Food Fight: Ken Ham v. Karl Giberson

This was so easy to predict. Yesterday we posted Giberson Invites a Creationist Whirlwind. The first creationist reaction is already on the internet.

It comes from Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the creationist Australian entrepreneur who has become the ayatollah of Appalachia. He runs the online creationist ministry, Answers in Genesis (AIG), and he also created the infamous, mind-boggling Creation Museum.

Ol’ Hambo’s response to Giberson is at the AIG website. It’s titled Is Jesus an Evolutionist? Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

A Nazarene college professor believes [Jesus is an evolutionist]. … From the religion blog at the CNN website, he wrote an article entitled “Jesus would believe in evolution and so should you.”

That’s the article we wrote about yesterday. Hambo goes through Giberson’s article in detail, and after each excerpt he gives us his rebuttal. That makes Hambo’s article difficult to write about in our usual brief format. What we’ll do is give you a small taste of Hambo’s commentary.

He begins by making a false distinction, claiming there are two different kinds of science — what he calls operational science and historical (origins) science. The former (involving lab experiments and such) is acceptable to AIG, but the latter, which includes evolution, is worthless. That’s because only scripture can reveal the past. We posted about this bogus dichotomy before: Creationism and Science. Having thus swept aside geology, climatology, cosmology, and all that science has learned about the past, Hambo says:

From the context of the article, we see that by “evolution” he [Giberson] is referring to Darwinian evolution — molecules to ape-like creatures to man. This is not “truth.” It is a belief about the past.


To claim that Genesis is just an ancient story that “began as an oral tradition for a wandering tribe of Jews” is to attack the Word of God, and thus it is an attack on the Son of God, who is the Word.

Giberson has attacked the Son of God! Now that’s a rebuttal! But ol’ Hambo is just getting started. In response to Giberson’s mention of the Creation Museum, he says:

Those who have actually been to the Creation Museum know it is a place the honors God’s Word and proclaims the gospel.

Yet another devastating rebuttal! But there’s more. After Giberson mentions two centuries of evidence supporting the age of the earth and the evolution of man, Hambo responds with this:

So Paul was wrong in 1 Corinthians 11 about the origins of humans when he twice stated that the woman is of the man? Paul said that the woman (the first woman, Eve), came from the man (a reference to God creating Eve from Adam’s side in Genesis 2). To believe in evolution as Giberson does, one must believe that woman came from an ape-woman and man from and ape-man.

The Bible makes it clear that man was made from dust and woman from his side. Jesus, in Matthew 19, quoted from Genesis 2:24 regarding the “one flesh,” thus clearly stating that the Genesis 2 account is literal history. So if Giberson is right, Jesus didn’t tell the truth, and Paul was wrong.

Decisions, decisions. Oh, this is so difficult! Wait — how about this:

Giberson then discusses supposed evidence for evolution. This evidence is all countered and answered clearly in various articles on

All the evidence for evolution is countered! Then Hambo refers to Giberson’s discussion of God’s “two books” — scripture and nature, which must be read together. Here’s how that one is dealt with:

However, nature is cursed! It is affected by sin. And nature doesn’t “say” anything. Fallible man has to interpret nature. The only way to ensure one has the right basis to interpret it correctly, is to build one’s thinking on the history revealed in Scripture.

When this is done, we understand that nature is suffering from the affects of the Fall. The whole creation groans because of sin (Romans 8:22). One doesn’t look at the creation and see billions of years. That is an interpretation made by fallible man, and that interpretation is incorrect.

Wowie! Science is really worthless! We’ve only given you a sampling of ol’ Hambo’s hatchet-job on Giberson. It goes on and on. Check it all out for yourself, dear reader. Then make your own decision.

Copyright © 2011. 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

16 responses to “Food Fight: Ken Ham v. Karl Giberson

  1. Ham is increasingly isolating himself from other Christians, as witness his recent exclusion from a home school conferences, an exclusion partly rooted in Ham’s dispute with BioLogos’s Peter Enns.

  2. RBH says: “Ham is increasingly isolating himself from other Christians”

    He has no choice. They’re all wrong!

  3. No matter what anyone does or says, Ham is a lost cause. He just keeps digging his hole deeper. I always hope he’ll see the light, but no go. I wish we could just ignore him.

    I had a little hope for Ray Comfort recently when he was on The Atheist Experience (don’t think you blogged about it). He really doesn’t understand that many people totally understand and accept the science that’s out there. He really thinks old earth and evolution are just ideas people have. A light almost seems to come on, but he loses it quickly. If he’d just listen and learn, he’d find out how wrong he is.

    But Ham, he’s nowhere near that close. He just lies. (Comfort probably lies too, but he seems none too bright.)

  4. Interesting that Ham doesn’t mention BioLogos, or any connection between them and Giberson.

    Ham is right – man, including especially Ham himself, is fallible. That’s why we have science, with it’s checks and balances such as its dependence on evidence, independently repeatable results, math, clearly described logic and inference, peer review, and more. Unfortunately, Ham is a victim of his own fallible beliefs about an ancient collection of texts.

  5. Tomato Addict

    I don’t ever follow through and go read Hambo’s original posts. I’m afraid my head might explode if I did.

  6. Tomato Addict says: “I’m afraid my head might explode if I did.”

    Mine already has exploded. Nothing left to lose.

  7. We let you take all the hits. Then you report to us.
    Thanks for being such a martyr.

  8. “…the ayatollah of Appalachia.”

    I am definitely stealing this.

  9. We have the irresistable force (reality) and the immovable object (Hambo with a bible). Ol’ Hambo’s not giving an inch. Questioning the faith of those who support evolution is another nice touch.

  10. It was exactly this attitude toward other Christians that got Ham expelled! from the homeschool convention recently.

  11. Giberson makes distinctions between the methods of religion and science, while Ham quotes only the Bible. Wouldn’t it be lovely if Giberson’s approach wins? Place your bets now.

  12. Lynn Wilhelm: I had a little hope for Ray Comfort recently when he was on The Atheist Experience…

    Yes, I saw that. Excellent show. Matt Dillahunty is such a force of reason. The thing about Ray Comfort is that he is sort of likable in his dorky, clueless, well-meaning way. He may be misguided, but he is sincere. Ken Ham just exudes malice.

  13. retiredsciguy

    Speaking of “the ayatollah of Appalachia”, does anyone else see the similarity between Ken Ham and Quoran-burning Terry Jones? Gainesville, Fla. is technically not Appalachia, but the regional attitudes are similar (Florida Ark and all).

    I haven’t heard or read any statement from Terry Jones regarding evolution, but I’d be willing to make a wild guess that he would agree 100% with Ham. Likewise, I’ll bet Ham would agree in principle with what Jones did — although he’s savvy enough not to admit it.

  14. retiredsciguy says:

    Speaking of “the ayatollah of Appalachia”, does anyone else see the similarity between Ken Ham and Quoran-burning Terry Jones?

    I’m trying to figure out the differences. One owns a creation museum and the other doesn’t. What else is there?

  15. One hasn’t burned a Koran and the other has?

    Ham isn’t picking any fights with the Muslims, AFAIK.

  16. How about this:

    We stick both of them in a cage armed with crosses, holy water spinklers and big print outsized editions of their books of lies, sorry Bibles, and they can bash it out in a no holds barred bitch fight to the death….

    Two Nuts Enter…One Nut Leaves!!!!!