Blogalogue

Blogalogue


Bio: Ken Ham

posted by kgiberson

Ken Ham Ken Ham is the president and CEO of Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum, which has hosted nearly half a million visiitors in its first year. He is the author of several books, including The Lie: Evolution and Dinosaurs of Eden, a children’s book. Ken hosts the daily radio program, “Answers … with Ken Ham,” heard on more than 900 stations in America (and dozens more overseas) and is one of the editors and contributing authors for AiG’s Answers magazine, with over 60,000 worldwide subscribers). The high-tech Creation Museum, located near the Cincinnati Airport, was Ken’s brainchild.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(8)
post a comment
Kevin Butterfield

posted October 24, 2008 at 2:17 pm


The only preparation in this debate seemed to be the acceptance of the civility of the other, but since we are coming together as Christians who are in disagreement we must do more to prepare the debate than non-Christians do. It must be caused between the two parties to dissemble their arguments into its more basic parts until a common-ground is achieved. The guiding rule for constructive debate is that whenever a common-ground is not attained both parties must revert to a more simple framework until both parties are standing on the same ground. This is, indeed, the lowest common-denominator (a logical concept) approach, and it should be as exhaustive as any in that sense. If both parties need to define a common understanding of logic itself then so be it, since all that is happening here is the usual clash of views.



report abuse
 

Cherubino

posted October 24, 2008 at 6:24 pm


Strange Bedfellows: Soviet Science and Creation Science
In the 1940’s, Marxist-Leninist ideology was the epistemological premise of what was euphemistically called “Soviet Science,” and the Russian Academy bestowed its highest honors on such dim lights in biology as T. D. Lysenko. All Western science, even Charles Darwin’s “Origin of Species”, was denounced as invalid on the grounds that it was subservient to bourgeois capitalist imperialism. Although Karl Marx had openly admired Darwin, this later ideology was rooted in the Neo-Marxian theory of science which first arose around 1930, and which subsequently became the official doctrine of the USSR under Stalin. Lysenko contributed to the Communist Party’s campaign against “bourgeois science,” and his particular bailiwick was the debunking of Gregor Mendel’s genetics. Michael Polanyi reported that, “The new position was finally established when in August, 1948, Lysenko triumphantly announced to the Academy of Science that his biological views had been approved by the Central Committee of the Communist Party and members rose as one man to acclaim this decision.”
Now, Lysenko held that acquired skills and learning could be passed along genetically to one’s offspring, which was presumed to be particularly fruitful when a government is trying to solidify a totalitarian state. And Lysenko did support his hypothesis with convincing but carefully selected evidence. However, this kind of endorsement was eventually the undoing of the Russian Academy’s credibility in international science, for reasons described by Hannah Arendt in her book, “The Burden of Our Time” (London, 1951). Arendt wrote, “Its members’ [the Communist Party's] whole education is aimed at abolishing their capacity for distinguishing truth from fiction. Their superiority consists in the ability immediately to dissolve every statement of fact into a declaration of purpose.”
Obviously, Soviet Science and Creation Science stem from irreconcilable beliefs. But they both rely for their meaning on the same epistemological foundation, as does any dogmatically random theory of evolution. Each is a circumlocution which presupposes our prior acquiescence to the tenets of a theology (or an anti-theology), an ideology or the mission of an organization, and each requires its adherents to suspend disbelief in second-hand information for the sake of furthering a broader agenda. As unlikely as this similarity may seem at first, the premises of each of these disciplines are nevertheless purposive, in that their primary referent is a socio-political teleology that transcends and overrides mere factuality, which makes them equivalent as investigative methodologies. The proposed referent just happens to legitimize the teaching authority of certain groups as spokesmen for human destiny. Consequently, every theory of human origins simultaneously implies how society should be structured. The proposed referent just happens to legitimize the teaching authority of certain groups as spokesmen for human destiny. Consequently, every theory of human origins simultaneously implies a blueprint for how society should be structured and a standard of accreditation for who should be at the top of the heap.
Whenever science becomes subservient to an ideology or an organization, it becomes instead a closed, axiomatic and circular deductive system, and all such systems cannot fail to prove their postulates. In any such system, regardless of its subject matter, every piece of contradictory evidence can be impeached and every conceivable objection logically demolished and invalidated, each in its turn, by reference to one or more of the core premises. But the flaw inherent in any axiomatic deductive system as a heuristic tool for scientific inquiry is, ironically, this very same logical circularity, for it requires the investigator to reject all hypotheses and evidence which might cast doubt on those core premises, and it also points to no new reality outside of its stipulated purpose. This was the flaw that eventually made Soviet Science the laughingstock it has become. The premises of science, on the other hand, are unspecifiable.
It seems to me that a wholly satisfactory theory of the origin of the universe and life will have to be one that can account for all the evidence, including the emergence of personality and mind, and also including how we got clever enough to have theories of evolution at all– and so far we don’t have one. When and if such a paradigm shift emerges, presumably it will be one that makes such obvious sense to everyone that it will require no elaborate rationalizations by autocratic and vested-interest organizations to ensure its coherent transmission to future generations.



