Ken Ham Is Furious at WorldNetDaily

Yesterday we told you that WorldNetDaily (WND) appears to be transforming itself into an Umbrella Site for All Creationists. They had posted a story about a whale fossil found in what scientists said was a 15 million year old rock formation.

WND’s article included quotes not only from Georgia Purdom, who recited the standard young-Earth mantra, but also from the Discovery Institute’s Casey Luskin, who said that although he thought the fossil and the rock stratum in which it was found were old, the fossil nevertheless pointed to design, not “chance.”

How is the creationist community reacting to this, ah, ecumenical approach that WND is taking? Let’s first consider the reaction from Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the ayatollah of Appalachia. He runs the on-line ministry Answers in Genesis (AIG), and the infamous, mind-boggling Creation Museum.

At ol’ Hambo’s blog he just posted this: A Walking Witness and a Whale Story. The first half of it doesn’t interest us. The second half is titled “Whale Story.” That’s where Hambo lets us know what he thinks of WND. Let’s take a look, with some bold font added by us for emphasis:

The well-visited website WorldNetDaily (WND) has posted an article about a fossil whale that the Washington Post newspaper has reported on. The Post stated that the fossil was dated at 15 million years old. But how was the date determined? Well, the news service of WorldNetDaily wanted our perspective.

Right. So Hambo had WND interview AIG’s Georgia Purdom. We’ve already reported about that. What’s Hambo’s reaction to the WND piece? Here it comes:

I did find it sad, however, that the intelligent design (ID) spokesperson who was quoted dismissed the importance of the question of the age of the earth. But it’s really not surprising, as the ID movement is not a Christian movement. And while many ID proponents are Christians, they are not interested in biblical authority — they are just against naturalism.

Aha! Hambo is enraged that one of his people was quoted in the same article as that heathen Discoveroid, Casey Luskin. But why does he object to merely sharing the stage with the Discoveroids? They are, after all, creationists, so they and AIG share a common enemy — the rational world. Surely Hambo could show a little tolerance in the interest of fighting the common foe. But no, there’s no tolerance in Hambo’s approach to things. He’s not a big tent guy. Casey polluted the scriptural purity of Hambo’s message. It’s an outrage! He goes on:

The old earth is such a key issue today in fighting for the full accuracy and authority of the Bible. AiG does not only present the arguments against evolution. You see, it is just as important to offer arguments against an old age for the earth and universe.

That’s Hambo’s “all or nothing” approach to scripture, which so many find impossible to accept, so they just walk away from the whole thing. That leaves Hambo sputtering that the church (his version of it) is losing people and he can’t figure out why. He continues:

When it comes to biblical authority, the question of the age of the earth is just as vital as the question of whether evolution is true or not. The chronologies in the Bible and the length of the days of the Creation Week (they were 24 hours each) show that the earth is young. Why try to reinterpret the very clear teaching of Scripture to accommodate the fallible ideas of man that say the earth is old? Such reinterpretations undermine the authority of the Word of God.

That’s his position. He’s criticized the Discoveroids before — see Answers in Genesis vs. Intelligent Design. We get the impression that he truly despises the Discoveroids for being old-Earthers and for not being forthright about their biblical beliefs. That’s why he’s annoyed that WND dared to include one of them in the same article with one of his young-Earthers. His glorious message was diluted.

How are the Discoveroids handling the WND situation? So far they haven’t complained about any of the recent WND articles that have supported them, including the one yesterday that upset Hambo. To the contrary, they’ve just posted some praise for one of the articles that appeared in WND — we wrote about that article here: WorldNetDaily Promotes Stephen Meyer’s Book.

That was a WND “Exclusive” by Jerry Newcombe. But it wasn’t all that exclusive, because in praising his article, the Discoveroids didn’t link to WND. Instead they linked to the same article at a different website — you can see their post here: At Townhall, Jerry Newcome on Darwin’s Doubt.

It’s strange that the Discoveroids didn’t give WND credit for publishing that review. Well, at least they didn’t blast WND for including one of Hambo’s young-Earthers in the same story that quoted Casey. They seem happy for the publicity WND is giving them, but they’re keeping their distance.

It appears that if WND truly intends to gather all the disparate creationist flocks together, they have a lot more work to do. It may be an impossible task, because Hambo wants everything to go his way.

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

18 responses to “Ken Ham Is Furious at WorldNetDaily

  1. If I were of a conspiracy mindset I’d say AIG was a false flag operation who’s purpose is to make the Discoveroids appear sane, rational and in command of the facts.

    (Being merely a cynic I suspect AIG is a subsidiary of the Onion. )

  2. Reminds me of the kerfuffle that ensued when Hambo was disinvited to a home schooler’s conference because he kept badmouthing the other Christian speakers for being a little more openminded about science.

    The Discoveroids probably feel (correctly so) that being called out by Hambo amounts to positive publicity. They occasionally taunt YEC’s, particularly when arguing that they are not silly creationists – most likely to get the very reaction from Ham that he is displaying in this post.

  3. Stephen Kennedy

    This is what I thought would happen when I read the WND article yesterday. By quoting one idiot from AIG and another from DI in the same article but with different “worldviews” they have started yet another holy war in the fractious creationist community.

  4. So the question rises: what exactly do the Discoveroids write about AIG? I googled around a bit and found this:

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/02/for_answers_in_069431.html

    Yup, the Discoveroids are scientists. They do research. The prefer the evidential approach. They don’t begin with a favored conclusion, a predetermined religious view, working backwards from there. Like the true scientists they are.
    Undoubtedly then Klingy will be so kind to answer these two questions:

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/essays/the-two-questions/

    Will he?

  5. Stephen Kennedy

    It is really no surprise that there is tension between the creationist organizations such as AIG, DI, ICR and CSE. They are all faced with declining contributions at a time when each has ambitious and expensive plans. They have to realize that there is a limited pool of people who both have money and are deluded enough to give it to creationists. They are all trying to feed from the same trough and there is not enough for each to get his fill.

  6. This has long been a problem for ID. Back in 2005, William Dembski tried to make nice with Henry Morris, founder of the ICR:

    Despite my disagreements with Morris and young earth creationism, I regard those disagreements as far less serious than my disagreements with the Darwinian materialists. …

    ID is part of God’s general revelation. Consequently, it can be understood apart from the Bible. …

    Dismantling materialism is a good thing. Not only does intelligent design rid us of this ideology, which suffocates the human spirit, but, in my personal experience, I’ve found that it opens the path for people to come to Christ. Indeed, once materialism is no longer an option, Christianity again becomes an option. True, there are then also other options. But Christianity is more than able to hold its own once it is seen as a live option. The problem with materialism is that it rules out Christianity so completely that it is not even a live option. Thus, in its relation to Christianity, intelligent design should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation that gets rid of the intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration.

    http://dododreams.blogspot.com/2006/04/tentless-in-seattle.html

    On one hand, they have to keep up the pretense that ID is science to give it (or its even more stripped down version of “teach the controversy”) from running afoul of the Constitution, while, at the same time, keep the conservative Christians in the “big tent” to maintain the political clout to get their agenda enacted into law.

    They’ve made their own Procrustean bed and now have to lie in it.

  7. P.S. It only adds to the irony that Dembski was later forced to recant his mild suggestion that “Noah’s flood, though presented as a global event, is probably best understood as historically rooted in a local event” and was forced to admit that “[a]s a biblical inerrantist, I believe that what the Bible teaches is true and bow to the text, including its teaching about the Flood and its universality”

    http://dododreams.blogspot.com/2010/10/its-not-easy-being-tween.html

  8. This religious war is likely to keep us entertained for quite sometime!

  9. Luskin is a YEC. I discussed his article on Kitzmiller with him by email several years ago and asked him who the designer is. Oogity boogity, as you put it. I’ll find the emails and forward them to your curmudgeonly account. YEC on YEC violence, or “you’re not doing it right therefore you’re not biblical, etc.”

