Rice Student's National Efforts Earn Scathing Rebuttal from Head of Creationist Museum

Thumbnail image for blogcover 2_21.jpg
Zack Kopplin has rapidly become the target of creationists across the nation.
It's easy to see that Zack Kopplin, a 19-year-old student at Rice University, has fast become one of the leading faces of the anti-creationist movement. He's appeared on numerous national interviews, sharing his opposition to publicly funding creationist academies. He has latched onto outspoken evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins's website. He has just been awarded a $10,000 prize as the Troublemaker of the Year.

But there seems no greater signal of Kopplin's efforts and efficacy -- detailed in this week's Press cover story -- than a recent anti-Kopplin post from Ken Ham, the director of Kentucky's Creation Museum.

Though the two have never spoken, Ham deemed it necessary to counter Kopplin's anti-creationist efforts by lobbing both charges and epithets toward the 19-year-old. And it's worth dissecting a bit of Ham's screed to gain a better insight into those Kopplin is fighting against.

Attempting to follow a love-the-sinner-hate-the-sin tack, Ham paints Zack as one of the nation's impressionable, imprinted students:

Students are being brainwashed with evolutionary ideas in almost all public schools and museums, and they are expected to accept it uncritically. We've made this point many times over the years, but a recent news story [on Kopplin] has made the brainwashing even more obvious.

Ham, realizing the Kopplin hasn't merely ingested the evolutionary "religion," but has instead become one its main figures, then takes a hatchet to the scientific methodology creating such a "belief." Rather than, say, pushing a definition as accepted by the scientific and the rational, Ham believes science should exist within any realm he can conjure.

First, Kopplin makes the assumption that science has to be "naturalistic." Now, there's no reason that science must be naturalistic--this is simply an assertion made by Kopplin and atheistic evolutionists! And really, that's the legacy of brainwashing. Atheists use the philosophy of naturalism to explain life without God. In the naturalistic view, the world and human beings are the result of chance processes. In reality, equating science with naturalism is an arbitrary definition applied to the word science by those who reject the supernatural.

Right. Science, arbitrarily tethered to that found within nature, shouldn't be divested from that which is observable and testable. It should be freed from the chains of the natural.

Ham then delineates between "observational" science and something he terms "historical" science -- that is, the notion that we can't possibly know something if we've not seen it with our own, divinely inspired eyeballs.

Of course, secularists mock creationists for separating out historical science and operational science. But they do that because the secularists want the word science to apply to both historical and operational science so that they can brainwash people (like Kopplin) into thinking that to believe in creation is to reject science. [Emphasis in original.]

Ham continues to run through Kopplins "beliefs" in the myriad pieces of evidence and strains of science supporting evolution. He continues to posit that only a Christian miracle could have allowed all that we see around us. And eventually, he finds his way to the voucher schemes that Texas seems set on implementing. After discussing their wondrous impacts on Louisiana, and after noting that Ohio's program allows public school students to visit his Creation Museum, Ham unveils his thesis:

My Voice Nation Help

What would make me change my mind about the raft of scientific evidence supporting evolution? A fossilized rabbit in the pre-cambrian. I would say, wow, that's a shocking problem to my model. I need to re-evaluate things.

On the other hand, if creationists would find something similar (as in already) they would shrug and say, I still believe in the biblical story of science and the way it unfolded. I believe this on faith in the bible.

That is the difference between science and make-believe. And sad to say, many like make-believe better. 

Now Trending

From the Vault