myself at odds with the mainstream of conservative Christianity in the United States, and I feel more and more like an outsider.  Finding your blog is a breath of fresh air for me.  Logic!  Reason!  Critical thinking!  Yay!


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X