Ken Ham — A Brain on Creationism

Three years ago we wrote This Is Your Brain on Creationism, which pretty much summed up the situation, but today we have something special. Your Curmudgeon brings you an article written by Ken Ham titled: Letter from Ken, February 2013 — The Real State of This Nation.

You know who Ken Ham is — the creationist entrepreneur behind the infamous Creation Museum — which has become the North American Mecca for the mindless. He also operates the creationist website Answers in Genesis (AIG), an excellent source of creation science, where today’s article is posted. Here are some excerpts from Hambo’s latest, with some bold font added for emphasis and scripture references omitted:

We were all shocked by the horrific shooting of several children and adults in Connecticut. My heart was so heavy — so burdened — as I watched reports of the carnage.

That’s how all of us reacted. Hambo’s reaction, however, went way beyond that. He says:

But there is one thing not to be so burdened about regarding such a horrible event. You see, even though the wicked gunman (who took his own life) will answer to the God of creation for his sins, we know that such tragedies occur because of our sin in Adam. That’s why there is so much evil in the world.

That’s a reason not to be troubled about those shootings? Let’s read on:

When horrible things happen, it’s not God’s fault — it’s our fault. God’s Word is clear about this: [scripture omitted]. With such a tragedy, I think, “Oh Lord — look what our sin has done to this world!”

What’s he saying — we shouldn’t be burdened because … what? Because it’s a sinful world and these things just happen? He continues:

But as I pondered these truths from Scripture and watched the evening news, I must admit I became a little angry with our president. What he said after the shooting was good, and many of us shed a tear with him, so why be angry? Because he was being hypocritical.

You see, the President has supported and signed legislation to force companies — and even ministries like Answers in Genesis — to provide a pill to employees that would terminate the life of a baby. Such abortion pills stop a fertilized egg from implanting in the mother’s womb. Once it’s fertilized, that’s a human being.

Okay, we see where he’s going. The President is promoting mass murder — just like the shootings in Connecticut. The creationist mind is a wonder to behold! Here’s more:

This is the same president who adamantly supports the killing of children in the mother’s womb. Around 55 million children have been murdered in America alone since the legalization of abortion in 1973. It occurred to me recently that this figure is almost three times the entire population of my homeland of Australia!

Hambo’s mind certainly is adept at connecting the dots. Moving along:

The same president, at a press conference to discuss the shocking school shooting, quoted the Bible. He read a passage from 2 Corinthians: [scripture omitted]. I don’t recall atheists objecting to the President for quoting Scripture in public. Now, how could he get away with that, but God is not allowed in our public schools — including the school where this massacre took place?

Hambo is also a keen expert on the First Amendment. Another excerpt:

With President Obama quoting Scripture, I considered this extremely hypocritical and inconsistent. Let me quote another Scripture: [omitted passage about marriage]. Now, would President Obama ever quote that passage from Matthew? Of course not. He has made comments like the following that he stated last May (taken from the White House website): “I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.”

Hambo’s facile mind leaps from one relevant topic to another. On with the article:

So, for his own purposes, the President will pick and choose his Bible verses!

Hambo does the same thing, of course — but only when it suits him. As we’ve pointed out before (see AIG and the Pillars of the Earth), despite Hambo’s insistence on a simplistic, word-for-word reading of Genesis that supports his young-earth creationism, he and his creation scientists ignore the many passages declaring that the earth is flat, stationary, and rests on pillars while the sun, moon, and stars revolve around it. See The Earth Is Flat, and also The Earth Does Not Move.

Then Hambo puts the blame for all of this where he thinks it truly belongs — godless science, abortions, and gays:

The more that atheists promote their beliefs of meaninglessness and purposelessness, and that we are just animals, and that when human beings die they cease to exist, then the more we would expect to see people looking on life as having no value. Actually from the atheists’ perspective, why would they even worry about such a shooting tragedy? After all, from their perspective, when people die, they won’t even know they were alive. So why then does it even matter?

[…]

This nation continues to shake its fist at God by rejecting the truth that the only true marriage is between one man and one woman. The President is an ardent supporter of “gay” marriage, which is an abomination to the Lord [scripture reference].

[…]

America’s problem is a spiritual one! God’s people need to repent of the rampant compromise in regard to His Word, and return to the Bible. The nation needs to repent of the shocking disregard of God’s Word, including the sanctity of life and marriage.

Okay, that’s enough to give you the general idea. You can click over there to read it all if you like. But now you know why those shootings occurred in Connecticut. It wasn’t one deranged nutball — and it wasn’t God — it was all of us who ignore Hambo’s preaching. That’s the conclusion of a brain on creationism.

Copyright © 2013. 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

15 responses to “Ken Ham — A Brain on Creationism

  1. It’s important to remember that when the Hamster refers to a divine entity, he is likely referring to himself.

  2. Alex Shuffell

    Christians can really show their love and compassion by selling-out the latest gun massacre or the Holocaust to send their message of love thy neighbor, hate everyone else for being different, buy our books and donate to our mega-churches.

