As he did last September, when we wrote Ken Ham: “Why Won’t Anyone Debate Me?”, we have a very similar complaint by Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the Australian entrepreneur who has become the ayatollah of Appalachia.
Hambo’s latest rant appears in his blog at the website of his creationist ministry, Answers in Genesis (AIG). You can read it here: What Is Dawkins’ Real Motive for Not Debating Creationists? Last year he was complaining about Bill Nye; this year it’s Richard Dawkins. But he’s saying the same things — and even his conclusion is the same. This time he says:
But what we’re really seeing is just the manifestation of the atheists’ real motive — an anti-Christian bias and intolerance of Christianity that’s growing in our culture. They are in rebellion against God and so they work hard to “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” [scripture reference].
How very original! Last year he said:
It’s really the anti-Christian bias that is growing in our culture.
We’ve been through this before. We said pretty much all that there is to say a few years ago — see Would You Debate Ken Ham?, and there’s no need to repeat that again.
What we’ll do here is plod through ol’ Hambo’s latest to see if he has anything original to tell us. If we find anything, we’ll present it, and we’ll add a bit of bold font for emphasis.
Let’s see … he quotes some stuff from NCSE about why scientists shouldn’t debate creationists, but it’s the same material he quoted last year. And as before, he says: “They cannot find enough support for their ideas and they cannot refute the creationist view, so they just call biblical creation a ‘lie’ and refuse to debate!”
We’re looking for something new. How about this:
Well, famed UK evolutionist Richard Dawkins recently explained why he doesn’t debate biblical creationists — and his reasons are just as inflammatory.
Then he quotes Dawkins. We haven’t checked the quote for accuracy:
[Dawkins allegedly said:] “They want to be seen on a platform with a real scientist, because that conveys the idea that here is a genuine argument between scientists,” Dawkins continued. “They may not win the argument — in fact, they will not win the argument, but it makes it look like there really is an argument to be had.”
What does Hambo say in response? Let’s read on:
Now, Dawkins is confident that a biblical creationist will not win an argument with an evolutionist — so why wouldn’t he debate a creationist? It’s not debates that give scientists credibility. We have many scientists on staff at Answers in Genesis who have the highest degrees in their fields — and they can perform observational science just as well as any scientists who believe in evolution. But Dawkins confuses operational (observational) science with historical science: [another quote from Dawkins].
Lordy, lordy. Observational science and historical science. We’ve debunked that silly dichotomy before — see Answers in Genesis Explains Science to Us. And we have a section on it in Common Creationist Claims Confuted. Hambo continues:
The claim that biblical creationists aren’t real scientists is similar to some atheists — like Dawkins — who resort to calling the teaching of creation “child abuse” and creation science “pseudoscience.”
No, it’s not similar. Dawkins is making sense. Hambo finishes with this:
I urge you to pray for Richard Dawkins that he will hear the gospel, repent, and believe — before it’s too late [scripture reference].
Right at the end he teases us by saying that he’ll soon be announcing that an “evolutionist,” although one who is not a scientist, has agreed to debate him. He promises to provide details later. Oh boy — a cliff hanger. This is really exciting!
Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
The Sensuous Curmudgeon 
Congratulation, Ken Ham.
You have found yet another way of nurturing that Christian persecution complex that fundamentalists enjoy.
</sarcasm>
When did Ham last debate somebody one on one (something Dawkins has done)?
If Ken Ham likes to debate evilutionists like me (I’m not a scientist, so Dawkin’s problem of giving credibility is not mine) he only has to allow comments on his site.
Pot, kettle.
Why I won’t debate with Ken Ham. Why would I debate with somebody who believes that 2+2= 5.
Apologies in advance for an OT comment, but also on today’s AiG website, they announced free admission to their sideshow, er, “museum” for children during 2014. Do I sense just a whiff of desperation? Is AiG having financial difficulties? Is my schadenfreude showing?
Hambo’s blustering about his stable of creation “scientists” aside, he has not a single scientist on his staff. Not one. He has a handful of trained monkeys with Ph.D. degrees, but none of them are scientists.
Scientists are people who do science, and the moment his employees
sign a statement that says “. . By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record,” they cease to be scientists. They simple emerge from their statement signing as apologists and liars for Jesus. Scientists look for real answers as best they can. Apologists prop up superstition with lies and obfuscation.
I think the creationists that have confused science with a high school debate team.
I think that free admission for children is an indication that the museum is continuing to experience a precipitous decline in traffic despite the addition of the heavily advertised zip lines, dragon exhibit and insect collection. Museum attendance has gone from 400,000 in 2007 to 236,000 in 2012 and the museum’s operating expenses continue to exceed ticket sales by about $3 million a year according to the recent Form 990s they have filed with the IRS.
Clearly Hambo would not be offering free admission if he thought there were potential paying customers out there. He has a strong incentive to keep people attending the museum, even if they are not paying for admission. Besides the embarrassment of having an empty museum the drop in ticket sales threatens the one area of AiG’s operations that is profitable, the sale of merchandise such as creationist books, CDs, DVDs and other items sold at the museum’s bookstore. The same would be true of the museum’s restaurant. In addition a general admission ticket to the museum does not permit access to all of its exhibits. There is a substantial additional fee required to attend planetarium shows.
I think Hambo is hoping that by offering free general admission to children he can boost traffic through the museum by people who would not pay to get in but once in will spend money at the planetarium, bookstore and restaurant.
This is certainly an act of desperation by an organization that has badly overextended itself and is in danger of bankruptcy.
I’m wondering if he’s talking about Aron Ra. Ham was begging around for someone to debate him and Aron offered to take him up on it. Ham used Aron’s lack of a PhD as an excuse to dismiss him. PZ said he would participate as long as Aron was allowed to participate as his partner in the debate. Ham went silent on the matter.
YouTube Channel His series Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism is pretty damn good.
I should have mentioned, so that nobody misses it, that was back at the end of July as is the post I linked to.
Stephen Kennedy offers: “This is certainly an act of desperation by an organization that has badly overextended itself and is in danger of bankruptcy.”
One has to hope that you are right. Thanks for your input.f
Also, please excuse my grammar and punctuation. I know very well how terrible I am at communicating. One day I hope to be the BA77 of “Darwinism” but I have a long way to go.
But what we’re really seeing is just the manifestation of the atheists’ real motive — an anti-Christian bias and intolerance of Christianity that’s growing in our culture. They are in rebellion against God and so they work hard to “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” [scripture reference].
Yes, this is just the right-wing fundamentalist martyrdom syndrome at it’s ugliest. It’s the same line that the right-wing Tea Baggers use over and over with their rubes, Fox, Palin, et. al and the so-called war on Xmas, etc.
Waldteufel said:
Do I sense just a whiff of desperation? Is AiG having financial difficulties?
Well, they could just get that idiotic city council to issue more, and more, and more bonds. That should take care of the problem, i.e. Ham’s retirement fund.
Got me immediately jumping my mind to think ‘published papers’ when I read this quote: “and they can perform observational science just as well as any scientists who believe in evolution.” But the answer to that is another whine about evil agendas.
Besides anyone who ascribes an agenda or beliefs to anyone else is just being a blow-hard trying to justify why they should look like a hero.
waldteufel: “Scientists are people who do science, and the moment his [Ham’s] employees sign a statement that says “. . By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record,” they cease to be scientists.”
Hear, hear! Well-said. And Ham wonders why no one will debate creationists? How can you debate someone who denies the validity of anything you might say before you even say it?
Moreover, creationism is purely a religious belief. One cannot debate religious belief.
Mr. Ham, our only agenda is to ensure that students are taught science in science class. Science is that which can be validated by evidence, and does not rely on religious belief.
