The Mind of Ken Ham

This will be an unsettling visit to Answers in Genesis (AIG), one of the major sources of young-earth creationist wisdom. AIG is the online creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the Australian entrepreneur who has become the ayatollah of Appalachia; and he’s the brains behind the infamous, mind-boggling Creation Museum.

We found this at the personal blog of ol’ Hambo; it’s from the pen of the great man himself. He calls it The “Disease” is Everywhere. Disease? Egad — what’s he talking about? Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

Recently I have written a number of articles about the fact that even though we know sin is the ultimate “disease problem” in this world, I liken the teaching of millions of years to a disease and the teaching of evolution to be a symptom of the disease.

That’s how it starts. There’s no ambiguity here, dear reader. Ol’ Hambo thinks you’re suffering from a disease. There’s nothing wrong with him. The problem is you — you’re sick. Let’s see where he’s going with this:

I have found that if a Christian doesn’t believe in evolution, then the secularists will scoff a bit, but if a Christian rejects millions of years, then secularists really go ballistic. They will call you anti-academic, anti-science, anti-intellectual, etc. This happens because millions of years is really the religion of this age used to justify explaining life without God.

Millions of years is your religion! Let’s read on:

You see, without millions of years, the secularists can’t propose molecules-to-man evolution. … The secularists put time and death together — time and death over millions of years to evolve the life forms we see today (including man). The Bible puts sin and death together — it was man’s sin that brought death into this world.

One must admire the clarity of thought that Hambo brings to the situation. We can’t imagine the lifetime of effort required to see things like that. We continue:

Sadly, because the secular world so intimidates people to believe in millions of years, many Christians have adopted this pagan religion of the day and compromised God’s Word, thus undermining the authority of Scripture.

Yes, all that evidence supporting an old earth and an older universe is very intimidating. It’s not at all like the cheerful Lake of Fire that awaits those who reject Hambo’s view of things. No intimidation there. Here’s more:

I have noticed that in museums, zoos, documentaries on television, and many other places, people will see millions of years promoted much more than evolution. Millions of years just permeates the culture. No wonder so many people (including many Christians) think they have to believe in evolution.

It’s just terrible. If only more museums were like Hambo’s wonderful Creation Museum. But if they were, then ol’ Hambo would have to find some other way to make a living. The “disease” is treating Hambo rather well.

He then spends several paragraphs, with photographs, discussing all the “diseased” museums, zoos, and exhibits that mention the scientific age of things, like dinosaurs, sharks, alligators, and insects. He calls it “subtle indoctrination.” The disease is everywhere! After describing all that horror he says:

Just more reasons why you need to bring your family to the Creation Museum near Cincinnati where you can trust what you see and read — a museum that honors God’s Word and teaches the truth concerning the history of the world.

The whole world is wrong and Hambo is right. Upon finding himself in that situation, he’s concluded that everyone is suffering from a disease — everyone but him. It’s perfectly logical.

Copyright © 2012. 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

28 responses to “The Mind of Ken Ham

  1. Tomato Addict

    Would this be a good time to tap Hambo on the shoulder and remind him that disease implies an immune system and an immune response to the disease, and a co-evolutionary battle between the disease and host that goes on for millions of years?

    I’ve got it … I’ll wait until he is sipping a Mt. Dew, THEN I’ll tell him.

  2. That whole thing was nothing more than an intro for an advertisement for his “museum”.
    Not believing in the Bible is bad, m’kay? Blah blah blah… and don’t forget to check out my Creation Museum! Bring the kiddies! Plenty of free parking!

  3. @TA: Nice try, TA! But I’m on to you…

  4. Wait–if eating from the Forbidden Tree of Knowledge *minor chord* brought death into the world, why was there a Tree of Life in the Garden? If everything was immortal already, then…oh, never mind. I’m sure they have some boring rationalization or other.

  5. docbill1351

    Ark Park Update! Using the Wayback Machine I captured some fundraising milestones.

    Feb 2011: 1.1 million
    July 2011: 3.3 million
    Today: 5.3 million

    Between Feb and July 2011 they were pulling in half a million a month and that’s dropped to an average of $200,000/month.

    So, they’re looking at 10 years to reach their construction goal but we all know the park won’t get built. It’s just a scam supported by the great State of Kentucky! Yeee hawww!

  6. docbill1351 says: “So, they’re looking at 10 years to reach their construction goal”

    I don’t see what the problem is. Noah built the Ark with just some hand tools and his kids.

  7. NeonNoodle

    …if eating from the Forbidden Tree of Knowledge *minor chord* brought death into the world, why was there a Tree of Life in the Garden?

    Like Dr. Pretorius in Bride of Frankenstein (“Don’t touch that lever–you’ll blow us all to ATOMS!”), God’s a sucker for the boffo finish. Every Paradise has a Forbidden Tree, just as every mad scientist’s castle must have a self-destruct lever. It comes standard. Just go with it.

