A few days ago, Ken Ham accused James McGrath of doing the works of the devil for labelling him as a con. This is confusing, considering the works of the devil are not associated for standing up for truth. Consider these points 1) Ken Ham is a con -- Considering he failed to provide a link to the blog post by McGrath, titled KEN HAM CONTINUES TO WIN SOULS FOR ATHEISM which contained the testimony of an ex-Christian turned atheist because of the lies promoted by Answers in Genesis and the false dichotomy they create. 2) Ken Ham is a hypocrite -- Ham claims McGrath has a fixation with the work conducted at AiG. McGrath does devote a relatively large proportion of his posts to criticizing creationism, but a fixation implies an obsessive interest in someone or something which inundates their life. Considering McGrath also devotes blog posts to science fiction, political issues, issues in biblical scholarship and a vast range of other topics, would not imply he has a fixation. McGraths posts appear to be more of a reflection of his desire to fight for the truth and expose the deceit produced by Answers in Genesis. For Ham to make this claim is rather hypocritical because the same could be implied for his obsessive interest in the beliefs and opinions held by individuals who promote evolutionary science. McGrath might devote some blog posts to criticizing young-earth proponents, but Ham not only devotes daily blog posts to attack evolutionists but he has his entire ministry and lifes work. He has even built a museum and is currently building an amusement park to criticize and prove points against individuals who believe in evolution. So does Ken Ham have an unhealthy fixation? 3) Ken Ham is an incoherent bully -- Whenever Ham encounters a Christian who disagrees with him on Genesis 1-11, he results to simple minded insults, labels them as being satanic or against the authority of the word of God. He later posts a scathing blog or Facebook post attacking them for holding such views (review his blog, you will observe a pattern). When it comes to Genesis 1-2, Ham is like a little child having a tantrum, always reiterating the same simplistic response, READ GENESIS, READ GENESIS, IT IS LITERAL!. Quite surprisingly though, when he approaches the Bible he might appeal to context when it suits him, such as in his debate with Hugh Ross (youtube/watch?v=zgueGotRqbM). Ross attempts to discuss a wider theological context in regards to creation, including Psalms, to which Ham responds, Genesis is history and Psalms is poetry. Which indicates that he IS willing to take the genre of a text into context, but his explanation for Genesis being history is still based on his oversimplified, literalistic approach to scripture. Example of Hams incoherent attacks: The majority of biblical scholars believe Genesis 1 is ancient cosmology and polemic when the ancient historical, cultural and linguistic contexts of Ancient Israel and Mesopotamia are taken into consideration. Biblical scholars are humble and rational in the sense that they are willing to conceive that the Bible is an ancient document written both for us and to an ancient society and confronting issues in their era. Biblical scholars such as leading Old Testament historian Professor John Walton, acknowledge the creation narrative reflects the thinking of ancient Israel but Ham thinks otherwise. Ham, the man with a diploma of education from the University of Queensland, devoted an entire post to criticizing Professor Walton for holding an alternative view, considering it an issue of the authority of the word of God, when in realistically, it is an issue of interpretation. Hams claims that Waltons approach to the Bible is wrong because it is an elitist approach to the Bible, and Walton only holds such views because he is giving into academic peer-pressure (blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2011/02/18/wheaton-college-and-false-teaching-in-tennessee/). One could hypothesis or spend hours developing ridiculous conspiracy theories on why Ham believes in a literal Genesis or that he only holds such a position because he seeks attention and wealth, but unlike Ham, developing such tactics are not healthy for academia and it is more humble to be agnostic about ones motives and thoughts, simply because we cannot read the minds of other individuals. 4) Ken Ham is a coward -- Ham is widely known for his criticism of evolutionists for supposedly not engaging with creationists and demonstrating intolerance (blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2012/09/17/why-wont-the-evolutionists-debate/). Despite this, Ham has disabled comments to his YouTube page and blog, so people with alternative views cannot challenge his opinion. He devotes a post to criticizing other individuals or positions removes the comments of individuals who disagree with him. On his most recent post about McGrath, Ham removed the comments and banned James McGrath and others who were engaging with Hams supporters and defending James. In the end, Ham created an environment where he and his minions could ignorantly and gutlessly insult and attack McGrath behind his back. This kind of behavior blatantly resembles that of a coward! 5) Ken Ham is immature -- Ham seems to infer McGraths picture decpicts some kind of immaturity. I do not think an individual has to think too hard about this one, after observing all the childish and immature cartoons developed by Answers in Genesis depicting evolution over the years, including this one (answersingenesis.org/assets/images/articles/lie/castles.jpg). Answers in Genesis is an organization built on a foundation of deception and lies. It is an organization which is as scientifically reputable as the Flat Earth Society and promotes a dangerous dichotomy that falsely challenges Christians to either choose between modern science and an incoherent approach to scripture. I am willing to make the claim that Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis cause more Christians to fall away then the publications of the New Atheists. So do you know anyone who has fallen away from Christianity due to the works of AiG?
Posted on: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 02:31:53 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015