This is one of the most painful reading experiences we’ve ever had. It’s an essay by Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the ayatollah of Appalachia. We don’t want to suffer alone with this thing, so we invite you to join us.
Hambo’s essay is titled Does It Really Take More “Faith” to Believe Evolutionary Ideas? It’s posted at the website of his on-line ministry, Answers in Genesis (AIG). Here are some excerpts, with Hambo’s links and scripture quotes deleted, and with bold font added by us for emphasis:
Many Christians with the best of intentions make the claim, “It takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in creation.” On the surface, this sounds like a plausible argument. But how does it correspond to the teaching of Scripture? How does the Bible define the word faith?
Hambo then begins a long romp through the bible, with emphasis on the incomprehensible definition we’ve all heard before: “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”
He doesn’t get around to it until later, but one of the definitions commonly used in on-line dictionaries is “belief that is not based on proof.” In the context of science, however, a more rigorous definition would be: “Faith is belief that is not based on verifiable evidence or logical proof.” And then there’s what we might call brain-dead faith, which is belief in something that is flat-out contradicted by evidence or logical proof, but Hambo never discusses that.
Hambo spends several paragraphs defending and praising the religious concept of faith. Some of his comments are:
Scripture teaches that God is true and cannot lie.
[…]
We as believers can have faith in God’s Word because God is who He claims to be, and He has given us His revelation through His Word so we can know about Him.
[…]
Moreover, God has proven Himself true over and over again. We expect this since He is the standard of proof and truth!
Then he discusses evolution:
Based on the Bible’s description of faith, it does not seem accurate to say that it takes more faith to believe in evolution and millions of years. In fact, it’s not likely that it takes any faith at all. Biblical faith is based on a someone or something that is faithful, but evolutionary ideas are anything but faithful.
What’s he saying? Stay with us. Now Hambo goes to the dictionary:
Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary has multiple definitions for faith, but we have given one definition that originates with Scripture. But there is a definition of faith that does describe the evolutionists: “firm belief in something for which there is no proof.” Clearly, this definition of “blind faith” has a much different meaning than biblical faith.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Hambo embellishes on the dictionary and says that the evolutionists’ belief without proof is “blind faith.” Let’s read on:
Unlike biblical faith, blind faith [he means science] has no substance, and there is no evidence or assurance of things “”not seen”.” Blind faith is not based on a someone or something that is faithful and has revealed itself, and therefore, blind faith is not defensible, as it relies of the ever-changing ideas and opinions of mankind who are their own authority.
Then he goes on and on about how bible faith is so much better than the “blind faith” of science. For example:
Biblical faith is defensible because our Creator is faithful. Using God’s infallible and inerrant Word as our starting point, we can teach the truth about the world around us and show how the evidence we see is consistent with His Word.
[…]
While it takes a blind faith to believe in evolution, what does it take to believe in the creation account given in Genesis? For example, look at the human body. We know it did not come about by chance, or at least, it should be beyond our limit of blind faith. So, chance fails to provide a sufficient ground of faith in that it bears no authority, personhood, or purpose.
Are you starting to understand why we found Hambo’s essay to be such a ghastly experience? Anyway, here’s how he finishes it:
Not only do we have the Word of God, but we also can see and experience the evidence for creation all around us, from the birds of the air to the fish of the sea. So the next time you hear someone say, “It takes more faith to believe in evolution than creation,” remember that biblical faith is based on the faithfulness of someone or something — specifically, the Creator God and His Word — and without that, all you have is blind faith.
So there you are. There are two kinds of faith — bible faith (the good stuff) and blind faith (that Satanic science stuff). Follow Hambo and know The Truth™, or wallow in the darkness of science. It’s your choice, dear reader.
Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
The Sensuous Curmudgeon 
Oooh, I’d like to wallow please. Where do I sign up?
Tu Quque, skeptics! When will you abandon your foolish, doomed experiment with knowledge and enter our portal of … faithwordtruth? Our brains never hurt from all that thinking your brains try to do about things not understandable. We, on the other hand, just know already. Know everything. Word.
A new science faith claim presented this week that is already soundly thrashed by the Word of God in Genesis [crazy scientist on LSD, obviously]:
Evidence is building that Earth life originated on Mars and was brought to this planet aboard a meteorite, said biochemist Steven Benner of The Westheimer Institute for Science and Technology in Florida.
An oxidized form of the element molybdenum, which may have been crucial to the origin of life, was likely available on the Red Planet’s surface long ago, but unavailable on Earth, said Benner, who presented his findings today (Aug. 28; Aug. 29 local time) at the annual Goldschmidt geochemistry conference in Florence, Italy.
“It’s only when molybdenum becomes highly oxidized that it is able to influence how early life formed,” Benner said in a statement. “This form of molybdenum couldn’t have been available on Earth at the time life first began, because 3 billion years ago, the surface of the Earth had very little oxygen, but Mars did. It’s yet another piece of evidence which makes it more likely life came to Earth on a Martian meteorite, rather than starting on this planet.”
Organic compounds are the building blocks of life, but they need a little help to make things happen. Simply adding energy such as heat or light turns a soup of organic molecules into a tarlike substance, Benner said.
That’s where oxidized molybdenum comes in. Inserting it or boron, another element, into the mix would help organics make the leap to life, Benner added.
“Analysis of a Martian meteorite recently showed that there was boron on Mars; we now believe that the oxidized form of molybdenum was there, too,” he said.
They have finally realized what a bad idea basing a belief structure on “faith” and so now they have taken to mangling the meaning of the word to keep going. Well, at least we are keeping them on their toes and are constantly forcing them to adapt.
For determining wherein one should place ‘faith’, Ole Hambo assures us that
But he is being too modest here and needs to think much bigger. For in actual fact, we have the words of tens of thousands of different gods and their associated prophets, seers, hierophants, mystics, psychics, &c. &c., most of them in pretty flat-out contradiction with one another–it’s an absolute spiritual smorgasbord out there for anyone with an appetite for such.
But Ole Hambo can never explain why his particular menu choices therefrom display any more discernment than those of any one else. That’s the ‘blind’ part of faith, methinks…
Curmudgeon warns:
😆 Reminds me of a comment printed on the back of a Flipper album: “Flipper suffered for their music. Now it’s your turn.”
God exists because the bible says he does, and the bible is absolutely true because it was written by God, who most certainly exists because the bible says he does, and it is true because…. (repeat ad infinitum)
Faith in this bit of circular reasoning is somehow not “firm belief in something for which there is no proof?”
I agree with Ham in that I’ve always thought that the “it takes more faith” line was an odd argument to use. Essentially, it is an argument that evolution is just a different type of religious faith, and so it has no special claim to truth. But what does that say about religion? It’s basically an admittance that religion is not based on evidence itself, and has no special claim to truth either. I think this is the issue Ham has with the term, but unfortunately for Ham, making up a new definition of “faith” to be applied solely to his religion is not going to get him out of it. The old definition is still valid, and still true in the case of religion.
So, atheists and those who “believe” in evolution have more faith. What, is he jealous?
I’ve long thought that creationists, especially the most vocal, have a very shaky faith. if their entire worldview can come crumbling down without every word of scripture being literally true then they have more faith in their book than they do in their God.
Essentially it seems creationists have never developed past the concrete reasoning stage. they are stuck in childhood.