Creationist Wisdom #395: Ham & Nye, Who Won?

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Kitsap Sun of Bremerton, Washington, the largest city on the Kitsap Peninsula. The letter is titled Nye and Ham reveal truth, wisdom they will never discover alone.

We don’t like to embarrass people (unless they’re politicians, preachers, or other public figures), so we usually omit the writer’s full name and city. But today’s letter-writer is a preacher — Rev. Patrick Sloneker. He’s described as: “pastor of the churches of Immaculate Conception, Botkins; St. Joseph, Wapakoneta; and St. Lawrence, Rhine.” We’ll give you a few excerpts from his latest, enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary, and some bold font for emphasis. Okay, here we go:

So who won the debate? You know, just over two weeks ago, on Feb. 4, the debate between Bill Nye, the Science Guy, and Ken Ham who is the major personality behind The Creation Museum in northern Kentucky. Even though I am not a creationist, I think Ken Ham won, hands down.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Why does the rev think that? He tells us:

Nye offered a number of points to prove evolution and disprove creationism. Nothing earth-shattering. However, his most important point is that he is fearful that those who interpret the Bible literally will dumb-down humanity. He is worried that, if creationists win the day, there won’t be any scientists out there, no engineers to continue the advance of humanity.

No, rev. Nye wasn’t trying to “prove” evolution. What he did was show that the theory of evolution is a far better explanation of observable reality than creationism. And Nye is entirely correct in saying that creationism has a dumbing-down effect. Let’s read on:

What Nye failed to acknowledge, which Ham proved, scientifically even, is that plenty of creationists are outstanding scientists. They use the scientific method every day, allowing humanity to advance wonderfully. Therefore, in terms of the debate, Nye’s most significant concern holds no water, a bucket shot with holes.

Aaaargh!! Here, we must repeat something we said recently:

For the zillionth time, a creationist can function in the world — but he has to ignore his magical alternate reality to do so. In his lucid moments, he can change a light bulb, play the piano, and practice dentistry. He can build a creation museum and run a creationist website. He can also (somehow) plod through school and get a genuine science degree. He can even invent the MRI machine. But except for preaching, he can’t do squat with the concept of six day creation or a recent global Flood. No one can. No one ever has. No one ever will.

The rev continues, and it doesn’t get any better:

While Ham offered some observations that might prove the literal truth of the creation story in Genesis and disprove evolutionary theory, again nothing all that noteworthy. What he did do was unearth a distinction that is a new evolution, even for evolutionists: that there is an important difference between traditional “observational science” and the “historical science,” which evolutionists do.

Aaaargh!! We’ve previously probed that infinitely worthless pit, so we won’t waste our time again. See Creationism and Science, and also Answers in Genesis Explains Science to Us. Moving along:

Ham exposed the ignorance that evolutionists offer in thinking that what they are doing is free of interpretation, preconception or faith, even as they belittle creationists for the same. Far from unadulterated, proven observations, which science is supposed to be, scientists who study evolution are putting great faith (read, their own religion) into their theory about how things evolved.

Aaaargh!! How much longer can we go on? Not much, but here’s more:

Of course, there is in no way to prove an unbroken fossil record of transitions, for example, from species to species. Ham hit a home run to say scientists profess a faith of their own, a faith that is the only game in town when it comes to our nation’s textbooks. Creationists simply want the same billing for their faith.

Aaaargh!! This thing just keeps getting worse. Another excerpt:

For me, I’m glad I’m a Catholic. … We appreciate scientists for the truths that they uncover. At the same time, they better admit they are going beyond traditional science when they profess evolutionary theory. In fact, current scientific theory itself points to a creation event, a “god particle” and one couple as the genesis for human life.

He’s right — science points to Genesis! It’s so obvious! But then the rev explains why science is nevertheless a failure:

Unfortunately, science does not tell us who we truly ought to be and what we truly ought to do with what science unlocks the way the Christian faith can.

Yes, science is woefully defective, because all it does is describe what reality is and how it works. It’s up to us to figure out that we shouldn’t leap off the roof — because if we do, the consequences will be messy. Okay, this has gone on long enough. The rev’s letter is far too mind-bending, even for your Curmudgeon, so we’ll skip to the end:

Thanks to Bill Nye and Ken Ham. Taken together, they reveal truth and wisdom that they will never discover alone.

Ham and Nye, together, have revealed The Truth. Now you know.

Copyright © 2014. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

19 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #395: Ham & Nye, Who Won?

  1. Hey rev – you’re required to believe what the Catholic pope says. A couple popes ago or so, it was announced that Catholicism and evolution are OK together, admitting (finally!) that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Of course, we rationalists see that religion and reality don’t really go together.

  2. Stephen Kennedy

    Father Sloneker apparently does not know how Ken Ham and AIG feel about Catholics and the Catholic Church. Over the years Hambo has called the Catholic Church a cult, a pagan religion and enemies of Christianity. He has condemned the Jesuit astronomers who staff the Vatican Observatory in Arizona for “unbiblical” science supporting the Big Bang Theory. While he was at AIG, Hambo protégé Jason Lisle called the Catholic priest, Georges Lemaitre, who first proposed the Big Bang Theory an atheist.

    It is mind boggling that a Catholic priest would have anything good to say about Hambo.

  3. It would appear that the good father is as versed in theology as he is in science. Or in other words clueless!

  4. Rev Sloneker? Yeah, hi, look, Ken Miller stopped by. Said you should put your hand 6″ behind your head with the palm open and facing the back of your head. Now swiftly move it forward about 12″.

