by Cowboy Bob Sorensen
Edited about 22 hours after initial posting.
Matt Walsh has a strong pro-life view, stands up for politically conservative values, and has an excellent sense of humor. I have occasionally linked to him, and his material spurred me to do some writing (such as "It's Not My Fault!"). Unfortunately, he is bothersome to many of his supporters when he discusses theology. What really took the rag off the bush is when he decided to slap leather with biblical creation science.
Matt seems like the kind of guy that I could hang out with, and we could have some interesting discussions. Unfortunately, he is a staunch defender of Roman Catholicism and has weak theological foundations. When he threw down on creation science, I posted a couple of articles at The Question Evolution Project. The first one was by Peter Heck, "Why Matt Walsh is Dangerously Wrong About Genesis". Later, I posted an article by Paul Price at Creation Ministries International, "Apologist Matt Walsh makes a seriously uninformed attack on biblical creationism".
Later, I did not read an article by Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis, but still attempted to engage Walsh (again) on Twitter:
For some reason, he really got upset about the Ken Ham response and made a video. Interesting that he ignored other articles refuting his positions. Regular readers know that creationists encourage critical thinking, and I encourage people to develop skills at spotting informal logical fallacies. Walsh reacted in the same way as atheists, liberal Christians, and other anti-creationists when dealing with biblical creation science. He used prejudicial conjecture (using words without knowledge because he did not research the subject), ad hominem attacks, straw man arguments, and more. He also called Ham a liar.
If you call someone a liar but do not show valid reasons for the accusation, you are the liar, old son.
Such attitudes and actions are like those of a certain misotheist who hates Ken with a passion, and assumes Ham is lying. Evidence? In his mind, Ken Ham is a liar and the misotheist is right because he hates Ken (makes perfect sense). His proof is by using the fallacy of repeated assertion, but all he does is display his bigotry. I doubt that Walsh would be interested in the support of someone who called God a liar and is logic impaired. By the way, he also ignored the other creationist articles refuting Matt, but seems to seek relevance by attacking Ham. In fact, Walsh called Ham a liar and demanded an apology for things that were never said, and Walsh owes Ham an apology!
It is interesting that Matt Walsh acts just like Bill Nye in many ways. Both have singled out Ken Ham, as if he was the only creationist out there, and act like he is leading an anti-science cult. In fact, there are thousands who are also riding for the creation brand. Many times, creation science has caused secular scientists to realize that their deep time and evolutionary presuppositions are loaded with error. F'rinstance, creationist research on the human-chimp DNA fiasco brought down a long-standing evolutionary falsehood.
Whether in debates or criticism, it is essential to do some reading on the subjects under discussion and to avoid misrepresenting the other side. Walsh, Nye, and that other guy need to learn that attacking the person does not prove that their own positions are correct, you savvy?
We can pray that these folks have their eyes opened by the Holy Spirit, that they humble themselves, and repent. Until then, we can use their attacks for instruction and to warn others about how rejecting God's Word affects the mind. As creationists, we not only emphasize the foundational aspect of Scripture beginning with the very first verse, but also its authority as well.
Now I'm going to bring you to the most recent response to Matt Walsh by Ken Ham and others at Answers in Genesis. To read it an watch the video, click on "Responding to Matt Walsh on Young-Earth Creation".
Edited about 22 hours after initial posting.
Matt Walsh has a strong pro-life view, stands up for politically conservative values, and has an excellent sense of humor. I have occasionally linked to him, and his material spurred me to do some writing (such as "It's Not My Fault!"). Unfortunately, he is bothersome to many of his supporters when he discusses theology. What really took the rag off the bush is when he decided to slap leather with biblical creation science.
 |
| Credit: Freeimages / Robb Kiser |
Later, I did not read an article by Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis, but still attempted to engage Walsh (again) on Twitter:
 |
| Click for larger |
If you call someone a liar but do not show valid reasons for the accusation, you are the liar, old son.
Such attitudes and actions are like those of a certain misotheist who hates Ken with a passion, and assumes Ham is lying. Evidence? In his mind, Ken Ham is a liar and the misotheist is right because he hates Ken (makes perfect sense). His proof is by using the fallacy of repeated assertion, but all he does is display his bigotry. I doubt that Walsh would be interested in the support of someone who called God a liar and is logic impaired. By the way, he also ignored the other creationist articles refuting Matt, but seems to seek relevance by attacking Ham. In fact, Walsh called Ham a liar and demanded an apology for things that were never said, and Walsh owes Ham an apology!
It is interesting that Matt Walsh acts just like Bill Nye in many ways. Both have singled out Ken Ham, as if he was the only creationist out there, and act like he is leading an anti-science cult. In fact, there are thousands who are also riding for the creation brand. Many times, creation science has caused secular scientists to realize that their deep time and evolutionary presuppositions are loaded with error. F'rinstance, creationist research on the human-chimp DNA fiasco brought down a long-standing evolutionary falsehood.
Whether in debates or criticism, it is essential to do some reading on the subjects under discussion and to avoid misrepresenting the other side. Walsh, Nye, and that other guy need to learn that attacking the person does not prove that their own positions are correct, you savvy?
We can pray that these folks have their eyes opened by the Holy Spirit, that they humble themselves, and repent. Until then, we can use their attacks for instruction and to warn others about how rejecting God's Word affects the mind. As creationists, we not only emphasize the foundational aspect of Scripture beginning with the very first verse, but also its authority as well.
Now I'm going to bring you to the most recent response to Matt Walsh by Ken Ham and others at Answers in Genesis. To read it an watch the video, click on "Responding to Matt Walsh on Young-Earth Creation".