What is the difference between me and Ken Ham?

I was watching Ken Ham brainwashing a mass of children on Youtube an hour ago and I was overcome by feelings of hysterical contempt.  I can’t stand religious jibber jabber.  As far as I’m concerned, I am the god of my own existence – I am the ultimate authority on all matters pertaining to my own experience of life, the dictator of my own moral principles, and I am responsible for my actions, beliefs and decisions.

Being a god demands the continuous absorption and integration of new information, especially information that conflicts with my perspective.  Everything must be taken into account, everything must find a place in the whole, every commentator gets a seat at the table.  When one is personally responsible for the quality of one’s own brief, beautiful and improbable experience of awareness, failing to contemplate multiple perspectives is malpractice of the highest degree.  It fractures the mind.  It sends vital aspects of human psychology scurrying into dark corners to escape the wrath of dominant, fixed ideas – from whence they take the reins of emotion and wreak holy havoc in complete anonymity.

I have learned that I can find the shadowy places where rejected perspectives lurk and expose them to the light by being on the lookout for an exaggerated emotional response to an abstract concept.  Like, for example, my hysterical loathing of Ken Ham for what he’s doing to those kids.  I honestly think the world would be a better place with all the young earth creationists removed – in fact, if I didn’t think the concept was a pitiable load of fanciful rubbish, I’d be as excited about the End of Days as they are!

My love has pointed out that the damage Ken Ham is doing to those kids is insignificant compared to the damage done by having parents that would send you to that type of event, and I agree – but I still hate Ken Ham.  If I met him I would be tempted to spit directly into his face.

I’m sure this is justifiable – I have a mass of clear-headed, rational justifications for my contempt – but lately I can’t silence this niggling  voice in my head that keeps pointing out I must be feeling exactly what fundamentalists feel when they think about people like me.  I believe in liberty, social justice, ecological integrity, the precautionary principle, moral relativism, evolution, education, critical thinking, unrestrained sensuality and intoxicants and my very existence is a living testimony to these beliefs.  I don’t believe in submission to authority of any kind, whether natural or supernatural.  How evil I must seem to them – an icon of everything that is wrong in the world from a fundamentalist perspective; an independent, free-thinking, educated, child-free, intelligent, morally aperspectival, drug using, multi-lingual, globe-trotting, sexually active unmarried female anarchist who hates cooking and hair dryers and loves power tools and diversity.  And my social circle is mostly made up of homosexuals, recovering drug addicts and foreigners.

So do religious fundamentalists hate me in exactly the same way as I hate them – as the negative image of my ideal world – or is there some kind of difference?

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

17 Responses to “What is the difference between me and Ken Ham?”

  1. jonolan Says:

    Yes, they hate you.

  2. Richard Says:

    “How evil I must seem to them – an icon of everything that is wrong in the world from a fundamentalist perspective; an independent, free-thinking, educated, child-free, intelligent, morally aperspectival, drug using, sexually active unmarried woman who hates cooking and loves power tools.”

    You’re never going to find a husband like that. 🙂

  3. apophaticattic Says:

    ROFL. That’s OK, I can build myself a robot husband. I have already procured a copy of “Electronics for inventors”, just in case.

  4. Kerri Says:

    @ jonolan, I’m not much affected by the hate of unthinking knee-benders. 🙂 I am only shedding light in the hidden places of my mind – identifying the root cause of my revulsion for my own benefit, in order to better enjoy a fully integrated consciousness. By the time this process is complete, it’s very likely I won’t “hate” young earth creationists any more, but I will pity them for having no mechanism for this kind of psychological transformation, by which they too could be liberated from hate and fear.

  5. Emi Says:

    Could you expand a bit more on “religious jibber jabber”? That isn’t very enlightening.

  6. apophaticattic Says:

    Sure, Emi. When in that video Ken shows pictures of a few dozen canine species (foxes, wolves, chihuahuas) that any thinking person would conclude are living evidence of speciation, he says “How many ‘dogs’ did Noah need to bring on the ark? Two!”

    That’s religious jibber-jabber. Irrational, misrepresentational, ignorant nonsense that denies everything we know about the mechanism by which natural ecosystems are able to thrive in diversity – a statement that violates even the most basic principles of logic and critical thinking.

    Not all religious discussion qualifies as jibber-jabber, mind you. Just Ken Ham’s kind.

  7. jonolan Says:

    Bad example perhaps – in 6000 or so years mankind took the wolf or coyote and bred it into the chihuahua. What man could do in six millennia, a God could do in six days. 😉 Or more directly, all the Chesapeake Bay Retrievers are descended from two(2) dogs found after a shipwreck.

    Now, I’m very much NOT a young Earth creationist; I’m just pointing out that the “jibber-jabber” in question is perhaps not the best example to use in this case. I prefer both radioactive isotope findings, or the stuff found by the Hubble telescope that shows the universe being at 16 BILLION years old.

