Ken Ham: Vote Trump? ...and support the Kremlin?

Ken still hasn't acknowledged the Trump menace.

In a video entitled "What is the role of Government" (17th October), Ken Ham, supremo of the Answers in Genesis (AiG) young earthist theme park, gives his views on the role of Government. For a Christian of many years standing Ken's teaching about government is basic and not particularly controversial from a Christian angle (leaving aside Ken's young earthism, his anti-gay views & his naturally authoritarian character *1). However, given the kind of policy supported by the Republican party it is very likely that Ken votes Republican; it is easy to infer this from Ken's video. But there's nothing wrong with that: He lives in what is purported to be a democracy and is free to argue for the Republicans. 

Under normal circumstances I wouldn't find Ken's video particularly remarkable but the political situation in the US is far from normality: Currently the Republican party is not just a party supporting the more conservative and traditional values that Ken prefers: That's because at the present time Republicanism is hosting a monstrous parasitic cuckoo in the nest, a monster that is destabilizing the world order, a world that in any case often finds itself teetering dangerously on edge of conflict. So, instead of just making his Republican preference clear, why isn't Ken talking about the Whitehouse's abuse of government and it's criminal occupant? I suspect that's because Ken knows his AiG bread is buttered in part by evangelical MAGArites; in short he can't afford to alienate MAGArism. 

Unfortunately, given the political situation in the US a vote for the Republicans in the primaries is now vote for the narcissistic parasite in the Whitehouse. That parasite is creating a traitorous regime which is hostile to the Western democratic alliance and is apparently in favour of the criminal tyrant ("a cold blooded killer" according to Wes Streeting) that resides in the Kremlin. 

When I saw the front page of Ken's video (See picture above) my first thought was that perhaps Ken was at last calling Trump to order, but no, he simply effectively promotes the Republican party and stays silent about the corruption of MAGArism. It is the misfortune of the Republican party that a vote for them in the primaries is a vote for MAGArism and therefore by implication a vote for the Kremlin. When Republicanism has at last purged itself of a parasitic pathogen Ken can comfortably go back to promoting Republicanism to his heart's content. 

Footnote

*1 Ken fails to acknowledge that God's Word is seen through an interpretative filter which necessarily engages huge but fallible cognitive and cultural resources, as it does for all of us. Therefore what he stridently refers to as God's Word is in fact Ken's word and therefore should be administered with epistemic humility rather than with the fundamentalist cultic arrogance that he is accustomed to.  With regard to that arrogance let's not forget the fulminating bad mouthing Ken gives to Christians he disagrees with:

Views, News and Pews: Hell and Hamnation Watch

Views, News and Pews: Calling down Hell and Hamnation on Heretics!

Views, News and Pews: Holy Bad Mouthing

Ken might give lip service to his claim that his young earthism is an "authority issue" (i.e. the "authority" of AiG to interpret the Bible for us) and not a faith issue, but looking at the above links I would say that he does make it a faith issue. 

Disobeying The Word of Ham

Perhaps it's just a coincidence but I notice that Ken published a blog post on the 24th February entitled "When in the Biblical Timeline did Satan fall?". He's playing catch up! See *3 in the text.

"This Christian Leader cannot be trusted"
....said Ken

You can be quite sure that Ken Ham, the fundamentalist "Answers in Genesis" theme park supremo, voted Trump in the 2024 US elections (See here). He also appears to have linked his interpretation of the Christian cause with the emerging far-right where, presumably, AiG's supporting and financing community lies. For example in one of his posts where he mentions the persecution of Christians he says:

Will persecution ramp up against Christians/conservatives?

Yes, it may be that persecution will increase, but who are these "conservatives" Ken mentions and why bundle them together with Christians? Can we talk about Christians/liberals? After all, in spite of vociferous tribal squabbling between Christians Christianity is a very broad church (unless one has a fundamentalist perspective), a church which actually includes people from both the "woke" and the "unwoke" tribes. God is good to quarrelling humankind.

