Ken Ham Admits He Has No Proof, No Reasoning

The video above is a one-minute commercial featuring 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.

That commercial is getting a bit of attention on the internet because ol’ Hambo flat-out says:

You know, many of us would love to have the final proof that evolution’s a lie; the right scientific proof will silence those opposed to biblical creation forever, right? Well, no. You see, Romans Chapter one tells us that God has revealed himself to man in nature, so there’s no excuse for denying the witness of creation.

You heard him — he has no proof (other than scripture) that evolution is a lie. He also says:

You see, we can’t depend solely on our reasoning ability to convince skeptics. We present the evidence and do the best we can to convince people [of] the truth of God by always pointing them to the Bible.

Do you think he has any idea how devastating that is? Maybe we’re over-reacting. It probably doesn’t trouble Hambo to say those things because he knows that his followers don’t care. Ironically, his video is titled: “The Final Nail in Evolution’s Coffin.”

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

31 responses to “Ken Ham Admits He Has No Proof, No Reasoning

  1. Well, it’s no more hair brained than anything else he has said.

  2. Uh, that’s hare-brained, but we know what you mean.

  3. *Face-palm of shame*

  4. The man has never shown signs of having ANY comprehension of what he says, why should he start now?

  5. Relax, Justin. It happens to me all the time.

  6. I will argue that a hair has more of a brain than Hambo.

  7. Richard Olson

    Verse 20 is the only one in the chapter Ham can possibly refer to, and it seems to me to have exactly as much to do with proof of an undeniable divine creation event which absolutely, finally, once-and-for-dammit-all impeaches evolutionary theory, as it has to do with practical instructions for consuming every last zuchhini from a crop that quintupled expected yield (2nd yr running):

    For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
    – New American Standard Version (1995)

    For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, `even’ his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse:
    – American Standard Version (1901)

    For from the first making of the world, those things of God which the eye is unable to see, that is, his eternal power and existence, are fully made clear, he having given the knowledge of them through the things which he has made, so that men have no reason for wrongdoing:
    – Basic English Bible

  8. That should be followed by Groucho Marx insisting that Chicolinni “…really is an idiot.”

  9. I call this phenomenon “Slouching Towards Omphalism.” If you look at the history of the anti-evolution movement without constantly getting sidetracked on the legal issues, the picture becomes very clear. What began as honest, if misguided belief in the 19th century was gradually conceding details to science – first the shape and position of Earth, then its age, then the age of life. Recognizing that “creationism” was “careening towards evolution” a compromise was salvaged in the mid 20th century by invoking the tricks of pseudoscience – cherry picking evidence, defining terms to suit the argument, quote-mining, “is/ought” and other fallacies. “Scientific” YEC was doomed from the start, not only because it was pseudoscience, and based nearly all its claims on phony “weaknesses” of evolution instead of on their own merits (as real science does), but also because many self-described creationists (OECs) were publicly criticizing it.

    Enter the “don’t ask, don’t tell what happened when” scam (& this happened mainly in the 70s and 80s, but millions still haven’t gotten the memo). It’s comical the many different antics that different “kinds” of peddler of evolution-denial resort to in order to frantically seek refuge in that big tent. Or it would be comical if more than a tiny minority realized it.

  10. Frank J says:

    I call this phenomenon “Slouching Towards Omphalism.”

    Call it what you will, it’s an honest ad. Now if he’d follow through and take down all the phoney “science” essays on his website and devote himself and AIG to preaching the bible, I could then ignore his whole enterprise. I don’t blog to attack religion. But I don’t think that’s going to happen.

  11. My apologies if this sounds stupid…but if that statement of Ham’s (and the bible verse he’s referring to) was actually true

    ie) ” Well, no. You see, Romans Chapter one tells us that God has revealed himself to man in nature, so there’s no excuse for denying the witness of creation.”

    Then why would we need the bible to tell us that? If god actually did reveal himself or herself or themselves to us in nature, why would the bible need to point it out?

  12. @Reynold Hall: Good point.

  13. Richard Olson

    I’m guessing all the faitheists who view this video, including the YEC bunch, are sitting around scratching their heads and wondering if Ham slipped a cog recently, just like I am. He believes such wierd s**t it’s hard for anything to stand out, I know, but every other time I’ve paid the slightest attention to what he says or does, I can at least sorta recognize a thought train in play. Not so in this instance.

  14. It’s a good point, Reynold, but the creationist comeback would be: deep down inside you all know God exists; you just deny it because you want to escape accountability for your dirty, dirty actions.

  15. Thank god for all the crazy theists in America willing to say something contradictory and stupid. Without them Curmy’s blog would have little to do.

  16. Tundra Boy! I thought you had fallen into a crevasse in some Canadian glacier.

  17. Richard,

    Ken Ham is Hitler in the bunker. The godless commies are closing in, his generals have deserted him, his secretaries have realized he’s nuts, and there’s nothing left for him to do but give his luger a hickie.

    — Diogenes

  18. Ham’s probably preoccupied with thoughts of how he’s going to explain to the IRS what happened to the contributions he had received for the Ark Park. He’s got to be thinking it will never be built.

  19. Pete Moulton

    Which in turn should get him questioning why his deity hasn’t come through with the funding for such a “worthy” project. Should, but won’t. I’m afraid ol’ Hambo doesn’t have even two functioning cranial neurons to rub together and spark an idea.

  20. It is clear that Hammy’s followers and too many others don’t care, know, listen, or educate themselves enough. All here are aware I’m sure of ID as repackaged Creation Science. I recently came across Baraminology again, something I only vaguely remembered the word baramin from, but didn’t know why. Briefly, in Hebrew bara (create) min (kind) the basis for Creation Science and every kind was created, then after his own kind, its own kind, like the bible says Blablabla. Looking into it deeper, it much more clearly shows how ID Theory follows the exact same model, minus saying who the agent is. Having proof, and references to point to, from sites and organizations they don’t control is pretty kool.

  21. Our Curmudgeon exclaims

    Tundra Boy! I thought you had fallen into a crevasse in some Canadian glacier.

    I, too, am delighted to see that Tundra Boy hasn’t been lost in a crevasse, or mauled by a moose, or fallen victim to some other septentrional hazard.

    But I am wondering, can he shed any light on this news item: Canada police find pythons in Ontario motel room bins?

    I never get invited to parties like that–thankfully!

  22. “[W]e can’t depend solely on our reasoning ability to convince skeptics. ”

    Ain’t that the truth!

  23. I’m with PZ.

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/08/19/you-can-tell-when-someone-isnt-familiar-with-creationist-cant/

    I don’t think Ham is admitting that there is no scientific evidence for design/god.

    After all, as noted above, he references Romans 1 and its claim that the creator can be known from his creation. He also says “We present the evidence” but the “final nail” is the Bible.

    Of course, why he thinks that, if reason won’t convince skeptics, waiving a Bible at them will, is a mystery

  24. “I’m with PZ. ”

    Me too.

    When you correctly parse what he says (thank you Ms. S; I hated your Gr. 8 grammar classes, but I learned to parse.) he is not admitting he has no evidence against evolution.

    He is saying that even if science fully confirmed the refutation of evolution, people “opposed to biblical creation” would still believe it. They would rather believe the “lie” of evolution than turn to God.

    Which is also the point being made in Romans, except that Paul says people would rather lie about God than give up their immoral ways.

    It is certainly true enough that evidence is insufficient to convince people of a truth they don’t want to believe. Look at how many people are so invested in YECism they can’t be convinced by the evidence of evolution.

  25. John Pieret says: “I’m with PZ. … I don’t think Ham is admitting that there is no scientific evidence for design/god.”

    PZ and I are reacting in different ways. Hambo is saying that — aside from the bible — he doesn’t have evidence that demolishes evolution, and he admits that, without the bible, there’s no rational argument to persuade anyone otherwise. He’s right, but it doesn’t bother him because he thinks the bible alone is persuasive. It’s a tidy description of his position.

  26. Stephen Kennedy

    SC, True but in Ham’s world the bible trumps reason. Their statement of faith says essentially that no matter how strong the evidence is that contradicts the bible, it must be flawed in some way or is being interpreted incorrectly because true evidence when viewed correctly will always agree with scripture. Ham is constantly railing against “reason” which he calls “man’s word” and claims it must be subordinate to scripture.

    Ham basically rejects the Enlightenment and insists we must return to the way people thought before the Age of Reason. In his twisted mind reason must be rejected in favor of divine revelation.

  27. Stephen Kennedy says: “in Ham’s world the bible trumps reason.”

    That’s right. So there’s no reason for anyone on the science side to ever attempt to debate him. However, AIG’s forays into science are always worthy of ridicule.

  28. Stephen Kennedy

    SC, That is the reason I find Ham and AIG so loathsome. They claim to be experts in science and boast of the PhD scientists they have on their staff to create educational materials to be used in science classes for Christian schools and home schooling but in the final analysis science is irrelevant to them. The only thing that matters is what the bible says.

  29. SC: “Now if he’d follow through and take down all the phoney “science” essays on his website and devote himself and AIG to preaching the bible, I could then ignore his whole enterprise. I don’t blog to attack religion. But I don’t think that’s going to happen.”

    Of course not. That’s why I say “slouching towards..” and not “arrived at..” The difference between peddlers of Biblical creationism (YEC and OEC varieties) and peddlers of ID is that the former try to “have it one way” (albeit one of the many wrong ways), while the latter try to have everything both ways. The latter works much better, at least with audiences not irreversibly in denial, but which lack the time and/or interest to see how they have been misled. Unfortunately that’s about half of adult Americans.

    Ham is slowly, if reluctantly, learning the benefits of “trying to have it both ways.” So the occasional admissions that scripture overrules evidence (very analogous to the DI’s occasional admission that evolution is right about the age of life and common descent) will always be punctuated with attempts to fool people into thinking that independent evidence validates their childhood fairy tales.

  30. When the Creation Museum goes bankrupt, I hope their animatronic Adam and Eve are put up for auction. Let’s buy his Adam and Eve and do something naughty with them…

    I’m thinking of a diorama with Australopithecus and Homo ergaster…

  31. I’m reading this Bible quote, “For from the first making of the world, those things of God which the eye is unable to see, that is, his eternal power and existence, are fully made clear, he having given the knowledge of them through the things which he has made, so that men have no reason for wrongdoing”

    So God made everything, and it should be evident to everyone that He exists, so we can use his non-existence as an excuse to do evil.

    I don’t see this as being incompatible with Evolution, because it doesn’t say that we should interpret the book of Genesis literally. Sure Atheists will still burn in the Lake of Fire, but Catholics that believe in God and Morality and Evolution, should be fine.