Creationist Ken Ham: The State Has Created 'The Church of Evolution With Darwin As The High Priest'

Cybercast News Service ^ | February 16, 2016 | 4:07 PM EST | Michael W. Chapman

[Olog-hai]

Ken Ham, a biologist and supporter of young Earth creationism, said evolution is a "belief," not a "theory" -- a "fairy tale" for people who "try to explain life without God" -- and he added that the secular State has established a church, the "Church of Evolution, with Darwin as the High Priest," and teachers and professors as "priests" who push the Darwin religion in the schools.

In an interview on VCY America on Feb. 10, two days before the international Darwin Day, host Jim Schneider said to Ken Ham, "I was disturbed in my spirit to hear we have House now and Senate resolutions declaring Feb. 12 to be Darwin Day, and as much as that grieved me, it grieved me even more though to see that churches are doing the very same thing." ...

[ifinnegan]

This is true and one doesn’t need to be a young Earth creationist or believe the stuff Hamm’s group puts out to know it.

You can fully accept evolution and know it.

All you need is to understand liberal/leftism.

[skr]

February 12th was President Abraham Lincoln’s birthday and that’s enough of an official remembrance day for me.

[dp0622]

If we evolved from single cell organisms, did dinosaurs?

and is it just different DNA sequences that make one set a lion and one set a man?

if they are silly questions, i would be shocked lol!

i have no clue.

[ifinnegan]

“If we evolved from single cell organisms, did dinosaurs?

and is it just different DNA sequences that make one set a lion and one set a man?”

Current theory says yes and yes to those questions.

[RginTN]

who evolved first...man or woman...a great mystery!!!

[dp0622]

thanks.

i dont know how many different dna sequences there can statistically be, but i would figure there would be millions of species. again, maybe there are :)

i have no idea. it just boggles my mind, the whole evolution thing

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

I believe the chicken came before the egg.

[Olog-hai]

About 98 percent of human and chimpanzee DNA is identical, but neither had a so-called “common ancestor”. It’s Marxist to believe that only the material universe exists.

[tumblindice]

Someone should offer to take this Aussie to the Grand Canyon. I would be interested to discuss with him how such things as platypus, Koala bear, kangaroo and many other species which are found only Down Under.
And the other things usually talked about, like his definition of a ‘theory’, carbon dating, the molecular biology he mentions, the fossil record, natural selection, etc.
I have read that scholars like him actually believe that fossils were put n the soil by God “to test our faith”.

In any event he doesn’t sound like he is dangerous to himself or others, so he should be safe to travel.
The first time I saw the Canyon, my chin hit my chest. Surely he can’t believe that was all carved out by the elements in 6,000 years.
Yes, I know—don’t call you Shirley.

[dp0622]

that is marxist philosophy.

I get caught in a circle of logic at some point and I leave the rest to God.

now Hawkings said there didn’t have to be a beginning, and there didn’t have to be something to create the big bang.

The size of the universe, the majesty of this planet, it just makes my head hurt :)

[Olog-hai]

Hawking is actually ignoring red shift, after Hubble demonstrated it? That’s retrograde of him.

[dp0622]

I recognized the words “is” and “it” in that sentence lol.

everything else went way way above my head!

[ganeemead]

Real science theories don’t need to be made into causes...

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

I believe it was Mark Steyn who pointed out that if there is only 2% difference, then that 2% sure makes a BIG difference.

[stocksthatgoup]

Report: The Pope has been spotted squatting in the woods.

[Olog-hai]

Indeed it’s significant. Scientists do not yet know just how significant. Pseudoscientists are dismissive of just how much order “randomly” arose from chaos, in that and many other instances.

[Wilhelm Tell]

Actually, it is worse than that. According to Young Earth Creationism, the Grand Canyon was carved out in a period of only a year or so during a global flood event. There might have been some erosion after that but most of it happened over a very short period of time. I have also heard speculation that the continents were formed and moved in just a few years during and after a global flood.

What to me is worst of all is the idea that while the Bible is perfect (when read in a supposedly literal way), God’s other book, nature, is full of illusions and deceptions, put there by God Himself as a test of faith. I think ultimately this dualism is derived at least in part from Gnosticism. Gnosticism held that the spiritual realm was good and perfect while the physical realm was evil and full of illusions.

[BroJoeK]

from the article quoting Ham: "...when people say theory, the idea of a theory is that there's evidence for it.
There's no evidence for evolution, so it's not even a theory.
It's actually a belief -- that's what it is,' said Ham.
'It's someone's belief, it's a blind faith belief.
There is no evidence for evolution."

Of course evolution is a scientific theory, far from "blind faith" and in fact, there are literal mountains of evidence supporting evolution theory -- mountains which people like Ham steadfastly refuse to see.

But as in everything else scientific, evolution theory rests on scientific assumptions & rules, including:

1. Only natural explanations for natural processes.
   
2. Processes we see today operated the same in the distant past.

Given these assumptions, evolution theory is the only natural explanation which fits all the evidence.
Does that mean God played no role in Creation?
No, but it does give us some clues suggesting how He did it.

Olog-hai: "It's Marxist to believe that only the material universe exists."

No, the technical terms are "Philosophical Naturalism", aka "Ontological Naturalism" or "Metaphysical Naturalism".
Basically, these are fancy terms for atheism.
But one does not need to be "Marxist" to accept such assumptions -- to pick an example: I'm certain people like Ayn Rand would fall into that category.

The term for those scientists who maintain their beliefs in the Supernatural is, "Methodological Naturalism", meaning, we accept the assumptions of science for purposes of examining physical data, but do not accept that the Natural Realm is the only one existing.

[BroJoeK]

from the article, quoting Ham: "As you take the account in Genesis, the more you use observational science in the present as you study genetics, as you study biology, you see it confirms the Bible's account of creation.
And the Flood and the Tower of Babel do not confirm molecules-to-man evolution."

Important to note Ham's terminology here: "Observational science".
Ham's "Observational science" is anti-science -- anti-modern natural science because it denies at least two of science's basic assumptions: 1) only natural explanations for natural processes and 2) processes we see today operated the same in the distant past.

So Ham denies that anything which cannot be seen or physically verified ever actually happened.
To cite an example already used: the Grand Canyon, according to people like Ham, was not formed, as it appears to have been formed over millions of years from sediments laid down over hundreds of millions of years.
Instead, because we didn't see it, we can't confirm it, therefore, says Ham, it's pure fantasy to believe such a thing when the Bible gives us clear indications it was the result of Noah's flood.

So, what Ham here calls "observational science" is just rubbish and anti-science, and should in no way be mistaken for the real thing.