Friday, October 10, 2014

Ken Ham and Cognitive Dissonance

Elizabeth Yale, writing for the Danforth Center of Religion and Politics, has an interesting article on Ken Ham and, generally, a short history (and indictment) of young earth creationism.  She writes:
Assenting to this vision of history requires a series of strategic denials. First and foremost for Ham and his organization is the denial that science, and scientists, can say anything at all about history. “Historical science” cannot be proved: no matter what geologists, biologists, and paleontologists might infer about the past by applying their knowledge of natural processes to the present conditions of the rocks, living organisms, and fossils, they were not physically present to witness the events their sciences explain. History is a thing written in a sacred book.
It is difficult to defend this position in any sort of logical fashion, because it not only applies to what happened thousands of years ago but, potentially to any past event. If Ken Ham goes walking in the forest one day and stumbles on a large section that is burned, based on his definition of science, there is no way to know what happened, even if he has an understanding of forest fires and how they work.This is patently absurd, yet, for all practical intents and purposes, this is how Ken Ham thinks. 

Read the whole thing.

1 comment:

  1. Ham hypocritically claims to love 'science'.