I used to think of myself as a conservative; I still do in fact: I largely support capitalism (intelligently regulated), the democratic status quo, the academic & scientific establishment, and I'm a constitutional monarchist. But somehow I don't think I'm the sort of "conservative" our Ken has in mind! I wonder if he would equate my criticisms of his kind of conservative with "persecution"?

Among the "conservatives" Ken alludes to I have an inkling one can find some or all of the following sentiments.... 

1. Aspirations to destroy our argumentative & complex democratic administration on the basis of conspiracy theories about a "deep state". 

2. A highly ideological form of economic libertarianism...such would likely create a political vacuum giving opportunity to plutocratic authoritarians who would enforce their libertarian ideology, thus bringing in draconian regulation by the backdoor. 

3. Seeking to protect cultural Christianity with nationalistic concepts & boundaries.

4. Telling us to shelve the concept of "empathy" because it's too "woke" or "new-age" (See here)

5. Sympathies with the social and market Darwinism of Ayan Rand (*4).

6. There is nothing wrong with raising a question or two over climate science, but many of those "conservatives" are declaring "climate alarmism" as a hoax, a leftist conspiracy, perhaps promoted by China. The result: Climate complacency. 

7. Widespread support for Donald Trump, a pathological liar who appears to have a personality disorder.

There are inconsistencies in this list but in our passionate and polarized culture-war blatant internal contradictions are easily overlooked (*1). Moreover, the far-right are so far-right, that a conservative like myself looks like a "radical woke leftist". But of course Ken isn't thinking of my kind of conservative. In using the term "conservative" Ken is sending out a virtue signal to his constituency - namely, to the far-right Christians who think of  their Trump supporting culture as the only true "conservativism" (and. perhaps, a corollate of the only true, or at least the best form of Christianity); consider for example those otherwise conservative Republicans who oppose Trumpism and who are categorized by the radical-right as "Rinos". ("Republican in name only").

Such are the people who finance Ken's business interests and he can not afford to alienate them because those business interests depend on them (*2). Moreover, it is in the interests of Ken's business to bring to bear the most spiritually intimidating language when he calls down hell and hamnation on influential Christians who hold views which contradict Ken's young earth literalism, a literalism which is the foundational rationale for the Answers in Genesis organization. For just how spiritually bullying he can get even with very devout Christians see here for example; but I'm also going to comment on a recent post by Ken where he bad-mouths Hugh Ross, an influential Christian who believes in an old Earth, and tells us that Ross "cannot be trusted"; once again testament as to just how extreme Ken's language gets even toward devout and very committed Christians. But then this is just what is meant when somebody earns the label "fundamentalist". 

***

Hugh Ross, leader of the old Earth Reasons to Believe ministry promotes the idea that the Bible and Creation are two books of Revelation. Ken is really riled by Hugh's old Earth views as he is any other influential Christians who hold views contrary to the rationale behind his theme park. I would go along with Hugh's old earth views but I don't accept the two books notion myself. That's because no book written in natural language can be read in a cultural vacuum; the interpretation of natural language necessarily employs huge resources from the rest of the created context; from the cognitive, through the cultural to the historical. Thus, in my view the Bible is organically joined to the rest of creation thus forming an integrated body of Revelation; a medium through which signals from the Divine mind are transmitted. But all that's by the by. What I want to do now is critique a paragraph from an article by Ken where he made his accusation that fellow Christian Hugh Ross is untrustworthy.

***

In a blog post titled "Did God give us two books?" Ken asks "Is nature really the 67th book of the Bible?". Ken does not think so because...

SAYS KEN: Nature is cursed. We aren’t looking at the world as God made it. According to biblical history, we’re looking at a creation that was once “very good” but is now cursed with death and suffering (because of sin) and was judged by a global flood. We can’t look at this creation and figure out what happened in the past without the eyewitness revelation of the Creator (given in Genesis 1–11).

MY COMMENT:  Strictly, the Genesis 3:17ff doesn't say nature is cursed, it says the ground and man's working of it is cursed. That's not necessarily the same as saying the whole Earth or the whole Universe is cursed: The ground and man's working of it is the agricultural foundation of all human production and civilization. From Genesis 3:17ff the most we can say is that human production is cursed whether through human sin or through direct Divine declaration. Fundamentalists like Ken also tend to miss that the serpent of  Gen 3:1 suggests that a created but fallen being existed before the fall of man (*3). So humanity did not find itself in a perfect creation before the human fall. 

