Ken Ham #fundie

Ken Ham #fundie twitter.com

The word science is defined as “the state of knowing: knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding.”

Scientific pursuit needs to be broken into two parts: experimental (observable or operational) science and origins (historical) science. Both creation and evolution involve historical science (beliefs) and observational science (such as the study of genetics).

Experimental science that builds our modern technology is accomplished through the scientific method. And origins or historical science is the non-repeatable, non-observable science dealing with the past—which enters the realm of beliefs (really, religion).

In almost all of today’s government-run educational systems, the religion of secular humanism—with its foundation of naturalistic evolution based on man’s word/beliefs about the past (molecules-to-man evolution)—is guised in textbooks, lectures, and secular museums as so-called “science.”

But the same word science is used for the experimental science that helps build technology. Because students aren’t taught the difference between historical and observational science, they are brainwashed into thinking that molecules-to-man evolution is the same science as what has built technology—which it is not. It is what we call a “bait-and-switch fallacy” (a fallacy in logic).

It’s really a conflict between two philosophical worldviews that are based on two different accounts of origins or historical scientific beliefs.
12:43 AM · Feb 7, 2025 · 1,864 Views

13 comments

Evolution is science, creationism is religion.

Ham, it’s funny how every time you open your mouth you lower the collective IQ of humanity by 2 points…

I can sit here and do a refutation point by point but that’s a PRAAT. Instead I think the last paragraph is more insightful. He uses the word “worldview” which has a very different meaning in fundie than most outsiders think.

For fundies a worldview isn’t something that develops as a result of one’s experiences, knowledge, and beliefs. Rather it’s the opposite. A proscriptive set of ideas or beliefs that one must then apply to interpret the world. That’s how he can talk about a “Christian Worldview, an “atheist worldview”, etc. That’s why to Ken there can be no neutrality and why the scientific method simply doesn’t compute for him.

It’s also why he can claim things to be religions when they aren’t (that and taking a quote from a SCOTUS opinion out of context). If religion is simply about beliefs than by that analysis yes it’s a religion. By that same analysis science becomes a religion. But, religions aren’t about individual beliefs, they’re a type of group activity. The extent to which groups of atheists can take on aspects of religion is obviously a longer more complex topic that I don’t have the expertise to analyze.

Unfortunately, this doesn’t just stop with Ken. It how they justify their attacks on education.

Do organisms adapt Ken? Cause that adaptation is evolution

Hey Ken, you started with a fake definition and just got dumber from there. Not that the slack-jawed rubes who fill your pockets will notice.

Meanwhile, in Westminster Abbey:

When the clergy of the Anglican church prove that not even they are ignorant, ergo…!

@jsonitsac #217732

Thanks for the insight on the meaning of "worldview" for a Christian fundie.

“Scientific pursuit needs to be broken into two parts:”
Why? I don’t recall this from any science textbook. It SEEMS to me like you’re actually splitting sciences into ‘those that creationists accept’ and ‘those we don’t.’ Which is not a scientific split. Just politics.

“experimental (observable or operational) science and origins (historical) science.”
But, but, but HAMMY, biology would be an observable science, right? And biologists are involved in origins study. So, how do you split these pursuits?
Geology is an observable science. RIGHT up until they say ‘this layer is >7000 years old,’ huh? Then it’s origins.
DNA is observable. Identifying which part makes eyes blue, or the body tall, or the skin white. But once they compare chimps and humans, it’s origins. And unacceptable.
Frankly, it’s not the science you have the vapors over, it’s the conclusions. Just admit that anything that argues with a literal reading of Genesis is unacceptable.
Your artificial split of the two types of sciences is dishonest, and not acceptable. It’s an attempt to increase Creationism’s credibility and decrease evolution’s.

“And origins or historical science is the non-repeatable, non-observable science dealing with the past—which enters the realm of beliefs (really, religion).”
I hope you’re not a fan of any CSI show, or other police procedural. By your bullshit above, the only way to prove a person committed a crime is to commit the crime again, and have the jury watch it.
Science does not require ‘repeatable and observable (as in an eye-witness).’ What it requires is ‘repeatable observations,’ Hammy. Such as, if someone says ‘i found a human footprint that runs into a dinosaur footprint,’ as an observation, then everyone who goes to that site will also make the same observation.
Saying ‘I found 20 million varves under this river,’ can be repeated by anyone else with a drill and time on their hands (or a supply of undergrads with time on their hands).

Look like someone felling entitled to his own reality and wanting science to bend to it, ala Lyssenkoism or Deutsche Physik.

It’s pretty rare that religious fundies bother to address why modern technology works if science is just another religion, but you can’t pray a cell phone into existence. If they do, usually it’s something along the lines of “engineering and invention aren’t really science”. This is the first time I’ve seen someone invent a whole new category in order to break science into “undeniable” and “deniable because I’m ignorant”, though. It’s kind of like how some of them try to split Leviticus into laws for the ordinary believers and laws for Levantine priests in order to explain why it’s okay to eat shrimp and wear cloth of mixed fiber but not okay to be gay¹, even though the Bible itself makes no such distinction.

¹It probably was not meant to say even that. “Thou shalt not lie with mankind as if womankind” has been garbled via multiple translations… I’ve heard that the original was meant to say that a young boy’s virginity was not an appropriate sacrifice for a purity ritual, though I don’t know if that’s genuine or speculation based on incomplete information.

The word science is defined as “the state of knowing: knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding.”

I just had to Google that. That is the LAST, the 5th out of 5, entry you get on Merriam-Webster’s website for a definition of “science.” I don’t think that’s the definition most people would be thinking of when they’re talking about “religion vs science” or “creationism vs evolution”, is it? The first definition makes more sense to me, as it relates to this topic:

knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method

Hek Man: “If it isn’t against my religion, then it’s science! Evolution is against my religion, therefore it’s NOT science!!”