Kentucky Reporter Dismayed by Ark Encounter: “This Pseudo-science Doesn’t Hold Water” July 17, 2016

Kentucky Reporter Dismayed by Ark Encounter: “This Pseudo-science Doesn’t Hold Water”

Tom Eblen of the Lexington Herald-Leader knew he had to check out Ark Encounter.

He heard what atheists had been saying about it, but he wanted to judge it for himself.

Turns out the atheists had a point.


The Ark Encounter often strains logic

Answers in Genesis’ young-earth creationism is the product of a strain of evangelical Christianity only about a century old that now seems to thrive on authoritarianism, conservative politics and feelings of persecution.

Eblen is right to say that Catholics and many mainstream Protestant groups have no problem accepting evolution. What Ken Ham‘s ministry wants you to believe may be popular, but it’s a joke among people who actually understand what evolution is and how science works.

By the way: Eblen is a Christian. He’s not an atheist who might be predisposed to dismiss Creationism.

I would, however, criticize two passages in his piece.

First, to offer a sense of unnecessary balance, he writes about how some critics of Ark Encounter work off of an “assumption that all Christians are anti-science rubes.” That’s a straw man. Even among atheists, I don’t know anyone who says all Christians oppose science. There are brilliant scientists who happen to be Christians. Richard Dawkins will even vouch for them. But they play by the rules of the natural world. If they believe in miracles and the supernatural, they certainly don’t bring that into the lab.

The other problem is this paragraph:

The Bible is a book about faith and ethics, not science. Noah’s story is a work of theology, not ancient journalism. Science is about the how; religion is about the why. One often picks up where the other leaves off.

Eblen, like many people, wants to draw a neat line between science and religion, but it’s completely unfair to do that. If you believe in supernatural miracles, or Jesus rising from the dead, or the idea of a virgin birth, you are saying that the laws of science don’t always apply.

This isn’t a matter of interpretation, as Ken Ham loves to say. This is about whether or not you accept science. The moment you say the rules of the natural world can be suspended, you’re choosing superstition over reality.

But outside those rookie mistakes, Eblen gets the Ark just right: The “pseudo-science doesn’t hold water.”

(Thanks to Dan for the link)

"The way republican politics are going these days, that means the winner is worse than ..."

It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."
"It would have been more convincing if he used then rather than than."

It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
error: Content is protected !!