Who does Ken Ham appear to have so many more fans than Dr. Francis Collins?

ThouShaltNotPoe · Mar 19, 2013

That is the question on this webpage and in a new book:

Why Do So Many Evangelicals Prefer to Get Their “Science” From Ken Ham Rather Than Francis Collins? - Science and Religion Today

From the webpage:

[FONT=Georgia, Times, serif]

In Mark Nolls 1995 classic exposition of anti-intellectualism in American evangelicalism, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, he wrote: The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind.

[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times, serif]

Nowhere is this more true than in the strange preference that evangelicals have for the discredited young-earth creationism of Ken Ham over the legitimate and well-founded science of Francis Collins. The ideas promoted by Ham are so obsolete that some of them were actually abandoned by the scientific community in the 18th century! Hams confident assertions that the earth is a few thousand years old and that there was a time in the history of our planet when humans co-existed with all other species had been abandoned by science when Darwin was a toddler.

[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times, serif]

In our new book, The Anointed: Evangelical Truth in a Scientific Age, historian Randall Stephens and I show how charismatic, media-savvy evangelical leaders like Ken Ham (natural science), James Dobson (social science), David Barton (history), and Tim LaHaye (biblical studies) lead their fellow Christians astray by convincing them to accept discredited ideas.

[/FONT]

Notedstrangeperson · Mar 19, 2013

It's probably because Ken Ham is seen as an active defender of christianity whereas Francis Collins is just a scientist who happens be a christian.

That, and loud-mouthed extremists always attract more attention than moderate people.

Loudmouth · Mar 19, 2013

Uncomfortable truths can be less popular than comforting lies.

super animator · Mar 19, 2013

Hey look at that, ken ham posted in the comments.

ThouShaltNotPoe · Mar 19, 2013

super animator said:
Hey look at that, ken ham posted in the comments.

Sometimes Ken Ham and his followers will go to a webpage that is critical of him and they will flood the comments so that the hard-hitting postings against him get pushed into later pages---and the casual visitor to the webpage gets the impression, "Wow, everybody agrees with ham."

But this case is unusual because Ken Ham drones on for pages and pages. It must have really pushed his buttons.

And-U-Say · Mar 19, 2013

ThouShaltNotPoe said:
That is the question on this webpage and in a new book:

Why Do So Many Evangelicals Prefer to Get Their Science From Ken Ham Rather Than Francis Collins? - Science and Religion Today

From the webpage:

[FONT=Georgia, Times, serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times, serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times, serif][/FONT]

Because all of those people feel that you HAVE to believe in the inerrant bible. Once you make that decision, the rest follows naturally (or unnaturally, really).

super animator · Mar 19, 2013

And-U-Say said:
Because all of those people feel that you HAVE to believe in the inerrant bible. Once you make that decision, the rest follows naturally (or unnaturally, really).

But their understanding isn't inerrant, that a thing that they don't seem to get.

AV1611VET · Mar 19, 2013

Notedstrangeperson said:
That, and loud-mouthed extremists always attract more attention than moderate people.

I can name four people here who would vouch for that.

ThouShaltNotPoe · Mar 20, 2013

super animator said:
But their understanding isn't inerrant, that a thing that they don't seem to get.

Well said.

They often whine about scientists being allegedly prone to flawed interpretations of the data in the world around us---and then pretend that they don't fail in their interpretations of the Bible.

In fact, it is not difficult to notice that Christians have more difficulties interpreting the Biblical evidence than scientists have in interpreting the evidence all around us. (Don't the many disagreements among Christians and thousands of denominations and movements demonstrate that fact beyond dispute?) The scientific method is extremely effective in weeding out flawed interpretations. And peer-review makes sure that dogma alone doesn't overshadow EVIDENCE.

EXAMPLE: The fundamentalist Christian seminary I attended had a Doctrinal Statement much like that of many other Christian schools. Founded in the 1800's, the statement listed all of the major Bible interpretations which were to remain PERMANENTLY FIXED as REQUIRED thinking for all faculty, students, AND EVEN THE STAFF. [Yes, even the janitors had to pledge themselves to be pre-tribulational premillenialists---despite the fact that some of them had no idea what those words meant!] And each numbered Bible interpretation listed in those pages of the document included a list of scriptures in parentheses which supposedly SUPPORTED those interpretations.

And the last paragraph of the Doctrinal Statement said that the document COULD NEVER BE CHANGED IN ANY WAY FOR ANY REASON! So no matter what new evidence from Biblical studies might arise --- better Greek and Hebrew lexicography, new syntactical discoveries in the Egyptian Greek papyrii, some new "Rosetta Stone" bombshell from a archaeological dig in Israel, or a campus visit by the Apostle Paul himself---- nothing could EVER justify a new interpretation of even a single word of the Bible!

