Ken Ham Attacks Intelligent Design & Behe

We always like to see creationists squabbling among themselves about the silly details of their anti-science ideology. We have a good example today from Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the 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 article is Intelligent Design Is Not Enough. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

No doubt you have heard of the Intelligent Design movement. This is not a Christian movement but is made up of a group of scientists and other academics who are against naturalism and teach that there is some “designer” behind the universe and life. They don’t name the designer, however. Those within the movement have various beliefs about the origins issues — some believe in billions of years and even evolution. Some are Christians, but some are not. Some may be young earth creationists.

If you’re uncertain about the precise meaning of Intelligent Design, we posted the “official” definition. We also critiqued it and provided our own definition. See Discovery Institute: Intelligent Design Redefined. Let’s read on:

Dr. Michael Behe is one scientist from this movement with whom many would be familiar. His book Darwin’s Black Box is well-known. Although Behe is ardently against naturalism and teaches that there is a designer behind life, Behe does not take a stand on a literal Genesis. In fact, one could really call Behe a type of Theistic Evolutionist.

Ohhhhh! A “Theistic Evolutionist.” Hambo doesn’t like them — they’re theistic, but they’re evolutionists! We continue:

One of the points I have made over and over again through the years is that when one takes man’s fallible ideas of evolution and millions of years and adds those to Scripture, he reinterprets the clear words of the Bible and undermines biblical authority.

Yes, Hambo makes that point “over and over again through the years.” And no one cares. Here’s more:

Recently, Michael Behe’s son was interviewed for an article for The Humanist Magazine. Think about what I have stated above as you read excerpts of this sad interview with Leo Behe as he shares how he became an atheist even though he grew up knowing the ID arguments.

We’ve known about that interview — it’s here if you want to read it: The Humanist Interview with Leo Behe. We briefly considered posting about it, but we decided it would be a cheap shot. Behe’s creationism can be criticized easily enough on its merits (or lack thereof), without discussing his family.

Hambo, however, is made of sterner stuff. He quotes extensively from young Leo’s interview, and then he says:

This serves as a reminder for parents (and fathers in particular as spiritual head of the house) not to compromise the Word of God. It further reminds us of the need for quality apologetics resources, such as what Answers in Genesis produces, so parents can teach their children how to defend the Christian faith, answer the skeptical questions of this age, and stand boldly and uncompromisingly on the authority of the Word of God.

Hambo blames Behe for young Leo’s atheism, suggesting that if Behe had been a better father and taught his son to adhere to a literal Genesis, then the boy would have turned out all right. Ol’ Hambo is definitely a class act.

He concludes his article with this:

We need to pray for the Behe family. I hope they will consider a visit to our Creation Museum and meet with us.

Yeah, that should straighten the boy out. Stay classy, Hambo!

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

7 responses to “Ken Ham Attacks Intelligent Design & Behe

  1. Hasn’t he left for Queensland yet?

  2. Somehow, I don’t think Hambo ever got under the DI’s “big tent”. “We should never divorce design arguments from the Word of God”

    This was a cheap shot, though, even for Ham.

  3. Ed says: “This was a cheap shot, though, even for Ham.”

    No, not for Ham.

  4. Retired Prof

    SC summarizes Ham this way: “Hambo blames Behe for young Leo’s atheism, suggesting that if Behe had been a better father and taught his son to adhere to a literal Genesis, then the boy would have turned out all right.”

    Ham needs to realize that children often go their own ways, no matter how hard their parents try to direct their course. Our parents taught my sisters and me to be devout believers. One sister is still faithful, one fell away from the church as an adult, and I became a skeptic during one year in a religious college. My wife and I raised our kids in a secular household, practicing a minimum of ritual. Our son became an atheist, and our daughter opted for one of the most ritualized lifestyles known and became an Orthodox Jew.

    So count Proverbs 22:6 (“Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old , he will not depart from it.”) as one more biblical pronouncement that fails to correspond to reality.

  5. SC: “We always like to see creationists squabbling among themselves about the silly details…”

    But those “silly details” are the only chance at science they ever had any hope for. Yet despite (1) every conceivable incentive to agree on a single “what happened when” account acceptable to most committed evolution-deniers, and (2) a decades-long record of using every pseudoscience trick in the book to force-fit evidence, they have failed miserably. Think about it – they cheated every way possible, still failed, know they failed, and can’t even agree on how to fool the public!

    And yet they have fooled about 1/2 of the public. And I don’t mean the ~1/4 or so who who would deny evolution with or without their scams, but the great majority that is capable of knowing better.

    I am slightly encouraged though. In a recent thread it Ham held his nose and said something positive about the Discoveroids. In a perverse way I applaud him for not selling out to the “don’t ask, don’t tell what happened when” scam. Keep singing Ken. Someday the “masses” will ask “Where’s your evidence” – to you and the Discoveroids.

  6. The persistence of belief in fairy tales just proves how gullible the supposedly wise H. sapiens really is.

  7. Ken Ham, silly though he is, is at least openly Creationist.
    Michael Behe is a trained scientist, but puts forth lies Creationist lies that seem a lot like science (good enough to fool many).

    Dumb and Dumber. I’m not sure which one is dumber, but I eagerly await one of them running off the end of a jetway, again!