Responding to Ken Ham’s creationist propaganda

Responding to Ken Ham’s creationist propaganda January 16, 2015
Photo: Answers in Genesis
Photo: Answers in Genesis

Ken Ham is back at it. Yesterday he released a new blog post titled, Responding to Atheist Propaganda, in which he attempts to combat “atheist’s” use of certain words that he does not agree with.

I will go ahead and look at each of these claims one at time.

Ham starts off with:

Christians need to understand that many secularists have put together a very effective propaganda machine as a part of their effort to impose their atheistic religion on the Western culture, intimidate Christians, and influence the government to limit freedom of religion (particularly in regard to Christianity).

Well it did not take long for him to pull the victim card. When has the Christian religion ever been limited in this country? States like Oklahoma vote to ban Sharia law, but have never voted to ban biblical law.

I don’t even think I need to bother going into his ignorant “atheistic religion” claim, as atheism is as much a religion as ‘off’ is a television station.

1. The use of the word science

Ham says,

The word science is defined as “the state of knowing: knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding.” Scientific pursuit needs to be broken into two parts: experimental (observable or operational) science and origins (historical) science. Both creation and evolution involve historical science (beliefs) and observational science (such as the study of genetics).

Notice that Ham says, “Science needs to be broken into two parts,” not that it is broken into two parts.

There is no such thing as historical or observational science there is simply science. Evolution as Ham suggests does not rely on beliefs because it has evidence to back up each and every claim it makes. Creation on the other hand is not science, because it lacks the tenets of the scientific method.

Creationism of course starts off with a conclusion that God did it, and works backwards to piece “evidence” together to prove their conclusion, but they fail to do so. To properly use the scientific method, you cannot work backwards to prove your conclusion.

In almost all of today’s government-run educational systems, the religion of secular humanism—with its foundation of naturalistic evolution based on man’s word/beliefs about the past (molecules-to-man evolution)—is guised in textbooks, lectures, and secular museums as so-called “science.”

He is relentless on misleading his readers here. Now he is claiming secular humanism is a religion, and that evolution is only based on man’s word. All of this while forming his beliefs on a book written 2000 years ago by men who thought the earth was flat and that donkeys could talk.

Because of this misuse of wording by the secularists, Christians need to be using the terms observational science and historical science over and over again!

This will change nothing. Words have meanings; just because a group of lunatics use a word wrong over and over again will not change the meaning of words.

2. The use of the word religion

The word religion has a variety of definitions. But one of the main definitions (as given by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary) is “an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group.”

Actually, that is the third definition given by the dictionary, why did Ham avoid the first two?

: The belief in a god or in a group of gods

: An organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

He continues,

Atheists go ballistic when I say in many articles that they are trying to impose their religion of naturalism on the culture. But the point is, they are!

Except in order for that to be true, you have to ignore the first two and main definitions of the word religion. I think we can now see why he avoided those…

White lies to his readers I suppose…

I am encouraging Christians, as much as they can, to use the word religion to describe secularism.

Again, you don’t get to redefine words.

3. The word intolerance

Ham states again from Merriam-Webster that intolerance is defined as,

Unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights.

And then,

Secularists often accuse Christians who, for example, take a stand on marriage being one man for one woman based on the Bible, as being intolerant. But in fact, Christians are the ones who are tolerant of others. You see, Christians who stand on God’s Word will authoritatively speak against gay marriage, but they should not be intolerant of the people who disagree with them. But I find that those who call Christians “intolerant” are really the ones who are intolerant! So when a fire chief in Atlanta, Georgia, is fired by a city council because his personal beliefs concerning marriage are based on the Bible, Christians need to be vocal about the city council’s being intolerant!

First, taking a stand against marriage equality is intolerant, plain and simple. You are trying to remove or block the rights of another human being to be unequal to yours. You don’t just reject their lifestyle; you seek to control it.

Second, God’s word is meaningless in a secular society.

Third, this is a flat out lie, I wrote about this very story for AlterNet, and the fire chief was not fired for his views against marriage, as I wrote then, Ham is ignoring that,

Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed’s own statement about the firing, saying clearly that Cochran was fired for his “lack of judgment in distributing the book to his employees, and not following instructions regarding his month-long suspension over publishing the book without notice to the city, is what led to his termination.”

Mayor Reed reiterated that, “His religious (beliefs) are not the basis of the problem. His judgment is the basis of the problem.”

I actually pointed this fact out to Ham when he tweeted the false report, and I know from history he reads my Tweets, so he is choosing to ignore the facts and lie more and more.

4. The word proselytize

Okay, so apparently Ham bought a dictionary and was just really eager to use it, I mean miss-use it.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary has this definition of proselytize:

To try to persuade people to join a religion, cause, or group.

In reality, it’s the secularists who are trying to force their religion on others as they intimidate people to accept the basic tenets of their religion, such as evolutionary naturalism.

Is it proselytizing to tell my child 2+2=4? Of course it is not! So teaching a child about evolution is not in any sense proselyting, it is education,

More and more we see intolerant secularists trying to limit the Christian influence by attempting to intimidate Christians not to bring their Christianity into their workplace. They ultimately want Christianity eliminated altogether from the public arena. Meanwhile, secularists are free to exercise their religion wherever they want to.

Well, religion has no place in the public workplace, other than someone having religion. No one is trying to eliminate it, because in reality it does not exist there because the workplace is not a place to proselytize, unless you work in a church, otherwise you are at work to do your job, not preach.

I’m not even going to touch that last sentence, it is simply to stupid to even rebut.

Ham’s conclusion

As secularists are successful in getting the governments to teach evolution as fact to millions of students in Western nations and will not allow biblical creation to be taught in science classes, we should be pointing out their deceptive use of terms.

What he means to say here is, “we should be trying to deceptively redefine terms used by secularists and anyone else who isn’t a young earth creationist.”

He then continues the rest of his conclusion discussing how secularists are oppressing Christians, because oppression always works when the minority has zero political control and Christianity makes up over 90% of the US Government.

The problem Ham has is not with “secularists” but it is the fact that he is in the stark minority, Christians themselves do not agree with Ham’s extreme beliefs because Christians know beliefs this far fetched cannot be defended.

Sure many Christian’s struggle with accepting evolution, but the numbers that show 46% or so, are rather misleading and is be further explained here.

Ham closes with a plea to Christian leaders to stand up against the secularists, but his plea is going to fall on deaf ears, as many Christian leaders realize the religious freedom they enjoy is the result of secularism, not in spite of.

"Tom Hughes --- Gee, you're clearly quite intelligent. I bet you're in Mensa. The MAJORITY ..."

Clarification on the now viral Wisconsin ..."
"Source in the Constitution?Again, you have not replied to my argument about any "except for" ..."

Donald Trump vowed to destroy the ..."
"Tom, I gave explicit instances when getting ID and registering to vote might be difficult. ..."

Clarification on the now viral Wisconsin ..."
"You do realise that the only person we've seen throw the word nazi around is ..."

The Danthropology blog is moving on

Browse Our Archives

TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment