A Classic Rant from Ken Ham

We love to blog about Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the ayatollah of Appalachia, because there’s no other place on the internet where you can find entertainment like his latest post: Secularists Are Afraid for Children to Learn the Truth about Creation. Isn’t that a great title? We’re afraid that children will learn The Truth. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

Secularists fear when Answers in Genesis overcomes censorship and exposes school kids to evidence for creation and against evolution. You could even say these secularists throw tantrums when myself or our AiG scientists expose the lie of evolution and millions of years to the world and teach the truth of creation.

We always imagine that when Hambo is ranting like this, he’s red in the face, foaming at the mouth, and rolling around chewing the carpet. But here he’s saying that we’re the ones who throw tantrums. You gotta love it! Then he says:

Christians are happy to teach children about the various views of origins, but many atheists want children taught naturalism to the exclusion of all other views. My kids know more about evolution than most evolutionists — we’re not afraid to teach them about how to understand different views.

We don’t want to think about what goes on in the minds of Hambo’s kids. After that he tells us:

Atheists are afraid for people to think critically about origins since people would then understand that evolution is a religion.

[*Groan*] Not that again. See Hambo Says Evolution Is a Religion. By the way, Hambo uses the words “secularist,” “atheist,” and “evolutionist” interchangeably. It’s all the same to him. The rant continues:

Notice how insecure atheists are? They can’t have their belief critically analyzed, so they legislate to protect it in public schools. Atheists are so insecure that they don’t want anyone seeing nativity scenes, crosses, or any other Christian symbol for fear that people might start thinking for themselves.

You’re insecure, dear reader. Let’s read on:

Many secularists demand that no one acknowledge God in public places so they can impose their atheistic religion on the culture instead of allowing the free exercise of religion. The “separation of church and state” nonsense is nothing but a ruse by secularists to impose atheism on the education system and the culture. Where is the phrase “separation of church and state” in the First Amendment?

[*Groan*] We’ve pointed out a few times before that “checks and balances” doesn’t appear in the text of the Constitution either, nor does “limited government,” or “federal republic,” or “popular sovereignty,” or many other phrases that are nevertheless routinely used to accurately describe the Constitution. So it is with “separation of church and state.” When Hambo raised that same issue earlier, we wrote Ken Ham Unhinged: Creationism & Theocracy Too, in which we quoted letters from James Madison, the man who drafted the First Amendment, stating that the absolute separation of ecclesiastical and civil authorities was the Amendment’s purpose. But Madison’s opinion is nothing compared to Hambo’s. Here’s another excerpt from his rant:

Atheism is a faith that doesn’t make sense of the world and is not supported by observational science. It’s a blind-faith religion. For Christians, we believe “by faith,” yes, but it’s a faith that makes sense of what we observe and is confirmed by observational science. Those who reject creation are without excuse because God has made it evident to all that He created the universe and all life [scripture reference].

Hambo’s faith makes sense, and it’s confirmed by science. But you, dear reader, are an idiot. Here’s more

When you ask a secularist to list their evidence that the laws of nature arose by natural processes, they have no answer! These laws were created by God.

[*Groan*] The laws of nature are descriptions of the natural world, based on observation. They didn’t “arise” by some process. Things exist. They are what they are and behave as they do, rather than miraculously being what they are not and behaving some other way. It’s the creationist’s world of miracles that can’t be explained.

Hambo goes on with still more things secularists can’t explain:

Ask evolutionists for the best evidence for evolution — they’ll give you some story and will usually point to speciation (which is not evolution!). Try to get a secularist to explain how life with its DNA could have arisen by natural processes — they’ll give you some story, but they can’t explain it. Actually most evolutionists don’t really know why they believe what they do; they just regurgitate what they were indoctrinated in at school.

But Hambo can explain everything. The explanation is Oogity Boogity! You gotta be an idiot not to see it. Here’s one more excerpt:

Do you notice how irrational, illogical, inconsistent, and emotional many secularists get on social media when confronted with God’s infallible Word? That’s because it’s a spiritual battle!

