Creo Catfight in Kentucky!

| 123 Comments

CatHam.jpg I had the displeasure of personally experiencing Kan Ham’s vitriol, applied to scientists at the time, way back in 1995, when he brought his creation seminar to Albuquerque. Time has passed, but Ham is still dispensing the vitriol. What’s changed is that now, he’s railing against his fellow Creationists!

The Lexington (Ky.) Herald-Leader reported on March 24th that

Ken Ham, the man behind the Creation Museum and the future Ark Encounter amusement park, has been disinvited from a homeschool convention in Cincinnati next week because he made “ungodly, and mean-spirited” comments about another speaker, according to the convention’s organizers.

Ham also will be excluded from future conventions, according to a statement by Brennan Dean of Great Homeschool Conventions.

“The board believes that Ken’s public criticism of the convention itself and other speakers at our convention require him to surrender the spiritual privilege of addressing our homeschool audience,” Dean said in the statement.

At issue are criticisms by Ham of Peter Enns of the Biologos Foundation, who has said the fall of Adam and Eve can be construed as a symbolic story of Israel’s beginnings, rather than a literal description of human beginnings.

On his blog and in other statements, Ham takes issue with this view and Enns’ homeschool curriculum.

“In fact,” Ham wrote in a recent blog post, “what he teaches about Genesis is not just compromising Genesis with evolution, it is outright liberal theology that totally undermines the authority of the Word of God.” …

On the Web: Answers in Genesis Explains the Rift

Discuss.

123 Comments

This reminds me of when Mr Ham broke ties with his Australian compatriots concerning stealing paying subscribers.

I wonder if this might affect the “museum” and plans for the “amusement park” celebrating divine genocide.

At the least, some creationists might be somewhat less likely to patronize such junk.

Glen Davidson

What does that tell you, Ken, when your fellow liars-to-children think that even YOU are too lunatic for them???

I’m enjoying every minute of this. Here are these supposedly “Christian” morons who have trouble living up to Jesus Christ’s teachings, and yet claim to be the devout Christians that they are. If I didn’t know better, I would have thought this was a long Monty Python skit in progress.

I’ve noticed in recent months, Senor Jambon has seemed consumed with responding to how much he’s daily dissed by the reality-based world. Almost every post is “Can you believe what he wrote about me/us?!” “Can you believe this quote about AiG??” Not sure why he even cares what people say about him, as it seems “The Creation [Anti]Museum” is doing quite well. But there’s often a degree of hubris that comes with such success… and perhaps The Ham-Inator feels he should by now be above such criticism. Or maybe the pressure of holding together his little fundie fiefdom in the face of opposition from even his fellow evangelicals pushing him over the edge. Perhaps soon his head will explode. Ahhh… one can hope!

Paul said: Perhaps soon his head will explode. Ahhh… one can hope!

Personally, I would prefer to think that maybe someday he’ll get a clue. But the odds of that happening are low as well.

Well, on intramural stuff, I always prefer peace and kumbaya to drama and dustup.

However, ‘Peace-at-any-Price’ just doesn’t work. Especially not for Christianity. (That’s how all the theistic evolutionists got their fannies messed up!!).

So, while I don’t celebrate what has happened, I truly believe that Ham’s and AIG’s strong response was in fact justified, given what was going on.

Dr. Enns is not a monster. In fact, I’d buy up his textbook Moody Handbook of Theology in a heartbeat. Probably will purchase it by next year.

But having said that…Well, you gotta draw a line somewhere sometime. The Conference organizers should have found a Christian TE who still puts the “Christian” ahead of the “TE.”

So, the fact is that Ham/AIG was correct to risk retaliation for speaking the honest truth.

*****

In another forum, I wrote:

ICR has taken a firm–and necessary–stand on the Homeschooling Conference controversy.

I don’t see the Homeschooling Conference organizers as monsters just for wanting to include YEC and non-YEC at the microphone.

But we need to get honest–they invited a Biologos TE guy (Dr. Enns) who’s busy running around here selling massive disbelief and doubt lately, including his Bible curriculum, even to the point of advising Christian parents that “the subject of sin should not be taught to children”.

Say WHAT?? No way, bay-bay. That kind of jive-time hooly-magoo, coming from a guy calling himself a Christian, is messed up like a diarrhea devil-dog.

(And NO, I have not said that anybody was going to Hell. Neither has ICR or AIG. Not a soul. I’m just telling you the truth about Enns’ evolution-derived, Bible-denying, half-Hadean GOOP, that’s all. You can email him and snitch on me if you want to.)

Therefore, honestly, Ken Ham and AIG’s strong response, given what Enns/Biologos have been putting out lately against both the Bible and Ham/AIG, becomes much more justified and reasonable.

Sometimes you have to at least speak up and let the chips fall.

Meanwhile, let’s take a look. Please check out ICR’s clear and correct analysis concerning this controversy.

http://www.icr.org/article/6032/

Again, I’d prefer peace and quiet. However, Ken Ham is correct. And honestly, peace at any price doesn’t work. That’s the deal.

FL

Well, if the Bible is so clear, how come these Home Schooling Conventions don’t see things Ham’s way, FL?

How is it that you and Ken Ham are True Christians™ and the Home Schooling Convention organizers aren’t?

Is it the Devil, or what?

FL said: Again, I’d prefer peace and quiet. However, Ken Ham is correct. And honestly, peace at any price doesn’t work. That’s the deal.

Well, OK. If ya’ll gotta insist on fighting among yourselves … I don’t see any reason to complain.

So, FL, do you agree with Ken Ham in that the Homeschoolers are just as bad and unChristian as the hippie fornicators of the 60’s?

mrg said:

FL said: Again, I’d prefer peace and quiet. However, Ken Ham is correct. And honestly, peace at any price doesn’t work. That’s the deal.

Well, OK. If ya’ll gotta insist on fighting among yourselves … I don’t see any reason to complain.

Of course not: Christians like Ken Ham and FL hate “peace,” and they hate “love.” They only want obedience and profit, and they always fight and attack anything and anyone they fear will take away their stolen riches. Hence their constant attacks against education, science, and each other.

Quikie questions for Vanko and Stanton:

Specifically where, in the Ham/AIG link (given in the OP), does it say that the Conference organizers are NOT Christians?

Where does Ham say that Enns or the conference organizers are “unChristian” (to borrow Stanton’s phrase)?

FL

At times, ol’ Hambo seems to behave like a megalomaniac, believing that he alone preaches the TRVTH. He’s the ayatollah of Appalachia, and his fellow creationists can’t put up with him any more.

Nathan Ham’s rebuttal to the HomeschoolersSome Christians today are like the hippies of 50 years ago who used the word “love” to justify their fornications and sins against the word of God. The hippie culture is often pictured as a group of drug-addicted, fornicating drunks whose catchphrase “make love, not war” gave their movement a false sense of piety.

Perhaps you could translate what Nathan Ham is saying, FL?

From what little I know of Christianese, when a Christian makes an unfavorable comparison of another Christian to a specific species of Sinner, that means that that other Christian either is similar to, or is that species of Sinner, and then there is the unspoken statement that that hate Christian is not really a Christian, but a Hellbound Sinner wasting space and breath.

John Vanko said:

Well, if the Bible is so clear, how come these Home Schooling Conventions don’t see things Ham’s way, FL?

How is it that you and Ken Ham are True Christians™ and the Home Schooling Convention organizers aren’t?

Is it the Devil, or what?

FL thinks it’s because of Evolution, because, after all, FL really knows that Evolution really isn’t a natural phenomenon, but an evil god as powerful as Satan, out to seduce, devour and impurify Good Christians everywhere. He learned that so in a college class, too.

FL lying outright again, as usual:

Well, on intramural stuff, I always prefer peace and kumbaya to drama and dustup.

However, ‘Peace-at-any-Price’ just doesn’t work. Especially not for Christianity. (That’s how all the theistic evolutionists got their fannies messed up!!).

So, while I don’t celebrate what has happened, I truly believe that Ham’s and AIG’s strong response was in fact justified, given what was going on.

Dr. Enns is not a monster. In fact, I’d buy up his textbook Moody Handbook of Theology in a heartbeat. Probably will purchase it by next year.

But having said that…Well, you gotta draw a line somewhere sometime. The Conference organizers should have found a Christian TE who still puts the “Christian” ahead of the “TE.”

So, the fact is that Ham/AIG was correct to risk retaliation for speaking the honest truth.

Again, I’d prefer peace and quiet. However, Ken Ham is correct. And honestly, peace at any price doesn’t work. That’s the deal.

FL

If you prefer peace and quiet, you wouldn’t be here at all. Ken Ham is a megalomaniac and by defending his lunacy you come across as one too.

The hilarious part of this is that it’s of a piece with the rest of sectarian Christendom. Divergences in Christian sects are mostly over politics and money, and the politics is usually personal, although they’re usually presented as being over doctrine. That goes ‘way, ‘way back.

Possibly this spat derives from some beef between Enns and Ham over who’s the big man, or something one of them said about the other, or simply that they don’t like each other, and there ain’t room enough in this town (or sect) for both of them. The first split in Christendom, between Paul and the original disciples, was over stuff like that.

