The always laughably idiotic Ken Ham spoke at the Family Research Council’s Watchmen on the Wall conference recently and told the crowd that you must interpret Genesis literally or you get gay marriage. Which actually sounds like a good argument against taking Genesis literally, doesn’t it?
May 29 2012
Ken Ham: Evolution Leads to Gay Marriage
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
About the Author
21 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
anaximanchild
May 29, 2012 at 11:25 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Evolution HAS lead to gay marriage … and straight marriage, and baseball, and Liberty University, and Post-It Notes, and chocolate ice cream, and Freethoughtblogs.com, and … and … and …
StevoR
May 29, 2012 at 11:31 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Yes, yes, it sure does. Sounds like an argument that’s evolving pretty quickly to me! ;-)
But then it *never* was gods authority – since there isn’t one. Almost certainly. Just humans and the organisations and religions they create.
It’s just that now we all know that’s the case.
Well, most of us anyhow.
StevoR
May 29, 2012 at 11:32 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@1. anaximanchild : Wait, I thought FTB was intelligently designed?
Randomfactor
May 29, 2012 at 11:38 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and democracy…but that could change.” –Dan Quayle, noted freedom proponentsist
dingojack
May 29, 2012 at 11:42 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Stevo – A long list of other blogs that could be on a link farm on another page, plus a long list of recent posts on other blogs that could be on a link farm on the same other page as above, but only six recent comments?
You were saying about intelligent design?
Dingo
reverendrodney
May 29, 2012 at 11:44 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I didn’t listen to the video but I think I get the gist of what’s happening. As Karen Armstrong says in THE BATTLE FOR GOD, A HISTORY OF FUNDAMENTALISM’, fundamentalism arose out of fear, and one fear is of extinction. So wingnuts are foisting the point, subliminally or overtly, that if evolution leads to homosexuality, then eventually the human race will disappear! Therefore we can’t believe in evolution. Much better to have the world fry in one fell swoop when the end times come.
suzysalaksartok
May 29, 2012 at 11:44 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I like how the big problem is moral relativism, and if we only stuck to moral absolutes as dictated by God then everything would be great.
Except slavery, because that was just something that was needed at the time for that society, but its wrong now.
And stoning adulterers, you see, it was right at the time because women were just property to tie families together, and adultery was a threat to that.
And genocide, because God said it was OK, and those people deserved it, even the babies.
And back when causing a miscarriage wasn’t really a big deal, whereas now its tantamount to murder.
And eating shrimp and ham was only said to be a sin because they didn’t have refrigeration, and now that we do there’s nothing wrong with it.
Besides, that was all the Old Testament anyway, the New Testament is where you look for your morals for, except slavery again, and all that other stuff like how you shouldn’t stand up for yourself and everything, because that was just for the time when Jesus was around and he was just speaking to those people, except the other times when I agree with him and he was speaking to everyone at everytime.
Anyway, moral relativism is horrible and will lead to all sorts of disasters, and you should rely on moral absolutes that God set down, like Good Christians do…
Michael Heath
May 29, 2012 at 12:11 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
suzysalaksartok writes:
Conservative Christians ignorantly and falsely assert that secularists are all moral relativists. But that’s not true, some obviously are but many aren’t. In fact more than 50% atheist philosophers in academia promote an objective approach to morality, e.g., a morality which sets a standard that we should minimize human suffering – both currently and in the future; where the latter goal incorporates environmental protections and the judicious use of current resources, there are others as well which incorporate protections for other sentinent life forms.
While adult conservative Christians are neither rational or interested in seriously engaging secularists in good faith at this time, I do think we advance the secularist cause by promoting an objective form of morality. Not that we should only promote objective morality, but instead work to enlighten at least young people indoctrinated to be conservative Christians that there is common ground that can work in a free, pluralistic society.
Akira MacKenzie
May 29, 2012 at 12:15 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@ suzysalaksartok
That the beauty of being omnipotent. God’s morality is absolute and perfect even AFTER he changes it. For encore, God will create a bolder so big he can’t lift it AND still carry it with ease!
Aratina Cage
May 29, 2012 at 12:17 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
All throughout my childhood I was taught that marriage was something people do when they love each other. So it was quite shocking to discover how the majority of voters so far (people who actually got off their asses and voted) don’t believe that and want to make marriage into some sick and twisted Genesis-based role playing game.
Known as death worshipers for their devotion to the rules of a con-game that puts the end goal at an unreachable location in time (after death), they really do seem to hate their own lives and the lives of other people who are not like them and who want to enjoy life in the here and now.
abb3w
May 29, 2012 at 12:26 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Acceptance of evolution tends to lead to rejection of the Genesis account.
Rejection of the Genesis account tends to lead to rejection of the Bible as the Inerrant Word Of God.
Rejection of the Bible as the Inerrant Word Of God tends to reduce demonizing homosexuals.
Reduced demonizing of homosexuals leads to allowing Gay Marriage (in “Enlightened” Governments, and liberal Churches — though separately).
