Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsKen Ham’s radical quackery: Why his debate with Bill Nye on evolution was so maddening
In a debate about evolution, Bill Nye argued that the creationist Ham was essentially a cultish leader. He was rightSEAN MCELWEE
In a much-hyped event live-streamed last night, Science Guy Bill Nye set out to defend evolution in a debate with Ken Ham, the CEO of Kentuckys Creation Museum. But there was a fundamental problem: Hams young-earth creationism is not a religious belief, and it certainly is not scientific. To put it bluntly, it is quackery.
To understand Hams view, we need a brief history of how the Bible is interpreted, and where his radically new heuristic comes from. As Paul Fry notes, literary theory or the study of texts (hermeneutics) was originally developed to interpret the Bible. Interpretations have always been based on contemporary events and politics; for instance, centuries of Christian anti-Semitism were based on an attempt to placate the Roman empire. Biblical literalism as an interpretative method can be traced back to Martin Luthers denunciation of the Catholic Church and his use of Scripture to undermine their authority. Martin Luthers democratic mission later combined with the tenets of the scientific revolution and fundamentalist politics to produce biblical literalism, the idea that the Bible is a series of testable assertions that can be proven or disproven and that a layman can read and understand the meaning of Scripture.
Biblical literalism is absurd, but it is simple. The fundamentalist is not interested in deeper truths, but rather weaponizing the Bible. A perfect example is women having authority in church. The verse fundamentalists cite to support this view is from, 1 Corinthians 14, where Paul tells the church of Corinth that women should be silent during the service. In many fundamentalist churches, this verse is used to deny women the right to become pastor, or even pray aloud during the service. Biblical scholar Ken Bailey notes that during this time in the Middle East, services were often held in classical Arabic, which women could not understand (most spoke a local dialect). Throughout the service they would begin to gossip, often so loudly that the minister would ask them to be silent. Paul, Bailey argues, was repeating this injunction in his letter. As Nye notes in the debate, Ham and other fundamentalists are rather selective with the verses they choose to interpret literally. The Rev. Cornel West put it bluntly, Fundamentalists want to be fundamental about everything except, love thy neighbor.
Because Hams claims are clearly unscientific (he denies radiometric dating, claims that the Earth is 6,000 years old based on incomplete genealogies and argues that the flood explains tectonic shifts) we must call them what they are: quackery. H.L. Mencken noted that human progress tends to go too fast that is, too fast for the great majority of comfortable and incurious men. Because of this, he worried that, the average man, finding himself getting beyond his depth, instantly concludes that what lies beyond is simple nonsense. This attitude was on display throughout the debate, when Bill Nye would accept ambiguity and Ken Ham simply substituted ambiguity for absolute and uncompromising and entirely unfounded certainty.
more
http://www.salon.com/2014/02/05/ken_hams_radical_quackery_why_his_debate_with_bill_nye_on_evolution_was_so_maddening/
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 724 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (5)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Ken Ham’s radical quackery: Why his debate with Bill Nye on evolution was so maddening (Original Post)
DonViejo
Feb 2014
OP
The author does a great job of refuting Ham's biblical literalism and explaining the historical context.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)2. “the average man, finding himself getting beyond his depth..."
"instantly concludes that what lies beyond is simple nonsense.
That is one wise statement there. I need to save it.
nyquil_man
(1,443 posts)3. In other words, he's a poster boy for Dunning-Kruger. nt