Ken Ham Responds to Swamidass WSJ OpEd

I was going to say, “Don’t hold your breath.”

They call you a liar in the title, refuse acknowledge you as a person (not named), and won’t engage with what you are actually proposing. Instead, and very predictably, they use this as another chance to incite their followers.

Recognition is a two-way street. If Creationist beliefs are to be accepted as they are, then it’s perfectly fair to expect Creationists to accept the beliefs of others. This is a basic “Do unto others” provision.


Maybe because it doesn’t sound 'merkin? But I would think that would lead to emphasis. :thinking:

Because cherry-picking is profoundly dishonest in science, indeed in most other situations as well.

For example, does this describe unethical behavior IYO?

If it’s unethical when AZ does it, it’s unethical when Jeanson does. Even more IMO because Jeanson is trying to defend a religion that literally commands him not to bear false witness.

It was precisely the question to ask, but then my reading up is based on evidence, not rhetoric like yours.

I respond to a lot of people I don’t view as honest actors. It only seems obvious if you commit a lot of energy to pretending that rhetoric is evidence.

1 Like

Note, I didn’t say that. I said he probably doesn’t see you as an honest actor. It’s my assessment of why he’s not responding to you. It’s obvious to me that one of the reasons is that you haven’t responded to him through scholarship or a public written record. That doesn’t necessarily mean I think he’s right. Just that I think the status quo is very unlikely to change if you don’t.

It’s unfortunate it came across that way. I don’t do anything as a proxy, except hopefully, I pray, as the Holy Spirit. I am speaking on my own behalf. Truth is, it makes me incredibly sad that two brothers in Christ who I have learned a lot from in the past year, and whom I admire, have this relationship. I have prayed about it, and honestly shed tears. Even though I haven’t met Josh in person, I still consider him a friend in spite of our disagreements. I will say some things to friends that I don’t to others. I decided to answer because he asked questions.

My comment was meant to mean I’ve fallen short of what the text requires, and I was happy to share some verses that explained what I had on my heart and that they convicted me too. Doesn’t mean I haven’t fallen far short in the past or won’t in the future.

I’m not sure what you mean by recognize and accept. Christianity has exclusive truth claims or there couldn’t be anything considered orthodoxy. In this case I think it would be hypocritical if these schools didn’t give credits / accept transfer for courses that taught mainstream understanding of evolution.

1 Like

3 posts were split to a new topic: Creationists and Understanding Evolution

Okay that’s better. You wrote:

You mean it is obvious that “he doesn’t think I’m an honest actor,” not that you personally think I’m an honest actor.

You might be right, but:

  1. I’m not the only one who has had this issue with him.
  2. This is how it always has been with him; it’s his standard response.
  3. I’ve actually acknowledged where I made mistakes regarding him.

So perhaps he does think I’m dishonest. If so, it wouldn’t because of anything I did per se, but because he had a strong presupposition about me formed without ever engaging with me.


This is the heart of the issue.

We are discussing the need to “recognize and accept” the people and institutions who hold views with which we disagree, even when we reject the specific views they hold. So we do not mean accepting all views as equally correct or valid, but to find ways to make space for our differences.


In your case, it’s not the things you don’t know that trip you up, it’s the things you do know that ain’t so. There is much you need to unlearn.


Yes, sorry I didn’t even see that typo. It happens. I’m glad I could clarify.

As I have explained, my first impression of your writing was deeply frustrating. I was happy to learn there was more behind it, and I had wrongly judged the person behind the writing. As I explained with this latest piece, it came across as being deceptive in a way. But because I’ve gotten to know you, I knew that wasn’t what your real intentions were. That’s part of why it was deeply frustrating. There are also parts of it we’d just plain disagree on.

But often you remind me of myself. I come off as condescending and self-righteous when if someone knew my true intentions, we’d have more common ground and we’d be able to respect each other more.

What I was trying to encourage you in is to think opposite of “it’s not me, it’s him.” I think Jesus encourages us to do the opposite of that. That was what I was trying to encourage with those verses. In any relationship, if someone waits for the other person to act differently before they do, then nothing will change.

Consider that you may have also formed a presupposition of him. I guess neither has to do anything differently if you don’t care to change the status quo, but actually my impression is that you both really do care and it’s a sticking point.

1 Like

I don’t doubt this. But when I was at Bryan College, this only happened after the big bruhaha. I’ve now been at Toccoa Falls College for 5 years and it’s not happened once (our bio profs hold various perspectives on age of earth and evolution, but we use…God-forbid…secular textbooks!).


Good for you! I do too - I insisted on it.


Oh really? If you don’t mind me asking, was that a big deal when you insisted on it, or is that a pretty normal thing to do?


There’s something other than a secular textbook available at a college level?

I went to Christian schools and colleges and we never used something other than a secular textbook, except for Bible in K-12. Probably because any other option the school board wasn’t on board theologically. :sweat_smile:

Yes. The one Bryan College started using was by Kurt Wise, called Creation Biology I think. It was in pre-published form back then; no idea if it’s been officially published.


Amazon Link to “Devotional Biology” Targeted to High School / College.

Article by author describing the goals of the text.

Devotional Biology is being developed as a one-semester college-level conceptual biology textbook for non-science majors.
Devotional Biology: A young-age creationist, college-level, conceptual biology textbook

In terms of a science major, full year biology text, I am not aware of any non-secular tomes available.


Ah yes, that’s the title. Thanks. (I won’t go into the students’ comments who had to take it :slight_smile: )

When I interviewed I told them that I wasn’t a YEC and that if that was a problem, we didn’t need to waste everyone’s time. I looked at my predecessors syllabus and told them what changes I would be making, starting with the textbook. I don’t recall which book he used, but it was a creationist one. I’m not sure what discussion went on after I left, but they hired me so they must have been ok with my plans.


This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.