report abuse
 

Russ Davis

posted October 25, 2008 at 1:02 am


Inevitable Bedfellows: Soviet Science and Evolution
As a creationist I am at least thankful Cherubino above was kind enough to call Creation Science what it is, science, however his sadly revisionist history appropriate for mentioning the oxymoron of Soviet (or evolutionist) “science” sadly anachronistically fails to mention the inconvenient irrefutable fact of history that modern science was founded mostly by Christian creationists, e.g. Newton & Galileo, and that his request for
“a wholly satisfactory theory of the origin of the universe and life [that] will have to be one that can account for all the evidence, including the emergence of personality and mind, and also including how we got clever enough to have theories of evolution at all” has already been established centuries ago by Christian creationists that worked fine for centuries until overthrown by Darwinists, the more baldly honest of whom weren’t afraid to admit that the overthrow was to enable them to pursue their insatiable lusts for immorality without having to answer to God (Huxley). That Cherubino can incredibly say that “so far we don’t have one” is today’s typical illiteracy not knowing either history or the Bible and thus making such inane ignorant pronouncements so common in our sick blind age. The history of the science founded by Christian creationists is overall a long and great one of many wonderful discoveries (though not closing a blind eye to the downfalls such as the entrenched cronyism that so greatly hindered greats like Galileo and Lister, but also not closing a blind eye to that entrenched cronyism today that is far worse than what Lister suffered in being a full-blown war of antiChristian bigotry that Lister didn’t faced in his age of at least a tacit Christian worldview. The present decline of modern science is directly connected to its rejection of its Christian creationist foundation, no matter the spin to the contrary by the devious fascists and their illiterate toadies who pretend otherwise, as did Darwin and Huxley. As with other fascist states like the USSR (as ours threatens to become totally) the creation/evolution debate is ultimately about who will be God, the real one worshiped of old as described in His Word, or our counterfeit in the mirror that our father Adam preferred to the True God of Genesis 1-11 today’s ignorant generation refuse to consult at their deadly peril.



report abuse
 

Kevin Butterfield

posted October 25, 2008 at 9:17 pm


Russ Davis, you believe in destiny, but do you know the destiny of others?



report abuse
 

Eric

posted October 30, 2008 at 11:16 pm


Kevin,
What kind of nonsensical question is that supposed to be and how is it relevant? I am sure Kevin Butterfield doesn’t claim to be a soothsayer. But on the authority of Scripture he can give an ultimate destiny of every person – between two choices of course.



report abuse
 

Kevin Butterfield

posted October 31, 2008 at 12:39 am


If you need me to tell you how it is relevant then how can you say it is nonsensical?



report abuse
 

Pingback: Creation vs. Evolution Redux - Text Messages

Pingback: Nazarene Professor’s New Book Slams Biblical Creationists | Around the World with Ken Ham

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

More blogs to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Blogalogue. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Inspiration Report Happy Reading!!!

posted 9:34:57am Jul. 06, 2012 | read full post »

How Do We Tell A True Act of God From A False One?
Dear Michael: Thank you again for this exchange, Michael; I am grateful that you took the time to teach me with such patience and tolerance. In all honesty, I can't follow your subtle discussion of the relationship between natural laws and Divine Providence. The fault is mine. I think you are sayi

posted 3:46:50pm Nov. 17, 2008 | read full post »

Do You Wonder About the Source of Meaning?
Dear Heather, I really enjoy the way you conduct a path through our disagreements. You are tough, but open to differences. As we have agreed from the first, to achieve real disagreement is a long-term task; it takes a lot of brandies sipped slowly together (so to speak) to get past the misunderstan

posted 10:51:30am Nov. 14, 2008 | read full post »

What About Other Religions?
Dear Michael: Thank you so much for your candid and probing response; it is most illuminating. Before addressing your final question, I am going to risk characterizing your presentation of religious faith. Some of our readers, if not you yourself, may find this presumptuous; if so, I accept their c

posted 4:21:02pm Nov. 13, 2008 | read full post »

Faith Is Not Just Belief
Dear Heather: There are many aspects of popular Catholic faith that have sometimes shocked me and turned me away. Yet I well remember visiting the great Catholic shrine at Czestechowa, in Poland, where once almost a million people turned out for Pope John Paul II when he first pierced the Iron Curta

posted 3:48:33pm Nov. 12, 2008 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.