04.19.07
Words Do Mean Something, Don’t They?
My son just pointed out a post on Ken Ham’s blog regarding the recent Virginia Tech shooting. Ordinarily, I wouldn’t be interested in blogging about what all the news medias are currently covering because, gee, everyone is likely just rehashing the same thing. But, what I found particularly interesting was that “Orac,” yes the same “troll” I referred to in one of my older posts I titled, “By George, it’s a Real Troll, was referred to in Scientific American where Orac “misunderstands” Ken’s post. Ken was “not” blaming the shootings on secularists and evolution (as Orac claimed he was), but rather on “sin.” Christians, as well as secularists, can commit sin. Maybe Orac’s definition of a sinner is a secularist and/or evolutionist? And Christians think they don’t sin? Absolutely, not! Sigh. Any Christian who has read the Bible “knows” that we have “all” sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Christians do not claim to be sinless! Maybe Orac forgets that “some” unscientific Christians believe in evolution (although, this Christian absolutely does not). And there are some “non” Christians from other religions who also don’t believe in evolution like some Muslims. I’ve even spoken to agnostics who find faults with evolution. “Sin” is the issue in Ken’s post, which Orac apparently missed, “maybe” because when he saw “evolution” mentioned, he ran away with his preconceived ideas of what he “thought” Ken would say. Never mind what Ken was actually trying to convey. As “scientific” as Scientific American “thinks” they are, they apparently don’t even “check” all their resources they use in their publications. Or perhaps they, too, just didn’t understand what Ken was saying, ha! I’ve cut and pasted part of Ken Ham’s post on his blog where he explains the error:
“Many look on Scientific American as a reputable science (though ardently evolutionary) magazine–but one wonders how trustworthy their research is when on their website one of the editors for Scientific American made the following statement from their blog:
The second is the attempt to blame the killings on science education itself. Check out Orac’s post, which points to a ridiculous blog about the shootings by Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis, a pro-Christian advocacy group. In the post, Ham rails against atheism, evolutionary biology and the science classroom…
“He quoted from a website that stated:
Here’s contemptible ghoul #2, Ken Ham over at Answers in Genesis , who blames the evil of the school shooting on atheism (of course!) and–wink, wink, nudge, nudge–evolution, even though he “isn’t saying that,” if you know what I mean…Despicable. Ken Ham couldn’t even wait until tomorrow to start blaming godless secularists and evolution for this crime, just as he blamed the Columbine shootings on evolution and atheism.”
“But the same website actually quoted my article on the Virginia Tech killings where I really stated:
I’m not at all saying that the person who committed these murders at Virginia Tech was driven by a belief in millions of years or evolution. I don’t know why this person did what he did, except the obvious: that it was a result of sin. However, when we see such death and violence, it is a reminder to us that without God’s Word (and the literal history in Genesis 1–11), people will not understand why such things happen.
“The main thrust of my article was to point out that unless one understood and believed in a literal Genesis, one won’t have an understanding of why such killings occur. I also pointed out that the more generations of people are educated to believe in evolution/millions of years, and that the Bible’s history is not true—the more these generations will have no basis for morality or purpose and meaning life, etc.
“I guess the problem is that people in the secular world don’t understand (or accept) SIN—therefore they don’t understand what we are saying. But it really is quite poor of Scientific American to twist what I said.”
The full post on Ken Ham’s blog can be viewed here.
Just goes to show us that misunderstandings are rife.
Marlakins
Andrea said,
April 19, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Misunderstandings are everywhere. I have learned, the hard way, that I often don’t hear what people are really saying, or vice versa, that being clear when one communicates and very attentive when one listens is THE most important thing–and your example, Marla, points this out very well.
Now here’s the thing–In John it says–”in the beginning was the Word.” I don’t know what this means, but it does seem to imply that communication is pretty important.
And here’s another thing–DNA is nothing more than information! In fact, our friend Richard Dawkins–remember him, the God Delusion guy?–in another book about biology, The Blind Watchmaker, said–If you are looking for the basis of life, don’t think magic goo–think *information.* This astonished me. Here’s an avowed atheist, who all but worships science, and you know what he said? He said, “In the beginning was the Word.”
Andrea
Administrator said,
April 19, 2007 at 7:29 pm
Thanks for that, Andrea. I read your comment to my boys since they happened to be here at the moment, and they got a kick out of what you wrote. They said, “Yeah, well, words are information!”
Effective communication is a skill that takes some nurturing. I know I’ve found it a challenge, too, at times! And as you say, “listening” or “paying attention” takes some discipline! Especially when topics have a way of meandering. It takes a good, attentive thinker to stay on track and keep on subject so that some sort of meaningful communication actually takes place.
Take care!
Marla