Radical Liberal Ken Ham’s Definition Problem

Dr. and perhaps Reverend (since he has a Phd in experimental nuclear physics from Duke and a MDiv from Emory) Paul Wallace, in part, writes,

But there are other kinds of illiteracy. There is, for example, scientific illiteracy. It too is a problem in America. And there is evidence that it is related to religious beliefs. This is hardly surprising. When one is raised to see science as the enemy of faith; when churches actively work against science education; when a literal understanding of Genesis is a requirement for faculty at major seminaries, scientific literacy suffers.

It is easy to blame extreme anti-science people like Albert Mohler and Ken Ham for this problem, and some responsibility does fall on them.

As one can imagine, the radical liberal Ken Ham who denies Scriptural Authority, took issue with that, in part, writing:

The disagreement is not really over observational science, but over historical science–whether one believes man’s fallible view of millions of years of supposed history, or God’s revelation as given in the Scriptures concerning the history of the universe.

See – Ham doesn’t even know what science actually is. Historical science, such as blood letting to get rid of the plague, is no longer considered actual science. Neither is flat earth or geocentricism, which are both “biblical.” What Ham believes is Science actually is his own personal reading of Scripture, or theology, This is not science. Science is a well documented body of evidence which supports theories. Science is not “The bible tells me so…”

Yes, actually, Ham and others contribute significantly to biblical illiteracy because they enforce only a certain interpretation and not what Scripture actually says. Further, they are ignorant of Church History, Science, and a whole host of other epistemological sources.

You Might Also Like

2 Replies to “Radical Liberal Ken Ham’s Definition Problem”

  1. To be fair to Ham, his reference to “historical science” is supposed to contrast experimental (what he calls ‘observational’) science. If I understand right, he wants to distinguish between science done in a lab through experimentation and science that isn’t conducted this way (I presume geology, paleontology and any other discipline he finds meddlesome). Of course this is very much an arbitrary distinction, and he’s still ignorant at best on these issues.

Leave a Reply, Please!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.