  8. kelly Says:

    Good for you, jonalon. “Jibber jabber” exists – both religious and nonreligious – but I don’t think that’s the best example of it. I have also read studies on how dogs have common (dog) ancestors.

    Really, Apophaticattic, I would wait for something worse to come along before I got ticked off 🙂

    Cool down a little here, and think – either speciation or special creation are conclusions a person can come to with the evidence we have. You may incline to one, and Ken Ham to the other, but respect is a must. You can’t just dismiss somebody because he doesn’t believe what you do.

    And if people hate you, girl, you better accept it because you are pretty free hating yourself! (“spit directly in his face”????)

  9. emi Says:

    I’m afraid I have to agree that the dogs-in-the-ark thing isn’t the best example of jibber jabber.

    There’s a lot of hate in your post towards what you call “religious fundamentalists”, but surely you realize that they don’t have the exclusive on irrational, misrepresentational, ignorant nonsense.

    More than a few scientists have given us prime examples of misrepresentation – and it was misrepresentation on purpose. Meaning, blatant fraud.

    Ernst Haeckel’s “embryonic recapitulation” drawings (which National Geographic actually published) …. the Piltdown man … the Archaeoraptor liaoningensis (supposedly feathered dinosaur) … the “use” of carbon 14 to date fossils and diamonds at “BILLIONS” of years when carbon 14 can only date up to thousands of years …

    The list could get longer, but you see my point. It makes me much angrier to be lied to by scientists than to hear somebody saying dogs could come from two common dog ancestors.

  10. apophaticattic Says:

    Hi emi, jonolan and kelly. The reason I chose the example of dogs is that Ken explicitly acknowledges that multiple distinct species can evolve from common ancestors, and then claims it somehow CONFLICTS with Darwin’s theory that species (including humans) evolved from common ancestors. Nonsense.

    Emi, you noticed the hate – yes I noticed it too. That’s what this post is about: Shedding light on why certain abstract concepts provoke an irrational, visceral emotional response. I can disagree with young earth creationists without wanting to spit on their idols if I understand where the anger (both mine and theirs) comes from. This is the start: acknowledging that my anger and theirs are the same. They come from the same place. I have a notion of a better world, and so do they. Their paradise is my hell, and vice versa. So we pose a threat to each other. If the world leans toward my ideals, they will be unhappy, and vice versa.

    So the culprit here – the cause of the irrational anger – is actually our attachment (mine and theirs) to an abstract vision of an ideal society, not the fact our ideals differ.

  11. jonolan Says:

    Ummmm…Two things:-

    All dogs are the same species, Canis lupus familiaris which is actually a subspecies of Wolf. Technically all dogs are wolves so there’s actually been no speciesization.

    All or most of the variants of the subspecies familiaris were developed via Intelligent Design, Man’s.

    Still not a good example, if for no other reason than people will respond the same they and I have done so here and dilute your point.

  12. apophaticattic Says:

    “Speciesization”, eh? Wikipedia has a good article on the canidae family you might want to read to straighten up some misconceptions. Canids are a “family”, my friend – five whole tiers up from “subspecies” and four up from “species”. I don’t expect a creationist to have a very good grasp on taxonavigation, but you might not want to use scientific terminology without knowing what it means, especially if you are trying to “dilute the point” of someone who does not believe in ID.

    Have another look at the video if you wish – you’ll see he’s showing foxes, wolves, jackals – a whole cornucopia of species belonging to the canidae family, and calling them all “dogs”. He’s not, as you suggest, showing wolves and golden retrievers.

  13. apophaticattic Says:

    Plus, when you watch the video again you will see he even SAYS after showing all those raccoons and dingos “all you saw there are different varieties and species that developed since the flood.”

    (I just checked).

  14. jonolan Says:

    apophaticattic,

    Easy there; I’m not the enemy, not even a Christian. 😉

    There’s only one species of “Dog” and that is actually a subspecies of “Wolf.” Both are members of the family Canidae. All the different “breeds” of dogs were created by conscious design by man. That is the only reason I said it wasn’t a good example to use against the creationists.

  15. apophaticattic Says:

    Did you watch the video? He’s calling foxes and raccoons “dogs” too – not just domestic dog breeds – so yes, it’s a good example. They are in the family “canidae”, but they are not “dogs”, and he admits this by saying “these are all different SPECIES” (of “dog”) that developed over time – just as Darwin suggests. But hey, one person’s “jibber jabber” can be another’s “reasonable argument” – happens all the time. It’s just a matter of perspective.

  16. jonolan Says:

    Yeah, he’s a bit of an idiot when it comes to zoology.

  17. Casey Says:

    It’s always hard to know when your sense of righteous disdain turns you into exactly what you’re trying to avoid. As much as I think sending kids to that crap fucks them up for life, I still have to admit that I would rather everyone have as much liberty to individually fuck up their kids as possible.

    That way I can do the same, at least in their mind.

    I really liked this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: