Ken Ham Responds to Swamidass WSJ OpEd

Public Square
,
1

I see that a response from Ken Ham, Nathaniel Jeanson, and Avery Foley has appeared. It seems that @swamidass is he whose name must not be uttered, as references are to a unidentified Washington University Researcher, which I just find odd.

Ironically, his personal blog claims to be about “peaceful science” and yet he is consistently “picking fights” with biblical creationists (this article on Christian colleges is just another example), while refusing to engage honestly with what we actually believe and teach!

Perfect! This is an open forum dedicated to just such honest engagement. I expect anyone from AiG would be most welcome to post what they actually believe and teach, and enjoy the qualified feedback and dialog.

11 Likes
2

Wow, that’s great. I haven’t read the article yet, but it can’t be worse than some of the articles that already came out, can it?

3

Remarkably, I think the AIG piece does better than the DI pieces at representing me. Not sure what to make of that!

This is pretty choice here:

Not Qualified to Write on This

It’s worth pointing out that this researcher isn’t qualified to even write on the question of creation science in the classroom or to “recommend” anything pertaining to, what he calls, young earth creation science because he really doesn’t know the creationist arguments well at all and frankly doesn’t know what he is talking about. What do I mean? Well, he has already demonstrated that he really doesn’t know what biblical creationists (young earth creationists) believe. He has written on the topic but makes no attempt to engage any of the scholarly creationist literature published on Adam and Eve, either scientific or theological, and his numerous attacks on biblical creation science are nothing more than strawmen.

I wonder if people here agree with that!?

1 Like
4

Likewise, I should point out also this Q&A for readers who want to get the facts straight on what I actually proposed:

2 Likes
5

I think that’s right. And, you know, it does fit. AiG people seem quite self-deceived, while DI people are generally just outright dishonest. So while AiG’s views are bizarre, those people have their heads buried so very, very deeply that they often don’t realize it. The people at the DI are too literate and capable for that: they know they have to simply lie in order to promote their agenda, so it doesn’t surprise me that the DI is more dishonest than AiG in representing your stance.

5 Likes
6

I don’t know @Puck_Mendelssohn…

That does not seem honest to me. I know that Jeanson says this about everyone, but in my case I actually have engaged quite deeply. I certainly do know what YECs think, as I used to be one!

Rather, he won’t engage with us!

5 Likes
8

Well, I didn’t say they were actually fully honest. I was just agreeing with you that they better represented your views. I’d be shocked to see genuine honesty from AiG.

5 Likes
9

I think the contrast might be that the DI is often more consciously and willfully dishonest, whereas AiG tend to be more unconsciously dishonest (due to preconceptions, etc).

3 Likes
10

Yes, because last spring /summer when I was asking questions about Jeanson’s work because I didn’t understand it, you kept asking why he wasn’t considering/addressing whole genome studies. I knew really nothing of creation science at the time, but I don’t think that question is not one you would ask if you’d deeply considered what they’ve written (as it didn’t take even me long to understand after I read up on it). Your presentation on Erica’s channel also showed you didn’t represent their positions correctly or carefully and when I called you out on that, it was frustrating that nothing was exactly corrected and I wasn’t sure whether you didn’t understand their position, got it a bit wrong, or just refused to explain to me why it was wrong, or somewhere in between.

I didn’t comment on it yet, but the Q&A you provided on the WSJ article almost dug a deeper hole, except you explained some if the unfortunate things you’ve seen happen to other professors. I think the WSJ article may be as bad as others are saying it is - it deeply frustrated me. The ramifications are not good. IMO, the takeaway I got from that Q&A it seems your beef is actually with academic freedom for professors in a Christian universities who retroactively are required to affirm positions after hiring, but pushing this is not a way to achieve that.

This itself is a straw man because in context, this paragraph is referring to engaging with the scholarly literature. When directly asked why you haven’t, you have said previously it’s because you haven’t been invited to submit to AIG. That didn’t address the question. AFAIK, you don’t have to be invited to submit something for their journal. But you could even blog on your site.

And your proof of this is?

Venema has debated him and Duff blogs his criticism. Where is one article in which you have disputed a specific scientific claim of YEC creation science? I haven’t seen anything in writing besides extremely short responses on this forum. I would love to know if I’ve missed something. The most I’ve seen was on Erica’s channel, and I’ve already explained what I thought of that.

Who is “us”? And on what terms are you requesting engagement? If the charge is that you don’t engage the literature and just attack strawmen, then show it’s not true by engaging the scholarly creationist literature.

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic,[g] let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.

Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good. 10 Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor. 11 Do not be slothful in zeal, be fervent in spirit,[g] serve the Lord. 12 Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer. 13 Contribute to the needs of the saints and seek to show hospitality.

14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. 16 Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly.[h] Never be wise in your own sight. 17 Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. 18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. 19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it[i] to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” 20 To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

I’m using these to minister to myself also. I’ve been reading through OT prophets - currently Jeremiah, bit I think it would do my soul a bit of good to read through a few NT verses each day too. :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like
11

Let’s just start with responding to an email. How about that?

1 Like
12

Jeanson won’t respond that way, especially because probably doesn’t see you as an honest actor - by now that is obvious, at least to me. As far as I see it, he wants formal criticism if it’s directed to him. Ask not what Jeanson should do, but what Jesus would call Swamidass to do. :slightly_smiling_face:

13

Jeanson hasn’t responded to me for years.

@thoughtful do you really want to publicly accuse me of dishonesty?

2 Likes
14

Whole genome studies, Y chromosome studies, and mDNA studies all tell the same story, that Jeanson’s molecular clock is haywire. You have been provided with the papers.

I cannot read a person’s mind, but I can tell you how this comes across. Not as a plea from humility; but as self righteousness. I grew up influenced by such sanctimonious posturing and would suggest it is not welcome.

As well, it seems to me that you are making an accusation by proxy here. Speak on your own behalf.

3 Likes
15

Quite a hit piece. I think it’s quite funny the lengths he went to to not mention you by name or back up his claims that you’re ignorant about YEC beliefs.

2 Likes
16

Perhaps, at some unconscious level, he feels it’s not really ‘bearing false witness’ against his fellow Christian, if he doesn’t explicitly name him. Human minds are slippery that way.

17

Ken Ham writes:

Such an approach would harm students who studied at a Christian college from being able to transfer to a different school (e.g., for grad work) and would require them to take more classes since their hard-earned credits wouldn’t transfer to “secular institutions."

I teach at a Christian college (HLC accredited) and I deal with this regularly. Colleges are free to accept or deny transfer credits arbitrarily. Some colleges accept my Biology course for transfer, some don’t. When my course isn’t accepted, I always try to find out why. No one has ever asked if I teach creationism, but that is definitely the presumption. BTW, I don’t. I do get a lot of questions about what I teach about evolution - which are fair questions and I’m happy to send them copies of my lecture notes and assignments so they can see what I teach. I’ve also been asked if I teach “from a humanistic perspective.”. Bottom line - some colleges are already rejecting courses from Christian colleges for transfer based solely on assumptions about what is taught. Josh’s proposal would help me and I welcome it.

8 Likes
18

This.

8 Likes
19

Careful now or she might quote the Bible at you, and then what are you gonna do?

That’s just so great and what a wonderful human being that makes you. Pay lip-service to the idea that the quoted material applies to you too, but then still use it to lecture others on their behavior. Doesn’t get any more Christian than that.

This is pathetic.

3 Likes
20

My state has a certification program that ensures transferability between all participating schools. My Chemistry course sailed through the approval process the first time. My Biology course, on the other hand, required three applications, a formal appeal, and the threat of a lawsuit before it was approved. The bias against Biology courses taught at Christian colleges is real. Some kind of national certification could help.

3 Likes