  10. Let them rip each other to pieces. Hopefully, there’ll be no survivors.

  11. Yet, for all the protestations of keeping to the inerrancy of a literal reading of the Bible, how many people keep to that policy when it comes to the heliocentric model of the Solar System?
    How can one arrive at a heliocentric-friendly reading of the Bible without accepting the priority of modern science over the plain reading of the text?
    No one has ever arrived at heliocentrism by Scripture Alone.
    Whatever methodology one adopts to accommodate heliocentrism with the Bible also allows one to accommodate cladogenesis.

  12. Nutty Roux: Luskin is a YEC.

    I find that hard to believe, as Luskin talks like an OEC, but if you can prove me wrong, I’d be delighted.

    Beware, however, emailing Curm, as his email usually does not work.

    If you would like to also cc them to me, at diogenes lamp 0 at gmail dot com, I would be interested as well.

  13. I think I can understand Ken Ham’s distress. I was fortunate enough to have had a letter to the editor published on the same page as a letter to the editor from Arthur C. Clarke. I naturally felt a bit of a self esteem boost to be in the presence of such highly regarded company (though of course being mentioned on the same page is meaningless). Ken Ham of course has the opposite reaction to be mentioned in the same breath as such heretics as these old Earthers who and fierce competitors for hearts, minds, and souls (as well as market share!)
    I never get the feeling Ken Ham is furious, more like he needs to keep his web site fresh so he addresses every slight, no matter how trivial.

  14. I guess we see religious thinking in action here. Ken Ham can’t be happy that he has “allies” who also oppose evolution, as long as they are heretics who accept ANYTHING he can’t accept (such as Deep Time). By way of comparison, Catholics and Protestants should be able to agree on a lot of things (including the seeming main isssue, that Jesus was a Really Important Guy), but traditionally they have been warring instead — very literally so, back in the day. It has been observed that some of the fiercest religious conflicts take place among sects that hold almost identical views, because whatever tiny doctrinal difference there is then takes on an enormous importance to the religious mind: It is the difference between Us and Them, the Saved and the Unsaved, God’s favorites and the despicable sinners headed for hell.

  15. Fauskanger:

    If you have not heard Emo Phillips’ joke about religion, you should Google it.

  16. I assume you mean this one?

    http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/EmoPhillips.htm

    Yes, that pretty much sums it up …

  17. Nutty Roux: “Luskin is a YEC. …I’ll find the emails…”

    I’d be very curious to see them. Of course admitting the designer’s identity, or even that Genesis should be taken literally, does not necessarily mean that anyone wants you to think the earth is young, much less believes it themselves.

    For decades, anti-evolution activists have been struggling with how to deal with rank-and-file Genesis literalists. Most people who give it more than 5 minutes thought concede old earth. Ken Ham is one who believes that the only way to win the culture war is to have the “masses” take the whole 6-day,~6000 year ago story literally (but curiously not the geocentrism or flat-earthism per the strictest literal interpretations). But does that mean that he personally believes that? Not necessarily. And if he does believe it “via revelation” it doesn’t mean that he believes that independent evidence support it. Until we can read minds, we’ll never know it it’s a real Morton’s Demon, or one “faked for the cause.” Parents tell their children fairy tales all the time.

    If I were to guess, Ham truly believes per revelation, and that the revelation overrules evidence. It’s possible that one Discoveroid, Paul Nelson, is like that too. But why then would he sell out the DI “big tent” which consists mainly of old-earthers (more importantly old-lifers) some of whom concede common descent to boot? The answer is clear. For these people, it’s all about strategy. Even Behe, who has clearly and repeatedly conceded ~4 billion years of common descent throws an occasional bone to Genesis literalists. My guess is that Luskin is even more politically correct.

  18. H.K. Fauskanger: “It has been observed that some of the fiercest religious conflicts take place among sects that hold almost identical views…”

    For example, Sunnis vs. Shiites?