Ken Ham Criticizes the Discovery Institute

A few days ago, while mentioning the Ken Ham-Bill Nye debate that’s scheduled for 04 Febreuary, the Discovery Institute’s David Klinghoffer attempted to distance the Discoveroids from the primitive, bible-based creationism of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo).

This isn’t the first time those two creationist outfits have talked about their differences — which we regard as trivial. Both are science deniers, but Hambo’s outfit denies science because it contradicts his literal reading of the bible, whereas the Discoveroids deny science because … well, it’s not religious, and besides that, they just don’t like it. They’ve explicitly said so in their wedge strategy, about which we wrote What is the “Wedge Document”?

Before Klinghoffer’s post, the most recent volley in the ongoing competition between those two creationist movements came from ol’ Hambo — see Food Fight: Ken Ham vs. Intelligent Design. We like to see discord between the various sects of creationism. It’s always enjoyable to see them squabbling among themselves about the silly details of their anti-science ideology. It’s a hint of the sectarian warfare that will surely erupt when they don’t have science as their common foe.

Today it’s Hambo’s turn again. Responding to Klinghoffer, he has just posted Is the Bible Evidence? First, he quotes what Klinghoffer wrote. We’ll skip that because it was covered in our earlier post. Then he says, with bold font added by us:

Consider his statement that “ID advocates follow the evidence where it leads.” Now, the ID movement is not a Christian movement. Its proponents are against naturalism and maintain that life is the result of an intelligent designer, but they don’t fully say what the mean by that.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Of course the Discoveroids don’t say what they mean — that’s part of their strategy. Many of them have privately admitted that their designer is Yahweh, but they’re careful not to say so on their website. They want to maintain the masquerade that they’re scientists. They don’t need to identify the designer — their followers can easily figure it out, and their Wedge Document makes everything quite clear.

Hambo knows this, yet he plays along with the Discoveroids’ official position of pretending to be neutral about their designer’s identity. But he criticizes them for not proclaiming what to him is so obvious. He says:

It certainly is true that if you look at living things, there is overwhelming evidence of design in them — that life could not have arisen without intelligence. That is the essence of what Romans 1:20 states — that it is so obvious from looking at creation that God exists, and if you do not believe this, you are without excuse.

The Discoveroids have no excuse! Let’s read on:

But the ID movement is ignoring evidence: they dismiss the Bible itself as evidence!

What kind of evidence is that? Hambo explains:

The Bible claims to be (and I know it to be) the Word of God. … The Bible is evidence — it is evidence that enables us to correctly connect the past to the present and understand true history. Because the ID movement ignores the Bible, its leaders will not publicly lead people to understand who the true God is.

Only Hambo can truly lead people. Here’s more:

Klinghoffer also seems to imply that the age of the earth is the issue which drives us at AiG. But that’s simply not true. Our emphasis is to stand on the authority of God’s Word, enabling us to have the foundation to build a worldview that will give us the ability to correctly interpret the evidence of the present in relation to the past.

Wow — ol’ Hambo is really blasting away at the Discoveroids! Moving along:

The ID movement has produced some great research to show the obvious design in living things.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Yeah, great research. Look, a butterfly! Therefore Oogity Boogity! Hambo thinks that’s good, but it’s not good enough. Why? He tells us:

But unless they consider all the evidence (which includes the Bible), they will not be able to lead people to a correct understanding of life and the universe.

Ol’ Hambo thinks those Discoveroids are fools! One last excerpt:

At least Klinghoffer is going to watch the upcoming debate — well, maybe some of it! Viewers of the debate will see a stark contrast between the stand AiG takes and the position of the ID movement. Again, the big difference is that AiG insists on using the Bible as evidence!

So there you are. If you’ve already rejected science and you’re trying to decide whether to follow the Discoveroids or AIG, now you have the information you need to make a choice. Choose carefully, dear reader. Burning in the Lake of Fire is no way to go through eternity.

Copyright © 2014. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

23 responses to “Ken Ham Criticizes the Discovery Institute

  1. Correctly put. The Disco Tooters avoid AIG like the seven plagues of Egypt because AIG is openly and clearly a religious organization with religious intent and would fail every prong, and then some, probably the butter knife and soup spoon, too, of the Lemon Test. Slam dunk legal case if it came to that.

    The tricksy Tooters no want no part of bad old slammy dunky. Slammy dunky bad for fundraising and Tooters needs more gold, don’t they, my Pressssshous.

  2. Man Mountain Molehill

    I’ll give Hambone this – he’s more intellectually honest than Klingleberry.

  3. Ham states, “The Bible claims to be (and I know it to be) the Word of God.”

    Wrong. He should say that he believes the Bible to be the Word of God. In order to know the Bible is the Word of God, he would have to be God.

    Ham is guilty of blasphemy.

  4. 3M writes, I’ll give Hambone this – he’s more intellectually honest than Klingleberry.”

    If Ham were sincere, yes. However, he has so much invested in making people believe he actually believes what he’s saying, that he will say anything to keep them coming to his Creation Museum and also to donate to his so far non-existent Ark Park.

    Ham is intelligent. It’s hard to understand how anyone with an IQ higher than slime mold could actually believe six-day creation, 6,000 yr. old earth (and universe), Noah’s Flood, etc., etc.

    The guy’s a film-flam conman.

  5. Conman or not, here I’m so on Ol’ Hambo’s side.

    “stand on the authority of God’s Word”
    Oh man, that must hurt deeply. Yup, actually Ol’Hambo says here that the IDiots from Seattle aren’t True Christians. And it’s not even a logical fallacy because he backs it up with the decisive “Because the ID movement ignores the Bible”, which is completely true.
    I cannot wait for Klingy’s response. Let’s admit it – if the Ham-Nye debate initiates a flaming internet war between YECers and IDiots it’s almost worth it. Maybe I should contact my personal favourite, the Good Reverend David Rives (I finally have learned to spell his name correctly) to ask him to enter the melee.

  6. Stephen Kennedy

    There seems to be a commotion in the Big Tent. It is apparently not big enough to accommodate both dishonest stealth creationists and open religious fanatic creationists.

  7. SC: “This isn’t the first time those two creationist outfits have talked about their differences — which we regard as trivial.”

    Once one sells out to “Oogity Boogity”, any difference is trivial. In fact that difference is not only trivial between YEC, OEC and ID, but between them, astrology, fad diets, and every other pseudoscience.

    And yet, ironically the differences between YEC, ID and OEC are the very essence of science – the starting hypotheses of “what happened where and when” that can be tested, even if Oogity peddlers refuse to test them. Evolution is almost nothing but “what happened where and when”, aside from of course the “hows” that explain them. With YEC and OEC (actually several mutually contradictory variations of each) at most only one can be true. To his (minimal) credit, Ham at least sticks his neck out and risks exposing the fatal flaws and contradictions of all variants of YEC and OEC, at least to the less hopeless subset of the audience.

    The ID scam – and its immediate, “don’t ask don’t tell” ancestor that still billed itself as “creationism” – would never have existed if either (1) there were the slightest hope of evidence for any literal Genesis, YE or OE version, or (2) the early activists had been able to force an agreement on any one selected interpretation, in spite of no evidence. Neither ever had a prayer, so what we have now is what I call the “central pseudoscience” of ID. Which, as Dembski himself admitted, “accommodates all the results of ‘Darwinism’.” That horrifies YECs like Ham, even though, ironically ID also accommodates all the results of Ham’s heliocentric YEC. And Flat-Earth-Last-Thursdayism, and even a designer reincarnated as an acai berry.

  8. Hambo intellectually honest? NFW! Hambo the Scambo is a con man through and through in the finest Australian tradition. Sorry, Oz. He’s in it for the money, money, money. Money for my honey! Unlike Hovind who was tax stupid, Hambo skates on thin ice but skedaddles when he hears it cracking under him. Hambo has been crafty mixing his secular LLC’s with his ministry to isolate him from possible Constitutional issues. It’s Kentucky that’s at risk in a suit, not Hambo. There was a disproportionate number of foxes on the Ark, I assure you!

    Hambo is “up front” about his religious beliefs, if you can call what Hambo sells a “belief” and in that single respect he is more “honest” than the Tooters. The Tooters are totally dishonest from stem cell to stern of the Ark. They feign such innocence but they are money-grubbing corrupt to the core. Especially Klingleklankle, the professional contrarian who has been fired from more jobs for being a jerk than I have had hot dinners. Face it, if the only place you can work is the Disco Tute then you are a World Class Loser.

    Hambo the Scambo is a totally dishonest con man who takes money from children but, all that said, he is still a step above, morally-wise, than any of the Tooters. Talk about Lake of Fire!

  9. Charles Deetz ;)

    So Hambo’s main ‘evidence’ is the bible. And he is going to try to convince Nye of this next week? So it becomes a battle about whether there is a god, not about origins. Not at all the interesting debate I would be looking for at all.

  10. “It’s hard to understand how anyone with an IQ higher than slime mold could actually believe six-day creation, 6,000 yr. old earth (and universe), Noah’s Flood, etc., etc.”

