Bill Nye, the science guy, visited the ark that Ham built. (Anybody else find that ironic?) Not surprisingly, the TV personality was pretty critical of the exhibit and the position it promotes. While I don't agree with Nye on much of anything except for the high coolness factor of bowties, I agree with him on his basic position re. this over-the-top tourist attraction: it rates 5 stars on the bogocity scale.
The Age of Reason brought its commitment to empiricism and the scientific method to bear on Scripture and the outcome was predictable. Well known Bible stories got a more critical examination with an eye to determining "how could this happen?", and the answer was often, "It couldn't." The church rejected this conclusion and labeled the science behind it heresy. The secular and the sacred went to war, each rejecting the other and labeling their opponent as dangerous to society. This mutual animosity continues to play out in politics, academia, and churches where the word science is generally understood as an antonym to Christian. Empiricism and faith are mutually exclusive, at least for fundamentalists on both sides of the issue.
Which is why saying Ken Ham is a quack won't play well with some of my readers, but it's my take on his ark and the rest of his work. He has, IMO, done Christianity a great disservice and is more dangerous to our perspective than all the Bill Nye's of the world combined.
The problem is not that Ham built a big boat (that would probably sink inside of five minutes), or that he charges people $40 to walk through it. The real danger is that he promotes the notion that the Bible's accounts of key events like creation and the flood can be shown to be empirically plausible. Ken Ham has decided to wage the science vs. Christianity contest as an away game, adopting the rules of his opponents.
The first four words of the Bible - "In the beginning God" - call us to faith. The existence (or non-existence) of God is not subject to empirical examination. We accept that he exists as a tenet of faith. I unashamedly believe that God is, that he is sovereign, and that his Word is true. The Bible says it is exactly this faith that God requires and blesses. He does not call me to work, to achieve a degree of holiness or dedication in order to be accepted in his sight, only that I believe he is and accept what he says as truth. "Without faith it is impossible to please him, for he who comes to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of those who seek him" (Heb. 11:6). Trying to empirically "prove" the biblical account of creation or the flood denies the very basis of what we readily call "the faith."
The folly of this approach shows up quickly when common sense is applied to Ham's efforts and those like him who attempt to prove the Bible using science. Must Noah have had two of every kind of animal with him on the ark? Does that mean two Great Danes and two Chihuahuas? Or two canines? Did he need room for food for all the animals for over a year? (It rained for 40 days but they all spent just over a year inside the ark.) Ken Ham feels the need to answer all of these questions in a way that is scientifically possible when God calls us to accept the account as true just because he said it.
If Ham wants to spend his money and influence building an ark in Kentucky and constructing a Museum of Creation Science (oxymoron?) let him proceed. But what drives me bonkers is that so many Christians buy into his seriously flawed and self-contradictory approach to the Faith. They've surrendered that which defines us, our unapologetic belief in the Bible as trustworthy whether or not it accords with the scientific method or the current understanding of the physical universe. If the world ridicules my faith I'm fine with that. I don't seek or need their endorsement. Don't expect it, and instead would find their approval a reason to examine my commitment to God's call.
Those who see Ham as a hero have, in my opinion, traded what defines us for the approval of those opposed to the faith. They want Ham to use the empirical method to show what could have happened instead of just believing that it did happen. Why would someone do that? A: because of our natural inclination to want acceptance, not ridicule. On that basis it seems to me that ark in the middle of Kentucky has handed the scoffers a victory.
That's not to say the theories of empiricism on the origins of our universe and its contents are without problems. The absence of transitional species and obligate symbiosis stand as two of the more obvious examples. Or that creation consistent with the Genesis record (as opposed to Ham's reading of that record) is impossible by the standards of the scientific method. But Christians who latch onto his exhibits as validation have misplaced their faith. Ken Ham isn't that good. Nobody is.
1 comment:
I could not agree with you more!
Post a Comment