Romans 8:20ff, which tells us we are in a less than perfect world is ambiguous; it is ambiguous about the cause of this lack of perfection. Is 8:20 referring to God, Satan or man? But Ken doesn't like ambiguity; being a true fundamentalist and young earth literalist Ken bills himself as being blessed with utter certainty. It is this arrogant habit of mind which he believes entitles him to blowhard hard on what he considers to be heretics. 

But whatever! Imperfect though it may be there is so much about the creation which is still very good although man's relationships revolving around the means of production are certainly hindered by the curse of sin. 

Ken's intent, if I'm reading him correctly is that he's trying to undermine Hugh Ross' 67th book thesis by suggesting that the information delivered to us via creation and which informs about deep-time is Hamstrung by the curse. Well, firstly, as I've said, this doesn't follow from the theology of the Genesis fall of man which is not about the creation in toto. Secondly, I myself have no use for the 67th book thesis; that's not how the Bible works; my view is that the Bible and the rest of creation form an organically unified body of revelation via the equation Meaning = Text + Context (where the resources of Context facilitate interpretation). Thirdly, it doesn't follow that because of human sin light signals and many other signals mediated via creation don't testify to long ages. The creation still yields truthful information about its age and this is not Hamstrung by the fall; after all, the messages of creation are likely to mirror God's integrity. 

One other criticism I would like to make of Ken's paragraph above is that it is misleading to say that God was an "eyewitness" to creation because He doesn't have eyes - that is an anthropomorphism. Very likely we perceive creation in a very different way to how God sees it. 

Hence, in conclusion, using Ken's own words found in his post as a template, I think we can say....

Rather than accepting Ken's authoritarian annunciations about the past and forcing them into Scripture, we must always start with Scripture first and allow God’s Word to be our authority.

Footnotes

*1. But see this article on Science & Culture which does identify a right-wing split. 

*2. See for example a post by Ken titled "The most important part of a church service" dated 20th Feb. As usual he complains about the "compromised" church as it attacks Ken's interpretation of Genesis with "the lies of evolution/millions of years".  Towards the end of the post Ken then stresses the need for the financial support of his organization (The emphasis is Ken's): 

"Your prayers and financial support are vital to helping us boldly continue the ministry that the Lord has called us to do — would you prayerfully consider sending a generous gift today at AnswersDonate.com? Your donation of any size will be a great blessing to AiG. 

Thank you for being part of our Answers in Genesis family and supporting us prayerfully and financially. Please know that support is an investment in eternity as we reach as many as we can with the truth of God’s Word and the saving gospel.

 I wonder if AiG is a bit strapped for cash at the moment?

*3. Perhaps it's just a coincidence but I notice that Ken published a blog post on the 24th February entitled "When in the Biblical Timeline did Satan fall?". He's playing catch up!

*4. See for example Darren Beatie who looks to be a social Darwinist. This is the kind of person Ken has helped put in power.

A stuck gramophone record

A somewhat embattled Kenneth Ham. 

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.

 Historical science deals with an interpretation of the unobserved past, and BioLogos has the wrong starting point. 

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.

Good News from Ken

 

An uneasy Ken Ham. Maybe he's
wondering if he's got it right after all! 
 He has a lot at stake.

In a post dated 12th March a somewhat concerned AiG theme park supremo, Ken Ham, writes this:

Over the past four decades of ministry, I’ve been disappointed by the low number of Christian academics, theologians, pastors, and leaders who will take a firm stand on Genesis publicly. Most won’t take a firm stand, allowing for compromise positions involving millions of years or even other evolutionary beliefs, and many of the ones who do believe in the straightforward teaching of Genesis aren’t willing to teach it to their congregations or others because it’s “too controversial.” 

I've always regarded this kind of admission by Ken as good news; it's an indication that in spite of the literalist excesses we hear so loudly from North America most Christian academics are loathe to endorse Ken's views.  But I suppose Ken's emphatic fundamentalist perspective is understandable: He's given his whole life to building up his religious business empire which depends on selling a ministry marketing a perverse understanding of science and the Bible, so he's not going to change his views in a hurry and will be jealously defensive of them. But in spite of Ken's marketing efforts, it looks as though things aren't going so well for him among thoughtful Christians. See also:

Quantum Non-Linearity: Good News from Ken Ham. (quantumnonlinearity.blogspot.com)

Views, News and Pews: More Good News From Ken Ham. (viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.com)

Ken goes on to explain his big beef:

Why is this so disheartening to me?

Well, because this is an authority issue! Ultimately, the battle over Genesis isn’t about the age of the earth or God’s method of creation. The issue is “Who is your ultimate authority?” Is it God and his Word,or is it man and his (fallible!) word? You see, millions of years and evolution don’t come from the biblical text—you won’t find even a hint of long ages or slow and gradual processes in Genesis! The reason so many Christians have accepted these ideas has nothing to do with Scripture and everything to do with taking man’s ideas about the past and adding them into Genesis.

Here Ken is engaged in his usual activity of impugning the conscience of those thoughtful Christians who disagree with him and accusing them of all but blasphemy: He just can't accept that other Christians may have good reason to reject his literalist interpretations and do so with a clear conscience and with no sense they are rejecting Biblical authority. The "ultimate authority" they are rejecting is in fact Ken's assertions based on flawed reasoning, behind which lie deep business interests. He of course genuinely believes that the arguments presented by AiG cannot be faulted: He therefore believes his antagonists don't have good reason to reject the claimed authority of AiG pronouncements and must have bad consciences. In Ken's mind this justifies his use of spiritually intimidating language threatening divine displeasure should AiG be contradicted.

As for those millions of years and evolution not being in the Bible...... Likewise, I'm unaware that the Bible teaches us that the Sun is a star.... but of course, it doesn't teach such a thing: The Bible is written from the perspective of the ancients who naturally enough would be unable to put the Sun in the same category as a star; they'd need to know a lot more about cosmic distances, atomic physics and gravity to do that!  It's no surprise then that at least one Biblical literalist should end up arguing that the Sun is not a Star: See here:

Quantum Non-Linearity: The Sun Isn't a Star!!?? Light Relief Time (quantumnonlinearity.blogspot.com)

Further, it is very debatable whether the Bible has any clarity about the Earth being a sphere; so much so in fact that some Christian literalists (not Ken I'm glad to say) have been arguing the case for a flat Earth. See this link:

Quantum Non-Linearity: Christian Fundamentalists Embrace Flat Earth. (quantumnonlinearity.blogspot.com)

My conclusion is that as a meaningful cross-cultural account of creation the Genesis story is necessarily highly symbolic rather than literal.  Ken is ripping Genesis 1 right out of its original cultural context just as do the "The Sun is not a star" literalists. Let's recall that meaning = text + context. This important "equation" is clearly something Ken is missing and needs to understand. 

Ken has invested a lifetime's work in his literalist theme park and has a lot to lose.  Therefore, his spiritually bullying tone comes very naturally out of his very committed business interests. It is also not surprising that he implicitly supports what is looking increasingly like an emerging Christian dominionist culture among Christian Trumpites. He also appears to implicitly support fellow fantasist Trey Smith who used the Ark Park to host a QAnon video. 

ADDENDUM 27/04/24

Ken's ignorance of science shows itself when he continues to promote the flawed "Two kinds of science" philosophy: That is, "Observational science" vs "Historical science".  See here for example: 

Creation Basics: Two Kinds of Science | Answers in Genesis

Why this is a very fundamental error is explained here:

Quantum Non-Linearity: The "Observational Science vs Historical Science" Error. (quantumnonlinearity.blogspot.com)

This false philosophy is, of course, promoted by AiG with the full force of its presumed authority and backed up by Ken's propensity to apply religious duress to those who disagree with him. Anyone joining this fundamentalist organization, and that includes those with science training, would very likely be expected to take onboard Ken's take on science. 