    —- And yet about a third of the U.S. Population seems to believe something close to that. The education system in the U.S. Is an intellectual train wreck happening in slow motion before our very eyes.

    The mission of the Discoveroids is to grind that already failed system into dust. They are far more sinister and dangerous than the side-show huckster Hambeaux, who seems content to fleece the “Little House on the Prairie” droolers as they shuffle mindlessly through his “museum.”

  11. Stephen Kennedy

    Doc Bill is right about Hambo being the consummate con man in it for money. Unlike the loutish Kent Hovind, Hambo is well aware that the government can and will send him to jail if he clearly breaks the law. He takes much bigger risks than Hovind did such as this bond issue but was careful to make all the proper disclaimers so when this thing fails he will not be charged with fraud. Hambo is an Australian, but he understands the system in America better than the U.S. born Hovind.

    If Hambo were truly honest he would preach a geocentric flat Earth since that is what one would take away from a literal reading of the bible, but he knows that most walking around slack jawed creationists will buy a 6000 year old Universe and the Fred Flintstone take on dinosaurs but probably can not be convinced of a flat geocentric Earth. Hambo chooses his compromises very carefully.

  12. Maybe the discoveroids are jealous because nobody wants to “debate” with them?

  13. Doc Bill challenges

    Hambo intellectually honest?

    Only relative to the Discoveroids–and even then, I agree with you, it’s doubtful.

    But if one could measure and compare the relative DQ (dishonesty quotient) between AiG and the DI, one would be taking the calculation out to the 50th decimal place and is really too nice a distinction to make.

    A bit like having to choose between having an aggressive pancreatic cancer or infection by the Ebola virus…

  14. Stephen Kennedy wraps up—

    “Hambo chooses his compromises very carefully.”

    Indeed he does. In respect of his insistence on biblical literalism, he will no doubt write off the behavioural and punitive directives of, especially, Leviticus and Deuteronomy as having been superseded by The New Dispensation (© 325 CE). Even accepting that, one is still left wondering what Shambo would make of those awkward Luke 19:27 and Matthew 10:34–37 matters.

  15. @Doc Bill: “There was a disproportionate number of foxes on the Ark”
    Please apologize, Doc Bill, to all the foxes in the world.

  16. @Con-Tester: Very interesting bible verses, especially Luke 19:27, where Jesus says,

    ” But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.”

    I am certainly not a Bible or history scholar, but that sure sounds like something Hitler might have used to justify the Holocaust.

    To paraphrase the Discoveroids, “No Jesus, no Hitler.”

  17. Pope RSG, on a perhaps even more sombre note, I am in agreement with the sentiments of other Holey Babble critics: Personally, I find the dichotomous psychological terrorism that inheres in the idea of eternal ineffable bliss for repentant compliance vs. enduring deliberate torment for earthly nonconformity to be by far the most insidiously wicked notion in that book. That particular bit of manipulative sociopathic ingenuity rears its gruesome head only in the New Testament; in the OT, if you were killed, that was the end of it without any further distress or awareness on your part.

    To be sure, the book is, throughout, magnificent literature and glorious, inspiring fiction, but to abduct its grandiose literary splendour as ostensible Trvth™ in order to petrify people, and most especially children, into obedience and submission is, to me, an abuse that must never be tolerated. In my view, this perspective on biblical literalism is at least as destructive as any science denial it may prompt — because it comes well prior to any such denial.

  18. Pope RSG I writes: “It’s hard to understand how anyone with an IQ higher than slime mold could actually believe six-day creation, 6,000 yr. old earth (and universe), Noah’s Flood, etc., etc.”

    Hey, quit picking on slime molds. They are MUCH SMARTER than He-Who-Rhymes-with-SPAM.

    Full disclosure: I have a pet slime mold”. Protists are so freakin’ cool.

  19. Hambone’s gunning for top dog in the creationism big circus tent.
    The suckers are flocking in for the Nye sermon followed by more dinero for the ark………Woo hoo

  20. TA, after watching your linked video clip, I apologize to all slime molds everywhere. I now shy from using any such comparative for fear you or someone else will prove it false. How about “IQ higher than a box of rocks”? Is that safe?

  21. Speaking of protists, did you hear about the trouble one amoeba got into for simply saying to another, “Hey, Babe — nice lobes!” ?

    It was charged with asexual harassment.

  22. @RSG>Let’s presume that box-o-rocks is a safe marker for comparison, and hope there aren’t any geologists reading this. ;-)

  23. I always use “dumber than a bag of hammers.” I didn’t realize that I may attract the rage of zealous carpenters.