  8. It’s people like Ham that make me question whether the internet is really a good thing. Without it, he would just be another crazy snake oil salesman unknown outside of a small circle of subscribers to his mimeographed newsletter.

    He would probably sell insurance for a living. After all, there is death in the world.

  9. Yeah, but, NeonNoodle, they claim that there was no death before The Fall, right?

    That doctrine, which I’m pretty sure is not in Genesis, is undermined by the presence of the Tree of Life. Why did Yahweh have a tree in there that conferred immortality if everything was created immortal?

    (Next time I’m around a YEC, Imma ask ’em that.)

    P.S. Speaking of self-destruct levers, the world ended in 1928, when Koko’s dog Fritz pulled the Earth Control lever, despite signs clearly stating what would happen. Little known fact.

  10. NeonNoodle

    …Koko’s dog Fritz pulled the Earth Control lever, despite signs clearly stating what would happen. Little known fact.

    Ah, but that was before God, aka Max Fleischer, consigned them both back into the ink bottle!

  11. docbill1351

    Ken’s from the old school: Hallelujah! Amen! Time to pass the plate again!

  12. ohioobserver

    Is it a sin to accept millions of dollars from people on the promise of something that you can never demonstrate is true?

  13. @Ed
    At least he’s demonstrating to the world that when the somewhat sllcker surface of ID is peeled back, this mentality constitutes the kernel (or should I say, Ham constitutes the meat?)..

  14. Tomato Addict

    Wait a minute … if there was no death before the fall, then either there was a severe over-population problem, or there was no reproduction. Therefore, children (offspring of all species) are literally the product of sin?
    Someone bring me a YEC, I want to watch them wiggle out of this one.

  15. TA said:

    Therefore, children (offspring of all species) are literally the product of sin?Someone bring me a YEC, I want to watch them wiggle out of this one.

    Did you mean that as a double-entendre?

  16. It is the job of creationists to muddy the waters until you cannot see the forest for trees. They have been turning the question of the age of the Earth on its head for so long that even they are beginning to think that the age of the Earth is something dreamed up by evolutionists to justify their theories (I am using evolutionist in the creationist sense here – anyone who denies the cult of ol’ Hambo).

    Creationists are very distrustful of theories (except those that they have made up themselves) but they are quite keen on facts (particularly those that they have made up themselves). So let us start with the answer before going back to look at the question.

    We have measured the age of the Earth and found that it is about 4.5 billion years old (we could go into more detail about the about but that would be beyond our Ken). The thing is not that we believe that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old or that we believe that the Earth is probably 4.5 billion years old – the thing is: we have made a measurement (actually lots of independent measurements) and 4.5 billion years is the result of our measurement. We have dated the oldest remains of rocks on the Earth, we have dated the rocks brought back from the Moon, we have dated meteorites; the measurements converge on 4.5 billion years for the age of the Earth. This has got nothing to do with evolution; it just happens to be the measurement obtained.

    We have suspected that the Earth was over 6000 years old since the 18th century but we have known for 100 years that the Earth was at least many hundreds of millions of years old (because we measured it). These early measurements were not very accurate and we did not just make assumptions in order to obtain them, there were things that could affect the results that had not even been discovered. However, as would be expected for a correct line of investigation, subsequent measurements not only showed that the results were fundamentally sound but improved on them in precision and accuracy.

    So, if the answer is, ‘the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old’ – what is the question?

    Of course a creationist would deny the measurements (once they have been confronted with the fact that the result comes from a measurement) but, as the lady said, ‘He would say that wouldn’t he.’ But, although the creationist can think of some arguments in his favour, they tend to be the things we have already considered and have worked out how to avoid those pitfalls. The creationist is then left with having to make wild accusations that all evolutionist are part of a giant conspiracy theory by which they agree to fake all the results. I have sometimes wondered who is responsible for faking the measurements: is it the person separating the argon and potassium or the maker of his equipment, or is it the person measuring the argon or the maker of his equipment, or is it the person measuring the potassium or the maker of his equipment, or is it the person doing the calculation at the end? We know from measurements that creationists make, that the laboratory will respond with the silly answer that the creationist expects when presented with his ill-prepared sample – no sign of corruption there (or at least, not on the laboratory’s side).

  17. @Alan(UK)
    Yes, and it sounds like the intelligence involved in faking all that, so that everything is neatly in place, ie. the periodic chart, with workable, testable theories in all branches of science and accounting for all of nature, would be akin to the so-called intelligence that created it.

    The creationists also seize upon updated or amended data, as a way of discrediting prevailing theories altogether.

  18. docbill1351

    Alan, punnily enough you forgot to mention Uniform-i-tarian-ism which is the Big Bad Assumption scientists make. How do you know that the K-Ar decay rates were the same back then as they are now, hmmmmmmmmm Mr. Smarty Pants scientist? Were you there!?!?!?!?!? I didn’t think so!

