 |
R
E
D
LIBRARY
|
|
Home
Abode
Library
Scripts
Linkz
Help |
|
|
Home
Library
|
"The Lie: Evolution"by Ken Ham
|
|
|
R
E
D
LIBRARY
|
|
Home
Abode
Library
Scripts
Linkz
Help |
|
|
Home
Library
|
"The Lie: Evolution"by Ken Ham
|
|
|
This is one of the most fascinating books I've read in an age. Why? Simply because this is the first time I've ever come across a book where the author seriously argues that it's alright to lie in the service of the Lord. I don't believe that. God doesn't need liars to protect him. He's not a wimp. Besides God deals in truth with a capital 'T', not lies. Lies are for the devil. So why is this book a lie? After all this is a serious charge and needs documenting. It's not enough to just call this book a lie and the man behind it a liar. The evidence needs to be presented. The charge needs to be proven. We need to find out not only where the book departs from the truth, but also why it does so. Why this author fudges and falsified the evidence and why does he feel it's a valid thing to do to lie for God. It's easy to find where Ken Ham is coming from. He spells it out right at the beginning of the book in the Introduction. His first sentence is "I was reared in a Christian home where the Bible was totally accepted as the infallible, inerrant Word of God" Faced with knowledge that doesn't fit into this simplified view of Christianity Ken realises by the end of the first page that "...I knew from a Biblical perspective it had to be wrong or my faith was in trouble."The "it" that rocked his faith was evolution, and Ken's response was not to seek to understand, or to seek to reconcile, but to reject outright. Let's be perfectly clear on this point. Ken does more that just reject evolution he ties his entire faith to a literal interpretation of the Bible. Repeatedly he makes the point that "If the Bible is not the infallible word of the One who knows everything then we have exactly nothing." (p 25)In other words, if every word of the Bible is not literally true then his faith falls apart. And for Ken Ham the most important part of the Bible is the book of Genesis. He devotes a whole chapter to it. Chapter 6, it's title "Genesis does matter". The opening sentence runs "...to show why this emphasis on a literal Genesis must be accepted." (p.55) And he does make quite a song and dance about the need to take Genesis literally. For example p.79 gives us a yarn about how Ken Ham confounded a fellow minister who doesn't take Genesis literally. Thus Ken Ham has tied his faith to a literally true bible, and in particular to a literally true book of Genesis. Given this it's not surprising that he rejects Evolution and anything that threatens (or might seem to threaten) his literalist beliefs. If that were all there would be no problem. I might not agree with Ken Ham about the particulars of his beliefs, but I could respect their sincerity. But Ken goes way beyond merely putting his beliefs, he is an evangelist wanting to spread the word (fair enough as far as that goes) but it's his methods that are suspect. So let's look at where I think Ken has gone astray. He says; "Most people ... have been deceived into believing that evolution is science. It is not a science at all... It is a belief system about the past." (p. 5)This is an assertion that is offered without any evidence to support it. It would certainly be rejected by most scientists. But Ken doesn't feel any obligation to provide any supporting evidence. In his own eyes the mere assertion is enough. Thereafter he can sneer at scientists and those who don't subscribe to his narrow view of Genesis as "biased". Similarly he discounts any evidence that scientists may have for evolution "We do not have access to the past. We only have the present....We can not directly test the past using the scientific method ...since all the evidence we have is in the present." (p.5)This is really a brilliant stroke. By denying that science works in the fields of archaeology Ken doesn't have to refute any of the evidence. Ken can make statements like |
|
|
"The question of origins was outside of direct scientific proof."(p.31)and the gullible will believe him. The evidence from other fields of science Ked treats by the simple expedient of ignoring it. If he doesn't mention the fact that evolution has been observed occuring in the laboratory now, today, if he doesn't mention the fact that the mechanism for evolution has been discovered and harnessed in laboratories around the world, then perhaps the gullible will think the evidence for evolution doesn't exist. These two statements; that evolution is not a science and that there is no evidence for evolution are the two big lies in the book. Both are based on a deliberate misrepresentation of the nature of science. Ken says, and he puts it in bold type so you won't miss how important he considers it, "Many think that some people are dogmatic and others are not. It is not a matter of whether you are dogmatic or not, but of which dogma is the best dogma with which to be dogmatized." (p.4)He's saying here he's got his blinkers on and he's proud of it! And again "It's not a matter or whether one is biased or not. It is really a question of which bias is the best bias with which to be biased."