Product Description

An eye-opening look at the harmful effects of evolutionary thought on modern culture and religion. Author Ken Ham uses his years of teaching and ministry experience to expose false teaching that is destroying children and families.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #166062 in Books
• Published on: 1987-07
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 168 pages

Features

• ISBN13: 9780890511589
• Condition: NEW
• Notes: Brand New from Publisher. No Remainder Mark.
• Click here to view our Condition Guide and Shipping Prices

Customer Reviews

A Study in Spurious Reasoning
Let me make one thing clear, to begin: I am a Christian, I believe in the divinity of Christ, the reality of the Gospel, and the authority of scripture--and also that God created the universe.

For that reason, I gave Ham's book as objective a treatment as I could, coming to it with an open mind, and a willingness to find not the problems in his argument but to discover what he could teach me as a thinking believer. In other words, I intentionally read the book with an "I'm going to assume he's right unless he proves himself wrong" sort of mentality.

What I found in Ham's book was not a logical argument but rather something I'm seriously considering using in writing classes I teach at a Christian university as an example of the worst kinds of illogic--of what NOT to do when trying to make an argument from a Christian perspective.

A number of his fallacies are pointed out in other reviews, here are several that seemed significant to me:

1. He seems to willfully mis-characterize both the Bible and science. Primarily, he attributes to a present-day consensus about evolutionary theory a number of ideas that present-day scientists rejected as false long ago, and that have been roundly critiqued as destructive lies by the very liberal academic community (both in the humanities and sciences) he descries, such as social Darwinism. Present-day scientists do not accept Darwin's theories wholesale, and haven't for a very long time. By thus mischaracterizing the nature and ideas of his opposition, he creates a clear "straw man" argument, setting up not the real arguments used by present-day scientists, but rather the ideas that he can knock down most easily.

The largest fallacy of all in this vein is the assumption that science itself purports of "prove" anything at all. I have a number of friends who are scientists, some at Christian universities. Each of them would immediately correct a student who says he/she says that an experiment has "proven" a theory as "true," when, in fact, what they have done is observed a phenomenon that has acted in a manner consistent with a hypothesis: nothing more, nothing less. This isn't the same thing as religious belief.

2. Ham argues that evolutionary theory is essentially the "root of all evil" in modern society, responsible for things like homosexuality, abortion, and the rest of the usual litany of social ills. He fails to address, however, the fact that all these things existed in significant ways well before Darwin published his theories, and existed even in a medieval and renaissance western Europe that was an entirely Christian society in which the idea of young-earth creation was accepted as a matter of course. Perhaps there is a counterargument to this--but the point is that Ham doesn't make it.

3. Ham also fails to answer the potential counterargument of why science actually seems to work under many other circumstances. He argues, essentially, that all science is theory, that all theory is "tainted" by belief and bias, and that if science is theory, then it must uncertain; and if it's uncertain, it can't really explain anything. The problem is, it does explain a lot of things: if you take medication for a physical condition and it works, you're acting on the kind of science Ham descries: the medication was generated using empirical research, which noticed how certain chemicals acted on the body, and explained that interaction sufficiently well to create a medication that, say, demonstrably dries up your sinuses when you're sniffly. If science is nothing but spurious belief, why does science clearly explain many things? And if Ham's critique of science is true, why does he not also critique, say, the law of gravity as just as big a religious myth as evolution?

In a way, he's actually right: if you read up on the philosophy of science, you'll find that even scientists don't believe they can prove that the law of gravity is an eternal constant, that it will keep operating as it has forever. Why? Because science deals with observable phenomena, and the future isn't there to be observed. All science can prove is that the law of gravity has acted in a consistent manner in the past. However, if we take Ham's argument to heart, then we should be nailing down or furniture, because if science can't prove that it will continue to act as it does, then the idea that gravity will continue to act as it has is nothing but a spurious religious belief. In other words, if Ham's argument is true, then ALL science is nothing but empty religious belief, including all the scientific concepts that you take for granted on a daily basis--the concepts that theorize why airplanes fly, how light and electricity are transmitted, how the mechanism of your watch works.

4. The biggest problem, for me, was that a huge part of his argument really seemed to be missing: Ham argues, as I've mentioned, that because our knowledge of science isn't absolute, it can't explain anything with complete surety. If that's the case, Ham says, then science really doesn't teach us anything. However, he argues, we can know about the Bible because if we start with the idea that God is supreme and all-knowing, then his word, i.e. the Bible, must be true. But here's the question he doesn't answer: HOW DO WE KNOW THAT OUR KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE BIBLE IS COMPLETE? We are, as Ham acknowledges, a fallen species, our understanding both the world and God is tainted by our own sinfulness. If that's the case, can we really afford to think that our understanding of scripture isn't equally tainted by our fallenness? I'm not saying, here, that God isn't all-knowing and the scripture doesn't contain the Truth with a capital-T; I'm saying that if we are a fallen people, we can't trust our own understanding of anything, that includes science, but it also includes God and the scriptures. The reason this is a problem is that it shows that Ham actually commits the very sin he thinks is at the root of all contemporary social evil: he assumes that his understanding of the Bible and of God are absolute, assumes that, when we read the Bible, a perfect knowledge of God is beamed into our hearts, untainted by our own fallen, human understanding. This is important because what he does, here, is to literally LEAN ON HIS OWN UNDERSTANDING. That, my friends, is a stance that Ham himself has a word for: Humanism. For that reason, I would submit that Ham is the ultimate hypocrite, because he proves himself, ultimately, to be the very kind of humanist he so abhors.

