Ken Ham Says He Loves Science

At the personal blog of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), we found something that — well, look at it this way: Sometimes it’s healthy to experience a swift, simultaneous purging of both ends of your digestive system. What we found will have that beneficial effect — guaranteed.

As you know, ol’ Hambo is the Australian entrepreneur who has become the ayatollah of Appalachia. He runs the online creationist ministry, Answers in Genesis (AIG), one of the major sources of young-earth creationist wisdom. He also created the infamous, mind-boggling Creation Museum.

Hambo’s blog article is titled We Love Science. You’re interested, aren’t you? Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us, and Hambo’s links and scripture references omitted. He says:

One of the tactics used by those people who vehemently disagree with AiG’s position on God’s Word in Genesis is to try to undermine our integrity by doing things like the following:

• Talking about creationists and terrorists in the same sentence or paragraph
• Using the term “child abusers” to describe biblical creationists (and theologically conservative Christians in general)

There are many other such associations these enemies of God’s Word will use to try to brainwash people in an attempt to get others to reject what biblical creationists believe — without even carefully considering what they teach seriously.

Referring to scientists as “enemies of God’s Word” is a curious way to begin an article titled “We Love Science.” Then he gets to the point:

Another way they try to indoctrinate people against the creation position is to label biblical creationists as “anti-science” or that we believe the Bible against “established science.” Thus many people think that creationists are anti-science, which is simply not true.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Let’s read on:

A couple of days ago, I was interviewed by a secular journalist who happened to use the phrase “religion versus science” a couple of times in his questions to me. So the first thing I did was ask him, “what do you mean by the word science when you use it?” The writer fumbled around and really couldn’t answer me. You see it is just one of those accusations our opponents use against biblical creationists, but I find most of those who use it don’t even know what they are actually asking.

Anybody believe that story? Raise your hands. [Curmudgeon looks around and sees no hands raised.] We continue:

I then went on to explain to this journalist that I was not against science. I was a science teacher. And we have a number of PhD scientists at AiG, and we work with many PhD scientists who are employed in the secular world. We love science.


You see, the problem is that most people tend to think of our technology — based on empirical science — when they use the word ”science.” But evolutionists also use the word “science” for their belief of evolution and millions of years. … But those same people have been indoctrinated to believe that evolution and millions of years are also “science”; therefore if we don’t believe in evolution and millions of years, we are said to be anti-science. What a mess of misunderstanding and misrepresentation because the terms aren’t defined correctly.

You see, dear reader, when Hambo uses the word “science” he means your microwave oven. When you use it, you mean things like chemistry, physics, biology, geology, etc. And the misunderstanding is yours! Moving along:

That’s why we teach people that the definition of the word “science” is basically knowledge. Now, knowledge gained by direction observation that builds our technology is called observational or operational science. Creationists and evolutionists both accept this same operational science. But “knowledge” about the past (beliefs concerning history not based on direct observation) is called “historical science.” Creationists and evolutionists disagree over historical science but not operational science.

We’ve previously discussed that infinitely deep and worthless pit, so we won’t waste our time again. See Creationism and Science, and also Answers in Genesis Explains Science to Us. Another excerpt:

I thought it would be a good time here to remind everyone of the list of highly qualified scientists who are creationists (this is by no means an exhaustive list) — see …

Okay, it’s good to know those names so we’ll give you that link. Here’s Hambo’s hall of fame — many of whom lived before Darwin: Creation scientists and other biographies of interest. Here’s the article’s end:

Yes, creationists love science! Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,

Now that you’ve well purged, you’re sure to feel better. Hey — just as truly and sincerely as Hambo loves science, the Curmudgeon loves ol’ Hambo’s creationism.

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 Says He Loves Science

  1. More likely the interview would have been instantly over had the journalist dared to answer, and they simply let Ham ramble on about his peculiar views. It would be interesting to see the journalist’s finished article.

  2. So, Hambo was a science teacher, eh? I wonder where, and I wonder what precipitated his leaving the profession. Either he has absolutely no concept of the scientific method, or he is a prevaricator, or perhaps both.

    IMO, he is doing more to damage religion than all the “godless heathens” in the world combined by insisting that we are to believe things that are clearly impossible or that have been totally disproven.

  3. Ham has the address of the article in his blog entry, but it’s not linked. It is about the Ark Park.

    The writer has some interesting information that I hadn’t read before, and also mentions that it did not break ground as scheduled. The writer was not able to get an explanation for the delay. Curious.

  4. Tomato Addict

    Enjoying the article – Thanks Ed!

  5. Alas, dear Curmy, I rarely have time to comment on your lapidary articles, so allow me this generalised ‘thank you’ for your outstanding blog.

    I will also take this chance to commend to the redoubtable Hambo to peruse, as a ‘true lover of science’, the splendid new on-line availability of the works of Isaac Newton at

  6. Very good of you to drop in, Great Claw. We’ve missed you.

  7. Ed, I too thank you for the link to the article about Ham and the Ark Encounter.

    Kentucky’s pursuit of the ark park can only add to the state’s backward reputation, and will probably cost more jobs than it will create.
    furthermore, the jobs that will avoid Kentucky are the highly-educated, high-skills career-oriented positions that will actually build the state’s economy, while the only jobs created by the proposed park will be mostly minimum-wage low-skill.

    I’m afraid that the rest of the country wil continue to see Kentucky as little more than a haven for snake-handling religious fanatics. Ken Ham does nothing to change that (wrong) impression.