Okay, that’s enough. We thank ol’ Hambo for a very entertaining Sunday rant.

Copyright © 2017. 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

Creationist Wisdom #755: Darwinism Exposed!

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Lethbridge Herald of Lethbridge, the fourth-largest city in Alberta, Canada and it’s titled How does evolution stand up to scrutiny? The newspaper has a comments feature.

Because the writer isn’t a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name. His first name is Tom. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

After referring to a series of earlier letters, Tom says one of the letter-writers wrote that religion is “an outdated line of thinking.” That’s probably this letter. Tom disagrees. He claims that letter-writer “substitutes a worldview that doesn’t exactly handle scrutiny.” Tom’s letter brilliantly scrutinizes the evolutionary worldview. He says:

Bacteria gain drug resistance through impaired genetic information, not by structuring new information in defence. The “whale fossil,” Pakicetus inachus, proved entirely land-based, and was declared a whale only from skull fragments. The question “Was Darwin Wrong?” might be better, “Would Darwin have believed evolution possible, knowing what we now know about embryology, morphology, paleontology and more?” It’s a worthy question. The answer tells us whether Darwinism merits a part to play in the sciences.

Wow — an ark-load of powerful material! Having deftly exposed the nonsense of bacteria evolving drug resistance and also whale evolution, Tom asks whether Darwin himself would have embraced “Darwinism” if he knew what Tom knows. Then he adroitly shifts to the Darwinist nonsense of life on extra-solar planets:

If Trappist-1 has any luminosity increase, its planets would suffer heat spikes. That close in, the worlds are tidally locked, unable to rotate for a day/night cycle. Do they have atmospheres dense enough to retain surface liquids? Do they have magnetic fields strong enough to repel their sun’s radiation? Solar flares could sear away their atmospheres, and Trappist’s mere proximity would degrade them anyway – our own sun’s depleted the atmosphere of Mars, which is much more distant. What foothold for life is possible around Trappist-1?

After brilliantly demolishing the notion of life elsewhere in the universe by exposing the idiocy of Darwinist astronomers, Tom explains why Darwinists are all messed up regarding the age of the Earth:

Mass spectrometry’s isolated tissue elements like collagen fibres and red blood cell remnants in the fossilized bones of six different dinosaurs – revolutionary findings, because tissue can’t last for tens of millions of years. Paleochronology adds, unexpectedly, that every dinosaur fossil tested for carbon-14 offers an age of 22,000 to 41,000 years – suggesting these dinosaurs might have been more recent, perhaps even fulfilling the human desire to see one.

Tom’s letter exposes the evidence we wrote about in Dinosaur Fossils Found with Hot Red Meat?, and he also declares the accuracy of ol’ Hambo’s argument in Radiometric Dating: Problems with the Assumptions.

Tom is doing great! After a few more astonishing disclosures, which we’ll let you read for yourselves, he concludes his letter with this:

Today, Darwinism stays in force mainly through the vehemence of its true believers, who impose it on all new discoveries and insistently quell dissent.

So there you are, dear reader. Tom has dared to expose evolution to scrutiny. Great letter!

Copyright © 2017. 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

Trump & ObamaCare — What Went Wrong

As you know, President Trump’s plan to “repeal and replace” ObamaCare failed yesterday. Although this is a diversion from our usual focus on The Controversy between evolution and creationism, it’s a good subject for the weekend.

We touched on the topic several years ago, in The Curmudgeon’s Health Care Reform Plan. That was a few months before ObamaCare became law. The ideas we presented there still make sense for reducing the cost of health care.

Now that Trump’s attempt has gone nowhere, it’s appropriate that we stir things up by giving you our Curmudgeonly view of the fiasco. We know that most of you won’t agree with us, but we’re used to that.

First, the “repeal” part of Trump’s plan makes sense — at least to us — because ObamaCare is a failure. Repealing it could have been done easily. The real problem was the “replace” part. It doesn’t surprise us that the Republicans in Congress couldn’t reach any agreement. To put it bluntly, there is no Republican way to replace ObamaCare with some other federal program. The free market is the answer.

There are several ways to make medical care less expensive. Apart from those in our earlier post, which still make sense, the government could also make health insurance more affordable by allowing an income tax credit — not a mere deduction, but a dollar-for-dollar credit — for health insurance premiums. Also, health insurance could be made more affordable by eliminating federal requirement that such insurance should cover pre-existing conditions. That’s not insurance, it’s welfare, and insurance companies shouldn’t be forced to provide it. States already have programs that deal with the medical needs of those who can’t afford it.

Trump’s failure is because his proposal wasn’t sufficiently Republican. He asked his party in Congress to create a national program that would somehow be better than the mess created by Democrats. That is absurd. Instead of “repeal and replace,” the Republicans should have worked on repeal and reform. There are plenty of ways to reduce medical costs — but constructing a gigantic national program isn’t one of them.

Copyright © 2017. 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

Discovery Institute: Darwin Was a Fraud

It could be only our imagination, but it seems that the Discovery Institute is becoming increasingly extreme in their anti-science propaganda. An example is what we found at their creationist blog today: Darwin and Data — “Cutting the Toes to Fit the Shoe”, by Klinghoffer. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

Science historian Michael Flannery had a really rich and fascinating discussion with CSC research coordinator Brian Miller about Darwin’s materialism — its origins and the fruit it finally bore.

[*Groan*] Flannery is the Discoveroids’ favorite historian. He’s some kind of librarian at the University of Alabama, and he’s also an adjunct instructor of history and sociology — splendid qualifications for a Discoveroid. He’s very keen on the non-existent Darwin-Hitler connection — see Discovery Institute: Hitler, Hitler, Hitler, Part VI.

What was the result of Flannery’s “really rich and fascinating discussion” with another Discoveroid? Klinghoffer says:

The popular picture of Charles Darwin casts him as the assiduous, objective gatherer of scientific data, only reluctantly reaching the conclusion he did: life as the product of strictly unguided material forces. In fact, as Professor Flannery explains, the groundwork or “template” of Darwin’s materialism had been established years before, through the influence of family and friends — notably at the University of Edinburgh where he joined the free-thinking Plinian Society and met Robert Edmund Grant.

For some reason, they don’t mention that after Darwin left Edinburgh, he went to Cambridge to study to become an Anglican clergyman, but he eventually gave that up to pursue his nature studies. Anyway, Klinghoffer tells us:

The seeds of his thinking were planted well before our scientist embarked on the Beagle or set foot on the Galápagos Islands. It was largely a case of “cutting the toes to fit the shoe” — theory first, worry about the data later.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! No one can read Origin of Species and conclude that Darwin didn’t care about data, but Klinghoffer’s audience would never read read the book, so their minds are open. He continues:

Flannery tells how the great man, his family, and followers contributed to the myth of Darwin as a fact-driven scientist, much as they sought to massage the reality of Darwin’s “agnosticism,” which is a less aggressive way of saying his “atheism.”

Ah yes, “the myth of Darwin as a fact-driven scientist.” Let’s read on:

Why does it matter? Because Darwinists follow much the same path today. Blindness to evidence of design in biology, the refusal to consider this evidence, is a function of the backwards relationship between theory and data.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Darwinists today are blind “to evidence of design in biology.” And what is that “evidence”? As we’ve said so many times before, the Discoveroids’ only “evidence” for intelligent design is either the god of the gaps argument or else William Paley’s watchmaker analogy.

Klinghoffer’s brief post ends with this:

Flannery is a great source of background and insight. Listen to the podcast now [link omitted].

The amazing thing is that — thanks to their generous patrons — the Discoveroids are paid to do this sort of thing; and it actually impresses their slack-jawed, drooling, empty-headed fans.

Copyright © 2017. 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