Yes, Mr. Ham. At least hereabouts, folk apparently don’t consider the results a “bad” thing. We don’t accept your morally relativist claim that your interpretation of the Bible has absolute moral authority. And you don’t seem to realize that your claim of absolute moral authority is a morally relativist assertion. Was there anything else?
tacitus
May 29, 2012 at 12:45 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
But from Ham’s point of view, this type of objective morality is just another name for moral relativism. You are still measuring the morality of an act based on any number of different competing factors, any one of which can profoundly affect the amount of human suffering of different groups or individuals in often counterintuitive
tacitus
May 29, 2012 at 12:58 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Gah — should not try writing comments on a Nook Color tablet…
Here’s my full comment:
But from Ham’s point of view, this type of objective morality is just another name for moral relativism. You are still measuring the morality of an act based on any number of different competing factors, any one of which can profoundly affect the amount of human suffering of different groups or individuals in often counter-intuitive ways.
This of course correctly reflects the complexity of life and society, but in Ham’s world, that’s a bad thing.
What Ham is talking about is not objective morality, it’s moral absolutes, which is an entirely different thing. There is no measurement or calculation involved (at least, that’s what he would claim, even if it’s not true in most cases), it’s merely a straightforward application of God’s law here on Earth. Thus it is the antithesis of objective morality.
kermit.
May 29, 2012 at 1:32 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Aratina Cage: Known as death worshipers for their devotion to the rules of a con-game that puts the end goal at an unreachable location in time (after death), they really do seem to hate their own lives and the lives of other people who are not like them and who want to enjoy life in the here and now
A little ditty I learned in Sunday School 55 years ago or thereabouts…
“This world is not my home, I’m just a’passing through.
My treasures are laid up somewhere beyond the blue.”
chorus
“The angels beckon me from Heaven’s open door
And I can’t feel at home in this world anymore.
“Oh Lord, you know, I’ve got no friend but you.
If you forsake me Lord, then Lord, what would I do?”
chorus
And so on. A cheerful tune to hook the kids, but when I realized, years later, what we were actually singing I was horrified. A common emotion I felt at church.
Fundamentalist Christians in the US typically hate joy, and they especially hate seeing it in others who seem to feel no guilt about it.
“Jesus died on the cross for you; was he having fun?”
Marcus Ranum
May 29, 2012 at 3:29 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Evolution led to christianity.
Ichthyic
May 29, 2012 at 4:57 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
we already researched Ham’s claim years ago.
conclusion:
If evolutionary theory leads to homosexuality, then Ham‘s brand of religion leads to Raping Piglets.
it’s true, you can look it up just like any other internet meme.
Ichthyic
May 29, 2012 at 4:59 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
see:
https://www.google.co.nz/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=ken+ham+rapes+piglets&oq=ken+ham+rapes+piglets&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=hp.3…3665.9197.0.10603.23.22.1.0.0.1.1500.7050.2-10j5j1j0j1j0j1.22.0…0.0.JhAZ7DrK93I&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=781a3196e61727d&biw=1222&bih=747
must be true.
Ichthyic
May 29, 2012 at 5:03 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Acceptance of evolution tends to lead to rejection of the Genesis account.
Rejection of the Genesis account tends to lead to rejection of the Bible as the Inerrant Word Of God.
Rejection of the Bible as the Inerrant Word Of God tends to reduce demonizing homosexuals.
Reduced demonizing of homosexuals leads to allowing Gay Marriage (in “Enlightened” Governments, and liberal Churches — though separately).
shorter and more precise:
authoritarians can’t accept questioning authority. It would break their carefully crafted system.
seriously, that, in the end, is what this is all about. It’s why xianity was designed the way it was, why the church was organized the way it was, why fundamentalism is a natural expectation of such an organization, and why it’s expedient to create and encourage such structure from a political viewpoint.
abb3w
May 29, 2012 at 8:32 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ichthyic:
Well, yes. That is the context. However, I was trying to cast Ham’s apparent argument into syllogistic form, to note that the part that is the titular focus of Ed’s post, though poorly phrased… er, actually seems logically valid. It seems just the further moral consequences he tries conveying (“THIS IS BAD!!!”) that the atheists would argue about.
He’s not really stupid. It’s mainly his starting moral premises that are what we’d consider insane.
Pinky
May 29, 2012 at 11:09 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I hate to read about Ken Ham¹. Every time I get to thinking about Ham I start thinking about his counterpart; Kent Hovind. As I think about Hovind this song starts playing in my head for the rest of the day.
(¹ Ken Ham walks around in his Halloween costume all year long; a deranged Abe Lincoln with a Australian accent.)
hunter
May 30, 2012 at 9:37 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The gaping hole in Ham’s reasoning, of course, is that morality is relative and always has been, just like religion is — they’re both outgrowths of particular cultures at particular times.
There are religions that recognize that fact, as well as the complexity of daily life, and couch morality in those terms, the end result being that moral decisions are a daily necessity.
It must be hard living in a black-and-white world when the universe comes in a range of grays.