In private, my faculty adviser admitted to me that he disagreed with some of the Old Testament verses listed as references to Satan. (Pointing to one such proof-text: "That passage is about an evil king of the human type, not Satan.") But he told me that he and many other faculty members including the Dean simply closed their eyes and signed the Doctrinal Statement each year because they had to if they wanted to keep their jobs. He justified the proof-text lists as tiny details that didn't really matter and "part of the game we play." But in fundamentalists circles, absolutely rigidity of thought is consider PROOF OF ONE'S GODLINESS. So when you read prideful, stubborn nonsense on Internet forums, keep this in mind. It is a proud tradition of my fundamentalist heritage here in the Bible Belt.

So I ask you all ---- Christians and non-Christians alike ---- does this make sense? Do you truly think it likely that Bible interpretations are less prone to error than science interpretations?

Notedstrangeperson · Mar 20, 2013

ThouShaltNotPoe said:
So I ask you all ---- Christians and non-Christians alike ---- does this make sense? Do you truly think it likely that Bible interpretations are less prone to error than science interpretations?

Yes, to a certain extent.

Part of the reason for this is that the Bible is a holy book - and I'm not trying to use the old "The Bible is never wrong because it is the word of God" argument. Rather, I'm looking at how it's regarded by its followers.

As far as many Jews and Christians are concern, the Bible truly is the word of God. Making a mistake in the Bible would be like leaving a coffee stain on the Mona Lisa. You don't make things up, you don't add to it, you don't subtract from it and you are very, very careful when trying to translate it. They were careful to trace the origins of these works and rejected ones which weren't considered valid, and they managed to do so despite being so heavily persecuted.

Science on the other hand uses a very different methodology: they weren't handed the truth from on high, they have to actively go searching for it, and much of the evidence they find is often quite limited. Scientists frequently have to revise and update their ideas in light of new evidence. Disproving old theories is just as important as proving new ones.

So basically - the Bible has far fewer errors than we think because its followers are doing their utmost to preverse what they believe to be the holy word of God. Science is much more likely to have errors because discovering new evidence and disproving old theories is part of its methodology.

Loudmouth · Mar 20, 2013

Notedstrangeperson said:
Yes, to a certain extent.

Part of the reason for this is that the Bible is a holy book - and I'm not trying to use the old "The Bible is never wrong because it is the word of God" argument. Rather, I'm looking at how it's regarded by its followers.

As far as many Jews and Christians are concern, the Bible truly is the word of God. Making a mistake in the Bible would be like leaving a coffee stain on the Mona Lisa. You don't make things up, you don't add to it, you don't subtract from it and you are very, very careful when trying to translate it. They were careful to trace the origins of these works and rejected ones which weren't considered valid, and they managed to do so despite being so heavily persecuted.

Science on the other hand uses a very different methodology: they weren't handed the truth from on high, they have to actively go searching for it, and much of the evidence they find is often quite limited. Scientists frequently have to revise and update their ideas in light of new evidence. Disproving old theories is just as important as proving new ones.

So basically - the Bible has far fewer errors than we think because its followers are doing their utmost to preverse what they believe to be the holy word of God. Science is much more likely to have errors because discovering new evidence and disproving old theories is part of its methodology.

They are two different things, so I don't see how you can compare them to begin with. You might as well argue that the Tales of Paul Bunyan have fewer errors because they have been passed down unadulterated since their first printing so that we know the original author's intent was preserved.

Subduction Zone · Mar 20, 2013

Loudmouth said:
They are two different things, so I don't see how you can compare them to begin with. You might as well argue that the Tales of Paul Bunyan have fewer errors because they have been passed down unadulterated since their first printing so that we know the original author's intent was preserved.

Don't be putting down Paul Bunyan now, I am originally from Minnesota, that was prime Paul Bunyan territory. The West Coast is trying to adopt him now, but it is clear he was never out here. There was far too much Old Growth Timber that was never cut for Paul to have gone out west.

Split Rock · Mar 20, 2013

Notedstrangeperson said:
Yes, to a certain extent.

Part of the reason for this is that the Bible is a holy book - and I'm not trying to use the old "The Bible is never wrong because it is the word of God" argument. Rather, I'm looking at how it's regarded by its followers.

