Ken Ham’s Campaign To Change Everything

The latest post from Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the Australian entrepreneur who has become the ayatollah of Appalachia, is a furious rant. He’s red in the face, sputtering mad, and foaming at the mouth. This time his fury is justified, because the whole world seems to be against him.

His new post is Responding to Atheist Propaganda. It’s his attempt to redefine well-understood words so that his own version of reality — i.e., unreality — will be easier to promote. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

Christians need to understand that many secularists have put together a very effective propaganda machine as a part of their effort to impose their atheistic religion on the Western culture, intimidate Christians, and influence the government to limit freedom of religion (particularly in regard to Christianity). To help counteract this aggressive effort, Christians — wherever they are in the West — need to be aware of the terms being used in the secularist campaign and what Christians need to be doing to help counter their campaign.

Hambo then discusses four words which are well-understood, but which seem to bother him, so he wants to change them. He begins with science. You already know how he tries to distort that one, so we won’t bother with it. If you’re new to this topic, see Creationism and Science and also Ken Ham’s Historical vs. Observational Science.

Next he deals with religion. Everyone knows what it is, but Hambo wants to change things around. He says:

The word religion has a variety of definitions. But one of the main definitions (as given by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary) is “an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group.”

[*Groan*] We’ve seen other creationists pull the same trick. That dictionary has three definitions of “religion” and Hambo uses the third. The first two, that is, the most commonly understood meanings, are:

1. the belief in a god or in a group of gods

2. an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

Hambo indulges in “dictionary mining” to find the least-used definition and claim that it’s the only one that matters. Having done that, he tells us:

Atheists have effectively propagandized the culture to indoctrinate people to think that if you believe in God as Christians do, then that is religion — however, if you don’t believe in God and believe the universe and all life arose by natural processes, then supposedly that is not a religion! But as we constantly point out, atheism and humanism are religions — it’s a belief meant to explain life by natural processes, without the supernatural involved.

According to Hambo, your belief that the Earth is a sphere (instead of being flat) is a religious belief. After all, it’s a belief that’s very important to you, and Hambo’s dictionary says that’s religion. Let’s read on:

Atheists go ballistic when I say in many articles that they are trying to impose their religion of naturalism on the culture. But the point is, they are! …. Furthermore, in the US and other western countries, the government is imposing a religion on millions of children when they insist that schools only teach evolution in science classes and not biblical creation. Officials insist that evolution is deemed to be “science” and creation is “religion.” Evolutionists have been indoctrinating people with a false view of the words science and religion.

We’ll skip the rest of that one, because there’s nothing new in what he says. The next word Hambo doesn’t like is intolerance. He says:

Intolerance is defined in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary this way: Unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights.

We don’t see that definition in the online Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Ignoring the medical definition, it says intolerance is “the quality or state of being intolerant.” But if we then look for the meaning of intolerant we find two definitions:

1. not willing to allow or accept something

2. not willing to allow some people to have equality, freedom, or other social rights

Hambo ignores the most common definition, and goes for the really nasty one, which is suitable for describing the attitudes of the Klan. Where is he going with his preferred definition? Get this:

Secularists often accuse Christians who, for example, take a stand on marriage being one man for one woman based on the Bible, as being intolerant. But in fact, Christians are the ones who are tolerant of others.

Huh? This has nothing to do with science, so it’s not important to this blog, but out of curiosity, let’s see what Hambo says:

You see, Christians who stand on God’s Word will authoritatively speak against gay marriage, but they should not be intolerant of the people who disagree with them. But I find that those who call Christians “intolerant” are really the ones who are intolerant! So when a fire chief in Atlanta, Georgia, is fired by a city council because his personal beliefs concerning marriage are based on the Bible, Christians need to be vocal about the city council’s being intolerant!

Yeah, okay. Then he gets to the fourth word he wants to re-define. That one is proselytize. Lordy, lordy, Hambo is going to the dictionary again. He tells us:

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary has this definition of proselytize: To try to persuade people to join a religion, cause, or group.

That sounds right. What can he do with that? Let’s watch him:

In reality, it’s the secularists who are trying to force their religion on others as they intimidate people to accept the basic tenets of their religion, such as evolutionary naturalism. Many atheists don’t necessarily use the word proselytize, but they claim that a Christian working in a government institution or a government-funded place cannot bring their Christianity into the workplace. Yet many professors at government-subsidized universities will openly proclaim their atheism (and even attack the Bible and the Christian faith) in their classes. But if a professor were to admit he was a Christian and make statements about his religious beliefs to the students, he would likely be disciplined or fired.