To those who are inclined not to believe me in any of this, my response is "GREAT! Don't believe me! Do some reading from the real sources and judge for yourself!" Read recent work that's coming out from actual scientists in the fields of geology or biology: what are the questions they're really asking these days? How are they going about looking for answers? What do they say their research is really telling them? What do real, pious scholars of the scriptures have to say about Genesis? What has been said and thought about Genesis in the Christian tradition?

If you'd like a really accessible overview of all this, allow me to recommend a different book, which I'm sure is available here on Amazon: Roger Olson's _The Mosaic of Christian Belief_. Olson is a respected scholar of Christian theology at Baylor University--and is very orthodox in his belief. I'm not going to review the book here, but only issue this challenge: after you've read both books, ask yourself which seems the more logical? Which writer seems to be working from accurate historical knowledge? Which writer seems to write from a position of real humility and generosity toward his fellow believers, including the ones with whom he disagrees? Which seems the more informed? Which seems to be writing more out of a sense of Christ's commandments to love God and neighbor than our of a sense of simply accusing the "other guy" of being the source of all the world's evil? Which one seems to be building up rather than tearing down? Which writer evinces more real hope and joy? Which demonstrates the fruits of the spirit and the spirit of the beatitudes more clearly? What are the potential fruits of Ham's view of the scriptures and the world as opposed to Olsen's?

Blessings to all.The Mosaic of Christian Beliefs: Twenty Centuries of Unity & Diversity

The Lie: Creationism
Just wind Ken Ham up and watch him go. Like an irrational Energizer Bunny he just keeps going, and going, and going - in the wrong direction. Particularly amusing are his inane and inchoate views (one can hardly call them reasoned or self-consistent) on the false dichotomy of so-called microevolution and macroevolution. Mr. Ham clearly believes that it's possible to be a little bit pregnant. But the dogma-driven overdrive really kicks in when Ken leaves his generously and obviously flawed arguments against evolution behind and enters the social arena.

Ham is an accomplished liar for Jesus in the grand Protestant tradition of Martin Luther:

"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church ... a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them."

- Martin Luther

He also generously embraces Catholic maxims:

"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."

- Ignatius Loyola

Ham channels Jacques Derrida (French philosopher, founder of deconstructionism) and literal biblical inerrancy: everyone's view of reality is invariably shaped and determined by their starting assumptions. Truth is an illusion and no one can ever really know anything - unless it ended up in that mismatch of myths, superstitions, and unverifiable special revelations known as the bible.

Throughout "The Lie: Evolution" ludicrous conceits are presented in ways that seem, if not actually true, at least not quite so patently false - truthiness theology or alternate reality apologetics. Stock-in-tirade for Answers in Genesis (AiG) the creation-cult ministry behind this sophistic screed.

If you accept Ham's histrionics then issues such as abortion and warfare, along with racial, social, gender, and economic injustice, are the direct result of secular horrors unleashed by a 'religion' based on a techno-trinity of naturalism, materialism, and humanism - demonized in this book as 'Darwinism.'

Never mind that all of the above were intrinsic to the human condition for nearly two thousand years across Christendom, and since the dawn of recorded history throughout civilization in general, before Darwin was even born. Religions, including Christianity, have shed, and will continue to shed, more blood than Ken's Darwinian boogey-man ever will, as the religious conflict masquerading as the 'war on terror' amply illustrates. In fact medical advances driven by evolutionary insights into biology save lives every minute across the globe. The alternative Ken sells saves nothing.

Ken pimps half-baked ham at a farcical 'Creation Museum' that, among other howlers, features a dinosaur sculpture complete with a saddle - a nice English riding saddle no less - perhaps this dinosaur is about to be part of a dressage competition! Mistaking "The Flintstones" cartoons for historical artifacts exemplifies the rampant anti-intellectualism that leaps off of every page of this book.

At least "The Lie: Evolution" is partially true to its title. Every chapter is loaded with aspersions, backbiting, calumniates, and corkers. Instances of deceit, deception, defamation, detraction, dishonesty, disinformation, and distortion abound. Scientific facts are rejected in favor of fables, fabrications, falsehoods, fibs, fictions, fraud, guile, and hyperbole. Inaccuracies, inventions, libels, mendacities, misrepresentations, misstatements, and myths abound. Obloquy joins perjury, prevarication, revilement, slander, and subterfuge at every opportunity. Tales, tall stories, terminological inexactitude, and vilification are ever present. Ultimately "The Lie: Evolution" is a whopper. Luther and Loyola would have been proud...

Arguments of First Resort
The Lie: Evolution was written by a conservative Christian for conservative Christians. It is neither a tract nor a science book; it is an apologetics manual. Christians seeking a scientific critique of evolution should look elsewhere. Nonetheless, The Lie should be read by anyone interested in the creation/evolution debate (C/E), because Ken Ham is one of the most active evangelists in the field, and The Lie illumines his motivating philosophy and arguments of first resort.

The Lie is a forceful polemic that will invigorate readers who already agree with Ham's views. These qualities, and the dearth of science in The Lie, ought to alert evolutionists to the true nature of the debate, as conceived by conservative Christians. If Ham can pack this much conviction into 185 pages without deigning to evaluate the science, then it ought to be clear that C/E involves more than weighing evidence and vetting theories.

Ham argues that Genesis is foundational to Christianity. Genesis explains that God created the universe in six days, that creation was perfect at its inception, and that imperfection, sin and death entered the world through Adam. This establishes the need for a Savior, whose atoning work will restore perfection. Evolution, in contrast, implies gradual, ongoing "creation," and that from the beginning life has evolved by mutations (imperfection), coupled with natural selection (death). Evolution dispenses with sin, redemption and restoration as metaphysical clutter. Thus, evolution is incompatible with creation and should be rejected by those who believe the Bible is the infallible word of God.

Ham scrupulously rejects the "evidentialist" approach in favor of a "presuppositionalist" approach: The Bible is a priori true; evolution is ipso facto false. If you accept the truth of the Bible, then evidence is irrelevant. "Faith is . . . the evidence of things not seen . . . Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God" (Hebrews 11:1, 3). Liberal theologians and Christians who incorporate evolution into their worldview are seen as equivocal in their faith. What Ham overlooks is that creation "scientists," by accumulating and interpreting evidence in favor of creation, are engaged in a superfluous endeavor that might be inimical to faith.

The Lie contains weaknesses that may not be apparent to Ham's target audience. First, Ham should have provided a summary of Neo-Darwinism, as currently accepted by a virtual consensus of scientists practicing in relevant fields. Instead, Ham makes passing references throughout the book to mutations, natural selection, and evolutionary "progress," assuming that his readers are familiar with these mechanisms. In many instances he confounds popular misconceptions or outdated concepts with current consensus, when in fact the public is largely ignorant of Neo-Darwinism, and much that scientists once accepted has been superceded or modified. Americans in general and Christians in particular are woefully undereducated when it comes to evolution. And while this book is not a critique of evolutionary theory per se, any discussion that fails to account for the basics is inadequate.

Second, Ham elicits an extremely narrow definition of "science" that allows him to summarily dismiss evolutionary theory as non-science. His definition is consonant with the popular image of scientists performing repeatable experiments in a controlled lab setting. While this is indeed how some scientists work, Ham's definition disqualifies the well-established fields of astronomy, archaeology, paleontology, geology, epidemiology, climatology, linguistics, forensics, and a host of other historical sciences, including history itself. In short, Ham believes that any statement about the past is no better than a guess. He makes no allowance for methodological or evidentiary considerations that might render one "guess" better than another.

Ham's disdain for historical science is matched by his misrepresentation of scientific method. Implicit throughout The Lie is the creationist mantra that evolution is "just a theory." This dismissive attitude might be apt if evolution was "just a hypothesis," but in fact a theory is much stronger than a hypothesis, and requires more in the way of "disproof." One wonders why conservative Christians do not also protest the theory of gravitation, the germ theory of disease, the heliocentric theory of the solar system and the atomic theory of matter.

As a consequence of the points just made, Ham erroneously identifies evolution as a religion. Because evolution is non-science, and because a theory is no better than a guess, belief in the theory of evolution must be based on faith. But if evolution is a religion, then so are archaeology, epidemiology and forensics! In fact, Neo-Darwinism, like any scientific theory, is tentative and subject to disproof. Evidentiary interpretations and evolutionary hypotheses are modified or discarded every year; that's a hallmark of science, but not of religion. The dogmatism of some scientists is beside the point, as is the fact that many laypersons accept evolution on faith. Moreover, to equate science and religion is to rob both of their meaning. If Ham's purpose is obfuscation, he has succeeded. If his purpose is clarity, then he should respect meaningful distinctions.

Finally and integrally, Ham sees a causal relation between public acceptance of evolutionary theory and the acceleration of cultural decay: abortion, homosexuality, feminism, pornography, drugs, racism, even oppressive business practices! Darwinism, via moral relativism, is now the ultimate justification for an ungodly way of life. As Ham tells it, evolution has been the midwife of misery and suck-nurse of sin for the last 150 years. In some cases he draws valid connections: viz. Spencer's social Darwinism. What Ham fatally fails to explain, however, is that the worth of an idea cannot be measured solely by its misuse. If it could, then Christianity should be rejected because nominally Christian individuals and institutions have instigated wars, genocide, slavery, racism, infanticide, torture, psychological and sexual abuse, theft, fraud, deceit, environmental degradation, tax evasion, and yes, even oppressive business practices in the name of Christ. Christianity's association with these crimes is a matter of historical fact. But to conflate the ideal of Christianity with Christianity's blood-spattered past and ethically compromised present would be fundamentally unfair.