Ham and Enns will say that it’s over the authority of the Word of God, but they really mean that it’s over their own authority to tell people what the Word of God is. Neither of them has any whatsoever, of course.

Ham says that all of Genesis must be taken as literal fact, except those bits that he, Ken Ham, says shouldn’t be.

Enns, it would appear, has a somewhat different list of those. Possibly Enns is somewhere within shouting distance of reality. He might be prepared to consider actual evidence. Who knows? But accepting a different list of metaphors from Ken Ham’s list means disputing Ken Ham’s personal infallibility, and that’s something Ken can’t brook.

So, yes, it may be personal. But I think, looking at what’s involved here, that what this is really about is money. It’s market share. Some marketing guy has sent a memo.

The homeschoolers want a larger market share than they’ve got, and to get that, they need to appeal to a demographic beyond bedrock fundamentalist creobots. One group they badly want to get in are parents who are considering homeschooling because they don’t think the schools are giving a good enough education, or because there’s too much bullying and abuse. That’s a group who aren’t going to be impressed with the likes of Ham, a man who’s elevated ignorance, bullying and abuse into a political method.

So, Ken’s gotta be hung out to dry. And it has to be done neat and clean, in the dead of night, as a fait accompli. Well, there’s precedent in the Scriptures for that, you know. Not that Ken has any of the characteristics of the guy they did it to, back then.

But reflect, if you like, on what these loons would be doing to each other - and to us - if they actually had the powers of the Sanhedrin.

To describe Emms as holding “outright liberal theology that totally undermines the authority of the Word of God” is simply a bare-faced lie.

But then lying is the standard practice of creationists.

I first met Scam in Liverpool in 1991/2 and experienced his vitriol. Sadly he removed reference to me from his website.

Dave Luckett said:

The hilarious part of this is that it’s of a piece with the rest of sectarian Christendom. Divergences in Christian sects are mostly over politics and money, and the politics is usually personal, although they’re usually presented as being over doctrine. That goes ‘way, ‘way back.

Dave, I’ll agree with you about these nuts, but please don’t generalize to all Christians. It’s like saying the most extreme “Tea Partiers” are representative of Republicans, or that a few Socialists are typical of Democrats.

I’m a Christian (Episcopalian), a geologist, and a firm believer in evolution. My whole denomination, and many other mainstream denominations ignores the creationists and other fundamentalists as a crazy extreme. Our clergy sign Michael Zimmerman’s Clergy Letters project, and the only reason we don’t hold Evolution Weekend services is that there’s nobody in my parish that believes in creationism to start with. And no, the fundamentalists don’t listen to our criticisms of their beliefs either. The problem is, when scientists equate “Idiotic fundamentalist creationist” with “Christian”, they demean a lot of good, decent people, and make them that much less interested in listening to good science.

Mike

For the record I am a church of England vicar

So I guess this is pretty bad economic news for the new Ark thing.

Seems like the best potential customers are being antagonized.

Dunno. Ham has a lot of backing that just won’t go away.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience[…]gnofendtimes

Green, blue, or Oil of ?

If you prefer peace and quiet, you wouldn’t be here at all.

Umm Dale, I was talking about Christian homeschooling conferences. You should know that I don’t come HERE for peace and quiet. I come to PT when I want busted chairs & broken glass.

(Everybody needs a hobby, ya know!)

PS.…from what I’ve seen over the years, you Panda Boys have had your own intra-mural dustups on occasion. That’s how you eventually, umm, lost your theistic evolutionist contributor PvM, no?

FL

FL said:

(Everybody needs a hobby, ya know!)

Ah, somebody conceding the truth that posting to internet forums is really nothing more than an entertainment.

It seems obvious, but people on both sides keep trying to pretend they’re doing something significant. “If my objective was doing something significant, I wouldn’t come here.”

Of course FL once again ignores the tough questions. Stanton quoted Ham on the subject of the homeschoolers that sounded to me like a rejection of their christianity. No answer FL? Then you are lying, again.

Frank B said:

Of course FL once again ignores the tough questions. Stanton quoted Ham on the subject of the homeschoolers that sounded to me like a rejection of their christianity. No answer FL? Then you are lying, again.

Now now, True ™ Christians NEVER fight – they merely politely disagree in a loving fashion, and never question each other’s faith in Jesus. Only false Christians fight. And look at the disasters that such disagreements have generated in the past! False Christians arguing among themselves have murdered and slaughtered 10 of millions in senseless wars about meaningless and false theological doctrines. Bible believing Christians merely lovingly point out their differences. FL is merely showing that Hamm, as a True ™ Bible-believing Christian ™ was merely correcting the false “Christians.” As such, the false “Christians” have no leg to stand on, and their mean-spirited response to Ken’s True Teachings ™ was in indication of their dangerously false beliefs.

