Ken Ham, hard-right Trump voting Biblical literalist, firebrand fundamentalist, "Young Earth" theme park supremo and bigoted blowhard recently published a blog post criticizing BioLogos, a Christian organization which promotes evolutionary creation. The target of his criticism was an open letter from BioLogos about science and faith. In his criticism Ken repeats for the umpteenth time his profound misunderstanding of the nature of science and how it works....
KEN OPINES: Throughout the letter, they never really define what they mean by science, but based on their other writings, it’s clear they are lumping historical and observational science together.
Observational
science is science we can directly test and observe (e.g., technology,
medicine, etc.), and while this type of science often doesn’t have the same
problems regarding interpretation that historical science has, your worldview
still matters!
MY COMMENT: That Ken might actually have an inkling that his "historical science" vs. "observational sciences" dichotomy may not be as simple as he makes out is suggested by his admission that this type of science (i.e. "observational science") often doesn’t have the same problems regarding interpretation that historical science has.... So, if so-called "observational science" often doesn’t have the same problems regarding interpretation I read that to mean that Ken is admitting that "observational science" sometimes does have the same problems of interpretation! Too right it does! What about the "observational sciences" of economics, social sciences, psychology and even complex technological systems...etc? Observation is not necessarily so easy even for present-tense-continuous processes is it Kenneth?
What is beyond our Ken is that all science is observational in so far as all the theories of science submit themselves to observational sampling. The problems of interpretation arise because of differences that these objects have in their epistemic distance; that is, their amenability to the collection of the relevant observational samples.
As always Ken's polarizing mind tries to turn a question of degree into a black and white either/or question which allows him to sort people into sheep and goats using a shibboleth (an approach to society common to both the hard-right and hard-left as they seek to demonize the opposition). I have addressed Ken's naive conception of science on several occasions. Viz:
Quantum Non-Linearity: Beware: Anti-Science Mind at Work
Quantum Non-Linearity: Mangling Science Part 5: Two Kinds of Science?.
Quantum Non-Linearity: Mangling Science Part 2: Opening up Ken’s Can
Quantum Non-Linearity: Epistemology, Ontology, Creation and Salvation
Ken might also like to ask himself whether the bizarre coordinate transformation proposed by his cosmologist mate Jason Lisle (and published on the AiG web site and with whom Ken eventually fell out) which tried solve the Young Earth star light problem by making all distant galaxies "now" objects, makes them observational or historical science. I suspect that once again we've got here another question which is beyond our Ken.
***
I have also addressed Ken's fundamentalist tendency to reinterpret reality and distort it in the process. See here....
Quantum Non-Linearity: History? No, more like Hamstory!
Views, News and Pews: The Distorting Lens of Fundamentalism
Views, News and Pews: The "Answers in Genesis" world of half-truths
I would also charge Ken with acting as a crypto-cult leader who comes very close to using spiritual intimidation and spiritual abuse in order to ease through his will. See here....
Views, News and Pews: Jeepers Creepers II: The John Mackay Affair
Views, News and Pews: Fundamentalist Publicity Sects.
Views, News and Pews: Hell and Hamnation Watch
Views, News and Pews: Calling down Hell and Hamnation on Heretics!
I would also question Ken's understanding of the basis of morality; morality isn't based on Ken's concept of the "letter of the law" but rather the "spirit of the law". The true spirit of the law is only meaningful because human beings (and God of course) are centres of conscious cognition. See here....
Views, News and Pews: The dangers of rule driven morality.
If I was as bigoted as Ken I could turn the very words of Ken Ham on himself, simply by replacing "Man" with "Ken" as per the following quote based on an extract from his own writings.
Instead of starting with God’s Word, Ken starts with Ken's ideas and then tries to fit God in somewhere. It’s a compromise of mixing Ken's ideas (really, Ken's religion of rule following) with God’s Word—and God hates compromise.
I think it's sobering to remember that Christianity is and has always been a wide collection of overlapping, highly variegated sub-cultures of which Ken and AiG, the Watchtower Organization, the Children of God, The flat earth movement, Trumpite evangelicalism, Putinite Orthodoxy, The Mormons etc. are just a few if perhaps rather extreme examples; and yes, this is the human shower I identify with See page 8 of this document.
1 comment:
Here/s the Microsoft Edge summary of this page....
The blog post critiques Ken Ham, a well-known proponent of Young Earth creationism, for his misunderstanding of science. The author challenges Ham's dichotomy between "historical science" and "observational science," arguing that all science relies on observational sampling and interpretation. The post points out that Ham's perspective creates unnecessary polarization and misrepresents scientific inquiry. Additionally, it suggests that Ham's approach to morality is rule-based rather than rooted in the spirit of the law. The author also compares Ham's views to other rigid religious movements and questions his potential for spiritual intimidation. Several linked articles further examine Ham's views and their implications.
Post a Comment