***

Interesting Links

1. Real Geology: As a break from those bizarre literalist views below is a link to an interesting post by Christian Geologist Micheal Roberts:

2000 years of Genesis and Geology | Peddling and Scaling God and Darwin (wordpress.com

I found the following diagram which he published of particular interest (Click on picture to enlarge):

2. Is Trump threatening political violence if he loses the '24 election?

Trump warns of 'bloodbath' if he loses the presidential election (msn.com)

I have this notion that if Trump is elected and America becomes a dictatorship, Trump and Putin will then face off against China.

3. Tell me about it!

Theologians explain how 'malignant narcissist' Trump feeds his 'hypomanic grandiosity' (msn.com)

4. Putin and Traditional Values

Vladimir Putin compares himself to Jesus in mission to uphold 'traditional values' (msn.com)

Putin compares himself to Jesus promoting 'traditional' values against the 'Satanic' West (msn.com)

...and that probably includes upholding the traditional values of Godfather government.  God warned the Israelites of the consequences of Royal dictatorship (1 Samuel 8: 7-18)

5. Cranky Taylor-Greene: Putin's useful idiot?

Greene’s 'Kremlin talking points' earn her a new nickname from former House Republican (msn.com)

Mike Johnson, although very conservative is quite a reasonable person. It goes to show that the real battle isn't with Republicans per se, but with up-and-coming Godfather regimes. See below:

"Buck called Greene’s remarks “irresponsible as so many of the statements that Marjorie has made over the years are completely irresponsible. The idea that somehow the Speaker is corrupt, because he believes that we should be supporting an ally that’s been invaded by a war criminal, Vladimir Putin, and the idea that somehow anybody who is in agreement with Ukraine and our NATO allies, is corrupt. It’s just another distraction that she uses to take away from the core arguments that are so important.”

On Monday Congresswoman Greene did just that, falsely telling far-right host Steve Bannon Russia is “protecting” Christianity while the “Ukrainian government is attacking Christians, the Ukrainian government is executing priests. Russia is not doing that.”

Numerous credible reports detail Russia’s torture and killing of Ukrainian clergy.

Greene has supported Russia over Ukraine for years."

Taylor-Greene: She clowns 
around but she's beyond a joke

The Trump team may understand that Taylor-Green's clowning is too much of a liability:

'Unwanted and just stupid': Trump insider trashes Marjorie Taylor Greene's latest stunt (msn.com)

5. On this side of the Atlantic we have our very own rival to MTG

Liz Truss claims dark forces that brought her down will come for Donald Trump if he wins election (msn.com)

If you don't agree with Liz you'll likely to be labelled by her as a woke leftist intent on destroying the West!

The "Answers in Genesis" world of half-truths

 Ken needs to screw his head on more tightly!

Beware: This probable Trumpite is helping to corrupt both 

American Christianity and American democracy.  

I've caught fundamentalist theme park supremo Kenneth Ham at it before; that is, telling half-truths in a way that has the effect of misrepresenting the actual situation. See for example the link below:

Views, News and Pews: History Please, Not Hamstory (viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.com)

See also my Hell and Hamnation watch posts which provide a sample of the kind of personality we are dealing with in Ken.

Now, if the Panda's Thumb website is to be believed then Ken is at it again with his contentions about his Ark Park financing. See here: 

Dan Phelps reminds Ken Ham of some important tax benefits (pandasthumb.org)

Ken is saying that the Ark Park was entirely funded by private means, a statement which I have no reason to doubt!  However, according to Panda's Thumb Ken is being selective in what he is telling us, and he is not telling us about the following:

* City of Williamstown sold Ark 98 acres of land for $1.

* City also gave AIG $175,000 in cash.

* City reduced property tax on Ark.

* City issued $62 million in unsecured junk bonds for Ark construction.

* 75% of Ark Encounter's property taxes will go to repaying bonds instead of to local government.

* Employees of Ark Encounter must pay 2% of wages to Ark bond debt (for next 30 years).

* State transportation cabinet spent $11 million to upgrade Interstate 75 exits in anticipation of huge traffic increase that did not occur.

* AIG claims Ark is worth $130 million on 990 forms to Federal government and potentially when getting loans. Grant County property tax valuation (which supports local schools) assesses Ark value at $48 million.

