A Debating Lesson from Ken Ham

Did you know that in addition to his other splendid qualities, Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else — is also an unbeatable debater?

It’s true. Look what he just posted at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), his creationist ministry: Get Equipped to “Answer a Fool”. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Proverbs 26:4–5 reads: “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.” This verse may seem like a contradiction when you first read it. But like most alleged Bible contradictions, the “contradiction” quickly disappears with further thought.

Here comes Hambo’s analysis:

So what does it mean to answer and not answer a fool according to his folly? Well, let’s start by noting that the Bible isn’t engaging in name calling by using the term fool. [That’s nice.] It refers to someone who has rejected God’s truth and thus given up the foundation necessary for knowledge. This is an irrational or foolish position. And we aren’t to answer a fool according to this folly.

According to Hambo, anyone who isn’t a creationist is a fool. He explains further:

If a fool wants to set the terms of the argument by saying the Bible isn’t true or miracles can’t happen, we reject those terms because they are foolish terms. [Right!] We don’t embrace an unbeliever’s starting point lest we become like him. But we are to answer fools according to their folly by exposing the foolishness of their arguments, to keep them from becoming wise in their own eyes and thinking there is no answer to their argument.

Isn’t this great? He continues:

We [he means AIG] generally address atheistic and naturalistic arguments — “folly” — from a presuppositional approach. That means we expose the underlying worldview and faulty thinking behind other belief systems, showing how they’re really stealing from a biblical worldview (which is the only worldview that has an ultimate basis for logic, morality, uniformity of nature, etc.) in order to argue against it. We temporarily use their terms to reflect their position back to them to show them their folly.

Thus, Hambo reveals that you, dear reader, are a fool! Let’s read on:

You can learn more about the Don’t Answer/Answer strategy in this article by Dr. Jason Lisle: “Fool-Proof Apologetics.”

That post is dated 01 April 2008. (Yes, April first.) We didn’t blog about it, but several months later we wrote about another of Jason’s posts claiming that the bible is the foundation of logic — see Creationism and Logic.

The rest of Hambo’s post is a promotion of his up-coming conference on atheism. We’ve written about that before so we’ll leave him here. And what did we learn, dear reader? Speaking only for our Curmudgeonly self, we learned that we were right when we wrote Debating Creationists is Dumber Than Creationism.

Copyright © 2019. 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

11 responses to “A Debating Lesson from Ken Ham

  1. Ross Cameron

    Hambo needs to study his guide a little closer-Proverbs 13:2, 13:16, 16:18, but then, when you scripture dip, you can find something to back up your views.

  2. Derek Freyberg

    I prefer the “Enjoy an Evening of Comedy at the Creation Museum”, on offer if you click on the “Previous Article” – but I don’t think Hambo means it in quite the way that I see it.

  3. “We [he means AIG] generally address …..”
    Indeed. Specifcally they (and I don’t only mean AIG, but all christian creacrappers) address strawmen and hence are guilty of violating the NInth Command.

  4. Cripes! As if one withering blast from that basilisk stare of Ken’s wasn’t enough to turn your bowels to water, now he’s exhorting his troops to use fiendish psychological warfare, branding each and every Bible-scoffer and miracle-denier as FOOLS!

    As Bill Paxton put it in Aliens: “Game over, man. Game over!”

  5. But what about those few people who actually (gasp!) read the Bible?

  6. “from a presuppositional approach. That means we expose the underlying worldview and faulty thinking behind other belief systems’

    Uh, no Kenny boy, that is NOT what presuppositionalism means……:smackead:

  7. “You can learn more about the Don’t Answer/Answer strategy in this article by Dr. Jason Lisle: “Fool-Proof Apologetics.””

    Oh the irony; only pious fools write and believe religious apologetics.

    That is the same Jason Lisle that wrote an astonishingly ignorant and foolish AIG “technical”* article about an infinite speed of light to make the Earth young. An infinite speed of light for photons arriving at the Earth would also mean violating special and general relativity as well as making red-shift for receding stars and blue shift for approaching stars impossible. Hence the
    AIG “technical” article is aimed solely at scientific illiterates that are also sufficiently ultra credulous to believe that magic actually explains anything.

    https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/starlight/anisotropic-synchrony-convention-distant-starlight-problem/

  8. Michael Fugate

    You can’t win against a master debater like Lisle.

    Did you know that lying is wrong only if the Bible is true?

    If you say creationists lie by claiming the earth is only 600 years old, then it doesn’t matter. If the Bible is true then the earth is 6000 years old (according to Lisle) so it isn’t a lie, but if the earth really is 4.5 billion years old, then the Bible is not true and if the Bible is not true there is no morality and lying cannot be wrong.

    Convinced?

  9. If the Bible is not true, there is no morality and I can stone old Mr. Zervos next door for having an adulterous affair with Mrs. Pavlides* from no. 27 down the street.

    If, on the other hand, the Bible IS true, then I can follow biblical authority and still stone Mr. Zervos for having an adulterous affair with Mrs. Pavlides from no. 27 down the street.

    Either way, it’s a win-win situation for me, ‘cos I get to hurl rocks at the bloody neighbors.

    *All names have been changed to protect the identities of people who never existed in the first place, but were purely invented for the sole purpose of making totally idiotic remarks.

  10. But the Bible does not say that the Bible is true. So what basis is there for morality?

  11. BTW, I recommend reading Proverbs chapter 26.
    This couplet intrigued me, 26-18-19 NIV
    Like a maniac shooting
    flaming arrows of death
    is one who deceives their neighbor
    and says, “I was only joking!”