Ken Ham has been getting a lot of critical attention from Christians recently – and that’s a good thing, since there is a lot he deserves to be criticized for from a Christian perspective. Internet Monk has linked to a scathing review of Ken Ham’s views from a Christian standpoint. The concluding note alone is worth the visit:
Some may excuse Mr. Ham on the ground that he has no theological or biblical training (he has a bachelor’s degree in applied science). I am not so inclined for one reason: by assuming the pulpit of churches and declaring he intends to interpret the Bible, he de facto sets himself up as a Bible teacher, and should be held accountable to know not only the relevant facts, but the proper way to exegete and teach a passage of scripture. If he does not want to give up seven years of his life and tens of thousands of dollars to get training in the Bible, theology, and the ancient languages (the standard degree program for clergy) then that is perfectly understandable. What is not so understandable is his desire to set himself up as a Bible teacher without getting Bible training.
Amen! That’s one reason why, as much as I applaud Rachel Held Evans’ eirenic approach on one level, on another I think that the best course of action is for those who are well-informed about the Bible to debunk, refute and if necessary ‘refudiate’ the statements of those who have no expertise in any field of scholarship related to the Bible, and yet believe that without any real knowledge of the original languages, historical context, and other relevant factors, their pontifications will do anything but harm the souls of believers and the Christian faith itself.
Nevertheless, she is absolutely right that Ham has exalted his own dubious young-earth creationist views above concern for other Christians, and is willing to harm the latter in his vain attempts at defending the former. And I certainly encourage everyone to read her response to Ken Ham on her blog. And I’m looking forward to reading her book!
One final point. I must point out that this time, P. Z. Myers has got it completely wrong. The musical adaptation of Ken Ham speaking that he shared is not rightly called an “Anti-Symphony of Science.” It needs to be called a “Symphony of Anti-Science” or perhaps better still an “Anti-Symphony of Anti-Science,” although I hesitate to put it that way in case the double negative somehow makes a positive.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In