Skip to comments.I hate green eggs but I love Ken Ham ! (Rebutting critics of the new Creation Museum)
Posted on 07/12/2007 7:11:29 PM PDT by SirLinksalot
By John Lofton
I do not like green eggs.
But, I love Ken Ham, I do.
I do not like green eggs here or there.
But, I love Ken Ham anywhere!
I do not like green eggs in a box, with a fox,
In a house, with a mouse.
Green eggs make me sick just to see 'em.
But, I love Ken Ham and his (His) museum!
I love Ken Ham president of the Answers In Genesis ministry because he's a Christian with a brain and he has the guts to defend the faith. I also love him because he drives the God-haters nuts or I should say he drives them even nuttier.
There I was one evening (May 26) watching my tape of that day's "Good Morning America" program, which ran a piece about Brother Ken's new $27 million (no debt!; all paid for!) Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky. In her intro to this piece, the co-anchor lady noted that the Creation Museum "depicts a story that's a, well, a far cry from what many of us learned in science class."
True, absolutely true if you went to government-run schools like I did in my hometown, Orlando, Fla. In these schools, what we were taught about science (and most everything else) was (may I say it?) crap, lies, because such "education" was not God/Christ/Bible-centered which is interesting because theology was once called "the queen of the sciences." But, that's another story.
n this "GMA" report, I see "mainstream scientist" Dr. Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education saying about the supposedly gullible kids who will visit the Creation Museum: "They'll show up in classrooms and say, you know, 'Gee, Mrs. Brown, I went to this very spiffy museum last summer and they say that everything you're teaching me is, is a lie.'"
Then, right after this (I cheered!), I see Ken Ham saying, regarding Scott's statement: "And I say, 'Great. Amen.' That's, that's what this place is all about. It's meant to challenge people." Indeed. It's meant to, among other things, expose the lies of the evolutionists.
In a report on National Public Radio May 28, when host Steve Inskeep asks Ham if he's saying all pro-evolution scientists are trying to disprove God, Ham replies: "No what I am saying is that all scientists have presuppositions that they start with to determine how they interpret evidence."
A superb response because presuppositions are important things to understand since they are the light in which all "facts" are viewed and interpreted. My theological mentor, RJ Rushdoony, never tired of reminding us that there is no such thing as neutrality, no such thing as brute factuality, no such thing as starting with a blank slate when approaching a subject.
In a segment on CNN May 28, a reporter notes the contrast between the Creation Museum and a "natural history museum." Note, please, the presupposition here, the reference to "a natural history museum." Get it? History is "natural" not supernatural. And in a "natural history" museum you will always see the natural/no-God/evolutionary view stated as fact.
On Fox News, Ham debates college professor Lawrence Krauss who pretends to be an objective, just-the-facts-kind-of-guy. He accuses Ham of being unscientific because "the way science works is we kind of ask questions about the universe, and nature gives us the answers. We don't know the answers in advance. That's a key part of science."
Whoa! Wait just a minute! Rewind that tape! In the first few sentences out of his mouth, Krauss contradicts himself and reveals his presupposition, which is that he believes ("in advance") that the answers to the questions of "science" are in "nature" an assertion that, by implication, excludes anywhere else.
If Krauss really believes, according to "science," no answers are known "in advance," why start out looking in "nature"? Why not say something like: "Well, science has no advance answers, so Mr. Ham might be right on some things; the Bible might be right." Answer: Because he has a presupposition; he is not neutral. Where you start looking for something is in advance of looking there where you believe that something might be. Your starting point is your presupposition. Nobody (I'm excluding all the insane and all regular viewers of the Oprah Winfrey TV show) starts interpreting "facts" from nowhere.
In conclusion, the moderator of this discussion, former Republican Rep. John Kasich, who has said he reads the Bible but, obviously, doesn't believe it or understand it, says: "We're out of time, guys. I think reasonable guys like you can get together and agree there's a certain mystery in life, a certain mystery in life. No one has the answer. But I think the museum is a very interesting thing, Mr. Ham, and I bet you're going to get a lot of visitors. Thank you both for being with us."
Wrong, Mr. Kasich. God has the answers (and the questions), and many of the more important answers and questions He has given us in Genesis, sir. Oh, ye of little faith.
John Lofton is editor of TheAmericanView.com and a "recovering Republican" who says: "I know the fittest have not survived when I watch Congress on CSPAN."
thanks for posting this. Ping me on similar posts. (I think you can guess which RJR I’m a fan of!)
Yep, those who cannot stand to see evolution challenged are the very ones brought out as “neutral” scientists.
Just finished teaching a two session SS class, Biblical Worldview vs. Secular Humanism. This week will be a launch from Romans 1:18-20 leading us to an observational study of Genesis 1 and 2 with a Biblical Worldview as it’s presupposition.
This article will fit in nicely. Thanks once again for posting this.
Secular Humanism’s view of knowledge - Naturalistic Materialism = Nature is all that there is and matter is all that matters. Studied in a closed environment.
Biblical Worldview of knowledge - General and Special Revelation = General pertaining to the study of creation through the sciences, Special in regards to the Word of God’s revelation of knowledge. General revelation is subordinate to Special revelation.
“I know the fittest have not survived when I watch Congress on CSPAN.”
What a GREAT tagline!
The religious underpinnings of Darwin’s ToE exposed yet again. Great job Lofton!
It's pure apologetics.
And your point is...?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.