Uh, Hambo, there’s a reason for that. Here in the US we have this thing called the Constitution. It forbids the government from trying to impose religious views on the citizenry. The government can’t proselytize. But you can proselytize all you want — and you do. It’s not terribly difficult to understand. If you want the government to be able to proselytize the way you do, you’ll have to amend the Constitution. Good luck with that!

Having given us his preferred meaning of words, he then uses those words in his own way in the conclusion of his essay:

As secularists are successful in getting the governments to teach evolution as fact to millions of students in Western nations and will not allow biblical creation to be taught in science classes, we should be pointing out their deceptive use of terms. Indeed, the secularists continually misuse the word science as they indoctrinate people into a false worldview of naturalism so they can impose that religion on young people. At the same time, they exhibit their intolerance of Christianity and Christians in the culture.

This is from his final paragraph:

I challenge Christians, especially Christian leaders, to be more vocal in this battle, boldly proclaiming the gospel to unbelievers and calling Christians back to the authority of the Bible. As we stand firmly and boldly on the truths of Jesus Christ as the Creator and Savior in our apologetic arguments, we must also use correct terms like historical science, observational science, religion, and intolerance when engaging the secularists in the ongoing war against Christianity in Western nations.

So there you are. Hambo is not only at war against science, he’s also at war with the English language and the American Constitution. Good luck, Hambo!

Copyright © 2015. 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

41 responses to “Ken Ham’s Campaign To Change Everything

  1. Mike Elzinga

    I suspect that Ken Ham would argue that embezzling and accounting are the same things.

  2. Ah yes,

    war is peace
    Freedom is slavery
    Ignorance is strength

    Now where have I seen that before?

  3. Old Hambone is a perfect example of our success, not so much atheism but secularism. As both show many people that the religion is BS, but just as important it gives them laws that allow these enlighten ones to leave their religion without the fear of being killed.
    So the preacher types are on shaky ground and trying like hell to stop the bleeding of their sheeple.

  4. Hambo indulges in “dictionary mining” to find the least-used definition and claim that it’s the only one that matters.

    Oh, gawd, yes — and it’s even more dishonest than you say, because it’s the figurative usage, as in “Football’s his religion.”

  5. We can only hope that Hambo’s rantings are death rattles.

  6. I commented earlier today about Ham’s lies (about how words should be defined) at the BCSE community forum.

    After then seeing this post I then checked the background to Ham’s ranting. It turns out that – because of Matthew 12:30 and Romans 1:18 – Ham recently decided that this lot must be a bunch of evil intolerant atheists spouting deceitful propaganda and waging a war on Christianity:
    https://www.au.org/about/our-mission
    https://www.au.org/about/people/lynn

    So he got very agitated (over the removal of a statue of a praying soldier which I agree some people might be dismayed about):
    (1) http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2015/01/15/christianity-under-attack-praying-soldier-statue-removed/
    (2) https://www.facebook.com/aigkenham
    “Atheism IS a religion – someone saying it isn’t doesn’t make it so – atheists worship man and worship nature – many show intolerance to others particularly CHRISTIANS. I encourage you to read my latest post about an example of Christianity being removed from the culture in favor of the religion of atheism [above blog post dated 15 January]”

    Various people then objected on his facebook page to Ham’s rather bizarre claims about atheism. So THIS was his Christian (and all TOO biblically intolerant) response:
    https://answersingenesis.org/countering-the-culture/responding-to-atheist-propaganda/

    It’s not a detailed response to anything specific. Rather it is pro-active fundamentalist propaganda (whinging about other peoples’ propaganda).

    I think Ham has decided from the Bible that people who call themselves atheists (and those opposing YEC-ism and other Christian fundamentalism) are angry. So he tries to annoy them so he can then say “look how angry and intolerant these people are!” And he’s so calm and tolerant.

  7. Comment (1)

    I commented earlier today about Ham’s lies (about how words should be defined) at the BCSE community forum.

    After then seeing this post I then checked the background to Ham’s ranting. It turns out that – because of Matthew 12:30 and Romans 1:18 – Ham recently decided that this lot must be a bunch of evil intolerant atheists spouting deceitful propaganda and waging a war on Christianity:

    https://www.au.org/about/our-mission

    cont’d

  8. Comment (2)

    https://www.au.org/about/people/lynn

    So he got very agitated (over the removal of a statue of a praying soldier which I agree some people might be dismayed about):

    cont’d

  9. Comment (4)

    (2) https://www.facebook.com/aigkenham
    “Atheism IS a religion – someone saying it isn’t doesn’t make it so – atheists worship man and worship nature – many show intolerance to others particularly CHRISTIANS. I encourage you to read my latest post about an example of Christianity being removed from the culture in favor of the religion of atheism [above blog post dated 15 January]”

    Various people then objected on his facebook page to Ham’s rather bizarre claims about atheism. So THIS was his Christian (and all TOO biblically intolerant) response:

    cont’d

  10. Concluding Comment (5)

    https://answersingenesis.org/countering-the-culture/responding-to-atheist-propaganda/

    It’s not a detailed response to anything specific. Rather it is pro-active fundamentalist propaganda (whinging about other peoples’ propaganda).

    I think Ham has decided from the Bible that people who call themselves atheists (and those opposing YEC-ism and other Christian fundamentalism) are angry. So he tries to annoy them so he can then say “look how angry and intolerant these people are!” And he’s so calm and tolerant.

  11. michaelfugate

    “an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group”

    Does this mean I get a tax exemption if I take my family on vacation? for my garden?

  12. “…in fact, Christians are the ones who are tolerant of others. You see, Christians who stand on God’s Word will authoritatively speak against gay marriage, but they should not be intolerant of the people who disagree with them. But I find that those who call Christians “intolerant” are really the ones who are intolerant! So when a fire chief in Atlanta, Georgia, is fired by a city council because his personal beliefs concerning marriage are based on the Bible, Christians need to be vocal about the city council’s being intolerant!

    Ah, Ham is already jumping on the band wagon of the Atlanta chief fired for his prosyletizing efforts against gays. Martyrdom they seek. But what does gay marriage have to do with his definitions of science? Only a distraction.

  13. Stephen Kennedy

    I think the numerous problems that Hambo is having with his ark park, particularly the denial of tax subsidies for the project, have really unhinged him. He was no doubt certain that Kentucky would do anything he asked to promote AIG and was shocked when the Commonwealth said no subsidies if he discriminates in employment on the basis of religion.

    He may now be starting to realize that the United States is not a Christian theocracy, does have a Constitution that is completely secular in nature and wording and that is not going to change as the strength of religious fundamentalism fades.

    Hambo is not getting his way and he is frustrated.

    His call to redefine the meanings of words sounds like something out of “1984”.

  14. Hambo wrote, “In reality, it’s the secularists who are trying to force their religion [science] on others as they intimidate people to accept the basic tenets of their [belief in science].” Hambo has a point. Decades ago, scientists convinced local governments that citizens should not be allowed to
    send their sewage to places where oogity-boogity invisible bacteria could get into their neighbors’ drinking water. Many health departments also promote vaccination against more of these invisible “pathogens” that scientists claim cause disease.

    In the Bible, the Book of Mark says Jesus was able to cure people just by touching them. (Mark was silent as to what became of the sick who were not within walking distance of this sandal-wearing healer. Presumably they suffered and died according to God’s plan).

    So Hambo is right — secularists have pushed their science-based “medicine” and “hygiene” on the believers in true religion for far too long. Let’s bring back cholera, typhoid, polio, smallpox and all those other old-time contagious diseases the way God wanted. We could start with the Bible Belt, say, in Kentucky….

    Gimme those old time diseases,
    Them that’s sick can pray to Jesus.
    Let’s hear coughing and some wheezes,
    That’s good enough for me!

  15. Charles Deetz ;)

    Hammy is fooled by his power to convince people that that The Ark was real, that he thinks he can also convince people that these words mean something different than everyone else uses them for. Its the only way he can explain why he is right. He needs to be run out on a rail.