  3. Perhaps he had to leave Australia because of the constant reminders that the flood didn’t really happen, like marsupials being the dominant for example. Either that or the Tasmanian devil made him do it.

  4. What a great read. Ham really knows how to twist things up.

  5. Ham is basically saying that if he thought there was no god, he would have no problem killing schoolchildren, because they would just be dead and after all, they wouldn’t know they were dead. So what does it matter?

    Let’s hope Ham never loses his faith. He’s kinda of scary in that wild-eyed way as it is…

  6. Is Ham a naturalized citizen? It almost sounds as though he’s running for office — as a Republican, of course. And that’s the problem with the Republican Party today — all wrapped up in religion and preaching their moral values; forgotten the principles of individual liberty, limited government, and fiscal responsibility.

  7. Charles Deetz ;)

    Not sure if that was a sermon, or a blog post for the World Nut Daily, but not the usual from ole Hambo. He covered all the right-wing Evangelical talking points, abortion, gays, Obama, guns. Wait, he forgot taxes, probably the one thing he could have said something about that SC might have cut him some slack on.

  8. And then Hambo wonders why young folks are leaving the church. “That… such giant shadows are cast by such pygmies only shows how late in the day it has become.” – Chargaff. Hopefully the sun will soon set on the Hamster, eliminating his shadow.

  9. @RSG, I’m not so sure that this is a republican ideal. I’ll agree that there are a lot of religious nuts in office and they designate themselves as republican, but I don’t think that’s the entire picture. Politicians are products of their environment and will align themselves with whatever party is popular in their community. I’m sure I’ve mentioned before that in Chicago, if you want to get elected, you have to be a democrat, and we have our share of creationist/DI types. When people like Paul Braun, et al get elected, that is a representation of the voting public. He may have won the election because he listed himself as a republican, or his policies, or both. A good test would be to have a republican run against him that wasn’t insane and see how they fared. If he still gets elected, then it isn’t because he’s republican, it’s because he’s a reflection of the community, a frightening thought indeed. I myself have a republican bent mixed with liberal social views in my politics, but I can’t vote for crazy people.

  10. You see, the President has supported and signed legislation to force companies — and even ministries like Answers in Genesis — to provide a pill to employees that would terminate the life of a baby. Such abortion pills stop a fertilized egg from implanting in the mother’s womb. Once it’s fertilized, that’s a human being.

    Ken Ham says that creationists can do “operational science” as well as scientists, but that is clearly bull. This is bad operational science.

    Here he is stating that the morning-after pill is an “abortion pill”, which is bad enough, and he ignores the fact that pregnancy does not being until a zygote implants in the uterus.

    And now look at this outright lie!

    You see, the President has supported and signed legislation to force companies — and even ministries like Answers in Genesis — to provide a pill to employees

    Outright lying. Employers don’t have to provide any damn pills– Obamacare requires only that they provide insurance. The insured people can do whatever they want.

  11. Diogenes – I will pick a nit with the use of the term zygote. I realize that many folks call the mass of cells after a few cell divisions post fertilization the zygote, but when I teach this stuff, I try to emphasize that only the successfully fertilized egg is the zygote. After the first mitotic division, the haploid DNA from the 2 gametes merge to form a diploid two cell embryo. The early clump of cells is a morula, and when a cystic space begins to form on the interior of the morula, it is a blastocyst. The blastocyst stage is make-or-break in the uterus, with implantation being the key event. Defining pregnancy is a bit of a problem now that we know a fair amount of the details of early embryonic development. Thus technically, a new genetic entity is formed at the two-cell stage. No one would argue that the two cell stage is not human, but the real argument is when does this proliferating mass of cells become a ‘being.’ I would submit that that is not a biological question but rather a moral, philosophical and theological question that is often answered in the courts.

  12. Paul S: I myself have a republican bent mixed with liberal social views in my politics, but I can’t vote for crazy people.

    Likewise. In fact, I was born and raised in Chicago, and my mother was a Republican election judge(!) She took her job very seriously, going door-to-door, canvassing the entire precinct to guarantee that every registered voter was still alive and living at their registered address. Yes, there was a day when Republicans still lived within the city limits.

    And I also agree that neither creationism nor any other non-rational religious belief is in any way a Republican ideal. There are just too many politicians today who are willing to pander to the yahoo vote.

  13. @Douglas E:

    “The blastocyst stage is make-or-break in the uterus, with implantation being the key event.”

    I totally agree.

  14. Douglas E: No one would argue that the two cell stage is not human, but the real argument is when does this proliferating mass of cells become a ‘being.’ I would submit that that is not a biological question but rather a moral, philosophical and theological question that is often answered in the courts.

    Many would argue that there is but one person qualified to decide when it is called a “being” — the woman harboring it within her body.

    But that’s a topic better left to other blogs. I doubt if this post will be read by many, since it is now pushed onto the second page.

  15. RSG – agreed all around.