  5. Among the many errors in the good Rev’s account there’s this: “…one couple as the genesis for human life.” He’s either unaware of the data or lying. Genetic analysis from a number of sources (see the Genographic Project or 23 and Me for easy to understand descriptions) shows that humans currently alive today are decended from probably a single male and a single female, but they weren’t a couple — they lived 20,000 or more years apart, in slightly different regions of Africa. Oh, and outside of Africa, they all have genetic material from a few other groups, such as Neanderthals. Not consistant with the Adam and Eve fairy tale.

  6. I’d like to share with our letter writer a story of what an acquaintance said about the religious diversity of the students in her class: “They’re all Christians except for two: One Catholic and one Jew.”

    That’s what ol’ Hambo and his kind think about you, Father.

    (The things she said after the 2008 US Presidential election are not appropriate for a wholesome blog like we have here.)

  7. The psychological disconnect of this letter writer is pretty good–but I still think the absolute Gold Standard for this particular form of insanity was set by Disco’Tuter David Klinghoffer, in his own recap of the ‘debate’, As an Antidote to the Ham-Nye Creation Debate Fiasco, Listen to Stephen Meyer Debate Charles Marshall, wherein the Master Poo-Flinger of Puget Sound wrote:

    I’m terribly regretful about Tuesday night’s debate pitting creationist Ken Ham against “Science Guy” Bill Nye before as many as 532,000 viewers on YouTube. I say that as someone, an Orthodox Jew, who very much cares that Christians should be strengthened in their own faith. For many who watched, the event was likely corrosive of that faith.

    One can only presume that Mr. Klinghoffer is unaware of the hoards of Hammite Fundagelicals who firmly believe that Jews, who murdered Baby Jesus, are fated for the Lake of Fire?

  8. Hambeaux won the debate the second that Nye naively decided that standing on a stage with a con-man and professional liar-for-Jesus was a good idea.

  9. Charles Deetz ;)

    In watching a bit of the debate, I thought Hambo sounded kinda reasonable as he presented his historical/observational division of science. Of course, he then asserts what they can and cannot do. Perhaps like how a southern governor in the 50s could sound reasonable pointing out that black and white people have different skin color. Its what they do with this distinction that makes all the difference. And the letter writer has fallen for Ham’s trick.

  10. @Cardinal Gary: Before the Rev. can perform the maneuver you suggest, he is going to have to remove his head from the dark place it is in currently.

  11. I yield to the ever-lasting wisdom of Cardinal TA .

  12. I’m sorry, but will someone enlighten me into the use of the terms “historical science” vs. “observational science” in their application? I know creationists want to stress this dichotomy and in paticular apply it to evolution, but I’ve not run across it or their arguments that I’m aware of. Thanks.

  13. The Whole truth

    Sloneker said: “..I am not a creationist…”.

    That is a LIE. Any member, practitioner, believer, follower, promoter, defender, supporter (just covering all the bases) of any religion that includes a creation story of any kind is a creationist. All religions include and depend on a creation story of some kind and ALL religions include and depend on a ‘creator’ or ‘creators’ of some kind. ALL religious people are creationists.

    And catholics are [over-the top, therefore deleted].

  14. “And catholics are [original and all copies are deleted].”

    A statement like that is bigotry, plain and simple. I’m an atheist, but I would never characterize anyone simply on the basis of their religion that way. I know plenty of Catholics, Muslims, Jews, and Protestants who are perfectly sensible, caring, and stable contributing members of society. I disagree completely with them in matters of religion, but to characterize someone as “[*********]” simply on the basis of their religion is really low.

    Let’s argue ideas all we want, call out those individuals who would lie and miseducate children; scold and criticize con-men wrapping themselves in religion. But to label an entire class of people with a pejorative label is the very definition of bigotry. It must be opposed in a civil society.

  15. Stephen Kennedy: “It is mind boggling that a Catholic priest would have anything good to say about Hambo.”

    He evidently practices the forgiveness he preaches. A greater mystery is why a priest of three Ohio parishes would be writing to a newspaper in Bremerton, Wash. (The Catholic Telegraph article giving the parish info was dated 2010; perhaps he has since transferred to the Puget Sound area.)

  16. The Whole Truth: “And catholics are [*********].”

    Perhaps you are convicting all Catholics for the sins of (a few of) their Fathers?

  17. @DavidK: Get it straight from the source: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/what-is-science

    Caution: Reading this material may cause permanent dain bramage.

  18. @TA, in the article that you link to, there’s a picture of a man with goggles carefully dropping a red liquid into a test tube. I’m gonna have to go with Ken Ham on this one. I mean, he’s doing observational science right in the picture! What more do you need?

  19. Even though I am not a creationist…In fact, current scientific theory itself points to a creation event, a “god particle” and one couple as the genesis for human life.

    As many of you know, I refer to these letter writers as “transitional fossils,” between genuinely clueless evolution-deniers and full-fledged, in-on-the-scam anti-evolution activists. This guy has almost completes the transition. Most of you are surely thinking: “Discoveroids don’t necessarily believe in ‘one couple as the genesis for human life’ and they’re ‘creationists,’ so who is this clown trying to fool?!” Of course, he’s merely doing the Discoveroid trick of defining “creationist” in the narrow sense of “Biblical YEC.” But that’s the media’s preferred definition too, so please don’t take the bait.

    Many (most?) of these letter writers give up after the first try when they see how embarrassingly wrong they were. A few of them grudgingly concede evolution, but most just crawl back into their inner circles. This one is not one of them. An even bet is that he will quietly abandon the “one couple as the genesis for human life” part and go full-speed into the ID big tent.