Subscribe to
Posts
Comments
NSLog(); Header Image

Ken Ham’s “Historical Science”

Dear Creation Museum, all science is "historical science." Here's why:

The real problem with Ham's argument is that it's so blatantly hypocritical. Historic science is actually fine with him—but only when it gives him an answer that can be crammed into his version of the biblical timeline. In the debate, he happily cited a study that showed all domesticated dogs shared a common ancestor—he thinks that's evidence for a dog-kind—but neglected to mention that the study also showed that the ancestor lived over 11,000 years ago. For those keeping track, that means dogs predate Ham's creation.

For biblical reasons, he likes the idea of Pangea, but he doesn't like the fact that the continents are currently moving annoyingly slowly—far too slowly to have broken up Pangea in the 2,500 or so years since the Flood. His website proudly suggests that there might have been a period of catastrophic plate tectonics where the continents raced around the globe.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

Please abide by the comment policy. Valid HTML includes: <blockquote><p>, <em>, <strong>, <ul>, <ol>, and <a href>. Please use the "Quote Me" functionality to quote comments.