FL lied:

PS.…from what I’ve seen over the years, you Panda Boys have had your own intra-mural dustups on occasion. That’s how you eventually, umm, lost your theistic evolutionist contributor PvM, no?

Lying and slandering again, as usual. You’ve made this same slander before, and, as usual, you refuse to show us exactly when and where it was said that PvM was forced out of Panda’s Thumb for being Christian. Hypocritically, by your own bigoted standards, PvM isn’t a Christian for accepting Evolution(ary Biology) as being true.

By the way, FL, as Frank B already noted, you neglected to explain to me why Ham’s quote is not a rejection of the Homeschoolers’ Christianity.

Too cowardly to answer? Or, are you canny enough to realize that Ham’s quote is indefensible?

Dave Luckett said:

“It’s market share.”

Precisely. Exactly. You hit the nail on the head. Market Share. Something FL can’t (won’t) understand with his pre-modern, alienated mindset.

FL the deceitful malevolent malingering Answers in Genesis Dalek clone barfed:

If you prefer peace and quiet, you wouldn’t be here at all.

Umm Dale, I was talking about Christian homeschooling conferences. You should know that I don’t come HERE for peace and quiet. I come to PT when I want busted chairs & broken glass.

(Everybody needs a hobby, ya know!)

PS.…from what I’ve seen over the years, you Panda Boys have had your own intra-mural dustups on occasion. That’s how you eventually, umm, lost your theistic evolutionist contributor PvM, no?

FL

Honesty from a Xian Dalek like yourself? How refreshing. Probably the only time I have read a truly credible comment from you. But of course I know how much you relish your “chores” as a drive by creotard.

Dave Luckett said:

I make the different argument that theists who would otherwise advocate for science and science education will tend to withdraw from the debate if it is implied or stated to them that science requires or implies atheism, especially if this implication or statement is made in personally insulting terms. That is, potential allies in that debate will become alienated.

I agree entirely. It’s a matter of prioritizing one’s battles. I’ll concern myself with Ken Miller’s Catholicism when their aren’t, by orders of magnitude, bigger fish to fry.

harold said:

It is a delicate balancing act to determine which method to use.

I think I have used just about everything you mentioned over the last 40+ years. But usually it is to provoke responses that add to the profile of the individual who is attacking the science.

It is often possible to expose the misconceptions an ID/creationist has if one can get him (it’s almost always a him) to try to explain something.

However, in the process, one also discovers those instances of arrested cognitive development in which the individual never explains a concept but merely cites “authority.” And then we have also seen those instances in which ID/creationists demonstrate that they cannot grasp analogies and metaphors.

Stepping back and analyzing those responses to determine where the misconceptions arise and what development stages one is dealing with takes much of the emotion out of it for the person doing the diagnosis. It then becomes more of a “cold and clinical” process from which one can learn how to teach scientific concepts better.

Presenting such cold analyses to audiences along with examples then becomes quite effective in discrediting the claims of ID/creationists.

I don’t particularly care if the ID/creationists know what I am doing. I suspect down deep, they know they are bullshitting but are constantly on the prowl for people they can dominate and bamboozle. But since their “understanding” of scientific concepts is minimal at best, they aren’t much of a threat in the presence of people who really know things.

Science Avenger said:

Dave Luckett said:

I make the different argument that theists who would otherwise advocate for science and science education will tend to withdraw from the debate if it is implied or stated to them that science requires or implies atheism, especially if this implication or statement is made in personally insulting terms. That is, potential allies in that debate will become alienated.

I agree entirely. It’s a matter of prioritizing one’s battles. I’ll concern myself with Ken Miller’s Catholicism when their aren’t, by orders of magnitude, bigger fish to fry.

As you know, I don’t object to Ken’s Roman Catholicism and, moreover, as I have noted here more than once, he has said that those who espouse faiths hostile to science should reject them. However, I will concede that what could be construed as problematic is Ken’s acceptance of a weak form of the Anthropic Principle, which he states in his “Only A Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul” (IMHO that detracts needlessly from what is otherwise a great condemnation of Intelligent Design cretinism from a prominent theistic scientist.).

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Dave Thomas published on March 25, 2011 3:26 PM.

Primordial Soup - It’s Still Mmm-mmm Good! was the previous entry in this blog.

sudo laugh again is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter