Like everyone else on the sane side of The Controversy between evolution and creationism, we know that evolution isn’t a controversial theory among honest and informed scientists. Those who claim otherwise are creationists of one type or another.
We have also urged that scientists shouldn’t debate with creationists. Not only do many creationists use dishonorable debate tactics, but it’s strategically wrong to participate in such affairs as it misleads the public into thinking that there’s something worth debating, and that creationists are worthy debate opponents.
Creationism is a peculiar feature of some religious denominations, which places the subject outside the scope of science. We think that if there are to be debates about it, it should be between the pro-science and the anti-science denominations. This is typical of our posts on this subject: Creationism: The Debate About The Debate — II and also Religion and Evolution: Part III.
Unfortunately, the pro-science denominations (see the National Center for Science Education’s list of Statements from Religious Organizations supporting evolution) are seldom seen to publicly chastise their less informed brethren. Given the long and horrendous history of inter-denominational conflict, this is understandable.
But there’s another potential debate arena. There are numerous versions of creationism — young earth, old earth, theistic evolution, and the totally strange Discovery Institute position, which is not only anti-science (although they claim otherwise) but which also insists that it is an entirely secular enterprise (a claim which has never been credible). For a description of the whole spectrum, see The Creation-Evolution Continuum.
But how often do we see creationists attack one another? It’s rare, because while they have a common enemy — the rational world — they tend to overlook their own differences, which are often significant. We’ve written about a few such disputes. See Discovery Institute: Food Fight with Harun Yahya, and also Discovery Institute Attacked by ICR, and also Battling Baptists: Young or Old Earth?, and also Creationism: A Denominational, Not Scientific Issue.
Well, we’ve got another battle between creationists here, and this one involves Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the genius who brought you the website Answers in Genesis (AIG) and the mind-boggling Creation Museum.
We present to you, dear reader, some excerpts from Letter from Ken, October 2010: Why is the Christian worldview collapsing in America?, which appears at the AIG website.
But first, take a look at Hambo’s title. Why is his worldview collapsing? We can easily answer that. It’s because any sect that insists on reality denial isn’t going to survive for the long haul. But Hambo doesn’t see it that way. After all, he’s got The Truth™.
Anyway, we’ll skip over Hambo’s long, rambling preamble, in which he suggests an analogy between himself and an early Reformation martyr. That’s embarrassing, even for Hambo. We’ll jump into his blog post after that, with bold font added by us:
To understand the times in which we live, we need to know how this sad transformation has come about — including how people view the Bible
The majority of church leaders have adopted the secular religion (i.e., millions of years/evolution) of the age and have compromised God’s Word — thus undermining its authority to coming generations.
Awwww, poor ol’ Hambo. But he has more to tell us about “this sad transformation.” Let’s read on:
Statistics are clear that most people in churches do not study their Bibles as they should. Frankly, we have a very biblically illiterate church today.
But Hambo doesn’t spend any time on biblical illiteracy. He venom is expended on the secularist church leaders — those who don’t share his young-earth creationism. At this juncture in his essay, we can see how the pack is turning on ol’ Hambo, so stay with us:
I want to give you two specific examples of this dramatic change — and I believe you will be quite shocked.
The first is of Dr. James F. McGrath, who holds the Clarence L. Goodwin Chair in New Testament Language and Literature at Butler University in Indianapolis. Recently, Dr. McGrath wrote a blog item concerning AiG’s stand on a literal Genesis:
This is McGrath’s website. Hambo doesn’t give any links (there’s no need for any — he himself is the ultimate authority) but he claims to quote Dr. McGrath’s quoting someone else complaining about Hambo’s lack of academic credentials in the field of theology — that is, Hambo is ignorant, yet he’s out there babbling away. Then Hambo claims to quote McGrath own opinion of the matter:
Amen! . . . 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.
As you can imagine, ol’ Hambo isn’t going to put up with that. He says:
Well, it is true that I personally don’t have formal theological training — but there are those at Answers in Genesis who do [names omitted]. And we do have quite a number of other highly qualified theologians whose counsel we seek to ensure we are accurate in handling God’s Word.
In other words, Hambo admits that he’s a theological ignoramus. Then he says:
By the way, I’m so glad I have not been theologically trained in the way Dr. McGrath has (and sadly like many who are now being trained in Bible colleges and seminaries).
Hambo’s quite happy to know nothing about either theology or science. Hey, how could it be otherwise? He’s a creationist! Here’s more:
The second sad example is from Dr. William Dembski, a professor at what is known as a conservative seminary in the South.
Ah, now it’s a real knife-fight between creationists. Doncha love it? We’ve already linked to our earlier post on Dembski’s flirtation with unorthodoxy, but here it is again: Battling Baptists: Young or Old Earth?
Hambo gives examples of what he regards as Dembski’s unacceptable old-earth opinions, and then he concludes his self-righteous essay with this:
We would say that Dr. Dembski (who may be a fine Christian man) is taking the belief in billions of years (obtained by man’s fallible interpretations of the present in an attempt to connect to the past) as infallible, and in reality making God’s Word fallible.
So there you are. It’s not only Hambo against reality, it’s also Hambo against many of his fellow creationists too. This is good to see. That’s the reason for our title for this blog article. It comes from Matthew 12:25, which says:
Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand.
So may it be with the house of creationism.
Copyright © 2010. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.