On Ham’s beneficent offer of free admission to his Creation ‘Museum, Stephen Kennedy and waldteufel pour the scornful sentiment
Gentlemen, gentlemen! Just because we are all amoral Darwinists and licentious materialists, we are not immune to this season of Peace on Earth and Good Will to All Men! A little kindness would not be out of place!
I think it would be far more becoming of us all to kindly send Hambo a free ticket in kind to the Icelandic Phallological Museum.
And I should incidentally point out, now that our Curmudgeon does not have a suitable privacy policy in place on his Curmudgeons-‘R-Us.com on-line store, we should instead direct our gift-buying custom to the very promising line of goods offered at the IPM souvenir shop.
That Ham is whining about his perception that Dawkins and/or other atheists are “afraid” to debate him must mean that he has already tried and failed to get Discoveroids to debate him. Certainly someone with as much to gain by being right as Ham would first try to engage those who, like him, don’t have that prior commitment to (methodological) naturalism. That way they could have a productive debate, and stick to the issues (how old is life, which “kinds” share common ancestors, who’s the designer, etc.), without it degenerating into a game where the winner is the one who’s better at the bait-and-switch. So will one of you readers kindly point me to where Ham invited Discoveroids to a debate, and where he threw a tantrum when they refused.
In a post full of inanities, this may be the most absurd statement of all. To be in rebellion against God, one must first believe that God exists. That is, believe that an all-powerful, all-knowing, omnipotent God exists with the will to torture you for all eternity for simply not believing in him, much less acting against him. Then, believing all that, one must decide “ah, what the hell, he’ll torture me for all eternity, but I don’t care, I think I’ll go and piss him off.”
Right.
I think Ham is in rebellion against leprechauns. He knows they exist, but he won’t admit it.
I think Ol’ Hambo is rather in rebellion against The Flying Spaghetti Monster. Consuming more pasta and beer would do him good.
What’s clear is that Ham-fist is in rebellion against, among other things, reality. And, as Philip K Dick said, “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.”
There was a brilliant quote I read a while ago about why it’s neither advisable nor profitable to “debate” against cretinists, IDeologues or other science-deniers. I cannot for the life of me find the quote right away but the gist of it was that these delusionals (variously, charlatans) will win any public debate by default because they offer glib, easy answers whereas science is often intricate and hard to follow for laypeople. Another aspect is that such people seek public debate, or rather their version of debate, least of all to settle any questions but mostly for the controversy and publicity such spectacles generate for them. This is why they keep on raising the same lame canards and tired tropes that have been repeatedly and comprehensively demolished.
In this view, debating someone like Ham-fist is actively counterproductive. And if they will neither learn anything new nor shut up and listen then it’s far better to point at them and laugh.
As loudly and brayingly as possible.
Really when Hambo says he can’t get a debate, what he really means is a debate with a big fish like Dawkins. Proof you have youtuber Aron Ra (as mentioned earlier) who basically needs to bring a big fish wish him to get a debate. This illustrates Dawkins’ point perfectly, Hambo wants to steal credibility by sharing a stage and of course beating Dawkins (well his little Hambo brain anyway).
Ed: “To be in rebellion against God, one must first believe that God exists.”
The “atheists hate God” is one of the most pathetic spitballs these scam artists throw. But remember that they’ll throw out any sound bite with a chance of persuading one fence-sitter who lacks the time and/or interest to give it 5 minutes’ thought. Ham is well aware of the irony that atheists don’t hate what they don’t think exists, and that theistic evolutionists love and respect God much more than these clowns who insist on portraying Him as a cartoon.
“I’m wondering if he’s talking about Aron Ra”.
In his blog post, Ham wrote “My debate opponent is not a scientist, however”. I’m not sure that he would speak thus of Aron Ra. But time will tell.
Ken Hambo: Why won’t anyone debate me?
Answer: You can’t have a battle of wits with unarmed opponents.