The Wisdom of Ken Ham (and Lardo)

Today we shall discuss a new article by Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the genius who brought you the website Answers in Genesis (AIG) and the mind-boggling Creation Museum.

But before we get into Hambo’s article, we must introduce you to Lardo, the village prophet. In due course the connection between Hambo and Lardo will be revealed.

Those who don’t know Lardo might, on first sight, think him to be an just another unemployed (and unemployable) slob. That’s because his appearance can be a bit off-putting. He weighs at least 400 lb — that’s roughly 30 stone for our UK readers. His attire never seems to change, nor does his daily routine.

Lardo doesn’t work, and no one has ever known a time when he did work. He lives in a trailer at the edge of town, and his tiny plot of land by the highway is always littered with empty beer cans. No one has ever seen him do anything except sit on the steps of his trailer and drink beer — he consumes about a case of that beverage each day. He seems friendly enough, always willing to wave at passers-by, but few stop to chat with him, as he exists within a perpetual effluvium of belches and … well, related matters.

What’s remarkable about Lardo is his reputation as a prognosticator. His auguries are unfailingly accurate. He will sometimes say: “Might rain,” and he is always correct. At the appropriate time of year he’s been known to say: “Winter is coming.” He is never wrong.

There was a now-famous occasion when a pair of hunters drove by his trailer on their way into the woods. He shouted at them: “You won’t get nothin’!” At the end of the day as they were returning — empty-handed — he called out: “Whaddid I tell ya?” That incident and those words have passed into local legend.

Sometimes Lardo’s prophecies take the form of a mere frown or a shake of the head in the direction of someone walking or driving by his trailer. Inevitably, the person to whom such gesture was directed will find that something does indeed go wrong during the next few months. Lardo’s abilities are uncanny!

Now that you know who Lardo is, let us turn to Hambo’s essay at the AIG website. Hambo writes about an article in New Scientist titled Earth may have had water from day one. That article presents this hypothesis:

[W]ater may after all have been present in Earth’s building blocks. Simulations by Nora de Leeuw of University College London and colleagues suggest that the dust grains from which Earth formed had such a tenacious grip on water that they could have held onto the molecules despite the high temperatures.

It concludes by saying:

Even if [that were a source of some water], this was probably not the only source of our water. Some asteroids are known to be rich in water, and some of these would inevitably have crashed into Earth during the chaotic early days of the solar system.

What does ol’ Hambo think of that article in New Scientist? Here are some excerpts from what he says, with bold added by us:

When one reads the history in Genesis chapter 1 as revealed to us by the God of creation, we find that when God created the earth on day one, it was covered with water. Therefore, we can conclude that water was present on earth from the beginning according to the Bible.

Verily, we cannot deny it. Let’s read on:

Now secular ideas about the origin of the universe have the earth being formed millions of years ago after the stars and the sun as a hot molten blob. That has been just one of many reasons I have given people to understand that secular ideas (like the big bang) are totally incompatible with the Bible.

Hambo’s steadfastness in rejecting science is well-known to our readers. We continue:

I have had secularists mock me over the years for believing water was on earth at the beginning, but now some secularists are changing their minds.

Then Hambo presents a few carefully-selected quotes from the article in New Scientist, after which he ends his little essay with this:

God’s Word doesn’t change, but evolutionary ideas and beliefs continually change. Yet nothing in operational science has ever contradicted the Bible’s account of origins.

See there, dear reader? Hambo was right all along. With each new scientific discovery, he can sit back and say: “Whaddid I tell ya?”

Hambo, meet Lardo. You guys have a lot in common.

Copyright © 2010. 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

14 responses to “The Wisdom of Ken Ham (and Lardo)

  1. Lardo reminds me of Cleetus the Slack-jawed Yokel from the Simpsons.

    “Well, I don’t remember so good since I drank my thermometer, but I whittles what I sees. Sometimes I whittles the future.”

  2. SC, I will bet you a million pesos that Lardo’s “attire” is a wife-beater and tighty-whities. You can wire my winnings to my numbered account.

  3. he consumes about a case of that beverage each day.

    That seems low to me.

    True story: my cousin, a lifelong NASCAR fan, attended his first NASCAR race in the South (North Carolina) about ten years ago. He was watching time trials the day before the race when a couple of locals struck up a conversation with him. After he mentioned it was his first race, one of the guys said “I’ll give you a tip-don’t bring any more beer than you plan on drinking, because after the race you don’t want to pack all that s*** out.” My cousin: “How much are you bringing”.

    “About a case–it’s a six-hour race.”

  4. SC, Lardo seems drawn from life. One of my mom’s friends dated him. My sisters and I met him like three times but we STILL talk about that guy.

  5. Gabriel Hanna says:

    SC, I will bet you a million pesos that Lardo’s “attire” is a wife-beater and tighty-whities.

    Nope. It’s the old-style undershirt (no sleeves) and size 69 pants from the “Big Man’s” shop.

  6. It’s the old-style undershirt (no sleeves)

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wife%20beater

    I’ll settle for half my million pesos.

  7. Gabriel Hanna says: “I’ll settle for half my million pesos.”

    Nope. You completely missed the vital detail that his size 69 pants are bright green.

  8. Yet nothing in operational science has ever contradicted the Bible’s account of origins.

    Ken’s right on this one. Creationists made up a subset of science, defined as “operational science” to exclude evolution and any sort of science that studies events that happened in the past (which they define as “historical science”.) So, per their own definition, “operational science” cannot possibly ever contradict the Bible’s account of origins because it does not address the Bible’s account of origins. Very clever.

    I don’t know who first made up the term “operational science”, but it appears to be almost universal on creationist sites. Invention of a supposed division between types of science makes for a nice debating trick, even if it is completely dishonest.

  9. Ed says:

    I don’t know who first made up the term “operational science”, but it appears to be almost universal on creationist sites.

    It’s rather like micro- and macro-evolution. One is okay, but not the other. It’s a tidy little world they’ve got there.

  10. A recurrent joke from my UK schooldays involved positing the title of the world’s shortest book. Suggestions were usually of the xenophobic kind, ‘The German Book of Humour’ etc.
    ‘The Wisdom of Ken Ham’ would be a shoe-in.

  11. “Operational science” may have been coined by Henry M. Morris. If not, he at least made a big deal out of the purported distinction between that and “historical” or “origins” science. The NCSE has a page where they give examples of how these supposedly separate types of science can overlap and reinforce each other, in other words, that they aren’t really separate except in the minds of creationists.

  12. Let me rephrase: The point being that “historical science” can make predictions that can be tested by “experimental science.”

  13. The Bicycling Guitarist says:

    The point being that “historical science” can make predictions that can be tested by “experimental science.”

    Absolutely. See: The Lessons of Tiktaalik.

  14. Water, if we are to believe the hypothesis that it is early, wasn’t on the earth in the beginning, it was in the earth and was outgassed. True, it would begin outgassing very early, but there certainly wouldn’t be liquid water at the very first–if for no other reason than that it would have boiled away immediately.

    Lying about science seems to be about all that creationism really does consistently.