A selective epistemic like Ken's is something we've all got to be careful not to use: It is all too easy to find oneself selecting out only the facts which strengthen our contention. 

As we have seen in my links above Ken is very quick to accuse those who don't see eye to eye with him of being liars and/or evil compromisers (Much like Donald Trump in fact - Trump takes a very dim view of critics and disloyal followers; he uses any opposition to his Trumpness as a reason to abuse people). This form of character assassination is very much in line with a cult ethos which has parallels in the Watch Tower organization founded by Charles Taze Russel. However, the WT & its followers do at least keep themselves to themselves and aren't out to rule us all, since they eschew political involvement, unlike many a Trumpite fundamentalist who seem to be pursuing a line which looks suspiciously dominionist. As we have seen Ken is probably a Trumpite and has also given implicit credence to the Trump QAnon cult.

And in recent developments I note that the elected house speaker Mike Johnson is not only a Trump supporter and helped promote those 2020 lies about election fraud, but he also has connections with AiG. Answers in Genesis under Ken's leadership seems to be slowly cementing its links with the potential mob rule of Donald Trump. AiG is therefore corrupting Christianity and American democracy to boot. Political corruption of Christianity has happened before.

It would be nice if our Ken took a leaf out of the books of Christian conservatives Mike Pence and Micheal Brown*; neither supports Trump and both seem reasonable sympathetic Christians who, unlike Ken, have their heads well screwed on. I suspect that Micheal Brown is a young earthist which only goes to show that my problem with Ken is not primarily with his young earth views. 

Footnote:

* My main complaint with Brown is that he's not vocal enough about the dangers of Trumpism although I realize he has mitigating circumstances in that a large part of his audience and support base are from the Christain Trump-voting far-right, so he's got a lot at stake. 

Relevant links

1. Mike Johnson challenged over Trump election lies. 

'MAGA' Mike Johnson busted by Christian columnist for using the Bible to shield his lies (msn.com)

QUOTE: Touching on "Mike Johnson’s refusal to answer a question about the effort to overturn the 2020 election," French wrote, "There is a reason that effort is called the Big Lie. It was one of the most comprehensively and transparently dishonest political movements in American history. And Mike Johnson was in the middle of it."

2.  Trump's Extreme Nazi Sounding Rhetoric

Trump's Veteran's Day message draws comparisons to Hitler (msn.com)

Trump says: "In honor of our great Veterans on Veteran’s Day, we pledge to you that we will root out the Communists, Marxists, Fascists, and Radical Left Thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our Country, lie, steal, and cheat on Elections, and will do anything possible, whether legally or illegally, to destroy America, and the American Dream. The threat from outside forces is far less sinister, dangerous, and grave, than the threat from within. Despite the hatred and anger of the Radical Left Lunatics who want to destroy our Country, we will MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"

I have a feeling I'd fall into Trump's "Vermin" class. 

3. The Fear of Authoritarianism in the US

'Authoritarian lunatic' Trump aiming for 'something resembling Nazi Germany in the 30s': GOP strategist (msn.com)

4. Links to note:

Trump lawyers suggest Mike Pence is colluding with Biden to bring down their client (msn.com)

BBC blasted over 'woke' documentary as angry viewers call it 'ham-fisted propaganda' (msn.com)

Carlson: Caught Lying for Trump

Tucker Carlson & Fox News appear to be a trusted source at 

right-wing fundamentalist ministry "Answers in Genesis"

(click to enlarge)

Tucker Carlson, a Fox News liar who has promoted numerous conspiracy theories, particularly about election fraud, has left Fox News.....seemingly because those lies about election rigging have come home to roast roost at Fox News and Fox News needs a scapegoat, not that this scapegoat is innocent: Carlson was undoubtedly the vilest kind of conspiracy liar; in fact given his prominence and influence I would rate him second only to Alex Jones. 

As Carlson was so linked to Donald Trump, maybe his demise will help hold back Trump's bid for the presidency and what looks like the ulterior aim to turn the US into a right-wing dominionist dictatorship. Hopefully it will also hold back the career of authoritarian Qanon conspiracy crackpot and Putin supporter Marjorie Taylor Greene

NOTES: links to far-right  stories

1)  Here's a BBC link

Tucker Carlson leaves Fox News - BBC News

2) An FB friend of mine was criticizing the alt-right on his FB page. I agreed and added this comment:

A pretty standard & historically well tested strategy by the alt-right: Tap into fears, insecurity, bitterness, a sense of injustice, anger and the like, and then create an ogre by demonizing a group of people to pin the blame on. We've seen it so many times before!

 That is true of compromised popularist fundamentalists, Fox News and also the far-left

3)  Here's a Guardian Link:

Trump and Tucker Carlson were codependent. Their venn diagram was one angry white circle (msn.com)

4) A link on Taylor-Greene:

Will Marjorie Taylor Greene be the next Vice President of America? (msn.com)

5) Trump: If he thinks he can grab power without having to engage in a debate and give public account of himself then he will: He's conceited enough to think everyone wants him to be president and those who don't are engaged in an act of betrayal. This is the mind of a wannabe dictator who hates public accountability. 

Trump revives threat of skipping GOP presidential debates (msn.com)

6) Further evidence suggesting Trump is a dictator in waiting:

Donald Trump refuses to say if he wants Ukraine to win war against Russia (msn.com)

7) Trump to end Ukraine support?

How Trump presidency could change Ukraine war - BBC News

8) Trump vs DeSantis: Rightist vs Rightist. 

Donald Trump says ‘disloyal’ Ron DeSantis needs ‘personality transplant’ in rant ahead of campaign launch (msn.com)

9) Boebert vs Greene: Another Rightist vs Rightist squable:

Voices: The unsavory truth behind the Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert drama (msn.com)

Ham fisted "logic"

No cat has eight tails:  A cat has one tail more than no cat:

 Therefore, a cat has nine tails.

In a blog post titled Is It Even Possible for God to Use Evolution? dated 14^th April, fundamentalist theme park manager, Ken Ham states the (false) general theological premise that guides much of his young earthist thinking:

KEN: Is it even possible for God to use evolution to create? Think about it for a moment—could God use millions of years as part of his creation of life? “Of course he can. He’s God—he can do whatever he wants!” is the response I’ve received from many Christians and Christian leaders who believe God did use evolution and millions of years. But the answer to that question is actually no—he couldn’t have!

You see, God didn’t create the world the way we see it today. After he finished creating, he declared everything “very good” (Genesis 1:31). [With Evolution] One would then have to accept that God is calling death, diseases like cancer, and violence “very good.” That is an attack on the character of God.

 MY COMMENT: According to Cambridge biologist and evangelical Christian Denis Alexander the Biblical sense of “Very good” is not "perfection" but “Fit for purpose". Even in our own language something can be “very good” but far from perfect. We can talk of human beings as "very good" but they are all tainted by Sin, the progressive moral disease spelt with an "I" in the middle. Also, that humanity was commanded to subdue the Earth (Gen 1:28) is evidence that it was no finished work of perfection. The story of the serpent also tells us that even before the The Fall humans were not in a perfect world, for at least one created being ( Colossians 1:16) had already fallen. But the strongest evidence for an imperfect creation is found in the very fact that two of its main created protagonists, Satan and Mankind, had the potentiality to fall to temptation; unlike Jesus whose moral perfection meant that he did not fall when tempted.  A propensity to fall will, presumably, not be the case in the metamorphosed creation mentioned in the New Testament. 

KEN: So, could God use evolution and millions of years to create? No! Since it’s impossible for God to deny himself and go against his character, it’s impossible for God to use a bloody, death-stained process like evolution to create life.

God could not use (or could not have used) evolution and millions of years for this same basic reason. It would be impossible for him to do so because it would go against his character.

MY COMMENT: Even if for the sake of argument one accepts Ken’s 6000 year time scale his reasoning still collapses. Unless we are deists, we believe that God's work didn’t stop at the end of the creation days: Novel and original reified history is constantly emerging everywhere and everywhen from the platonic world of possibility: Death, disease, violence and evil are being reified hour by hour into the secular realm. Since God is unconditional sovereign, this can only be the case if God’s Permissive Will allows it. Two very significant reifications were the fall of Satan and humanity. Like many other evils these "free choice" events weren't blocked from reification, but for inscrutable divine purposes they secured God's permission to enter the created world.  They are evidence that Satan and humanity were subject to vanity from the start: God, of course, being omniscient, knew the potential consequences of this vanity, but nevertheless suffered to bring forth this story of imperfection from the platonic realm into the reified created realm. 

But according to Ken's "logic" it is impossible for God to reify this ongoing catalogue of evil because his nature denies that he can make use of such. But, apparently, He is making use of it (Romans 8:28ff).  We are of course wading into deep water here: This is the famous and perplexing question of suffering and evil, a problem which has consumed the thought and ink of many a theologian and philosopher: Viz: How can a just, loving and omnipotent God allow suffering and evil in his world and moreover sustain its existence on a day-by-day basis? What use can he make of the bad choices of humans and Satan? Why doesn't He block these choices? Why also, is the natural world permitted to be a source of suffering? I'm certainly not going to address these perennial questions here: I just want to point out that Ken's argument touches on deep mysteries few of us understand. The suffering and death entailed by evolution is not a sufficient theological reason (as opposed to any scientific reasons that may be tendered) to rule it out. It appears that Ken hasn't twigged that his problem with evolution is just another manifestation of the age-old problem of suffering and evil. He's carelessly floated an argument without seeing its implications: If we follow through with Ken's logic then we would conclude that our flawed world should never have been reified at all. 

But in the face of suffering the Bible does gives us hope: As Romans 8:18-22 says:

I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to vanity, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.

Our world with all its pains and its flawed protagonists, evolution or no evolution, is the world that God has brought out of the platonic realm by his permissive will, but the above verses tell us there is a happy ending. However, according to Ken’s simplistic logic our world of suffering should not exist because it would contradict God's nature. Go and read C. S. Lewis' The Problem of Pain, Ken!

KEN:  Indeed, as I’ve said before, Christians who believe in evolution and millions of years are condoning a process that is a direct attack on God’s character.

MY COMMENT: That's right Ken now use your toy-town logic to slander Christain evolutionists and thrust into their mouths a confession of blaspheming God's character! You would have done The Inquisition proud!

KEN:  A Salvation Issue? Let me pause to state something very clearly: I am not saying people who believe in evolution and millions of years can’t be Christians. Salvation is not conditioned upon what one believes about the age of the earth or evolutionary processes but is conditioned upon faith in Christ. I have never said the age of the earth and what you believe about creation are salvation issues. However, evolution and millions of years are issues that undermine biblical authority and attack the character of God. And I consider those very serious issues indeed! Also, such compromise has greatly weakened much of the church, causing many to doubt God’s Word, and many end up rejecting the Bible as God’s Word.

MY COMMENT: I once asked a Jehovah's Witness whether joining one of the Watchtower's Kingdom Halls was a necessary condition for the JW's concept of salvation: He said "No" and that God may well have servants beyond the walls of the Kingdom Halls. But I knew and he knew that certainly would not include someone like myself who claimed Christ's Saving work but rejected the Watchtower doctrines. His admission that there may be saved individuals outside of the organization was window dressing helping to make his religion look a little less like a cult. We see something similar in the quote above:  At first sight it makes AiG look less cultish than it actually is and acts as soft soap. In practice Ken in no-way respects the faith of those Christians who disagree with him: Just look at the accusations he flings out at old earth Christians (See here and here): Ken tells such Christians that they are attacking Christ and the Gospel. Accusations of being at odds with the divine don't come much stronger. Clearly the above quote is lip service which helps deflect accusations of cultishness. 

Ken's right-wing extremism invites an extreme counter-response: Viz: His cartoonish organization, AiG, has weakened the church and caused many to stumble and reject Christianity. For you can be sure that if I find Ken's views destructive of the Gospel many others of a more secular frame of mind certainly do! Ken should repent of his Trump voting, his implicit QAnon support and his cultish attitudes.