(p.9)Again this is in bold type. There's one thing about Ken Ham, he's not afraid to let you know how biased he really is. But all he achieving in the end is to demonstrate how much he doesn't know about science and the scientific method. In fact the whole aim of science is to try and avoid being dogmatic, to avoid being biased. This is not easy. After all if you don't make some assumptions about the world around you then it's not even possible to begin. But once begun the scientific process of testing your assumptions, experimenting, careful observation and so on brings you ever closer to the truth. But what truth? What truth is Science seeking? To the Christian it should come as no surprise that the ultimate aim of Science is to examine God's world. Yes God's world. But God's world as it really is, not as we imagine it to be or how we think it ought to be. God's world the way God created it. Because we're human this is hard. It's not easy to put aside bias and dogma. But slowly we have developed techniques to help and slowly we have made progress. Slowly we have uncovered pieces of the truth about the world around us. The one thing that drives many scientists on in their quest for the truth is the certain knowledge that this is God's work. For one of the things that Ken is careful not to mention is that Science is a Christian enterprise. It is not something foisted on us by a bunch of agnostics and atheists. While there were a few respected scientists in the ancient world Science didn't really get going until the Christian era. The founders of modern science in the Middle ages were all Christians. Indeed most of the great scientists in history have been Christians. Even today a large proportion of practising scientists are practising Christians. Science always has been and continues to be an activity carried forward by Christians. It can not be over stated. Science is nothing more than the examination of God's world, God's universe. If you truly believe in God then the world is no more and no less than his creation. And surely there is no fitter activity for the committed Christian than the study of His creation. So Evolution is no more than a branch of Science where the work is being carried forward by hundreds and thousands of scientists many of whom are Christians. Why then does Ken Ham get upset about evolution and science and try to portray evolution and scientists working on evolution as evil and athiest? It is because Ken Ham does not represent the mainstream Christian churches, but a narrow fundamentalist and sectarian view of the world. He spells it out in chapter 1 "Christianity is under Attack" The world, he asserts, is going to hell in a hand cart. The problems he asserts are tolerance and open mindedness. What is needed he says is a return to "Christian absolutes - those truths and standards of Scripture which can not be altered." (p.5) |
|
|
Christian absolutes that are based on a fundamentalist, literal reading of the book of Genesis. And of course Ken blames all the problems of the world on those who do not subscribe to the same narrow doctrine that he espouses. Christians, athiests whoever, you are all at fault if you don't agree with him. "The more our society rejects the creation basis and God's laws, the more it will degenerate spiritually and mortally." (p.68) I don't want to debate the theology of Ken's position here. For one thing I haven't space. Nor can I deal with all the areas of falsehood that Ken's primitive theology have led him into. The purpose of this review is simply to show how it has led him into a the use of very suspect debating practices. Practices that ammount to lies. Let's approach the problem obliquely by way of a story. Ken Ham is very fond of dropping instructive little stories into his book about how he personally confounded this or that critic. Let me drop in a story. Unfortunately it does not involve me, but the great astronomer Kepler. In 1600 Kepler went to work with Tycho Brahe, the first of the great observational astronomers at his observatory near Prague. Tycho was old and infirm by then and on the point of death. When Tycho died only, a year later, Kepler was appointed to the position of Imperial Mathematician and keeper of the observatory. His first job to work through and classify the great volume of data that Tycho had accumulated. With the data Kepler set out to prove that the orbits of the planets were perfectly circular. He had a theory that the orbits of the planets were set in crystal spheres each sphere supported in turn by the five Platonic solids. A pyramid, a cube, and so on. So he set to work. At the end of the day, after reworking his equations many times, he was forced to the conclusion that the orbits of the planets were not circular, but elliptical. "Oh Lord," Kepler is reputed to have asked. "How could you do anything so imperfect." The point, of course, is not whether God's creation was perfect or imperfect, but that Kepler had a pre-conceived idea of God's creation. God created the universe, the countless stars, planets and galaxies, but he, Kepler, knew better than God how it should be put together. Kepler's saving grace was that he accepted ultimately the truth of God's creation as revealed by the evidence. The only damage done was to his pride. This surely is the three card trick that Ken Ham has fallen for. The evidence from science - and remember this is knowledge revealed to us through study of His creation - is that God created life on this planet through a process of evolution. But Ken Ham knows better. Ken Ham knows better than God. Ken Ham has fallen for the sin of pride. It's this overweening pride, this absolute certainty eschewing all humility that leads Ken into trouble and keep him there. From small sins of omission as in his quotation of the words of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin on p.16 where he conveniently forgets to mention that Chardin was a Jesuit Priest as well as a respected scientist and researcher into evolution, (a fact that would undercut the argument Ken was developing), to the big lies "Evolution is a belief system - a religion!" (p.17) Ken demonstrates his scant regard to the truth in the service of a "higher truth". The question is does God appreciate this sort of whole hearted shysterism in His name? I doubt it. No. Come to think of it I'm sure He doesn't approve. Didn't He say something to Moses once on a mountain somewhere? Something about bearing false witness or something??? Oh well. I'm sure you can look it up. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|