  16. The whole truth

    hambo barfed: “Furthermore, in the US and other western countries, the government is imposing a religion on millions of children when they insist that schools only teach evolution in science classes and not biblical creation. Officials insist that evolution is deemed to be “science” and creation is “religion.” Evolutionists have been indoctrinating people with a false view of the words science and religion.” (my bold)

    hambo obviously believes that only “biblical creation” fairy tales should be taught to kids and he obviously isn’t willing to accept the fact that there are many more religions than just christianity and that there are many more “creation” fairy tales than just biblical creation fairy tales. Of course hambo believes that the USA is a christian country and should be nothing but a totally christian country that is totally in line with his version of christianity.

    Every religious zealot believes that their version of their religion is the only ‘true’ one and that it should be crammed down everyone else’s throat whether they like it or not, and that all other religions and/or versions should be abolished. If christian zealots were to get their way and put (i.e. force) the teaching (i.e. proselytizing) of christianity in science classes, imagine the fight there would be between the christians themselves over the details of what should be taught.

    Picture this: A kid comes home from school and tells his/her parents what was taught that day in the kid’s science class from the bible about creation, but the particulars of what was taught weren’t what the kid’s parents believe in even though the parents consider themselves to be christians. The next day the parents call or go to the school and complain that their kid is being taught (forced) to learn and be graded on a version of a biblical creation story that the parents don’t believe in. An example would be that the version being taught is YEC and the parents are OEC or the other way around, although serious disagreements could and surely would arise over a wide range of particulars. The parents insist that the school change the version to their version and the school administration refuses because they can’t teach a bunch of different versions to a bunch of different kids whose parents might not like all the details of the version that is being taught. Some christian parents might not care about which version is taught but some surely would and the battles would be on.

    If people didn’t care which version of creation stories and/or other crap in the bible is the allegedly ‘correct’ version there wouldn’t be tens of thousands of different ‘christian’ sects, various versions of the bible, and a gazillion different interpretations of the bibles. They won’t even agree on their own fairy tale beliefs, even though, if the bible is ‘the word of God’, all of their beliefs should be exactly the same, and never change. How dare they variously interpret ‘the (infallible) word of ‘God’ (LOL). Don’t they know that that’s not kosher? :p

    And imagine what would happen when zealots from all religions and all the various sects expect and demand that their particular creation stories and their particular versions of them should be taught in public school science classes. There would be endless battles, utter chaos, and no time to teach any science in ‘science’ classes.

  17. Ol’ Hamhock’s mining of the dictionary in order to claim that secularism is a religion demonstrates (once again) fundamentalists’ utter inability to distinguish metaphor from straight description.

    I’m sure it hasn’t occurred to him that by his fundie interpretation of that definition of religion, “an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group.” baseball card collecting could qualify. Which of course is ridiculous, which of course is the point. Ham is deliberately (I’m sure it’s deliberately) twisting a figurative definition of religion into a literal one. But why be surprised? Turning the figurative into the literal is what fundamentalists like him do to the Bible, after all. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t be fundamentalists.

  18. @Charles Deetz

    He needs to be run out on a rail.

    Unlucky rail.

  19. Thanks Hambone. Just in time for tax season, you’ve convinced me that tennis is a religion, since it’s “an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person (me) or group.” So’s driving fast cars on a track, so I have at least two religions. Come to think if it, sipping good single malt Scotch is too. I can probably think of some others. How can I enlist your help in convincing the IRS I should be able to deduct the expense for my religions?

  20. I think it would be really helpful if ol’ Ken didn’t release statements that suggest our Constitution is something he was even remotely familiar with.
    Poor Australia.

  21. Religion is a belief that a transcendent supernatural power controls the universe. This transcendent supernatural power can never be observed because it is not a part of the physical universe. The only “evidence” we have of its existence is various folklore stories passed down through various cultures of the world’s peoples.

    Science is the exact opposite of a religion. It is not a belief at all. It is an understanding, based on observed evidence, of how the universe works. There is but one science, and it is observable by any who wish to open their eyes to the evidence. It is emphatically NOT a “belief system”. We do not “believe” science; we KNOW science.

    Ken Ham, your attempt to re-define science and religion is a form of philosophical pollution.

  22. Doctor Stochastic

    Perhaps Ken Ham also thinks failure to collect stamps is a hobby.

  23. May I point out a convention of dictionaries?

    Where there are multiple possible understandings of a word – and this happens distressingly often – dictionaries typically arrange these definitions in order of increasing metaphorical content. Thus, the first definition will be not only the commonest but also the most strictly literal meaning of the word, as usually understood. Succeeding definitions will typically cite the word in context as the meaning progresses into more and more metaphorical usages.

    “Religion” is such a word. (Another such word is “theory”, as we have often seen.) “Religion” can mean “any interest zealously pursued”, as in “He makes a religion of his work”, or “She saves money religiously”. But this use is metaphorical, descending from the literal meaning of the word, and Merriam-Webster correctly puts it last, behind that meaning.

    Ham wants to use this metaphorical meaning for this purpose, but not for others. He’d be against giving tax breaks to say, a golf club, no matter how “religiously” some of its members pursue the game. Further, he would indignantly deny that his religion is just “any interest zealously pursued”.

    Now, the First Amendment means “religion” in the literal sense – the legal sense, Ham’s sense – but Ham wants to make it metaphorical for this purpose, but not for other purposes, so he can use it to cover atheism. He actually knows full well that atheism is not a religion in any sense he’d usually use the word, no matter how zealously some of its proponents pursue it.

    That is, he is mounting a verbal bait-and-switch operation. What Ham’s doing is completely dishonest, and it should be transparent. But he gets away with it in his blog, because the audience he wishes to reach is generally blind to metaphor, and can’t see the verbal game he’s playing. That’s because they’re not very literate and not very aware of their own use of words.

    That’s just fine with Ham, of course. One of the skills of the con-man is to know and to pitch at his audience, not some other audience. But the corollary of this principle is obvious. Ham’s skills are the skills of a con artist. What he’s engaged in is a scam.

  24. @Dave Luckett: The intelligence of the regulars on this blog never ceases to amaze. Nicely written!

    (Yes, I realize that I’m starting to sound like this blog’s official cheerleader, but the cheers are well-deserved. Thanks to all.)

  25. What is abundently obvious in Ham’s case, for any fundamentalist of any religion, is that in order to work in their favor they require one or more scapegoats to blame for all their troubles, woes, problems etc. If they can’t pin the blame on someone else then their religious beliefs become nonsense, even to their believers.

  26. Uhm, where in the Christian bible does it say that marriage is only between one man and one woman? That ****tard Hamm is nothing but a liar for Jesus.

  27. Hmm, let’s see if we can arrange Kanny Humbug’s four words into a sentence that captures what’s really going on:

    Mr Humbug’s religion doth proselytize intolerance of science.

    Yes, I think that’ll do quite nicely. 😉

    [Curmy, 12th paragraph not counting quoted material: “Then he gets to the forth fourth word he wants to re-define.”]

  28. Richard Bond

    Definition #6 of “religion” in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary is similar to the M-W definition #3.

    It is marked “obsolete”.

  29. Cretinists’ clamour about intelligent life (read: “humans”) being rare (or preferably unique) in the universe receives some support — but from an unexpected source.

  30. Dave Luckett nails it. There are at least two definitions of religion here, a “broad” one that Ham switches to so that he can make secularism into a religion, and a “narrow” meaning of religion, which is how the Founders intended the First Amendment to be implemented.

    Ham and the other conservative Christians knowingly redefine the words in the Constitution, not just to deliberately make it impossible to implement in the way Americans always intended, but on top of that, to make the Bill of Rights basically unenforcable. If everything is a religion, then the “no establishment of religion” cause can’t be implemented because every action, every thought is religions. And that’s their conscious goal.

    The conservative Christians know that’s the effect, they know they’re nullifying the Bill of Rights with word games. That is their intent: they’re deliberately trying to destroy America’s institutions. However imperfect our institutions may be, we must not sit idly by while religious extremists come from abroad to blow them up.

    Rick Santorum’s words on a Christian radio show make it clear that the conservative Christians are being very calculating in their intent to make the First Amendment unenforcable with word games. It’s not ignorance on their part– it’s calculated deception.

    Rick Santorum: The idea that, if you take religion out of the public square, if you take the Bible out of the classroom, that that’s neutral, well, no it’s not neutral! It’s a different worldview! I think we should start calling secularism a religion, because if we did, then we could ban that, too

    So the question for them is not whether or not it is TRUE. The question is how to stop the First Amendment from being enforcable. It’s conscious and calculated.

