Ken Ham appears to be losing his mind at an accelerating rate. People who are interested in things might be amused by his multiple choice test, title "Can You Marry Your Relation?" As a mathematically-inclined geek, when I hear "relation" I naturally think "equivalence relation" or possibly "ordinal relation" such as greater-than/less-than. After taking the test, I realize that isn't what he's talking about. In fact, I have absolutely no clue what he is talking about. Here's the first few questions:

Can you marry your relation?: "1. Can you marry your relation? a. Yes b. No c. Probably d. Only after counseling 2. Did kangaroos live in the Middle East? a. Yes b. No c. They live only in Australia d. We can ’t know for sure 3. Which of the following best illustrates a prehistoric animal? a. Alligator b. Mammoth c. Brachiosaurus d. None of the above 4. Has God told us when He made Tyrannosaurus rex? a. Yes b. No c. We can’t know for sure d. Only science has the correct answer

Here's the explanation he offers for Question 1:

If your wife or husband wasn’t related to you before you married her or him—you didn’t marry a human! The point is, every human is related because we are all descendants of one man and one woman (1 Corinthians 15:45; Genesis 3:20; Genesis 5:4; Acts 26). The reason we can be saved is because Jesus became our relation to die for His relations (this is why He is called the ‘last Adam’—God provided another ‘Adam’ to pay the penalty for sin). Now we don’t marry someone closely related to us today because of the problems with our genes resulting from the curse. This is why it’s so important to be able to answer the question, Where did Cain get his wife?

Oh! Of course. Dr. Ham's logic is patently theological (by which I mean, "utterly absurd"). Susan Haack has written an interesting taxonomy of science and theology, which is quoted in the current Skeptical Inquirer magazine. She says:

Unlike religion, theology is a form of inquiry. Unlike scientific inquiry, however, theology welcomes -- indeed, it seeks -- supernatural explations, explanations in terms of God's making things so. Usually, furthermore, it calls on evidential resources beyond sensory experience and reasoning, most importantly on religious experience and the authority of revealed texts. So, unlike scientific inquiry, theological inquiry is discontinuous with everday empirial inquiry, both in the kinds of explanations in which it traffics and in the kinds of evidential resource on which it calls. ...Whereas the sciences have amplified and refined the evidential resources on which we all rely daily, theology relies on additional evidential resources the authenticity of which depends on dubious old crossword entries.

I think Haack's "crossword" analog sheds some light on theological reasoning. To me, it simply looks like bizarre alogical gibberish. But where it lacks logic, it does tend to have a narrative form. The Bible doesn't tell us exactly what to do about Terri Schiavo, for example, but the Pope says it does. The Pope has not drawn this conclusion from a literal reading of the Bible. To draw theological conclusions, he must take the Bible characters and imagine them in a plausible modern setting, and then craft reactions that would be consistent with the characters from the original series. It's a form of Fan Fiction. The events don't have to make too much sense, as long as the story is interesting and the characters' reactions are plausibly based on previous episodes.