    Ya see, decay rates COULD HAVE changed over time to make the Earth appear “old.” That’s because in a Fallen World even scientists are fallible and are subject to BIAS.

    Whew, it’s tough to type “creationist.” It would be better if I could use red and green bold font and Comic Sans. Alas. Creationists never provide any numbers when they say things like “maybe they changed.” Yeah, well maybe winged monkeys deliver email, who knows!

    Of course, you could be a big meanie and point out to the creationist that they couldn’t possibly speculate that the decay rates changed because they weren’t there and they live in a fallen world, too, and they are fallible and are subject to bias, too, and, besides, the Book of Nuclear Chemistry was lost when the library of Alexandria burned in 48 BC. Pity, that.

  19. retiredsciguy

    garystar1: “That whole thing was nothing more than an intro for an advertisement for his “museum”.”

    Exactly. Hambo joins the long tradition established by the likes of (fictional) Elmer Gantry, and real-life religious hucksters such as Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker and other televengelists too numerous to name.

    So, no matter how much evidence is presented supporting 4.6 billion years as the earth’s age, He will never openly accept it. His gravy train would derail.

  20. docbill1351 says:

    Ya see, decay rates COULD HAVE changed over time to make the Earth appear “old.”

    Of course they changed. They had to, otherwise Genesis couldn’t be true. It’s so obvious!

  21. Decaying decay rates is an old knee-jerk creationist reaction. They will quite happily argue that this experiment or that proves it. It always turns out that the experiment involved conditions that are not applicable to the measurement in question, or involves inapplicable decay modes, or produces only a tiny effect. The real problem is that even if by some magic, miracle, or by some phenomenon not yet known to science, the decay rate could be variable, the creationists have to conjure up another extra-biblical miracle to remove the heat generated by 4.5 billion years of decay in 6000 years (or 6 days or 40 days or a year or whatever). Even when they have done this, they are left with an unholy mess of differential decay rates and just about every branch of science to sort out – break one law and you have broken them all.

    I beg to respectfully suggest that ol’ Hambo may be wrong.

  22. Alan(UK) says: “the creationists have to conjure up another extra-biblical miracle to remove the heat”

    No problem. It was converted into water for the Flood, then back into heat again to keep the fires burning in that place you Darwinists are going to go.

  23. @alan(uk)

    I believe there are several articles on the heat problem at talkorigins. That’s one of many inescapable problems of their arguments. I’m sure we will find out someday that we don’t have all the details of physics and chemistry and astronomy…name your ‘onomy’ or ‘ology’… corect, but for most of our technology to work we can’t be that far off. I think its safe to say we have reached a point where its primarily a question of details. Whether the standard model of physics or quantum mechanics or anything else turns out to be ri

  24. Someone called my phone while I was typing… I guess smart phones aren’t all that smart. But any the creationist arguments are all wrong regardless of what physics theory turns out to best describe the universe. We’ve simply moved beyond that level of inquiry.

  25. aturingtest

    Alan (uk): this is the thing that always gets me- they’re arguing with empirical measurements, not ideological justifications, out of a necessity to justify their ideology. It’s as if I were arguing with Ham on the internet, and happened to mention (for whatever reason) that I’m 6’2″. Ham, being only 5’6″ himself (this is only for the sake of illustration, ok? I have no idea how short or tall Ham may actually be, and it doesn’t matter), and having an aggravated case of “short-man syndrome,” immediately responds, “no way!” No reason to doubt me, except an “ideology,” and a need to justify it. In this case, he’s arguing with an actual, measurable reality- he could hop on a plane and fly down here to south MS and see and measure for himself, assuming he knows how to use a ruler- but he refuses to do that, because it would mean being no longer able to deny the reality. Alternatively, he could take the word of other people, qualified by education to use a ruler, who could independently verify my height. He won’t do that either- he’d prefer to rely on his ignorance of reality to assert his version of it.
    Anyway, same thing here, analogously- Ham can’t accept the reality of the measurement that shows the short (heh-heh) comings of his ideas.

  26. Tomato Addict

    Gary* wrote> “Did you mean that as a double-entendre?”

    I didn’t then, but I do now!

  27. When a creationist brings up “How do you know, were you there?” it only shows how desperate they are, how they recognize just how overwhelming the evidence is, how far they feel they have to go in order to reject evolutionary biology.

    But they get tangled up in their own arguments. In this case, they tacitly admit that they do know something about the distant past. They know that there was no one there, even though there were no observers to see that.

    Those of us who acknowledge reality have no problems with saying that there was no one around millions of years ago. We have good evidence for that.

    Actually, the most significant parts of science are about things that are too old, too fast, too slow, too big, too small, or otherwise inaccessible to direct observation. We know the properties of electrons without ever having seen them.

    By the way, evolutionary biology is not exclusively a “historical science”. Evolution is still taking place today.

  28. TomS says:

    By the way, evolutionary biology is not exclusively a “historical science”. Evolution is still taking place today.

    True, but it’s the record of the past that creationists reject.