As far as many Jews and Christians are concern, the Bible truly is the word of God. Making a mistake in the Bible would be like leaving a coffee stain on the Mona Lisa. You don't make things up, you don't add to it, you don't subtract from it and you are very, very careful when trying to translate it. They were careful to trace the origins of these works and rejected ones which weren't considered valid, and they managed to do so despite being so heavily persecuted.

Science on the other hand uses a very different methodology: they weren't handed the truth from on high, they have to actively go searching for it, and much of the evidence they find is often quite limited. Scientists frequently have to revise and update their ideas in light of new evidence. Disproving old theories is just as important as proving new ones.

So basically - the Bible has far fewer errors than we think because its followers are doing their utmost to preverse what they believe to be the holy word of God. Science is much more likely to have errors because discovering new evidence and disproving old theories is part of its methodology.

He asked if bible interpretations were less prone to error than science interpretations.

super animator · Mar 20, 2013

Subduction Zone said:
Don't be putting down Paul Bunyan now, I am originally from Minnesota, that was prime Paul Bunyan territory. The West Coast is trying to adopt him now, but it is clear he was never out here. There was far too much Old Growth Timber that was never cut for Paul to have gone out west.

Paul bunyan was awesome. chopped down those trees down like a boss.

And-U-Say · Mar 20, 2013

super animator said:
But their understanding isn't inerrant, that a thing that they don't seem to get.

Yup. They don't want to get it. Once you decide the that the bible can't be wrong, creationism is the only way out. It is that original decision to declare the bible inerrant that starts this whole ball rolling.

Split Rock · Mar 20, 2013

And-U-Say said:
Yup. They don't want to get it. Once you decide the that the bible can't be wrong, creationism is the only way out. It is that original decision to declare the bible inerrant that starts this whole ball rolling.

It is the insistance that their interpretation of the bible cannot be wrong that starts the ball rolling. This is usually accompanied by a hubris associated belief that "God's Word" and one's interpretation of scripture are one in the same.

Notedstrangeperson · Mar 20, 2013

Split Rock said:
He asked if bible interpretations were less prone to error than science interpretations.

Interpretations often depend on the accuracy of Bible and Biblical translations themselves: how often have we seen people arguing whether the prophacy of Mary the mother of Jesus called her a "young woman" or a "virgin", or whether the Hebrew word for land meant "the surrounding area" or "the entire planet", or whether the term Yom in Genesis means "age" or "24 hour period"? Some Bibles are more thorough and accurate than others.

Notedstrangeperson · Mar 20, 2013

Loudmouth said:
You might as well argue that the Tales of Paul Bunyan have fewer errors because they have been passed down unadulterated since their first printing so that we know the original author's intent was preserved.

Technically that's exactly what I'm arguing: even if we look at it from a strictly secular point of view (that everything in it was written by fallible humans and God had nothing to do with it), it would still mean the Bible has far fewer errors than we think simply because people hold it in such high regard.

The point is that even if we think God does not exist, the people who follow the Bible do - they regard the book of God as holy, so it is treated as holy.

ThouShaltNotPoe · Mar 20, 2013

Split Rock said:
He asked if bible interpretations were less prone to error than science interpretations.

Yes, I got the impression that NotedStrangePerson is talking about TRANSLATIONS of the Bible instead of INTERPRETATIONS.

But I don't want to put any words on someone's keyboard. I will let NotedStrangePerson provide her own words. So were you talking about INTERPRETATIONS or TRANSLATIONS of the Bible?

ThouShaltNotPoe · Mar 20, 2013

Notedstrangeperson said:
Interpretations often depend on the accuracy of Bible and Biblical translations themselves: how often have we seen people arguing whether the prophacy of Mary the mother of Jesus called her a "young woman" or a "virgin", or whether the Hebrew word for land meant "the surrounding area" or "the entire planet", or whether the term Yom in Genesis means "age" or "24 hour period"? Some Bibles are more thorough and accurate than others.

Very true. But there are LOTS of interpretations questions in the Bible where are people are working from the SAME translation and have no disputes about the translation.

For example, the DIVISION of the earth under Peleg is a translation everyone tends to accept----but some think the division refers to the split of the super-continent of Pangea VERSUS others who think it refers to the Tower of Babel.

So my question was about the INTERPRETATION, not the translations----although NoteStrangePerson brought up an equally important issue.

Who does Ken Ham appear to have so many more fans than Dr. Francis Collins?

Learn whatever I can.

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Dreamer

Learn whatever I can.

Veteran

Dreamer

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Learn whatever I can.

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Regular Member

Conflation of Blathers

Dreamer

Veteran

Conflation of Blathers

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Learn whatever I can.

Learn whatever I can.

Similar threads