Joel Watts highlights that Ken Ham agrees with the logic of atheists. Ken sets up a logical chain which he has clearly linked together backwards. Since he can think of no reason to believe in God if there was no literal Adam and Eve, he tries to prove the latter so as to lead to faith in the former.
Joel gets it just right: Both Ken Ham and atheists “have a god in mind which doesn’t exist.” The atheists presumably know that, but since Ken can only envisage one sort of God, he thinks he has no choice but to cling to and defend an outmoded and unworkable concept at all costs.
If only he would stop proof-texting, and notice the ways in which the cosmological views of authors differed and evolved in the Bible, he would stop wasting his life fighting against God. I know that describing Ham as “fighting against God” may seem surprising. But how else would you describe it when someone sets out to misconstrue the evidence provided by the universe itself?Whether you think the universe is the result of random processes, is itself divine, or is the handiwork of a benevolent Creator doesn’t really matter when it comes to realizing that if you, as a tiny part of the universe, set yourself up to fight the universe and tell lies about it, the universe is going to prove stronger than you are.
In related news, the Dispersal of Darwin looks at an instance of quote-mining and quote-manipulating. And Crystal St. Marie Lewis discusses pastors who try to shield congregations from information – a point that I think applies to science as well as to history.
Perhaps I should also direct Ken Ham and others like him to the poster I made and shared earlier…