    Compare to when Ken Ham says above, how conscious and calculated their word games are:

    Ken Ham: I am encouraging Christians, as much as they can, to use the word religion to describe secularism… we need to make sure to be vocal about the fact that secularists have imposed their religion of atheism.

    …I challenge Christians, especially Christian leaders, to be more vocal… we must also use correct terms like historical science, observational science, religion, and intolerance when engaging the secularists in the ongoing war against Christianity in Western nations. It’s why you will find Answers in Genesis using these terms in our articles, billboards, and other outreaches…

    Ken Ham is enforcing Biblically Correct, BC terminology.

    Back to Santorum: They’ve [secularists] hidden behind the fact that the absence of religion is not a religion of itself, which, in fact, it is

    WTF!? WTF!? Santorum is saying the absence of religion is religion! It’s like saying baldness is a hair color! Sobriety is a flavor of vodka!

    because it has certain moral values and certain teachings that look like a religious, a type of moral worldview. So what we have to start doing, as Christians, is reassert ourselves and say, you know what? The freedom of religion is not the freedom from religion. We should be in the public square. We should be taught in the schools. — [Rick Santorum on Bryan Fischer’s radio show, RWW News: “Santorum Says Secularism Is A Religion and Should Be Banned From Public Schools”, RWW, Sept. 9, 2014, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TK3gNTUZzkc%5D

    So there you go: public schools should teach religion, because word games word games.

  31. Con-Tester comes forth and points out a typo, which is now fixed.

  32. A favorite fundie tactic is to mine the dictionary in such a way. A dictionary isn’t really an authoritative source per se, rather it is a way to understand the diction of another.
    That’s why you’ll have 3 different entries under “religion” . If you didn’t know the word or wanted a more precise understanding of something you’ve read you’d read the definition and from the context you’d have a better idea what you’re reading.
    It is interesting that Satan is no longer the whipping boy of Christianity, now it is secularism.

  33. Both sides can play the game of dictionary-mining. Consider this — the key distinction between actual science and creation science is that the latter is built around defending various scriptural miracles. The methodology of actual science can only examine natural phenomena, so the difference really boils down to natural vs. unnatural. Fine. Now the dictionary definition of “unnatural” is:

    1. contrary to nature; abnormal
    2. not in accordance with accepted standards of behaviour or right and wrong: unnatural love
    3. uncanny; supernatural: unnatural phenomena

    Therefore, one can accurately say that creation science, depending as it does on miracles, is all about unnatural acts — i.e., those which are contrary to nature. And what’s the dictionary term for “any act considered to be against the laws or designs of nature”? You can look it up for yourself — it’s “crime against nature.” Here’s how that expression is defined in the dictionary:

    1. Law. sodomy.
    2. any act considered to be against the laws or designs of nature or one’s religious teachings.

    So creation science is a crime against nature. Prior to the Enlightenment, and for a considerable time thereafter, in English law — and in the states of the US too — there were statutes defining and outlawing such deeds. See the Wikipedia article on crime against nature. Also, their article on sodomy law says:

    Following Sir William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, the crime of sodomy has often been defined only as the “abominable and detestable crime against nature”, or some variation of the phrase.

    Therefore, creation science involves the defense of unnatural acts, for which the traditional term is sodomy. Hey Hambo, the dictionary is a two-edged sword.

  34. I remember in the 8th grade it was common to start an essay or speech by quoting a definition from the dictionary.

    In my high school senior year Advanced English class our teacher, the wonderful Rose Lowenstein, told us, “If you start an essay or speech with a definition from a dictionary you will receive an automatic F. Just so you know.”

    It amuses me greatly when creationists do this.

  35. winewithcats

    He has apparently forgotten to define worship, although he uses it frequently in contexts that preclude its usual meaning.

  36. It seems to me that Ham has been labeling secularism and atheism as religion a lot, especially recently. You might even say that he’s been doing it religiously.

  37. Mark, more than that, you could rightly call such petulance Ham-fisted.

  38. @docbill1352
    What grade did we learn the 5 W’s for an expository essay? What that as late as High School? Whenever, ID-ers have forgotten that in their expository essays. Unless they learned another lesson in business school about advertising.

  39. Ken Ham prefers to use words that convey meaningful utterances to his fellow believers only, as does Humpty Dumpty’s telling Alice that when he uses a word, it means just what he chooses it to mean – neither more nor less. Another favorite word for believers in that sense is ‘death’.